B u l l y in g I s s u e s I m p a c t in g S t u d e n t s w it h D is a b il it ie s : H ig h l ig h t s o f S e c t io n 1 9 8 3 , T it l e IX, S e c t io n 5 0 4 , ADA, a n d IDEA Ca ses Cynthia A. Dieterich*, Nicole DiRado Snyderf & Christine Villanit I. Introduction As student-on-student bullying in K -12 schools receives in ­ creasing national attention, there has been a corresponding in ­ crease in litigation based on bullying and h arassm en t claim s.*1 Students w ith and w ithout disabilities experience bullying th a t can resu lt in “significant negative emotional, educational and physical results . . ., [however] students w ith disabilities are both uniquely vulnerable and disproportionately im pacted by the bullying phenom ena.”2 Specifically, some stu d en ts w ith a disability m ay “look or act different th a n th eir peers as a resu lt of th e ir physical, intellectual, or em otional im pairm ents and these characteristics m ake them n a tu ra l targ ets for harass* Cynthia A. Dieterich is a visiting faculty member at the College of Education at Cleveland State University. She teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in Special Education. She is also an education consultant, providing research and educational support to individuals and organizations. She received her Ph.D. in Special Education and Psychometrics from Kent State University and a M.Ed. in Curriculum and Instruction: Learning Disabilities and Behavior Disorders from Cleveland State University. t Nicole DiRado Snyder is an associate at Latsha, Davis, Yohe & McKenna, P.C. She practices in charter school law, education law, special education law, litigation, and insurance defense and has defended clients in a variety of matters including IDEA and Section 504. She received her J.D. from Villanova University School of Law. t Christine Villani is a Professor of Elementary Education at Southern Connecticut State University. She teaches graduate and postgraduate level courses in education and educational foundations. She received her Ed.D. from Fordham University, and also holds Masters degrees in Psychology and Speech and Language Pathology. 1 See Seamus Boyce, Anne Littlefield & James D. Long, Zeno, OCR & the State: Recent Developments in Bullying & Harassment Regulation, NSBA COUNCIL OF S c h o o l A t t o r n e y s , l, 2 (2013). 2 Jonathan Young, Ari Ne’eman & Sara Gesler, Bullying and Students with Disabilities: A Briefing Paper from the National Council on Disability, NATIONAL C o u n c il On D is a b il it y , Mar. 9, 2011, at http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2011/March92011. 107 108 B.Y.U. EDUCATION & LAW JOURNAL [2015 m ent .” 3 Findings of recent research in th e social sciences indi­ cate th a t students w ith disabilities are more likely to be bu l­ lied, and a t greater risk of being the p erp etrato r of harassing behavior .4 In social science research, bullying is typically m eas­ ured and defined based on data collected from standardized m easures of behavior, office referrals, and self-reporting of bu l­ lying behavior . 5 However, defining “bullying” for an em pirical study can be dram atically different th a n a legal in terpretation of bullying. Bullying is not defined w ith specificity by federal law , 6 and states have used the trad itio n al states’ right approach to enact anti-bullying legislation . 7 According to a report released by the U nited S tates D epartm ent of Education, states have enacted bullying law s th a t range from comprehensive and explicit to lean and open for broad in terp retatio n .8 A lthough no federal 3 David Ellis Ferster, Deliberately Different: Bullying as Denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 43 GA. L. Rev. 191, 199 (2008). 4 See generally Susan M. Swearer, Cixin Wang, John W. Maag, Amanda B. Siebecker & Lynae J. Frerichs, Understanding the Bullying Dynamic Among Students in Special and General Education, 50 J. OF SCH. PSYCHOL. 503 (2012) (results from a study indicated that students with behavioral disorders and those with observable disabilities reported bullying others more than being victimized more than their general education counterparts); Christopher B. Forrest, Katherine B. Bevans, Anne W. Riley, Richard Crespo, & Thomas A. Louis, School Outcomes of Children With Special Health Care Needs, PEDIATRICS, (July 25, 2011), http://pediatrics.aappublications.Org/content/128/2/303.full (A study showed that children with special health care needs had lower motivation to do well in school, more disruptive behaviors, and more frequent experiences as a bully victim); Connie Anderson, IAN Research Report: Bullying and Children with ASD, INTERACTIVE Au t is m N etw ork, (Mar. 26, 2012), http://www.iancommunity.org/cs/ian_research_reports/ian_research_report_bullying; (Children with ASD are often bully victims, children who had been bullied and had also bullied others); Chad A. Rose, Dorothy L. Espelage, Steven R. Aragon & John Elliott, Bullying and Victimization Among Students in Special Education and General Education Curricula, 21 EXCEPTIONALITY EDUC. INT’L 2 (2011) (Data from a study suggested that students with disabilities engaged in higher rates of bullying and fighting perpetration, and were victimized more than their general education peers) 5 See generally Rose et al., supra note 4 at 7 (Data for bullying research was collected in collaboration with school adminsitrators, teachers, and community representatives and consent forms were mailed to parents); Swearer et al., supra note 4 at 504 (Data on students’ involvement in bullying, office referrals, and prosocial behavior was collected for bullying study). 6 See Samantha Neiman, Brandon Robers & Simone Robers, Bullying: A State of Affairs, 41 J.L. & EDUC. 603, 603-04 (2012). 7 See U.S. DEPT. HEALTH HUM. SERV., Policies & Lau;s,(Mar. 31, 1014), http://www.stopbullying.gov/laws/index.html (presently forty-nine states have bullying laws). 8 Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies, U.S. Dept. EDUC., (2011). 1] BULLYING ISSUES IMPACTING STUDENTS 109 law directly prohibits bullying, states m ust be careful not to juxtapose or directly conflict their bullying laws w ith other fed­ eral laws th a t a plaintiff m ight use to take action in a bullying case. Claims against schools failing to protect stu d en ts w ith disabilities against bullying have typically been made under Title IX of the Education Am endm ents of 1972,9 Section 1983 of th e Civil Rights Act,10 Section 504 of the R ehabilitation Act,*11 the Am ericans w ith Disabilities Act,12 and/or the Individuals w ith D isabilities Education Im provem ent Act.13 Hence, states need to recognize the m inim al criteria a state law can set so as to not contradict these “cousin”14 laws a t the federal level. U n­ derstanding the legal precedent th a t states need to consider w hen determ ining state legislation will afford school districts a stan d a rd to establish local and school-specific policies th a t best address the issue of bullying and children w ith disabilities. II. Overview of F ederal Laws P rotecting Students With Disabilities A. Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act Section 1983 provides individuals the right to sue governm ent actors who have violated one’s civil rig h ts.15 Specifically, “[ejvery person who . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the U nited S tates or other person w ithin the jurisdiction . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or im m unities secured by the C onstitution and laws, http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/evai/bullying/state-bullying-iaws/state-buii3dng-laws.pdf (last visited on November 1, 2014). 9 Title IX of the Education Amendments, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(1972) [hereinafter Title IX], 10 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) [hereinafter Section 1983]. 11 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (1973) [hereinafter 504], 12 42 U.S.C.A. § 12132 (1990) [hereinafter ADA, which is used as the common term although it was amended in 2008 as the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADA AA)]. 13 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004) [hereafter IDEA]. 14 Using the term “cousin” to suggest that Section 1983, Title IX, 504, and IDEA are related legislation that plaintiffs can use to bring suit in response to the misconduct of students toward their child with a disability in lieu of a specific federal bullying law. 15 See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 110 B.Y.U. EDUCATION & LAW JOURNAL [2015 shall be liable to th e p arty injured . . ”16 Claims are often raised in actions against school officials for deprivation of constitutional rights under th e Due Process or Equal Protection clauses of the 14th A m endm ent or of a rig h t created by federal sta tu te .17 U nder Section 1983, victims of peer h arassm en t have a civil cause of action to rem edy federal constitutional or statu to ry right violations.18 However, there are “several major hurdles to a finding of liability under § 1983 th a t greatly reduce its utility as an avenue of redress for bullying victim s.”19 Claims of im m unity by individuals or school entities; exclusive avenue and statu to ry preclusion issues; exhaustion of other remedies, including adm inistrative remedies; and protracted litigation are all potential im pedim ents to successful recovery for claims under Section 1983.20 B. Title IX Title IX prohibits discrim ination on the basis of gender by providing th a t “no person shall be . . . denied benefits for . . . any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”21 A lthough Title IX imposes liability for peer h arassm ent, districts are not liable for th e conduct of school bullies unless they officially chose to ignore the known h arassm en t.22 In Davis v. Monroe, the U.S. Suprem e Court held th a t Title IX could provide a rem edy against a school for creating a hostile environm ent by failing to take disciplinary action against offending students.23 However, in order to establish th a t a hostile environm ent for which a school could be liable exists, as set forth in Davis a plaintiff m ust show th a t (1) th e school board has adequate notice of liability for the harassm ent; (2) the school board was aw are of harassm en t and is id. 17 Neiman et al., supra note 6 at 625. is 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 See Neiman supra note 6 at 625. 20 Id. at 625-26. 21 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). 22 Id. 23 Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe County Bd. of Ed., 526 U.S. 629 (1999). See Annette Thacker, Helping Students Who Can’t Help Themselves: Special Education and the Deliberate Indifference Standard for Title IX Peer Sexual Harassment, 2011 BYU Educ . & L.J. 701,701 (2011) (discussing Title IX, sexual harassment, and special education). 1] BULLYING ISSUES IMPACTING STUDENTS 111 acted deliberately indifferent; (3) the h arassm en t is so severe, pervasive, and offensive th a t the victim ’s access to an educational benefit or activity is denied; and (4) th e school board dem onstrates control of the h a ra sser and the context of the h arassm en t.24 Hence, the bar for recovery is high. T hat said, schools should ensure th a t appropriate action is ta k en to create a safe, nurturing, harassm ent-free environm ent for all of th e ir students. C. Section 504 and the ADA Section 504 of the R ehabilitation Act (“Section 504”) and th e A m ericans w ith D isabilities Act (“ADA”) prohibit schools th a t receive federal funds from discrim ination against individuals w ith qualifying disabilities.25 A plaintiff seeking to state a claim under Section 504 m ust show th a t solely by reason of his or h er disability, he or she m ust not be excluded from the participation in, or be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to any discrim ination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.26 F urther, a plaintiff seeking to state a claim under the ADA against a school receiving federal financial assistance m ust show th a t he or she is: (1) disabled under the statute, (2) otherw ise qualified for participation in the program, and (3) being excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrim ination under the program by reason of his or her disability.27 If disabled under Section 504, the school district needs to determ ine if the child’s educational needs are being m et as adequately as the needs of nondisabled peers w ith a program specifically designed to m eet those needs.28 A part from Section 504’s lim itation to denials of benefits solely by reason of disability and its reach of only federally funded as opposed to public entities, th e “reach and requirem ents of both Section 504 and ADA are precisely the 24 Davis ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe County Bd. of Ed., 526 U.S. at 629. 25 See Perry Zirkel, A Comprehensive Comparison of the IDEA and Section 504/ADA, 282 Ed . Law REP. 767 (2012) (overview of similarities and differences among these laws). See also Mark A. Paige and Perry Zirkel, Teaching Termination Based on Performance Evaluations: Age and Disability Discrimination! 300 Ed . Law Rep . 1 (2014) (discussing treating ADA and 504 “as a pair” because of “their close relationship”). 26 29 U.S.C.A. § 794. 27 42 U.S.C.A. § 12132. 28 29 U.S.C.A. § 794. 112 B.Y.U. EDUCATION & LAW JOURNAL [2015 sam e .” 29 Thus, th e statu tes are often analyzed together because th e sta tu te s provide the sam e remedies, procedures and rights. However, “claim ing intentional discrim ination under either sta tu te requires a plaintiff to show th a t a defendant acted in either ‘bad faith ’ or w ith ‘gross m isjudgm ent .” ’30 D. IDEA U nder th e Individuals w ith D isabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), states th a t receive federal education funding are required to provide disabled children w ith a free appropriate public education (FAPE ) 31 th a t is provided in the least restrictive environm ent (LRE ) 32 in conformity w ith an Individualized Education Program (IEP). 33 If a stu d en t’s rights are violated under IDEA, a p aren t may request a formal due process hearing and seek relief in th e form of com pensatory education or tuitio n reim bursem ent, bu t generally not com pensatory dam ages .34 Upon exhaustion of adm inistrative rem edies, a party has th e right to judicial review in state or federal court . 35 Courts interpreting IDEA have held th a t school districts m ust p u t into place academic and educational safeguards th a t assure th a t each IE P confers a FA PE . 36 Any IE P should, w here needed, be accompanied by a plan for th e stu d en t th a t outlines positive behavior supports and interventions .37 An IEP may be effectively used to address a special education stu d en t’s needs where th a t stu d en t is being bullied and/or is the alleged perpetrato r of bullying. Failure to provide FAPE, however, may subject a school entity to liability even if th e school has complied w ith other federal laws 29 See Weixel v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of New York, 287 F.3d 138,146 (2d Cir. 2002 ). 30 Julie Sacks & Robert S. Salem, Victims without Legal Remedies: Why Kids Need Schools to Develop Comprehensive Anti-Bullying Policies, 72 ALB. L. REV. 147, 170 (2009). 31 20 U.S.C. § 1412 (2005). 32 Id. 33 20 U.S.C. § 1414 (2005). « 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (2005). 36 Id. 36 See Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist., Westchester Cnty. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). 37 Id. 1] BULLYING ISSUES IMPACTING STUDENTS 113 discussed in the prior section.38 Below is a discussion of bullying cases related to special education and the “cousin” laws, a case summary chart, 39 and a conclusion with recommendations for practice. 38 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (2005). 39 Table 1 provides a chronological summary of all cases presented in this discussion. Note that earlier cases brought claims under IDEA and often excluded all other cousin laws. Compared to more recent cases where claims are more often made under 504 and ADA with a few including 1983 and Title IX claims. Cases were selected based on the following criteria: (1) plaintiffs were students who qualified as having a disability; (2) claims were made because they had the disability (3) students were either the victim and/or a perpetrator in bullying; and (4) final decisions were between 2014 and 1996. A box is checked as “filed” if the parents used that law to make a claim against the school. In the “held” column a check indicates that the parents were successful in their claim for that law. Conversely, an “X” indicates that they were not successful in their claim. Comments include a brief description of the child’s disability. An asterisk indicates a case was remanded. B.Y.U. EDUCATION & LAW JOURNAL 114 [2015 B U L L Y IN G A N D S P E C IA L E D U C A T IO N C A S E L A W C ase 1983 F ile d T itle IX H e ld F ile d H e ld 504 F ile d ADA H e ld F ile d ID E A H eld F ile d COM M ENTS H e ld Estate o f L ance v. S p e e c h impairment, A D H D , and Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist. (5th Cir. 2014) ✓ X ✓ X eventually em otional disliffbance. ✓ X ✓ X ✓ X ✓ X ✓ X ✓ X ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ M oore el al v. Chilton C ounty Board o f Education (M.D. Ala.2014) Blounts d isease, eating d isorder. ✓ X Long v. M urray County A sperger's. Inability to m ake friends did School District (1 1th Cir. 2013) not limit m ajor life activity. Joseph Galloway v. A sp erger's, A D H D , seizure disorder, Chesapeake Union Exem pt. VilL Sch. Bd. o f ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ specific learning disability. M.S. by Shihadeh v. Marple Anxiety d isorder, post-traum atic stress N ew tow n Sch. Dist.fE.D. Pa. Sept. 4. 2012) disorder. Preston v. Hilton C entral School District (W.D.N.Y. July, 2012) A sperger's ✓ X ✓ X ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ X ✓ X ✓ X / X ✓ X ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ H offm an v. Saginaw Pub. E xostoses. D istrict lo o k com prehensive Schs. (E.D. Mich. June 2 7, 2012) m easures to respond to bullying. Weidow v. Scranton Sch. Bipolar d isorder Dist. (3d Cir. 2012) Braden v. Mountain Home Sch. Dist (W.D. A rk. 2012) ADHD ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ J.E. v. Boyertown Area A sp erg er's, learning disability. F A P E School District (3rd Cir. not require a d istrict to pro v e a child N ov. 17, 2011) ✓ X T.K. & S.K.. v. N ew York C ity Dept, o f Educ. (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 25, 2011) ✓ ✓ ✓ X I B . v. Waynesboro Area learning disabiltty A sperger's S yndrom e that w as later School Dist. (M.D. Pa, 2011) would n ot face future bullying. Austistic and later reclassified a s a ✓ X ✓ X changed to sp eech lanugage impairments 1] BULLYING ISSUES IMPACTING STUDENTS 115 BULLYING A N I) S PE C IA L ED U CA TIO N C A SE LAW 23 20 U.S.C.§ 1415 (k)(l)(F)(i). >24 20 U.S.C.§ 1415 (k)(l)(F)(ii). 125 See Cynthia A. Dieterich & Christine J. Villani, Functional Behavioral Assessment: Process Without Procedure, 2 BYU EDUC. & L.J. 209, 211-212 (2000) (An early discussion of the statute and regulations related to FBA and BIP). See Joseph T. DiMaria, Disciplining Student with Disabilities: A Comparative Analysis of K -12 and Higher Education, BYU EDUC. & L.J. 421, 421—23 (2012) (A more recent overview of FBA and BIP). 126 See Tachelle Banks, Helping Students Manage Emotions: REBT as a Mental Health Educational Curriculum, 4 EDUC. PSYCH. IN PRAC. 383 (2011) (A general overview of research-based studies using rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT)). Copyright of Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal is the property of Brigham Young University Law School and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:245–260 DOI 10.1007/s10648-013-9221-7 REVIEW ARTICLE A Review of Research on School Bullying Among African American Youth: An Ecological Systems Analysis Desmond Upton Patton & Jun Sung Hong & Abigail B. Williams & Paula Allen-Meares Published online: 21 April 2013 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013 Abstract School bullying and peer victimization are social problems that affect African American youth across various environmental contexts. Regrettably, many of the empirical research on bullying and peer victimization among African American youth has examined individual and direct level influences in silos rather than a constellation of factors occurring in multiple settings, such as home, school, and neighborhood. As a holistic model, the social–ecological framework provides a context with which to situate and interpret findings and draw implications from a broader psychosocial framework, which can be applicable across various systems. We utilize Bronfenbrenner’s (American Psychologist 32:513–531, 1977) social–ecological framework as a springboard for investigating the accumulation of risk contributors and the presences of protective factors in relation to school bullying and peer victimization of African American youth. More specifically, we examine the risk and protective factors occurring in the micro- (i.e., parents, peers, school, and community), exo(i.e., parental stress), and macrosystem levels (i.e., hypermasculinity, and gender role beliefs and stereotypes). We then discuss implications for research and school-based practice. Keywords African Americans . Bullying . Peer victimization . School . Youth School bullying and peer victimization are major concerns for students, parents, teachers, and school officials. Although a number of definitions exist, bullying is commonly identified as physical, verbal, or social forms of aggression perpetrated by an individual or a group of individuals against a particular individual (Espelage and Swearer 2003). American children of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds are increasingly exposed to bullying (Hanish and D. U. Patton (*) : A. B. Williams School of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA e-mail: dupatton@umich.edu J. S. Hong School of Social Work, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA P. Allen-Meares Office of the Chancellor, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA 246 Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:245–260 Guerra 2000), although the literature indicates higher rates among African American youth. More specifically, researchers have pointed out that physical fighting tends to be more common among African American (37.9 %) youth than whites (30.5 %; Carlyle and Steinman 2007), whereas African American youth generally report being bullied with less frequency than other racial/ethnic groups (Eisenberg and Aalsma 2005; Nansel et al. 2001). Bullying is defined in terms of specific acts and events of victimization. Acts of bullying include: physical aggression (e.g., hitting or kicking), verbal aggression (e.g., name calling), indirect/relational aggression (e.g., exclusions from a social group), and more recently cyber aggression. At its core, bullying is about a power differential in which a more powerful person or group of people dominates someone perceived to be less powerful (Fitzpatrick et al. 2007). Peer victimization is defined as an experience of a child who is a target of the aggressive behavior of other children who are not siblings (Hawker and Boulton 2000). Similar to bullying, peer victimization is characterized as overt (e.g., physical or verbal; Storch et al. 2005) and covert/relational (e.g., Crick and Bigbee 1998). Relational victimization occurs in which a child’s social relationships and social standing are harmed (Crick and Bigbee 1998). Youth who engage in bullying behaviors report higher levels of conduct problems and are more likely to display violent behaviors such as carrying a weapon or physical fighting. Studies consistently point out that children who are involved in bullying are also likely to display antisocial and criminal behaviors during late adolescence and adulthood (Nansel et al. 2001; Olweus 1992, 2004; Sourander et al. 2007). For instance, an earlier study conducted by Olweus (1992), which examined the behaviors of bullied youth, found a significant increase in criminal behavior at age 24. A more recent study by Sourander et al. (2007) also reports from a sample of Finnish youth that bullying-involved adolescents are significantly at risk of engaging in criminal behaviors (e.g., violence, property, drunk driving, and criminal offense). Prevalence of bullying and peer victimization has been difficult to generate (Espelage and Swearer 2003), and research findings vary when race/ethnicity is considered. For example, Wang et al. (2009) indicate a higher likelihood of African American youth (compared to Latino and white youth) being perpetrators of physical, verbal, and cyber bullying and less likely victims (verbal and relational). Conversely, Nansel et al. (2001) examined a nationally representative sample of youth and found that African Americans reported higher rates of peer victimization (physical and verbal) than their Latino and white peers. These data were supported by the recent work of Koo et al. (2012) who found African American girls to be at a higher risk of physical and verbal victimization by their peers than Asian American girls and Latinas. These findings are confounded by a body of research which consistently points to African American students being viewed as more aggressive than white and Latino youth by both teachers and other youth (e.g., Graham and Juvonen 2002). Significant advances have been made in research on school bullying and peer victimization over the years. However, little is known about the integration of multiple level risk and protective factors that foster or mitigate bullying and peer victimization among African American youth. Risk factors increase the likelihood that youth will be involved in bullying and peer victimization. However, risk factors are not direct causes of bullying and victimization; rather, they contribute to these behaviors (Mercy et al. 2002). On the contrary, protective factors has been commonly defined as factors that reduce the impact of a risk factor, helps individuals to not engage in potentially harmful behavior, and/or promotes an alternative pathway (Spooner et al. 2001). Although the term protective factor has been used in many ways in resilience research, we use the term to focus on resilience and positive outcomes and strengths rather than solely Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:245–260 247 on the deficits (Luthar et al. 2000), which connotes a commitment to understanding processes underlying the effects of vulnerability (Luthar and Cicchetti 2000). However, we equally recognize the variation in protective factors that espouse a more dynamic process of interactions between risk factors and either interpersonal (personality) or external (family support) factors that buffer the effects of risk. The studies presented in this article represent direct ameliorative effects, whereas protective factors may also undergird a moderating process in which an individual is “stabilized” within the context of increased risk or enhanced as an individual gains new knowledge as a result of increased risk (Luthar and Cicchetti 2000). Understanding the risk and protective factors within multiple contexts is important, considering that bullies and victims are at heightened risk of poor mental health outcomes, such as depressive symptoms (Fitzpatrick et al. 2010; Gomes et al. 2009). Moreover, various risk and protective factors influence young people’s attitudes and behaviors with regard to bullying and victimization and are also relevant to the efficacy of bullying prevention and intervention programs. A broader assessment of the risk and protective factors is a critical first step for developing and implementing culturally relevant school violence prevention strategies. The focus of this article is to review research on bullying and peer victimization among African American youth using the social–ecological framework. Examining the factors associated with bullying and peer victimization among African American youth is important for several reasons. Although bullying and peer victimization are serious problems for school-age youth of all racial/ethnic groups, there have been scant number of studies that investigated the correlates of bullying and victimization among African Americans at multiple levels of the social ecology. Much of the existing research on bullying among African American has focused on psychosocial behaviors that increase the likelihood of bullying and victimization, such as internalizing and externalizing behaviors (e.g., McMahon and Watts 2002; Peskin et al. 2007), as well as peer relationships (Estell et al. 2007; Farmer et al. 2003; Storch et al. 2003; Xie et al. 2003) and school environment (Benhorin and McMahon 2008; Felix and You 2011; Hanish and Guerra 2000; Juvonen et al. 2006). Regrettably, there has been a serious dearth of research that examined relevant broader contexts, such as community and culture This review contributes to the existing literature by moving beyond sole microsystems approach to understanding bullying behavior and victimization and moving towards the integration of broader level factors and how they interact with more microsystem factors. Understanding the broader level factors is particularly important because African Americans are more likely than other racial/ethnic groups to live in a dangerous neighborhood, which may be predictive of bullying and victimization (see Bowen and Bowen 1999). In Chicago for example, high resourced neighborhoods are more like to have lower average rates of problem behaviors as compared to poor neighborhoods (Elliott et al. 2006). Neighborhoods become spaces in which young African Americans develop their identities. To some, that may also mean developing a tough, aggressive demeanor in order to garner street credibility. The ecological systems theory serves as a useful framework for understanding the multiple level contexts that may foster and inhibit bullying and victimization among African Americans. Bullying involvement is frequently explained as emerging from a wide range of risk and protective factors within the social ecology of youth (Espelage and De La Rue 2012). When the social–ecological framework is applied, bullying and peer victimization may be facilitated and/or inhibited as a result of the interrelations among multiple contexts (Bronfenbrenner 1977). As a holistic model, this framework is conceived as an interactive 248 Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:245–260 set of systems nested within each other, which shape the context in which the individual experiences the phenomenon. Moreover, bullying and victimization are influenced by the reciprocal interactions among the biological and psychological characteristics of the youth, his/her behavior, and the environment (Espelage and De La Rue 2012). Although African American youth do not all belong in a monolithic group, many of the studies cited in this review pertain to low-income African American youth. However, there remains societal stigma and discrimination against African American which presents an additional layer of risk and has the potential to influence protective factors that could mitigate bullying behaviors and peer victimization among this racial group. Moreover, it is also important to examine protective factors, which can facilitate the development of culturally relevant intervention strategies and prevention measures. Considering that research on African American youth has primarily focused more on deficits and problems and less on strengths (Belgrave and Allison 2010), identifying protective factors is essential. Thus, our goal is to investigate risk and protective factors within the social–ecological context, from which we draw implications for research and practice. Method of Selection Empirical research and literature review were identified through electronic bibliographic databases and manual searches. Considering a major dearth of research on bullying and peer victimization among African American youth, a time frame of 1990–2010 was selected. Databases for the literature search included GoogleScholar.com, Medline, ProQuest, PubMed, and PsycINFO. As previously mentioned, subtypes of bullying and peer victimization include physical, verbal, and relational. Key words and phrases for the search included African Americans, blacks, racial and ethnic minorities, school bullying, aggression, aggressive behavior, peer victimization, relational aggression, and relational victimization. According to the World Health Organization (1977), adolescence covers a period of life between 10 and 19 years of age. However, because we focus specifically on bullying and peer victimization occurring from pre-school to high school, our search was limited to studies that include sample whose age range from early childhood to 18 years of age. Research studies on bullying and peer victimization outside of school (e.g., workplace bullying) and those that involve participants over 18 years of age were excluded from this review. The search included all available studies published from 1990 onwards, and titles, authors, and abstracts from all studies were reviewed to determine whether they met the inclusion criteria. Findings from the Review In sum, 23 articles were included in the review. The following section examines African American children and adolescents’ experience in school bullying and peer victimization within the context of the microsystem, exosystem, and macrosystem. Although the social– ecological framework also suggests that mesosystem levels can impact youth’s involvement in bullying, there is a dearth of research on the relationship between mesosystem and bullying involvement among African American youth. Therefore, mesosystem was excluded from this review. Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:245–260 249 Social–Ecological Framework In the following sections, we enumerate of the microsystem, exosystem, and macrosystem factors that influence or inhibit school bullying and peer victimization among African American children and adolescents. Researchers have proposed several different variables to explain the sources of bullying and victimization, such as parenting practices, family characteristics, peer relations, community environment, and gender role socialization. It is not any one of these factors that affect peer relations in particular, but their accumulation in the life of the individual youth. The social–ecological framework facilitates a broader understanding of a social phenomenon and is critical in enhancing our understanding of bullying and peer victimization among African American youth. When this framework is applied, bullying and peer victimization may be facilitated and/or inhibited as a result of the interrelations among multiple contexts (Bronfenbrenner 1977). Using a social–ecological framework (Bronfenbrenner 1977, 1979), we investigate the complex interplay between immediate and distal influences in bullying and peer victimization among African American youth. A series of concentric structures—micro-, exo-, and macrosystems—directly and indirectly affect the development, with the individual youth situated as the focal point of influence (Bruyere and Garbarino 2009; Garbarino 1992). More specifically, we investigate the risk and protective factors occurring in the micro- (i.e., parents, peers, school, and community), exo- (i.e., parental stress), and macrosystem levels (i.e., hypermasculinity and gender role beliefs, and stereotypes). Only by understanding the complex interplay of influences will the development of effective violence prevention and intervention strategies for African American youth follow. Microsystem As Bronfenbrenner’s (1977, 1979) social–ecological framework suggests, microsystem is characterized as a pattern of activities, social roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by the individual or a group of individuals in a direct setting (e.g., home, school), in which the individual is embedded. The interactions occurring within the microsystem consistently shape the individual or a group of individuals. Various microsystem level factors/contexts can directly foster or inhibit bullying and peer victimizations among African American youth, such as parents, peers, school, and community. Parents Many of the influences that foster or impede bullying are found within the home, as youth spend a great deal of their time with their family. Research examining the relevance of family system on bullying and peer victimization among African Americans has focused on parents, and more specifically, parenting practices (Curtner-Smith et al. 2006; Griffin et al. 1999), parental support (Benhorin and McMahon 2008), and parental abuse (Fitzpatrick et al. 2007). Several family characteristics have been found to be positively associated with bullying behavior among African American youth. These characteristics include: low involvement with parents, low parental warmth, low family cohesion, and single-parent family structures. In addition, one study has found that parental abuse (i.e., parents hit and beat routinely) is significant predictor of physical bullying behavior among African American youth (Fitzpatrick et al. 2007). Childhood family experiences also impact bullying behavior. Experiences may include family violence, inconsistent punishment, bullying by siblings, and the father’s history of bullying. On the other hand, perceived parental monitoring and support reportedly lowered the risk of bullying among African American youth. Parental 250 Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:245–260 support is found to be associated with positive outcomes in children and adolescents, such as higher likelihood of prosocial behavior (Bean et al. 2003; Carlson et al. 2000) and better school performances (Bean et al. 2003), as well as lower likelihood of psychological distress (Bean et al. 2006; Gray and Steinberg 1999), substance use (Parker and Benson 2004; Willis et al. 2004), and bullying behavior (Grant et al. 2000; Holt and Espelage 2007; Wang et al. 2009). Family-based support sources are especially important for African American children in coping with daily life struggles (Maton et al. 1996). Maton et al.’s (1996) study, which examined parental, peer, partner, and spiritual support among African American and white youth, found that in different contexts, different support sources were higher in level and/or more strongly associated with adjustment for one racial group than the other. Among 15- to 29-year-olds, parental support was significantly higher for African Americans than for whites. Connectedness to family and family support are resources that have traditionally helped African American youth cope with living in a society often perceived as hostile (Maton et al. 1996). Despite the significance of family-based support, we were only able to locate one study that examined the association between family support and bullying involvement among African American youth. One study conducted by Benhorin and McMahon (2008) found from a sample of 127 African American adolescents (ages 10– 15) residing in urban areas that perceived parental support was related to lower level of teacher-reported physical and verbal bullying and aggressive behaviors in school. However, the researchers did not find any significant main effects for parental support in relation to self- and peer-reported aggressive behaviors, which implies that these youth may display aggression in certain settings (e.g., home, neighborhood), but not in others (e.g., school). As previously mentioned, parental support is a salient protective factor that is relevant to African American youth. Considering the importance of parental support, additional research that examines the association between parental support and bullying involvement among African American youth is needed. Peers The quality of peer relationship represents another important microsystem, which may influence or inhibit bullying and peer victimization. Given that social skills are learned in the home, it is likely that these behaviors will be displayed to peers and teachers in the school setting (Espelage and Swearer 2003). Peer relationships are an important part of youth’s microsystem, which involves youth interacting with, influencing, and socializing with each other (Rodkin and Hodges 2003). Furthermore, a correlative pattern between the quality of peer relations and bullying and peer victimization has been observed among several researchers (see Hong and Espelage 2012, for a review). Researchers investigating the association between quality of peer relationship and bullying and peer victimization among African American adolescents report that the frequency of bullying behavior was high among adolescents under negative peer influence (i.e., pressured by peers to engage in illicit behaviors, such as alcohol and drug use; Farrar 2006; Fitzpatrick et al. 2007; Griffin et al. 1999). Other researchers also have investigated social relations and peer networks of African American adolescents who were identified as aggressive (Estell et al. 2007; Farmer et al. 2003; Xie et al. 2003). Although peer acceptance, popularity, and social networks are important for most adolescents (Espelage 2002), research findings on social relations of bullying involved youth have been mixed. A study conducted by Farmer et al. (2003), which includes subtypes of rural African American early adolescents (161 boys and 258 girls), found that bullies identified as tough boys and popular girls were rated higher by their peers on social prominence (e.g., cool, popular), compared to troubled boys and girls, although these youth were disliked by their peers. Moreover, youth involved in bullying (as measured Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:245–260 251 by physical and relational forms) showed higher levels of social network centrality than youth identified as non-aggressive (Xie et al. 2003), although they associated with aggressive and non-aggressive as well as popular and unpopular peer groups (Estell et al. 2007). Relatively few researchers identified protective factors within peer level contexts, such as peer support (Benhorin and McMahon 2008) and prosocial behavior from peers (Storch et al. 2003). For instance, Storch et al.’s (2003) research investigated the association between peer victimization (overt and relational) and internalizing behaviors (i.e., depressive symptoms, fear of negative evaluation, social avoidance, and loneliness) in a sample of 190 Hispanic/Latino and African American children (5th–7th grades). The researchers found that although overt (i.e., confrontational behavior directed towards another individual or a group of individuals; Griffin and Gross 2004) and relational victimization (i.e., being excluded from a social group, being a target of exclusion, rumors, or humiliation in a social setting; Griffin and Gross 2004) were both correlated with all types of internalizing behaviors, prosocial support from peers buffered the effects of peer victimization on loneliness. It is evident that risk and protective factors for bullying and peer victimization depend largely on the quality of peer relationships. Current research findings suggest that the likelihood of bullying and peer victimization is strong for youth with negative peer relations (e.g., negative peer influence). However, the findings also support the view that peer affiliation and social network of bullies vary, and some bullies are socially skilled and can have relatively high social status. Nevertheless, a limited number of researchers also found that prosocial behavior from peers and peer support could mitigate bullying behavior and negative outcomes associated with experiences in peer victimization. School Certain aspects of the school condition might facilitate or impede bullying behavior (Baker 1998; Espelage and Swearer 2003). Thus, school environment, in relation to bullying and peer victimization, has received a substantial amount of research attention (Hong and Espelage 2012). Many low-income African American youth are at greater risk of exposure to various types of violence. They also are likely to have few resources that might protect them from bullying and peer victimization; as a consequence, these youth may perceive their school environment as unsafe (see Fitzpatrick et al. 2010), which can heighten the risk of bullying and peer victimization. However, there are a number of protective factors in schools, such as perceived support from teachers (Benhorin and McMahon 2008), diversity in the classrooms (Felix and You 2011; Juvonen et al. 2006), and racially/ethnically integrated school settings (Hanish and Guerra 2000). To illustrate, Hanish and Guerra (2000) found from a sample of 1,956 racially and ethnically diverse children attending racially/ethnically integrated schools that racially/ethnically integrated school attendance was associated with a slightly lower risk of physical and verbal peer victimization for African American children, whereas it was associated with a significantly higher risk of victimization for white children. As theorized by Juvonen et al. (2006), greater diversity can increase racial and ethnic minority students’ perceptions of safety and reduce feelings of vulnerability because in diverse settings, students affiliate with one of many racial/ethnic groups that share a balance of power. Findings from Hanish and Guerra’s (2000) study also demonstrate that there is a critical need for examining contextual factors, such as racial/ethnic composition of the school as potential contributors to victimization. Community Because schools are embedded in neighborhoods, neighborhoods that are perceived as dangerous are significantly associated with bullying behavior in school (Hong and Espelage 2012). Considering that placement in risky school and classroom environments occur more frequently for African American than for white children due to the 252 Educ Psychol Rev (2013) 25:245–260 demographic of the neighborhood, it is not surprising that African American youth residing in socioeconomically disadvantaged (Thomas et al. 2006) and dangerous communities (Boxer et al. 2008; Fitzpatrick 1997; Griffin et al. 1999) are more likely than other racial/ethnic groups to be exposed to deviant and delinquent peer interactions, such as bullying. African American youth, particularly those residing in low-resourced neighborhoods, are also more likely than youth of other races/ethnicities to attend schools where exposure to violence is prevalent (see Bowen and Bowen 1999). Researchers have theorized that exposure to community violence leads to desensitization or disengagement and a cognitive orientation that normalizes violence (Ng-Mak et al. 2002). Children who develop such cognitive orientation believe that aggression is normal and morally acceptable, and believe that it is more beneficial to bully than be victimized (Belgrave 2009). Likewise, children in low-income communities may have learned bullying as a self-protective mechanism against potential harm (Belgrave 2009), which also can result in greater engagement in this behavior (Boxer et al. 2008). Exosystem Understanding the multiple influences of bullying and peer victimization requires an examination of the individual as embedded within larger social units. Exosystem comprises linkage between two or more interactions or settings, but only one directly affecting the individual (Bronfenbrenner 1977). There are settings or events that may influence the individual youth’s socialization, although the youth has no direct role in them. The exosystem has an indirect effect on the youth because the exosystem usually affects the youth as it “trickles” down through other people (e.g., caregiver) in the youth’s life. The quality of youth’s relationship with their peers can be influenced by a larger system or social structure that is not directly experienced by the individual youth. Exosystem level factors are significant in research on African American youth, given the highly stressful environmental context for many African Americans (Bean et al. 2006). One notable exosystem level factor is parental stress. For example, parental stress due to external factors (e.g., lack of financial resources) may not be directly related to individual youth but can affect the microsystem, which the youth are embedded (e.g., parent–youth relationship). In addition, African American parents may experience an added dimension of stress that is direct relation to their racialize...