International Journal of Bullying Prevention

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42380-019-00055-1

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

School District Anti-Bullying Policies: a State-Wide Content Analysis

Jaimie Stickl Haugen 1 & Claudia C. Sutter 1 & Jessica L. Tinstman Jones 1 & Laurie O. Campbell 1

# Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Abstract
Although all states in the United States require school districts to adopt anti-bullying policies, relatively little research explores
the content of bullying policies. A content analysis of anti-bullying policies from 76 school districts across the State of Louisiana
was conducted. A 63-item coding scheme was developed to guide the analysis. The overall compliance to the coding framework
by the Louisiana school districts considered in this study was 64%, with many policies covering logistical aspects of bullying
response such as definitions, reporting, investigating, monitoring, disseminating policies, and consequences for perpetrators.
While many school districts addressed evidenced-based practices and mental health support for victims and perpetrators, few
school district policies addressed the use of personally owned technology, mental health support for witnesses, evaluating
programs, or enumeration of vulnerable groups. There was also a noticeable gap in policies that were culturally responsive in
nature. Implications are discussed for educators, policy-makers, and researchers.

Keywords Bullying . Cyberbullying . Anti-bullying policy . School policy . Content analysis

Introduction Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in 2018) that have

Although bullying has long been a matter of concern in the
school context, the awareness of its detrimental consequences
on students’ social, emotional, and physical well-being has
increased over the past decades concurrent with an increasing
number of schools implementing anti-bullying policies
(Gower, Cousin, & Borosky, 2017; Smith, Smith, Osborn &
Samara, 2008; Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009). The focus on
bullying has intensified within the school context due to the
increased media coverage as a direct consequence of violent
school incidents (e.g., the Columbine High School shooting in
1999, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012,
* Jaimie Stickl Haugen
Jaimie.sticklhaugen@ucf.edu
Claudia C. Sutter
claudia.sutter@ucf.edu
Jessica L. Tinstman Jones
jessica.tinstman@ucf.edu
Laurie O. Campbell
locampbell@ucf.edu
1
College of Community Innovation and Education, Department of
Counselor Education and School Psychology, University of Central
Florida, 4000 Central Florida Blvd., Orlando, FL, USA
pointed to bullying as the underlying cause, as well as suicides
among students that were linked to chronic bullying.
Moreover, the concept of bullying has evolved with the ex-
pansion of research knowledge (Vivolo-Kantor, Martell,
Holland, & Westby, 2014) pointing to serious and long-term
effects associated with bullying behavior from both the victim
and the perpetrator perspective (Stuart-Cassel, Bell, &
Springer, 2011). Bullying is a controversial construct that
has been defined in various ways, which can lead to a lack
of conceptual clarity (Cornell & Limber, 2015). However,
despite disagreement, scholars generally agree on core com-
ponents that define bullying including a power imbalance be-
tween bully and victim and purposeful and repetitive aggres-
sion (Cornell & Limber, 2015; Olweus, 1993). There are
many types of bullying and bullying can manifest at any age
in various forms including physical, social, sexual, verbal, or
emotional (Nazir & Piskin, 2015; Waseem et al., 2017).
The increased visibility of the concept of bullying in
schools, social media, and research has propelled school sys-
tems as well as governments to increase their efforts in finding
solutions to reduce bullying in schools through anti-bullying
legislation. In 2010, the United States (U.S.) Department of
Education, together with the Health and Human Services,
expressed the need for more extensive information about the
current status of state legislation regarding the concept of

bullying and application of anti-bullying policies in order to
develop laws in an effort to lower the number of bullying
incidents (Robinson Vaughn, 2013). In response to this call
for a more informative, comprehensive picture, the USDOE
initiated an analysis of state bullying laws and policies based
on 11 key components. This analysis resulted in a summary
report that reviewed the current approaches among the states
with anti-bullying laws and the states that have developed
anti-bullying policies as models for schools (Stuart-Cassel
et al., 2011).
Although bullying is prevalent across the U.S., individual
states vary in rates of bullying. Data obtained from the Centers
for Disease Control’s (CDC) 2017 Youth Risk Behavior
Surveillance System indicated that the State of Louisiana has
the highest percentage of students bullied online, the fifth
highest percentage of students traditionally bullied at school,
and is ranked 32nd among all states in the quality of their anti-
bullying laws (CDC, 2018; McCann, 2018). It is evident that
bullying is a pervasive issue in Louisiana specifically and
represents a unique context to explore the context of bullying
policies. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to analyze
the detailed content of the district anti-bullying policies across
the State of Louisiana using the 11 key components identified
by the U.S. Department of Education as well as additional
literature-supported factors.
Bullying Research Across Contexts
In the U.S. and internationally, scholars have recognized bul-
lying as a critical phenomenon that needs to be addressed. As
a multi-disciplinary and complex issue, all European (and
U.S.) schools experience some form of visible or hidden bul-
lying (Elamé, 2013a). Specifically, discriminatory bullying
(e.g., bullying based on ethnic origin, religion, disability, sex-
ual orientation, and/or gender) has become an emerging and
contemporary topic of interest for researchers and policy-
makers (Elamé, 2013a, 2013b). For example, in a national
study of U.S. youth, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer,
and questioning (LGBTQ) youth were more likely to experi-
ence biased-based bullying. Specifically, 67% experienced
victimization due to their sexual orientation and approximate-
ly 60% reported victimization due to gender expression
(Greytak, Kosciw, Villenas, & Giga, 2016). Similarly, accord-
ing to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights
(2013), out of 93,079 LGBT participants in the European
Union, almost half of respondents (47%) reported discrimina-
tion or harassment in the previous year based on sexual orien-
tation. Moreover, the prevalence of bullying and harassment
towards ethnic minorities, migrants, and immigrants in
Europe and the U.S. are a concerning issue (e.g., Downes &
Cefai, 2019; Elamé, 2013b; Sulkowski, Bauman, Wright,
Nixon, & Davis, 2014). Thus, bullying is not only an issue
Int Journal of Bullying Prevention
of concern among all students, but the changing demographics
of schools and communities across nations have enhanced the
need for an increased focus and understanding of discrimina-
tory bullying (Downes & Cefai, 2019).
As the concern for bullying has increased, so has the need
to create safe and caring school environments. Scholars have
identified associations between bullying and school climate,
school belonging, and social/emotional learning because un-
healthy school environments increase the likelihood that bul-
lying will occur (Espelage, Rose, & Polanin, 2015;
Goldweber, Waasdorp, & Bradshaw, 2013; White, La Salle,
Ashby, & Meyers, 2014). Educators and policy-makers are
therefore exploring positive interventions and intentional
strategies to enhance safe and inclusive school environments
for all students, including students who may be particularly
vulnerable to bullying victimization (e.g., Day, Ioverno, &
Russell, 2019; Peguero & Bondy, 2017).
Considering the current state of bullying research and the
importance of safe and inclusive school environments,
Downes and Cefai (2016) highlighted a strategic framework
of structural indicators to inform European policies that in-
cluded curricular dimensions (e.g., social/emotional learning,
homophobic bullying prevention), whole school approaches
for positive school climate, teacher approaches, parent and
community involvement, differentiated interventions, guiding
principles (e.g., holistic approach), and coordination at the
national and local level. The evidenced informed indicators
highlight the complexity of addressing bullying in schools and
the need for integrated and holistic policies to guide effective
interventions for school bullying.
Contextual Framework
Analysis of Anti-Bullying Policies and Bullying Laws
Anti-bullying policies “influence individual and organization-
al behaviors” and can be seen as a tool intended to support
prevention and intervention of school bullying (Hall, 2017, p.
47). Thus, policy development has been an important topic of
interest for scholars, educators, and policy-makers. In the
U.S., all states are required to adopt anti-bullying policies.
Although this mandate has informed state policies since
2015, relatively little research thoroughly explores the content
of these bullying policies and how it potentially relates to the
prevalence of school bullying (Smith et al., 2008). The major-
ity of the peer-reviewed research conducted on the content of
school bullying policies stems from countries in the United
Kingdom, such as England (e.g., Woods & Wolke, 2003;
Smith, Smith, Osborn, & Samara, 2008; Smith, Kupferberg,
Mora-Merchan, Samara, Bosley, & Osborn, 2012), Northern
Ireland (e.g., Purdy, & Smith, 2016), or Wales (e.g., Epstein,
Dowler, Mellor & Madden, 2006; Lambert, Scourfield,
Int Journal of Bullying Prevention
Smalley, & Jones, 2008). Overall, scholars have examined
similar components of anti-bullying policies such as inclusion
of the definition of bullying, enumeration of specific groups or
student characteristics (e.g., gender, race, sexual orientation),
procedures and reporting processes, and identification of var-
ious bullying behaviors (e.g., relational, verbal, physical),
with similar results across contexts. For example, Smith and
colleagues (2012) identified that in general, English schools’
anti-bullying policies (N = 142) included approximately 49%
of the 34-item scoring scheme, whereas Purdy and Smith
(2016) identified that Irish schools’ policies (N = 100) includ-
ed approximately 52% of items in a similar 36-item scoring
scheme. In general, international scholars identified that many
policies included a definition of bullying, despite variations in
quality of definitions (e.g., Epstein et al., 2006; Purdy &
Smith, 2016; Smith et al., 2012), whereas noticeable gaps
were identified in enumeration of specific groups (Smith
et al., 2012; Purdy & Smith, 2016) and monitoring or evalu-
ation of policy and policy effectiveness (Epstein et al., 2006;
Purdy & Smith, 2016).
In the U.S., minimal peer-reviewed research examined the
content of state’s bullying policies (Limber, & Small, 2003;
Srabstein, Berkman, & Pyntikova, 2008; Weaver, Brown,
Weddle, & Aalsma, 2013). In their analysis of state bullying
laws and policies, the U.S. Department of Education
highlighted “the need for more comprehensive information
about the current status of state legislation, as well as infor-
mation on how existing laws and policies translate into prac-
tice” (Stuart-Cassel et al., 2011, p. ix). The systematic review
and coding of components within their report build the basis
for the criteria list of the present content analysis. The study
initiated by the U.S. Department of Education provides sys-
tematic information on state bullying legislation. The analysis
demonstrated the extent to which state bullying policies incor-
porated the 11 key components and six school district compo-
nents identified by the U.S. Department of Education by the
end of 2010 (Stuart-Cassel et al., 2011, see Fig. 1). These
components should be developed in collaboration with stake-
holders and include the following: Prohibition and purpose
statement outlines the scope of detrimental effects of bullying
(e.g., on student learning, school safety, student engagement,
and the school environment). Statement of scope covers be-
havior that occurs in and disrupts the school environment (i.e.,
on the school campus, at school-sponsored activities, or
events regardless of the location), on school-provided trans-
portation, or through school-owned technology. Enumeration
of groups explains that “bullying may include, but is not lim-
ited to, acts based on actual or perceived characteristics of
students who have historically been targets of bullying, and
provides examples of such characteristics” (Stuart-Cassel
et al., 2011, p. 90). Development and implementation of local
policies mandates the districts to generate and implement a
policy prohibiting bullying through a collaborative process
including school administrators, staff, students, students’ fam-
ilies, and the community. Review of local policies mandates
the states to regularly review its local policies to guarantee that
the goals of the state statute are being achieved. Components
of local policies include six components that laws typically
direct districts to cover within their local district policies.
These include the following: (a) definitions of bullying; (b)
reporting procedure for students, students’ families, staff, and
others; (c) investigation procedure for promptly investigating
and responding to any report of an incident of bullying; (d)
procedure for maintaining written records of all bullying inci-
dents; (e) detailed description of consequences and sanctions;
(f) referral procedures for victim, perpetrator, and others to
counseling and other mental health services. The criteria
communication comprises a plan for informing students, their
families, and staff of the bullying policies, including the con-
sequences for engaging in bullying. Training and prevention
mandates school districts to provide training for all school
staff (e.g., teachers, aides, support staff, and school bus
drivers) and encourages school districts to implement “age-
appropriate school- and community-wide bullying prevention
programs” (Stuart-Cassell et al., 2011, p. 93). Transparency
and monitoring mandates school districts to (a) annually re-
port the number of reported bullying incidents and subsequent
responsive actions to the state and to (b) make the data (num-
ber of bullying incidents) publicly available. Right to pursue
other legal remedies contains a statement that “the policy does
not preclude victims from seeking other legal remedies”
(Stuart-Cassel et al., 2011, p. 6).
Based on these criteria, one of the questions the report
addressed is to what extent do the states’ bullying laws cover
the U.S. Department of Education-identified key legislative
and policy components? Overall, the analysis found that by
2011, 45 of the 46 states that had bullying laws directed their
school districts to adopt bullying policies. Moreover, 46 states
had and four states did not have bullying laws. However, in
the years following, all states adopted bullying laws (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, 2018). The anal-
ysis further demonstrated that three of those 46 states banned
bullying by law without defining the prohibited behavior. By
2011, thirty-six states included statements prohibiting
cyberbullying or bullying using technology or electronic me-
dia (Stuart-Cassel et al., 2011).
Regarding the key components of policies identified by the
U.S. Department of Education, the study found that whereas
the majority of the states covered the components “develop-
ment and implementation of district policies, the scope of
jurisdiction over bullying acts, definitions of prohibited be-
havior, and disciplinary consequences,” only 11 state laws
covered referrals for mental health counseling (Stuart-Cassel
et al., 2011, p. 79). There were considerable differences be-
tween states regarding the number of components they includ-
ed in legislation and the extent to which those components

Fig. 1 U.S. Department of
Education’s key components
were addressed. Out of the 46 states with bullying legislation,
only two states (Maryland and New Jersey) included provi-
sions covering all of the key and school district components.
Seventeen states covered between 13 and 16 components and
17 other states covered between 9 and 12 components. Twelve
states with bullying legislation included eight (50%) or fewer
components (Stuart-Cassel et al., 2011).
The key components of the U.S. Department of Education
have some aspects aligned with current public health models
that recognize the importance of multi-level policy interven-
tions to include universal, selected, and indicated prevention
(Downes & Cefai, 2019). The three-tiered prevention ap-
proach identifies the need to support all students at the
school-wide level (universal), targets students at risk (select-
ed), and provides intensive intervention for students at the
highest level of need and risk (indicated; Astor et al., 2012;
Downes & Cefai, 2019). Although the U.S. Department of
Education’s key components are limited in thoroughly ad-
dressing each level, they include recommendations for policy
components at each tier. For example, at the universal level,
the key components outline that policies should include a plan
to communicate the policy to all students, families, and staff,
provide training for all school staff (including aides, bus
drivers, and support staff), and implement school and
community-wide prevention programs (U.S. Department of
Education, 2010). At the selected level, it is recommended
that policies include enumeration of students who are at risk
or have historically been targets of bullying based on charac-
teristics such as race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
Finally, indicated prevention is addressed through the recom-
mendation that policies include counseling and follow-up ser-
vices referrals for victims and perpetrators of bullying (U.S.
Department of Education, 2010). Although there is room for
Int Journal of Bullying Prevention
improvement regarding policy recommendations to more
thoroughly and intentionally address bullying at all three tiers,
it is promising that the key recommendations recognize the
need to include a differentiated focus of bullying prevention/
intervention aligned with contemporary public health models.
State of Louisiana
The report conducted by Stuart-Cassel et al. (2011) indicated
that the State of Louisiana covered 11 components; however,
the state did not cover the following: (a) enumerated groups,
(b) district policy review, (c) definitions, and (d) mental health
and legal remedies. Beyond the report from the U.S.
Department of Education, the Louisiana Public Health
Institute compared the 2011 Youth Risk Behavior
Surveillance results and the 2010 School Health Profiles
Surveys. The report concluded that “student behavior with
regard to bullying does not support the reports of bullying
prevention policies implemented by Louisiana public schools,
as students reported similar rates of what they consider bully-
ing both on and off school property” (Louisiana Public Health
Institute, 2011, p. 11), indicating that more work needs to be
done in Louisiana regarding bullying prevention and
intervention.
Based on the data of the CDC’s 2017 Youth Risk Behavior
Surveillance System and other reputable sources, McCann
(2018) published a report summarizing the findings of their
study examining the bullying prevalence and prevention in 47
States. The study compared each state across the three key
dimensions: (a) bullying prevalence, (b) bullying impact and
treatment, and (c) anti-bullying laws. These dimensions were
measured based on 20 key metrics, ranging from “bullying
incident rate” to “truancy costs for schools” to “share of high
Int Journal of Bullying Prevention
school students bullied online” with each metric rated on a
100-point scale (with 100 points indicating the highest preva-
lence of bullying). The study concluded that out of all states,
the State of Louisiana is the state facing the biggest bullying
problem in the U.S. as evidenced by having the highest per-
centage of students being bullied online and the fifth highest
percentage of students being bullied on school property.
Louisiana ranks 32nd for its anti-bullying laws and is among
the states with the highest percentage of students missing
school due to fear of bullying (CDC, 2018; McCann, 2018).
It is evident that bullying is a pervasive issue in Louisiana
specifically and represents a unique context to explore bully-
ing prevention and intervention efforts through the content of
anti-bullying policies.
Promising Practices
In addition to the key criteria of the U.S. Department of
Education Framework, the present study included criteria that
were based on promising practices that have been outlined in
the literature (see Fig. 2). After an extensive review of the
bullying literature, the research team developed a list of
evidence-based research practices for bullying prevention
and intervention. Those criteria included the following: (a)
procedural support for victims, perpetrators, and reporters
(confidentiality, report protected, and retribution; Coyle,
2008); (b) emotional support for victims and perpetrators
Fig. 2 Contextual framework:
USDOE’s key components and
promising practices
(guilt, mental health, and counseling; Huddleston, Varjas,
Meyers, & Cadenhead, 2011); (c) evidence-based practices
in policy (Gower, Cousin, & Borowsky, 2017; Menesini &
Salmivalli, 2017; National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM], 2016); (d) methods
that measure program effectiveness (e.g., student perception,
referrals, observations; Gower et al., 2017; Menesini &
Salmivalli, 2017; NASEM, 2016); (e) community included
in policy (i.e., does the policy include parents, law
enforcement, other school community members such as
volunteers or school visitors, and outside school community
members such as organizations, family services, and agencies;
Patchin & Hinduja, 2012); and (f) culturally responsive poli-
cies (Huddleston et al., 2011). While not an exhaustive list, the
identified components were repetitive themes in the literature
that emerged through our investigation. Including additional
criteria such as the promising practices outlined above adds
value to the current research exploring anti-bullying policies
and provides more in-depth information on the content of
policies.
Associations Between Anti-Bullying Policy
Quality and Bullying Behavior
To date, there are no consistent findings regarding the content
of anti-bullying policies and the prevalence of bullying. Some

researchers found that less comprehensive anti-bullying policies
and programs in schools were associated with higher rates of
physical and verbal victimization of students (Ordonez, 2006).
Other scholars indicated that policy quality was positively related
to bullying, as schools or districts with high-quality anti-bullying
policies had higher rates of bullying victimization or relational
bullying than schools or districts with low policy quality (Gower,
Cousin, & Borowski, 2017; Woods & Wolke, 2003).
Nevertheless, specific elements of anti-bullying policies, such
as protection based on sexual orientation and gender identity,
are associated with lower rates of anti-LGBTQ bullying and
more positive perceptions of the school climate (Day et al.,
2019; Hall, 2017; Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014),
which suggests that the inclusion of specific components of anti-
bullying policies may be of particular importance.
In general, more non-significant than significant associa-
tions between policy presence/quality and student bullying
were found in a systematic review of the empirical research
(Hall, 2017). Thus, despite the suggested role of policies in
preventing and intervening in bullying situations and their
widespread adoption and application, studies examining this
link are rare and include mixed findings (Hall, 2017; Smith
et al., 2008). Therefore, assessing the content of anti-bullying
policies is a foundational step that may lay the groundwork for
future research to clarify potential links between anti-bullying
policies, specific policy content, and bullying behaviors.
Summary
The minimal research conducted within the U.S. consistently
identified the State of Louisiana among the lowest-ranking states
regarding the quality of schools’ anti-bullying policies (Weaver
et al., 2013) as well as among the highest-ranking states regard-
ing the prevalence of bullying (McCann, 2018). Many states,
including Louisiana, have expanded bullying legislation to re-
spond to emerging issues related to cyberbullying (Stuart-
Cassel et al., 2011). In order to keep up with the expansion of
policies, an updated, thorough content analysis of the current
policies within the State of Louisiana is warranted.
The Present Study
In response to the need for an updated and comprehensive
exploration of the current anti-bullying policies in the State
of Louisiana, the following study was conducted. The purpose
of the present study was to provide a descriptive content anal-
ysis of the anti-bullying policies of the State of Louisiana’s
public school districts and charter schools in order to illumi-
nate trends across the state. Although cyberbullying policy–
related issues are unique, the majority of Louisiana policies
integrated both bullying and cyberbullying into one statement.
Int Journal of Bullying Prevention
As a result, researchers examined anti-bullying policies as an
integrated whole. This study analyzed the detailed content of
the anti-bullying policies publicly available for the 2018–2019
school year from a sample of 74 public school districts. It
sought to answer the following research questions:
(1) To what degree do district anti-bullying policies in the
State of Louisiana represent the U.S. Department of
Education anti-bullying policy key components?
(2) To what degree do district anti-bullying policies in the
State of Louisiana represent promising practices of bul-
lying prevention and intervention as outlined in peer-
reviewed related research?
Method
Sample
Anti-bullying policies were obtained in 2018 through 2019 from
76 public school districts and charter schools across the State of
Louisiana. Louisiana was chosen as a focal state because at the
time of this report it was among the highest-ranking states re-
garding the prevalence of bullying (CDC, 2018; McCann, 2018).
A member of the research team compiled an initial list of public
school districts (n = 70) and charter schools and/or specialty
schools (n = 8) in the State of Louisiana which included 78
educational agencies. Once the list was compiled, copies of
anti-bullying policies were obtained from publicly available in-
formation on individual school district websites (N = 76). The
remaining two policies were not included because they were not
publicly available. Specifically, one school district was a legisla-
tive attempt to support school reforms after Hurricane Katrina
and has since disbanded. The remaining district (a rural school
district) did not have a publicly available policy. Attempts were
made by phone to obtain the missing policy, but they did not
respond. The research team looked for both bullying and
cyberbullying policies, which were often integrated in one policy.
If there were separate policies, the content was coded inclusively
to encompass the content of both policies.
It is important to note that the Louisiana Department of
Education provides a model state policy that was created in
2012 for school districts to utilize and adapt. Since the creation
and publication of this document, state statutes and federal
guidelines have changed and individual districts have updated
their policies, though there is no indication that the state’s
model policy has changed. As such, the majority of districts
(n = 47) used a consultation company repository for district
policies that appear to regularly adapt the documents based on
state and federal policy updates. The remaining districts self-
managed anti-bullying policies directly on their website and/
or in parent/student handbooks.
Int Journal of Bullying Prevention
Procedure
In order to answer the identified research questions, a descrip-
tive content analysis was conducted as the research method-
ology. The research team developed and operationalized def-
initions and categories using a codebook as recommended by
Neuendorf (2002). Similar to the analysis of state policies by
Stuart-Cassell and colleagues (2011), the a priori codebook
was guided by the U.S. Department of Education’s framework
of key anti-bullying policy components. Additionally, the re-
search team conducted a comprehensive literature review and
added other factors and definitions to the codebook that rep-
resented promising practices of bullying intervention and pre-
vention as outlined in the peer-reviewed literature. The coding
scheme included a focus on both bullying and cyberbullying
policies. The final coding scheme consisted of 18 overarching
categories (see Fig. 2) with subsequent sub-categories, total-
ing 63 items. Using these codes, the research team consisting
of one assistant professor, two postdoctoral research scholars,
a first-year doctoral research assistant, and a master’s level
graduate assistant coded all 76 policies.
Further revisions to the coding schema took place after two
consecutive pilot coding of a random sample of policies. The
first pilot coding included a trial coding of six policies and the
second round of coding included a pilot coding of five poli-
cies. During the piloting process, the research team made ini-
tial modifications and revisions to the coding scheme to en-
hance definitional clarity in the codebook and ensure that all
categories were comprehensive, while also being mutually
exclusive. During the pilot, coding exercises reached an
inter-rater reliability between 0.49 and 0.86. After the piloting
process was completed, an analysis of all remaining policies
was conducted; “yes” was indicated if the identified item was
included in the policy and “no” was indicated if it was not
included. In order to increase rigor in the process, two research
team members independently coded each anti-bullying policy
into Qualtrics, an electronic data collection tool. Inter-rater
reliability was between 0.78 and 0.93 based upon the group
coding the policy, which was substantial to almost perfect
agreement across all items (McHugh, 2012). In order to ad-
dress any discrepancies and determine final coding for each
policy, each of the two research team members collaboratively
discussed any discrepancies in their coding in order to reach
final consensus. They consulted with the other two research
team members as needed.
Results
In total, 76 policies were coded and included in the final anal-
ysis. The overall compliance to the coding framework by all of
the Louisiana school districts considered in this study was
64%. The greatest compliance to the coding framework
correlated with the criteria from the U.S. Department of
Education’s key components. The majority of districts and
schools developed their policies in accordance with the
Louisiana Department of Education’s publicly available mod-
el policy for bullying prevention. Specifically, one district
used the model policy exactly as originally written, and
82.9% (n = 63) of the policies were adaptations of the state’s
model policy. The remaining 15.8% of districts and schools (n
= 12) utilized a distinct policy. The majority of the distinct
policies belonged to the eight specialty and charter school
policies reviewed (n = 6, 75%).
Research Question 1: Representation of U.S.
Department of Education’s Key Anti-Bullying Policy
Components
When considering the evidence of the 11 U.S. Department of
Education’s key components for anti-bullying policies, there
were a number of key categories that the majority of school
districts clearly outlined in their policies. Policies were most
likely to include a clear purpose statement outlining the detri-
mental effects of bullying (n = 75, 98.7%) and indicated that
all forms of bullying will be taken seriously (n = 72) and are
unacceptable (n = 73). Similarly, the majority of policies in-
cluded a clear statement of the scope of the policy to include
school activities on or off campus (n = 75), bullying via tech-
nology (n = 75), and bullying on busses or other school-
related transportation (n = 73). Every policy included a clear
definition of bullying (n = 76), while 81.6% (n = 62) included
a clear cyberbullying definition. Additionally, statements of
scope most often included addressing forms of bullying be-
havior such as retaliation for reporting bullying (n = 66), per-
petuating bullying (n = 67), and behaviors that disrupt the
school environment (n = 74). Interestingly, in regard to
cyberbullying, only 5.3% of schools (n = 4) specifically men-
tioned student’s use of personally owned technology, although
68.4% (n = 52) mentioned the inappropriate use of school-
owned technology.
In contrast to categories that were most likely incorporated
in the majority of school district policies, enumeration of spe-
cific characteristics or populations at risk for bullying were not
included in the state’s model policy and stood out as relatively
rare among the policies. Specifically, 76.3% of the policies (n
= 58) did not mention prohibition of bullying against student
groups based on particular characteristics, with only few pol-
icies outlining bullying behaviors based on actual or perceived
characteristics of students (n = 19). Based on the emerging
literature regarding discriminatory bullying and federal sug-
gestions (e.g., stopbullying.gov), the researchers evaluated
inclusion of enumerated groups across multiple dimensions.
When enumeration was indicated, researchers further
evaluated this section based on the following categories of
specific inclusion: (a) historically bullied groups based on race
 Int Journal of Bullying Prevention

or ethnicity (n = 11), (b) vulnerable groups, including
LGBTQ+, low SES, and religious minority students (n = 4),
and (c) students with exceptionalities (n = 12). Only three
school districts included all three of these categories for enu-
meration while seven districts incorporated two categories and
two districts included only one category (see Table 1).
Additionally, the majority of policies outlined specific
reporting and investigating procedures such as clear reporting
procedures (n = 64), handling reports in a timely fashion (n =
73), timely investigations (n = 71), ensuring written records
are kept (n = 66), and communication with parents of the
victim (n = 67) and perpetrator (n = 72). Policies were also
likely to outline consequences for offenders (n = 76) and sanc-
tions for perpetrators (n = 71), while approximately two thirds
of the policies detailed consequences for repeat offenders (n =
49; 64.5%). Additional key components moderately evi-
denced across school district policies included counseling
and/or mental health referral procedures for victims of bully-
ing (n = 53, 69.7%) and for perpetrators (n = 62, 81.6%).
However, none of the policies indicated a referral procedure
for bystanders, witnesses, or others (see Table 2).
Overall, 86.8% of policies (n = 66) included a specific plan to
disseminate the bullying policy to students, families, and staff,
mostly through a required orientation at the beginning of the year
or written notice to parents. Similarly, 72.4% of policies (n = 55)
included mention of various components of procedures for mon-
itoring and transparency of the policies’ bullying records, al-
though no policies indicated a metric for compliance. Several
policies described a training plan for school staff (n = 58) and
an age-appropriate bullying prevention program for students (n =
47), although none of the policies described similar training for
other members of the community such as volunteers or law
enforcement. Lastly, 72.4% of the policies (n = 55) included a
statement of the right for victims to seek other legal remedies
beyond outlined consequences and sanctions determined to be
appropriate by the school district (see Table 3).
Research Question 2: Representation of Promising
Practices as Outlined by the Literature
An examination of each school district policy determined the
degree to which it included additional promising practices in
bullying prevention and intervention as outlined by the literature,
which were not included elsewhere in the U.S. Department of
Education’s key recommendations for anti-bullying policies (see
Table 4). The majority of policies included components relating
to procedural support for individuals involved with bullying in-
cidents. Procedural support was operationally defined by

Table 1 Analysis by criteria 1–4

for the State of Louisiana (N = 76) Policy component n %

1. Purpose statement
Detrimental behavior 75 98.7
All forms of bullying are unacceptable 73 96.1
All incidents taken seriously 72 94.7
2. Statement of scope
School activities and events (regardless of location ) 75 98.7
Transportation 73 96.1
Technology 75 98.7
Specifically mentions personally owned technology 4 5.3
Specifically mentions school-owned technology 52 68.4
Disruption to school environment 74 97.4
Retaliation for reporting an act of bullying 66 86.8
Perpetuating bullying (e.g., actively engaging, spreading rumors, 67 88.2
encouraging the perpetrator, forwarding offensive e-mails
or text messages) any mentioned not all (participating not by-standing
Knowing but not actively bullying (passive-bystander) 47 61.8
3. Enumeration of specific characteristics or populations
Acts based on actual or perceived characteristics of students 19 25.0
List historical bullied groups (e.g., racial and ethnic) 11 14.5
List vulnerable groups (e.g., LGBTQ, low SES, religious minority students etc.) 4 5.3
List exceptionalities 12 15.8
Groups not named based on any particular characteristic 58 76.3
4. Definition bullying and cyberbullying
Bullying definition 76 100
Cyberbullying definition 62 81.6
Int Journal of Bullying Prevention

Table 2 Analysis by criteria 5–8

for the State of Louisiana Policy component n %

5. Report bullying and cyberbullying

Procedure clear 64 84.2
Contact information to report (e.g., principal) 71 93.4
Handle in a timely fashion indicated 73 96.1
Indicates protection from retaliation 68 89.5
6. Investigating and responding to bullying and records
Investigation procedure considered timely 72 94.7
Communicates with parents (victim) 67 88.2
Communicates with parents (perpetrator) 72 94.7
Communicates with parents (not designated victim or perpetuator) 63 82.9
Ensures a written record would be kept 66 86.8
7. Consequences and sanctions
Consequences for offenders 76 100
Details consequence for repeat offenders 49 64.5
Outlines sanctions for perpetrators 71 93.4
8. Referrals for counseling and mental health
Indicates referral procedure (victim) 53 69.7
Indicates referral procedure (perpetrator) 62 81.6
Indicates referral procedure (others) 0 0

provisions in the policy that indicated protection during bullying
response for individuals. These procedural support practices in-
cluded (a) maintaining confidentiality of individuals involved,
(b) protecting reports and investigation records, and (c)
protecting individuals from retribution. Approximately 89.5%
of school district policies (n = 68) addressed procedural support
for victims and perpetrators, 93.4% (n = 7 1) indicated
procedural support for reporters of bullying incidents, and
77.6% of policies (n = 59) indicated procedural support for
non-victims, which could include bystanders, friends, or wit-
nesses of a bullying incident.
Similarly, most policies identified the need for emotional sup-
port for victims and perpetrators. Emotional support was opera-
tionally defined by indicating the need for mental health and

Table 3 Analysis by criteria 9–12

for the State of Louisiana Policy components n %

9. Transparency and monitoring policies

County indicates review policy (e.g., time, clarity) 55 72.4
Further indicates overseer of compliance (e.g., person) 55 72.4
Report to DOE (state) annually 55 72.4
Publicly available information (i.e., statistics) 53 69.7
Indicates compliance required metrics 0 0
10. Communication plan
Provides a school marketing plan indicating bullying is prohibited 5 6.6
Provides a plan to disseminate bullying policies to students, families, 66 86.8
school staff (e.g., required orientation; written notice to student’s parents)
11. Training and preventive education
Indicates training plan (prevention, identification, and response) for all 58 76.3
school staff (support, faculty, school bus drivers) (1)
Indicates training plan (prevention, identification, and response) for volunteers (2) 0 0
Indicates training plan (prevention, identification, and response) for law enforcement (3) 0 0
Evidence of age-appropriate bullying prevention programs for students (4) 47 61.8
12. Statement of rights to other legal recourse
Includes a statement that the policy does not preclude victims from 55 72.4
seeking other legal remedies
 Int Journal of Bullying Prevention

Table 4 Analysis by criteria 13–

18 (promising practices) for the
State of Louisiana
Policy components n %
13. Support for victims and perpetrators (procedural: confidentiality,
report protected, and retribution)
Does the policy address support for victims? 68 89.5
Does the policy address support for perpetrator? 68 89.5
Does the policy address support for reporters? 71 93.4
Does the policy address support for non-victims (e.g., bystanders, friends)? 59 77.6
14. Emotional Support for victims and perpetrators (guilt, mental
health, and counseling)
Does the policy address support for victims? 59 77.6
Does the policy address support for perpetrator? 68 89.5
Does the policy address support for reporters? 0 0
Does the policy address support for non-victims (e.g., bystanders, friends)? 0 0
15. Evidence-based practices in policy 55 72.4
16. Methods that measure program effectiveness
Student perception 0 0
Referrals 0 0
Observations 0 0
17. COMMUNITY INCLUDED IN POLICY
Parents 75 98.7
Law enforcement 65 85.5
Other school community members (volunteers, school visitors) 62 81.6
Outside school community members (organizations, e.g., family 44 57.9
services, agencies)
18. Culturally responsive policies 1 1.3

counseling support for those involved in a bullying incident. The
promising practice of emotional support differentiated from the
U.S. Department of Education’s key component of mental health
referral because mental health referral indicated that the policy
outlined specific referral procedures (i.e., who makes the referral
for mental health, who should be contacted, or when referrals
should be made). The majority of policies included language
addressing mental health support for victims (n = 59, 77.6%)
and perpetrators (n = 68, 89.5%). Interestingly, none of the pol-
icies mentioned emotional support for reporters or non-victims
(e.g., friends, bystanders, witnesses of a bullying incidents).
Community support was operationally defined as mention-
ing or identifying collaboration or communication with spe-
cific community members (i.e., parents are notified, school
volunteers are encouraged to report bullying incidents, refer-
rals to law enforcement are made). Nearly all policies men-
tioned collaboration or communication with parents (n = 75,
98.7%), and the majority included collaboration with law en-
forcement (n = 65) and school community members such as
volunteers or school visitors (n = 62). In contrast, a little over
half of the policies mentioned collaboration with outside com-
munity members such as organizations, family services, or
community agencies (n = 44). Regarding the inclusion of
evidenced-based practices such as an evidenced-based pre-
vention program, a training program, or bullying interventions
overall, a moderate number of policies included some mention
of evidenced-based practices (n = 55).
Finally, the remaining two overarching categories identified as
promising practices (i.e., methods to measure program effective-
ness, cultural responsiveness) appeared rarely, if at all, across all
policies. No policies indicated specific methods to measure pro-
gram effectiveness for bullying prevention or intervention pro-
grams. As identified previously as part of the U.S. Department of
Education’s key components, although several policies described
a training plan for school staff (n = 58) and an age-appropriate
bullying prevention program for students (n = 47), none of the
policies indicated the need for evaluation methods to monitor and
track program effectiveness through assessing student percep-
tions, tracking bullying referrals, or qualitative observations.
Lastly, and perhaps most notably, only one policy was identified
as being culturally responsive. Culturale responsiveness was op-
erationally defined as including specific language around sensi-
tivity to diversity in any aspect of the policy from response,
reporting, investigations, and within the written policy itself.
Discussion and Implications for Practice
The findings of the present study indicated a trend towards
school districts’ anti-bullying policies including logistical
Int Journal of Bullying Prevention
reporting, investigating, and monitoring components of the
response to bullying. The majority of the policies outlined
how reports and investigation procedures should be handled,
documented, and communicated with parents, including clear
consequences and sanctions for perpetrators. Similarly, most
school district policies tended to focus on outlining the pur-
pose and scope of the policy, highlighting that multiple forms
of bullying will be taken seriously and are unacceptable at
school- or school-related events. Additionally, most policies
included a specific plan to disseminate the bullying policy to
students, families, and staff and a little over two thirds of the
policies included a formal statement that victims had the right
to pursue legal remedies beyond the consequences determined
to be appropriate by the school district. Considering the re-
lease of the U. S Department of Education’s identification of
the 11 key components of anti-bullying policies and laws in
2010 (see Stuart-Cassel et al., 2011), it may be that many
school districts have incorporated the 11 key components
and guidelines of the logistical aspects of bullying response.
More specifically, the most common legislation across states
regarding bullying is the requirement for school districts to
develop policies that outlined the scope, behaviors, and con-
sequences of bullying behaviors, with procedural aspects most
likely to involve specific mandates (Stuart-Cassel et al., 2011).
It is therefore unsurprising that the majority of districts in
Louisiana had similar format and wording that were compa-
rable to the Louisiana state model policy covering specific
aspects of a bullying definition, response, investigation, and
monitoring procedures. Since the majority of policies outlined
logistics of the appropriate response to bullying, it may sug-
gest that school districts are attempting to protect themselves
from litigation (Robinson-Vaughn, 2013). School districts
seem to be adhering to the state model and legislation require-
ments to ensure that the scope of bullying behaviors and ap-
propriate district responses are covered in writing.
Whereas the majority of policies conjointly addressed both
bullying and cyberbullying behaviors and definitions, only
5.4% of the policies specifically mentioned student’s inappro-
priate use of personally owned technology. Policies may not
have mentioned personally owned technologies because at the
time of policy development, some schools may have
prohibited students from bringing devises to school and many
of the policies followed the state model policy that was devel-
oped in 2012. Only about 23% of the 77% of teens that owned
a phone in 2012 had a smartphone, and it was more likely that
teens had a phone that only had texting capabilities (Pew
Research, 2012). Conversely, in 2018, about 95% of teens
had access to or owned a smartphone (Anderson & Jiang,
2018). Since technology has expanded traditional school
boundaries into a borderless world where cyberbullying can
reach students at any time (Diamanduros, Downs, & Jenkins,
2008), personally owned technology is a vehicle that can eas-
ily be used to target victims with ramifications impacting
students during and beyond the school day. However, few
policies specifically addressed student’s inappropriate use of
their own technological devices. This gap highlights the need
for updated policies to more clearly outline the scope of
cyberbullying behaviors and associated school responses.
Regarding non-procedural components, the majority of
district policies addressed referrals for counseling and the
need to provide emotional support for both victims and per-
petrators. This finding is encouraging considering that an
analysis of Louisiana anti-bullying policies conducted in
2013 found that nearly 93% of district policies did not incor-
porate or address mental health support for either the perpe-
trator or the victim (Robinson-Vaughn, 2013). Scholars rec-
ognize the psychological impact of bullying (see Fisher,
Cassidy, & Mitchell, 2017; Menesini & Salmivalli, 2017),
and there is a need for schools to support the underlying emo-
tional needs of students involved in bullying incidents. When
considering support strategies, it is important to identify a
student’s role in bullying and target interventions appropriate-
ly. The manifestation of mental health concerns may differ
according to the type of experience students have as either a
bully, victim, or bully-victim. Compared with students who
are not involved in bullying, victims may demonstrate more
internalizing issues (e.g., withdrawn, anxious/depressed),
bullies may demonstrate higher externalizing concerns (e.g.,
delinquent and aggressive behavior), and bully-victims may be
at the highest risk for mental health problems demonstrating
higher social problems as well as internalizing and externaliz-
ing issues (Kozasa, Oiji, Kioyta, Sawa, & Kim, 2017). Thus,
counselors need to first identify the student’s experiences re-
lated to bullying and target interventions to effectively meet
their needs. For example, if a student is a bully-victim, support
strategies might include psychoeducation regarding appropri-
ate social skills and teaching coping strategies for both exter-
nalized and internalized mental health concerns.
In contrast, it is interesting to note that no policies in our
current analysis addressed counseling or emotional support for
witnesses or reporters of bullying behaviors, which is concerning
as some researchers have found that students who observe bul-
lying in school are at risk for mental health concerns or psycho-
social consequences (Lambe, Hudson, Craig, & Pepler, 2017;
Rivers, Poteat, Noret, & Ashurst, 2009). Thus, additional inter-
ventions and mental health support for witnesses may be impor-
tant to address by school personnel (Rivers et al., 2009) and in
future policies and training programs.
In regard to additional non-procedural components of the
policies, there is a noticeable gap in policies enumerating spe-
cific vulnerable groups and being culturally responsive in na-
ture. Approximately 76% of policies did not mention that
bullying was prohibited based on targeting particular student
characteristics or vulnerable populations. Only a few policies
prohibited or outlined bullying behaviors against historically
bullied, vulnerable, or exceptional student populations. These

results echo findings from international contexts identifying
that similar gaps in policy content exist (e.g., Purdy & Smith,
2016; Smith et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2012). This is surprising
considering the increasing awareness of discriminatory bully-
ing and recognition that student characteristics may increase
their risk for being bullied, such as students who identify as
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ), chil-
dren with varying abilities, refugees, or students who belong
to a minority group (Elamé, 2013b; Menesini & Salmivalli,
2017; Swearer et al., 2010; Waseem et al., 2017). Moreover,
despite research suggesting that overall policy presence/
quality may not be significantly associated with bullying prev-
alence, scholars have identified that anti-bullying policies that
specifically outline protection for students based on their gen-
der identity and sexual orientation lesson the likelihood of
victimization for these students and lead to higher rates of
adult intervention (Hall, 2017; Kosciw et al., 2014). Thus,
the inclusion of protection for vulnerable students is a critical
component of anti-bullying policies and may be one of the
limited situations in which policies are associated with lower
victimization. It is therefore unfortunate that the majority of
anti-bullying policies did not incorporate or prohibit bullying
behaviors against specific student characteristics in an effort to
intentionally protect vulnerable groups of students. Moreover,
contextualizing this finding within a differentiated prevention
approach, the lack of enumeration of historically bullied
groups echoes the “need for a stronger understanding and
focus of selected (race, disability, sexual orientation) and in-
dicated prevention levels” (Downes & Cefai, 2019, p. 511). If
the majority of district policies do not specifically prohibit
bullying behaviors against historically bullied, vulnerable, or
exceptional student populations, how can we expect staff and
students to be vigilant about protecting and supporting stu-
dents who are at a greater risk for bullying?
Similarly, only one policy was coded as being culturally re-
sponsive in nature. The one policy that was coded as exhibiting
culturally responsive practices can be held up as an exemplar.
This policy provided specific examples of prohibited bullying
behaviors based on individual student characteristics (i.e., ethnic-
ity, varying ability) in an effort to illustrate how bullying can
violate federal civil rights laws. Additionally, the policy itself
was written to address issues of accessibility for all students
and families. For example, the policy specifically stated that the
school board must disseminate information about the policy and
bullying procedures in a way that is accessible for those who may
have limited English proficiency or disabilities (Sabine Parish
Schools, 2018-2019). It is evident that the school board inten-
tionally incorporated cultural sensitivity in both the scope of
prohibited bullying and accessibility of the policy itself. Given
the promising practice of culturally responsive bully prevention
and interventions (Huddleston, Varjas, Meyers, & Cadenhead,
2011), there is a need for anti-bullying policies to incorporate
cultural sensitivity.
Int Journal of Bullying Prevention
Of the additional non-procedural components of the poli-
cies, there was an interesting contrast between the inclusion of
evidenced-based practices and the lack of mention regarding
monitoring and/or evaluating training or prevention program
effectiveness. The majority of the policies mentioned the in-
corporation of evidenced-based training or prevention pro-
grams for either staff or students. However, none of the poli-
cies outlined the need for methods to measure program effec-
tiveness through student perceptions, behavioral referrals, ob-
servations, or other means. While it is encouraging that dis-
tricts are starting to recognize the importance of incorporating
promising practices into training and prevention efforts, it is
recommended that schools intentionally assess, monitor, and
evaluate the effectiveness of these efforts in schools in order to
understand which programs are most effective, particularly
since the effectiveness of bullying interventions may vary
based on location and context (Gaffney, Farrington, & Ttofi,
2019; Mendez-Baldwin, 2019; NAEM, 2016). Considering
that only half of the policies specifically incorporated
evidence-based practices, there is not only a need to increase
the focus on evidence-based practices, but also include eval-
uation components to measure the effectiveness of programs
put in place.
It remains important to consider that simply having a policy
available does not equate with teachers, parents, and/or stu-
dents knowing that it exists or understanding the content. In
other words:
The presence of a policy is necessary but is not sufficient
to affect student behavior. Indeed, after a policy has
been adopted, it must be put into practice. The mere
adoption or presence of a policy does not mean that it
will be immediately and consistently put into practice
exactly as intended. (Hall, 2017, p. 57)
Therefore, policy-makers should focus on communication
and implementation efforts. It is important to find effective
ways to share the expectations outlined in anti-bullying poli-
cies with students, staff, and parents and continuously evalu-
ate implementation in order to translate policy into practice.
Moreover, researchers could examine promising practices in
regard to the dissemination of bullying policies to ensure that
teachers and students not only receive but understand the con-
tent of policies.
Future Research Directions
Research investigating the relationship between anti-bullying
school policies and the prevalence of bullying among students
is rare (Smith et al., 2008). Anti-bullying policies might be
effective at reducing bullying if their content is based on ev-
idence and sound theory and if they are implemented with a
Int Journal of Bullying Prevention
high level of fidelity. However, more research is needed to
improve on the limitations among extant studies, specifically
research that goes beyond cross-section data, convenience
sampling, and bivariate analyses (Hall, 2017). There is a need
for scholars to explore potential causal links between imple-
mentation of anti-bullying policies and a decrease in bullying
incidents and behavior. Given the mixed results in existing
studies (see Hall, 2017), it is still unknown if school anti-
bullying policies are effective at lowering rates of bullying
incidents and increasing educator intervention. Since research
supports that the inclusion of specific aspects of anti-bullying
policies (e.g., enumeration of specific groups) may be associ-
ated with lower victimization and more positive perceptions of
school climate (Day et al., 2019; Kosciw et al., 2014; Hall,
2017), a closer examination of the relationship between spe-
cific components of anti-bullying policies and bullying behav-
ior (beyond generalized overall quality) is warranted. Law,
policy, and research can be used to prevent undesirable behav-
iors such as bullying among youth (Rivara, & Le Menestrel,
2016). Thus, research that enhances our understanding of the
potential connections between anti-bullying policies, policy
implementation, and bullying incidents will enhance preven-
tion and intervention efforts.
There is also a need to explore the content and effectiveness
of anti-bullying policies across various states, regions, and
countries. The U.S. Department of Education directs educa-
tional agencies to collaboratively develop policies with all
stakeholders including students, families, community, and
school staff to meet the needs of local areas (U.S.
Department of Education, 2010). Scholars have identified that
the effectiveness of anti-bullying programs may vary based on
culture and regional implementation (Gaffney et al., 2019).
Similarly, there is a need to explore if cultural differences exist
in the content of anti-bullying policies and the unique features
that may be important to include in order to enhance policy
effectiveness across various countries and regions. Although
more research is needed, gaining an understanding of the con-
tent of anti-bullying policies in one state can help us take a
step forward in bridging policy research and bully prevention
practice.
Limitations
This study takes a step forward in understanding the current
state of anti-bullying policies in Louisiana; however, there are
several limitations that should be noted. First, the present
study only reported on policies from one state in the U.S. As
previously described, we specifically chose Louisiana due to
the high number of reported bullying incidents. However, this
study cannot claim to be representative of school districts
across the U.S. or internationally. Although the U.S.
Department of Education provided guidance for states on
anti-bullying policies, states vary in the degree to which they
cover the key recommendations; more comprehensive legis-
lation often relates to more comprehensive district policies
(see Stuart-Cassel et al., 2011). Thus, it is likely that bullying
policies in districts across states will vary. Although the ma-
jority of policies in the current analysis adapted and modified
the Louisiana state model policy, potentially limiting the var-
iance and generalizability of findings, the majority of states
have developed model anti-bullying policies for school dis-
tricts to follow (Stuart-Cassell et al., 2011). Thus, Louisiana is
not unlike other states who have created a model framework
for districts to follow. Although generalizability is limited, the
contextual framework from this study outlines recommenda-
tions for specific components that may be important to include
in anti-bullying policies (e.g., U. S. Department of
Education’s key components, research-supported promising
practices), which is valuable information for policy-makers
across contexts. Second, district and school policies may have
altered since the completion of data collection. One such
change that is known to have occurred is the addition of a
policy pertaining specifically to threats of terrorism and/or
violence that resulted from a state statute revision in 2018.
The change occurred in the summer of 2018, prior to data
collection, but was not yet published into publicly available
policies at that time. With frequent policy revisions occurring,
additional revisions to the policies made following the period
of policy review cannot be accounted in the present study.
Finally, the content analysis ratings did not evaluate the over-
all quality of the integration of our contextual framework;
rather, the focus included the dichotomous presence or ab-
sence of each categorical criteria. Although this study provid-
ed an overall picture of the current State of Louisiana school
district policies, this rating criteria may have missed the de-
gree to which each policy included various components and
ultimately overlooked nuances that may have existed between
policies. Despite these limitations, the data presented high-
lights the overall strengths and areas of growth for policies
in Louisiana that we believe have valuable implications for
educators and researchers.
Conclusion
We provided an updated content analysis of the state of anti-
bully policies in Louisiana in an effort to understand how
policies compare to U.S. Department of Education recommen-
dations and research-supported promising practices. As the
current study considered the strengths and limitations of the
content explored in anti-bullying policies, it is evident that
many districts have begun to include basic and procedural
components such as a definition, investigation, and response
procedures. However, many policies are limited in regard to
their incorporation of some non-procedural components and

promising practices such as cultural responsiveness, monitor-
ing and evaluating, and mental health support for witnesses.
Anti-bullying policies have taken steps forward since the dis-
semination of recommendations for legislation and policies;
however, more work needs to be done to incorporate
evidence-based practices and non-procedural components
for bully response in schools in order to advocate for and
support all students.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
Anderson, M., & Jiang, J. (2018). Teens, social media & technology
2018. In Pew Research Center Retrieved from https://www.
pewinternet.org/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/.
Astor, R. A., Cornell, D. G., Espelage, D. L., Furlong, M. J., Jimerson, S.
R., Mayer, M. J., & Sugai, G. (2012). A call for more effective
prevention of violence. In response to the shooting at sandy hook
elementary school. In Position Statement of the Interdisciplinary
Group on Preventing School and Community Violence. Virginia:
University of Virginia, Curry School of Education and Human
Development Retrieved from https://curry.virginia.edu/uploads/
resourceLibrary/Updated_Lists-7-30-13-OFFICIAL_FOR_
DISSEMINATION Connecticut_School_Shooting _Position_
Statement.pdf.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). Youth risk behavior
survey: data summary and trend report 2007-2017. Retrieved from
https://www.cdc.gov/ healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/trendsreport.pdf
Cornell, D., & Limber, S. P. (2015). Law and policy on the concept of
bullying at school. American Psychologist, 70, 333–343. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0038558.
Day, J. K., Salvatore, I., & Russell, S. T. (2019). Safe and supportive
schools for LGBT youth: addressing educational inequities through
inclusive policies and practices. Journal of School Psychology, 74,
29–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.05.007.
Diamanduros, T., Downs, E., & Jenkins, S. (2008). The role of school
psychologists in the assessment, prevention, and intervention of
cyberbullying. Psychology in the Schools, 45(8), 693–704. https://
doi.org/10.1002/pits.20335.
Downes, P., & Cefai, C. (2016). How to prevent and tackle bullying and
school violence: evidence and practices for strategies for inclusive
and safe schools (NESET II report). Luxembourg: Publications
Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2766/0799.
Downes, P., & Cefai, C. (2019). Strategic clarity on different prevention
levels of school bullying and violence: rethinking peer defenders
and selected prevention. Journal of School Violence, 18, 510–521.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2019.1566915.
Elamé, E. (2013a). Bullying: characterisation and the state of internation-
al research. In E. Elamé (Ed.), Discriminatory bullying (pp. 3–24).
Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Elamé, E. (2013b). Discriminatory bullying: a reality in European
schools. In E. Elamé (Ed.), Discriminatory bullying (pp. 341–
369). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Epstein, D., Dowler, A., Mellor, D. J., & Madden, L. (2006). Evaluation
of anti-bullying policies in schools in Wales: final report. Cardiff
(WLS): Government of Wales.
Int Journal of Bullying Prevention
Espelage, D. L., Rose, C. A., & Polanin, J. P. (2015). Social-emotional
learning program to reduce bullying, fighting, and victimization
among middle school students with disability. Remedial and
Special Education, 36, 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0741932514564564.
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2013). EU LGBT
survey, results at a glance. Vienna: European Union Agency for
Fundamental Rights.
Fisher, K., Cassidy, B., & Mitchell, A. M. (2017). Bullying: effects on
school-aged children, screening tools, and referral sources. Journal
of Community Health Nursing, 34(4), 171–179. https://doi.org/10.
1080/07370016.2017.1369801.
Gaffney, H., Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2019). Examining the
effectiveness of school-bullying intervention programs globally: a
meta-analysis. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 1, 14–
31.
Goldweber, A., Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2013). Examining
the link between forms of bullying behaviors and perceptions of
safety and belonging among secondary school students. Journal of
School Psychology, 51, 469–485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2013.
04.004.
Gower, A. L., Cousin, M., & Borowsky, I. W. (2017). A multilevel,
statewide investigation of school district anti-bullying policy quality
and student bullying involvement. Journal of School Health, 87(3),
174–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12480.
Greytak, E. A., Kosciw, J. G., Villenas, C., & Giga, N. M. (2016).From
teasing to torment: School climate revisited, a survey of U.S. sec-
ondary school students and teachers. New York: GLSEN. Retrieved
from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED574777.pdf
Hall, W. (2017). The effectiveness of policy interventions for school
bullying: a systematic review. Journal of the Society for Social
Work and Research, 8(1), 45–69. https://doi.org/10.1086/690565.
Huddleston, L. B., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Cadenhead, C. (2011). A case
study with an identified bully: policy and practice implications.
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine: Integrating Emergency
Care with Population Health, 12(3), 316–323 Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.
Kozasa, S., Oiji, A., Kiyota, A., Sawa, T., & Kim, S. (2017). Relationship
between the experience of being a bully-victim and mental health in
preadolescence and adolescence: a cross-sectional study. Annals of
General Psychiatry, 16, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12991-017-
0160-4.
Lambe, L. J., Hudson, C. C., Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (2017). Does
defending come with a cost? Examining the psychosocial correlates
of defending behavior among bystanders of bullying in a Canadian
sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 65, 112–123. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.chiabu.2017.01.012.
Lambert, P., Scourfield, J., Smalley, N., & Jones, R. (2008). The social
context of school bullying: evidence from a survey of children in
South Wales. Research Papers in Education, 23(3), 269–291.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02671520701809866.
Limber, S. P., & Small, M. A. (2003). State laws and policies to address
bullying in schools. School Psychology Review, 32(3), 445–456.
Louisiana Public Health Institute. (2011). Louisiana. Youth risk behavior
surveillance surveys 2011 & school health profiles comparison
2010: violence among louisiana public school students. Retrieved
from http://lphi.org/wp-content/uploads/ 2016/09/2011-YRBSS-
Fact-Sheet-School-Violence_Eval_Fact-Sheet.pdf
McCann, A. (2018). States with the biggest bullying problems. Retrieved
from https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-at-controlling-
bullying/9920/
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic.
Biochemia medica: Biochemia medica, 22(3), 276–282. https://
doi.org/10.11613/bm.2012.031.
Mendez-Baldwin, M. (2019). An interactive bully prevention program:
using story time, dolls & pledges to teach about bullying. Journal of
Int Journal of Bullying Prevention
Bullying & Social Aggression Retrieved from http://sites.tamuc.edu/
bullyingjournal/test-2/.
Menesini, E., & Salmivalli, C. (2017). Bullying in schools: the state of
knowledge and effective interventions. Psychology, Health, &
Medicine, 22, 240–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2017.
1279740.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016).
Preventing bullying through science, policy, and practice.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/
10.17226/23482.
Nazir, T., & Piskin, M. (2015). School bullying: effecting child’s mental
health. The International Journal of Indian Psychology, 2, 130–135.
https://doi.org/10.25215/0204.090.
Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Olweus, D. (1993). Victimization by peers: antecedents and long-term
outcomes. In K. H. Rubin & J. B. Asendorpf (Eds.), Social with-
drawal, inhibition, and shyness in childhood (pp. 315–341).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..
Ordonez, M. (2006). Prevalence of bullying among elementary school
children as a function of the comprehensiveness of anti-bullying
policies and programs in the school (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from PsycInfo. (2007-99003-107)
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2012). School-based efforts to prevent
cyberbullying. The Prevention Researcher, 19(1).
Peguero, A. A., & Bondy, J. M. (2017). The importance of immigration
with future research about school safety. Race and Justice. https://
doi.org/10.1177/21533687177738039.
Research, P. (2012). Teens, smartphones & texting. Pew Research Center
(Internet and Technology). Retrieved from https://www.pewinternet.
org/2012/03/19/teens-smartphones-texting/.
Purdy, N., & Smith, P. K. (2016). A content analysis of school anti-
bullying policies in Northern Ireland. Educational Psychology in
Practice, 32(3), 281–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/02667363.2016.
1161599.
Rivara, F., & Le Menestrel, S. (2016). Preventing bullying through sci-
ence, policy, and practice. The National Academies Press Retrieved
from https://www.nap.edu/catalog /23482/preventing-bullying-
through-science-policy-and-practice.
Rivers, I., Poteat, V. P., Noret, N., & Ashurst, N. (2009). Observing
bullying at school: the mental health implications of witness status.
School Psychology Quarterly, 24(4), 211–223. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0018164.
Robinson Vaughn, B. E. (2013). A descriptive analysis of Louisiana pub-
lic school districts’ anti-bullying policies (doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ERIC. (ED563792)
Sabine Parish Schools. (2018-2019). District student handbook.
Retrieved from http://online.fliphtml5.com/agim/vnmt/#p=32
Smith, P. K., Smith, C., Osborn, R., & Samara, M. (2008). A content
analysis of school anti-bullying policies: progress and limitations.
Educational Psychology in Practice, 24(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02667360701661165.
Srabstein, J. C., Berkman, B. E., & Pyntikova, E. (2008). Antibullying
legislation: a public health perspective. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 42(1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.10.
007.
Stuart-Cassel, V., Bell, A., & Springer, J. F. (2011). Analysis of state
bullying laws and policies. In Office of Planning, Evaluation and
Policy Development, US Department of Education Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/bullying/state-bullying-laws/
state-bullying-laws.pdf.
Sulkowski, M. L., Bauman, S., Wright, S., Nixon, C., & Davis, S. (2014).
Peer victimization in youth from immigrant and non-immigrant US
families. School Psychology International, 35, 649–669. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0143034314554968.
Swearer, S. M., Espelage, D. L., Vaillancourt, T., & Hymel, S. (2010).
What can be done about school bullying? Linking research to edu-
cational practice. Educational Researcher, 39, 38–47. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0013189X09357622.
U. S. Department of Education. (2010, October 26). Dear colleague
letter. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/
letters/colleague-201010.html
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). Laws, policies
& regulations. Retrieved from https://www.stopbullying.gov/laws/
index.html
Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among
adolescents in the United States: physical, verbal, relational, and
cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(4), 368–375. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021.
Waseem, M., Paul, A., Schwartz, G., Pauze, D., Eakin, P., Barata, I., et al.
(2017). Violence: recognition, management and prevention. The
Journal of Emergency Medicine, 52, 246–252. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jemermed.2016.07.107.
Weaver, L. M., Brown, J. R., Weddle, D. B., & Aalsma, M. C. (2013). A
content analysis of protective factors within states’ antibullying
laws. Journal of School Violence, 12(2), 156–173. https://doi.org/
10.1080/15388220.2012.751537.
White, N., La Salle, T., Ashby, J. S., & Meyers, J. (2014). A brief measure
of adolescent perceptions of school climate. School Psychology
Quarterly, 29, 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000075.
Woods, S., & Wolke, D. (2003). Does the content of anti-bullying policies
inform us about the prevalence of direct and relational bullying
behavior in primary schools? Educational Psychology, 23(4), 381–
401. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410303215.