This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-349 
entitled 'School Bullying: Extent of Legal Protections for Vulnerable 
Groups Needs to Be More Fully Assessed' which was released on June 7, 
2012. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

May 2012: 

School Bullying: 

Extent of Legal Protections for Vulnerable Groups Needs to Be More 
Fully Assessed: 

GAO-12-349: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-349, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Millions of youths are estimated to be subject to bullying in U.S. 
schools. GAO was asked to address (1) what is known about the 
prevalence of school bullying and its effects on victims, (2) 
approaches selected states and local school districts are taking to 
combat school bullying, (3) legal options federal and selected state 
governments have in place when bullying leads to allegations of 
discrimination, and (4) key federal agencies’ coordination efforts to 
combat school bullying. GAO reviewed research on the prevalence and 
effects on victims; analyzed state bullying laws, and school district 
bullying policies; and interviewed officials in 8 states and 6 school 
districts. States were selected based on various characteristics, 
including student enrollment, and their definitions of bullying. Also, 
GAO reviewed selected relevant federal and state civil rights laws, 
and interviewed officials from Education, HHS, and Justice. 

What GAO Found: 

School bullying is a serious problem, and research shows that it can 
have detrimental outcomes for victims, including adverse psychological 
and behavioral outcomes. According to four nationally representative 
surveys conducted from 2005 to 2009, an estimated 20 to 28 percent of 
youth, primarily middle and high school-aged youths, reported they had 
been bullied during the survey periods. However, differences in 
definitions and questions posed to youth respondents make it difficult 
to discern trends and affected groups. For example, the surveys did 
not collect demographic information by sexual orientation or gender 
identity. The Departments of Education (Education) and Health and 
Human Services (HHS) are partially addressing the issue of 
inconsistent definitions by collaborating with other federal 
departments and subject matter experts to develop a uniform definition 
of bullying that can be used for research purposes. However, gaps in 
knowledge about the extent of bullying of youths in key demographic 
groups remain. 

According to Education, as of April 2012, 49 states have adopted 
school bullying laws. The laws in the 8 states that GAO reviewed vary 
in who is covered and the requirements placed on state agencies and 
school districts. For example, 6 of the states cover a mix of 
different demographic groups, referred to as protected classes, such 
as race and sex or gender, in their bullying laws, while 2 states do 
not include any protected classes. With respect to school districts, 
each of the 6 districts GAO studied adopted policies that, among other 
things, prohibit bullying and describe the potential consequences for 
engaging in the behavior. Also, school district officials told GAO 
that they developed approaches to prevent and respond to bullying. For 
example, several school officials said they implemented a prevention-
oriented framework to promote positive school cultures. Both state and 
local officials expressed concerns about various issues, including how 
best to address incidents that occur outside of school. 

Federal civil rights laws can be used to provide protections against 
bullying in certain circumstances, but certain vulnerable groups are 
not covered and therefore have no recourse at the federal level. For 
example, federal agencies lack jurisdiction under civil rights 
statutes to pursue discrimination cases based solely on socioeconomic 
status or sexual orientation. While some state civil rights laws 
provide protections to victims of bullying that go beyond federal law, 
federal complainants whose cases are dismissed for lack of 
jurisdiction are not always informed about the possibility of pursuing 
claims at the state level. 

Three federal departments—-Education, HHS, and the Department of 
Justice (Justice)-—have established coordinated efforts to carry out 
research and broadly disseminate information on bullying to the 
public, including establishment of a central website and an 
informational campaign to raise awareness about bullying. In addition 
to these efforts, Education has issued information about how federal 
civil rights laws can be used to address bullying of protected classes 
of youths and is conducting a comprehensive study of state bullying 
laws and how selected school districts are implementing them. However, 
no similar information is being gathered on state civil rights laws 
and procedures that could be helpful in assessing the adequacy of 
legal protections against school bullying. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that Education compile information about state civil 
rights laws and procedures that relate to bullying, and inform 
complainants about state legal options; Education, HHS, and Justice 
develop information about bullied demographic groups in their surveys; 
and assess whether legal protections are adequate for these groups. 
Education disagreed with our first recommendation and we clarified it 
to address some of their concerns. Education is considering our second 
recommendation, agreed with our third, and provided information on 
efforts related to the last. HHS agreed with our recommendations. 
Justice did not provide a written response. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-349]. For more 
information, contact Linda Calbom at (206) 287-4809 or calboml@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Reported Levels of Bullying and Related Effects Are Significant: 

Selected State Legislatures and Educational Agencies Are Taking 
Various Approaches to Reduce Bullying: 

Federal and State Civil Rights Laws Offer Some Protections against 
Bullying, but Vulnerable Groups May Not Always Be Covered: 

Coordinated Federal Antibullying Efforts Are Under Way, but Assessment 
of Legal Remedies Is Incomplete: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comparison of the Definition and Measurement of Bullying 
in Four Nationally Representative Surveys: 

Appendix III: Selected Data on National Prevalence of Youth Who Report 
Being Bullied in School: 

Appendix IV: Selected Data on National Prevalence of Certain Types of 
Bullying Behaviors: 

Appendix V: Coordination Practices of Key Interdepartmental Federal 
Efforts on Bullying: 

Appendix VI: Additional Federal Programs and Services Are Available to 
Combat Bullying: 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Education: 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human 
Services: 

Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Coverage of Demographic Groups in Federal Surveys of Youth: 

Table 2: Examples of Provisions Commonly Required by State Bullying 
Laws: 

Table 3: Relevant Federal Civil Rights Laws, Protected Classes, and 
Agency Enforcement Authority: 

Table 4: Nationally Representative Surveys We Reviewed That Ask about 
Youths Being Bullied, among Other Topics: 

Table 5: Selected Aspects of the Definition and Measurement of 
Bullying in Four Nationally Representative Surveys: 

Table 6: Estimates of Youth Who Reported Being Bullied by Sex in Three 
National Surveys: 

Table 7: Estimates of Youth Who Reported Being Bullied by Race/ 
Ethnicity in Three National Surveys: 

Table 8: NCVS SCS 2009: Estimates of Youth Who Reported Being Bullied 
for Certain Types of Bullying Behaviors: 

Table 9: HBSC 2005/2006: Estimates of Youth Who Reported Being Bullied 
for Certain Types of Bullying Behaviors: 

Table 10: NatSCEV 2008: Estimates of Youth Who Reported Being Bullied 
for Certain Types of Bullying Behaviors: 

Table 11: Practices for Key Coordinated Federal Efforts Specifically 
on Bullying: 

Table 12: Selected Services and Programs That Can Be Used to Support 
Bullying Prevention: 

Abbreviations: 

ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act: 

CCD: Common Core of Data: 

CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 

CRT: Civil Rights Division: 

CSN: Children's Safety Network: 

ERIC: Education Resources Information Center: 

GLSEN: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network: 

HBSC: Health Behavior in School-Aged Children: 

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: 

HRSA: Health Resources and Services Administration: 

NatSCEV: National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence: 

NCES: National Center for Education Statistics: 

NCVS: National Crime Victimization Survey: 

NIH: National Institutes of Health: 

OCR: Office for Civil Rights: 

OJJDP: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention: 

PBIS: Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: 

SAMHSA: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: 

SCS: School Crime Supplement: 

SEA: state educational agency: 

SS/HS: Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative: 

YRBS: National Youth Risk Behavior Survey: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

May 29, 2012: 

The Honorable Tom Harkin: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Robert P. Casey, Jr. 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Al Franken: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Mark Kirk: 
United States Senate: 

It is estimated that millions of American youths have been bullied by 
their peers, including physical, verbal, and electronic attacks. 
[Footnote 1] Some of these incidents, including some where bullying 
has been linked by the media to teen suicide, have received widespread 
attention, resulting in heightened awareness of bullying, as well as a 
wide range of actions at the federal, state, and local levels to 
address the behavior. Some of these incidents involved bullying based 
on personal characteristics, including race, religion, or sexual 
orientation, and have also raised questions about the role and 
availability of federal and state civil rights protections. Given the 
dynamic and rapidly changing nature of these efforts, governments at 
all levels, as well as the public, face a growing need for information 
about possible legal and practical approaches to combating bullying. 
In this context, you asked us to address the following questions: 

1. What is known about the prevalence of school bullying and its 
effects on victims? 

2. What approaches are selected states and local school districts 
taking to combat school bullying? 

3. When bullying leads to allegations of discrimination, what legal 
options do federal and selected state governments have in place? 

4. How are key federal agencies coordinating their efforts to combat 
school bullying? 

To identify what is known about the prevalence of school bullying and 
its effects on victims, we interviewed knowledgeable federal 
officials, compared estimates and methodologies of four nationally 
representative surveys that captured information on bullying, and 
conducted a literature review of meta-analyses on the subject of the 
effects of bullying on victims.[Footnote 2] The four surveys focused 
primarily on middle and high school-aged youths and were conducted by 
federal statistical agencies from 2005 to 2009. The results of the 
meta-analyses are not generalizable, but represent a systematic 
approach to summarizing or analyzing findings across studies included 
in the meta-analyses. To describe approaches that selected states and 
local school districts are taking, we reviewed relevant state bullying 
laws, regulations, guidance, and documents from eight selected states 
and conducted interviews with state education officials. We selected 
eight states--Arkansas, California, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New 
Mexico, Vermont, and Virginia--based on the following criteria: Each 
has bullying laws or regulations, and they vary with respect to 
bullying definitions and enumeration of protected classes, geographic 
variation, and student enrollment. Further, we selected three states--
New Mexico, Vermont, and Virginia, which vary on the characteristics 
listed above--to review policies and guidance of six local school 
districts, two in each state. School districts and schools were 
selected to reflect a range of size and urbanicity (urban, suburban, 
and rural), as well as racial and socioeconomic diversity. 
Participation in the National School Lunch Program is used as a proxy 
for socioeconomic status. In these school districts, we conducted 
interviews with central administrators, principals, school staff, and 
parents. To identify legal options that federal and selected state 
governments have in place when bullying leads to allegations of 
discrimination, we reviewed relevant federal anti-discrimination laws, 
as well as state anti-discrimination laws for the eight states 
included for review. We also conducted interviews with officials in 
the Departments of Education (Education) and Justice (Justice), as 
well as with state education and civil rights officials, on anti-
discrimination laws and complaint processes. Last, to identify 
coordination of efforts of key federal agencies to combat school 
bullying, we conducted interviews and reviewed documents from three 
federal departments: Education, Justice, and the Department of Health 
and Human Services (HHS). We analyzed coordination of efforts based on 
our professional judgment and relevance of selected key practices that 
we have previously identified as effective coordination practices. 
[Footnote 3] 

We conducted this performance audit from April 2011 through May 2012 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. For more 
information on our scope and methodology, see appendix I. 

Background: 

Although definitions vary, including definitions used by federal 
agencies, many experts generally agree that bullying involves intent 
to cause harm, repetition, and an imbalance of power. The pioneering 
research of Dr. Dan Olweus in Norway has defined being bullied or 
victimized as when a student "is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to 
negative actions on the part of one or more other youths" with an 
intent to harm.[Footnote 4] Notably, bullying is distinct from general 
conflict or aggression, which can occur absent an imbalance of power 
or repetition. For example, a single fight between two youths of 
roughly equal power is a form of aggression, but may not be bullying. 
When bullying occurs it may take many forms that can also be 
associated with conflict or aggression, including physical harm, such 
as hitting, shoving, or locking inside a school locker; verbal name 
calling, taunts, or threats; relational attacks, such as spreading 
rumors or isolating victims from their peers; and the use of computers 
or cell phones to convey harmful words or images, also referred to as 
cyberbullying. Often bullying occurs without apparent provocation and 
may be based on the victim's personal characteristics. For example, 
youth may be bullied based on the way they look, dress, speak, or act. 

There are several federal efforts under way to bring together federal 
resources that can be used to identify and address bullying. In 
particular, given their focus on education, health, and safety issues, 
Education, HHS, and Justice, along with other federal agencies, have 
been involved in efforts to help coordinate federal resources to 
identify and address bullying. Additionally, several bills have been 
introduced in the 112th Congress that relate to bullying.[Footnote 5] 
Among the various issues addressed in these bills are bullying 
policies, the collection and reporting of bullying data, and the 
prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or 
gender identity. Some of the bills would authorize federal grants to 
states and school districts for antibullying-related purposes. 
Although there is not presently a federal law directly targeted to 
address school bullying, several federal civil rights laws that 
prohibit discrimination based on protected characteristics of 
individuals may, under certain circumstances, be used to address 
particular incidents of bullying.[Footnote 6] 

With respect to states' efforts to address bullying, Education 
commissioned a two-part study that examines the elements of state 
bullying laws and the manner in which school districts are 
implementing the laws. The first part of Education's study, issued in 
December 2011, included a review of all state bullying laws and model 
policies in effect as of April 2011, including those of the eight 
states we reviewed, as well as policies from 20 large school 
districts. The second part of Education's study is scheduled for 
completion during fall 2012. It will include case studies of how 24 
schools, selected from four states, implement their states' bullying 
laws. 

Reported Levels of Bullying and Related Effects Are Significant: 

Federal Survey Data: 

Being bullied is a serious problem, as evidenced by four federally 
sponsored nationally representative surveys conducted from 2005 to 
2009. Estimates of the national prevalence of bullying ranged from 
approximately 20 to 28 percent of youth reporting they had been 
bullied during the survey periods, which ranged from a couple of 
months to a year.[Footnote 7] However, differences in definitions and 
survey methods make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions 
regarding trends and affected demographic groups. Our analysis and 
similar work from HHS's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
(CDC), one of the sponsors of two of the surveys, showed that the 
surveys vary in the way they pose questions about being bullied and 
how bullying is defined, if at all.[Footnote 8] Officials at 
Education, the sponsor of one of the surveys, and HHS also told us 
that different survey questions and definitions of bullying lead to 
different results in estimates of prevalence. 

While it is clear that bullying is a serious problem, it is unclear 
from the surveys the extent to which bullying affects certain groups 
of youths relative to other groups. Specifically, the surveys 
collected information on the percentage of youths bullied based on 
gender and race. However, the information showed varying results. For 
example, there was no significant difference in the percentage of boys 
and girls that reported being bullied, according to two surveys, while 
one noted that girls were bullied at a higher percentage. In two of 
the three surveys, white youths reported being bullied at a higher 
percentage than African-American youths, while one other survey found 
no significant difference. 

In addition, the four national surveys we identified did not 
consistently collect information about other demographic 
characteristics, making it impossible to determine percentages of 
bullying for these groups.[Footnote 9] For example, none of the 
surveys collected demographic information for youths by sexual 
orientation or gender identity.[Footnote 10] Researchers noted various 
challenges to obtaining such information, such as some schools may not 
permit questions on sexual orientation or gender identity status, 
potentially resulting in a sample that would not be nationally 
representative. Also, questions about sexual orientation or gender 
identity may be sensitive for youth respondents to complete, and 
researchers noted that such questions may not yield accurate 
information. Additionally, the surveys varied in whether or not they 
collected demographic information to allow for analysis based on 
religion, disability, or socioeconomic status, and two of the surveys 
did not include any questions asking specifically if youths had been 
bullied based on specific demographic characteristics. (See table 1.) 

Table 1: Coverage of Demographic Groups in Federal Surveys of Youth: 

Survey collected demographic information that allows for analysis to 
determine if differences in bullying exist between different 
demographic groups: 

Sex; 
National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2009: yes; 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), School Crime Supplement 
(SCS) 2009[A]: yes; 
Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2005/2006: yes; 
National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) 2008: yes. 

Race/ethnicity; 
National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2009: yes; 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), School Crime Supplement 
(SCS) 2009[A]: yes; 
Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2005/2006: yes; 
National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) 2008: yes. 

Religion; 
National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2009: no; 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), School Crime Supplement 
(SCS) 2009[A]: no; 
Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2005/2006: no; 
National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) 2008: no. 

Disability; 
National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2009: no[B]; 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), School Crime Supplement 
(SCS) 2009[A]: no; 
Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2005/2006: no; 
National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) 2008: yes. 

Sexual orientation; 
National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2009: no[B]; 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), School Crime Supplement 
(SCS) 2009[A]: no; 
Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2005/2006: no; 
National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) 2008: no. 

Gender identity; 
National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2009: no[B]; 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), School Crime Supplement 
(SCS) 2009[A]: no; 
Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2005/2006: no; 
National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) 2008: no. 

Socioeconomic status; 
National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2009: no; 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), School Crime Supplement 
(SCS) 2009[A]: yes; 
Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2005/2006: yes; 
National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) 2008: yes. 

Survey included question(s) that specifically ask about bullying based 
on the following demographic characteristics: 

Sex; 
National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2009: no; 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), School Crime Supplement 
(SCS) 2009[A]: yes; 
Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2005/2006: yes; 
National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) 2008: no. 

Race/ethnicity; 
National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2009: no; 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), School Crime Supplement 
(SCS) 2009[A]: yes; 
Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2005/2006: yes; 
National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) 2008: no. 

Religion; 
National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2009: no; 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), School Crime Supplement 
(SCS) 2009[A]: yes; 
Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2005/2006: yes; 
National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) 2008: no. 

Disability; 
National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2009: no; 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), School Crime Supplement 
(SCS) 2009[A]: yes; 
Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2005/2006: no; 
National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) 2008: no. 

Sexual orientation; 
National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2009: no; 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), School Crime Supplement 
(SCS) 2009[A]: yes; 
Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2005/2006: no; 
National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) 2008: no. 

Gender identity; 
National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2009: no; 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), School Crime Supplement 
(SCS) 2009[A]: no; 
Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2005/2006: no; 
National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) 2008: no. 

Socioeconomic status; 
National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2009: no; 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), School Crime Supplement 
(SCS) 2009[A]: no; 
Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2005/2006: no; 
National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) 2008: no. 

Source: GAO analysis of surveys. 

Note: See appendixes I through IV for more information on the four 
surveys. 

[A] Includes "hate-related" speech as form of bullying. 

[B] The YRBS includes optional questions about disability, sexual 
identity, and sexual contacts that state and school districts may 
choose to use. 

[End of table] 

While federal agencies have not collected information on some 
demographic groups, other researchers have attempted to fill the void. 
For example, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) 
conducted a survey in the 2008-2009 school year and received responses 
from more than 7,000 students between the ages of 13 and 21 who self-
reported as not heterosexual.[Footnote 11] Although not nationally 
representative, the results found, among other things, that 85 percent 
of students who responded to the survey said they were called names or 
threatened at some point in the past school year based on their sexual 
orientation, and 64 percent based on their gender expression; for 
example, for not acting "masculine enough" or "feminine enough". 
[Footnote 12] Forty percent of students who responded said they were 
pushed or shoved based on their sexual orientation, and 27 percent 
based on their gender expression.[Footnote 13] 

In addition to the fact that there are voids in information about 
demographic groups, Education and HHS officials said that researchers 
need a uniform definition to measure bullying. To better understand 
the prevalence of bullying, and given the different definitions used 
by bullying research instruments, CDC is leading an interdepartmental 
project to develop a uniform definition of bullying for research 
purposes. According to CDC officials, a report is expected to be 
issued in 2012 that contains a uniform definition along with 
information on other data elements to measure bullying, such as the 
frequency or types of bullying behavior. According to CDC, the project 
on the uniform definition is still under review, but may contain data 
elements for a number of demographic characteristics, including sex, 
race, ethnicity, disability status, religion, and sexual orientation. 

Negative Outcomes from Bullying: 

Research, spanning more than a decade, has demonstrated that bullying 
is associated with a variety of negative outcomes for victims, 
including psychological, physical, academic, and behavioral issues. 
[Footnote 14] For example, a 2000 analysis of 23 bullying research 
studies found that youth who were bullied experienced higher levels of 
depression, loneliness, low self-esteem, and anxiety than their peers 
who had not been bullied.[Footnote 15] Similarly, a 2010 analysis of 
18 research studies found that being bullied was linked to increased 
psychological issues later in life.[Footnote 16] A third analysis, of 
20 studies, published in 2011, found that being bullied was associated 
with greater likelihood of being depressed later in life.[Footnote 17] 

A 2009 analysis of 11 research studies found that bullying victims had 
a higher risk for such physical health outcomes as headaches, 
backaches, sleeping problems, and bad appetite, as compared with their 
peers who had not been bullied.[Footnote 18] Additionally, a 2010 
analysis of 33 research studies on bullying and academic achievement 
found that bullying is related to concurrent academic difficulties for 
victims. Academic achievement was assessed based on such measures as 
grade point averages, standardized test scores, or teacher ratings of 
academic achievement.[Footnote 19] Researchers have also linked 
bullying to increases in behavioral problems for victims over time, 
such as aggression, delinquency, and truancy.[Footnote 20] 

While researchers point out that the causes of suicide and violence 
are varied and complex, bullying has been identified as one risk 
factor associated with violent actions against oneself and others. For 
example, one 2011 analysis of 18 studies found that gay, lesbian, and 
bisexual youth were more likely to be verbally harassed and teased or 
physically and sexually victimized than heterosexual youth, and more 
likely to experience detrimental outcomes, such as suicidal thoughts 
and attempts.[Footnote 21] According to a federally sponsored website 
on bullying, specific groups have an increased risk of suicide, 
including American Indian and Alaskan Native, Asian-American, lesbian, 
gay, bisexual, and transgender youths. Their risk of suicide can be 
increased further by bullying. Bullying has also been linked to acts 
of violence against others. For example, a 2002 study by Education and 
the Secret Service reviewed 37 incidents of school attacks and 
shootings occurring between 1974 and the end of the 2000 school year, 
and reported out 10 key findings that could be used to develop 
strategies to address targeted school violence. One of those 10 
findings was that nearly three-quarters of attackers were bullied, 
persecuted, or injured by others prior to the attack, and that in 
several cases the bullying was severe and long-standing.[Footnote 22] 

Selected State Legislatures and Educational Agencies Are Taking 
Various Approaches to Reduce Bullying: 

State Laws Vary in How They Address Bullying: 

According to Education, 49 states had school bullying laws as of April 
2012, including the 8 states that we reviewed. These 8 states' laws 
vary in several ways, including who is covered and the requirements 
placed on state agencies and school districts.[Footnote 23] For 
example, the 8 states' laws that we reviewed vary in whether and the 
extent to which they cover specific demographic groups, referred to as 
protected classes. Five states--Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico, 
and Vermont--identify race, color, sex or gender, national origin or 
nationality, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, and 
religion as protected classes.[Footnote 24] California includes all of 
these groups, except for color. Some states also prohibit bullying of 
other protected classes. For example, Illinois also includes as 
protected classes ancestry, age, and marital status. Virginia and 
Massachusetts do not include protected classes in their state bullying 
laws. According to Massachusetts officials, protected classes were 
intentionally omitted from the state's law to ensure that all youths 
were equally protected. Within Massachusetts' state educational agency 
(SEA), a specific office is designated to receive complaints, 
including from youths who have been bullied for any reason, such as 
obesity or socioeconomic status. Additionally, four of the states that 
identify protected classes--Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, and New Mexico--
provide that the list of classes is not exhaustive, so protection can 
be afforded to youths with characteristics not explicitly listed. For 
example, Iowa prohibits bullying "based on any actual or perceived 
trait or characteristic of the student."[Footnote 25] In contrast, 
California's bullying law is more exclusive and limits protection to 
only those groups that are listed in the law. 

We also found that state laws impose various requirements on SEAs. For 
example, laws in California, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Virginia 
require that SEAs develop model bullying policies as a resource for 
school districts.[Footnote 26] Also, we found that while SEAs in 
Arkansas, California, and Illinois are required by law to review or 
monitor school district's bullying policies, the approach taken to do 
so is different from state to state.[Footnote 27] For example, 
officials in Arkansas reported that as part of a broader effort to 
ensure that school districts' policies align with federal and state 
laws, they conduct on-site reviews every 4 years, and require school 
districts to forward information to the Department of Education for 
review every year, including information about discipline and bullying 
policies. Conversely, an Illinois official reported that little 
meaningful oversight is occurring, in part because of resource 
constraints. 

In each of the states we reviewed, the laws require school districts 
to adopt bullying policies or plans, but the states differed in the 
specific requirements of what must be included in these policies or 
plans.[Footnote 28] For example, of the 8 states' laws we reviewed, 6 
states require school districts to set forth a process for receiving 
and investigating complaints, and 2 do not. Similarly, we found that 6 
states' laws require district policies to identify the consequences 
for bullies, while 2 do not. Table 2 provides information about 
commonly required school district provisions in state bullying laws. 

Table 2: Examples of Provisions Commonly Required by State Bullying 
Laws: 

State: Arkansas; 
Notification of policy to parents and youths: [Check][A]; 
Consequences for engaging in bullying behavior must be articulated: 
[Check]; 
Require that school employees report incidents or that schools have 
reporting procedures: [Check]; 
Process for receiving and investigating complaints: [Check]; 
Complainant will be protected from retaliation or reprisal: [Check]. 

State: California; 
Notification of policy to parents and youths: [Check]; 
Consequences for engaging in bullying behavior must be articulated: 
[Empty]; 
Require that school employees report incidents or that schools have 
reporting procedures: [Empty]; 
Process for receiving and investigating complaints: [Check]; 
Complainant will be protected from retaliation or reprisal: [Check]. 

State: Illinois; 
Notification of policy to parents and youths: [Check]; 
Consequences for engaging in bullying behavior must be articulated: 
[Empty]; 
Require that school employees report incidents or that schools have 
reporting procedures: [Empty]; 
Process for receiving and investigating complaints: [Empty]; 
Complainant will be protected from retaliation or reprisal: [Check]. 

State: Iowa; 
Notification of policy to parents and youths: [Check]; 
Consequences for engaging in bullying behavior must be articulated: 
[Check]; 
Require that school employees report incidents or that schools have 
reporting procedures: [Check]; 
Process for receiving and investigating complaints: [Check]; 
Complainant will be protected from retaliation or reprisal: [Check]. 

State: Massachusetts; 
Notification of policy to parents and youths: [Check]; 
Consequences for engaging in bullying behavior must be articulated: 
[Check]; 
Require that school employees report incidents or that schools have 
reporting procedures: [Check]; 
Process for receiving and investigating complaints: [Check]; 
Complainant will be protected from retaliation or reprisal: [Check]. 

State: New Mexico; 
Notification of policy to parents and youths: [Check]; 
Consequences for engaging in bullying behavior must be articulated: 
[Check]; 
Require that school employees report incidents or that schools have 
reporting procedures: [Check]; 
Process for receiving and investigating complaints: [Check]; 
Complainant will be protected from retaliation or reprisal: [Check]. 

State: Vermont; 
Notification of policy to parents and youths: [Check]; 
Consequences for engaging in bullying behavior must be articulated: 
[Check]; 
Require that school employees report incidents or that schools have 
reporting procedures: [Check]; 
Process for receiving and investigating complaints: [Check]; 
Complainant will be protected from retaliation or reprisal: [Check]. 

State: Virginia; 
Notification of policy to parents and youths: [Check]; 
Consequences for engaging in bullying behavior must be articulated: 
[Check]; 
Require that school employees report incidents or that schools have 
reporting procedures: [Empty]; 
Process for receiving and investigating complaints: [Empty]; 
Complainant will be protected from retaliation or reprisal: [Empty]. 

Source: GAO review of relevant state bullying laws and regulations for 
the 8 states included in our review. 

[A] School district policies must require notice of what constitutes 
bullying, that bullying is prohibited, and the consequences of 
bullying be provided. Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-514(e)(2)(G). 

[End of table] 

States are also making changes to their bullying laws, as evidenced by 
4 of our 8 selected states amending or enacting bullying laws since we 
began our study in the spring of 2011.[Footnote 29] For example, 
Arkansas, among other things, amended its law to include protected 
classes based on actual or perceived characteristics. Vermont amended 
its law to include protections against cyberbullying and incidents 
that do not occur during the school day on school property, or at 
school-sponsored events. 

Selected School Districts' Antibullying Policies and Programs: 

The six school districts we reviewed in New Mexico, Virginia, and 
Vermont have all adopted policies, plans, or rules, and implemented a 
range of approaches, to combat bullying. Among other components of the 
bullying policies and rules, each prohibits bullying and describes 
potential consequences for the behavior. Also, the school districts in 
New Mexico and Vermont developed policies and procedures covering the 
reporting and investigation of bullying behavior. 

School district officials explained that they have developed several 
approaches to prevent and respond to bullying. For example, in five of 
the six school districts we visited, central administrators or 
principals said they conduct student surveys that include questions 
about bullying to determine the prevalence of the behavior, and two 
administrators said the surveys are used to develop strategies to 
address the behavior. Also, officials from four of the six school 
districts said that several or all of their schools utilize the 
prevention-oriented framework Positive Behavioral Interventions and 
Supports (PBIS) to improve overall behavior in schools (see text box). 
[Footnote 30] Additionally, several school districts and schools use 
curricula that help youths develop interpersonal skills and manage 
their emotions, such as Second Step, a classroom-based social skills 
program for youths 4 to 14 years of age, and Steps to Respect, a 
bullying prevention program developed for grades three through six. 
Several central administrators and principals mentioned that 
antibullying-focused events have been held at their schools, such as 
Rachel's Challenge and Ryan's Story. Rachel's Challenge is a program 
that seeks to create a positive culture change in schools and 
communities and begins with video/audio footage of Rachel Scott, the 
first person killed during the 1999 Columbine High School incident. 
Ryan's Story is a presentation that recounts the factors that led to 
the 2003 suicide of Ryan Halligan, a victim of both bullying and 
cyberbullying. 

[Text box: 
The Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports framework utilizes 
evidence-based, prevention-oriented practices and systems to promote 
positive and effective classroom and school social cultures. According 
to Education's Office of Special Education Programs, PBIS steps to 
addressing bullying behavior at school include the following: 
* examining discipline data to determine, for example, the frequency, 
location, and timing of specific bullying behaviors; 
* examining the extent to which staff members have, for example, 
actively and positively supervised all students across all school 
settings, had high rates of positive interactions and contact with all 
students, and arranged their instruction so all students are actively 
engaged, successful, and challenged; and; 
* teaching students and staff common strategies for preventing and 
responding to bullying behavior, such as intervening and responding 
early and quickly to interrupt bullying behavior, removing what 
triggers and maintains bullying behavior, and reporting and recording 
when a bullying behavior incident occurs. 
Students whose bullying behavior does not improve are considered for 
additional supports. For example, on the basis of the function of a 
student's behavior, students would (1) begin the day with a check-in 
or reminder about the daily expectations; (2) be more overtly and 
actively supervised; (3) receive more frequent, regular, and positive 
performance feedback each day; and (4) conclude each day with a 
checkout or debriefing with an adult.; Source: National Technical 
Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports. 
[End of text box] 

In addition to mentioning efforts focused on youths, several central 
administrators and principals said that teachers receive some bullying 
prevention guidance or training. Information about bullying prevention 
is also shared with parents during workshops and forums. For example, 
one official mentioned that Rachel's Challenge includes a session with 
parents and community leaders. A parent said that his school district 
hosted a national speaker to share information with parents about 
bullying. 

State and Local Officials Cited Concerns That Hinder Antibullying 
Efforts: 

Both state and local officials expressed concerns about various issues 
associated with implementing state bullying laws, regulations, and 
local policies and codes of conduct. For example, administrators and 
principals reported that determining how to respond to out-of-school 
incidents, such as cyberbullying, is challenging. Administrators and 
principals said that sometimes they are not informed of incidents in a 
timely manner, resulting in a delayed response. Additionally, some 
parents discourage school officials' involvement in out-of-school 
incidents. However, administrators and principals agreed that when out-
of-school incidents affect school climate, the behavior has to be 
addressed. 

Another issue of concern for both state and local officials is that 
parents and youths can confuse conflict with bullying. According to 
the state and local officials that we spoke with, they spend a lot of 
time on nonbullying behavior and more could be done to educate parents 
and youths on the distinction between bullying behavior and other 
forms of conflict. On a related matter, state and local officials said 
that it is important to train teachers and staff to prevent, identify, 
and respond to bullying behavior. However, according to these 
officials, because of state budget cuts and the elimination of some 
federal funding that could be used for bullying prevention activities, 
there is little funding available for training. State officials 
specifically cited the loss of funding from Title IV, Part A of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, which 
among other things could be used to prevent violence in and around 
schools. According to federal officials, funding for this program was 
eliminated in 2009. 

Federal and State Civil Rights Laws Offer Some Protections against 
Bullying, but Vulnerable Groups May Not Always Be Covered: 

Federal Civil Rights Protections: 

When bullying rises to the level of discrimination, federal civil 
rights laws may be used to provide redress to individuals in legally 
protected groups. Federal civil rights laws protect against 
discrimination based on sex, race, color, national origin, religion, 
or disability. However, federal agencies generally lack jurisdiction 
to address discrimination based on classifications not protected under 
federal civil rights statutes. For example, federal agencies lack 
authority to pursue discrimination cases based solely on sexual 
orientation. 

Additionally, federal civil rights laws do not cover all youths in all 
educational settings, and as a result, where a student goes to school 
could affect the student's ability to file a claim of discrimination 
with the federal government. For example, Title IV of the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964 (Title IV) prohibits discrimination in public schools and 
institutions of higher learning.[Footnote 31] Since Title IV is the 
only federal civil rights law addressing religious discrimination in 
educational settings, only youths at public schools and public 
institutions of higher learning, where Title IV applies, could file 
such a claim. Youths who attend public schools or other schools 
receiving federal education funding and who belong to other federally 
protected classes may have the option to file a complaint with 
Education, Justice, or both departments, depending on which agency has 
enforcement authority.[Footnote 32] See table 3 for the relevant 
federal civil rights laws, protected classes, and agency enforcement 
authority. 

Table 3: Relevant Federal Civil Rights Laws, Protected Classes, and 
Agency Enforcement Authority: 

Protected class: Sex; 
Applicable federal law: Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 
(Title IX)[A]; 
Settings where discrimination is prohibited: Education programs and 
activities receiving federal financial assistance; 
Agency with enforcement authority: Education and Justice. 

Protected class: Sex; 
Applicable federal law: Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
(Title IV)[B]; 
Settings where discrimination is prohibited: Public schools and public 
institutions of higher learning; 
Agency with enforcement authority: Justice. 

Protected class: Race, color, or national origin; 
Applicable federal law: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
(Title VI)[C]; 
Settings where discrimination is prohibited: Programs and activities 
receiving federal financial assistance; 
Agency with enforcement authority: Education and Justice. 

Protected class: Race, color, or national origin; 
Applicable federal law: Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
(Title IV)[B]; 
Settings where discrimination is prohibited: Public schools and public 
institutions of higher learning; 
Agency with enforcement authority: Justice. 

Protected class: Religion; 
Applicable federal law: Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
(Title IV)[B]; 
Settings where discrimination is prohibited: Public schools and public 
institutions of higher learning; 
Agency with enforcement authority: Justice. 

Protected class: Disability; 
Applicable federal law: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 
(section 504)[D]; 
Settings where discrimination is prohibited: Programs and activities 
receiving federal financial assistance or conducted by an executive 
agency (such as Education); 
Agency with enforcement authority: Education and Justice. 

Protected class: Disability; 
Applicable federal law: Titles II and III of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)[E]; 
Settings where discrimination is prohibited: Title II prohibits 
discrimination by public entities, including public schools. Title III 
prohibits discrimination by places of public accommodation, including 
private schools; 
Agency with enforcement authority: Education (Title II) and Justice 
(Titles II and III). 

Source: GAO analysis of relevant federal laws and information from 
Education and Justice. 

[A] 20.U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. 

[B] 42 U.S.C. § 2000c et seq. 

[C] 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. 

[D] 29 U.S.C. § 794. 

[E] Title II: 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.; Title III: 42 U.S.C. § 12181 
et seq. 

[End of table] 

In addition to those groups explicitly enumerated in federal civil 
rights laws, protections have been applied to other classes of youth 
in some situations. For example, Titles IV and IX, which prohibit 
discrimination based on sex, have been interpreted, in certain 
circumstances, to apply to discrimination based on gender identity. 
However, Titles IV and IX have not been used to address discrimination 
based solely on sexual orientation. Justice officials explained that 
youths who are discriminated against based on gender identity are 
generally protected under Titles IV and IX, as discrimination based on 
gender identity is a form of sex discrimination. They explained that 
sexual orientation, on the other hand, is not covered under Titles IV 
or IX. According to Education and Justice officials and some court 
decisions, however, youths bullied on the basis of actual or perceived 
sexual orientation may have some protection under Titles IV and IX if 
there is overlapping gender-based discrimination.[Footnote 33] For 
example, in Montgomery v. Independent School District No. 709, the 
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota addressed the issue 
of sexual orientation discrimination in the Title IX context.[Footnote 
34] In Montgomery, a male student claimed that he was verbally and 
physically abused by other youths because he did not meet their 
stereotyped expectations of masculinity and because they perceived him 
to be gay. The court held that the student's claim of sexual 
orientation discrimination was not actionable under Title IX because 
sexual orientation is not a protected characteristic under Title IX. 
[Footnote 35] On the other hand, however, the court found that a 
discrimination claim based on a failure to meet gender stereotypes was 
permissible under Title IX.[Footnote 36] 

Little is known about the extent to which students belonging to 
various demographic groups not covered by federal civil rights laws 
are being discriminated against because they either do not file claims 
or, when they file claims, information about those claims is not 
routinely collected or tracked. Victims of bullying who are members of 
a protected class and feel that they have been discriminated against 
can generally file a complaint with Education or Justice. According to 
Education's guidance, individuals must generally file complaints with 
Education within 180 days of the latest incident, whereas no time 
limitations apply for filing complaints with Justice.[Footnote 37] 
Education and Justice differ in their approaches to processing 
complaints and levels of staff resources to investigate complaints of 
discrimination. In general, Education resolves complaints through a 
formal administrative process, and while both Education and Justice 
investigate complaints, Justice negotiates and, if necessary, 
litigates in federal courts. According to Education and Justice 
officials, an important difference in their approaches to handling 
discrimination complaints is partly due to Education's greater staff 
resources. Education's Office for Civil Rights has roughly 400 staff, 
and Justice's Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities 
Section, has about 20 attorneys. According to departmental officials, 
Education investigates all complaints it receives for which it has 
jurisdiction. Conversely, Justice selects a limited number of 
complaints to review based on such factors as the severity of the 
complaint and whether the federal government has a special interest in 
the case. Additionally, officials from Education and Justice told us 
that they collaborate closely. Generally, Justice and Education share 
information about complaints because they may have overlapping 
jurisdiction, and try to coordinate efforts where feasible. 

Education and Justice do not currently have a systematic approach for 
tracking information about the number of cases related to various 
demographic groups that they do not have jurisdiction to address. The 
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, in a 2011 report on the protections 
of federal anti-discrimination laws relating to school bullying, 
recommended that Justice and Education, among other things, track 
dismissed civil rights claims by various demographic characteristics. 
However, Education and Justice officials told us that as part of their 
complaint review processes, they focus on collecting information to 
establish federal jurisdiction, and as a result neither department 
collects information in a way that would allow them to routinely 
assess the demographic characteristics of cases where they lack 
jurisdiction. Thus, they do not plan to address the commission's 
recommendation. Additionally, according to officials from both 
departments, attempting to track such information would be problematic 
because of difficulties in ascertaining demographic information. They 
also believe the information could be misleading. According to Justice 
officials, they dedicate significant resources to outreach designed to 
educate communities on their jurisdiction, and this may impact the 
number of complaints they receive from demographic groups that fall 
outside of their jurisdiction. 

State Civil Rights Protections: 

We found that some states' civil rights laws extend beyond the 
protections afforded at the federal level, but information about the 
possibility of pursuing claims at the state level was not always 
provided to federal complainants. For all eight states we reviewed, 
state anti-discrimination laws, like federal civil rights laws, 
provide protections for individuals who are discriminated against on 
the basis of sex, race, national origin, religion, and disability, and 
in all but Arkansas, color.[Footnote 38] Thus, in these eight states, 
for these protected classes, legal action can generally be taken at 
the federal, state, or both levels. 

The majority of the eight states that we reviewed include in their 
anti-discrimination laws protections for various groups of people who 
are not explicitly covered at the federal level. For example, six of 
the eight states we reviewed prohibit discrimination on the basis of 
sexual orientation,[Footnote 39] and five of the eight states prohibit 
discrimination on the basis of gender identity.[Footnote 40] Beyond 
these protected classes, most states we reviewed also prohibit 
discrimination on the basis of other personal characteristics, such as 
marital status. California is unique among the states in our review in 
that its anti-discrimination laws explicitly protect individuals on 
the basis of citizenship, gender-related appearance and behavior, and 
individuals who are associated with a person with (or perceived to 
have) a protected characteristic.[Footnote 41] However, because some 
characteristics are not explicitly protected under anti-discrimination 
laws at either the federal level or in the states we reviewed, youths 
in these states who are bullied on the basis of one of these 
characteristics would have no recourse under civil rights law at 
either level. For example, state education and civil rights officials 
mentioned that anti-discrimination laws generally do not apply to 
youths who were bullied based on their socioeconomic status or obesity. 

Education officials told us they sometimes provide information on 
state civil rights laws to complainants on an informal basis, but not 
as a matter of routine. For example, these officials said that a 
federal complainant who withdraws his or her complaint may be informed 
in a phone discussion about legal options at the state level. Also, 
officials said that if a complaint reaches the stage of a dismissal, 
Education's letter to the complainant sometimes suggests that the 
claimant might have a claim under state civil rights law, along with 
the name and address of the relevant state agency. However, according 
to Education officials, when the agency lacks jurisdiction, it does 
not presently notify complainants about the availability of possible 
recourse under state law on a routine basis. As a result, individuals 
who file complaints with Education may not be fully aware of their 
legal options. On the other hand, according to Justice officials, 
department officials routinely share with complainants that they may 
have legal options available to them through their state's civil 
rights laws. While not specific to particular states and their laws, 
Justice provides a general notification in letters to complainants for 
complaints they do not pursue. 

Coordinated Federal Antibullying Efforts Are Under Way, but Assessment 
of Legal Remedies Is Incomplete: 

Federal Coordination Efforts: 

Education, HHS, and Justice have established coordinated efforts to 
carry out research and broadly disseminate information on bullying. 
Education has also provided key information about how federal civil 
rights laws can be used to address bullying and is conducting a study 
of state bullying laws and how selected school districts are 
addressing bullying. Three federal efforts, in particular--formation 
of a coordinating committee, establishment of a central website, and 
an informational campaign--have provided the public with a range of 
information about bullying, through a variety of media. 

Coordinating Committee to Promote Collaboration on Bullying across the 
Federal Government: 

The Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention Steering Committee serves 
as a forum for federal agencies to develop and share information with 
each other and the public. The committee was created in 2009 and is 
composed of the Departments of Education, HHS, Justice, Agriculture, 
Defense, and Interior, along with the Federal Trade Commission, the 
National Council on Disability, and the White House Initiative on 
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. Among other activities, the 
coordinating committee helped to plan a conference on bullying in 
March 2011 hosted by the White House, as well as annual conferences of 
the coordinating committee in August 2010 and September 2011. 
Following each annual conference, the committee has developed 
priorities and formed subcommittees to address those priorities. For 
example, after identifying a need for better coordination of bullying 
research, a research subcommittee was created after the August 2010 
conference. Following the September 2011 conference, this 
subcommittee's activities in the upcoming year will also include 
identifying best practices for training teachers as well as drawing 
attention to programs that could help youths develop interpersonal 
skills and manage their emotions. 

Central Website to Provide Consistent Federal Information to the 
Public: 

The three federal departments, along with the White House, established 
a central federal website [hyperlink, http://www.stopbullying.gov], 
last accessed May 22, 2012), launched in March 2011 at the White House 
conference on bullying. The central website sought to consolidate the 
content of different federal sites into one location to provide free 
materials for the public. Hosted by HHS, with content and technical 
support from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), 
the website aims to present a consistent federal message and features 
content arranged by target audience, such as teens, along with 
sections on special topics such as cyberbullying. 

Informational Campaign to Raise Awareness about Bullying: 

HHS through HRSA launched the informational campaign called Stop 
Bullying Now! in 2004. Federal departments outside HHS that assist 
with the campaign include the Departments of Education, Justice, 
Agriculture, Defense, and Interior. The campaign is designed for youth 
and adults to raise awareness, foster partnerships, and disseminate 
evidence-based findings to help prevent and intervene in instances of 
bullying. The informational campaign offers a variety of free 
materials, including a DVD with 14 cartoon episodes, 30 tip sheets 
based on research and evidence-based practices, public service 
announcements, posters, brochures, comic books, and kits for youth 
leaders and adults. According to data from HRSA as of August 2011, 
recipients of materials in mass mailings included, among others, all 
66,000 public elementary and middle schools in the country, 17,000 
libraries, relevant state health and education agencies, offices 
serving Indian and military youth, 4,000 Boys and Girls Clubs, 
relevant state health and education agencies, schools on military 
bases worldwide, and offices serving American Indian youth. (See app. 
V for more information on the campaign.) However, according to HHS 
officials, the campaign and its online content are currently in a 
period of transition, as they adapt to the new interdepartmental 
website and its governance. 

While these efforts are still evolving, we found that they are 
consistent with key practices that we determined can help or sustain 
coordination efforts across federal agencies.[Footnote 42] 
Specifically, we found that in each of these three efforts that key 
agencies reached agreement on roles and responsibilities. For example, 
the roles and responsibilities of the federal agencies responsible for 
stopbullying.gov are spelled out in a governance document, and the 
lead agency, HHS, for this website has executed agreements to provide 
funding for the maintenance and operation of the website. Similarly, 
we found that these agencies worked to establish compatible policies 
and procedures, and to develop mechanisms to monitor progress for 
these coordinated efforts. Appendix V provides more information on 
federal coordination efforts on bullying. 

In addition to these collaborative agency efforts to share information 
about bullying, Education has disseminated information about federal 
civil rights laws that can be used to address bullying, and key 
components of state bullying laws. In October 2010, Education sent a 
letter to state and local education officials outlining how federal 
civil rights laws can be applied to bullying. The letter stated that 
student misconduct may trigger school responsibilities under federal 
civil rights laws and provided examples of behavior that may meet the 
threshold for violating the laws. In December 2010, the department 
issued another letter that summarized several key components of state 
bullying laws, such as specifying prohibited behavior, development and 
implementation of school district policies, and training and 
preventive education. As previously discussed, following up on this 
letter, the department commissioned a study of state bullying laws to 
determine the extent to which states and school districts incorporate 
the key components into their laws and policies. In December 2011, 
Education issued the first part of this two-part study on state 
bullying laws.[Footnote 43] 

No Assessment of State Civil Rights Laws and Procedures Has Been 
Performed: 

While Education, HHS, and Justice have initiated several efforts to 
better inform the public about how to utilize federal, state, and 
other resources to better address bullying, none of these efforts 
include an assessment of state civil rights laws and procedures for 
filing complaints. Since some states' civil rights laws provide 
protection for groups not named in applicable federal civil rights 
laws, collection and dissemination of such information could assist in 
better understanding how these laws vary in coverage and in the 
procedures states have in place for filing complaints. For example, 
five states in our review--California, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, 
and Vermont--have established processes and procedures for resolving 
civil rights complaints, and have empowered a statewide organization 
with the authority to hold schools and school districts accountable 
when discrimination is found, according to state officials. 
Specifically, according to a state official, California's Uniform 
Complaint Process empowers its Department of Education's Office of 
Equal Opportunity to ensure compliance with state and federal civil 
rights laws. California's state code also requires uniform complaint 
procedures that each school district within the state must follow when 
addressing complaints of discrimination against protected groups, 
according to a state official. The complaint process allows up to 60 
days for an investigation and decision to be rendered at the district 
level, unless a child is directly in harm's way and the school 
district is unresponsive, in which case a complaint can be filed 
directly with the state. In Vermont, the state's Human Rights 
Commission acts as an independent agency focused solely on the 
protection of civil rights, and if its investigation determines 
unlawful discrimination occurred, the agency assists the parties in 
negotiating a settlement. Human Rights Commission officials told us if 
a settlement cannot be reached, the agency may choose to take the case 
to court. However, they said that this usually does not happen because 
cases are generally settled. The Massachusetts Department of 
Elementary and Secondary Education has a formal process called the 
Problem Resolution System that handles complaints that allege a school 
or a district is not meeting legal requirements for education, 
including complaints of discrimination. In each of the five states 
with established processes and procedures for resolving civil rights 
complaints, the SEAs include information on their websites about the 
civil rights complaint process, including where to file, required 
information, and time frames. 

According to their respective state officials, Arkansas and New Mexico 
offer only limited legal options for protected classes with complaints 
of discrimination based on school bullying because they lack a state 
entity with the authority to investigate and hold school districts 
accountable for such complaints. Although Arkansas has an Equity 
Assistance Center within its Department of Education that can serve as 
an intermediary between the complainant and the school district, its 
decisions lack the authority to discipline a school district, 
according to state officials. New Mexico has a human rights commission 
that receives and investigates complaints of discrimination based on 
protected classes, but the commission is focused on employment issues 
and does not address discrimination complaints related to education. 
As a result, the state lacks formal processes and procedures to 
address complaints of discrimination stemming from instances of 
bullying, according to state officials. Therefore, according to state 
officials from these two states, if an individual cannot afford an 
attorney to file a private right of action related to complaints of 
discrimination because of school bullying, the individual's only legal 
option is to file a federal complaint. 

By not incorporating an assessment of state civil rights laws and 
procedures into their various bullying prevention efforts, federal 
agencies are overlooking a potentially important source of 
information. Building on information from Education's study of state 
bullying laws and the letters they issued on federal civil rights 
laws, information on state civil rights laws and procedures would 
provide a broader and more complete perspective of the overall 
coverage of federal and state efforts to prevent and address bullying. 

Conclusions: 

Students who are bullied may seek recourse through a number of 
avenues--local and state educational policies, state bullying laws, 
state civil rights laws, or federal civil rights laws. However, the 
nature and extent of protections available to them depend on the laws 
and policies of where they live or go to school. Education and Justice 
have taken important steps in assessing how federal civil rights laws 
can be used to help combat certain instances of bullying of protected 
classes of youth for which they have jurisdiction. And Education has 
completed a study of state bullying laws and is conducting another 
study looking at how school districts are implementing these laws. 
However, neither Education nor Justice has assessed state civil rights 
laws and procedures as they may relate to bullying. Many of the 
states' civil rights laws we reviewed extend protections to classes of 
individuals beyond the groups protected at the federal level, but 
states vary in the groups that are explicitly protected; therefore, 
whether bullying victims have any recourse through civil rights laws 
can depend on the state in which they live or go to school. Also, 
states vary in their procedures for pursuing civil rights claims, 
which could also affect the ability to pursue a bullying-related 
discrimination claim. State civil rights laws, just like federal civil 
rights laws and state bullying laws, can play an important role in 
addressing this important issue. More information about state civil 
rights laws and procedures is a key missing link and is needed by 
administration officials and decision makers alike, to understand the 
potential overall legal protections available to students who have 
been bullied. 

Federal claimants would also benefit from knowing that options may be 
available to them at the state level. This is particularly key when 
cases are dismissed at the federal level because of a lack of 
jurisdiction. While Justice routinely informs individuals when their 
complaints are dismissed because of a lack of jurisdiction of possible 
recourse under their state civil rights laws, Education does not. 
Routinely making this basic information available would be another key 
step in helping ensure that bullying victims are aware of some of the 
legal options available to them. 

Multiple efforts to collect information about bullying have been under 
way for several years; however, the prevalence of bullying of youths 
in certain vulnerable demographic groups is not known. A greater 
effort by key federal agencies to develop more information about the 
extent to which a broader range of demographic groups are subject to 
bullying and bullying-related discrimination would better inform 
federal efforts to prevent and remedy bullying. Understanding the 
prevalence of bullying by demographic groups would help administration 
officials develop additional actions targeted at the greatest areas of 
need. This information, together with an assessment of federal and 
state legal protections, could also aid policymakers in determining 
whether additional actions are needed to protect vulnerable groups of 
youths who are subjected to bullying. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To allow for a more comprehensive assessment of federal and state 
efforts to prevent and address bullying, we recommend the Secretary of 
Education, in consultation with the Attorney General, as appropriate, 
compile information in a one-time study--similar to its study of state 
bullying laws--about state civil rights laws and procedures, as they 
may pertain to bullying. 

In order to better ensure that individuals are aware of their options 
to seek legal redress, especially in cases where their complaints to 
Education are not pursued because of a lack of jurisdiction, we 
recommend that the Secretary of Education develop procedures to 
routinely inform individuals who file complaints of discrimination 
stemming from bullying about the potential availability of legal 
options under their state's anti-discrimination laws. 

To address gaps in knowledge about targets of bullying and 
discrimination, we recommend that the Secretaries of Education and HHS 
and the Attorney General work together to develop information in their 
future surveys of youths' health and safety issues on the extent to 
which youths in various vulnerable demographic groups are bullied. 

To aid policymakers and program administrators at the federal and 
state levels in understanding more comprehensively what is being done 
to address bullying and discrimination, we recommend that the 
Secretaries of Education and HHS and the Attorney General, in 
conjunction with the Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention Steering 
Committee, assess the extent to which legal protections against 
bullying exist for vulnerable demographic groups. Such an assessment, 
to be comprehensive, should make use of information federal agencies 
have already compiled on state bullying laws and federal civil rights 
laws together with information from our recommendations above to 
compile information on state civil rights laws and collect more 
information on demographic groups in federal surveys of youth health 
and safety issues. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided Education, HHS, and Justice an opportunity to comment on a 
draft of this report. Education and HHS provided written responses, 
which appear in appendixes VII and VIII, respectively. Each of the 
agencies provided technical comments, which we incorporated as 
appropriate. Justice chose not to provide a written response. 

Education disagreed with our recommendation that it compile 
information about state civil rights laws and procedures as they 
pertain to bullying. Specifically, Education noted that it does not 
have jurisdiction over state civil rights laws, nor the appropriate 
expertise, to interpret and advise on these laws. The department 
stressed that its previous analysis of state bullying laws was limited 
to compiling a list of statutes or regulations and identifying key 
components of statutes and regulations. Further, Education suggested 
that compiling information about state civil rights laws and 
procedures would only be useful if kept current, and that undergoing 
such a time-intensive and costly survey and review of state's civil 
rights laws would not be an appropriate use of the department's 
limited resources. 

We continue to believe that a one-time compilation of state civil 
rights laws and procedures would be beneficial, and provide a basis, 
along with other information, for analyzing the overall legal 
protections that are available for vulnerable demographic groups. Such 
an assessment would help determine the extent to which states are 
positioned to respond to these types of civil rights complaints and to 
identify those instances where certain students are left with little 
recourse to pursue discrimination claims simply because of the state 
in which they reside or go to school. While we appreciate the work 
involved in any analysis of state laws, we believe that Education can 
develop a methodological approach that would limit the scope of their 
work and hone in on those aspects of civil rights laws that come into 
play when bullying leads to allegations of discrimination. For 
example, this review could be limited to compiling basic information 
about state civil rights laws, such as which protected classes are 
included and whether they apply in educational settings, and may not 
require an extensive analysis of state case law. In implementing a 
study of this type, Education may consider approaches similar to those 
they used in their previous work on state bullying laws. 
Alternatively, Education officials could choose to rely on the 
knowledge and expertise of cognizant state officials by conducting a 
survey or otherwise soliciting pertinent information, rather than 
undertaking the bulk of this work themselves. We acknowledge 
Education's concerns regarding keeping the information on state civil 
rights laws updated and have modified language in the report and our 
recommendation to clarify that this is meant to be a onetime effort. 

Regarding our second recommendation, Education indicated that they are 
considering whether to develop procedures that would inform 
complainants whose complaints are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction 
that they may have possible recourse under state or local laws. We 
encourage Education to review the language that Justice currently 
includes in similar notification letters. As Education suggested, more 
detailed guidance regarding rights and procedures for seeking redress 
may then be provided by state and local agencies. 

Both HHS and Education agreed with our recommendation that they 
develop additional information in their surveys about youths in 
various vulnerable groups who are bullied. 

In response to our recommendation that Education, HHS, and the 
Attorney General assess the extent to which protections exist for 
various demographic groups likely to be the target of bullies, HHS 
agreed with the recommendation and Education cited many of its ongoing 
efforts to this end. We commend Education on its current efforts as 
well as other efforts we have discussed in our report. However, as we 
point out in our previous recommendations, more information is needed 
on state civil rights laws as well as about how various demographic 
groups are affected by bullying. Utilizing all of the information at 
their disposal, including information we recommend be collected, 
Education, HHS, and Justice could work together to assess how well the 
available laws and resources address areas of need and identify 
measures that could be taken to help prevent bullying. We believe that 
it is an important step to assimilate information on resources and 
laws with research about areas of need in order to assist federal 
policy makers and agency officials in their efforts to address this 
important issue. Based on questions we received during discussions 
with Justice on our report, we modified this recommendation to clarify 
that such an assessment should make use of information from our 
previous recommendations in this report, as well as information that 
federal agencies have already gathered, and that the three agencies in 
our review could work through the Federal Partners in Bullying 
Prevention Steering Committee to conduct such an assessment. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the 
Secretaries of Education, and Health and Human Services, and the 
Attorney General; relevant congressional committees; and other 
interested parties. In addition, the report will be available on GAO's 
website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about the report, please 
contact me at (206) 287-4809 or calboml@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. GAO staff that made major 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix IX. 

Signed by: 

Linda M. Calbom: 
Western Regional Director: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Analysis of Surveys and Literature Review: 

To obtain information on the prevalence of school bullying of victims 
in the United States, we primarily compared estimates and 
methodologies of available data on being bullied in four nationally 
representative surveys by federal statistical agencies conducted from 
2005 to 2009. Specifically, we compared data on being victims of 
bullying from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the School Crime 
Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey, the Health 
Behavior in School-aged Children Survey, and the National Survey of 
Children's Exposure to Violence (see table 4). We selected these 
surveys based on interviews with officials at the Departments of 
Education (Education), Health and Human Services (HHS), and Justice 
(Justice), as well as the similar work of the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention (CDC) on this topic that compared the four 
surveys. We evaluated these federal surveys for methodological rigor, 
as well as to determine the extent to which the data could be used to 
offer a national perspective on bullying in schools. This included 
interviews with researchers, as appropriate. We determined that the 
data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. Because the survey 
data were collected using generalizable probability samples, this 
sample is only one of a large number of samples that might have been 
selected. Since each sample could provide different estimates, we have 
used 95 percent confidence intervals to show the precision of our 
results. All percentage estimates used in this report have 95 percent 
confidence intervals of within plus or minus 2.1 percentage points, 
unless otherwise noted. In addition to sampling error, surveys are 
subject to nonsampling error, such as how respondents interpret 
questions, including any biases or tendencies to provide desirable 
answers or false answers. Although respondents self-reported being 
bullied in the surveys, this approach to measure the prevalence of 
bullying is viewed as valid and robust, according to some previous 
research on bullying. We also reviewed certain other relevant research 
as appropriate. Finally, we conducted interviews with officials at 
Education and HHS to obtain information about how different surveys 
and research define bullying and their efforts to develop a uniform 
definition of bullying for research purposes. 

Table 4: Nationally Representative Surveys We Reviewed That Ask about 
Youths Being Bullied, among Other Topics: 

Survey: Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS)[A]; 
Sponsoring federal agency: HHS's CDC; 
Purpose: To monitor priority health risk behaviors that contribute to 
the leading causes of death, disability, and social problems among 
youth and adults in this country; 
Age/grade of youth surveyed: Grades 9-12. 

Survey: National Crime Victimization Survey's (NCVS) School Crime 
Supplement (SCS); 
Sponsoring federal agency: Education's National Center for Education 
Statistics and Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics; 
Purpose: To collect additional information about school-related 
victimizations on a national level; 
Age/grade of youth surveyed: Ages 12-18. 

Survey: Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC)[B]; 
Sponsoring federal agency: HHS's National Institutes of Health; 
Purpose: To better understand the health behaviors of youths and their 
social context during early adolescence; 
Age/grade of youth surveyed: Grades 6-10. 

Survey: National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV); 
Sponsoring federal agency: Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and 
Delinquency Prevention and HHS's CDC; 
Purpose: To examine past-year and lifetime exposure to violence of 
children age 17 and younger across several categories of violence; 
Age/grade of youth surveyed: Ages birth-17. 

Source: GAO analysis and information from CDC. 

[A] We reviewed the national YRBS rather than associated state and 
local surveys. 

[B] HBSC is an international survey. For the purposes of our work, we 
reviewed the sample used for the national survey rather than the 
sample used for the international data. 

[End of table] 

To describe the effects of school bullying on victims, we conducted a 
literature review. To identify studies on the effects of bullying on 
victims, we searched numerous databases--including MEDLINE, Embase, 
Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), ProQuest, PsycINFO, 
Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, and WorldCat. We 
also consulted with officials at Education, HHS, and Justice to 
identify relevant studies. Because of the extensive available 
literature, we limited our review to meta-analyses, which analyze 
other studies and synthesize their findings. Additionally, we limited 
our review to articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Our 
literature search covered studies published from 2001 through July 
2011. Subsequently, new meta-analyses were brought to our attention by 
agency officials, and we reviewed them to the extent they were 
consistent with our search criteria. We identified seven relevant 
studies. We reviewed the methodologies of these studies to ensure that 
they were sound and determined that they were sufficiently reliable. 
The meta-analyses synthesized the findings of studies of school-aged 
children in a variety of countries, including the United States. They 
were not designed to establish causal relationships, nor are the 
results of the meta-analyses generalizable. 

States and Local School District Interviews and Document Review: 

To describe approaches that selected states and local school districts 
are taking, we reviewed relevant state bullying laws and regulations, 
as well as guidance and other documents from eight selected states and 
conducted interviews with state education officials. We selected eight 
states--Arkansas, California, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New 
Mexico, Vermont, and Virginia--based on the following criteria: Each 
has bullying laws or regulations, and they vary with respect to 
bullying definitions and enumeration of protected classes, geographic 
variation, and student enrollment. Further, we selected three of these 
states (New Mexico, Vermont, and Virginia), which vary on the 
characteristics listed above, to review policies and guidance of local 
school districts and conduct interviews with school officials. We 
selected a total of six school districts, two in each state--
Albuquerque Public Schools, Rio Rancho Public Schools, Fairfax County 
Public Schools, Warren County Public Schools, Windham Southeast 
Supervisory Union, and Windham Southwest Supervisory Union. The six 
school districts were selected from the National Center for Education 
Statistics (NCES) Common Core of Data Public Elementary/Secondary 
School Universe Survey: School Year 2008-09. The Common Core of Data 
(CCD) nonfiscal surveys consist of data submitted annually to NCES by 
state educational agencies (SEA). School districts and schools were 
selected to reflect a range of size, and urbanicity (urban, suburban, 
or rural), as well as racial and socioeconomic diversity. 
Participation in the National School Lunch Program was used as a proxy 
for socioeconomic status. We held interviews with central 
administrators, principals, school staff, and parents. In several 
instances, multiple individuals attended an interview; for example six 
parents attended one parent interview. During the interviews, we asked 
about measures taken to prevent bullying, school officials' response 
to bullying behavior, and lessons learned. We analyzed narrative 
responses thematically. 

Review of Laws and Discrimination Complaint Processes: 

To identify legal options that federal and selected state governments 
have in place when bullying leads to allegations of discrimination, we 
reviewed relevant federal and state anti-discrimination laws and 
regulations, selected federal court decisions, as well as guidance and 
other documents of the federal government and the eight states 
selected for review.[Footnote 44] We also conducted interviews with 
federal officials in the Department of Education's Office for Civil 
Rights (OCR) and the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division 
(CRT), Educational Opportunities Section, as well as with state 
officials. State officials were from various departments, including 
state educational agencies and human rights or civil rights 
commissions or departments.[Footnote 45] During the interviews with 
federal and state officials, we asked about provisions, discrimination 
complaint processes, complaint resolutions, and legal mechanisms 
available to individuals who are not members of a protected class. 

Interviews with Federal Officials and Document Review: 

To address how key federal agencies are coordinating their efforts to 
combat school bullying, we interviewed officials from Education, HHS, 
and Justice and reviewed relevant documents. These departments were 
represented with officials from many component agencies. For 
Education, we spoke to officials from the Office of Safe and Healthy 
Students (formerly the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools), OCR, and 
Office of Special Education Programs. For HHS, we spoke to officials 
from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Office 
of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, CDC, Health 
Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), National Institutes of 
Health, and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 
(SAMHSA). For Justice, we spoke to officials from the Office of 
Community Oriented Policing Services, CRT, and Office of Justice 
Programs. We focused on these three departments, given their 
leadership roles on an interdepartmental coordinating committee and 
website [hyperlink, http://www.stopbullying.gov], last accessed May 
22, 2012) on bullying. We analyzed coordination of efforts based on 
key practices that GAO has previously identified as effective 
coordination practices.[Footnote 46] For example, in our interviews 
and analysis, we asked questions about such effective coordination 
practices as agreeing on roles and responsibilities or establishing 
compatible policies, procedures, or other means to operate across 
agency boundaries. We focused on these practices, among those GAO has 
identified, based on our professional judgment and relevance for the 
coordinated federal efforts regarding bullying.[Footnote 47] Related 
documents that we reviewed included plans, meeting agendas, conference 
materials, interagency agreements, and educational materials provided 
to the public. We also attended the second annual bullying prevention 
conference of the interdepartmental coordinating committee. In 
addition, we conducted interviews with Education, HHS, and Justice 
officials about efforts within their departments to combat bullying. 
We also reviewed relevant documents and agency websites. 

We conducted this performance audit from April 2011 through May 2012 
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
These standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comparison of the Definition and Measurement of Bullying 
in Four Nationally Representative Surveys: 

Table 5 compares how four nationally representative surveys define and 
measure bullying. 

Table 5: Selected Aspects of the Definition and Measurement of 
Bullying in Four Nationally Representative Surveys: 

Definition of bullying, if any: 
National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2009: "When 1 or more 
students tease, threaten, spread rumors about, hit, shove, or hurt 
another student over and over again. It is not bullying when 2 
students of about the same strength or power argue or fight or tease 
each other in a friendly way"; 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), School Crime Supplement 
(SCS) 2009: "What students do at school that make you feel bad or are 
hurtful to you"; 
Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2005/06: "When another 
student, or a group of students, say or do nasty and unpleasant things 
to him or her. It is also bullying when a student is teased repeatedly 
in a way he or she does not like or when he or she is deliberately 
left out of things. But it is NOT BULLYING when two students of about 
the same strength or power argue or fight. It is also not bullying 
when a student is teased in a friendly and playful way"; 
National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) 2008: No 
explicit definition is presented. 

Use of a question on overall prevalence: 
National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2009: Yes, but no questions 
about types of bullying[A]; 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), School Crime Supplement 
(SCS) 2009: No, but overall prevalence is calculated based on 
affirmative answers to one or more types of bullying; 
Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2005/06: Yes, and 
questions follow about types of bullying[B]; 
National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) 2008: No, 
but there are questions about three types of bullying. 

Use of questions about gender and race/ethnicity; (see appendix III 
for estimates)[C]: 
National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2009: Yes; 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), School Crime Supplement 
(SCS) 2009: Yes; 
Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2005/06: Yes; 
National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) 2008: Yes. 

Use of questions about frequency of being bullied in the past year or 
couple of months: 
National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2009: No; 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), School Crime Supplement 
(SCS) 2009: Yes; 
Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2005/06: Yes; 
National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) 2008: No. 

Age/grade of youth surveyed: 
National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2009: Grades 9-12; 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), School Crime Supplement 
(SCS) 2009: Ages 12-18; 
Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2005/06: Grades 6-10; 
National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) 2008: 
Ages birth-17[D]. 

Time period for question about being bullied: 
National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2009: During past 12 months; 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), School Crime Supplement 
(SCS) 2009: During this school year; 
Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2005/06: In the past 
couple of months; 
National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) 2008: In 
the past year, over a lifetime. 

Frequency of survey: 
National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2009: Every 2 years; 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), School Crime Supplement 
(SCS) 2009: Every 2 years; 
Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2005/06: Every 4 
years[E]; 
National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) 2008: 
Periodic. 

Purpose of survey: 
National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) 2009: To monitor priority 
health risk behaviors that contribute to the leading causes of death, 
disability, and social problems among youth and adults in this 
country[F]; 
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), School Crime Supplement 
(SCS) 2009: To collect additional information about school-related 
victimizations on a national level; 
Health Behavior in School-aged Children (HBSC) 2005/06: To better 
understand the health behaviors of children and their social context 
during early adolescence[G]; 
National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence (NatSCEV) 2008: To 
examine past-year and lifetime exposure to violence of children age 17 
and younger across several categories of violence. 

Source: GAO analysis and information from CDC. 

[A] YRBS did not ask about types of bullying in the 2009 survey, but 
the 2011 survey included a question on cyberbullying. 

[B] Thus, it is possible for the overall prevalence to appear less 
than the prevalence for certain types of bullying behaviors. According 
to one researcher at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) involved 
in the HBSC, respondents may be more inclined to respond affirmatively 
to a specific type of behavior rather than an overall, or general, 
question on bullying. 

[C] We did not include estimates for NatSCEV in appendix III, as this 
survey did not provide an overall estimate but reported estimates of 
prevalence for certain types of behaviors in the past year. Estimates 
are for youth aged 0-17. They include school and nonschool settings 
and being victimized by a peer or sibling. See, for example, David 
Finkelhor et al., "Violence, Abuse, and Crime Exposure in a National 
Sample of Children and Youth." Pediatrics, vol. 124, no. 5 (2009). 

[D] For NatSCEV, youth aged 10 and older were interviewed, while adult 
caregivers of youth under 10 were interviewed. 

[E] According to NIH officials involved in the HBSC, the future of the 
HBSC is uncertain, partly because of budget constraints. 

[F] We reviewed the national YRBS rather than associated state and 
local surveys. 

[G] HBSC is an international survey. For the purposes of our work, we 
reviewed the sample used for the national survey rather than the 
sample used for the international data. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Selected Data on National Prevalence of Youth Who Report 
Being Bullied in School: 

This appendix provides estimates of the overall prevalence of youth 
who reported being bullied by sex and by race/ethnicity. Three of the 
four federal surveys that we reviewed present an estimate of overall 
prevalence of being bullied, and for these three surveys, the results 
of each are shown separately by sex and by race/ethnicity. Unless 
otherwise noted, all estimates in these tables have 95 percent 
confidence intervals of within plus or minus 2.1 percentage points. 

The difference between boys and girls reporting that they were bullied 
was statistically significant in one survey (YRBS), with girls 
reporting a higher percentage of bullying, but was not statistically 
significant in the other two surveys (SCS and HBSC). See table 6. 

Table 6: Estimates of Youth Who Reported Being Bullied by Sex in Three 
National Surveys: 

Sex: Male; 
YRBS 2009: 18.7; 
NCVS SCS 2009: 26.6; 
HBSC 2005/2006: 28.0[A]. 

Sex: Female; 
YRBS 2009: 21.2; 
NCVS SCS 2009: 29.5; 
HBSC 2005/2006: 26.1. 

Source: GAO analysis of YRBS 2009, NCVS SCS 2009, HBSC 2005/2006. 

[A] This estimate has a 95 percent confidence interval of within plus 
or minus 2.4 percentage points. 

[End of table] 

White youth reported being bullied at higher percentages than African-
American youth in two of the three surveys (YRBS and HBSC), while the 
other survey found no difference. In two of the three surveys (YRBS 
and HBSC), differences between the overall prevalence for white 
compared with Hispanic youth and for African-American youth compared 
with Hispanic youth were not statistically significant.[Footnote 48] 
In the other survey, Hispanics reported a lower percentage of bullying 
than whites or African-Americans. Asian-American youths reported a 
lower percentage of bullying in the one survey (NCVS) that captured 
information for that demographic group. See table 7. 

Table 7: Estimates of Youth Who Reported Being Bullied by Race/ 
Ethnicity in Three National Surveys: 

Race/ethnicity: White non-Hispanic; 
YRBS 2009: 21.6; 
NCVS SCS 2009: 29.3[A]; 
HBSC 2005/2006: 28.6[B,C]. 

Race/ethnicity: Black non-Hispanic; 
YRBS 2009: 13.7; 
NCVS SCS 2009: 29.1[A,D]; 
HBSC 2005/2006: 22.7[B,C]. 

Race/ethnicity: Hispanic; 
YRBS 2009: 18.5; 
NCVS SCS 2009: 25.5[A,D]; 
HBSC 2005/2006: 26.4[B,C]. 

Race/ethnicity: Asian, not Hispanic or Latino; 
YRBS 2009: not applicable[E]; 
NCVS SCS 2009: 17.3[D]; 
HBSC 2005/2006: not applicable[E]. 

Race/ethnicity: Other; 
YRBS 2009: not applicable[E]; 
NCVS SCS 2009: 26.7[D]; 
HBSC 2005/2006: 28.6[C]. 

Source: GAO analysis of YRBS 2009, NCVS SCS 2009, HBSC 2005/2006. 

[A] In the SCS, these three racial or ethnic groups were labeled as 
(1) white, not Hispanic or Latino; (2) black, not Hispanic or Latino; 
and (3) Hispanic or Latino, respectively. 

[B] In the HBSC, these three racial or ethnic groups were labeled as 
(1) Caucasian, (2) African-American, and (3) Hispanic, respectively. 

[C] These estimates have 95 percent confidence intervals of within 
plus or minus 4.7 percentage points. 

[D] These estimates have 95 percent confidence intervals of within 
plus or minus 9.0 percentage points. 

[E] Data were not collected in this survey in this category. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Selected Data on National Prevalence of Certain Types of 
Bullying Behaviors: 

This appendix provides estimates of the prevalence of being bullied 
for certain types of bullying behaviors. Three of the four federal 
surveys that we reviewed provide estimates of the prevalence of being 
bullied for certain types of behaviors, and the results of each are 
shown separately. Unless otherwise noted, all estimates in these 
tables have 95 percent confidence intervals of within plus or minus 
2.1 percentage points. 

These surveys also found that boys may be subject to somewhat 
different types of bullying than girls. For example, estimates from 
SCS and HBSC showed that a higher percentage of boys were bullied 
physically than girls, while girls were more commonly bullied than 
boys with rumors or social exclusion, which are examples of relational 
bullying, or bullying using interpersonal relationships. 

Table 8: NCVS SCS 2009: Estimates of Youth Who Reported Being Bullied 
for Certain Types of Bullying Behaviors: 

Type of bullying: Overall prevalence of being bullied[A]; 
Estimate for this school year: 28.0%. 

Type of bullying: Made fun of, called names, or insulted; 
Estimate for this school year: 18.8%. 

Type of bullying: Spread rumors; 
Estimate for this school year: 16.5%. 

Type of bullying: Pushed, shoved, tripped, or spit on; 
Estimate for this school year: 9.0%. 

Type of bullying: Cyberbullied; 
Estimate for this school year: 6.0%. 

Type of bullying: Threatened with harm; 
Estimate for this school year: 5.7%. 

Type of bullying: Excluded from activities on purpose; 
Estimate for this school year: 4.7%. 

Type of bullying: Tried to make do things they did not want to do; 
Estimate for this school year: 3.6%. 

Type of bullying: Property destroyed on purpose; 
Estimate for this school year: 3.3%. 

Source: GAO analysis of NCVS SCS 2009. 

[A] A separate question on this survey asks about being cyberbullied. 
This estimate of overall prevalence therefore does not include being 
cyberbullied. 

[End of table] 

Table 9: HBSC 2005/2006: Estimates of Youth Who Reported Being Bullied 
for Certain Types of Bullying Behaviors: 

Type of bullying: Overall prevalence of being bullied[A]; 
Estimate for the past couple of months: 27.0%. 

Type of bullying: Spreading rumor: told lies or spread false rumors; 
Estimate for the past couple of months: 31.9%. 

Type of bullying: Called mean names, was made fun of, or teased in a 
hurtful way; 
Estimate for the past couple of months: 31.5%. 

Type of bullying: Social isolation: excluded from a group of friends 
or was ignored; 
Estimate for the past couple of months: 25.6%. 

Type of bullying: Bullied with mean names and comments about race or 
color; 
Estimate for the past couple of months: 13.1%. 

Type of bullying: Hit, kicked, pushed, shoved around, or locked 
indoors; 
Estimate for the past couple of months: 12.8%. 

Type of bullying: Bullied with mean names and comments about religion; 
Estimate for the past couple of months: 8.5%. 

Type of bullying: Bullied using a computer or e-mail messages or 
pictures; 
Estimate for the past couple of months: 8.1%. 

Type of bullying: Bullied using a cell phone; 
Estimate for the past couple of months: 5.7%. 

Source: GAO analysis of HBSC 2005/2006. 

[A] As separate HBSC survey questions ask about the overall prevalence 
and the prevalence of specific types of bullying behaviors, it is 
possible for the overall prevalence to appear less than the prevalence 
for certain types of bullying behaviors. According to one researcher 
at NIH involved in the HBSC, respondents may be more inclined to 
respond affirmatively to a specific type of behavior rather than an 
overall, or general, question on bullying. 

[End of table] 

Table 10: NatSCEV 2008: Estimates of Youth Who Reported Being Bullied 
for Certain Types of Bullying Behaviors: 

Type of bullying: Overall prevalence of being bullied; 
Estimate for the past year: N/A. 

Type of bullying: Teasing or emotional bullying; 
Estimate for the past year: 19.7%. 

Type of bullying: Physical bullying or intimidation; 
Estimate for the past year: 13.2%. 

Type of bullying: Internet harassment; 
Estimate for the past year: 1.8%. 

Source: GAO analysis of NatSCEV 2008. 

Note: For NatSCEV, youth aged 10 and older were interviewed, while 
adult caregivers of youth under 10 were interviewed. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Coordination Practices of Key Interdepartmental Federal 
Efforts on Bullying: 

In table 11 are selected coordination practices that we have 
previously found help to enhance and sustain coordination across 
federal agencies, as well as the ways that key interdepartmental 
activities against bullying reflect those coordination practices. 

Table 11: Practices for Key Coordinated Federal Efforts Specifically 
on Bullying: 

Selected coordination practices: Agree on roles and responsibilities; 
Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention Steering Committee: Education 
through its Office of Safe and Healthy Students has agreed to serve as 
chair. HHS through HRSA served as co-chair until October 2011.[A] On 
the one hand, these agencies have not developed a formal document that 
sets their overall roles and responsibilities, given the fluid nature 
and rapid evolution of the committee and its external environment. On 
the other hand, despite the committee's evolving organization, 
agencies can and in some cases have formally agreed on roles and 
responsibilities for particular projects. For example, the project to 
develop a uniform definition of bullying for research purposes 
features an interagency agreement between Education and CDC signed in 
2011; 
Central website (stopbullying.gov): The roles and responsibilities of 
federal agencies are outlined in a governance document that serves as 
the framework for coordination across agencies and departments. For 
example, the participating federal agencies serve on the two governing 
bodies of the website: (1) the editorial board, which reviews and 
develops content for the website, and (2) the steering committee, 
which makes managerial decisions for higher-level planning and 
resources[B]. HHS's lead agency, the Office of the Assistant Secretary 
for Public Affairs, executed agreements in summer 2011 with Education, 
HHS's Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, 
HRSA, and SAMHSA that provide funding to maintain and operate the 
website; 
Stop Bullying Now! campaign: HRSA has collaborated and received 
funding from Education from the start of the campaign until fiscal 
year 2010. Unlike in prior years, in fiscal year 2011, Education and 
HRSA were unable to execute an interagency agreement because of time 
constraints. Instead, HHS's SAMHSA provided funding to reprint and 
disseminate informational materials for the campaign. 

Selected coordination practices: Establish compatible policies, 
procedures, and other means to operate across agency boundaries, 
including frequent communication; 
Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention Steering Committee: Education 
and CDC signed an interagency agreement for the project on the uniform 
definition of bullying for research purposes. The committee so far has 
used regular phone meetings, along with its conferences, to share 
information among federal agencies and potentially with the public. 
According to Education officials, monthly or even biweekly phone 
meetings as well as correspondence by e-mail have facilitated 
preparations for the three conferences in 2010 and 2011. Such internal 
communication, including electronic Listservs, has also promoted 
sharing information among federal agencies on upcoming opportunities 
that may be relevant to bullying, such as upcoming webinars, grant 
announcements, or recent research publications; 
Central website (stopbullying.gov): Four agreements provide for the 
maintenance and operation of the website. The governing bodies have so 
far operated with frequent communication. According to HHS officials, 
the editorial board meets approximately every 2 to 4 weeks and 
corresponds by e-mail, and the steering committee meets quarterly and 
as needed; 
Stop Bullying Now! campaign: An agreement between HRSA and Education 
(more recently SAMHSA) has provided for the development, publication, 
and dissemination of informational materials of the campaign; 
HRSA has communicated across six federal departments. The campaign 
also relies on its more than 140 partner organizations to help 
disseminate materials, such as chapters of the American Academy of 
Pediatrics or Boys and Girls Clubs of America. One way that these 
government and nongovernment partners may communicate and provide 
input to HRSA's communications contractor is seven external work 
groups that have provided expertise and reviewed materials, especially 
when the campaign was designed. 

Selected coordination practices: Develop mechanisms to monitor, 
evaluate, and report results; 
Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention Steering Committee: The 
committee as a whole does not have formal mechanisms to monitor 
results; 
Specific projects within the committee, such as the project of the 
research subcommittee on the uniform definition of bullying, may have 
formal time frames and deliverable products. This project may help 
other efforts to monitor the extent of bullying and evaluate programs. 
Besides the uniform definition, another way that the committee and its 
research subcommittee are helping others to monitor and evaluate 
antibullying efforts is by sharing information on evaluation research. 
Because of funding constraints and stipulations, the research 
subcommittee has mainly focused its activities about evaluation 
research on participating in local conferences, understanding existing 
publications, and obtaining information from researchers, including 
any suggestions for additional research; 
Central website (stopbullying.gov): HHS and Education officials said 
they monitor metrics about the use of the website, such as the number 
of visits. From its launch in March 2011 to the end of December 2011, 
the website received more than 1.1 million visits, according to HHS 
data. HHS officials said that they plan to add a qualitative feature 
for feedback from users and conduct additional usability testing of 
the website as it continues to evolve in its second phase; 
Stop Bullying Now! campaign: HRSA and its communications contractor 
track the distribution of the campaign's materials. According to data 
from HRSA as of August 2011, recipients of the materials in mass 
mailings included, among others, all 66,000 public elementary and 
middle schools in the country, 17,000 libraries, relevant state health 
and education agencies, schools on military bases worldwide, and 
offices serving American Indian youth. Nongovernment and government 
partners distributed roughly 92,000 additional materials from July 
2007 to August 2011 through a variety of organizations. HRSA has 
received feedback on the materials from its government and 
nongovernment partners through the seven implementation working groups 
through e-mail and occasional phone outreach. Also, in structured 
discussions held with partner organizations three times since 2003, 
many organizations reported using the campaign's materials to raise 
awareness about the problem of bullying. HRSA officials said that the 
campaign's impact has not been formally evaluated because of funding 
constraints such that funding for an evaluation could divert resources 
from delivery of the campaign. 

Source: GAO analysis of information from Education, HHS, and Justice 
officials. 

[A] Prior to September 2011, the Office of Safe and Healthy Students 
within the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education was a separate 
office, the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. The organizational 
change followed funding reductions to the separate Office of Safe and 
Drug-Free Schools, including reductions to its grant programs. 

[B] The first phase of www.stopbullying.gov relied on three governing 
bodies, which the governance document reflects. HHS officials said 
that, for the second phase, federal officials decided to eliminate one 
of the three bodies to streamline the management of the website. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Additional Federal Programs and Services Are Available to 
Combat Bullying: 

In addition to supporting antibullying activities, the Departments of 
Education, HHS, and Justice support more broadly focused services and 
programs that may be used for bullying prevention. Generally, bullying 
prevention represents one of many allowable activities within these 
services and programs. Within each agency, officials identified a 
range of services and programs, including technical assistance, 
funding opportunities, information sharing, and research, that may 
include bullying prevention. For example, HHS provides funding for the 
Children's Safety Network (CSN), a national resource center for the 
prevention of childhood injuries and violence. See table 12. 

Table 12: Selected Services and Programs That Can Be Used to Support 
Bullying Prevention: 

HHS: 

Program or service: 15+ Make Time to Listen-Take Time to Talk; 
Description: An initiative to promote healthy child development and to 
prevent youth and school-based violence. 

Program or service: Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative[A]; 
Description: Grants support school districts in the development of 
communitywide approaches to creating safe and drug-free schools and 
promoting healthy childhood development. 

Program or service: Children's Safety Network; 
Description: A national resource center for the prevention of 
childhood injuries and violence that, among other things, provides 
technical assistance on injury prevention planning, promotes child and 
adolescent health and safety, and disseminates injury prevention 
research. 

Program or service: Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant; 
Description: Provides funds to all 50 states, the District of 
Columbia, and 6 territories to promote the health of mothers and 
children. 

Education: 

Program or service: Safe and Supportive Schools grants; 
Description: Grants to states to measure school safety and to help 
intervene in those schools with the greatest safety needs. 

Program or service: Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support 
Technical Assistance Center; 
Description: A national technical assistance center focused on 
improving student behavior to foster academic instruction. 

Justice: 

Program or service: National Training and Technical Assistance Center; 
Description: Provides technical assistance to individuals in the 
juvenile justice field on a range of topics, including webinars on 
bullying intervention and civil rights. 

Program or service: Secure Our Schools grants; 
Description: Provides funding to state, local, or tribal governments 
to assist with the development of school safety resources. 

Program or service: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 
Prevention (OJJDP) bulletins; 
Description: Describes statistics, research, training, technical 
assistance, and programs funded through OJJDP grants and contracts, 
and includes the Bullying in School series. 

Source: Agency program information. 

Note: Agency officials reported that it would be difficult to obtain 
specific spending information on bullying for these services and 
programs. Furthermore, it could be misleading to include total service 
or program amounts because it would misrepresent funding for bullying 
activities. 

[A] The Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative (SS/HS) is a 
collaborative program supported by three federal agencies--HHS, 
Education, and Justice. 

[End of table] 

While these programs and services generally support a broader range of 
activities than just bullying, several of them have been used to 
directly address bullying. For example, several grantees have used 
Safe Schools/Healthy Students funding to implement bullying prevention 
programs. Also, in fiscal year 2010, 2 of the 11 SEAs awarded Safe and 
Supportive Schools grants devoted resources to bullying prevention. 
While these services and programs do not always exclusively focus on 
bullying prevention, officials across the three federal agencies--
Education, HHS, and Justice--agreed that their emphasis on violence 
reduction and healthy behaviors can help prevent and reduce bullying 
behavior, even if the funds are not used specifically to address 
bullying. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Education: 

United States Department of Education: 
Washington, DC 20202: 

May 11, 2012: 

Ms. Linda M. Calbom: 
Western Regional Director: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Calbom: 

Thank you for giving the U.S. Department of Education (Department) the 
opportunity to review the U.S. Government Accountability Office's 
(GAO's) draft report entitled "School Bullying: Extent of Legal 
Protections for Vulnerable Groups Needs to Be More Fully Assessed" 
(GA0-12-349). The draft report assesses four issues: 1) the prevalence
of school bullying and its effects on victims; 2) approaches taken by 
states and local school districts to combat bullying; 3) federal and 
state legal options available when bullying leads to allegations of 
discrimination; and 4) coordination efforts by federal agencies to 
combat bullying. The Department is pleased to provide the following 
response to GAO's draft report. 

Bullying of any student is unacceptable. It is damaging to that 
student's ability to benefit from educational opportunities, and can 
poison the educational environment where the bullying occurs. 
Preventing bullying and protecting the safety of all students are 
priorities of the Department. The Department serves as a leader in the 
federal government's anti-bullying efforts, which are coordinated 
through the Federal Partners in Bullying Prevention Steering 
Committee. As the draft report notes, the Department commissioned an 
analysis of state bullying laws, and, as part of a federal-agency 
partnership, has made the results of that analysis available on an 
interagency Web site aimed to provide information about bullying, 
[hyperlink, www.stopbullyine.gov]. The Department serves as the lead 
agency on maintaining the content of that Web site. Along with the
other Federal Partners, we have coordinated two national bullying 
prevention summits, which explored a variety of topics related to 
bullying and sought to raise awareness about this issue. 

The Department has published extensive policy guidance on issues 
related to bullying and violence in schools.[Footnote 1] In addition, 
the Department operates several other initiatives aimed at ensuring 
school safety more generally. In 2010, for example, the Department 
launched two programs to provide states and school districts with 
financial assistance to reduce inter-student violence. Under the 
competitive Safe and Supportive Schools program, the Office of Safe 
and Drug-Free Schools (the program is now housed in the Office of 
Elementary and Secondary Education) awarded $38 million to 11 states 
to develop measurement systems for assessing school safety, building 
by building, and to implement programs in the schools with the 
greatest need for reform. The measurement systems will use survey data 
from students, staff, and parents to improve educational agencies' 
ability to assess and monitor the prevalence of inter-student violence 
and bullying. The Department's Office of Innovation and Improvement 
launched the Promise Neighborhoods Initiative, based on the experience 
of programs like the Harlem Children's Zone, to help communities plan 
and implement services that will support students from the cradle to 
college and career, improving academic performance, student health, 
and school safety. 

In addition, the Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has 
jurisdiction to investigate discrimination, including discriminatory 
harassment, on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or 
disability. Although people often use the terms "bullying" and 
"harassment" interchangeably, all "bullying" does not necessarily rise 
to the level of discriminatory harassment, which requires that 
unwelcome conduct based on race, color, national origin, sex, or 
disability be sufficiently serious that it interferes with or limits a 
student's ability to participate in or benefit from the school's 
educational program.[Footnote 2] OCR has issued many guidance 
documents on schools' obligations to respond to discriminatory 
harassment and violence.[Footnote 3] 

The increasing number of complaints that OCR has received indicates 
that harassment continues to be a problem for many students. In fiscal 
year (FY) 2010, OCR received 837 complaints about harassment at the 
elementary, secondary, or postsecondary level. After OCR issued 
guidance in October of 2010 clarifying that a school may be obligated 
to respond to bullying that rises to the level of discriminatory 
harassment under federal civil rights law, the number rose 34 percent 
to 1,120 complaints in FY 2011. 

OCR also combats harassment in school districts and postsecondary 
institutions through compliance reviews and directed inquiries that 
address systemic problems and seek systemic solutions. Since FY 2009, 
OCR has initiated 14 of these proactive investigations on all forms of 
harassment covered by the laws enforced by OCR. For example, OCR and 
DOJ conducted a joint investigation of the Anoka-Hennepin School 
District to determine whether students in that district were subjected 
to peer-on-peer harassment based on non-conformance with sex 
stereotypes in violation of Title IX. As a result of the 
investigation, the United States joined the lawsuit filed by student 
plaintiffs against Anoka-Hennepin School District alleging peer-on-
peer harassment on the basis of sex. On March 5, 2012, the school 
district entered into a Consent Decree in the U.S. District Court for 
the District of Minnesota with private plaintiffs and the United 
States. Pursuant to the Consent Decree, the District has agreed to 
take all reasonable steps to prevent and eliminate sex-based 
harassment, and to respond promptly and appropriately to all reports 
of harassment. 

Of course, many other cases of harassment are never reported to OCR, 
so local districts and schools, colleges, and universities must be the 
first line of defense against harassment. To this end, the 
implementing regulations of many of the federal civil rights laws 
require adoption and publication of grievance procedures that provide 
for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleging 
discrimination, including harassment, based on certain 
characteristics.[Footnote 4] Designation of a responsible employee to 
coordinate civil rights compliance, including investigation of 
complaints, is also required.[Footnote 5] 

While the Department strives to protect all students from bullying and 
harassment, we appreciate GAO's focus on groups of students who may be 
especially vulnerable to bullying or harassment. Because students with 
disabilities — particularly those with intellectual or behavioral 
disabilities — are one such group, we were pleased that the draft 
report discussed protections available under Section 504 and Title IL 
We also appreciate the draft report's discussion of preventive 
strategies, including Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports 
(PBIS), Second Step, and Rachel's Challenge. PBIS is a special-
education initiative that has school-wide applicability beyond its 
application to students with disabilities, and the Department's Office 
of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services has established the 
Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports to give 
schools capacity-building information and technical assistance for 
identifying, adapting, and sustaining effective school-wide 
disciplinary practices. 

In addition to the statutes identified in Table 3 ("Relevant Federal 
Civil Rights Laws, Protected Classes, and Agency Enforcement 
Authority") on page 18 of the draft report, federal protection for 
students with disabilities may also be available under the federal
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), As noted in a 2000 
guidance document (see footnote 3(g), supra), failing to prevent or 
address the effects of bullying may violate the IDEA if it diminishes 
the ability of students with disabilities to receive a free 
appropriate public education (FAPE). A student (or his or her parents) 
may address this denial of FAPE through IDEA's complaint or due 
process provisions. Thus, IDEA provides an important avenue for 
addressing bullying that the draft report does not address. 

The GAO draft report made four recommendations to which we respond in 
turn. 

Recommendation: To more comprehensively address the information needs 
of policymakers and others related to bullying, we recommend the 
Secretary of Education compile information about state civil rights 
laws and procedures, as they pertain to bullying. 

The Department shares GAO's interest in disseminating information 
about the protections available to students who are victims of 
bullying. The Department recognized that, because of the prevalence of 
bullying and the harmful effect it has on our nation's students, a 
single comprehensive resource on all state laws that specifically 
address "bullying" and related terms might be helpful to policymakers, 
students, parents, and educators. In an effort to address this need, 
as GAO's draft report notes, the Department commissioned a report 
entitled "Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies." The report 
compiled all state laws enacted through April 30, 2011, that address
"bullying," regardless of how this term is defined by each state. That 
report, released in December 2011, is available to the public on the 
Department's Web site at 
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/bulling/state-bullying-laws/state-
bullying-laws.pdf]. Additionally, updated information on these laws is 
available on an interactive map at [hyperlink, 
http://www.stopbullying.gov/laws/index.html]. The Department intends 
to continue updating the Web site's summary of state bullying laws. 

GAO recommends that the Department undertake a survey of state civil 
rights laws and procedures, as they pertain to bullying, finding that, 
by not incorporating information about state civil rights laws and 
procedures in bullying prevention efforts, federal agencies are 
excluding a potentially important resource for parents, student, and 
others. For the reasons outlined below, the Department disagrees with 
this recommendation. 

The Department, and OCR in particular, and the U.S, Department of 
Justice are charged with enforcing federal civil rights laws in the 
education context. The Department has no jurisdiction, nor the 
appropriate expertise, to interpret and advise on state civil rights 
laws. The Department's previous analysis of state bullying laws was 
limited to compiling a list of statutes or regulations and identifying 
key components of those statutes and regulations that explicitly made 
mention of student harassment, bullying, or cyberbullying. These laws 
predominately cover specific requirements that schools and local 
educational agencies have in developing anti-bullying policies and 
procedures, and, with rare exception, do not give specific legal 
recourse to victims of bullying. This required very little legal 
interpretation by the Department or its contractor. By contrast, it is 
often unclear from the text of state civil rights statutes whether 
they apply in the school context at all, much less to the peer-to-peer 
behavior that is the predominant form of bullying. Nor are the 
relevant procedures for enforcement always clear from the text of 
statutes and regulations. Thus, carrying out the recommended survey 
would require the Department to offer its own interpretations to the 
public of state civil rights laws and related state judicial 
decisions, which is not consistent with the Department's function, and 
which could result in providing interpretations that turn out to be 
inaccurate. 

Furthermore, such information would only be useful if it were kept 
current. Keeping the information current for all 50 States (plus the 
District of Columbia and other relevant political bodies) would 
require continually monitoring state law, which would require not only 
tracking and interpreting statutory amendments, regulations, and sub-
regulatory guidance, but also would require a continual review of 
state judicial decisions. This level of monitoring could often be more 
essential here, as opposed to the targeted state bullying laws, 
because of the potential breadth and more general nature of state 
civil rights laws. Undergoing a time-intensive and costly survey and 
review of state civil rights laws, in an area in which it has no 
jurisdiction, would not he an appropriate use of the Department's 
limited resources. The appropriate interpretation of state civil 
rights laws, regulations, or procedures in specific contexts is more 
appropriately left to states, which can provide the most accurate and 
authoritative guidance on their own laws. 

Recommendation: In order to better ensure that individuals are all of 
their options to seek legal redress, especially in cases where their 
complaints to Education are nor pursued due to a lack of jurisdiction, 
we recommend that the Secretary of Education develop procedures to 
routinely inform individuals who file complaints of discrimination 
stemming from bullying about the potential availability of legal 
options under their state's discrimination laws. 

The Department understands GAO's concern that individuals might not be 
aware of their options to seek legal redress at the state level. The 
Department believes, however, that state or local agencies are better 
positioned to provide guidance regarding rights and procedures for 
seeking redress under state or local laws. To prevent any 
misunderstanding about the meaning of the Department's dismissal of a 
complaint, however, OCR is considering whether to develop procedures 
that would inform complainants whose complaints are dismissed for lack 
of jurisdiction that they may have possible recourse under state or 
local laws. 

Recommendation: To address gaps in knowledge about bullying and 
discrimination, we recommend that the Secretaries of Education and HI-
IS, and the Attorney General work together to develop information in 
their studies of youths' health and safety issues on the extent to 
which youth in various vulnerable demographic groups are bullied. 

The Department, through its Institute of Education Sciences and the 
National Center for Education Statistics in particular, is willing to 
work with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and DOJ to 
explore the possibility of adding additional demographic information 
(such as information on sexual orientation, gender identity, 
disability status, and religion) to the national data collections that 
include measures of bullying victimization. We understand that HHS 
will be including sexual orientation items in its 2013 National Health 
Interview Survey, and that HI-IS has experience with such items on the 
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and the National
Survey of Family Growth. The Department looks forward to working 
closely with HHS on this issue, as HHS has extensively studied the 
measurement issues. 

The School Crime Supplement to the National Victimization Survey is 
another important source of information on student safety issues. The 
Department has historically funded the Supplement with funds 
appropriated for Safe and Drug-Free Schools National Programs. In FY 
2012, because of a severe cut in the appropriation for Safe and Drug
Free Schools, the Department is using National Center for Education 
Statistics funding to support the Supplement. For future years, it is 
uncertain that the Department will be able to continue funding this 
data collection. 

Recommendation: To aid policy makers and program administrators at the 
federal and state levels in understanding more comprehensively what is 
being done to address bullying and discrimination, we recommend that 
the Secretaries of Education and HIIS and the Attorney General use 
information on federal and state bullying and civil rights laws, as 
well as demographic information from studies of youth health and 
safety issues, to assess the extent to which protections exist for 
various demographic groups likely to be affected Such an assessment 
should be designed to assess adequacy of coverage and would help 
identify opportunities to target resources and efforts at areas of 
potential need. 

The Department collects demographic information on students who allege 
bullying and discriminatory harassment in several ways. First, with 
respect to discriminatory harassment, OCR collects certain relevant 
demographic information when it opens a complaint for investigation. 
For instance, rather than simply coding a case as discrimination on 
the basis of race, OCR specifies the race that was the basis for the 
complaint if that information is available. Thus, for instance, OCR 
can compare the prevalence of complaints filed alleging discriminatory 
harassment against Asian or Pacific Islander students to complaints 
filed alleging discriminatory harassment against Hispanic students. 
This allows OCR to review data for patterns that may be a cause for 
concern, and to follow up with policy guidance, enforcement action or 
technical assistance or outreach. 

Second, OCR began collecting information about the prevalence of 
harassment and bullying in its Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) for 
the 2009-10 school year, and will continue to do so in subsequent 
collections.[Footnote 6] The survey asks districts to report the 
number of allegations of harassment and bullying based on sex, race, 
color, national origin, or disability; the number of students reported 
to have been bullied or harassed on these bases; and the number of 
students disciplined for this type of harassment or bullying. The 
collection requests that the latter two categories of data be 
disaggregated by sex, race/ethnicity, and Section 504, IDEA, and 
limited English proficient status. Approximately 7,000 districts, 
which included over 72,000 schools representing 85 percent of the 
students in our nation's schools, responded to the survey. 

Third, the interactive map on StopBullying.gov provides information on 
the protected classes, if any, enumerated in each state's bullying law. 

Finally, in the second part of the report that the Department has 
commissioned — a series of case studies focusing on how state bullying 
laws and their legislative requirements are implemented by school 
districts and schools — we ask respondents (including district 
representatives, school administrators, teachers, special education 
teachers, physical education teachers, school counselors, 
transportation personnel, school resource officers (SROs), and yard 
supervisors) for their perception of how common it is for students to 
be bullied based on a variety of characteristics, including: gender; 
physical, emotional, or developmental disability; race or ethnicity; 
and sexual orientation. We also ask respondents: 1) if there are 
groups of students that are more vulnerable to bullying; and
2) if their schools take any specific steps to safeguard groups or 
classes of students who are frequent targets of bullying and whether 
there are any special procedures for communicating with families about 
bullying that involves a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender 
student who may not be "out" to his or her family. We ask school 
administrators and SROs about the decision process for referring a 
bullying incident to law enforcement. From these data, and additional 
data from questions on topics such as communication about bullying 
policies, training for school personnel, reporting and monitoring, and 
investigations, the Department expects to begin to develop a better 
understanding of what schools are doing to address bullying of 
specific, vulnerable groups. 

Notwithstanding the Department's efforts in this area, it is clear 
that bullying continues to be a problem that threatens our nation's 
students, and that certain categories of students are not receiving 
adequate legal protection. The Department supports legislative efforts 
to address this problem, specifically the Student Non-Discrimination 
Act introduced by Senator Franken and Congressman Polis and the Safe 
Schools Improvement Act introduced by Senator Casey and Congresswoman 
Sanchez. 

In addition to this response letter, we have enclosed a list of 
technical comments and corrections. We remain available to assist you 
and your staff in clarifying any issues in the draft report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Russlynn Ali: 
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights: 
Office for Civil Rights: 

Signed by: 

Michael Yudin: 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Policy and Strategic Initiatives: 
Delegated Authority to Perform the Functions and Duties of the
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII Footnotes: 

[1] For instance, the Department has issued the following reports and 
guidance related to school safety: 
a. Anti-Bullying Policies: Examples of Provisions in State Laws 
(2010): [hyperlink, 
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/secletter/11215.html]. 
b. Reducing Behavior Problems in the Elementary School Classroom 
(2008): [hyperlink, 
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/pracciceguides/behavior_pg_092308.pdf]. 
c. Unsafe School Choice Option, Non-Regulatory Guidance. (February 
2004): [hyperlink, 
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/unsafeschoolchoice.pdf]. 
d. Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act, State Grants, Non-
Regulatory Draft Guidance for State and Local Implementation of 
Programs (January 2004): [hyperlink, 
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/dvpformula/guidance.doc]. 
e. Guidance Concerning State and Local Responsibilities Under the Gun-
Free Schools Act (2004): [hyperlink, 
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/dvpformula/gfsafinaljan04.doc]. 
f. Threat Assessment In Schools: A Guide To Managing Threatening 
Situations And To Creating Safe School Climates (2004): [hyperlink, 
http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/threatassessmentguide.pdf]. 
g. The Final Report And Findings Of The Safe School Initiative: 
Implications For The Prevention Of School Attacks In the United States 
(2004): [hyperlink, 
http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf]. 

[2] OCR enforces Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of 
the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation 
Act of 1973 (Section 504)— which apply to all public and private 
educational programs (whether elementary, secondary, or postsecondary) 
that receive federal financial assistance — and shares enforcement 
with the Department of Justice (DOJ) of Title II of the Americans with 
Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), which applies to all public 
entities, including public schools. 

[3] For instance, OCR has issued the following guidance related to 
discrimination, harassment, and violence:
a. Dear Colleague Letter: Sexual Violence (2011): [hyperlink, 
http://www2.ed.gov/about/office/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf]. 
b. Dear Colleague Letter: Harassment and Bullying (2010): [hyperlink, 
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-
201010.pdf]. 
c. Sexual Harassment: It's Not Academic (Revised 2008): [hyperlink, 
http://www,ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/ocrshpam.html]. 
d. Dear Colleague Letter: Sexual Harassment Issues (2006): [hyperlink, 
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/sexhar-2006.html]. 
e. Dear Colleague Letter: Religious Discrimination (2004): [hyperlink, 
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/religious-rights2004.html]. 
f. Sexual Harassment Guidance (Revised 2001): [hyperlink, 
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/shguide.html]. 
g. Dear Colleague Letter: Prohibited Disability Harassment (2000) 
(with the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services): 
[hyperlink, 
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/disabharassltrt.html]. 
h. Racial Incidents and Harassment Against Students (1994): 
[hyperlink, 
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/race394.html]. 

[4] 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(b); 34 C.F.R. § 104.7(b); and 34 C.F.R. § 
106.8(b). 

[5] 28 C.F.R. § 35.107(a); 34 C.F.R. § 104.7(a); and 34 C.F.R. § 
106.8(a). 

[6] The 2009-10 CRDC collection included the first of its kind school-
and district-level reporting of bullying and harassment. However, many 
districts were unable to provide complete data on students reported to 
have been bullied or harassed, students disciplined, and incidents by 
type of bullying and harassment. As a result, these data may be 
underestimated. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Department of Health and Human 
Services: 

Department of Health & Human Services: 
Office of The Secretary: 
Assistant Secretary for Legislation: 
Washington, DC 20201: 

May 11 2012: 

Linda M. Calbom: 
Western Regional Director: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 0 Street NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Calbom: 

Attached are comments on the U.S. Government Accountability Office's 
(GAO) correspondence entitled: "School Bullying: Extent of Legal 
Protections for Vulnerable Groups Needs to Be More Fully Assessed” 
(GA0-12-349). 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to review this draft 
section of the report prior to publication. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Jim R. Esquea: 
Assistant Secretary for Legislation: 

Attachment: 

[End of letter] 

General Comments Of The Department Of Health And Human Services (HHS) 
On The Government Accountability Office's (GAO) Draft Report Entitled, 
"School Bullying: Extent Of Legal Protections For Vulnerable Groups 
Needs To Be More Fully Assessed" (GAO-12-349): 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft 
report. HHS generally concurs with GAO's recommendations and 
respectfully submits the following general comments. 

We support the recommendation of a survey to include the demographics 
of vulnerable groups. HHS and CDC continue to work with states to 
enhance Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) data 
collection. Specifically, 1-11-1S and CDC would like to increase the 
number of states and large urban school districts that include 
questions about sexual identity and/or sex of sexual contacts in their 
YRBS questionnaire. 

Regarding the CDC inter-department project to develop a uniform 
definition of bullying for research purposes, HHS and CDC believe that 
nationally representative information on standardized elements (as 
appropriate for each survey system) to measure bullying will enhance 
our knowledge and ability to work collectively across HHS and other 
federal agencies to inform the development of specific interventions 
that address bullying and make school environments safer for all youth. 

In summary, HHS concurs with GAO's recommendations surrounding the 
current availability of data on vulnerable groups, the need to better 
understand the extent to which they experience bullying, and the legal 
protections available to them. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IX: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Linda M. Calbom, (206) 287-4809 or calboml@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Bryon Gordon (Assistant Director), Ramona L. Burton (Analyst-in-
Charge), Susannah Compton, Alex Galuten, Avani Locke, Ashley McCall, 
Sheila McCoy, Jean McSween, Mimi Nguyen, Karen O'Conor, Kate O'Dea, 
Michael Pahr, Rebecca Rose, Regina Santucci, Matthew Saradjian, Ronni 
Schwartz, and John Townes made significant contributions to all 
aspects of this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] For the purposes of this report, we use the term bullying to 
reflect behavior that is intended to inflict harm, repeated over time, 
and characterized by an imbalance of power between the perpetrator(s) 
and victim(s). Some sources refer to similar behavior as harassment, 
and may use the terms interchangeably. 

[2] Meta-analyses are reviews that analyze other studies and 
synthesize their findings, usually through quantitative methods. 

[3] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance 
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 
2005). 

[4] Dan Olweus, "Annotation: Bullying at School: Basic Facts and 
Effects of a School Based Intervention Program," Journal of Child 
Psychology and Psychiatry, vol. 35, no. 7 (1994). 

[5] See, for example, S. 506 and H.R. 1648, the Safe Schools 
Improvement Act of 2011; S. 540 and H.R. 1048, the Tyler Clementi 
Higher Education Anti-Harassment Act of 2011; S. 555 and H.R. 998, the 
Student Non-Discrimination Act of 2011; S. 919, the Successful, Safe, 
and Healthy Students Act of 2011; H.R. 83, the Bullying Prevention and 
Intervention Act of 2011; and H.R. 975, the Anti-Bullying and 
Harassment Act of 2011. 

[6] Throughout this report we use the terms "civil rights laws" and 
"anti-discrimination laws" interchangeably. 

[7] These estimates have a 95 percent confidence interval of within 
plus or minus 2.1 percentage points. 

[8] CDC officials have documented the differences in the four 
nationally representative surveys, including estimates of prevalence, 
definitions and questions about bullying, and other differences in how 
the four surveys measure bullying. CDC, as part of a federal 
interdepartmental coordinating committee on bullying and its 
subcommittee on research, developed an analysis for internal purposes 
comparing the four surveys. According to CDC officials, the agency 
plans to post relevant information based on this analysis on its 
public website in the next few months. They added that CDC currently 
posts and updates some prevalence information on its public website on 
a fact sheet about bullying. 

[9] The National Crime Victimization Survey, School Crime Supplement 
2009, asks youths about hate-related words directed at students based 
on their sexual orientation. 

[10] According to a 2011 publication of the National Academy of 
Sciences' Institute of Medicine, gender identity refers to one's sense 
of gender (such as male or female or another gender such as 
transgender), whether or not associated with a person's sex at birth. 

[11] GLSEN used two approaches to invite lesbian, gay, bisexual, and 
transgender (LGBT) students to participate in the survey: outreach 
through community-based groups serving LGBT youth and outreach via the 
Internet. 

[12] According to another publication by GLSEN, "gender expression" 
refers to how one appears and acts, which are socially defined as 
masculine or feminine. 

[13] Joseph G. Kosciw et al., "The 2009 National School Climate 
Survey: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender 
Youth in Our Nation's Schools." Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education 
Network: 2010. Available at [hyperlink, http://www.glsen.org/cgi-
in/iowa/all/library/record/2624.html?state=research&type=research], 
last accessed May 22, 2012. 

[14] Some of the meta-analyses may refer to peer victimization. 
According to Education and HHS officials, peer victimization has 
substantial overlap with bullying. 

[15] David S. J. Hawker and Michael J. Boulton, "Twenty Years' 
Research on Peer Victimization and Psychosocial Maladjustment: A Meta-
analytic Review of Cross-sectional Studies." Journal of Child 
Psychology and Psychiatry, vol. 41, no. 4 (2000). 

[16] Albert Reijntjes et al., "Peer Victimization and Internalizing 
Problems in Children: A Meta-analysis of Longitudinal Studies." 
International Journal of Child Abuse & Neglect, vol. 34 (2010). 

[17] Maria M. Ttofi et al., "Do the Victims of School Bullies Tend to 
Become Depressed Later in Life? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis 
of Longitudinal Studies." Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace 
Research, vol. 3, no. 2 (2011). 

[18] Gianluca Gini and Tiziana Pozzoli, "Association Between Bullying 
and Psychosomatic Problems: A Meta-analysis," Pediatrics, vol. 123, 
no. 3 (2009). 

[19] Jonathan Nakamoto and David Schwartz, "Is Peer Victimization 
Associated with Academic Achievement? A Meta-analytic Review." Social 
Development, vol. 19, no. 2 (2010). 

[20] Albert Reijntjes et al., "Prospective Linkages Between Peer 
Victimization and Externalizing Problems in Children: A Meta-
analysis," Aggressive Behavior, vol. 37, no. 3 (2011). According to 
the authors, "peer victimization can take various forms, including 
teasing, deliberate exclusion, being the target of malicious gossip, 
and experiencing physical threats or violence." 

[21] Alicia L. Fedewa and Soyeon Ahn, "The Effects of Bullying and 
Peer Victimization on Sexual-Minority and Heterosexual Youths: A 
Quantitative Meta-Analysis of the Literature," Journal of GLBT Family 
Studies, vol. 7, no. 4 (2011). 

[22] United States Secret Service and United States Department of 
Education, "The Final Report and Findings of the Safe School 
Initiative: Implications for the Prevention of School Attacks in the 
United States" (Washington, D.C.: May 2002). 

[23] For the sake of simplicity, we refer to bullying laws throughout 
this section of the report. Such references, unless specified 
otherwise, are meant to broadly encompass such state provisions, 
whether they are found in state laws or regulations, and whether the 
state uses the terms "bullying," "harassment," or both. Vermont 
officials stressed to us that much of our discussion of their bullying 
laws applies to the provisions using the term "harassment," which 
specify protected categories of students, as opposed to provisions 
using the term "bullying," which do not specify protected classes. The 
bullying laws we reviewed include the following (with the relevant 
state in parentheses): Ark. Code Ann. § 6-18-514 (Arkansas); Cal. 
Educ. Code §§ 201, 234.1, 234.3, 32261, 32270, 32280, 32281, 32282, 
48900, and 48900.4, Cal. Code Regs. tit. 5, § 4910 (California); 105 
Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/10-20.14 and 5/27-23.7 (Illinois); Iowa Code §§ 
280.12 and 280.28 (Iowa); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71, §§ 37H and 37O 
(Massachusetts); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 22-2-21, N.M. Admin. Code tit. 6, 
§§ 6.12.7.7 and 6.12.7.8 (New Mexico); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 16, §§ 11, 
14, 164, 165, 565, and 1161a (Vermont); Va. Code Ann. § 22.1-279.6 
(Virginia). 

[24] While New Mexico's law does not explicitly include gender 
identity, it does include sexual orientation, and according to a state 
official, these concepts were intended to be closely aligned. 

[25] Iowa Code § 280.28(2)(b). 

[26] Model policies may be used by local school districts as a guide 
in developing their policies, and may include procedures for reporting 
and investigating bullying behavior. While not required to do so by 
law, SEAs in Iowa and New Mexico also make model bullying policies 
available to school districts. 

[27] Massachusetts and Vermont officials reported that they also 
review district policies, although not required by law to do so. Iowa 
officials review district policies as part of the state's school 
accreditation process. New Mexico officials checked to ensure that 
school districts had policies. 

[28] More broadly, Education's review of state bullying laws found 
that 39 states require school districts' policies to contain clear 
prohibitions against bullying. 

[29] These states are Arkansas, California, New Mexico, and Vermont. 

[30] PBIS is used by educators to improve overall school environments. 
PBIS' focus on improving behavior, teaching social skills, and 
supporting academic achievement can help reduce bullying behavior. 

[31] 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000c, 2000c-6. 

[32] Persons in protected classes who have been bullied or harassed 
and believe they are victims of discrimination may be able to file a 
complaint with Education or Justice. According to Education officials, 
their department investigates all complaints it receives for which it 
has jurisdiction. Justice officials stated that because they have far 
fewer staff than Education, they must use their available resources in 
a targeted way. According to Justice officials, the department is not 
statutorily required to investigate every complaint and thus evaluates 
complaints they receive to identify those that involve pressing 
matters or novel legal questions requiring government involvement. 
When either an Education or Justice investigation determines that 
civil rights violations have occurred, they first try to work with the 
institution to develop a voluntary resolution--Education through 
resolution agreements and Justice through negotiated settlements. When 
Justice enters into a settlement agreement, it can do so in 
conjunction with or following the filing of a complaint in federal 
court, or the settlement can be entered into out of court. Resolution 
agreements and settlements may require that, among other things, 
school districts revise their policies and publicize them to schools 
and communities, conduct training of staff and students, and/or 
collect and report data. In instances where resolution agreements and 
settlements are not reached or complaints are not otherwise resolved, 
Justice could engage in litigation in federal court. According to 
Education officials, since they have a high level of voluntary 
compliance, they generally do not need to refer complaints to Justice 
for litigation. As an alternative to initiating litigation, Justice 
may also intervene in a private lawsuit or file amicus briefs on 
behalf of the United States. 

[33] According to Justice officials, all students, including LGBT 
students, are protected from gender-based discrimination, including 
discrimination based on gender stereotypes. 

[34] 109 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (2000). 

[35] Id. at 1090. 

[36] Id. at 1092. 

[37] According to OCR's case processing manual, a complaint must be 
filed within 180 calendar days of the date of the alleged 
discrimination, unless the time for filing is extended by Education's 
Office for Civil Rights for good cause shown under certain 
circumstances. 

[38] The state civil rights laws we reviewed include the following 
(with the relevant state in parentheses): Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-123-101 
through 16-123-108 (Arkansas); Cal. Educ. Code §§ 200 et seq., 210 et 
seq., 220 et seq., and 260 et seq. (California); 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. 
5/5-102, 5/5A-102, and 5/1-103 (Illinois); Iowa Code § 216.9 (Iowa); 
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 76, § 5, ch. 71B, § 2 (Massachusetts); N.M. Stat. 
Ann. § 28-1-1 et seq. (New Mexico); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9, §§ 4500-
4507 (Vermont); Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-3900 et seq. (Virginia). In some 
of the states these laws apply only in the education context, while in 
others they apply more broadly. We only analyzed these laws in the 
education context, and make no assessment of how they might apply in 
other areas. 

[39] The six states are California, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New 
Mexico, and Vermont. 

[40] The five states are California, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico, and 
Vermont. In addition, Massachusetts recently passed a law prohibiting 
discrimination based on gender identity, and that law will take effect 
in July 2012. 

[41] Cal. Ed. Code §§ 210 et seq., 220. 

[42] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance 
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 
2005). 

[43] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and 
Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. Analysis of 
State Bullying Laws and Policies (Washington, D.C.: 2011). 

[44] State court decisions were beyond the scope of our review, so we 
did not review such decisions. 

[45] Officials from the state of Virginia declined to speak with us 
about this component of our review. 

[46] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance 
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 
2005). 

[47] As we have previously reported in [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15], we recognize that there is a 
wide range of situations and circumstances in which agencies work 
together and that not all practices may be necessary or be as relevant 
for particular coordinated efforts. For example, during the course of 
our audit work, we determined that certain other practices that may 
promote coordination were not as applicable in this particular 
context, given competing priorities of departments or the new nature 
of the coordination. 

[48] We tested for differences using a significance level of 0.05. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “E-
mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, DC 20548.