Staff Reports of Bullying and Intervention Strategies in Croatian Care and Correctional Institutions for Youth
| Author | Ivana Sekol,David P. Farrington |
| Date | 01 March 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0306624X19882833 |
| Published date | 01 March 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2019
Article
International Journal of
Offender Therapy and
Staff Reports of Bullying
Comparative Criminology
2020, Vol. 64(4) 417 –440
and Intervention Strategies
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
in Croatian Care and
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X19882833
DOI: 10.1177/0306624X19882833
journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo
Correctional Institutions
for Youth
Ivana Sekol1 and David P. Farrington2
Abstract
This study compares staff reports of bullying among institutionalized youth with
residents’ own self-reported prevalence of bullying and victimization collected in
the previous study (the Self-Report Study on Bullying in Croatian Residential Care
[SSBCRC]) and staff reports of reduction strategies are compared with evidence-
based proposed policy solutions arising from residents’ reports. The study also
compares reduction strategies used by staff with evidence-based proposed policy
solutions arising from residents’ reports arising from the SSBCRC. A total of 140 staff
from 20 Croatian youth facilities completed an anonymous questionnaire. The results
revealed that staff estimates of the prevalence of bullying and victimization were
significantly lower than resident reports. Staff were better aware of the prevalence
of certain types of bullying, but they held stereotypical views of bullies and victims
and had difficulties in recognizing the true times and places of bullying. Staff described
their anti-bullying policies as being predominantly reactive, rather than proactive and
evidence-based. It is concluded that more effort needs to be made to change the
current anti-bullying policies used by staff.
Keywords
youth institutions, bullying, staff reports, self-reports, anti-bullying policies
1University of Derby, UK
2University of Cambridge, UK
Corresponding Author:
Ivana Sekol, Department of Criminology and Social Sciences, University of Derby, One Friar Gate
Square, Derby DE1 1DZ, UK.
Email: i.sekol@derby.ac.uk
418
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 64(4)
Introduction
Research on bullying in Croatia is still limited in scope, with the existing studies on
bullying in Croatian schools being based on variable research designs and methods
used. Consequently, the prevalence of bullying and victimization varies greatly across
Croatian school-based studies. For instance, Rajhvajn, Bulat, and Ajduković (2012)
used a self-report checklist based on a number of items indicative of bullying and
victimization and found that 37.8% of second graders from five Croatian high schools
were victimized by their peers on a weekly basis. Using a similar questionnaire indica-
tive of bullying and victimization, Buljan Flander, Durman Marijanović, and Ćorić
Špoljar (2007) found that 27.0% of fourth to eighth graders from 25 Croatian primary
schools were victimized by their peers on a daily basis.
The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Office for Croatia used the Olweus
bully/victim questionnaire in 2004 with a sample of 11- to 14-year-old children from
84 Croatian primary schools (Pregrad, 2010). Given that the Olweus questionnaire
includes the term “bullying” that has been translated to Croatian as “peer violence,”
presumably because of the participants’ inaccurate interpretations of the term “bully-
ing,” UNICEF found that the prevalence of victimization occurring 2 to 3 times a
month or more often was 10.4%. The UNICEF Office for Croatia also reported that
children were most frequently bullied by indirect forms of violence, such as being
called names or made fun of in a hurtful way, and that bullying usually occurred in the
school hallways (Pregrad, 2010).
Using a behavioral checklist, the first large-scale Self-Report Study on Bullying in
Croatian Residential Care (SSBCRC; Sekol & Farrington, 2009, 2010, 2016a, 2016b)
demonstrated that bullying in Croatian residential care is a serious and prevalent prob-
lem, with almost three quarters of residents being involved in bullying at least 2 to 3
times a month. Based on self-reported background and psychological correlates of
bullying and victimization, as well as on residents’ qualitative accounts of residential
peer cultures, the SSBCRC has offered valuable evidence-based policy recommenda-
tions. However, no residential care policy can be effectively delivered without staff
being aware of the prevalence, times, places, causes, and consequences of bullying in
their facilities.
This article, therefore, has two main aims: first, to assess how residential care staff
view the nature and prevalence of bullying in their facilities, and compare this with
resident reports collected in the previous SSBCRC; second, to assess what strategies
staff use to combat bullying, and compare these with evidence-based proposed policy
solutions arising from the SSBCRC. These questions have never before been addressed
in residential care facilities worldwide. However, there is some relevant research com-
paring teacher and student reports that will be reviewed in this introduction first. There
will then be a review of the existing residential care bullying literature conducted
previously outside Croatia. Finally, the SSBCRC results will be summarized, as they
serve as a baseline to which staff data are compared.
Sekol and Farrington
419
Teacher Reports of School Bullying
Although still relatively under-researched compared with other topics related to bully-
ing in schools, the comparison between self-reports and teacher-reports of school bul-
lying problems has recently received increased research attention. The results of this
research have been relatively clear-cut, suggesting that teachers tend to underreport
problems of bullying in their schools. For instance, there is evidence that, compared
with student self-reports, teachers underreport the prevalence of bullying (Bradshaw,
Sawyer, & O’Brennan, 2007; Mishna, Scarcello, Pepler, & Wiener, 2005; Pervin &
Turner, 1994), with the convergence between teachers’ and students’ reports being
only low to moderate (e.g., Beran & Stewart, 2008; Cornell & Bandyopadhyay, 2010).
There is also evidence that teachers are more likely to view overt types of aggres-
sion (e.g., physical aggression or verbal threats) as bullying, but that they often do not
perceive intimidating looks, gossiping, or name calling as bullying (Boulton, 1997). In
cases in which teachers do consider verbal aggression as bullying, they tend to view it
as less serious than physical bullying (Craig, Henderson, & Murphy, 2000; Smith
et al., 2002). Overall, teachers tend to view indirect and relational bullying as less seri-
ous than direct bullying, are less likely to recognize indirect bullying when it happens,
and are less likely to intervene in indirect bullying situations (Mishna et al., 2005).
However, both indirect and relational bullying, although more difficult for teachers to
detect because of their covert nature, do constitute bullying and have serious conse-
quences for victims if done repeatedly.
Teachers also seem to hold rather stereotypical views about characteristics of bul-
lies and victims in schools. For instance, Nicolaides, Toda, and Smith (2002) found
that preservice teachers believed that bullies had low self-esteem and poor social
skills, although this has not been empirically confirmed (e.g., Johnson & Lewis, 1999;
Rigby & Slee, 1991, 1993; Salmivalli, Kaukiainen, Kaistaniemi, & Lagerspetz, 1999;
Salmon, James, & Smith, 1998). Similarly, in their qualitative study, Mishna et al.
(2005) found that teachers believed that victims were poorly adjusted and unassertive,
although these were not the actual characteristics of the victims included in their study.
Finally, there is evidence that teachers might identify bullying among boys more
quickly than bullying conducted by girls (Peters, 2012). Probably because of all the
above reasons, Nicolaides et al. (2002) found that preservice teachers wanted to learn
more about bullying, especially how to talk to bullies and victims and how to develop
a whole-school policy on bullying.
Residential Care Bullying Research
Nature, prevalence, and correlates of bullying in residential care outside of Croatia. Although
still limited in scope, research on bullying and victimization among institutionalized
children and young people has been increasing over the last decade. As such, this
research has mainly focused on the nature and prevalence of bullying, with some
attempts to also establish basic correlates and predictors of bullying and victimization
in care. In terms of the nature and prevalence of bullying, the existing research outside
420
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 64(4)
of Croatia has demonstrated that the prevalence of bullying and victimization among
institutionalized youth appears to be considerably higher than reported among chil-
dren in schools. For instance, a recent systematic review that included 80 studies on
school bullying found mean prevalence rates of 35% for bullying perpetration and
36% for victimization (Modecki, Minchin, Harbaugh, Guerra, & Runions, 2014). On
the contrary, Barter, Renold, Berridge, and Cawson (2004) found that almost all of 71
interviewed residents from 14 English children’s homes had experienced some form
of peer violence. Similarly, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial