Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme (OBPP) is a school-based intervention for children aged between 5 and 18 years. It is delivered in primary schools and secondary schools to staff, students, parents, and the wider community on an ongoing/continuous basis.
The OBPP addresses the problem of bullying at four levels: schoolwide, classroom, individual, and community.
The information above is as offered/supported by the intervention provider.
5 to 18 years old
Individual, Group
Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme (OBPP) is a school-based intervention targeting students aged between 5 to 18 years, as well as staff, parents, and the wider community to reduce bullying in schools. It adopts a whole-school approach to create systemic change, fostering a climate that prevents bullying and responds effectively when it occurs.
OBPP is designed to be fully implemented within 12 to 18 months, with regular class meetings being a core component. These meetings focus on bullying prevention, peer relationships, and prosocial behaviors, occurring weekly for primary grades (15 to 30 minutes) and biweekly for secondary grades (30 to 40 minutes).
The OBPP addresses the problem of bullying at four levels: schoolwide, classroom, individual, and community. School-level components include establishing a Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committee, which participates in a two-day training to build capacity for intervention implementation. Classroom-level components include defining and enforcing rules against bullying, as well as holding class meetings focused on bullying prevention, peer relations, and prosocial behaviours. Additionally, there are several individual-level components for dealing with individual bullying incidents. The OBPP encourages staff to intervene when bullying is witnessed, suspected, or reported, and provides training so all staff are well prepared to intervene, follow up, and communicate with parents. On-the-spot and follow-up interventions provide staff with actions to take when they witness bullying first-hand and when bullying is reported or suspected but not observed. Broader community-level components are designed to develop community support for the OBPP so students receive consistent anti-bullying messages in all areas of their lives.
5 to 18 years
This intervention is a universal intervention targeting the general student population in primary and secondary schools
Disclaimer: The information in this section is as offered/supported by the intervention provider.
Science-based assumption
Children’s social and emotional development is negatively impacted by bullying, leading to increased risks of anxiety, depression, poor academic performance, and social withdrawal.
Science-based assumption
A safe and positive school climate is essential for reducing bullying and the associated risks.
Science-based assumption
School-aged children (elementary to high school)
Schools and teachers implementing the intervention
Parents involved in bullying prevention.
Intervention
Schoolwide policies and training for staff on bullying prevention
Classroom activities teaching social-emotional skills, conflict resolution, and empathy
Individual interventions with students involved in bullying
Engagement with parents to reinforce anti-bullying messages.
Short-term
Increased staff knowledge and confidence in addressing bullying
Greater student awareness of bullying and its consequences
Improved student social skills and empathy
More effective responses to bullying incidents.
Medium-term
Reduction in reported bullying incidents
Improved school climate and student relationships
Increased feelings of safety among students
Higher student engagement and attendance.
Long-term
Sustained reduction in bullying behaviour
Improved mental health and wellbeing for students
Stronger peer relationships and social cohesion
Reduced risk of long-term psychological and academic consequences.
All students in participating primary and secondary schools.
While OBBP is a schoolwide intervention, a key component involves classroom teachers leading class meetings with students. These sessions, delivered weekly or biweekly, last between 30 and 45 minutes and take place in both primary and secondary school classrooms.
Most of the intervention components are expected to have been implemented and in use within a period of 12 to 18 months.
The OBPP addresses the problem of bullying at four levels: schoolwide, classroom, individual, and community.
School-Level Components: The eight school-level components include: (1) establishing a Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committee, which participates in a two-day training to build capacity for intervention implementation; (2) holding a one-day training for all staff; (3) convening ongoing staff discussion groups to ensure ongoing learning and engagement; (4) adoption of schoolwide rules against bullying and developmentally appropriate positive and negative consequences for following/not following rules; (5) administration of an anonymous questionnaire for students to assess the nature and prevalence of bullying at the school and to evaluate the intervention over time; (6) refinement of the school’s supervisory system; (7) holding a schoolwide kick-off event to mark the start of the intervention; and (8) active engagement of parents.
Classroom-Level Components: There are three classroom level components: (1) defining and enforcing rules against bullying; (2) holding class meetings focused on bullying prevention, peer relations, and prosocial behaviours (weekly meetings for primary grades for 15 to 30 minutes each, meetings every other week for secondary grades of 30 to 40minutes); and (3) parental involvement through classroom- or grade-level meetings held periodically during the year. The OBPP also provides guidance about integrating bullying prevention themes across curriculum areas.
Individual-Level Components: There are several individual-level components for dealing with individual bullying incidents. The OBPP encourages staff to intervene when bullying is witnessed, suspected, or reported, and provides training so all staff are well prepared to intervene, follow up, and communicate with parents. On-the-spot and follow-up interventions provide staff with actions to take when they witness bullying first-hand and when bullying is reported or suspected but not observed. Interventions are designed to ensure the cessation of the bullying behaviour, to provide support to students who are bullied, and to educate students about behavioural expectations. Individual meetings with student or students who bullied others and separate individual meetings with student who was bullied; one initial meeting after incident with follow-up meetings as needed; duration varies based on incident and development level of those involved.
Community-Level Components: The community-level components are designed to develop community support for the OBPP so students receive consistent anti-bullying messages in all areas of their lives. Community members are partners in supporting the intervention and can also be members of the Bullying Prevention Coordinating Committee.
OBPP is delivered by:
Committee members and the administrator have 12 hours of intervention training (followed by 12 to 18 hours of consultation). Classroom teachers and all staff have six hours of intervention training. Booster training of practitioners is recommended.
It is recommended that practitioners are supervised through technical assistance consultation by one host-agency supervisor with 40 hours of intervention training.
Intervention fidelity is maintained through the following processes:
Contact person: Jan Urbanski
Organisation: Clemson University
Email address: Jurbans@clemson.edu
Website: https://olweus.sites.clemson.edu
http://www.violencepreventionworks.org
*Please note that this information may not be up to date. In this case, please visit the listed intervention website for up to date contact details.
Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme’s most rigorous evidence comes from three quasi-experimental studies conducted in Norway and the United States, consistent with Foundations’ Level 3 evidence strength threshold.
These studies identified statistically significant improvements in child wellbeing and satisfaction with school life, in addition to statistically significant reductions in reports of being bullied, reports of bullying others, and antisocial behaviour.
Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme can be described as evidence-based: it has evidence from at least one rigorously conducted RCT or QED demonstrating a statistically significant positive impact on at least one child outcome, as well as at least one or more RCT or QED.
Improved wellbeing and satisfaction with school life
Immediately after the intervention
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced reports of being bullied
Immediately after the intervention
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced reports of bullying others
Immediately after the intervention
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced reports of antisocial behaviour
Immediately after the intervention
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
| Identified in search | 18 |
| Studies reviewed | 3 |
| Meeting the L2 threshold | 0 |
| Meeting the L3 threshold | 3 |
| Contributing to the L4 threshold | 0 |
| Ineligible | 15 |
| Study design | QED |
| Country | United States |
| Sample characteristics | 70,998 children aged 8 to 17 years in 210 schools in 49 counties in central and Western Pennsylvania |
| Race, ethnicities, and nationalities |
|
| Population risk factors | None reported |
| Timing |
|
| Child outcomes |
|
| Other outcomes | None |
| Study rating | 3 |
| Citations | Study 1a: Limber, S. P. & Olweus, D. (2019) Evaluation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: A large scale study of U.S. students in Grades 3-11. In P. K. Smith (Ed.), Ways to reduce offline and online bullying in schools: Interventions that work. Routledge. Study 1b: Olweus, D., Limber, S. & Breivik, K. (2019) Addressing different forms of bullying: A large scale evaluation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. International Bullying Prevention Journal. 1, pp. 70–84. |
| Study design | QED |
| Country | Norway |
| Sample characteristics | Approximately 2,500 children aged 11 to 14 from 112 Grade 4–7 classes in 42 junior and high schools |
| Race, ethnicities, and nationalities | Not reported |
| Population risk factors | None reported |
| Timing |
|
| Child outcomes |
|
| Other outcomes | None |
| Study rating | 3 |
| Citations | Study 2a: Olweus, D. (1997) Bully/victim problems in school: Facts and intervention. European Journal of Psychology of Education. 12, 495–510. Study 2b: Olweus, D. (1994) Annotation: Bullying at school: Basic facts and effects of a school-based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 35, 1171–1190. Study 2c: Olweus, D. & Alsaker, F. D. (1991) Assessing change in a cohort-longitudinal study with hierarchical data. In Magnusson, D., Bergman, L. R., Rudinger, G. & Torestad, B. (Eds.), Problems and methods in longitudinal research: Stability and change (pp. 107–132). Cambridge University Press. Study 2d: Olweus, D. and Kallestad, J.H. (2010) The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: Classroom effects at different grade levels. In Osterman, K. (Ed.), Research on physical, verbal and indirect aggression (pp. 115–131). Peter Lang. Study 2e: Olweus, D. (1991) Bully/victim problems among schoolchildren: Basic facts and effects of a school-based intervention program. In Pepler, D. and Rubin, K. (Eds.), The development and treatment of childhood aggression (pp. 411–448). Erlbaum. Study 2f: Olweus, D. (1993) Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Blackwell. Study 2g: Olweus, D. (1992) Bullying among school children: Intervention and prevention. In Peters, R. D., McMahon, R. J. & Quinsey, V. L. (Eds.) Aggression and violence throughout the life span (pp. 100–125). Sage Publications. |
| Study design | QED |
| Country | Norway |
| Sample characteristics | 27,139 children from 225 elementary schools, between 9 and 14 years old |
| Race, ethnicities, and nationalities | Not reported |
| Population risk factors | None reported |
| Timing |
|
| Child outcomes |
|
| Other outcomes | None |
| Study rating | 3 |
| Citations | Study 3a: Olweus, D. (2004) The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: Design and implementation issues and a new national initiative in Norway. In Smith, P. K., Pepler, D. & Rigby, K. (Eds.), Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 13-36). Cambridge University Press. Study 3b: Olweus, D. (2004b) Bullying at school: Prevalence estimation, a useful evaluation design, and a new national initiative in Norway. Association for Child Psychology and Psychiatry Occasional Papers. 23, 5–17. Study 3c: Olweus, D. (2005) A useful evaluation design, and effects of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Psychology, Crime & Law. 11, 389–402. Study 3d: Olweus, D. & Limber, S. P. (2010b) The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: Implementation and evaluation over two decades. In Jimerson, S. R., Swearer, S. M. & Espelage, D. L. (Eds.), Handbook of bullying in schools: An international perspective (pp. 377–401). Routledge. Study 3e: Olweus, D. & Limber, S. (2010a) Bullying in school: Evaluation and dissemination. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 80 (1), 124–134. Study 3f: Olweus, D. & Limber, S. P. (2019) The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP). In Smith, P. K. (Ed.), Making an impact on school bullying: Interventions and recommendations (pp. 23–44). Routledge. Study 3g: Olweus, D., Solberg, M. & Breivik, K. (2020) Long-term school-level effects of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP). Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. 61 (1), 108–116. |
The following studies were identified for this intervention but did not count towards the intervention’s overall evidence rating. An intervention receives the same rating as its most robust study or studies.
Amundsen, E. J. & Ravndal, E. (2010) Does successful school-based prevention of bullying influence substance use among 13- to 16-year-olds? Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy. 17 (1), 42–54.
Bauer, N. S., Lozano, P. & Rivara, F. P. (2007) The effectiveness of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in public middle schools: A controlled trial. Journal of Adolescent Health. 40 (3), 266–274.
Black, S. A. & Jackson, E. (2007) Using bullying incident density to evaluate the Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme. School Psychology International. 28, 623–638.
Bowllan, N. M. (2011) Implementation and evaluation of a comprehensive, school-wide bullying prevention program in an urban/suburban middle school. Journal of School Health. 81 (4), 167–173.
Eslea, M. (1998) The long-term effectiveness of anti-bullying work in primary schools. Educational Research. 40, 203–218.
Limber, S. P., Nation, M., Tracy, A. J., Melton, G. B. & Flerx, V. (2004) Implementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention programme in the southeastern United States. In Smith, P. K. Pepler, D. & Rigby, K. (eds.) Bullying in schools: How successful can interventions be? (pp. 55–79). Cambridge University Press.
Limber, S. P., Olweus, D., Masiello, M., Molnar-Main, S. & Moore, D. (2012) Evaluation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in a large scale study in Pennsylvania (Unpublished report).
Melton, G. B., Limber, S. P., Cunningham, P., Osgood, D. W., Chambers, J., et al. (1998) Violence among rural youth. Final report to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. US Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Olweus, D. (2005) A useful evaluation design, and effects of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Psychology, Crime & Law. 11, 389–402.
Olweus, D. (1999) Noen hovedresultater fra Det nye Bergensprosjektet mot mobbing og antisosial atferd. [Some key results from The New Bergen Project against Bullying and Antisocial Behaviour.] Manuscript. HEMIL-senteret, Universitetet i Bergen.
Olweus, D. (2005) New positive results with the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in 37 Oslo schools. The HEMIL-Center, University of Bergen.
O’Moore, A. M. & Minton, S. J. (2005) Evaluation of the effectiveness of an anti-bullying programme in primary schools. Aggressive Behavior. 31, 609–622.
Pagliocca, P. M., Limber, S. P. & Hashima, P. (2007) Evaluation report for the Chula Vista Olweus Bullying Prevention Program. Chula Vista Police Department.
Schroeder, B. A., Messina, A., Schroeder, D., Good, K., Barto, S., Saylor, J. & Masiello, M. (2011) The implementation of a statewide bullying prevention program: Preliminary findings from the field and the importance of coalitions. Health Promotion Practice. 13 (4), 489–95.
Smith, P. K. (1997) Bullying in schools: The UK experience and the Sheffield anti-bullying project. The Irish Journal of Psychology. 18, 191–201.
Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993) A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research. 35, 3–25.
Yaakub, N. F., Haron, F. & Leong, G. C. (2010) Examining the efficacy of the Olweus prevention programme in reducing bullying: The Malaysian experience. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. 5, 595–598.
Note on provider involvement: This provider has agreed to Foundations’ terms of reference (or the Early Intervention Foundation's terms of reference), and the assessment has been conducted and published with the full cooperation of the intervention provider.
Rated 1: Set up and delivery is low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.
Rated 2: Set up and delivery is medium-low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.
Rated 3: Set up and delivery is medium cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.
Rated 4: Set up and delivery is medium-high cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.
Rating 5: Set up and delivery is high cost. Equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.
Set up and delivery cost is not applicable, not available, or has not been calculated.
Click here for more information.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Rated 2: Has preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome from a quantitative impact study, but there is not yet evidence of causal impact.
Rated 2+: Meets the level 2 rating and the best available evidence is based on a study which is more rigorous than a level 2 standard but does not meet the level 3 standard.
Rated 3: Has evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous study.
Rated 3+: Meets the level 3 rating and has evidence from other studies with a comparison group at level 2 or higher.
Rated 4: Has evidence of a long-term positive impact through at least two rigorous studies.
Rated 4+: Meets the level 4 rating and has at least a third study contributing to the Level 4 rating, with at least one of the studies conducted independently of the intervention provider.
Rating has a *: The evidence base includes mixed findings i.e., studies suggesting positive impact alongside studies, which on balance, indicate no effect or negative impact.
Click here for more information.
