presentation about how bullying gets under the skin and citing research about brain development and intersection between stress and coping strategies as it relates to bullying and some of the work she has done originally and citing others, as well. that was a unique perspective and one that was poigant. this is one of the graphics down at the bottom that she displayed about children's brains and showing this. i think the original citation for this is a bruce perry study several years ago looking at the impact of trauma on the brain and you don't have to be a neurscientist to see the two brains, the one on the left of a developing child and the one on the right that experienced abuse. it provides the frame for thinking about trauma and adverse childhood events.

i was on a panel with denise and dewey corp nel where we talked about a school perspective. this is where the body of literature is the largest, i would like to say the strongest but there are still a lot of gaps in this particular area. denise talked a lot about school climate. i was happy to hear that was picked up in the themes today and talked about legal issues and policies and zero tolerance and some of the reactive approaches that schools often take about video cameras and metal detectors. we don't have research to show they have a strong impact on reducing bullying. i spoke about meta analysis and research about particular programs. i had this graphic in my talk about is the glass half full or half empty? you can view it in terms of the review of literature. some programs can reduce bullying. however, some of the studies are done abroad and may not generalize very well to the

united states or are limited to certain outcomes. so while it is exciting to see there is evidence based models there is a lot more room for improvement as we think about their impact but uptake within school settings. so then we moved into talking about family perspectives and melissa holt was there and talked about the issues of disclosure and parent/child communication. she and her colleagues have a nice paper that highlights the importance of the family dinner as an opportunity to be talking about issues related to bullying and some of the research showing that it buffers the impacts of cyber bullying on mental health outcomes. it is exciting to see more research getting into the next layer outside of the school and the family because there hasn't been a lot of research in this area specifically in the topic of bullying. mostly about how the parents respond and sometimes they don't respond in the ways we like them

to often encouraging kids to hit back or fight for themselves or blaming their child for being a target of bullying. then we heard from deborah gorman smith who has done a lot in the area of youth violence prevention particularly in the chicago area much of which had a family focus. she summarized the broader research around youth violence prevention because there hasn't been a lot of programming focused specifically on families. it is promising to see the strategies we use in other areas of violence prevention might generalize to bullying should we begin to look at those outcomes. that is a limitation of the research that we haven't always looked at bullying behavior as an outcome. we need more precise measurement in making sure people are including measures particularly of bullying. then we moved into the hot topic of technology really very exciting set of presentations focusing on the use of

technology both to perpetrate bullying but also potential interventions. a public health researcher and who is doing work around several different areas gave a very nice presentation citing other public health preventions and work abroad and other areas like hiv prevention where she has used technology to try to prevent transmission of different types of health-related issues. that holds a lot of promise for the work of bullying prevention. it is exciting to see that interdisciplinary and international lens. community interventions you can see we are moving layers out of the eclogical bottle here. the further we go out the thinner the research base gets. we were excited to hear a little bit about some of the work in communities but that hasn't focused specifically on the area of bullying. the care model has been very effective for reducing substance use and aggressive behavior but

haven't focused so much on bullying. that is one area to focus. joe wright who is a very well established researcher and pediatrician, very well known here in d.c. for his work around policy and provides a pediatricians perspective on health. it was nice to hear from him making up the role of health care providers both within schools and community settings. and then this is also a very hot topic. peer led programs because there has been such a push about let's get youth involved and have youth be leaders and co facilitate different types of prevention. there has been controversy in the literature because we find when you group aggressive kids together and sometimes pair other kids up to try to prevent bullying you can make things worse if they are not done effectively and the right way. we brought in two leading researchers in this area to talk about their perspectives and their long line of research

around this area. and virtually they focus mostly on gang related issues and overlap with bullying and then also some of the intervention framework. we didn't have as much literature on peer led programs. there is such a push in this area. we have a lot of home grown models on this but don't have a lot that are rigorously protected. what are the programs they are effective. how can we support schools in promoting these kinds of models with integrity and models that don't do harm but improve outcomes for youth? then we -- the last level here was about policies and practices. this is more global perspective, talked about some of the issues related to lgbt populations which we heard from so eloquently this morning from our colleagues about different perspectives.

this was really a helpful knitting together of different policy perspectives and legal issues as it relates to bullying prevention because as you know all but one state has a specific law related to the issue of bullying. we talked about the fact that there hasn't been a lot of research documenting the outcomes of those particular policies and certainly very little research looking at implementation and variation of implementation of those. then we thought a little more about translating what we know, how do we get what we do know out into the field with a particular interest in evidence-based programs. while the glass is half full or half empty what do we know about the fields from implementation science and prevention science that we can clean on as we think about bullying prevention. we had three leading researchers in the area of prevention science including lou ann robuck who has done a lot of work, abigail fagan in communities

that care model and leading method aulgist, hendrix brown who has done work in suicide prevention and violence prevention. it was great to get their perspectives on this. just to wrap up here. next steps there was the release of the briefs. this is the first step in a process that iom often goes through depending on level of commitment and investment. the next step possibly could be what is referred to as a consensus study which would lead to a more formal book that would summarize different issues related to bullying. this was intended to be a bit of an overview of the field and help drive where are the gaps that need to be filled through a more systematic study. certainly that is intended to motivate and foster more research and more programming through the community. thank you for opportunity to share some of the work that the iom did to support this. i want to acknowledge the great

staff of national academies of science that put this together, patty simon, stacy smith it is great to be part of that network and see this issue raise up to this level of visibility. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you. our last speaker is dr. michael lou, associate administrator of maternal and child health. prior to joining hrsa he was associate professor of subst obstetrics, gynecology and public health. he has received numerous awards and voted one of the best doctors in america since 2005 and well known for research on racial ethnic disparities and birth outcomes. welcome. [ applause ]

good morning. i'm delighted to be here and very honored to be invited to speak at this summit. let me start off by saying what a tremendous honor it is for me to share this panel. i also want to take a moment to thank our partners at hhs including cdc, nih, nicf as well as our partners at the department of education, justice and agriculture and the white house for all of their partnership and collaboration. i want to give a special shout out to my colleagues at the department of education and for the planning committee for bringing us all together, all their hard work and the tremendous leadership to bring us together for the summit. i was asked to talk about where we are going.

let me start by telling you how we are going to get there. i want you to take a moment and look around this room. that's how we are going to get there. we are not going to be able to move the needle on bullying prevention by working in silence. it is going to take coming together, federal partners, state and local partners, public and private partners, educators and researchers, doctors, nurses, social workers, public health professionals, family community leaders and youth and especially the youth all coming together, working across sectors that's how we are able to move the needle on bullying prevention in our nation. as was mentioned, i am hrsa's associate administrator for

maternal and child health. that's been our mission for over 100 years dating back to the sta establishment. i have been pushing hard to do better for kids and families in our country. when it comes to bullying prevention we know we can still do a lot better as a nation. we certainly made a lot of progress in the last decade. in 2004 when hrsa launched the first anti-bullying campaign many people still believed bully was just a rite of passage. kids will be kids. they used to say that is just what kids do. i think we have come a very long way in the last decade. in part due to the work of all of the federal partners coming together to create the

stopbullying.gov. i think in larger part due to all of the great work that you are all doing on the ground we really raised the public awareness to know that bullying is not okay and that there are serious destructive consequences across the life course. so we made a lot of progress in raising awareness, but as you just heard from mr. snyder lightning too many kids in this country are still bouullied eve day. what more can we do? how do we go from awareness to action. how can we move the needle on bullying prevention as a nation? in public health there is something we call the richmond college. the public health folks will recognize richmond as the one who founded head start.

you bring about real social change in three things. you need knowledge base, you need social strategy and you need political will. and i think that is where we need to go in the next five years if we are going to be able to move the needle on bullying prevention. we have to keep building on our knowledge base. we have to keep advancing social strategy and we have to keep growing political will to do something about bullying in our nation. so let me start with the knowledge base. you just heard a summary of the iom work shop from dr. bradshaw and the work shop brief was released. hrsa supported this work shop to begin to synthesize the knowledge base about what we know and what we don't.

what do we know in terms of what works and what doesn't work? it turns out that we actually know a lot about what works. as you just heard from dr. bradshaw. some of the most promising strategies involve a whole school, whole community approach that the entire school as a community to change the climate of the school and norms of behavior, taking a multilevel approach that target the individual, the classroom and the school and the community levels. we also know a lot about what doesn't work. zero tolerance policies don't work. you him.

renee is deputy director of research to practice division in the office of special education . ta nter on positive behavioral interventions and supports for the last 16 years. we are very pleased to have her here today. if everyone can give her a nice big round of applause. [ applause ] >> good morning. sorry about the break. i know it is hard to sit. so don't feel like you can't get up and run. obviously mark did. i'm glad i went a little bit earlier. i am glad to be here today. i already disappointed my friend katherine saying george isn't here. i know others are disappointed, as well. i will do my best to represent the work with the center. there is a whole group

associated with the national center funded by the department for 16 years now and just going into the 17th year. it is not only folks working direct directly work with schools. and just within the department of education and also with justice and the mental health folks. so there is a lot of information. i'm sure the slides are available to folks at some point. i'm not going to go through them word by word but we will highlight them as i go through. there's a lot of information as i said. i won't have time to do all of it justice so i encourage you to go to the pbis.org site. it has a wealth of information not only information on the

knowledge base but also tools that you can use to look at fidelity and implementation and blue prints to help you start implementing the program, as well. when we look at a ranging structure we're in a point now in time where the attention on social/emotional behavioral needs i don't think has ever been greater. i have been 17 years now. i remember it coming up and bubbling up. right now it seems cross agency that everyone is very concerned about addressing the social, emotional and behavioral needs of children. our collective history in this area is very strong. and there are lots of practices that we know work. our challenge now seems to be how do we organize these practices in some kind of structure that schools and mm we all know that putting one more thing on a teacher's plate

is almost impossible these days. so how do we help them implement more effective practices in a more efficient way? my job today is to talk about positive behavior interventions and support. talk a little bit about what it is and how it can serve as a foundation or a structure for helping schools to organize their practices in a better way. pbis was a term that originally appeared in the ida statute. you also may hear it refer to as school wide pbis, multitiered behavior frameworks, multitiered systems of support. what you call it doesn't really matter. it's that the core components that we've identified are implemented within the individual frameworks. so what are we talking about? we're talking about a framework for enhancing the adoption and implementation of a continuum of evidence-based interventions to achieve both academically and