Sociation Today

    School safety is an important social issue because unsafe schools disrupt students' learning (R. Felner and T. Felner 1989; Lane 1989; Nansel et al. 2001; Nansel et al. 2004; Pearson and Toby 1991; Stewart 2008). Others argue that how students perceive their schools' environments are also important (Astor, Meyer and Pitner 2001; N. Bowen and G. Bowen 1999). For example, Valera and Guàrdia (2014) argue that lack of perceived safety is associated with negative psychological responses, and Toomey, McGuire, and Russell (2012) find that students' negative perceptions of their schools' environments are related to both psychosocial and academic adjustment issues. Bryan et al. (2012) find that negative perceptions of schools' environments are linked to lower levels of academic achievement. Others suggest that understanding students' perceptions of their schools' safety are important because students may have very different experiences at school, which shapes how they perceive their schools' environments (Weinstein 2002).

    Bullying is also a problem for many American youth (Berger 2007; Dinkes et al. 2009). For example, Nansel et al. (2001) find from a survey of over 15,000 students that nearly 30% of their sample aged 12 to 16-years-old reported experiences with bullying. The high prevalence of bullying is concerning for educators, students, and parents because studies suggest that bully victimization is associated with anxiety and depression (Bond et al. 2001), an increase in withdrawn behavior (Arseneault et al. 2006; Hemphill et al. 2015), peer rejection (Hodges and Perry 1999), increased aggression and externalizing behaviors (Kim et al. 2006), higher rates of suicide (Berger 2007; Gibb, Horwood, and Fergusson 2011), and other mental health issues (Kim and Leventhal 2008; Nansel et al. 2004). Radu (2017) also argues that an additional consequence of bullying is that it may push youth to run away from home to avoid attending school and experiencing subsequent bullying incidents.

    In addition to the negative social and behavioral outcomes associated with bullying, we argue that bully victims are less likely to feel safe at school (Mehta, Cornell, Fan, and Gregory 2012). Payne and Smith (2013) argue that bullying has gained public interest as a problem demanding attention. These studies (among others) suggest the importance of finding solutions to stop bullying and foster more positive learning environments. Therefore, the goal of our study is to better understand how we can help students feel safe at school, specifically students who report prior experiences with bully victimization. To accomplish this goal, we use a cross-sectional sample of bully victims from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (1997) to examine how individual and family characteristics and youths' perceptions of schools' climates affect how youths perceive the safety of their schools. We draw from Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory, suggesting the importance of considering how multiple contexts influence youths' socialization and development, including youths' perceptions of their schools' environments.

Theoretical Frameworks: Ecological Systems Theory

Bronfenbrenner's (1979) ecological systems theory emphasizes the need to take into account multiple contexts that may potentially influence children, adolescents, and families. He conceptualizes the ecological environment as a set of nested structures, arguing that human development involves the way in which a person perceives and deals with his or her environment. Children are embedded within the microsystem of families, the mesosystem of relationships between microsystems, such as families and schools, and the macro-levels of societies (Bronfenbrenner 1974). Drawing from Bronfenbrenner's ideas, we argue that to better understand how students perceive their social environments, it is important to consider how both families and schools influence youths' perceptions of their schools' safety.

How Family and School Resources Promote Better Perceptions of Schools

    Prior sociological literature establishes that both families and schools are important for youths' socialization and development, particularly the financial, human, and social capital resources that are available to youths from each context (Coleman 1961; Parcel and Bixby 2016). However, while we know that resources from both families and schools help promote youths' social, academic, and behavioral outcomes (see Parcel, Dufur, and Zito 2010 for review), less is known how these resources may help students feel safe at school.

    Family resources that are available to children through their parents are important for many reasons. Financial resources give children access to higher quality neighborhoods and better schools (Parcel and Dufur 2001a; 2001b; Lareau 2011). Family resources also take other forms, such as human capital. Human capital refers to an individual's knowledge, techniques, and skills and consists of parents' cognitive abilities and education (Becker 1964). Human capital is important because it encompasses higher levels of parental cognitive abilities and education, which are both associated with higher socioeconomic status (SES) and better parenting (Parcel and Dufur 2001a). The social relationships or bonds between parents and their children is another important family resource, referred to as social capital. Social capital encompasses connections between and among individuals that produce social outcomes, reflecting how individuals benefit through their participation in groups (Bourdieu 1973; Coleman, 1988; 1990; Portes 2000). Studies consistently find that higher levels of family social capital help promote better academic (Parcel and Dufur 2001a), social (Parcel and Dufur 2001b), and behavioral outcomes (Dufur et al. 2015). These studies suggest the importance of family resources for promoting positive adolescent outcomes.

    We argue that these same resources may be beneficial for helping youth feel safe at school. For example, family financial resources are particularly important for bullied youth because parents with more resources can send their children to safer schools. Additionally, middle and upper-class parents with higher SES tend to feel more comfortable addressing problems at their children's schools compared to working-class and poor parents (Lareau 2011). We also know that strong connections between parents and schools create bridging social capital between the family and the school (Coleman 1991; Parcel and Bixby 2016; Putnam 2000), and there is increasing evidence that the link between parents and schools is important for students' success (Comer and Haynes 1991; Epstein 1987; McNeal 1999). In addition, Olweus (1991) argues that parental support may help deter the negative effects of bullying.

    School climate is another form of social capital, which encompasses norms about appropriate behaviors and embodies a structured system of rewards and punishments (Welsh, Stokes, and Green 2000). Studies find that schools with structured policies regarding misbehavior tend to produce more favorable student outcomes because students feel more confident that their teachers and administers will address school problems (Welsh et al. 2000). Additionally, a positive school climate in the form of a safe school helps reduce student delinquency (Cernkovich and Giordano 1992; O'Donnell, Hawkins, and Abbott 1995; Popp and Peguero 2012). Consequently, lower levels of delinquency foster an overall more positive school environment (Macmillian and Hagan 2004). These studies suggest that how students perceive the overall climate of their schools is important for students' success, and we argue that students' perceptions of their schools' climates may also influence if students feel safe at school.

Current Study and Hypotheses

Our approach explores how family and school resources may help youths feel safe at school even when they have had prior experiences with bully victimization.

We test the following five hypotheses:

H1: Victims of bullying with more family financial capital are more likely to feel safe at school compared to their peers with less family financial capital.

H2: Victims of bullying with higher levels of family human capital are more likely to feel safe at school compared to their peers with less family human capital.

H3: Victims of bullying with higher levels of family social capital are more likely to feel safe at school compared to their peers with lower levels of family social capital.

H4: Victims of bullying with more positive perceptions of their schools' climates are more likely to feel safe at school compared to their peers with less positive perceptions of their schools' climate.

H5: Victims of bullying who experience additional forms of victimization at school are more likely to feel unsafe at school compared to their peers without these additional negative experiences.

Data, Methods, and Analytic Technique

We use data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (hereafter NLSY97). The NLSY97 is a household-based, nationally representative longitudinal study, following a cohort of youths born between the years 1980 through 1984 with Wave 1 starting in 1997, continuing to Wave Sixteen collected in 2013. The oldest youth were 16-years-old as of December 31, 1996 and the youngest were 12-years-old. The initial sample includes 8,984 individuals originating from 6,819 unique households; 1,862 households included more than one NLSY97-eligible respondent. Starting in 1997, respondents were interviewed annually, collecting data regarding youths' labor market behavior and educational experiences, in addition to respondents' family and community background information.

The NLSY97 includes two independent probability samples, a cross-sectional sample and an oversample of African-American and/or Latino respondents. The cross-sectional sample was designed to be representative of youths residing in the United States during Wave 1 (1997). The supplemental sample was based on the number of African- Americans and Latinos living in a particular geographic area (NLS User's Guide 2000). After the screening process, 2,479 individuals were designated to participate in the survey with 2,236 respondents (90%) completing Wave 1 of the interview (NLS User's Guide 2000). Our full sample includes 8,984 12 to 17-year-olds. Among our full sample, nearly 20% indicated that they had been the victim of childhood bullying (N=1,749).

Variables and Measures

We measure our dependent variable, perception of school safety with a survey question from Wave 1 (1997) asking respondents, "Do you feel safe at school?" Responses include (1) = strongly disagree, (2) = disagree, (3) = agree, and (4) = strongly agree. We dichotomize our dependent variable, combining "strongly disagree" and "disagree" into a category indicating (0) = respondents do not feel safe at school. While "agree" and "strongly agree" reflect (1) = respondents feel safe at school.

We measure bully victimization with a retrospective survey question, "Before you turned age 12, were you ever the victim of repeated bullying?" Response options included, (1) = yes and (0) = no.

Family Financial, Human, and Social Capital

We include a categorical measure for gross household income as an indicator for family financial resources. Based on information from the responding parent or youth, the variable household income summarizes the household's financial situation. To reflect human capital, we also measure both residential paternal and residential maternal years of completed education.

To measure the bonds between youths and their families we create an index. We include three questions that measure the amount of time parents and their children spent together. This includes the number of days per week youths typically (1) ate dinner with their family, (2) engaged in a fun activity with their family, and (3) participated in a religious activity with their family. Responses range from zero days to seven days per week. The fourth item in the index asks respondents how much their residential mother knows about their teachers and what he or she is doing at school with values including (0) = knows nothing, (1) = knows just a little, (2) = knows some things, (3) = knows most things, and (4) = knows everything. The index ranges from zero, indicating low levels of family social bonds, to twenty-five, suggesting high levels of family social bonds. We use exploratory factor analysis that suggests that all four items load on one factor, with a Cronbach's alpha of .641 indicating a moderate level of reliability.

Students' Perceptions of School Climate and Experiences at School

We measure students' perceptions of schools' climate with an index from questions asking respondents (1) if teachers are interested in students' success at school, (2) if the grading system was utilized fairly at school, and (3) if school discipline was fair. Responses include (1) = strongly agree, (2) = agree, (3) = disagree, and (4) = strongly disagree. We recode variables so that higher responses reflect a positive perception of the school environment. Exploratory factor analysis suggests that all three items load on one factor, and the Cronbach's alpha of .734 suggests a moderate to high level of reliability.

We also measure students' experiences with school-based victimization, including if youths had ever been threatened at school or the victim of property theft at school. We measure threatened at school with a question asking respondents the number of times they had ever been threatened to be hurt at school. Over 80% of the respondents answered zero, indicating that they had never been threatened to be hurt at school. Because of the skewed distribution, we recode this variable into seven categories: (0) = never threatened at school, (1) = threatened once at school, (2) = threatened twice at school, (3) = threatened three times at school, (4) = threatened four times at school, (5) = threatened five times at school and (6) = threatened six or more times at school. Respondents were also asked the number of times they had been the victim of property theft while at school ("had something of value been stolen at school"). Responses range from 0-20 with 75% of respondents indicating that they have never been the victim of property theft. We recode victim of property theft at school into five categories: (0) = not the victim of property theft at school, (1) one-time victim of property theft at school, (2) victim of property theft at school twice, (3) victim of property theft at school three times, and (4) = victim of property theft at school four or more times. We also include a measure to reflect if respondents had ever been suspended from school, (1) = yes and (0) = no.

Control Variables

We create an index measuring respondents' proportion of friends who engage in delinquency, higher values of the scale—coded from zero to five—indicate a higher percentage of the respondents' friends engaged in delinquent behaviors. We also control for delinquency by using a seven-item index. We measure family structure, assessing if respondents lived with both biological parents until they were 14-years-old, (1) = yes and (0) = no. We include race/ethnicity by sets of dummy variables with white as the reference category. We also include respondent's birth year and sex as a dummy variable with females as the reference group.

Analytic Strategy

We use logistic regression to predict the binary outcome variable, perception of school safety from sets of independent variables. The equation for the logit is expressed as:

logit [θ(x)] = log([θ(x)]/[1-θ(x)]) = α + β1X1 + β2X2… + βkXk

In Model 1, we test if victims of bullying with higher levels of family (1) financial capital, (2) human capital, and (3) social capital are more likely to feel safe at school compared to their peers with fewer family resources. Model 2 tests whether victims of bullying with more positive perceptions of their schools' climates and more positive experiences at school are more likely to feel safe at school compared to their peers with less positive perceptions of their schools' climate and negative experiences at school. In Model 3, we include all independent variables from Models 1 and 2 and add the control variables.

Findings

How Bullying Influences Youths' Perceptions of Schools' Safety

Table 1 shows the bivariate correlations with all independent variables, including bully victimization, and the dependent variable, perceptions of schools' safety. Among the full sample of youths (N=8,984), there is a statistically significant negative correlation between being the victim of bullying and positive perceptions of school safety. That is, we find that youth who reported being the victim of childhood bullying are less likely to report feeling safe at school.

Table 1. Bivariate Correlations with Perception of School Safety, Full Sample (N=8,984)

Victim of Bullying

-.116***

Gross Household Income (categorical)

.134***

Father's Education (in years)

.074**

Mother's Education (in years)

.069**

Family Social Capital (index)

.048**

School Climate (index)

.275***

Property Stolen at School

-.154***

Threatened at School

-.256***

Suspended from School

-.172***

Peer Delinquency (index)

-.200**

Delinquency (index)

-.087**

Family Structure

(live with both biological parents)

.062**

African American

(white as reference category)

-.135**

Hispanic/Latino

(white as reference category)

.003

Other Race/Ethnicity

(white as reference category)

-.004

Age (Birth year)

.019

Sex

(female as reference category)

.020

In Table 2 we show that a little over 12% of youths who were not the victim of childhood bullying report that they do not feel safe at school. The percentage of youths who report that they do not feel safe at school nearly doubles (23%) for youth who report being the victim of bullying.

Table 2. Cross Tabulation of Victim of Bullying and Perception of School Safety, Full Sample (N=8,984)
		Feel Safe at School
Bullying		No		Yes
Never Bullied	12.4%		87.6%
Victim of Bullying	22.7%		77.3%

Who Experiences Bullying?

We examine the descriptive statistics among our sample of youths who reported that they had been the victim of childhood bullying (N=1,749). In Table 3, we show that over half of the bully victims are white/non-Hispanic/Latino (53%), 28% are African American and nearly 18% identify as Hispanic/Latino. The sample of bully victims consists primarily of males (57%) and on average, bully victims were approximately 14-years-old at Wave 1 of the survey (1997). Regarding youths' families, we find that on average, youths' residential parents earned slightly more than a high school diploma and most youths reported living with both biological parents compared to a different living arrangement.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Sample of Bully Victims (N=1,749)
	Min-Max	Mean	Std. Deviation
Gross Household Income (categorical)	1-5	2.82	1.31
Father's Education (in years)	1-20	12.69	3.4
Mother's Education (in years)	1-20	12.65	2.9
Family Social Capital (Index)	0-25	11.51	5.33
School Climate (Index)	3-12	8.60	1.71
Property Stolen at School	0-4	.626	1.05
Threatened at School	0-6	1.25	1.97
Suspended from School	0-1	.385	.487
Peer Delinquency (Index)	0-5	1.73	1.63
Delinquency (Index)	0-7	2.34	2.00
Family Structure (live with both biological parents)	0-1	.687	.464
African American (white as reference category)	0-1	.281	.450
Hispanic/Latino (white as reference category)	0-1	.176	.381
Other Race/Ethnicity (white as reference category)	0-1	.008	.092
Age (Birth year)	1980-1984	1982	1.40
Sex (female as reference category)	0-1	.570	.495

How Families and Schools Help Bully Victims Feel Safe at School

    We use binary logistic regression to predict the dependent variable, perceptions of schools' safety from sets of independent variables, including (1) family financial capital, (2) family human capital, (3) family social capital, (4) students' perceptions of schools' climate, and (5) students' experiences at school.

    In Model 1, we find that among our sample of bullied youth, youths from families with higher incomes (.246; p<.001), more years of paternal education (.050; p<.01), and those with more family social capital (.029; p<.05) are more likely to feel safe at school compared to their peers who also experienced bullying but come from families with less financial resources, lower levels of paternal education, and less family social capital. Model 1 shows that mother's education is not statistically significant in predicting youths' perceptions of schools' safety.

    Model 2 demonstrates that youths with more positive perceptions of their schools' climate (.392; p<.001) are more likely to perceive their schools as safe compared to their peers with negative perceptions of their schools' climate. Model 2 also shows that youths who were threatened at school (-.241; p<.001), had property stolen at school (-.174; p<.01), and had ever been suspended (-.515; p<.001) were less likely to report feeling safe at school.

    Our full additive model, Model 3 shows that higher family income and more years of paternal education are associated with more positive perceptions of schools' safety. Youths with positive perceptions of their schools' climate are also more likely to feel safe at school, while youths who had property stolen at school, were threatened at school, or had been suspended from school are less likely to feel safe at school. We also find that peer delinquency is statistically significant and negative in predicting a positive perception of schools' safety. Among our other control variables, we find that African American youths are more likely to feel safe at school compared to their white peers, and older students are more likely to feel safe at school compared to their younger peers.

Table 4. Summary of Logistic Regression Predicting Students' Perception of Schools' Safety from a Sample of Bully Victims (N=1,749)
	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
Gross Household Income (categorical)	.246*** 1.28 (.049)		.205*** 1.23 (.057)
Father's Education (in years)	.505*** 1.01 (.018)		.048* 1.05 (.020)
Mother's Education (in years)	-.036 .964 (.023)		-.034 .966 (.026)
Family Social Capital (Index)	.029*** 1.03 (.011)		.014 1.01 (.234)
School Climate (Index)		.392*** 1.48 (.039)	.367*** 1.44 (.042)
Property Stolen at School		-.174*** .840 (.057)	-.164*** .849 (.058)
Threatened at School		-.241*** .786 (.029)	-.256*** .774 (.031)
Suspended from School		-.515*** .598 (.128)	-.354* .702 (.145)
Peer Delinquency (Index)			-.279*** .757 (.043)
Delinquency (Index)			.058 1.06 (.036)
Family Structure (Live with biological parents)			-.017 .984 (.143)
African American (white as reference category)			-.442*** .643 (.160)
Hispanic/Latino (white as reference category)			-.024 .977 (.194)
Other Race/Ethnicity (white as reference category)			-.632 .531 (.659)
Age (Birth year)			-.157*** .855 (.052)
Sex (female as reference category)			.080 1.08 (.135)

Constant	.069	-1.303	31.084
-2 log likelihood	1822.39	1584.05	1491.20
Chi-Square	46.66	284.99	377.85
df	4	4	16

Discussion

Students' perceptions of schools' safety and bullying have detrimental consequences for youths, which suggests the importance of examining ways to improve how bully victims perceive their schools' environments. One of our primary objectives was to test if family resources help students feel safe at school. We find support for our hypotheses that (H1) family financial capital, (H2) family human capital, and (H3) family social capital help victims of bullying feel safe at school. Youths with more financial resources at home may have greater flexibility regarding the schools they attend, which may allow youths to attend better quality and safer schools than their peers with lower levels of family financial resources. Additionally, higher levels of family human capital may influence bully victims' perceptions of schools' safety because parents with more years of education are more likely to be involved with their children's schools and tend to feel more comfortable advocating for their children with school administrators and teachers compared to parents with lower levels of education. Our findings also suggest that higher levels of family social capital help bully victims feel safe at school, which suggests that a strong social support system outside of the school may help bullied youths feel safe while at school.

We also find support for our hypothesis regarding students' perceptions of schools' climate (H4). That is, students who had more positive perceptions regarding their school's (1) teachers, (2) the grading system, and (3) the implementation of discipline policies were more likely to feel safe at school compared to their peers who had negative perceptions of their schools' climate. Finally, we find that among our sample of bully victims, additional forms of victimization, such as having property stolen at school or being threatened at school increases the likelihood of youths' feeling unsafe at school, which supports our hypothesis (H5). Our findings suggest that both families and schools have the potential to increase the likelihood that bullied youths feel safe at school.

Limitations

Variations in students' perceptions of schools' safety and experiences with victimization may be linked to attending poor-quality schools or living in disadvantaged neighborhoods, and racial/ethnic minority youth and youths from lower socioeconomic families are more likely to attend these poorer quality schools and reside in less advantaged neighborhoods. Our study does not address the complexities of racial/ethnic inequalities or economic disparities linked to disadvantaged schools/neighborhoods. Additionally, because we use a cross-sectional sample from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (1997) we cannot establish causal order.

Conclusion and Implications for Policy

Students may perceive their schools as unsafe for various reasons, such as being the victim of teasing, bullying, social exclusion, or witnessing another student's victimization. Our findings suggest that to improve students' perceptions of their schools' safety it is important to promote fair and effective discipline strategies, which is supported by other studies. For example, G. Gottfredson and D. Gottfredson (1985) argue that clear expectations regarding students' behaviors and consistently enforced rules help establish a more positive school climate. Additionally, Gregory and Ripski (2008) suggest that cooperative behaviors between students and teachers minimizes problem behaviors at school.

We argue that implementing programs and providing advocacy and support for students who perceive their schools as unsafe, negative, or hostile environments may help stimulate a more positive learning atmosphere. Additionally, we argue that one way to provide support for bullied youths is to help bridge connections between families and schools. While not all families can choose what school to send their children to, we argue that increasing parental involvement in their children's lives both inside and outside of the school provides youth with a strong social support network. This in turn, helps bullied youths feel safe while at school. We also argue that programs that help youths build dependable and trustworthy relationships with adults at school may help deter bullying, in turn improving students' perceptions of their schools' environments.

References

Arseneault, Louise, Elizabeth Walsh, Kali Trzesniewski, Rhiannon Newcombe, Avshalom Caspi, and Terrie E. Moffitt. 2006. "Bullying Victimization Uniquely Contributes to Adjustment Problems in Young Children: A Nationally Representative Cohort Study." Pediatrics 118(1): 130-138.

Astor, Ron Avi, Heather Ann Meyer, and Ronald O. Pitner. 2001. "Elementary and middle school students' perceptions of violence-prone school subcontexts." The Elementary School Journal 101(5): 511-528.

Becker, Gary S. 1964. Human Capital. New York: Columbia University Press.
Berger, Kathleen Stassen. 2007. "Update on Bullying at School: Science forgotten?" Developmental Review 27(1): 90-126.

Bond, Lyndal, John B. Carlin, Lyndal Thomas, Kerryn Rubin, and George Patton. 2001. "Does Bullying Cause Emotional Problems? A Prospective Study of Young Teenagers." BMJ 323(7311): 480-484.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1973. "Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction." Pp. 487-511 in Power and Ideology in Education, edited by J. Karabel and A. H. Halsey. New York: Oxford.

Bowen, Natasha, K., and Gary L. Bowen. 1999. "Effects of Crime and Violence in Neighborhoods and Schools on the School Behavior and Performance of Adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research 14(3): 319-342.

Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 1974. "Development Research, Public Policy, and the Ecology of Childhood." Child Development 45(1): 1-5.

Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bryan, Julia, Cheryl Moore‐Thomas, Stacey Gaenzle, Jungnam Kim, Chia‐Huei Lin, and Goeun     Na. 2012. "The Effects of School Bonding on High School Seniors' Academic Achievement." Journal of Counseling & Development 90(4): 467-480.

Cernkovich, Stephen A., and Peggy C. Giordano. 1992. "School Bonding, Race, and Delinquency." Criminology 30(2): 261-291.

Coleman, James S. 1961. The Adolescent Society. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Coleman, James S. 1988. "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital." American Journal of Sociology (supplement): S95-S120.

Coleman, James S. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Coleman, James S. 1991. "Parental Involvement in Education." Policy Perspective: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Comer, James P., and Norris M. Haynes. 1991. "Parent Involvement in Schools: An Ecological Approach." The Elementary School Journal 91(3): 271-277.

Dinkes, Rachel, Jana Kemp, Katrina Baum, and Thomas D. Snyder. 2009. "Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2008." National Center for Education Statistics: Institute of Education Science. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.

Dufur, Mikaela J., John P. Hoffmann, David B. Braudt, Toby L. Parcel, and Karen R. Spence. 2015. "Examining the Effects of Family and School Social Capital on Delinquent Behavior." Deviant Behavior 36(7): 511-526.

Epstein, Joyce L. 1987. "Parent Involvement: What Research Says to Administrators." Education and Urban Society 19(2): 119-36.

Felner, Robert D., and Tweety Yates Felner. 1989. "Primary Prevention Programs in the Educational Context: A Transactional-Ecological Framework and Analysis." Pp. 13-49 in Primary Prevention and Promotion in the Schools. Primary Prevention of Psychopathy, Vol. 12, edited by L. A. Bond and B. E. Compas. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gibb, Sheree J., L. John Horwood, and David M. Fergusson. 2011. "Bullying
Victimization/Perpetration in Childhood and Later Adjustment: Findings from a 30-year Longitudinal Study." Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research 3(2): 82-88.

Gottfredson, Gary D., and Denise C. Gottfredson. 1985. Victimization in Schools. New     York, NY: Plenum Press.

Gregory, Anne, and Michael B. Ripski. 2008. "Adolescent Trust in Teachers: Implications for Behavior in the High School Classroom." School Psychology Review 37(3): 337-353.

Hemphill, Sheryl A., Michelle Tollit, Aneta Kotevski, and Ariane Florent. 2015. "Bullying in Schools: Rates, Correlates and Impact on Mental Health." Pp. 185-205 in Violence and Mental Health, edited by J. Lindert and I. Levav. New York, NY: Springer International Publishing.

Hodges, Ernest VE, and David G. Perry. 1999. "Personal and Interpersonal Antecedents and Consequences of Victimization by Peers." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76(4): 677-685.

Kim, Young Shin, Bennett L. Leventhal, Yun-Joo Koh, Alan Hubbard, and W. Thomas     Boyce. 2006. "School Bullying and Youth Violence: Causes or Consequences of     Psychopathologic Behavior?" Archives of General Psychiatry 63(9): 1035-104.

Kim, Young Shin, Bennett L. Leventhal, Yun-Joo Koh, Alan Hubbard, and W. Thomas Boyce. 2006. "School Bullying and Youth Violence: Causes or Consequences of Psychopathologic Behavior?" Archives of General Psychiatry 63(9): 1035-104.

Lane, David A. 1989. "Bullying in School: The Need for an Integrated Approach." School Psychology International 10(3): 211-215.

Lareau, Annette. 2011. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

McNeal, Ralph B. 1999. "Parental Involvement as Social Capital: Differential Effectiveness on Science Achievement, Truancy, and Dropping Out." Social Forces 78(1): 117-144.

Mehta, Sharmila B., Dewey Cornell, Xitao Fan, and Anne Gregory. 2013. "Bullying Climate and School Engagement in Ninth‐Grade Students." Journal of School Health 83(1): 45-52.

Nansel, Tonja R., Wendy Craig, Mary D. Overpeck, Gitanjali Saluja, and W. June Ruan. 2004. "Cross-National Consistency in the Relationship Between Bullying Behaviors and Psychosocial Adjustment." Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 158(8): 730-736.

Nansel, Tonja R., Mary Overpeck, Ramani S. Pilla, W. June Ruan, Bruce Simons-Morton, and Peter Scheidt. 2001. "Bullying Behaviors Among US Youth: Prevalence and Association with Psychosocial Adjustment." The Journal of the American Medical Association 285(16): 2094-2100.

O'Donnell, Julie, J. David Hawkins, Richard F. Catalano, Robert D. Abbott, and L. Edward Day. 1995. "Preventing School Failure, Drug Use, and Delinquency among Low-Income Children: Long-Term Intervention in Elementary Schools." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65(1): 87-100.

Olweus, Dan. 1991. "Bully/victim Problems among Schoolchildren: Basic Facts and Effects of a School Based Intervention Program." Pp. 411-448 in The Development and Treatment of Childhood Aggression, edited by D. J. Pepler and K. H. Rubin. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Parcel, Toby L., and Monica S. Bixby. 2016. "The Ties That Bind: Social Capital, Families, and Children's Well-Being." Child Development Perspectives 10(2): 87-92.

Parcel, Toby L., and Mikaela J. Dufur. 2001a. "Capital at Home and at School: Effects on Student Achievement." Social Forces 79(3): 881-911.

Parcel, Toby L., and Mikaela J. Dufur. 2001b. "Capital at Home and at School: Effects on Child Social Adjustment." Journal of Marriage and Family 63(1): 32-47.

Parcel, Toby L., Mikaela J. Dufur, and Rena Cornell Zito. 2010. "Capital at Home and at School: A Review and Synthesis." Journal of Marriage and Family 72(4): 828-846.

Payne, Elizabethe, and Melissa Smith. 2013. "LGBTQ Kids, School Safety, And Missing the Big Picture: How the Dominant Bullying Discourse Prevents School Professionals from Thinking About Systemic Marginalization Or... Why We Need to Rethink LGBTQ Bullying." QED: A Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking 1(1): 1-36.

Pearson, Frank S., and Jackson Toby. 1991. "Fear of School-Related Predatory Crime."
Sociology and Social Research 75(3): 117-125.

Popp, Ann Marie, and Anthony A. Peguero. 2012. "Social Bonds and the Role of School-    Based Victimization." Journal of Interpersonal Violence 27(17): 3366-3388.

Portes, Alejandro. 2000. "Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology." Pp. 43-67 in Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications, edited by     E. L. Lesser. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Radu, Monica Bixby. 2017. "Who Runs Away from Home and Why? How Families, Schools, and Bullying Influence Youth Runaways." Sociology Compass 11(1): e12537.

Stewart, Endya B. 2008. "School Structural Characteristics, Student Effort, Peer Associations, and Parental Involvement: The Influence of School-and Individual-Level Factors on Academic Achievement." Education and Urban Society 40(2): 179-204.

Toomey, Russell B., Jenifer K. McGuire, and Stephen T. Russell. 2012. "Heteronormativity, School Climates, And Perceived Safety for Gender Nonconforming Peers." Journal of Adolescence 35(1): 187-196.

Valera, Sergi, and Joan Guàrdia. 2014. "Perceived Insecurity and Fear of Crime in A City with Low-Crime Rates." Journal of Environmental Psychology 38: 195-205.

Welsh, Wayne N., Robert Stokes, and Jack R. Greene. 2000. "A Macro-Level Model of SchoolDisorder." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 37(3): 243-283.

Weinstein, Rhona S. 2002. "Overcoming Inequality in Schooling: A Call to Action for Community Psychology." American Journal of Community Psychology 30(1): 21-42.

Return to Home Page