literature review in cyberbullying

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Cyberbullying Among Adolescents and Children: A Comprehensive Review of the Global Situation, Risk Factors, and Preventive Measures

Chengyan zhu, shiqing huang, richard evans.

• Author information
• Article notes
• Copyright and License information

Edited by: Daniel Bressington, Charles Darwin University, Australia

Reviewed by: Alexandra Restrepo, University of Antioquia, Colombia; Si-Tong Chen, Victoria University, Australia

*Correspondence: Wei Zhang [email protected]

This article was submitted to Public Mental Health, a section of the journal Frontiers in Public Health

†These authors have contributed equally to this work and share first authorship

Received 2020 Nov 29; Accepted 2021 Feb 10; Collection date 2021.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

Background: Cyberbullying is well-recognized as a severe public health issue which affects both adolescents and children. Most extant studies have focused on national and regional effects of cyberbullying, with few examining the global perspective of cyberbullying. This systematic review comprehensively examines the global situation, risk factors, and preventive measures taken worldwide to fight cyberbullying among adolescents and children.

Methods: A systematic review of available literature was completed following PRISMA guidelines using the search themes “cyberbullying” and “adolescent or children”; the time frame was from January 1st, 2015 to December 31st, 2019. Eight academic databases pertaining to public health, and communication and psychology were consulted, namely: Web of Science, Science Direct, PubMed, Google Scholar, ProQuest, Communication & Mass Media Complete, CINAHL, and PsycArticles. Additional records identified through other sources included the references of reviews and two websites, Cyberbullying Research Center and United Nations Children's Fund. A total of 63 studies out of 2070 were included in our final review focusing on cyberbullying prevalence and risk factors.

Results: The prevalence rates of cyberbullying preparation ranged from 6.0 to 46.3%, while the rates of cyberbullying victimization ranged from 13.99 to 57.5%, based on 63 references. Verbal violence was the most common type of cyberbullying. Fourteen risk factors and three protective factors were revealed in this study. At the personal level, variables associated with cyberbullying including age, gender, online behavior, race, health condition, past experience of victimization, and impulsiveness were reviewed as risk factors. Likewise, at the situational level, parent-child relationship, interpersonal relationships, and geographical location were also reviewed in relation to cyberbullying. As for protective factors, empathy and emotional intelligence, parent-child relationship, and school climate were frequently mentioned.

Conclusion: The prevalence rate of cyberbullying has increased significantly in the observed 5-year period, and it is imperative that researchers from low and middle income countries focus sufficient attention on cyberbullying of children and adolescents. Despite a lack of scientific intervention research on cyberbullying, the review also identified several promising strategies for its prevention from the perspectives of youths, parents and schools. More research on cyberbullying is needed, especially on the issue of cross-national cyberbullying. International cooperation, multi-pronged and systematic approaches are highly encouraged to deal with cyberbullying.

Keywords: cyberbullying, children, adolescents, globalization, risk factors, preventive measures

Introduction

Childhood and adolescence are not only periods of growth, but also of emerging risk taking. Young people during these periods are particularly vulnerable and cannot fully understand the connection between behaviors and consequences ( 1 ). With peer pressures, the heat of passion, children and adolescents usually perform worse than adults when people are required to maintain self-discipline to achieve good results in unfamiliar situations. Impulsiveness, sensation seeking, thrill seeking, and other individual differences cause adolescents to risk rejecting standardized risk interventions ( 2 ).

About one-third of Internet users in the world are children and adolescents under the age of 18 ( 3 ). Digital technology provide a new form of interpersonal communication ( 4 ). However, surveys and news reports also show another picture in the Internet Age. The dark side of young people's internet usage is that they may bully or suffer from others' bullying in cyberspace. This behavior is also acknowledged as cyberbullying ( 5 ). Based on Olweus's definition, cyberbullying is usually regarded as bullying implemented through electronic media ( 6 , 7 ). Specifically, cyberbullying among children and adolescents can be summarized as the intentional and repeated harm from one or more peers that occurs in cyberspace caused by the use of computers, smartphones and other devices ( 4 , 8 – 12 ). In recent years, new forms of cyberbullying behaviors have emerged, such as cyberstalking and online dating abuse ( 13 – 15 ).

Although cyberbullying is still a relatively new field of research, cyberbullying among adolescents is considered to be a serious public health issue that is closely related to adolescents' behavior, mental health and development ( 16 , 17 ). The increasing rate of Internet adoption worldwide and the popularity of social media platforms among the young people have worsened this situation with most children and adolescents experiencing cyberbullying or online victimization during their lives. The confines of space and time are alleviated for bullies in virtual environments, creating new venues for cyberbullying with no geographical boundaries ( 6 ). Cyberbullying exerts negative effects on many aspects of young people's lives, including personal privacy invasion and psychological disorders. The influence of cyberbullying may be worse than traditional bullying as perpetrators can act anonymously and connect easily with children and adolescents at any time ( 18 ). In comparison with traditional victims, those bullied online show greater levels of depression, anxiety and loneliness ( 19 ). Self-esteem problems and school absenteeism have also proven to be related to cyberbullying ( 20 ).

Due to changes in use and behavioral patterns among the youth on social media, the manifestations and risk factors of cyberbullying have faced significant transformation. Further, as the boundaries of cyberbullying are not limited by geography, cyberbullying may not be a problem contained within a single country. In this sense, cyberbullying is a global problem and tackling it requires greater international collaboration. The adverse effects caused by cyberbullying, including reduced safety, lower educational attainment, poorer mental health and greater unhappiness, led UNICEF to state that “no child is absolutely safe in the digital world” ( 3 ).

Extant research has examined the prevalence and risk factors of cyberbullying to unravel the complexity of cyberbullying across different countries and their corresponding causes. However, due to variations in cyberbullying measurement and methodologies, no consistent conclusions have been drawn ( 21 ). Studies into inconsistencies in prevalence rates of cyberbullying, measured in the same country during the same time period, occur frequently. Selkie et al. systematically reviewed cyberbullying among American middle and high school students aged 10–19 years old in 2015, and revealed that the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization ranged from 3 to 72%, while perpetration ranged from 1 to 41% ( 22 ). Risk and protective factors have also been broadly studied, but confirmation is still needed of those factors which have more significant effects on cyberbullying among young people. Clarification of these issues would be useful to allow further research to recognize cyberbullying more accurately.

This review aims to extend prior contributions and provide a comprehensive review of cyberbullying of children and adolescents from a global perspective, with the focus being on prevalence, associated risk factors and protective factors across countries. It is necessary to provide a global panorama based on research syntheses to fill the gaps in knowledge on this topic.

Search Strategies

This study strictly employed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We consulted eight academic databases pertaining to public health, and communication and psychology, namely: Web of Science, Science Direct, PubMed, Google Scholar, ProQuest, Communication & Mass Media Complete, CINAHL, and PsycArticles. Additional records identified through other sources included the references of reviews and two websites, Cyberbullying Research Center and United Nations Children's Fund. With regard to the duration of our review, since most studies on cyberbullying arose around 2015 ( 9 , 21 ), this study highlights the complementary aspects of the available information about cyberbullying during the recent 5 year period from January 1st, 2015 to December 31st, 2019.

One researcher extracted keywords and two researchers proposed modifications. We used two sets of subject terms to review articles, “cyberbullying” and “child OR adolescent.” Some keywords that refer to cyberbullying behaviors and young people are also included, such as threat, harass, intimidate, abuse, insult, humiliate, condemn, isolate, embarrass, forgery, slander, flame, stalk, manhunt, as well as teen, youth, young people and student. The search formula is (cyberbullying OR cyber-bullying OR cyber-aggression OR ((cyber OR online OR electronic OR Internet) AND (bully * OR aggres * OR violence OR perpetrat * OR victim * OR threat * OR harass * OR intimidat * OR * OR insult * OR humiliate * OR condemn * OR isolate * OR embarrass * OR forgery OR slander * OR flame OR stalk * OR manhunt))) AND (adolescen * OR child OR children OR teen? OR teenager? OR youth? OR “young people” OR “elementary school student * ” OR “middle school student * ” OR “high school student * ”). The main search approach is title search. Search strategies varied according to the database consulted, and we did not limit the type of literature for inclusion. Journals, conference papers and dissertations are all available.

Specifically, the inclusion criteria for our study were as follows: (a). reported or evaluated the prevalence and possible risk factors associated with cyberbullying, (b). respondents were students under the age of 18 or in primary, junior or senior high schools, and (c). studies were written in English. Exclusion criteria were: (a). respondents came from specific groups, such as clinical samples, children with disabilities, sexual minorities, specific ethnic groups, specific faith groups or samples with cross-national background, (b). review studies, qualitative studies, conceptual studies, book reviews, news reports or abstracts of meetings, and (c). studies focused solely on preventive measures that were usually meta-analytic and qualitative in nature. Figure 1 presents the details of the employed screening process, showing that a total of 63 studies out of 2070 were included in our final review.

PRISMA flow chart diagram showing the process of study selection for inclusion in the systematic review on children and adolescents cyberbullying.

Meta-analysis was not conducted as the limited research published within the 5 years revealed little research which reported odds ratio. On the other hand, due to the inconsistency of concepts, measuring instruments and recall periods, considerable variation could be found in research quality ( 23 ). Meta-analysis is not a preferred method.

Coding Scheme

For coding, we created a comprehensive code scheme to include the characteristics. For cyberbullying, we coded five types proposed by Willard ( 24 – 26 ), which included verbal violence, group violence, visual violence, impersonating and account forgery, and other behaviors. Among them, verbal violence is considered one of the most common types of cyberbullying and refers to the behavior of offensive responses, insults, mocking, threats, slander, and harassment. Group violence is associated with preventing others from joining certain groups or isolating others, forcing others to leave the group. Visual violence relates to the release and sharing of embarrassing photos and information without the owners' consent. Impersonating and account forgery refers to identity theft, stealing passwords, violating accounts and the creation of fake accounts to fraudulently present the behavior of others. Other behaviors include disclosure of privacy, sexual harassment, and cyberstalking. To comprehensively examine cyberbullying, we coded cyberbullying behaviors from both the perspectives of cyberbullying perpetrators and victims, if mentioned in the studies.

In relation to risk factors, we drew insights from the general aggression model, which contributes to the understanding of personal and situational factors in the cyberbullying of children and adolescents. We chose the general aggression model because (a) it contains more situational factors than other models (e.g., social ecological models) - such as school climate ( 9 ), and (b) we believe that the general aggression model is more suitable for helping researchers conduct a systematic review of cyberbullying risk and protective factors. This model provides a comprehensive framework that integrates domain specific theories of aggression, and has been widely applied in cyberbullying research ( 27 ). For instance, Kowalski and colleagues proposed a cyberbullying encounter through the general aggression model to understand the formation and development process of youth cyberbullying related to both victimization and perpetration ( 9 ). Victims and perpetrators enter the cyberbullying encounter with various individual characteristics, experiences, attitudes, desires, personalities, and motives that intersect to determine the course of the interaction. Correspondingly, the antecedents pertaining to cyberbullying are divided into two broad categories, personal factors and situational factors. Personal factors refer to individual characteristics, such as gender, age, motivation, personality, psychological states, socioeconomic status and technology use, values and perceptions, and other maladaptive behaviors. Situational factors focus on the provocation/support, parental involvement, school climate, and perceived anonymity. Consequently, our coders related to risk factors consisting of personal factors and situational factors from the perspectives of both cyberbullying perpetrators and victims.

We extracted information relating to individual papers and sample characteristics, including authors, year of publication, country, article type, sampling procedures, sample characteristics, measures of cyberbullying, and prevalence and risk factors from both cyberbullying perpetration and victimization perspectives. The key words extraction and coding work were performed twice by two trained research assistants in health informatics. The consistency test results are as follows: the Kappa value with “personal factors” was 0.932, and the Kappa value with “situational factors” was 0.807. The result shows that the coding consistency was high enough and acceptable. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with other authors.

Quality Assessment of Studies

The quality assessment of the studies is based on the recommended tool for assessing risk of bias, Cochrane Collaboration. This quality assessment tool focused on seven items: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of outcome assessment, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other sources of bias ( 28 ). We assessed each item as “low risk,” “high risk,” and “unclear” for included studies. A study is considered of “high quality” when it meets three or more “low risk” requirements. When one or more main flaw of a study may affect the research results, the study is considered as “low quality.” When a lack of information leads to a difficult judgement, the quality is considered to be “unclear.” Please refer to Appendix 1 for more details.

This comprehensive systematic review comprised a total of 63 studies. Appendices 2 , 3 show the descriptive information of the studies included. Among them, 58 (92%) studies measured two or more cyberbullying behavior types. The sample sizes of the youths range from several hundred to tens of thousands, with one thousand to five thousand being the most common. As for study distribution, the United States of America, Spain and China were most frequently mentioned. Table 1 presents the detail.

Descriptive information of studies included (2015–2019).

Prevalence of Global Cyberbullying

Prevalence across countries.

Among the 63 studies included, 22 studies reported on cyberbullying prevalence and 20 studies reported on prevalence from victimization and perpetration perspectives, respectively. Among the 20 studies, 11 national studies indicated that the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization and cyberbullying perpetration ranged from 14.6 to 52.2% and 6.3 to 32%, respectively. These studies were conducted in the United States of America ( N = 4) ( 29 – 32 ), South Korea ( N = 3) ( 33 – 35 ), Singapore ( N = 1) ( 36 ), Malaysia ( N = 1) ( 37 ), Israel ( N = 1) ( 38 ), and Canada ( N = 1) ( 39 ). Only one of these 11 national studies is from an upper middle income country, and the rest are from highincome countries identified by the World Bank ( 40 ). By combining regional and community-level studies, the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization and cyberbullying perpetration ranged from 13.99 to 57.5% and 6.0 to 46.3%, respectively. Spain reported the highest prevalence of cyberbullying victimization (57.5%) ( 41 ), followed by Malaysia (52.2%) ( 37 ), Israel (45%) ( 42 ), and China (44.5%) ( 43 ). The lowest reported victim rates were observed in Canada (13.99%) and South Korea (14.6%) ( 34 , 39 ). The reported prevalence of cyberbullying victimization in the United States of America ranged from 15.5 to 31.4% ( 29 , 44 ), while in Israel, rates ranged from 30 to 45% ( 26 , 42 ). In China, rates ranged from 6 to 46.3% with the country showing the highest prevalence of cyberbullying perpetration (46.30%) ( 15 , 43 , 45 , 46 ). Canadian and South Korean studies reported the lowest prevalence of cyberbullying perpetration at 7.99 and 6.3%, respectively ( 34 , 39 ).

A total of 10 studies were assessed as high quality studies. Among them, six studies came from high income countries, including Canada, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and South Korea ( 13 , 34 , 39 , 46 – 48 ). Three studies were from upper middle income countries, including Malaysia and China ( 37 , 43 ) and one from a lower middle income country, Nigeria ( 49 ). Figures 2 , 3 describe the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization and perpetration respectively among high quality studies.

The prevalence of cyberbullying victimization of high quality studies.

The prevalence of cyberbullying perpetration of high quality studies.

Prevalence of Various Cyberbullying Behaviors

For the prevalence of cyberbullying victimization and perpetration, the data were reported in 18 and 14 studies, respectively. Figure 4 shows the distribution characteristics of the estimated value of prevalence of different cyberbullying behaviors with box plots. The longer the box, the greater the degree of variation of the numerical data and vice versa. The rate of victimization and crime of verbal violence, as well as the rate of victimization of other behaviors, such as cyberstalking and digital dating abuse, has a large degree of variation. Among the four specified types of cyberbullying behaviors, verbal violence was regarded as the most commonly reported behaviors in both perpetration and victimization rates, with a wide range of prevalence, ranging from 5 to 18%. Fewer studies reported the prevalence data for visual violence and group violence. Studies also showed that the prevalence of impersonation and account forgery were within a comparatively small scale. Specific results were as follows.

Cyberbullying prevalence across types (2015–2019).

Verbal Violence

A total of 13 studies reported verbal violence prevalence data ( 15 , 26 , 34 , 37 – 39 , 42 , 43 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 51 ). Ten studies reported the prevalence of verbal violence victimization ranging from 2.8 to 47.5%, while seven studies claimed perpetration prevalence ranging from 1.5 to 31.8%. Malaysia reported the highest prevalence of verbal violence victimization (47.5%) ( 37 ), followed by China (32%) ( 43 ). China reported that the prevalence of verbal violence victimization ranged from 5.1 to 32% ( 15 , 43 ). Israel reported that the prevalence of verbal violence victimization ranged from 3.4 to 18% ( 26 , 38 , 42 ). For perpetration rate, Malaysia reported the highest level at 31.8% ( 37 ), while a study for Spain reported the lowest, ranging from 3.2 to 6.4% ( 51 ).

Group Violence

The prevalence of group violence victimization was explored within 4 studies and ranged from 5 to 17.8% ( 26 , 34 , 42 , 43 ), while perpetration prevalence was reported in three studies, ranging from 10.1 to 19.07% ( 34 , 43 , 47 ). An Israeli study suggested that 9.8% of respondents had been excluded from the Internet, while 8.9% had been refused entry to a group or team ( 26 ). A study in South Korea argued that the perpetration prevalence of group violence was 10.1% ( 34 ), while a study in Italy reported that the rate of online group violence against others was 19.07% ( 47 ).

Visual Violence

The prevalence of visual violence victimization was explored within three studies and ranged from 2.6 to 12.1% ( 26 , 34 , 43 ), while the perpetration prevalence reported in four studies ranged from 1.7 to 6% ( 34 , 43 , 47 , 48 ). For victimization prevalence, a South Korean study found that 12.1% of respondents reported that their personal information was leaked online ( 34 ). An Israel study reported that the prevalence of outing the picture was 2.6% ( 26 ). For perpetration prevalence, a South Korean study found that 1.7% of respondents had reported that they had disclosed someone's personal information online ( 34 ). A German study reported that 6% of respondents had written a message (e.g., an email) to somebody using a fake identity ( 48 ).

Impersonating and Account Forgery

Four studies reported on the victimization prevalence of impersonating and account forgery, ranging from 1.1 to 10% ( 15 , 42 , 43 ), while five studies reported on perpetration prevalence, with the range being from 1.3 to 9.31% ( 15 , 43 , 47 , 48 , 51 ). In a Spanish study, 10% of respondents reported that their accounts had been infringed by others or that they could not access their account due to stolen passwords. In contrast, 4.5% of respondents reported that they had infringed other people's accounts or stolen passwords, with 2.5% stating that they had forged other people's accounts ( 51 ). An Israeli study reported that the prevalence of being impersonated was 7% ( 42 ), while in China, a study reported this to be 8.6% ( 43 ). Another study from China found that 1.1% of respondents had been impersonated to send dating-for-money messages ( 15 ).

Other Behaviors

The prevalence of disclosure of privacy, sexual harassment, and cyberstalking were also explored by scholars. Six studies reported the victimization prevalence of other cyberbullying behaviors ( 13 , 15 , 34 , 37 , 42 , 43 ), and four studies reported on perpetration prevalence ( 34 , 37 , 43 , 48 ). A study in China found that 1.2% of respondents reported that their privacy had been compromised without permission due to disputes ( 15 ). A study from China reported the prevalence of cyberstalking victimization was 11.9% ( 43 ), while a Portuguese study reported that this was 62% ( 13 ). In terms of perpetration prevalence, a Malaysian study reported 2.7% for sexual harassment ( 37 ).

Risk and Protective Factors of Cyberbullying

In terms of the risk factors associated with cyberbullying among children and adolescents, this comprehensive review highlighted both personal and situational factors. Personal factors referred to age, gender, online behavior, race, health conditions, past experiences of victimization, and impulsiveness, while situational factors consisted of parent-child relationship, interpersonal relationships, and geographical location. In addition, protective factors against cyberbullying included: empathy and emotional intelligence, parent-child relationship, and school climate. Table 2 shows the risk and protective factors for child and adolescent cyberbullying.

Risk and protective factors of cyberbullying among children and adolescents.

In terms of the risk factors associated with cyberbullying victimization at the personal level, many studies evidenced that females were more likely to be cyberbullied than males ( 13 , 26 , 29 , 38 , 43 , 52 , 54 , 55 , 58 ). Meanwhile, adolescents with mental health problems ( 61 ), such as depression ( 33 , 62 ), borderline personality disorder ( 63 ), eating disorders ( 41 ), sleep deprivation ( 56 ), and suicidal thoughts and suicide plans ( 64 ), were more likely to be associated with cyberbullying victimization. As for Internet usage, researchers agreed that youth victims were probably those that spent more time online than their counterparts ( 32 , 36 , 43 , 45 , 48 , 49 , 60 ). For situational risk factors, some studies have proven the relationship between cyberbullying victims and parental abuse, parental neglect, family dysfunction, inadequate monitoring, and parents' inconsistency in mediation, as well as communication issues ( 33 , 64 , 68 , 73 ). In terms of geographical location, some studies have reported that youths residing in city locations are more likely to be victims of cyberbullying than their peers from suburban areas ( 61 ).

Regarding the risk factors of cyberbullying perpetration at the personal level, it is generally believed that older teenagers, especially those aged over 15 years, are at greater risk of becoming cyberbullying perpetrators ( 55 , 67 ). When considering prior cyberbullying experiences, evidence showed that individuals who had experienced cyberbullying or face-to-face bullying tended to be aggressors in cyberbullying ( 35 , 42 , 49 , 51 , 55 ); in addition, the relationship between impulsiveness and cyberbullying perpetration was also explored by several pioneering scholars ( 55 , 72 , 80 ). The situational factors highlight the role of parents and teachers in cyberbullying experiences. For example, over-control and authoritarian parenting styles, as well as inharmonious teacher-student relationships ( 61 ) are perceived to lead to cyberbullying behaviors ( 74 , 75 ). In terms of differences in geographical locations, students residing in cities have a higher rate of online harassment than students living in more rural locations ( 49 ).

In terms of the protective factors in child and adolescent cyberbullying, scholars have focused on youths who have limited experiences of cyberbullying. At the personal level, high emotional intelligence, an ability for emotional self-control and empathy, such as cognitive empathy ability ( 44 , 55 ), were associated with lower rates of cyberbullying ( 57 ). At the situational level, a parent's role is seen as critical. For example, intimate parent-child relationships ( 46 ) and open active communication ( 19 ) were demonstrated to be related to lower experiences of cyberbullying and perpetration. Some scholars argued that parental supervision and monitoring of children's online activities can reduce their tendency to participate in some negative activities associated with cyberbullying ( 31 , 46 , 73 ). They further claimed that an authoritative parental style protects youths against cyberbullying ( 43 ). Conversely, another string of studies evidenced that parents' supervision of Internet usage was meaningless ( 45 ). In addition to conflicting roles of parental supervision, researchers have also looked into the role of schools, and posited that positive school climates contribute to less cyberbullying experiences ( 61 , 79 ).

Some risk factors may be protective factors under another condition. Some studies suggest that parental aggressive communication is related to severe cyberbullying victims, while open communication is a potential protective factor ( 19 ). Parental neglect, parental abuse, parental inconsistency in supervision of adolescents' online behavior, and family dysfunction are related to the direct or indirect harm of cyberbullying ( 33 , 68 ). Parental participation, a good parental-children relationship, communication and dialogue can enhance children's school adaptability and prevent cyberbullying behaviors ( 31 , 74 ). When parental monitoring reaches a balance between control and openness, it could become a protective factor against cyberbullying, and it could be a risk factor, if parental monitoring is too low or over-controlled ( 47 ).

Despite frequent discussion about the risk factors associated with cyberbullying among children and adolescents, some are still deemed controversial factors, such as age, race, gender, and the frequency of suffering on the internet. For cyberbullying victims, some studies claim that older teenagers are more vulnerable to cyberbullying ( 15 , 38 , 52 , 53 ), while other studies found conflicting results ( 26 , 33 ). As for student race, Alhajji et al. argued that non-white students were less likely to report cyberbullying ( 29 ), while Morin et al. observed no significant correlation between race and cyberbullying ( 52 ). For cyberbullying perpetration, Alvarez-Garcia found that gender differences may have indirect effects on cyberbullying perpetration ( 55 ), while others disagreed ( 42 , 61 , 68 – 70 ). Specifically, some studies revealed that males were more likely to become cyberbullying perpetrators ( 34 , 39 , 56 ), while Khurana et al. presented an opposite point of view, proposing that females were more likely to attack others ( 71 ). In terms of time spent on the Internet, some claimed that students who frequently surf the Internet had a higher chance of becoming perpetrators ( 49 ), while others stated that there was no clear and direct association between Internet usage and cyberbullying perpetration ( 55 ).

In addition to personal and situational factors, scholars have also explored other specific factors pertaining to cyberbullying risk and protection. For instance, mindfulness and depression were found to be significantly related to cyber perpetration ( 76 ), while eating disorder psychopathology in adolescents was associated with cyber victimization ( 41 ). For males who were familiar with their victims, such as family members, friends and acquaintances, they were more likely to be cyberstalking perpetrators than females or strangers, while pursuing desired closer relationships ( 13 ). In the school context, a lower social likability in class was identified as an indirect factor for cyberbullying ( 48 ).

This comprehensive review has established that the prevalence of global childhood and adolescent victimization from cyberbullying ranges from 13.99 to 57.5%, and that the perpetration prevalence ranges from 6.0 to 46.3%. Across the studies included in our research, verbal violence is observed as one of the most common acts of cyberbullying, including verbal offensive responses, insults, mocking, threats, slander, and harassment. The victimization prevalence of verbal violence is reported to be between 5 and 47.5%, and the perpetration prevalence is between 3.2 and 26.1%. Personal factors, such as gender, frequent use of social media platforms, depression, borderline personality disorder, eating disorders, sleep deprivation, and suicidal tendencies, were generally considered to be related to becoming a cyberbullying victim. Personal factors, such as high school students, past experiences, impulse, improperly controlled family education, poor teacher-student relationships, and the urban environment, were considered risk factors for cyberbullying perpetration. Situational factors, including parental abuse and neglect, improper monitoring, communication barriers between parents and children, as well as the urban environment, were also seen to potentially contribute to higher risks of both cyberbullying victimization and perpetration.

Increasing Prevalence of Global Cyberbullying With Changing Social Media Landscape and Measurement Alterations

This comprehensive review suggests that global cyberbullying rates, in terms of victimization and perpetration, were on the rise during the 5 year period, from 2015 to 2019. For example, in an earlier study conducted by Modecki et al. the average cyberbullying involvement rate was 15% ( 81 ). Similar observations were made by Hamm et al. who found that the median rates of youth having experienced bullying or who had bullied others online, was 23 and 15.2%, respectively ( 82 ). However, our systematic review summarized global children and adolescents cyberbullying in the last 5 years and revealed an average cyberbullying perpetration rate of 25.03%, ranging from 6.0 to 46.3%, while the average victimization was 33.08%, ranging from 13.99 to 57.5%. The underlying reason for increases may be attributed to the rapid changing landscape of social media and, in recent years, the drastic increase in Internet penetration rates. With the rise in Internet access, youths have greater opportunities to participate in online activities, provided by emerging social media platforms.

Although our review aims to provide a broader picture of cyberbullying, it is well-noted in extant research that difficulties exist in accurately estimating variations in prevalence in different countries ( 23 , 83 ). Many reasons exist to explain this. The first largely relates poor or unclear definition of the term cyberbullying; this hinders the determination of cyberbullying victimization and perpetration ( 84 ). Although traditional bullying behavior is well-defined, the definition cannot directly be applied to the virtual environment due to the complexity in changing online interactions. Without consensus on definitions, measurement and cyberbullying types may vary noticeably ( 83 , 85 ). Secondly, the estimation of prevalence of cyberbullying is heavily affected by research methods, such as recall period (lifetime, last year, last 6 months, last month, or last week etc.), demographic characteristics of the survey sample (age, gender, race, etc.), perspectives of cyberbullying experiences (victims, perpetrators, or both victim and perpetrator), and instruments (scales, study-specific questions) ( 23 , 84 , 86 ). The variety in research tools and instruments used to assess the prevalence of cyberbullying can cause confusion on this issue ( 84 ). Thirdly, variations in economic development, cultural backgrounds, human values, internet penetration rates, and frequency of using social media may lead to different conclusions across countries ( 87 ).

Acknowledging the Conflicting Role of the Identified Risk Factors With More Research Needed to Establish the Causality

Although this review has identified many personal and situational factors associated with cyberbullying, the majority of studies adopted a cross-sectional design and failed to reveal the causality ( 21 ). Nevertheless, knowledge on these correlational relationships provide valuable insights for understanding and preventing cyberbullying incidents. In terms of gender differences, females are believed to be at a higher risk of cyberbullying victimization compared to males. Two reasons may help to explain this. First, the preferred violence behaviors between two genders. females prefer indirect harassment, such as the spreading of rumors, while males tend toward direct bullying (e.g., assault) ( 29 ) and second, the cultural factors. From the traditional gender perspective, females tended to perceive a greater risk of communicating with others on the Internet, while males were more reluctant to express fear, vulnerability and insecurity when asked about their cyberbullying experiences ( 46 ). Females were more intolerant when experiencing cyberstalking and were more likely to report victimization experiences than males ( 13 ). Meanwhile, many researchers suggested that females are frequent users of emerging digital communication platforms, which increases their risk of unpleasant interpersonal contact and violence. From the perspective of cultural norms and masculinity, the reporting of cyberbullying is also widely acknowledged ( 37 ). For example, in addition, engaging in online activities is also regarded as a critical predictor for cyberbullying victimization. Enabled by the Internet, youths can easily find potential victims and start harassment at any time ( 49 ). Participating in online activities directly increases the chance of experiencing cyberbullying victimization and the possibility of becoming a victim ( 36 , 45 ). As for age, earlier involvement on social media and instant messaging tools may increase the chances of experiencing cyberbullying. For example, in Spain, these tools cannot be used without parental permission before the age of 14 ( 55 ). Besides, senior students were more likely to be more impulsive and less sympathetic. They may portray more aggressive and anti-social behaviors ( 55 , 72 ); hence senior students and students with higher impulsivity were usually more likely to become cyberbullying perpetrators.

Past experiences of victimization and family-related factors are another risk for cyberbullying crime. As for past experiences, one possible explanation is that young people who had experienced online or traditional school bullying may commit cyberbullying using e-mails, instant messages, and text messages for revenge, self-protection, or improving their social status ( 35 , 42 , 49 , 55 ). In becoming a cyberbullying perpetrator, the student may feel more powerful and superior, externalizing angry feelings and relieving the feelings of helplessness and sadness produced by past victimization experiences ( 51 ). As for family related factors, parenting styles are proven to be highly correlated to cyberbullying. In authoritative families, parents focus on rational behavioral control with clear rules and a high component of supervision and parental warmth, which have beneficial effects on children's lifestyles ( 43 ). Conversely, in indulgent families, children's behaviors are not heavily restricted and parents guide and encourage their children to adapt to society. The characteristics of this indulgent style, including parental support, positive communication, low imposition, and emotional expressiveness, possibly contribute to more parent-child trust and less misunderstanding ( 75 ). The protective role of warmth/affection and appropriate supervision, which are common features of authoritative or indulgent parenting styles, mitigate youth engagement in cyberbullying. On the contrary, authoritarian and neglectful styles, whether with excessive or insufficient control, are both proven to be risk factors for being a target of cyberbullying ( 33 , 76 ). In terms of geographical location, although several studies found that children residing in urban areas were more likely to be cyberbullying victims than those living in rural or suburban areas, we cannot draw a quick conclusion here, since whether this difference attributes to macro-level differences, such as community safety or socioeconomic status, or micro-level differences, such as teacher intervention in the classroom, courses provided, teacher-student ratio, is unclear across studies ( 61 ). An alternative explanation for this is the higher internet usage rate in urban areas ( 49 ).

Regarding health conditions, especially mental health, some scholars believe that young people with health problems are more likely to be identified as victims than people without health problems. They perceive health condition as a risk factor for cyberbullying ( 61 , 63 ). On the other hand, another group of scholars believe that cyberbullying has an important impact on the mental health of adolescents which can cause psychological distress consequences, such as post-traumatic stress mental disorder, depression, suicidal ideation, and drug abuse ( 70 , 87 ). It is highly possible that mental health could be risk factors, consequences of cyberbullying or both. Mental health cannot be used as standards, requirements, or decisive responses in cyberbullying research ( 13 ).

The Joint Effort Between Youth, Parents, Schools, and Communities to Form a Cyberbullying-Free Environment

This comprehensive review suggests that protecting children and adolescents from cyberbullying requires joint efforts between individuals, parents, schools, and communities, to form a cyberbullying-free environment. For individuals, young people are expected to improve their digital technology capabilities, especially in the use of social media platforms and instant messaging tools ( 55 ). To reduce the number of cyberbullying perpetrators, it is necessary to cultivate emotional self-regulation ability through appropriate emotional management training. Moreover, teachers, counselors, and parents are required to be armed with sufficient knowledge of emotional management and to develop emotional management capabilities and skills. In this way, they can be alert to the aggressive or angry emotions expressed by young people, and help them mediate any negative emotions ( 45 ), and avoid further anti-social behaviors ( 57 ).

For parents, styles of parenting involving a high level of parental involvement, care and support, are desirable in reducing the possibility of children's engagement in cyberbullying ( 74 , 75 ). If difficulties are encountered, open communication can contribute to enhancing the sense of security ( 73 ). In this vein, parents should be aware of the importance of caring, communicating and supervising their children, and participate actively in their children's lives ( 71 ). In order to keep a balance between control and openness ( 47 ), parents can engage in unbiased open communication with their children, and reach an agreement on the usage of computers and smart phones ( 34 , 35 , 55 ). Similarly, it is of vital importance to establish a positive communication channel with children ( 19 ).

For schools, a higher priority is needed to create a safe and positive campus environment, providing students with learning opportunities and ensuring that every student is treated equally. With a youth-friendly environment, students are able to focus more on their academic performance and develop a strong sense of belonging to the school ( 79 ). For countries recognizing collectivist cultural values, such as China and India, emphasizing peer attachment and a sense of collectivism can reduce the risk of cyberbullying perpetration and victimization ( 78 ). Besides, schools can cooperate with mental health agencies and neighboring communities to develop preventive programs, such as extracurricular activities and training ( 44 , 53 , 62 ). Specifically, school-based preventive measures against cyberbullying are expected to be sensitive to the characteristics of young people at different ages, and the intersection of race and school diversity ( 29 , 76 ). It is recommended that school policies that aim to embrace diversity and embody mutual respect among students are created ( 26 ). Considering the high prevalence of cyberbullying and a series of serious consequences, it is suggested that intervention against cyberbullying starts from an early stage, at about 10 years old ( 54 ). Schools can organize seminars to strengthen communication between teachers and students so that they can better understand the needs of students ( 61 ). In addition, schools should encourage cyberbullying victims to seek help and provide students with opportunities to report cyberbullying behaviors, such as creating online anonymous calls.

Conclusions and Limitations

The comprehensive study has reviewed related research on children and adolescents cyberbullying across different countries and regions, providing a positive understanding of the current situation of cyberbullying. The number of studies on cyberbullying has surged in the last 5 years, especially those related to risk factors and protective factors of cyberbullying. However, research on effective prevention is insufficient and evaluation of policy tools for cyberbullying intervention is a nascent research field. Our comprehensive review concludes with possible strategies for cyberbullying prevention, including personal emotion management, digital ability training, policy applicability, and interpersonal skills. We highlight the important role of parental control in cyberbullying prevention. As for the role of parental control, it depends on whether children believe their parents are capable of adequately supporting them, rather than simply interfering in their lives, restricting their online behavior, and controlling or removing their devices ( 50 ). In general, cyberbullying is on the rise, with the effectiveness of interventions to meet this problem still requiring further development and exploration ( 83 ).

Considering the overlaps between cyberbullying and traditional offline bullying, future research can explore the unique risk and protective factors that are distinguishable from traditional bullying ( 86 ). To further reveal the variations, researchers can compare the outcomes of interventions conducted in cyberbullying and traditional bullying preventions simultaneously, and the same interventions only targeting cyberbullying ( 88 ). In addition, cyberbullying also reflects a series of other social issues, such as personal privacy and security, public opinion monitoring, multinational perpetration and group crimes. To address this problem, efforts from multiple disciplines and novel analytical methods in the digital era are required. As the Internet provides enormous opportunities to connect young people from all over the world, cyberbullying perpetrators may come from transnational networks. Hence, cyberbullying of children and adolescents, involving multiple countries, is worth further attention.

Our study has several limitations. First, national representative studies are scarce, while few studies from middle and low income countries were included in our research due to language restrictions. Many of the studies included were conducted in schools, communities, provinces, and cities in high income countries. Meanwhile, our review only focused on victimization and perpetration. Future studies should consider more perspectives, such as bystanders and those with the dual identity of victim/perpetrator, to comprehensively analyze the risk and protective factors of cyberbullying.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/ Supplementary Material , further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.

Author Contributions

SH, CZ, RE, and WZ conceived the study and developed the design. WZ analyzed the result and supervised the study. CZ and SH wrote the first draft. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.634909/full#supplementary-material

• 1. Ang RP. Adolescent cyberbullying: a review of characteristics, prevention and intervention strategies. Aggress Violent Behav. (2015) 25:35–42. 10.1016/j.avb.2015.07.011 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. Reyna VF, Farley F. Risk and rationality in adolescent decision making: implications for theory, practice, and public policy. Psychol Sci Public Interest. (2006) 7:1–44. 10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00026.x [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. UNICEF ed . Children in a Digital World. New York, NY: UNICEF; (2017). [ Google Scholar ]
• 4. Thomas HJ, Connor JP, Scott JG. Integrating traditional bullying and cyberbullying: challenges of definition and measurement in adolescents - a review. Educ Psychol Rev. (2015) 27:135–52. 10.1007/s10648-014-9261-7 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 5. Baldry AC, Farrington DP, Sorrentino A. Am I at risk of cyberbullying? A narrative review and conceptual framework for research on risk of cyberbullying and cybervictimization: the risk and needs assessment approach. Aggress Violent Behav. (2015) 23:36–51. 10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.014 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 6. Olweus D. Bullying at School: What We Know and What We Can Do. Oxford; Cambridge, MA: Blackwell; (1993). [ Google Scholar ]
• 7. Dooley JJ, Pyzalski J, Cross D. Cyberbullying versus face-to-face bullying: a theoretical and conceptual review. J Psychol. (2009) 217:182–8. 10.1027/0044-3409.217.4.182 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 8. Smith PK, Mahdavi J, Carvalho M, Fisher S, Russell S, Tippett N. Cyberbullying: its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. (2008) 49:376–85. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 9. Kowalski RM, Giumetti GW, Schroeder AN, Lattanner MR. Bullying in the digital age: a critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychol Bull. (2014) 140:1073–137. 10.1037/a0035618 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 10. León Vicente I. Cybervictimization by cyberbullying: children at risk and children as risk (dissertation). University of the Basque Country, Leioa, Spain: (2016). [ Google Scholar ]
• 11. Hinduja S, Patchin JW. Identification, Prevention, and Response. (2020). [ Google Scholar ]
• 12. Jadambaa A, Thomas HJ, Scott JG, Graves N, Brain D, Pacella R. Prevalence of traditional bullying and cyberbullying among children and adolescents in Australia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. (2019) 53:878–88. 10.1177/0004867419846393 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 13. Pereira F, Matos M. Cyber-stalking victimization: what predicts fear among Portuguese adolescents? Eur J Crim Policy Res. (2016) 22:253–70. 10.1007/s10610-015-9285-7 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 14. Reed LA, Ward LM, Tolman RM, Lippman JR, Seabrook RC. The association between stereotypical gender and dating beliefs and digital dating abuse perpetration in adolescent dating relationships. J Interpers Violence. (2018). 10.1177/0886260518801933 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 15. Huang CL, Yang SC, Hsieh LS. The cyberbullying behavior of Taiwanese adolescents in an online gaming environment. Children Youth Serv Rev. (2019) 106:104461. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104461 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 16. Raskauskas J, Huynh A. The process of coping with cyberbullying: a systematic review. Aggress Violent Behav. (2015) 23:118–25. 10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.019 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 17. Bradshaw J, Crous G, Rees G, Turner N. Comparing children's experiences of schools-based bullying across countries. Children Youth Serv Rev. (2017) 80:171–80. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.06.060 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 18. Hutson E, Kelly S, Militello LK. Systematic review of cyberbullying interventions for youth and parents with implications for evidence-based practice. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. (2018) 15:72–9. 10.1111/wvn.12257 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 19. Larranaga E, Yubero S, Ovejero A, Navarro R. Loneliness, parent-child communication and cyberbullying victimization among Spanish youths. Comp Hum Behav. (2016) 65:1–8. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.015 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 20. van Geel M, Vedder P, Tanilon J. Relationship between peer victimization, cyberbullying, and suicide in children and adolescents: a meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. (2014) 168:435–42. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.4143 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 21. Zych I, Ortega-Ruiz R, Del Rey R. Systematic review of theoretical studies on bullying and cyberbullying: facts, knowledge, prevention, and intervention. Aggress Violent Behav. (2015) 23:1–21. 10.1016/j.avb.2015.10.001 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 22. Selkie EM, Kota R, Chan Y-F, Moreno M. Cyberbullying, depression, and problem alcohol use in female college students: a multisite study. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. (2015) 18:79–86. 10.1089/cyber.2014.0371 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 23. Brochado S, Soares S, Fraga S. A scoping review on studies of cyberbullying prevalence among adolescents. Trauma Violence Abus. (2017) 18:523–31. 10.1177/1524838016641668 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 24. Nocentini A, Calmaestra J, Schultze-Krumbholz A, Scheithauer H, Ortega R, Menesini E. Cyberbullying: labels, behaviours and definition in three European Countries. Aust J Guid Couns. (2010) 20:129–42. 10.1375/ajgc.20.2.129 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 25. Willard NE. Cyberbullying and Cyberthreats: Responding to the Challenge of Online Social Aggression, Threats, and Distress. Champaign: Research Press; (2007). [ Google Scholar ]
• 26. Aizenkot D, Kashy-Rosenbaum G. Cyberbullying victimization in whatsapp classmate groups among Israeli Elementary, Middle, and High School Students. J Interpers Violence. (2019). 10.1177/0886260519842860 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 27. Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. Human aggression. Ann Rev Psychol. (2002) 53:27–51. 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 28. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. (2011). Available online at: http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/ (accessed January 17, 2021).
• 29. Alhajji M, Bass S, Dai T. Cyberbullying, mental health, and violence in adolescents and associations with sex and race: data from the 2015 youth risk behavior survey. Global Pediatr Health. (2019) 6:2333794X19868887. 10.1177/2333794X19868887 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 30. Grinshteyn E, Yang YT. The association between electronic bullying and school absenteeism among high school students in the United States. J School Health. (2017) 87:142–9. 10.1111/josh.12476 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 31. Mesch GS. Parent-child connections on social networking sites and cyberbullying. Youth Soc. (2018) 50:1145–62. 10.1177/0044118X16659685 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 32. Sam J, Wisniewski P, Xu H, Rosson MB, Carroll JM. How are social capital and parental mediation associated with cyberbullying and cybervictimization among youth in the United States? In: Stephanidis C, editor. HCI International 2017 – Posters' Extended Abstracts Communications in Computer Information Science Cham: Springer International Publishing. p. 638–644. [ Google Scholar ]
• 33. Hong JS, Kim DH, Thornberg R, Kang JH, Morgan JT. Correlates of direct and indirect forms of cyberbullying victimization involving South Korean adolescents: an ecological perspective. Comput Hum Behav. (2018) 87:327–36. 10.1016/j.chb.2018.06.010 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 34. Lee C, Shin N. Prevalence of cyberbullying and predictors of cyberbullying perpetration among Korean adolescents. Comp Hum Behav. (2017) 68:352–8. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.047 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 35. You S, Lim SA. Longitudinal predictors of cyberbullying perpetration: evidence from Korean middle school students. Person Ind Differ. (2016) 89:172–6. 10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.019 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 36. Holt TJ, Fitzgerald S, Bossler AM, Chee G, Ng E. Assessing the risk factors of cyber and mobile phone bullying victimization in a nationally representative sample of Singapore Youth. Int J Offend Ther Comp Criminol. (2016) 60:598–615. 10.1177/0306624X14554852 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 37. Marret MJ, Choo WY. Factors associated with online victimisation among Malaysian adolescents who use social networking sites: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. (2017) 7:e014959. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014959 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 38. Tesler R, Nissanholtz-Gannot R, Zigdon A, Harel-Fisch Y. The association of cyber-bullying and adolescents in religious and secular schools in Israel. J Relig Health. (2019) 58:2095–109. 10.1007/s10943-019-00938-z [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 39. Beran T, Mishna F, McInroy LB, Shariff S. Children's experiences of cyberbullying: a Canadian National Study. Child School. (2015) 37:207–14. 10.1093/cs/cdv024 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 40. World Bank Country and Lending Groups – World Bank Data Help Desk . Available online at: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups [accessed January 25, 2021).
• 41. Marco JH, Tormo-Irun P. Cyber victimization is associated with eating disorder psychopathology in adolescents. Front Psychol. (2018) 9:987. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00987 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 42. Olenik-Shemesh D, Heiman T. Cyberbullying victimization in adolescents as related to body esteem, social support, and social self-efficacy. J Genet Psychol. (2017) 178:28–43. 10.1080/00221325.2016.1195331 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 43. Rao J, Wang H, Pang M, Yang J, Zhang J, Ye Y, et al. Cyberbullying perpetration and victimisation among junior and senior high school students in Guangzhou, China. Inj Prev. (2019) 25:13–9. 10.1136/injuryprev-2016-042210 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 44. Lee C. Weak Commitment to School, Deviant Peers, and Cyberbullying Victimization-Strain in Adolescent Cyberbullying. (2017). Available online at: https://search.proquest.com/pqdtglobal/docview/1937915933/abstract/9D85437600564444PQ/30 (accessed June 17, 2020).
• 45. Lin MT. Risk factors associated with cyberbullying victimization and perpetration among Taiwan children (dissertation). The University of Texas, Austin, TX, United States: (2019). [ Google Scholar ]
• 46. Pieschl S, Porsch T. The complex relationship between cyberbullying and trust. Int J Dev Sci. (2017) 11:9–17. 10.3233/DEV-160208 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 47. Brighi A, Menin D, Skrzypiec G, Guarini A. Young, bullying, and connected. Common pathways to cyberbullying and problematic internet use in adolescence. Front Psychol. (2019) 10:1467. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01467 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 48. Festl R. Perpetrators on the internet: analyzing individual and structural explanation factors of cyberbullying in school context. Comp Hum Behav. (2016) 59:237–48. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.017 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 49. Olumide AO, Adams P, Amodu OK. Prevalence and correlates of the perpetration of cyberbullying among in-school adolescents in Oyo State, Nigeria. Int J Adolesc Med Health. (2016) 28:183–91. 10.1515/ijamh-2015-0009 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 50. Baldry AC, Sorrentino A, Farrington DP. Cyberbullying and cybervictimization versus parental supervision, monitoring and control of adolescents' online activities. Child Youth Serv Rev. (2019) 96:302–7. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.11.058 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 51. Garaigordobil M. Cyberbullying in adolescents and youth in the Basque Country: prevalence of cybervictims, cyberaggressors, and cyberobservers. J Youth Stud. (2015) 18:569–82. 10.1080/13676261.2014.992324 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 52. Morin HK, Bradshaw CP, Kush JM. Adjustment outcomes of victims of cyberbullying: the role of personal and contextual factors. J School Psychol. (2018) 70:74–88. 10.1016/j.jsp.2018.07.002 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 53. Baraldsnes D. The prevalence of cyberbullying and the views of 5-12 grade pupils and teachers on cyberbullying prevention in Lithuanian Schools. Uinv J Educ Res. (2015) 3:949–59. 10.13189/ujer.2015.031201 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 54. Razjouyan K, Mobarake AH, Sadr SS, Ardestani SMS, Yaseri M. The relationship between emotional intelligence and the different roles in cyberbullying among high school students in Tehran. Iran J Psychiatry Behav Sci. (2018) 12:UNSP e11560. 10.5812/ijpbs.11560 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 55. Alvarez-Garcia D, Carlos Nunez J, Garcia T, Barreiro-Collazo A. Individual, family, and community predictors of cyber-aggression among adolescents. Eur J Psychol Appl Legal Context. (2018) 10:79–88. 10.5093/ejpalc2018a8 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 56. Horzum MB, Ayas T, Randler C, Dusunceli B. The effects of empathy and circadian preference on cyberbullying of adolescents in Turkey. Biol Rhythm Res. (2019). 10.1080/09291016.2019.1603839 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 57. Carmen Martinez-Monteagudo M, Delgado B, Manuel Garcia-Fernandez J, Rubio E. Cyberbullying, aggressiveness, and emotional intelligence in adolescence. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2019) 16:5079. 10.3390/ijerph16245079 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 58. Sasson H, Mesch G. The role of parental mediation and peer norms on the likelihood of cyberbullying. J Genet Psychol. (2017) 178:15–27. 10.1080/00221325.2016.1195330 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 59. Wang X, Lei L, Liu D, Hu H. Moderating effects of moral reasoning and gender on the relation between moral disengagement and cyberbullying in adolescents. Person Ind Differ. (2016) 98:244–9. 10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.056 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 60. Simsek N, Sahin D, Evli M. Internet addiction, cyberbullying, and victimization relationship in adolescents a sample from Turkey. J Addict Nurs. (2019) 30:201–10. 10.1097/JAN.0000000000000296 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 61. McQuillan BE. Ecological Factors Associated with Middle School Students' Experiences of Cyberbullying. (2016). Available online at: https://search.proquest.com/pqdtglobal/docview/1794167537/abstract/9D85437600564444PQ/4 (accessed June 17, 2020).
• 62. Rose CA, Tynes BM. Longitudinal associations between cybervictimization and mental health among U.S. adolescents. J Adolesc Health. (2015) 57:305–12. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.05.002 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 63. Stockdale LA, Coyne SM, Nelson DA, Erickson DH. Borderline personality disorder features, jealousy, and cyberbullying in adolescence. Pers Individ Differ. (2015) 83:148–53. 10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.003 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 64. Chen Q, Lo Camilla KM, Yuhong Z, Anne C, Ling CK, Patrick I. Family poly-victimization and cyberbullying among adolescents in a Chinese school sample. Child Abuse Negl. (2018) 77:180–7. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.01.015 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 65. Landoll RR, La Greca AM, Lai BS, Chan SF, Herge WM. Cyber victimization by peers: prospective associations with adolescent social anxiety and depressive symptoms. J Adolesc. (2015) 42:77–86. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.04.002 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 66. Iranzo B, Buelga S, Cava M-J, Ortega-Baron J. Cyberbullying, psychosocial adjustment, and suicidal ideation in adolescence. Psychosoc Interv. (2019) 28:75–81. 10.5093/pi2019a5 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 67. Buelga S, Cava MJ, Musitu G, Torralba E. Cyberbullying aggressors among Spanish secondary education students: an exploratory study. Interact Tech Smart Ed. (2015) 12:100–15. 10.1108/ITSE-08-2014-0025 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 68. Katz I, Lemish D, Cohen R, Arden A. When parents are inconsistent: parenting style and adolescents' involvement in cyberbullying. J Adolesc. (2019) 74:1–2. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.04.006 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 69. Cénat JM, Blais M, Lavoie F, Caron P-O, Hébert M. Cyberbullying victimization and substance use among Quebec high schools students: the mediating role of psychological distress. Comp Hum Behav. (2018) 89:207–12. 10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.014 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 70. Hoareau N, Bages C, Allaire M, Guerrien A. The role of psychopathic traits and moral disengagement in cyberbullying among adolescents. Crim Behav Ment Health. (2019) 29:321–31. 10.1002/cbm.2135 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 71. Khurana A, Bleakley A, Jordan A, Romer D. The protective effects of parental monitoring and internet restriction on adolescents' risk of online harassment. J Youth Adolesc. (2015) 44:1039–47. 10.1007/s10964-014-0242-4 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 72. Martínez I, Murgui S, Garcia OF, Garcia F. Parenting in the digital era: protective and risk parenting styles for traditional bullying and cyberbullying victimization. Comp Hum Behav. (2019) 90:84–92. 10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.036 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 73. Yusuf S, Salleh H, Bahaman A, Shamsul M, Ramli N, Ramli AN, et al. Parental attachment and cyberbullying experiences among Malaysian children. Pertanika J Scholarly Res Rev. (2018) 4:67–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• 74. Martinez-Ferrer B, Leon-Moreno C, Musitu-Ferrer D, Romero-Abrio A, Callejas-Jeronimo JE, Musitu-Ochoa G. Parental socialization, school adjustment and cyber-aggression among adolescents. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2019) 16:4005. 10.3390/ijerph16204005 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 75. Moreno–Ruiz D, Martínez–Ferrer B, García–Bacete F. Parenting styles, cyberaggression, and cybervictimization among adolescents. Comp Hum Behav. (2019) 93:252–9. 10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.031 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 76. Ho SS, Chen L, Ng APY. Comparing cyberbullying perpetration on social media between primary and secondary school students. Comp Educ. (2017) 109:74–84. 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.02.004 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 77. Gómez-Ortiz O, Romera EM, Ortega-Ruiz R, Del Rey R. Parenting practices as risk or preventive factors for adolescent involvement in cyberbullying: contribution of children and parent gender. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2018) 15:2664. 10.3390/ijerph15122664 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 78. Wright MF, Kamble SV, Soudi SP. Indian adolescents' cyber aggression involvement and cultural values: the moderation of peer attachment. Sch Psychol Int. (2015) 36:410–27. 10.1177/0143034315584696 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 79. Holfeld B, Leadbeater BJ. Concurrent and longitudinal associations between early adolescents' experiences of school climate and cyber victimization. Comput Hum Behav. (2017) 76:321–8. 10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.037 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 80. Álvarez-García D, Núñez JC, González-Castro P, Rodríguez C, Cerezo R. The effect of parental control on cyber-victimization in adolescence: the mediating role of impulsivity and high-risk behaviors. Front Psychol. (2019) 10:1159. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01159 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 81. Modecki KL, Minchin J, Harbaugh AG, Guerra NG, Runions KC. Bullying prevalence across contexts: a meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. J Adolesc Health. (2014) 55:602–11. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.06.007 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 82. Hamm MP, Newton AS, Chisholm A, Shulhan J, Milne A, Sundar P, et al. Prevalence and effect of cyberbullying on children and young people: a scoping review of social media studies. JAMA Pediatr. (2015) 169:770. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0944 [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 83. Gaffney H, Farrington DP, Espelage DL, Ttofi MM. Are cyberbullying intervention and prevention programs effective? A systematic and meta-analytical review. Aggress Violent Behav. (2019) 45:134–53. 10.1016/j.avb.2018.07.002 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 84. Selkie EM, Fales JL, Moreno MA. Cyberbullying prevalence among US middle and high school-aged adolescents: a systematic review and quality assessment. J Adolesc Health. (2016) 58:125–33. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.09.026 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 85. Ybarra ML, Boyd D, Korchmaros JD, Oppenheim J. Defining and measuring cyberbullying within the larger context of bullying victimization. J Adolesc Health. (2012) 51:53–8. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.12.031 [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 86. Kowalski RM, Limber SP, McCord A. A developmental approach to cyberbullying: prevalence and protective factors. Aggress Violent Behav. (2019) 45:20–32. 10.1016/j.avb.2018.02.009 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 87. Dilmac B, Yurt E, Aydin M, Kasarci I. Predictive relationship between humane values of adolescents cyberbullying and cyberbullying sensibility. Electron J Res Educ Psychol. (2016) 14:3–22. 10.14204/ejrep.38.14123 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 88. Reed KP, Cooper RL, Nugent WR, Russell K. Cyberbullying: a literature review of its relationship to adolescent depression and current intervention strategies. J Hum Behav Soc Environ. (2016) 26:37–45. 10.1080/10911359.2015.1059165 [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

• View on publisher site
• PDF (890.5 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

Cyberbullying: A Systematic Literature Review to Identify the Factors Impelling University Students Towards Cyberbullying

Ieee account.

• Change Username/Password
• Update Address

Purchase Details

• Payment Options
• Order History
• View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

• Communications Preferences
• Profession and Education
• Technical Interests
• US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
• Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
• Contact & Support
• About IEEE Xplore
• Accessibility
• Terms of Use
• Nondiscrimination Policy
• Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

Cyberbullying in adolescents: a literature review

Affiliation.

• 1 Department of Health Education and Behavioral Sciences, Faculty of Public Health, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand.
• PMID: 35245420
• DOI: 10.1515/ijamh-2021-0133

Cyberbullying is a universal public health concern that affects adolescents. The growing usage of electronic gadgets and the Internet has been connected to a rise in cyberbullying. The increasing use of the Internet, along with the negative outcomes of cyberbullying on adolescents, has required the study of cyberbullying. In this paper author reviews existing literature on cyberbullying among adolescents. The concept of cyberbullying is explained, including definitions, types of cyberbullying, characteristics or features of victims and cyberbullies, risk factors or causes underlying cyberbullying, and the harmful consequences of cyberbullying to adolescents. Furthermore, examples of programs or intervention to prevent cyberbullying and recommendations for further studies are presented.

Keywords: adolescents; cyberbullying; literature review.

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.

Publication types

• Adolescent Behavior*
• Bullying* / prevention & control
• Crime Victims*
• Cyberbullying*
• Risk Factors

Official websites use .gov

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Frequent Social Media Use and Experiences with Bullying Victimization, Persistent Feelings of Sadness or Hopelessness, and Suicide Risk Among High School Students — Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2023

Supplements / October 10, 2024 / 73(4);23–30

Please note:  This report has been corrected.

Emily Young, MSEd, MPH 1 ; Jessica L. McCain, PhD 2 ; Melissa C. Mercado, PhD 2 ; Michael F. Ballesteros, PhD 3 ; Shamia Moore, MPH 3 ; Laima Licitis, MPH 1 ,4 ; Joi Stinson, MPH 1 ,4 ; Sherry Everett Jones, PhD 1 ; Natalie J. Wilkins, PhD 1 ( View author affiliations )

Introduction

Limitations, future directions, acknowledgments.

• Article PDF
• Full Issue PDF

Social media has become a pervasive presence in everyday life, including among youths. In 2023, for the first time, CDC’s nationally representative Youth Risk Behavior Survey included an item assessing U.S. high school students’ frequency of social media use. Data from this survey were used to estimate the prevalence of frequent social media use (i.e., used social media at least several times a day) among high school students and associations between frequent social media use and experiences with bullying victimization, persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, and suicide risk. All prevalence estimates and measures of association used Taylor series linearization. Prevalence ratios were calculated using logistic regression with predicted marginals. Overall, 77.0% of students reported frequent social media use, with observed differences by sex, sexual identity, and racial and ethnic identity. Frequent social media use was associated with a higher prevalence of bullying victimization at school and electronically, persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, and some suicide risk among students (considering attempting suicide and having made a suicide plan), both overall and in stratified models. This analysis characterizes the potential harms of frequent social media use for adolescent health among a nationally representative sample of U.S. high school students. Findings might support multisectoral efforts to create safer digital environments for youths, including decision-making about social media policies, practices, and protections.

Social media, defined as “Internet-based channels that allow users to opportunistically interact and selectively self-present, either in real-time or asynchronously, with both broad and narrow audiences who derive value from user-generated content and the perception of interaction with others , ” has become a pervasive presence in everyday life, including among youths ( 1 ). Recent data indicate that approximately 95% of high school–aged youths use a social media platform, with approximately one fifth reporting “almost constant” social media use ( 2 ). Associations between frequent social media use and poor mental health outcomes among adolescents, including depression ( 3 ) and suicide risk ( 4 ), are being increasingly documented. Social media use might also increase risk for electronic victimization and perpetration ( 5 ), which can be antecedents of poor mental health. Evidence suggests that certain youth populations might be more vulnerable than others to potential harms of social media use, such as female and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning adolescents, who are more likely to experience electronic victimization than male or heterosexual peers ( 5 – 7 ). However, youths might also benefit from social support and connection found online ( 4 , 8 ). Understanding potential risks and benefits of social media use is critical for preparing youths to safely engage in an increasingly digitalized world.

This report uses 2023 Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) data to build on extant literature by examining associations between frequent social media use and U.S. high school students’ experiences of bullying victimization, persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, and suicide risk. Understanding such patterns and relations might guide public health practitioners’ efforts to prevent violence and injury and promote mental health, in line with Healthy People 2030 objectives ( https://health.gov/healthypeople ). Findings from this report might also support multilevel decision-making about social media use and cross-sectoral initiatives (e.g., education, technology, and policy) to create safer digital environments for youths.

Data Source

This report includes data from the 2023 YRBS (N = 20,103), a cross-sectional, school-based survey conducted biennially since 1991. Each survey year, CDC collects data from a nationally representative sample of public and private school students in grades 9–12 in the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Additional information about YRBS sampling, data collection, response rates, and processing is available in the overview report of this supplement ( 9 ). The prevalence estimates for frequent social media use for the study population overall and stratified by sex, race and ethnicity, grade, and sexual identity are available at https://nccd.cdc.gov/youthonline/App/Default.aspx . The full YRBS questionnaire, data sets, and documentation are available at https://www.cdc.gov/yrbs/index.html . Institutional reviews boards at CDC and ICF, the survey contractor, approved the protocol for YRBS. Data collection was conducted consistent with applicable Federal law and CDC policy.*

The primary exposure, frequency of social media use, was derived from the question, “How often do you use social media?” On the basis of response patterns, responses were dichotomized to reflect whether students used social media at least several times a day (frequent social media use [yes or no]) ( Table 1 ). Six health behaviors or experiences were measured and dichotomized: bullying victimization (bullied at school or electronically bullied; past 12 months [yes or no]), mental health (persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness; past 12 months [yes or no]), and suicide risk (seriously considered attempting suicide, made a suicide plan, or attempted suicide; past 12 months [yes or no]) ( Table 2 ). The 2023 YRBS questionnaire defined bullying as “when one or more students tease, threaten, spread rumors about, hit, shove, or hurt another student over and over again. It is not bullying when two students of about the same strength or power argue or fight or tease each other in a friendly way.”

Demographic variables included sex (female or male), race and ethnicity, age group (≤14, 15, 16, 17, or ≥18 years), and sexual identity (heterosexual [straight], lesbian or gay, bisexual, questioning [I am not sure about my sexual identity/questioning], or described identity in some other way [I describe my identity some other way]). In the 2023 YRBS, sexual identity and gender identity were measured separately; only sexual identity is included in this analysis. Race and ethnicity were coded as American Indian or Alaska Native (AI/AN), Asian, Black or African American (Black), Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (NH/OPI), White, Hispanic or Latino (Hispanic), or multiracial (selected more than one racial category). (Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin might be of any race but are categorized as Hispanic; all racial groups are non-Hispanic).

Descriptive analyses examined point prevalence estimates and corresponding 95% CIs for frequent social media use in the overall sample and by demographic characteristics. Chi-square tests and pairwise t -tests were used to compare demographic group differences. Associations between frequent social media use and health behaviors and experiences (bullying victimization, persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, and suicide risk) were assessed in overall and separate logistic regression models stratified by sex or sexual identity, which generated prevalence ratios (PRs) and adjusted PRs (aPRs) for each health behavior and experience. All models were adjusted for demographic variables of race and ethnicity, age, sex, and sexual identity. If a model was stratified by a demographic characteristic, then the model was not adjusted for this characteristic. All prevalence estimates and measures of association used Taylor series linearization. Prevalence ratios were calculated using logistic regression with predicted marginals. Estimates were considered statistically significant if the aPR 95% CIs did not include 1.0 or p value was <0.05. All analyses were conducted in SAS-callable SUDAAN (version 11.0.3; RTI International) using sample weights to account for complex survey design and nonresponse.

Overall, 77.0% of U.S. high school students reported using social media at least several times a day (i.e., frequent social media use) ( Table 3 ). Frequent social media use was more prevalent among female students compared with male students (81.8% versus 72.9%). Heterosexual students reported higher prevalence of frequent social media use than lesbian or gay students (79.2% versus 67.7%). Lesbian or gay students also reported lower prevalence of frequent social media use than students who identified as bisexual (82.2%), questioning (82.6%), or described their sexual identity in some other way (78.8%). AI/AN students had lower prevalence of frequent social media use (53.0%) than Asian, Black, White, Hispanic, or multiracial students.

Students who reported frequent social media use were more likely to be bullied at school and electronically bullied compared with less frequent social media users ( Table 4 ). Frequent social media users also were more likely to report persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness. Frequent social media use was associated with having seriously considered attempting suicide and having made a suicide plan.

In sex-stratified analysis, female students who reported frequent social media use were more likely to experience bullying victimization at school and electronically compared with less frequent female social media users ( Table 5 ). Female students who reported frequent social media use were also more likely to report persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness and having seriously considered attempting suicide. Among male students, frequent social media users were more likely to experience bullying victimization electronically. Male students who frequently used social media also were more likely to report persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness and having seriously considered attempting suicide.

In sexual identity–stratified analyses, students who identified as lesbian or gay, bisexual, questioning, or described their identity in some other way (LGBQ+) and who reported frequent social media use were more likely to experience bullying victimization electronically and persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness than less frequent LGBQ+ social media users ( Table 6 ). Among heterosexual students, both unadjusted and adjusted analyses found that those who were frequent social media users were more likely than less frequent social media users to experience all observed health behaviors and experiences except for attempted suicide.

This report provides the first national prevalence estimate of social media use from a representative sample of U.S. high school students. Findings suggest that most high school students use social media, and that a substantial majority (77.0%) use social media frequently (i.e., at least several times a day) (Table 1). Frequent social media use was largely consistent across demographic characteristics, highlighting the widespread presence of social media during adolescence. Therefore, it remains critical to strengthen collective understanding of potential risks and benefits of social media use for adolescent health and development, and in turn, understand how to create safe digital environments and help youths develop and maintain healthy digital practices that minimize harm ( 1 ).

Certain differences in students’ social media use by sex, racial and ethnic identity, and sexual identity were observed. In alignment with previous literature, female students reported higher prevalence of frequent social media use than male students ( 6 ). AI/AN students reported less frequent social media use compared with those of other racial and ethnic identities, which might reflect differences in broadband Internet access between rural and tribal communities and other communities in the United States ( 10 ). Lesbian and gay students reported less frequent social media use compared with peers of other sexual identities. This finding contrasts with certain previous literature indicating that lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths might spend more time engaging with identity-affirming communities online, often through social media ( 8 ). Further research is needed to understand nuances of social media use among youths and the impact of social media on health and well-being for different youth populations.

Consistent with previous research, frequent social media users were more likely to experience bullying victimization ( 5 ). Previous research has demonstrated evidence of overlap between in-person and electronic bullying contexts, with perpetrators of in-person bullying more likely to perpetrate electronic bullying, and victims of in-person bullying more likely to experience electronic bullying victimization and engage in bullying perpetration ( 11 ). Such interplay between in-person and electronic bullying environments might explain the finding of higher prevalence of bullying at school among frequent versus less frequent social media users. However, additional research is needed to better understand this phenomenon and the compounding impact of bullying victimization across multiple contexts on adolescents’ short- and long-term thriving ( 11 ).

Associations between frequent social media use and bullying victimization differed by sex and sexual identity. Female students who reported frequent social media use were more susceptible to bullying victimization compared with less frequent female social media users. This might reflect the types of victimization (e.g., relational and psychological) commonly experienced by adolescent girls ( 12 ), which are suited to digital environments that reduce barriers to conflict (e.g., anonymity and proximity). Among LGBQ+ students, frequent social media users were more likely to experience electronic bullying victimization than less frequent social media users yet demonstrated no significant differences in bullying victimization at school. In contrast, heterosexual students who used social media frequently were more likely to experience both types of bullying victimization compared with heterosexual students who used social media less often. One possible explanation is that LGBQ+ students who use social media frequently have greater exposure to online discrimination or stigma-based bullying victimization beyond school networks ( 7 , 8 ). Therefore, frequent and less frequent social media users could share similar experiences of bullying in at-school networks but different experiences electronically. Further research is needed to understand variations in at-school and electronic networks for youths of different identities and how overlap between at-school and electronic networks might influence bullying victimization.

In alignment with existing research, findings in this report support associations between adolescent social media use and mental health; specifically, frequent social media users were more likely to report persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness ( 3 ). Adjusted stratified analyses demonstrated consistent associations across groups, conveying a shared risk for poor mental health among students who are frequent social media users. However, literature also suggests that certain groups are more vulnerable to the potential negative mental health impacts of social media than others (e.g., adolescent girls) ( 6 ). In this study, approximately half of female students and one third of LGBQ+ students who frequently used social media reported persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, respectively. Findings warrant more rigorous analyses inclusive of multiple mental health indicators to better understand differential impact of frequent social media use by sex, sexual identity, and other key demographic characteristics.

Overall, frequent social media users were more likely to report having seriously considered attempting suicide and having made a suicide plan. No significant differences in reports of attempted suicide by frequency of social media use were observed, perhaps because of the rarity of this behavior in the sample. These findings mirror broader inconsistencies in the literature ( 4 , 13 ). Certain researchers posit that the relation between social media use and suicide risk is more complex and indirect than a dose-response phenomenon ( 4 , 13 ). For example, differences in how adolescents are exposed to suicide-related content have been demonstrated to influence suicide risk. More interactive and proximate exposures via online discussion forums or suicide clusters might increase risk compared with passive media consumption ( 4 , 14 ). In addition, analyses did not describe indirect pathways (e.g., through online victimization or reduced sleep quality) through which frequent social media use might influence mental health and suicide risk, or protective factors (e.g., connectedness to others) that might buffer the negative impacts of frequent social media use on mental health and suicide risk ( 4 ). Because of persistent concerns about the impact of social media on youth mental health ( 1 ), additional research is needed to better understand how such pathways might moderate the relation between frequent social media use and suicide risk.

In stratified analyses, associations between frequent social media use and suicide risk diminished, except for heterosexual students. This group might be a factor in the small, significant association between social media use and making a suicide plan observed in the overall sample. Findings suggest that heterosexual students might be more vulnerable to negative impacts of social media on suicide risk. This is surprising because of high prevalence of suicide risk among LGBQ+ students in the sample, but also suggests that social media might not be the most influential factor of suicide risk for LGBQ+ students. Emerging literature has found that social media can be protective for youths who identify as LGBTQ+ by connecting them with affirming communities, support networks, and resources online ( 8 ) and might even reduce suicide risk for certain youths ( 4 ). More research is needed to understand potential protective effects of positive connections made through safe and supportive social media environments and their associations with bullying victimization, suicide risk, and mental health.

General limitations of the YRBS are available in the overview report of this supplement ( 9 ). Findings in this report are subject to at least six additional limitations. First, YRBS data are cross-sectional; causality and directionality of associations between frequent social media use and health behaviors and experiences cannot be established. Second, YRBS examples of social media were not exhaustive; students might engage in other online platforms that were not considered in responses to the social media item. Third, differences between social media nonusers and infrequent users might be masked. Responses to the social media item were dichotomized to ensure sufficient statistical power, and respondents who selected “I do not use social media” were grouped with less frequent social media users (Table 1). Fourth, to maintain consistency in recall period across health behaviors and experiences, analyses only included one mental health indicator; students reporting on other indicators of poor mental health might have been missed. Fifth, sexual identities were dichotomized into two broad categories in stratified analysis because of sample size limitations. Because of significantly lower prevalence of frequent social media use among lesbian and gay students, combining them with students of other sexual identities might have hidden possible stronger effects or differences for other identities. Finally, with the availability of social media, bullying victimization at school can occur in person or electronically; similarly, electronic bullying can happen at school or elsewhere. Therefore, the two bullying victimization measures (i.e., at school and electronically) might not be mutually exclusive because these two pathways of bullying might overlap.

Findings from this study highlight key areas for future research and practice regarding youth social media use and related health behaviors and experiences. This study identified important differences in frequent social media use and its impact on bullying victimization, persistent feelings of sadness and hopelessness, and suicide risk by sex and sexual identity; however, consensus is lacking about how best to measure social media use ( 3 , 4 ). Future research that identifies how different social media measures (e.g., frequency of use, passive versus active use, and addiction to use) might differentially describe social media and related health outcomes is important to further understanding of potential risks and benefits of youth social media use. In addition, these findings warrant additional exploration of the differential association of social media use with bullying, mental health, and suicide risk by racial and ethnic identity of youths along with more detailed analyses of differences by sexual identity and gender identity. Investigating such associations among frequent social media users might increase understanding about which students are more vulnerable to the negative impacts of frequent social media use. Future research exploring the pathways through which social media use might lead to poor mental health and suicide risk, including through cyberbullying and victimization, also is needed.

Improved understanding of youths’ social media use and related health outcomes can strengthen cross-sectoral endeavors to create safer digital environments, such as consumer safety policies, media literacy education and standards, and platform-based protections for youths online ( 1 ). This understanding might also help empower youths and families to make informed decisions about social media use and online behaviors that reduce risk for negative health outcomes, including bullying victimization, poor mental health, and suicide ( 1 ). School-based interventions that address bullying and suicide prevention have been proven to be effective ( 15 , 16 ). Strengthening youths’ health-enhancing skills, creating protective environments, and promoting connections to positive adults and peers through programs such as What Works in Schools ( https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/whatworks/index.htm ) can help reduce risk for multiple forms of violence and suicide ( 17 ). CDC’s Community Violence Prevention Resource for Action ( https://www.cdc.gov/violence-prevention/media/pdf/resources-for-action/CV-Prevention-Resource-for-Action_508.pdf ) and Suicide Prevention Resource for Action ( https://www.cdc.gov/suicide/resources/prevention.html ) contain strategies based on the best available evidence to reduce community violence, including youth violence and bullying, and suicide. StopBullying.gov ( https://www.stopbullying.gov/prevention/how-to-prevent-bullying ) provides steps that schools, youths, and their families can take to prevent bullying, including setting clear behavioral expectations and promoting empathy, self-awareness, and self-regulation skills. The U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory on Social Media and Youth Mental Health ( https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/priorities/youth-mental-health/social-media/index.html#action ) and American Academy of Pediatrics’ Center of Excellence on Social Media and Youth Mental Health ( https://www.aap.org/en/patient-care/media-and-children/center-of-excellence-on-social-media-and-youth-mental-health ) provide recommendations on ways youths and families can reduce risk for harm from social media use (e.g., developing family media plans to promote healthy social media use). More research is needed to rigorously test and evaluate interventions that incorporate evidence-based prevention strategies among youths who use social media, particularly those at increased risk for harms associated with frequent social media use.

Overall, approximately three fourths of U.S. high school students reported using social media at least several times a day. Frequent social media use among students was associated with higher prevalence of bullying victimization at school and electronically, persistent feelings of sadness and hopelessness, having seriously considered attempting suicide, and having made a suicide plan. Associations between frequent social media use and these health behaviors and experiences differed by sex and sexual identity. Although additional research is needed to understand precisely how social media use differentially affects adolescent risk for bullying victimization, poor mental health, and suicide, existing evidence-based prevention strategies can be used by families, schools, and communities to promote adolescent mental health and prevent injury and violence.

David Chyen, William A. Harris, Connie Lim, Cecily K. Mbaka, Zachary Myles, Lindsay Trujillo.

Corresponding author: Emily Young, Division of Adolescent and School Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC. Telephone: 404-718-3672; Email: [email protected] .

1 Division of Adolescent and School Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia; 2 Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia; 3 Division of Injury Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia; 4 Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Conflicts of Interest

All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

* 45 C.F.R. part 46.114; 21 C.F.R. part 56.114.

• Office of the Surgeon General. Social media and youth mental health: the U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory. Washington DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Surgeon General; 2023. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/sg-youth-mental-health-social-media-advisory.pdf
• Anderson M, Faverio M, Gottfried J. Teens, social media and technology 2023. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center; 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/12/11/teens-social-media-and-technology-2023
• Keles B, McCrae N, Grealish A. A systematic review: the influence of social media on depression, anxiety and psychological distress in adolescents. Int J Adolesc Youth 2020;25:79–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2019.1590851
• Macrynikola N, Auad E, Menjivar J, Miranda R. Does social media use confer suicide risk? A systematic review of the evidence. Comput Hum Behav Rep 2021;3:100094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100094
• Craig W, Boniel-Nissim M, King N, et al. Social media use and cyber-bullying: a cross-national analysis of young people in 42 countries. J Adolesc Health 2020;66(6S):S100–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.03.006 PMID:32446603
• Twenge JM, Haidt J, Lozano J, Cummins KM. Specification curve analysis shows that social media use is linked to poor mental health, especially among girls. Acta Psychol (Amst) 2022;224:103512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103512 PMID:35101738
• Abreu RL, Kenny MC. Cyberbullying and LGBTQ youth: a systematic literature review and recommendations for prevention and intervention. J Child Adolesc Trauma 2017;11:81–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-017-0175-7 PMID:32318140
• Berger MN, Taba M, Marino JL, Lim MSC, Skinner SR. Social media use and health and well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2022;24:e38449. https://doi.org/10.2196/38449 PMID:36129741
• Brener ND, Mpofu JJ, Krause KH, et al. Overview and methods for the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System—United States, 2023. In: Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 2023. MMWR Suppl 2024;73(No. Suppl-4):1–12.
• Early J, Hernandez A. Digital disenfranchisement and COVID-19: broadband Internet access as a social determinant of health. Health Promot Pract 2021;22:605–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399211014490 PMID:33955266
• Lazuras L, Barkoukis V, Tsorbatzoudis T. Face-to-face bullying and cyberbullying in adolescents: trans-contextual effects and role overlap. Technol Soc 2017;48:97–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2016.12.001
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Preventing bullying through science, policy, and practice. Washington DC: National Academies Press; 2016.
• Nesi J, Burke TA, Bettis AH, et al. Social media use and self-injurious thoughts and behaviors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 2021;87:102038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102038 PMID:34034038
• Swedo EA, Beauregard JL, de Fijter S, et al. Associations between social media and suicidal behaviors during a youth suicide cluster in Ohio. J Adolesc Health 2021;68:308–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.05.049 PMID:32646827
• Community Preventive Services Task Force. Violence prevention: school-based anti-bullying interventions. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Community Preventive Services Task Force; 2022. https://www.thecommunityguide.org/findings/violence-prevention-school-based-anti-bullying-interventions.html
• Community Preventive Services Task Force. Mental health: multi-tiered trauma-informed school programs to improve mental health among youth. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Community Preventive Services Task Force; 2023. https://www.thecommunityguide.org/findings/mental-health-multi-tiered-trauma-informed-school-programs-improve-mental-health-among-youth.html
• Wilkins NJ, Rasberry C, Liddon N, et al. Addressing HIV/sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy prevention through schools: an approach for strengthening education, health services, and school environments that promote adolescent sexual health and well-being. J Adolesc Health 2022;70:540–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.05.017 PMID:35305791

* N = 20,103 respondents.

* The 2023 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey questionnaire describes social media “such as Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and Twitter.”

* N = 20,103 respondents. The total number of students answering each question varied. Data might be missing because 1) the question did not appear in that student’s questionnaire, 2) the student did not answer the question, or 3) the response was set to missing because of an out-of-range response or logical inconsistency. Percentages in each category are calculated on the known data. A total of 15,203 students responded to the social media item. † Unweighted. § Weighted. ¶ Chi-square tests were applied to examine the bivariate relations between demographic characteristics and frequency of social media use. Statistical significance is defined as p<0.05 for the chi-square test. ** Female students significantly differed from male students for prevalence of using of social media at least several times a day based on t -test with Taylor series linearization (p<0.05). †† Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin might be of any race but are categorized as Hispanic; all racial groups are non-Hispanic. §§ American Indian or Alaska Native students significantly differed from Asian, Black or African American, White, Hispanic or Latino, and multiracial students for prevalence of using social media at least several times a day based on t -test with Taylor series linearization (p<0.05). ¶¶ Heterosexual (straight) students significantly differed from lesbian or gay students for prevalence of using social media at least several times a day based on t -test with Taylor series linearization (p<0.05). *** Lesbian or gay students significantly differed from bisexual and questioning students and students who described identity in some other way for prevalence of using social media at least several times a day based on t -test with Taylor series linearization (p<0.05).

Abbreviations : aPR = adjusted prevalence ratio; PR = prevalence ratio. * N = 20,103 respondents. The total number of students answering each question varied. Data might be missing because 1) the question did not appear in that student’s questionnaire, 2) the student did not answer the question, or 3) the response was set to missing because of an out-of-range response or logical inconsistency. Percentages in each category are calculated on the known data. A total of 15,203 students responded to the social media item. † Logistic regression models estimated health behaviors and experiences between those who did and did not use social media at least several times a day. § Adjusted for age, race and ethnicity, sex, and sexual identity estimated health behaviors and experiences behaviors between those who did and did not use social media at least several times a day. ¶ Estimates were considered statistically significant if the 95% CIs did not include 1.0. Certain statistically significant aPRs have 95% CIs that include 1.0 because of rounding.

Abbreviations : PR = prevalence ratio; aPR = adjusted prevalence ratio. * N = 20,103 respondents. The total number of students answering each question varied. Data might be missing because 1) the question did not appear in that student’s questionnaire, 2) the student did not answer the question, or 3) the response was set to missing because of an out-of-range response or logical inconsistency. Percentages in each category are calculated on the known data. A total of 15,203 students responded to the social media question. † Logistic regression models estimated health behaviors and experiences between those who did and did not use social media at least several times a day, among female students. § Adjusted for age, race and ethnicity, and sexual identity estimated health behaviors and experiences between those who did and did not use social media at least several times a day, among female students. ¶ Logistic regression models estimated health behaviors and experiences between those who did and did not use social media at least several times a day, among male students. ** Adjusted for age, race and ethnicity, and sexual identity estimated health behaviors and experiences between those who did and did not use social media at least several times a day, among male students. †† Estimates were considered statistically significant if the 95% CIs did not include 1.0. Certain statistically significant aPRs have 95% CIs that include 1.0 because of rounding.

Abbreviations : aPR = adjusted prevalence ratio LGBQ+ = lesbian or gay, bisexual, questioning, or described identity in some other way; PR = prevalence ratio. * N = 20,103 respondents. The total number of students answering each question varied. Data might be missing because 1) the question did not appear in that student’s questionnaire, 2) the student did not answer the question, or 3) the response was set to missing because of an out-of-range response or logical inconsistency. Percentages in each category are calculated on the known data. A total of 15,203 students responded to the social media question. † Logistic regression models estimated health behaviors and experiences between those who did and did not use social media at least several times a day, among LGBQ+ students. § Adjusted for age, race and ethnicity, and sex estimated health behaviors and experiences between those who did and did not use social media at least several times a day, among LGBQ+ students. ¶ Logistic models estimated health behaviors and experiences between those who did and did not use social media at least several times a day, among heterosexual students. ** Adjusted for age, race and ethnicity, and sex estimated health behaviors and experiences between those who did and did not use social media at least several times a day, among heterosexual students. †† Estimates were considered statistically significant if the 95% CIs did not include 1.0. Certain statistically significant aPRs have 95% CIs that include 1.0 because of rounding.

Suggested citation for this article: Young E, McCain JL, Mercado MC, et al. Frequent Social Media Use and Experiences with Bullying Victimization, Persistent Feelings of Sadness or Hopelessness, and Suicide Risk Among High School Students — Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2023. MMWR Suppl 2024;73(Suppl-4):23–30. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su7304a3 .

MMWR and Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report are service marks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Use of trade names and commercial sources is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. References to non-CDC sites on the Internet are provided as a service to MMWR readers and do not constitute or imply endorsement of these organizations or their programs by CDC or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. CDC is not responsible for the content of pages found at these sites. URL addresses listed in MMWR were current as of the date of publication.

All HTML versions of MMWR articles are generated from final proofs through an automated process. This conversion might result in character translation or format errors in the HTML version. Users are referred to the electronic PDF version ( https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr ) and/or the original MMWR paper copy for printable versions of official text, figures, and tables.

Advertisement

Cyberbullying and LGBTQ Youth: A Systematic Literature Review and Recommendations for Prevention and Intervention

• ORIGINAL ARTICLE
• Published: 24 July 2017
• Volume 11 , pages 81–97, ( 2018 )

Cite this article

• Roberto L. Abreu 1 &
• Maureen C. Kenny 2  

11k Accesses

161 Citations

254 Altmetric

31 Mentions

Explore all metrics

Research has demonstrated that cyberbullying has adverse physical and mental health consequences for youths. Unfortunately, most studies have focused on heterosexual and cisgender individuals. The scant available research on sexual minority and gender expansive youth (i.e., LGBTQ) shows that this group is at a higher risk for cyberbullying when compared to their heterosexual counterparts. However, to date no literature review has comprehensively explored the effects of cyberbullying on LGBTQ youth. A systematic review resulted in 27 empirical studies that explore the effects of cyberbullying on LGBTQ youth. Findings revealed that the percentage of cyberbullying among LGBTQ youth ranges between 10.5% and 71.3% across studies. Common negative effects of cyberbullying of LGBTQ youth include psychological and emotional (suicidal ideation and attempt, depression, lower self-esteem), behavioral (physical aggression, body image, isolation), and academic performance (lower GPAs). Recommendations and interventions for students, schools, and parents are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Cyberbullying: a storm in a teacup.

Cyberbullying in Childhood and Adolescence: Assessment, Negative Consequences and Prevention Strategies

Cyberbullying Matters: Examining the Incremental Impact of Cyberbullying On Outcomes Over and Above Traditional Bullying in North America

Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Vermont

Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington

References marked with an asterisk (*) indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.

Aboujaoude, E., Savage, M., Starcevic, V., & Salame, W. (2015). Cyberbullying: Review of an old problem gone viral. Journal of Adolescent Health, 57 , 10–18. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.04.011 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

*Bauman, S., & Baldasare, A. (2015). Cyber aggression among college students: Demographic differences, predictors of distress, and the role of the university. Journal of College Student Development, 56 , 317–330. doi: 10.1353/csd.2015.0039

Bjereld, Y. (2016). The challenging process of disclosing bullying victimization: A grounded theory study from the victim's point of view. Journal of Health Psychology, 1 , 1–9. doi: 10.1177/1359105316644973 .

Google Scholar  

Black, W. W., Fedewa, A. L., & Gonzalez, K. A. (2012). Effects of “Safe School” programs and policies on the social climate for sexual-minority youth: A review of the literature. Journal of LGBT Youth, 9 , 321–339. doi: 10.1080/19361653.2012.714343 .

Article   Google Scholar  

*Blais, M., Gervais, J., Boucher, K., Hébert, M., & Lavoie, F. (2013). Prevalence of prejudice based on sexual minority status among 14 to 22-year-old youths in the province of Quebec (Canada). International Journal of Victimology, 11 , 1–13.

*Blumenfeld, W. J., & Cooper, R. M. (2010). LGBT and allied youth responses to cyberbullying: Policy implications. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3 , 114–133.

*Bouris, A., Everett, B. G., Heath, R. D., Elsaesser, C. E., & Neilands, T. B. (2016). Effects of victimization and violence on suicidal ideation and behaviors among sexual minority and heterosexual adolescents. LGBT Health, 3 , 153–161. doi: 10.1089/lgbt.2015.0037

Case, K. A., & Meier, S. C. (2014). Developing allies to transgender and gender-nonconforming youth: Training for counselors and educators. Journal of LGBT Youth, 11 , 62–82.

*Cénat, J. M., Blais, M., Hébert, M., Lavoie, F., & Guerrier, M. (2015). Correlates of bullying in Quebec high school students: The vulnerability of sexual-minority youth. Journal of Affective Disorders, 183 , 315–321. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2015.05.011

Collier, K. L., van Beusekom, G., Bos, H. M., & Sandfort, T. G. (2013). Sexual orientation and gender identity/expression related peer victimization in adolescence: A systematic review of associated psychosocial and health outcomes. Journal of Sex Research, 50 , 299–317.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

*Cooper, R. M., & Blumenfeld, W. J. (2012). Responses to cyberbullying: A descriptive analysis of the frequency of and impact on LGBT and allied youth. Journal of LGBT Youth, 9 , 153–177.

Couvillon, M. A., & Ilieva, V. (2011). Recommended practices: A review of schoolwide preventative programs and strategies on cyberbullying. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 55 , 96–101.

Cyberbullying Research Center (2016). Bullying laws across America . Retrieved from http://cyberbullying.org/bullying-laws .

DeLara, E. W. (2012). Why adolescents don't disclose incidents of bullying and harassment. Journal of School Violence, 11 , 288–305. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2012.705931 .

Diaz, E. M., & Kosciw, J. G. (2009). Shared differences: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students of color in our nation's schools . New York: GLSEN.

Doane, A. N., Kelley, M. L., & Pearson, M. R. (2016). Reducing cyberbullying: A theory of reasoned action- based video prevention program for college students. Aggressive Behavior, 42 , 136–146.

*Duong, J., & Bradshaw, C. (2014). Associations between bullying and engaging in aggressive and suicidal behaviors among sexual minority youth: The moderating role of connectedness. Journal of School Health, 84 , 636–645.

Espelage, D. L., Basile, K. C., De La Rue, L., & Hamburger, M. E. (2015). Longitudinal associations among bullying, homophobic teasing, and sexual violence perpetration among middle school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30 , 2541–2561. doi: 10.1177/0886260514553113 .

Evans, C. B., & Smokowski, P. R. (2016). Negative bystander behavior in bullying dynamics: Assessing the impact of social capital deprivation and anti-social capital. Child Psychiatry & Human Development , 1–16.

Flanagan, A. Y. (2014). Cyberbullying and harassment. NetCE . Retrieved from https://www.netcegroups.com/1127/Course_66421.pdf .

Flaspohler, P. D., Elfstrom, J. L., Vanderzee, K. L., Sink, H. E., & Birchmeier, Z. (2009). Stand by me: The effects of peer and teacher support in mitigating the impact of bullying on quality of life. Psychology in the Schools, 46 , 636–649.

*GLSEN, CiPHER & CCRC (2013). Out online: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth on the Internet . New York: GLSEN.

Golgowki, N. (2014. Transgender teen bullied at school faces criminal charges for fight which only suspended other girls. The New York Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/bullied-transgender-teen-faces-criminal-charges-fight-article-1.1571349 .

*Guasp, A. (2012). The school report. The experiences of gay young people in Britain’s schools in 2012 . London: Stonewall.

Hamm, M. P., Newton, A. S., Chisholm, A., Shulhan, J., Milne, A., Sundar, P., et al. (2015). Prevalence and effect of cyberbullying on children and young people: A scoping review of social media studies. JAMA Pediatrics, 169 , 770–777. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0944 .

*Hillier, L., Jones, T., Monagle, M., Overton, N., Gahan, L., Blackman, J., & Mitchell, A. (2010). Writing themselves in 3: The third national study on the sexual health and wellbeing of same sex attracted and gender questioning young people . Carlton: National Centre in HIV Social Research, La Trobe University.

*Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2012). Cyberbullying research summary: Bullying, cyberbullying, and sexual orientation. Cyberbullying Research Center . Retrieved from http://cyberbullying.org/cyberbullying_sexual_orientation_fact_sheet.pdf .

Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. W. (2014). Cyberbullying identification, prevention, and response. Cyberbullying research center. Retrieved from www.cyberbullying.us .

Holt, M. K., & Espelage, D. L. (2007). Perceived social support among bullies, victims, and bully-victims. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36 , 984–994.

Institute of Medicine (US). (2011). The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people: Building a foundation for better understanding . Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Kann, L., Olsen, E. O., McManus, T., Harris, W. A., Shanklin, S. L., Flint, K. H., et al. (2016). Sexual identity, sex of sexual contacts, and health-related behaviors among students in grades 9–12 — United States and selected sites, 2015. US Department of Health and Human Services/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 65 , 1–202. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.ss6509a1 .

Kochel, K. P., Ladd, G. W., & Rudolph, K. D. (2012). Longitudinal associations among youth depressive symptoms, peer victimization, and low peer acceptance: An interpersonal process perspective. Child Development, 83 , 637–650. doi: 10.1111/j.14678624.2011.01722.x .

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

*Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Bartkiewicz, M. J., Boesen, M. J., & Palmer, N. A. (2012). The 2011 national school climate survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools . New York: GLSEN.

*Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Giga, N. M., Villenas, C. & Danischewski, D. J. (2016). The 2015 national school climate survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth in our nation’s schools . New York: GLSEN.

Kull, R. M., Kosciw, J. G., & Greytak, E. A. (2015). From statehouse to schoolhouse: Anti-bullying policy efforts in US states and school districts . New York: GLSEN.

Lenhart, A. (2015). Teens, social media and technology overview 2015. Pew Research Center . Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/ .

Liboro, R. M., Travers, R., & St. John, A. (2015). Beyond the dialectics and polemics: Canadian catholic schools addressing LGBT youth issues. The High School Journal, 98 , 158–180. doi: 10.1353/hsj.2015.0000 .

*Mace, S., Campbell, M., & Whiteford, C. (2016). Coping with victimization in heterosexual and sexual minority university students. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 28 , 159–170.

Montoro, R., Igartua, K., & Thombs, B. D. (2016). The association of bullying with suicide ideation and attempt among adolescents with different dimensions of sexual orientation. European Psychiatry, 33 , S71. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.01.984 .

Palladino, B. E., Nocentini, A., & Menesini, E. (2016). Evidence-based intervention against bullying and cyberbullying: Evaluation of the NoTrap! program in two independent trials. Aggressive Behavior, 42 , 194–206.

Pham, T., & Adesman, A. (2015). Teen victimization: Prevalence and consequences of traditional and cyberbullying. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 27 , 748–756.

*Priebe, G., & Svedin, C. G. (2012). Online or off-line victimization and psychological well-being: A comparison of sexual-minority and heterosexual youth. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 21 , 569–582.

*Ramsey, J. L., DiLalla, L. F., & McCrary, M. K. (2016). Cyber victimization and depressive symptoms in sexual minority college students. Journal of School Violence, 15 , 483–502.

*Rice, E., Petering, R., Rhoades, H., Winetrobe, H., Goldbach, J., Plant, A., …Kordic, T. (2015). Cyberbullying perpetration and victimization among middle-school students. American Journal of Public Health, 105 , e66-e72.

*Robinson, J. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2011). Inequities in educational and psychological outcomes between LGBTQ and straight students in middle and high school. Educational Researcher, 40 , 315–330.

Schacter, H. L., & Juvonen, J. (2017). Depressive symptoms, friend distress, and self-blame: Risk factors for adolescent peer victimization. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology . doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2017.02.005 .

*Schneider, S. K., O'Donnell, L., & Smith, E. (2015). Trends in cyberbullying and school bullying victimization in a regional census of high school students, 2006–2012. Journal of School Health, 85 , 611–620.

*Schneider, S. K., O'Donnell, L., Stueve, A., & Coulter, R. W. (2012). Cyberbullying, school bullying, and psychological distress: A regional census of high school students. American Journal of Public Health, 102 , 171–177.

Scola, B. (2014). Family contract for responsible electronic device use. Pitcairn . Retrieved from http://www.pitcairn.com/electronic-device-contract/ .

Simmons, K., & Bynum, Y. (2014). Cyberbullying: Six things administrators can do. Education, 134 , 452–456.

*Sinclair, K. O., Bauman, S., Poteat, V. P., Koenig, B., & Russell, S. T. (2012). Cyber and bias-based harassment: Associations with academic, substance use, and mental health problems. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50 , 521–523.

Smith, P. K. (2016). Bullying: Definition, types, causes, consequences and intervention. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10 , 519–532. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12266 .

Smith, P. K., Del Barrio, C., & Tokunaga, R. S. (2013). Definitions of bullying and cyberbullying: How useful are the terms. In S. Bauman, D. Cross, & J. Walker (Eds.), Principles of cyberbullying research: Definitions, measures, and methodology (pp. 26–40). London: Routledge.

*Sterzing, P. R., Ratliff, G. A., Gartner, R. E., McGeough, B. L., & Johnson, K. C. (2017). Social ecological correlates of polyvictimization among a national sample of transgender, genderqueer, and cisgender sexual minority adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 67 , 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.02.017.

*Stoll, L. C., & Block, R. (2015). Intersectionality and cyberbullying: A study of cybervictimization in a Midwestern high school. Computers in Human Behavior, 52 , 387–397.

Stop Bullying (2015). Policies and laws . Retrieved from http://www.stopbullying.gov/laws/ .

*Taylor, C. & Peter, T., with McMinn, T.L., Elliott, T., Beldom, S., Ferry, A., Gross, Z., Paquin, S., & Schachter, K. (2011). Every class in every school: The first national climate survey on homophobia, biphobia, and transphobia in Canadian schools. Final report. Toronto: Egale Canada Human Rights Trust.

*Varjas, K., Meyers, J., Kiperman, S., & Howard, A. (2013). Technology hurts? Lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth perspectives of technology and cyberbullying. Journal of School Violence, 12 , 27–44.

*Walker, C. (2015). An analysis of cyberbullying among sexual minority university students. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 15 , 44–50.

*Wensley, K., & Campbell, M. (2012). Heterosexual and nonheterosexual young university students’ involvement in traditional and cyber forms of bullying. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15 , 649–654.

White, H. D. (1994). Scientific communication and literature retrieval. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 41–56). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Zych, I., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Del Rey, R. (2015). Systematic review of theoretical studies on bullying and cyberbullying: Facts, knowledge, prevention, and intervention. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23 , 1–21.

Zych, I., Ortega-Ruiz, R., & Marín-López, I. (2016). Cyberbullying: A systematic review of research, its prevalence and assessment issues in Spanish studies. Psicología Educativa, 22 , 5–18. doi: 10.1016/j.pse.2016.03.002 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Lorena Perez, Marina Marchena, and Haiying Long for their assistance in manuscript preparation.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Educational, School, and Counseling Psychology, College of Education, University of Kentucky, 251 Dickey Hall, Lexington, KY, 40506, USA

Roberto L. Abreu

Leadership and Professional Studies, College of Arts, Science and Education, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

Maureen C. Kenny

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Roberto L. Abreu .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Abreu, R.L., Kenny, M.C. Cyberbullying and LGBTQ Youth: A Systematic Literature Review and Recommendations for Prevention and Intervention. Journ Child Adol Trauma 11 , 81–97 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-017-0175-7

Download citation

Published : 24 July 2017

Issue Date : March 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-017-0175-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• cyberbullying
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Sophie and the Swans: Holly Peppe on Kindness, Bullying, and the Power of Children’s Literature

A podcast interview with Holly Peppe discussing Sophie and the Swans on The Growing Readers Podcast , a production of The Children’s Book Review .

Join us for an inspiring conversation with author Holly Peppe as she discusses her heartwarming children’s book, Sophie and the Swans .

In this episode, Holly shares her journey from teacher to writer and reveals the real-life inspiration behind her story. Discover how this charming tale addresses essential themes of kindness, empathy, and bullying prevention through the adventures of young Sophie and her swan friends.

Holly offers valuable insights into crafting meaningful children’s literature and shares her unique approach to tackling sensitive topics for young readers. Whether you’re a parent, educator, or book enthusiast, you’ll find plenty to love in this discussion about the power of storytelling to shape young minds and promote positive values.

Tune in to learn about Holly’s creative process, her daily writing habits, and the personal experiences that inform her work. Plus, hear about her collaboration with pilot Barrington Irving on the young adult book Touch the Sky . This episode is a must-listen for anyone interested in children’s literature, character development, and the lasting impact of kindness.

Listen to the Episode

Read the transcription.

Bianca Schulze: Well, hello, Holly. Thank you so much for joining me today.

Holly Peppe: Thank you for having me.

Bianca Schulze: I am so excited to talk about your new book, Sophie and the Swans, but I want to go back in time before we dive right into the book. Since you’ve had a really diverse teaching career, from music for grades one through six to literature at the college level, I would love to start our conversation by hearing about what inspired you to become a teacher in the first place.

Holly Peppe: I think I would have to say my parents because they were both natural teachers, even though my father was actually a veterinarian and my mother was a nurse. But they were constantly teaching us and wanting to fill us in with everything we didn’t understand in such a gentle, wonderful way. I also had several aunts who were teachers, and I thought that was kind of a cool profession, but it really was my parents being such great mentors to us that I think early on, I was also doing the same thing. I was helping my little brothers and sisters, and really just felt like that was such an important role in life is to be teaching other people and mentoring other people. And there wasn’t any one turning point. But I remember after going through, I was also inspired, of course, by some of my elementary school teachers who I just adored. And I think it just was, I was following role models, and that’s kind of what I try to do in the book with Sophie as a role model.

Bianca Schulze: Well, you’ve written everything from essays, a memoir, and even a young adult book co-written with Barrington Irving, the youngest person and first black pilot to fly solo around the world, which is so cool. So can you tell us about your journey as a writer, and how did you transition from being a teacher to becoming an author?

Holly Peppe: Well, I think, you know, first of all, I have to just go back to reading. I was a great reader, and I think when you read, you know, it makes… It inspires you to write. So I’ve always written all through my life, and my first poem was at age five, which my mother kept in her drawer. And I always felt really, poetry was my medium, but… And I’ve been writing poetry all my life. But after school, going through school, and wanting to become a teacher, I did follow that path.

So, as you mentioned, I’ve really taught all grades all the way through, right up through college and even graduate school. But then I was writing all the time. I mean, I think a writer is a person who writes when they feel like they need to get something out. And certainly that was me. So I never really stopped writing. And as an author, much of my writing was academic after college, and I became literary executor for a poet, Edna St. Vincent Millay. And I did that from… I’m still literary executor. I started in 2010. I took over from the last one.

And so I wrote many essays about her, academic essays that appear in Yale University Press in that very rarefied world of academia. But my heart was really not there, and that’s why I was writing poetry all the time. And this children’s book I was inspired by, I live on a lake, and this setting of Sophie is really my setting. And that little cabin, you see, that’s Sophie’s little writing cabin, is my writing cabin. So it’s very real. And these swans, Romeo and Juliet, are really swans on my lake that I named Romeo and Juliet. So that was all just a very organic process. It was very natural for me to want to put that down.

And then inspired by a cause which is bullying. And, you know, having been a teacher for all those years, you see that, and, of course, you see it in adults, too. It’s part of our society. And so anything I could do to try and lessen the difficulty of bullying for children just felt like a really good place to go with a book. So I actually started writing a book about swans, because I do love swans, and I know a lot about them. And then I segued into thinking, well, if I’m going to write about them, why don’t I make it a book that has some usefulness?

And so I decided to write an anti-bullying book, with my swans, you know, so it’s a very real environment, but I put that together to send a message and help kids understand. Sometimes bullying is not… It’s not the child that’s really the problem. It’s whatever’s happened to the child. So it’s really more bullying behavior when you call someone a bully. Yes, they probably experienced something that moved them toward that.

Bianca Schulze: Yeah. So it almost feels as though, and I like to say this about my own writing, is that… And maybe this is true for a lot of writers, is that we often write to help us make sense of the world, and it’s an experience that we do when we get it out in words and on paper or whatever creative form that is, it’s helping make sense of the world. And if we can share that with others, I know that makes me feel really good, like I’m contributing somehow. Would you say that’s true for you?

Holly Peppe: I completely agree. I completely agree. I mean, writing is therapeutic, and I’m always encouraging other people to write. I did teach writing for many years on all levels. And I feel like it’s a way for us to, first of all, unload any of the problems that we have by putting them on paper. But also, it’s a way to express what we really can’t express in daily life. You can’t go around being mad or sad or, you know, you can. But it’s… It’s important to actually have some closure on that. And if you put it into words and you can see it, it lessens the pain and it increases the joy.

Bianca Schulze: Yeah, well, we’re definitely going to go more into Sophie and the Swans and the bullying and your beautiful setting. And I love that… It’s actually like the setting is where you live. But since we’re still talking just kind of more about you as a writer, I know that you have a daily practice that you do, and it’s journaling, which kind of, you know, I guess is what we’re talking about right now, getting that out. So tell me about your practice of daily journaling.

Holly Peppe: Well, it’s always a challenge to do something at the same time every day. So I try, after I get up in the morning, I have a morning routine, and then I try to put something down, something on paper. And whether it’s a poem or whether it’s a part of a song, it might be lyrics that I’m going to go back to, because I did… As you know, I worked in music for a while, and I do play the guitar, etcetera. But it’s such a good release, and I think it’s important for everyone, especially if you’re having a problem or if something is bothering you, you just can’t sort of leave it alone. If you write it out, you’ll feel better. I mean, I think that’s the case with everyone. And in all my writing classes, I’ve found that… That people who’ve never written and then they write always feel better about getting it down on paper. And sometimes you end up with something wonderful that you can then share with your friends or family or whatever. So I just think journaling is a really important process. And I write every day, but I have to confess, I don’t write at the same time every day.

Bianca Schulze: Yeah, I actually… I don’t know too many authors that do write… Like, some are very religious about what time they write, and this is my writing time. But I feel like a lot, you know, it’s not always everybody’s main job right. And so we write when we can. We write when, when the creativity is flowing. So… But I love that journaling practice that you have that at least every day you’re using those writing muscles, you know, your creativity, your, your handwriting, all of it.

Holly Peppe: Yes. And I think, I think that’s what I’ve said to people who say, gee, I can’t write. I say, writing is like exercise. You have to do it. And the more you do it, the better you get at it. And it helps to enjoy it. And I love to write, and I think it’s just a necessity in my life. And I think it’s not for everybody. Some people dread writing, but it is such a good release and I think it’s so necessary, especially in these times when there’s so much conflict all over the world. You know, if you can have a moment with yourself… And in some of my classes, I tell people, write yourself a letter. Write your parents a letter. Write, you know, if you don’t want to write, you think, well, I don’t have an idea, just write a letter. And it’s good practice.

Bianca Schulze: Yeah. And you don’t even have to send that letter, even just the writing the letter. And… Yeah, and maybe you shouldn’t. Yeah, exactly. All right, well, let’s dive into your new book, Sophie and the Swans . So you touched on what inspired you to write this story. And the swans, Romeo and Juliet are real swans on the lake in where you live. So tell me a little more about the inspiration. And is Sophie inspired by somebody specific in your life, or she just came to you as the messenger of what you wanted to tell?

Holly Peppe: Sophie is a real person. Sophie Sussmann is her name. And I met her because she and her father, I’m sorry, I spoke with her father. I spoke with Sophie’s father and we were talking about this book, which I mentioned to him. And Sophie at the time was twelve, and this is a few years later now, but he said, well, maybe she could illustrate the book. So we talked about that and she sent me a few illustrations. Her mother is also an artist, so that seemed like a natural thing. But as most people know who have written books, it’s a long process. It takes a lot of time. And Sophie was in school, so it just wasn’t practical. But I was very inspired by Sophie. She’s a wonderful young woman, very, knows the difference between right and wrong and wants to do the right thing. And so I just decided that I would call the main character Sophie, after Sophie, because she was such a… She’s such a good role model, and that’s really where Sophie came from. There’s a real Sophie, and I do have her on the book. I have a picture of the real Sophie on the book.

Bianca Schulze: So in Sophie and the Swans , as you mentioned, you address the issue of bullying, and we know it’s a really big issue for kids in school. So there’s a really powerful moment in the book where Sophie says, “my mother says we should always treat others with kindness, even if they aren’t kind to you.” So can you elaborate on why you chose to include this message in the story?

Holly Peppe: Well, I think that’s really the basic message that I would like to get out there to children and adults, which is that if you… You don’t need to model people who have bad behavior, but you do need to realize that you have a lot of influence in what happens in your life and other people’s lives. And if you feel someone is being mean to you… Now, for children just to aside here, if children are being bullied, I suggest they go and try to find a trusted adult to confide in, because it’s not always easy to defuse a bully’s anger or whatever else is going on. But I think it’s really also important to respond in a way that does not fuel the behavior, the bad behavior. And if one responds with kindness, sometimes, it’s very surprising. It will diffuse the bully’s behavior. It will stop them in their tracks. They’re not quite sure what to do. And that may teach them a lesson. It may not, but it certainly will give them a different perspective on how they are affecting other people.

Bianca Schulze: Yeah. So a belief that I share with you is that children are inherently good inside. Everybody is good inside. But sometimes, you know, kids, adults, we can follow bad examples. So would you like to discuss how Sophie and the Swans really addresses that concept of just everybody is good inside, but just sometimes they follow a bad example?

Holly Peppe: Sure. I think in the case of Ned, we have the brothers. We have the younger brother, Sam, who’s a very sweet fellow, and he doesn’t have any bullying behavior. He doesn’t display any bullying behavior. But his older brother, Ned, had been laughed at in his former school, so he was suffering from that because he got big glasses, new glasses, and the kids were making fun of him. And so his parents moved him to this house right next door to Sophie. But Ned carried that anger with him and that resentment and hurt. And so, once again, his younger brother Sam didn’t have any of those issues. But when Ned came down the hill to see, he saw Sophie with the swans. He immediately lashed out at her for no good reason. You know, he didn’t have, he didn’t know who it was. He didn’t know. And he just started criticizing her and bullying her and saying, you know, crazy swan girl and are you going to make them fat and all that.

And Sophie stood up to him and said, no, that’s not… And showed him that’s not appropriate behavior. But he dropped his stone. He was throwing stones at the swan and he stomped up the hill. So he kind of right away, you know, he was confronted and he changed his behavior, or at least he left it for a moment. And I think having Sam as another character in the story who’s his younger brother, who says, wow, to Sophie, you know, you’re really brave to stand up to him. And Sophie says, well, I don’t want him to hurt Romeo and Juliet. So right away we see the two brothers, we see the behavior, and we see Sophie standing up to them.

Now, you go to the next stage of the story, and Sophie and Sam have a chance to help this bully who’s been, even though she’s been mean to him, she decides to turn around and be kind. And Sam has a moment and says, you know, let the grown-ups deal with this. But Sophie says, my mother always said, and quote what you said, which is that always be kind to others, even if they’re not kind to you. And so they go out and they save him on the lake. And that shows, again, it’s a role model issue, which is that they do something he probably wouldn’t have done, but that shows him that there’s a way to deal with his distress.

Bianca Schulze: Yes.

Holly Peppe: And he comes around, very gentle lesson because he comes around and he, and he does say, you know, I was out here because I thought I yelled because I thought you’d be out feeding the swans. And Sophie says, well, you’re going to have to thank Romeo and Juliet, aren’t you? And he kind of gives in and says, I guess so.

Bianca Schulze: Yeah. I think what I love about Sophie so much is that I think it can be hard to say to children, well, if there’s a bully out there, you just need to be kind to them. Right. But there’s layers to that. And I think Sophie shows that she has boundaries and she doesn’t accept his unkindness, but she delivers it in factual ways and with kindness. Right. And so that’s where the kindness comes in. So she’s not allowing him to penetrate, you know, her well-being and who she is by retaliating or anything like that. You know, she has a clear boundary. You shouldn’t say that. You shouldn’t hurt the swans. Right. And I just… I love that about her. I think she’s such a great role model for kids to see on how to actually put this into practice. So I just… I think Sophie is such an amazing role model and character.

Holly Peppe: Well, there she is. Yeah. I hope… And I hope that message, I will say the children who’ve read the book, it got the message right away, you know, and I think it’s… I think behavior is truth. You know, that’s… We really see how people act, and that’s who they are. And in the end, Sophie is triumphant in the sense that she’s done her job by showing this bully there’s another way to be, but there’s no real… It’s not didactic, like, you know, it’s not like a big, hard lesson. And so she has courage and kindness together, and that combination really makes a difference. Yeah, absolutely.

Bianca Schulze: Yeah, you can keep going.

Holly Peppe: Yeah. Once again, this is not to say that every bully can be diffused, and all bullying behavior can be diffused with kindness. Sometimes a child needs to go to a trusted adult and tell them what’s happening so they can get some aid in dealing with the bully. Not all bullies are easily diffused.

Bianca Schulze: So true. So true. Well, coming from a large family, you have three brothers and a sister. I’m curious to know how your personal experiences have influenced your understanding of children’s behavior and the themes in your book.

Holly Peppe: Well, I have to say, I have a wonderful family, and we didn’t have any bullying in our family. And I think it’s because, again, my parents were good role models. They would never allow it. That would never be… But I know a lot of children. I know a lot about children’s behavior because I grew up in a big family, and we were always really required to help one another, to support one another, and that carried us through our lives.

You know, I was very fortunate. We didn’t have anyone in the family who was difficult to deal with. None of the children. You know, we all… It’s not that we all listen to our parents, but we all respected them, and we… So we’ve never had any disputes among ourselves. But certainly being in school and being around children all through my life, you see them mistreating one another, which is so hurtful. And I really distress when I see children being mean to other children.

So I’m hoping this book will deliver a lesson and really help readers understand that bullying comes from somewhere. A child isn’t born a bully. They really are good. As you said before, children are pure and wonderful. But sometimes they either model bad behavior or they are hurt in some way and they don’t know how to respond, and so they become… They display bullying behavior.

Bianca Schulze: Yeah. And I think, too, as a reader, if you’re a child that maybe identifies more with the Sophie and the Sam character, you know, it can also help you realize if you are a child that feels like you’re being bullied, that, okay, this isn’t about me. It isn’t about me. And by understanding that, there’s a seed of an issue within the bully that can really help somebody that feels bullied to process that experience. And really, this is less about me and more about them.

Holly Peppe: Good. Yes, I agree.

Bianca Schulze: So something really amazing about this book is that your royalties will be going to some organizations. So do you want to talk about that? Because I think this is wonderful.

Holly Peppe: Yes. All my royalties are being split between three organizations. One is literally, it’s all about bullying. It’s the National Bullying Prevention Center, and they do wonderful work. You can look them up online. The second is a group called We the Best, which is a great organization in South Florida run by DJ Khaled, who’s actually a rapper. And that is… This is an organization that serves underserved communities and helps children. They have all kinds of programs called We the Best. And the third is Animal Nation. And Animal Nation is a wonderful nonprofit. It’s a rehabilitation and rescue center. And it’s actually near my lake. It’s near where I live. And they have 250 rescue animals there that they care for, including swans. So I thought that was a good combination of nonprofits to donate to. So if you buy the book, please know it’s not… I’m not keeping the money. The proceeds are going to these great organizations.

Bianca Schulze: Now, do you have a copy with you right now?

Holly Peppe: I do.

Bianca Schulze: So, DJ Khaled actually gave an amazing blurb about this book, and I was wondering if you want to read it to us right now.

Holly Peppe: Sure. “You said a beautiful story about the love of nature and the power of being your best with kindness and respect. A reminder for us that love is the only way.” DJ Khaled.

I was thrilled that DJ Khaled offered a quote about the book. He’s a music producer, artist, entrepreneur, philanthropist, and father. But being a father of two is really his priority. He has these wonderful two little sons, and you can see him on Instagram and et cetera, et cetera. But he really loves being a father, so I was thrilled that he signed on.

Bianca Schulze: Yeah. And it’s such a great quote that he gave because it really does just encapsulate what your story has to offer. So I’m going to ask you this. What impact do you hope this book will have on young readers as well as their teachers and parents?

Holly Peppe: Well, I hope this book will help them understand where bullying comes from and that it’s possible to diffuse it with your own behavior. An act of kindness will go a long way, and I hope they take that message with them. And also for any of the children who read the book who might have some bullying behavior or display some bullying behavior, I’m hoping it may diffuse that for them, too, and realize that it’s just not helpful. And it doesn’t… Optics… The optics are bad. It doesn’t look good. It doesn’t feel good. And hurting other people is just not a good way to behave.

Bianca Schulze: I thought it was great, but if you want to take another go at it, you can.

Holly Peppe: No, I think that’s okay.

Bianca Schulze: Yeah, no, I think you did great. I think that was really great. All right. So is there anything that you think that we have not talked about that we should have talked about, or do you think that we have covered what we need to cover so that listeners, you know, have what they need to know about the story before they go and read it?

Holly Peppe: No, I think that’s fine. I can say one more thing. You mentioned another book and this book I wrote with Barrington Irving, who’s the first black pilot and youngest person to fly…

Bianca Schulze: Holly, let me ask you a great question to lead us in. Listeners are really clear. Okay, so… Well, Holly, as we wrap up, I’m actually really eager to hear about your book, Touch the Sky. I mentioned it briefly up front. So can you just tell us about co-writing it with Barrington Irving and the inspiration behind that story?

Holly Peppe: Sure. I worked in PR for many years, and I was the manager for Barrington Irving. I met him when he was in his early twenties, actually 19, I think he was. But anyway, he was the first black pilot to fly solo around the world, and I did all the PR for him. I became his manager because I wanted to help him, but we didn’t have any kind of business relationship, so I ended up staying with him for many years. But when he flew around the world, I asked him to send me entries and journal entries, to keep a journal. And so he did, and I took all those journal entries. He did make it around the world. We were very thrilled and had all kinds of celebrations. But when he came back, I wanted to put this down and make it a book. So it’s called Touch the Sky, My Solo Flight Around the World. And Scholastic published it in 2012, I believe.

Bianca Schulze: I think that’s right, yeah.

Holly Peppe: In 2000… Scholastic published it in 2012. And it’s the story of his life from early life in Jamaica right through this amazing event, which happened in 2007. But one of the reasons that this was relevant to me is that he was bullied as a little boy when he was in grammar school because he came from Jamaica, he had a Jamaican accent, and kids teased him about the accent, the fact that he didn’t have the right book bag or the right sneakers or whatever, and he just rose above it. He just turned his back and rose above it and was able to lift himself from that. And now he’s a well-known educator and still a pilot. And so I think he’s also inspiring. You know, he’s another Sophie in a very different realm.

Bianca Schulze: Yeah. I’m really glad that you shared that because I think, too, when we have our picture book readers and then we have our novel readers, and to be able to share a common thread message with kids of all ages is just so important. So I’m glad that you shared about it.

Holly Peppe: Good. Thank you.

Bianca Schulze: Yeah. Well, Holly, thank you so much for sharing your inspiring journey from teacher to writer with us today. I think your transition from teaching to writing and the insights on Sophie and the Swans have just been really enlightening and also just really important for young readers to hear. And your message about the power of kindness in addressing bullying is so crucial, not just for young readers, but for all readers, for all humans. So thank you for reminding us all with your words about treating others with kindness, even in challenging situations. And most importantly, thank you for sharing your precious time with me today and our amazing listeners.

Holly Peppe: Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it, and I hope you enjoy the book. All of you.

About the Book

Sophie and the Swans

Written by Holly Peppe

Illustrated by Aeron Cargill

Ages: 3+ | 36 Pages

Publisher: Lincoln Square Books | ISBN: 978-1947187146

Publisher’s Book Summary: Sophie is a little girl who lives beside a lake and makes friends with a pair of swans who visit her every day. One day, when a bully starts to torment the swans, Sophie rushes to defend them not by attacking the bully but by showing him kindness when he gets into trouble on the lake.

Buy the Book

Holly Peppe is a writer and editor who lives near a lake full of colorful ducks, noisy gray geese, and elegant white swans who take to the sky when they feel like flying. Her published writing includes essays about the Jazz Age poet, Edna St. Vincent Millay; a memoir, Mum’s the Word: The High-flying Adventures of Eve Branson; and two Young Adult books about Barrington Irving, the first Black pilot and youngest person to fly solo around the world.

Thank you for listening to the Growing Readers Podcast episode Sophie and the Swans: Holly Peppe on Kindness, Bullying, and the Power of Children’s Literature . For the latest episodes from The Growing Readers Podcast , Subscribe or Follow Now.

What to Read Next:

• Sophie and the Swans, by Holly Peppe | Dedicated Review
• The Power of Pets, Place, and Personal Experience: Lauren Castillo on the Inspirations Behind ‘Just Like Millie’
• An Interview with Denise Dufala, Journalist Turned Author
• Shannon Hale and LeUyen Pham Discuss Itty-Bitty Kitty-Corn

• X (Twitter)

Bianca Schulze is the founder of The Children’s Book Review. She is a reader, reviewer, mother and children’s book lover. She also has a decade’s worth of experience working with children in the great outdoors. Combined with her love of books and experience as a children’s specialist bookseller, the goal is to share her passion for children’s literature to grow readers. Born and raised in Sydney, Australia, she now lives with her husband and three children near Boulder, Colorado.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

Review of sexual abuse in schools and colleges

Published 10 June 2021

Applies to England

© Crown copyright 2021

This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected] .

Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.

This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-sexual-abuse-in-schools-and-colleges/review-of-sexual-abuse-in-schools-and-colleges

Introduction

Ofsted was asked by the government to carry out a rapid review of sexual abuse in schools and colleges. This report summarises our findings and recommendations.

We were asked to report on the following:

Safeguarding and curriculum

Is the existing safeguarding framework and guidance for inspectors strong enough to properly assess how schools and colleges safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

How can schools and colleges be supported further to successfully deliver the new RSHE (relationships, sex and health education) curriculum, including in teaching about sexual abuse, cyber bullying and pornography as well as healthy relationships and consent?

Multi-agency safeguarding arrangements

How well are safeguarding guidance and processes understood and working between schools, colleges and local multi-agency partners?

Does working between schools, colleges and local safeguarding partners ( LSPs ), including local authority children’s social care, the police, health services and other support, need to be strengthened?

Victims’ voice and reporting

How does the current system of safeguarding in schools and colleges listen to the voices of children when reporting sexual abuse whether occurring within or outside school?

What prevents children from reporting sexual abuse?

Do victims receive timely and appropriate support from the right place?

Have inspections by ISI (the Independent Schools Inspectorate) and Ofsted been robust enough in relation to the issues raised?

Other considerations

In addition to what the government asked us to report on, we have also considered:

the range, nature, location and severity of allegations and incidents, together with context

the extent of schools’/colleges’ (and other agencies’ and adults’) knowledge of specific incidents and more general problems

schools’ safeguarding responses to known incidents and wider social and cultural problems, including:

their immediate response to specific incidents, including referrals to LSPs and victim support (and liaison with other schools/colleges, where those involved attend different schools/colleges from abusers)

schools’/colleges’ use of sanctions

any factors that have limited any immediate or subsequent response

schools’ safeguarding knowledge, culture and effectiveness, including their willingness to function as part of the wider safeguarding system with other partners

the adequacy of schools’ RSHE / PSHE (personal, social, health and economic) curriculum and teaching

the extent to which recent inspections explored relevant cases and issues

Executive summary and recommendations

The review included visits to 32 schools and colleges. In these, we spoke to over 900 children and young people about the prevalence of peer-on-peer sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online, in their lives and the lives of their peers. [footnote 1] We also spoke to leaders, teachers, governors, LSPs , parents and stakeholders. Finally, we reviewed the extent to which inspection has given sufficient oversight of this issue and considered how statutory guidance could be strengthened.

This rapid review does not report on individual schools and colleges or cases, all of which remain anonymous. We made a number of visits to schools named on the Everyone’s Invited website, as well as others not named. But this should not be assumed to be a fully representative sample of all schools and colleges nationally. It presents a picture of strong and weaker practice across participating schools and colleges, from which we have drawn our conclusions. Our conclusions reflect the strengths and limitations of the evidence. They focus on what we were asked to report on. You can find a full description of the methodology at the end of this report.

This rapid thematic review has revealed how prevalent sexual harassment and online sexual abuse are for children and young people. It is concerning that for some children, incidents are so commonplace that they see no point in reporting them. This review did not analyse whether the issue is more or less prevalent for different groups of young people, and there may well be differences, but it found that the issue is so widespread that it needs addressing for all children and young people. It recommends that schools, colleges and multi-agency partners act as though sexual harassment and online sexual abuse are happening, even when there are no specific reports.

On our visits, girls told us that sexual harassment and online sexual abuse, such as being sent unsolicited explicit sexual material and being pressured to send nude pictures (‘nudes’), are much more prevalent than adults realise. For example, nearly 90% of girls, and nearly 50% of boys, said being sent explicit pictures or videos of things they did not want to see happens a lot or sometimes to them or their peers. Children and young people told us that sexual harassment occurs so frequently that it has become ‘commonplace’. For example, 92% of girls, and 74% of boys, said sexist name-calling happens a lot or sometimes to them or their peers. The frequency of these harmful sexual behaviours means that some children and young people consider them normal.

When we asked children and young people where sexual violence occurred, they typically talked about unsupervised spaces outside of school, such as parties or parks without adults present, although some girls told us they also experienced unwanted touching in school corridors.

Children and young people, especially girls, told us that they do not want to talk about sexual abuse for several reasons, even where their school encourages them to. For example, the risk of being ostracised by peers or getting peers into trouble is not considered to be worth it for something perceived by children and young people to be commonplace. They worry about how adults will react, because they think they will not be believed, or that they will be blamed. They also think that once they talk to an adult, the process will be out of their control.

Children and young people were rarely positive about the RSHE they had received. They felt that it was too little, too late and that the curriculum was not equipping them with the information and advice they needed to navigate the reality of their lives. Because of these gaps, they told us they turned to social media or their peers to educate each other, which understandably made some feel resentful. As one girl put it, ‘It shouldn’t be our responsibility to educate boys’.

In the schools and colleges we visited, some teachers and leaders underestimated the scale of the problem. They either did not identify sexual harassment and sexualised language as problematic or they were unaware they were happening. They were dealing with incidents of sexual violence when they were made aware of them, and following statutory guidance. But professionals consistently underestimated the prevalence of online sexual abuse, even when there was a proactive whole-school approach to tackling sexual harassment and violence.

In light of this, even where school and college leaders do not have specific information that indicates sexual harassment and online sexual abuse are problems for their children and young people, they should act on the assumption that they are. Leaders should take a whole-school/college approach to developing a culture where all kinds of sexual harassment and online sexual abuse are recognised and addressed. To achieve this, schools and colleges need to create an environment where staff model respectful and appropriate behaviour, where children and young people are clear about what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and where they are confident to ask for help and support when they need it. Central to this should be a carefully planned and implemented RSHE curriculum, sanctions and interventions to tackle poor behaviour and provide support for children and young people who need it, training and clear expectations for staff and governors, and listening to pupil voice. Further guidance on many of these aspects can be found in ‘Keeping children safe in education’. [footnote 2]

When it comes to sexual violence, it appears that school and college leaders are increasingly having to make difficult decisions that guidance does not equip them to make. For example, some school and college leaders told us that they are unsure how to proceed when criminal investigations do not lead to a prosecution or conviction. Schools and colleges should not be left to navigate these ‘grey areas’ without sufficient guidance. Furthermore, the current guidance does not clearly differentiate between different types of behaviour or reflect the language that children and young people use, particularly for online sexual abuse.

Schools and colleges cannot tackle sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online, on their own, and neither should they. For example, the prevalence of children and young people seeing explicit material they do not want to see and being pressured to send ‘nudes’ is a much wider problem than schools can address. While they can play their part, it is not only their responsibility to solve it. The government will need to tackle this issue through the Online Safety Bill, and other interventions.

The LSPs that we met had varying levels of oversight and understanding of the issues for children and young people in their area. Some LSPs had been working closely with schools to track and analyse data from schools, and understood children’s experiences of sexual harassment and violence, including online. However, a small number told us that they were not aware that sexual harassment and violence, including online, in schools and colleges were significant problems in their local area. In light of what children and young people told us, they almost certainly are significant problems in every area. Gaining an overview of the issues requires effective joint working between LSPs and all schools and colleges, something that is not currently happening consistently. Some schools and colleges also reported that working across a number of local authorities presented challenges, as the level of support varied from area to area. Clearer guidance would help to overcome some of these difficulties, as would more learning and sharing of practice across LSPs , schools and colleges.

A review of Ofsted and Independent Schools Inspectorate ( ISI ) frameworks, training and handling of complaints found that safeguarding is generally well covered on inspection, inspectors are prepared, and complaints are generally dealt with well. However, there are improvements that can be made. As a result of this review, both Ofsted and ISI will update training, inspection handbooks and inspection practices where necessary to strengthen inspectors’ ability to inspect how schools and colleges are tackling sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online. Ofsted will follow up the publication of this report with a series of webinars and events for schools and colleges to discuss the findings of this review. ISI will also provide a series of webinars and events for schools about the findings of this review.

As a result of the findings of this review, we recommend the following.

Recommendations for school and college leaders

School and college leaders should create a culture where sexual harassment and online sexual abuse are not tolerated, and where they identify issues and intervene early to better protect children and young people.

In order to do this, they should assume that sexual harassment and online sexual abuse are happening in their setting, even when there are no specific reports, and put in place a whole-school approach to address them. This should include:

a carefully sequenced RSHE curriculum, based on the Department for Education’s ( DfE ’s) statutory guidance, that specifically includes sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online. This should include time for open discussion of topics that children and young people tell us they find particularly difficult, such as consent and the sending of ‘nudes’

high-quality training for teachers delivering RSHE

routine record-keeping and analysis of sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online, to identify patterns and intervene early to prevent abuse

a behavioural approach, including sanctions when appropriate, to reinforce a culture where sexual harassment and online sexual abuse are not tolerated

working closely with LSPs in the area where the school or college is located so they are aware of the range of support available to children and young people who are victims or who perpetrate harmful sexual behaviour

support for designated safeguarding leads ( DSLs ), such as protected time in timetables to engage with LSPs

training to ensure that all staff (and governors, where relevant) are able to:

better understand the definitions of sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online sexual abuse

identify early signs of peer-on-peer sexual abuse

consistently uphold standards in their responses to sexual harassment and online sexual abuse

Recommendations for multi-agency partners

Multi-agency partners should:

• work to improve engagement with schools of all types in their local area, tailoring their approach to what their analysis (produced in partnership with schools/colleges and wider safeguarding partners) indicates are the risks to children and young people in their local area

Recommendations for government

The government should:

take into account the findings of this review as it develops the Online Safety Bill, so it can strengthen safeguarding controls for children and young people to protect them from viewing online explicit material and engaging in harmful sexual behaviour using social media platforms

establish better coordinated arrangements between the Education and Skills Funding Agency ( ESFA ), Ofsted and ISI for how to deal with complaints that inspectorates receive about schools

strengthen the ‘Working together to safeguard children’ guidance to make the involvement of all state and independent schools and colleges with LSPs more explicit, including their engagement in multi-agency safeguarding audits

produce clearer guidance for schools and colleges to help them make decisions when there are long-term investigations of harmful sexual behaviour, or when a criminal investigation does not lead to a prosecution or conviction

review and update the definitions of sexual abuse, including peer-on-peer, to better reflect the experiences of children and young people

develop an online hub where all safeguarding guidance is in one place, with any updates clearly visible and ideally made in good time in the school year to aid planning

in partnership with others:

develop a guide that helps children and young people know what might happen next when they talk to an adult in school or college about sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online sexual abuse

develop national training for DSLs

develop resources to help schools and colleges shape their RSHE curriculum

launch a communications campaign about sexual harassment and online sexual abuse, which should include advice for parents and carers

Actions for the inspectorates

This review has identified a number of areas where Ofsted and ISI can sharpen practice and, in doing so, focus schools’ and colleges’ attention on this important area of their work.

Peer-on-peer sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online, have been considered during inspection as part of safeguarding in schools and colleges over the last few years. However, changes to government guidance and some inconsistencies in inspection documentation across education remits mean that updating of inspection handbooks is required. For example, from September, Ofsted’s inspection handbook for further education and skills will include the same references to peer-on-peer sexual abuse as the current school inspection handbook. Inspectors for Ofsted and ISI will also consider how well schools fulfil the new duties to deliver the compulsory RSHE curriculum.

For 2021/22 and beyond, Ofsted and ISI will work together to produce and jointly deliver further training on inspecting safeguarding in education settings, including looking at issues of peer-on-peer sexual abuse.

In line with our practice for schools, Ofsted will request that college leaders supply records and analysis of sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online, to inspectors. ISI will also specifically request for schools to provide the same records on notification of inspection, in addition to its current practice. There will be additional training for inspectors from both inspectorates to ensure that they record how they have followed up this information on inspection. Additionally, inspectors will hold discussions with single-sex groups of pupils where this helps to understand better a school’s or college’s approach to tackling sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online.

Definitions

In this report, we use the DfE ’s definitions of sexual abuse and peer-on-peer abuse. [footnote 3]

Peer-on-peer sexual abuse

The term ‘peer-on-peer’ sexual abuse includes:

sexual violence, such as rape, assault by penetration and sexual assault

sexual harassment, such as sexual comments, remarks, jokes and online sexual harassment, which may be stand-alone or part of a broader pattern of abuse

upskirting, which typically involves taking a picture under a person’s clothing without them knowing, with the intention of viewing their genitals or buttocks to obtain sexual gratification, or to cause the victim humiliation, distress or alarm

sexting (also known as ‘youth-produced sexual imagery’) [footnote 4]

There were a wide variety of behaviours that children and young people told us happen online. These include:

receiving unsolicited explicit photographs or videos, for example ‘dick pics’

sending, or being pressured to send, nude and semi-nude photographs or videos (‘nudes’)

being sent or shown solicited or unsolicited online explicit material, such as pornographic videos

Typical platforms for sharing material between peers tended to be WhatsApp or Snapchat.

‘Keeping children safe in education’ says that all staff should be aware that children are capable of abusing their peers and that they should be clear about their relevant policies and procedures to address peer-on-peer abuse.

We acknowledge that the term ‘peer-on-peer’ does not refer only to sexual abuse, but also to other forms of child-on-child abuse, such as bullying. The term ‘peer-on-peer abuse’ is helpful in focusing professionals’ attention on the fact that children can abuse other children. However, in the context of sexual abuse it could lead to professionals dismissing potentially harmful sexual behaviour as simply ‘developmental’, when there are power dynamics, age imbalances and other aspects that would warrant further investigation. In this report, we use the term ‘peer-on-peer’ while recognising its limitations.

Harmful sexual behaviour

When we refer to harmful sexual behaviour, we use the same definition as the DfE : [footnote 5]

Sexual behaviours expressed by children and young people under the age of 18 years old that are developmentally inappropriate, may be harmful towards self or others, or abusive towards another child, young person or adult.

When we refer to sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online, we use the definitions and the language of victim and perpetrator in the DfE ’s guidance. [footnote 6] We recognise that there are many different ways to describe children who have been subjected to sexual harassment and/or sexual violence. There are also many ways to describe those who are alleged to have carried out any form of abuse. Therefore, we are using the terms that are most widely recognised and understood. It is important to recognise that not everyone who has been subjected to sexual harassment and/or sexual violence, including online, considers themselves a victim or would want to be described in this way.

Any child or young person who exhibits harmful sexual behaviour may need a safeguarding response or intervention. Professionals should respond with interventions that address the behaviour of the perpetrator, while also providing an appropriate level of support. Professionals involved should be aware that harmful sexual behaviour may be an indicator that the child has been abused. [footnote 7] , [footnote 8]

It is also important to note that, although professionals’ awareness of the vulnerability of children and young people could be helpful, it could also contribute to stereotypes about how a victim and survivor of child sexual abuse should look or behave. This may run the risk of victims who differ from that picture being overlooked or unwilling to come forward for fear of not being believed. [footnote 9]

The following model is used to explain the continuum of sexual behaviours presented by children and young people, from normal to violent. Harmful sexual behaviour encompasses a range of behaviour, which can be displayed towards younger children, peers, older children or adults. It can occur online and offline or a mixture of both.

Figure 1. Definition: Sexual behaviours across a continuum

Source: Hackett, S, ‘Children, young people and sexual violence’ in ‘Children behaving badly? Exploring peer violence between children and young people’, 2010.

The DfE has published guidance for schools and colleges to help them to respond to sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online, between children. This explains that it is an offence for anyone to have any sexual activity with a person under the age of 16 and provides specific protection for children aged 12 and under who cannot legally give their consent to any form of sexual activity. The guidance acknowledges that professionals may be required to make complex decisions in situations of peer-on-peer sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online. It stresses the importance of effective training and clear policies for staff to help them take a considered and appropriate response.

Therefore, when schools and colleges [footnote 10] are made aware of sexual activity involving a child under the age of 13, they should always refer this to the police and children’s social care. They should use the statutory guidance and their professional curiosity to establish whether risk factors are present before making a decision on whether to engage external agencies if the children are aged 13 to 17.

What did we find out about the scale and nature of sexual abuse in schools?

What existing research and data tell us.

Data on this topic largely focuses on child sexual abuse in general, not specifically peer-on-peer. We know that issues of under-reporting and inconsistency in how professionals define harmful sexual behaviour mean that accurate data collection is difficult. [footnote 11] We explore the issues of under-reporting and data tracking in later sections of this report.

Nationally collected statistics show that there has been a sharp increase in reporting of child sexual abuse to the police in recent years. Figures that include all child sexual abuse cases show that the police recorded over 83,000 child sexual abuse offences (including obscene publications) in the year ending March 2020. [footnote 12] , [footnote 13] This is an increase of approximately 267% since 2013. Research estimates indicate that approximately one quarter of cases of all child sexual abuse involve a perpetrator under the age of 18. [footnote 14]

Although anyone can experience sexual harassment and violence, research indicates that girls are disproportionately affected. For example, 90% of recorded offences of rape in 2018–19 of 13- to 15-year-olds were committed against girls. [footnote 15] , [footnote 16] In the past year, girls aged between 15 and 17 reported the highest annual rates of sexual abuse for young people and children aged 25 and younger. [footnote 17]

It is hard to get an accurate picture of the scale and nature of sexual harassment and violence between children and young people in schools and colleges, as there is no centralised data collection of incidents and crime statistics are not published with a level of analysis to shed any light on this. It would be helpful if this information was available routinely.

In 2016, the Women and Equalities Select Committee highlighted a number of surveys reporting that girls were experiencing high levels of sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online, in schools and colleges. [footnote 18] Similarly, a survey of children and young people in 2017 found that over a third of female students at mixed-sex secondary schools have personally experienced some form of sexual harassment at school. [footnote 19]

Three sources of information that were available for this review are: published school exclusions data, [footnote 20] Ofsted complaints data and an FOI request made to the police in 2015 by the BBC.

Published school exclusions data shows:

In the 5 academic years to 2018/19, permanent exclusions for which the primary reason was sexual misconduct averaged 91 per year, 1.3% of all permanent exclusions.

Most of these permanent exclusions were from secondary schools. There are approximately 3,400 mainstream state-funded secondary schools, so, if evenly spread, this would mean on average around 2% of secondaries currently make a permanent exclusion for this reason in any given year.

While the total number of permanent exclusions increased during that period, there was no clear trend in the number of exclusions for sexual misconduct.

In the same 5-year period, suspensions for which the primary reason was sexual misconduct averaged 2,100 per year, 0.6% of all suspensions.

Again, most of these exclusions were from secondary schools. As stated above, there are approximately 3,400 mainstream state-funded secondary schools. So again, if evenly spread, this would mean on average 55% of secondaries currently make a suspension for this reason in any given year.

In the latest reported year (2018/19), suspension for sexual misconduct fell by 13% relative to the average of the previous 4 years.

Ofsted receives complaints from pupils and parents who have been unable to resolve complaints through local routes. Between September 2019 and March 2021, we received 291 complaints about schools that referred to peer-on-peer sexual harassment or violence, including online sexual abuse, out of 13,834 complaints (2% of the total). ISI reports that between the same dates, it received 37 complaints about schools that referred to peer-on-peer sexual harassment or violence, out of 618 complaints (6% of the total).

In 2015, the police responded to an FOI request and reported that nearly 4,000 alleged physical sexual assaults and more than 600 rapes in schools had been reported in the preceding 3 years. [footnote 21] Further discussions with the police showed that the data included incidents involving adults and may also include some incidents reported by schools but that took place outside school. The police have told Ofsted that this data should therefore not be taken as an estimate of sexual assaults and rapes by pupils in schools.

The scope of this review was such that we cannot say anything about which children and young people are most likely to be targeted for sexual harassment and/or violence or about which are most likely to abuse others.

What did children, young people and professionals tell us about sexual harassment and violence between peers and where did perceptions differ?

During our visits, we gathered the views of approximately 900 children and young people in focus groups. Of those, we surveyed just over 800 children and young people aged 13 and above about their perceptions of sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online sexual abuse.

Children and young people tended to talk to us about the issues that were the most common in their lives, which were typically sexual harassment and online sexual abuse. However, we are aware of the significant impact that sexual violence has on some children and young people’s lives and we heard several distressing examples from DSLs as part of this review. While this section focuses largely on what children and young people told us was most common, we do not want to minimise or ignore other experiences that children told us about. Where we can, we reference these experiences and use wider literature to supplement our findings where there are gaps.

The girls who responded to our questionnaire indicated that, in order of prevalence, the following types of harmful sexual behaviours happened ‘a lot’ or ‘sometimes’ between people their age:

Non-contact forms, but face-to-face:

sexist name-calling (92%)

rumours about their sexual activity (81%)

unwanted or inappropriate comments of a sexual nature (80%)

Non-contact forms, online or on social media:

being sent pictures or videos they did not want to see (88%)

being put under pressure to provide sexual images of themselves (80%)

having pictures or videos that they sent being shared more widely without their knowledge or consent (73%)

being photographed or videoed without their knowledge or consent (59%)

having pictures or videos of themselves that they did not know about being circulated (51%)

Contact forms:

sexual assault of any kind (79%)

feeling pressured to do sexual things that they did not want to (68%)

unwanted touching (64%)

These findings are strongly supported by existing research into harmful sexual behaviour between peers. [footnote 22] , [footnote 23]

Boys were much less likely to think these things happened, particularly contact forms of harmful sexual behaviour, as shown in the chart below:

Figure 2. These things happen ‘a lot’ or ‘sometimes’ between people my age (%)

Note: around 790 pupils answered the question for each type of harmful sexual behaviour. The number varies slightly by question because a few children and young people skipped some questions.

In the focus groups, many children and young people talked about teachers not ‘knowing the reality’ of their lives, or being ‘out of date’. In general, they reported much higher incidences of sexual harassment, online sexual abuse and bullying behaviours than teachers and leaders tended to be aware of.

In some schools, leaders’ estimation of the scale of the problem was more aligned with that of the children and young people’s perceptions than that of teachers. This may be explained by the fact that leaders and DSLs typically deal with confidential safeguarding cases. However, it does point to the need for development and training for all school staff on prevalence and what constitutes harmful sexual behaviour. For example, in one school, children and young people told us that the sharing of ‘nudes’ was widespread and that ‘body shaming’ and ‘slut shaming’ were also common. However, staff in this school thought that incidents largely happened outside school. One male member of staff said that there were ‘high levels of mutual respect’ between children and young people in school. Leaders were more aware of issues in the school, and the need to change what they referred to as the ‘rugby culture’, but this did not translate to all staff recognising the scale of the problem.

More positively, in some schools, staff and leaders’ perceptions of the extent of harmful sexual behaviour seemed to be fairly aligned with those of children and young people. This appears to be the case in schools where the topic has been – and continues to be – openly discussed and challenged, and where records of incidents are kept and analysed.

Generally, older teens (aged 16 and above) were more likely to say that sexual harassment and violence, including online, between peers was prevalent than younger teens (aged 13 to 15) were. For example, 79% of young people aged 16 to 17 and 86% of those aged 18 and above said that rumours about sexual activity occurred a lot or sometimes between peers compared with 61% of those aged 13 to 15. Similarly, 54% of those aged 16 and above said unwanted touching occurred a lot or sometimes, compared with 40% of 13- to 15-year-olds. While figures are high for both groups, this increase could suggest that sexual harassment and violence, including online, happen more as children and young people grow older, or that they become more aware of them.

In terms of sexualised language, children and young people told us that ‘slag’ and ‘slut’ were commonplace and that homophobic language was also used in school. Many felt that staff either were not aware of this language, dismissed it as ‘banter’ or simply were not prepared to tackle it. Many also commented that they would be wary of tackling their peers’ use of this language, even when they did not feel comfortable with such terms. Sometimes, children and young people themselves saw the use of derogatory language as ‘banter’ or ‘just a joke’. In one school, the girls spoke of lots of ‘cat calling’, often focused on their bodies, their hair colour, their size or whether they were wearing glasses. In another, girls said that boys used terms such as ‘flat, curvy or sick’ to describe them and girls found this derogatory. In another, children and young people reported boys giving girls marks out of 10 based on their physical appearance while they were travelling to and from school together.

Some children, young people and staff mentioned sexual and sexist comments happening in corridors. Some girls felt uncomfortable when boys walked behind them up stairs and in stairwells where people can see up their skirts from below. Boys in another school said that they felt anxious when walking behind girls or women, including out of school, as they did not want the girls to feel at risk, so tended to cross the road or move away. In another school, girls said that they were ‘touched up’ regularly in crowded corridors. Some named the areas of the college or school where they felt wary of being – either because they were out of sight of staff or because they felt uncomfortable with the people who ‘hang around’ there.

Other areas or situations were school-specific. For example, we heard cases of boys’ toilets with no locks, a swimming pool changing room where a single door meant that girls believed people could see them naked as they walked by, and a male teacher who gave girls compliments about their appearance.

Overall, children and young people tended to say that they felt physically safe at college or school, although there was a clear emotional impact on girls who experienced regular sexual harassment or other harmful sexual behaviour. This highlights the need for school leaders to take an approach to tackling sexual harassment and bullying behaviours that goes beyond tackling incidents in isolation. Given that children and young people talked in particular about sexual harassment happening in unsupervised spaces, such as in corridors between lessons, school leaders should identify where there might be ‘hot-spots’ of poor behaviour and act accordingly. When children and young people talked about feeling physically unsafe, this generally related to situations that occurred outside school.

Boys and girls sometimes, though not always, had different perspectives and concerns. In one school, for example, girls told us that sexual harassment was ‘a big deal’ but boys did not recognise that it was happening or identify it as abuse. Girls in this school described routine name-calling, sexual comments and objectification. Boys described jokes and compliments – but said that, for them, homophobia and racism were concerns. In another example, girls thought that things like sexist or sexualised language were common and that being asked to share inappropriate images happened regularly, but boys did not see this as an issue. Boys recognised some of the behaviours described but did not see them as widespread.

Some schools on our visits had existing LGBT+ pupil groups that were willing to speak to us. LGBT+ children and young people in those groups also reported a big gap between staff’s knowledge of incidents and their daily experience of harmful sexual behaviour. Homophobic and transphobic insults and bullying in corridors and classrooms and at social times were mentioned as issues in several schools. Some LGBT+ children and young people reported constant verbal abuse and occasional physical assault, which left them feeling physically unsafe. One teacher reported that she frequently heard both homophobic and sexist language but did not challenge this as she did not think she would be supported by other staff and her challenges would be disregarded. Literature on the experiences of LGBT+ young people also indicates that they are more likely to experience child sexual abuse and less likely to report sexual abuse than their peers. [footnote 24]

What did children, young people and professionals tell us about sexual abuse between peers online?

Previous research indicated that children and young people who are sending nudes and semi-nudes are in the minority. For example, research in 2017 indicated that 26% of young people had sent a nude image to someone they were interested in and 48% had received one of someone else. [footnote 25] However, more recent data on youth-produced sexual imagery for under-18s indicates that they are increasingly taking photos and videos of themselves to send to others. This includes incidents where they are groomed by adults to do so.

Data from the Internet Watch Foundation ( IWF ) shows a sharp increase in online sexual abuse images involving young people, which it partially attributes to a rise in the sharing of ‘self-generated’ content. [footnote 26] In the first 6 months of 2020, 44% of all child sexual abuse content dealt with by the IWF was assessed as containing self-generated images or videos, compared with 29% in 2019. The proliferation of online imagery makes it a challenge for researchers, multi-agency partners and schools to keep up, despite recent government guidance. [footnote 27]

Children and young people told us that online forms of sexual abuse were prevalent, especially being sent sexual pictures or videos that they did not want to see. The vast majority of girls said being sent sexual images, being coerced into sharing images, or having their images reshared were common. A significant proportion of boys agreed. In terms of definitions, being sent sexual pictures of images that children and young people do not want to see includes both explicit online material, such as pornographic videos, or self-generated images or videos, such as ‘dick pics’.

Images and videos were typically shared on platforms such as WhatsApp or Snapchat. Some DSLs told us that children and young people were sometimes added to large groups of peers on WhatsApp without their permission, where graphic material was shared without them properly knowing who they were interacting with.

Figure 3. These things happen ‘a lot’ or ‘sometimes’ between people my age (%)

Note: the number of both boys and girls who answered the question for each type of harmful sexual behaviour is around 790, and slightly different for each. This is because a few children and young people skipped some questions.

Although some school leaders defined online sexual harassment as ‘happening out of school’, we saw some clear evidence of how online sexual harassment has a significant impact on the normalisation of harmful sexual behaviour and unhealthy cultures within school. This was something that the victims’ groups we spoke to also highlighted. In one school, for example, children and young people told inspectors that ‘boys talk about whose “nudes” they have and share them among themselves – it’s like a collection game’. Many children and young people told inspectors that this behaviour was so commonplace that they just saw it as a ‘part of life’. One Year 12 student said, ‘The problem is that it’s so widespread it’s like playing whack-a-mole.’

Girls talked about boys being very persistent when asking for images – ‘they just won’t take no for an answer’ – some explained that if you block them on social media ‘they just create multiple accounts to harass you’. In one school, the girls spoken to by inspectors reported that some girls can be contacted by up to 10 or 11 different boys a night to be asked for nude/semi-nude images. Some children and young people thought that it was ‘ok’ and ‘acceptable’ to ask someone for a nude picture, but had been taught to think about who else might see the pictures apart from the original recipient, and not to share them further.

Some girls expressed frustration that there was not explicit teaching of what was acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. They felt that the need to educate peers had been left to them. One girl said: ‘It shouldn’t be our responsibility to educate boys.’ A minority of boys felt that gender stereotyping meant that they were being made to ‘feel guilty all the time’ and that they were being unfairly blamed for things they had not done. Nearly half of boys also said that being sent sexual images or videos they did not want to see was something that happened ‘a lot’ or ‘sometimes’ to them or their peers.

Research in this area indicates that, while most secondary school pupils recognise the harm that sexual approaches from adult strangers online bring, there is less clarity about what constitutes sexual harm within the context of peer relationships or existing online networks. [footnote 28] This shows the need for a whole-school approach that tackles sexual harassment and online sexual abuse proactively. This should include a well-sequenced RSHE curriculum, which incorporates time for open discussion of areas that children and young people tell us they are finding particularly difficult.

There is some evidence that suggests access to technology and the sharing of inappropriate images and videos are also issues in primary schools. For example, in one all-through school, leaders have identified a trend of cases in the primary school that are linked to social media. There is a no-phone policy in this school, so incidents are likely taking place outside school. Incidents cited include viewing pornography, requests to look up pornography websites and viewing inappropriate images on social media. There was an example from another school of children in Years 6 and 7 sending nudes.

Leaders we spoke to also highlighted the problems that easy access to pornography had created and how pornography had set unhealthy expectations of sexual relationships and shaped children and young people’s perceptions of women and girls. Evidence suggests that nearly half (48%) of 11- to 16-year-olds in the UK have viewed pornography. Of these, boys were approximately twice as likely as girls to have actively searched for it. [footnote 29] However, 60% of 11- to 13-year-olds who had seen pornography said their viewing of pornography was mostly unintentional. [footnote 30]

A recent survey of over 1,000 undergraduates found that one third said they have ‘learned more about sex from pornography than from formal education’. [footnote 31] While research indicates that most children and young people recognise that pornography is unrealistic, a high percentage of them reported that they had used pornography as a source of information to learn about sex and sexual relationships in the past 12 months (60% of young men and 41% of young women). This is problematic when research indicates that much pornography depicts men as aggressive and controlling and women as submissive and sexually objectified. [footnote 32]

Although there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that viewing pornography leads directly to harmful sexual behaviours, there is evidence to suggest that young people appear to become desensitised to its content over time and that it can shape unhealthy attitudes, such as acceptance of sexual aggression towards women. [footnote 33] , [footnote 34] More frequent consumption of pornography is also associated with victim-blaming attitudes. For example, it may lead to the belief that if a woman is affected by alcohol or drugs, she is at least partly responsible for whatever happens to her. [footnote 35]

When children and young people talked to us about online sexual abuse, they did not use the terms that government guidance did. It can be difficult to address issues when the definitions are not up to date or are grouped unhelpfully. For example, ‘Keeping children safe in education’ uses the phrase ‘sexting’ for online sexual abuse. None of the children and young people we spoke to used this phrase and it appears to be out of date. In any future updates of government guidance, the full range of children and young people’s experiences should be reflected in the language used. Clearer categories of the types of sexual harassment and online sexual abuse would also be helpful for professionals.

What did children, young people and professionals tell us about sexual abuse outside school?

Children and young people in several schools told us that harmful sexual behaviour happens at house parties, without adults present, and that alcohol and drugs are often involved. In one school, leaders talked about parties that have happened when parents have left children and young people unsupervised and they ‘are allowed to see, do and hear what they want’. In another, governors talked about a culture of ‘affluent neglect’ and leaders said that some parents bought alcohol for their children to have at parties when they were away. It is important to note, however, that incidents of harmful sexual behaviour or unhealthy cultures were certainly not confined to ‘affluent’ children or young people.

An analysis of key words in the 2,030 publicly available testimonies on the Everyone’s Invited website found that a third (670) mentioned drugs or alcohol. Of these, words equating to ‘drunk’, ‘party’, alcohol or names of different types of alcohol and ‘drinking’ featured in the most testimonies. [footnote 36] These findings should be treated with caution as they are not representative. They do, however, give an insight into the experiences of some children and young people.

Some children, young people and leaders also identified parks as places where sexual harassment and violence took place.

In a minority of schools, children, young people and leaders talked specifically about cultural factors that contributed to boys’ harmful sexual behaviour. One Year 12 boy talking about other boys told inspectors: ‘Essentially, they only spend time with boys, then hit puberty and start going to parties with booze and drugs and girls, and they don’t know how to handle it. And some of the boys are very wealthy and have never been told “no” before.’ In another school, girls similarly told inspectors that some of the boys had a sense of entitlement and had never ‘been told no’. They talked about a sense of ‘male superiority’ in the school. In another school, children and young people said that harmful sexual behaviours occurred outside school at parties but that victims did not want to disclose it because of the ‘power and money culture’ within which they live. As one girl put it, ‘victims do not want to commit social or career suicide’. These findings point to the power dynamics that are often present where there are sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online. These dynamics and social hierarchies are present across all school types.

Not many children and young people spoke about sexual abuse in relationships, although in one school they mentioned that incidents sometimes occurred between peers in established relationships, where ‘things go too far’ or ‘go over the line’. Some children and young people also talked about wanting to know more about issues around consent in established relationships. Textual analysis of the publicly available testimonies on the Everyone’s Invited website indicates that, where a relationship to the perpetrator is named, around two thirds of the testimonies say that the perpetrator was known to them and around a fifth was a boyfriend. [footnote 37] Evidence suggests that early experience of dating and relationship violence is associated with subsequent adverse outcomes, such as suicidal behaviours, other mental health problems and low educational attainment. [footnote 38]

Girls talked about feeling uncomfortable because of behaviour from peers on bus journeys (including school buses), where they said they experienced the kind of sexual harassment and bullying behaviour that happened in school. Girls in one school, for example, said that boys often made ‘rape jokes’ on the school bus. More widely, some children and young people said they did not feel safe from strangers on trains or in parks, alleys, car parks and side streets. Some girls in particular said that feeling unsafe in these situations was pervasive. One girl said that a man had deliberately brushed her younger sister’s leg recently and another girl had told her sister to get used to it as ‘this is what happens’. Younger girls aged 12 to 13 in another school said that they felt uncomfortable walking through town in their uniforms. Evidence from other research also indicates that this is an issue. A recent survey of girls and young women aged 13 to 21 found that more than half have felt unsafe walking home alone and had experienced harassment or know someone who has, and nearly half feel unsafe using public transport. [footnote 39]

How does the current system of safeguarding listen to the voices of children and young people?

In this section, we outline what children and young people told us about why they do not speak to adults about sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online. We also share the practices that we identified in schools that both enable and act as barriers to children and young people telling adults about their experiences.

On our visits, we found that children and young people rarely speak to adults about sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online, even though they told us that sexual harassment and online sexual abuse are prevalent in their daily lives.

The reasons why children and young people significantly under-report sexual abuse are well documented. Although research indicates that one of the main reasons for this is a misplaced sense of shame and embarrassment, there are many other complex factors at play. For example, children and young people may have a fear of social exclusion by peers, worry about how adults will react, and feel that once they talk about abuse, the next steps will be out of their control. [footnote 40] Research also indicates that children and young people are even less likely to tell someone about abuse when it is perpetrated by peers. [footnote 41]

Research indicates that, even when some children and young people attempt to tell someone about abuse, they are not always listened to or believed. For example, NSPCC research on young adults who experienced abuse and family violence as a child found that 80% had to make more than one attempt to tell someone about the abuse before they were listened to and taken seriously. Ninety per cent of the young people who told someone had a negative experience at some point, mostly where those they told had not responded appropriately. [footnote 42] Our joint targeted area inspection into child sexual abuse in the family also found that some groups of children, such as boys, disabled children and children from some minority ethnic groups face greater barriers to talking about abuse and are less likely be believed when they do. [footnote 43] The ‘Beyond referrals’ research into harmful sexual behaviour in schools found that, even where schools had provided a range of ways for children and young people to talk to staff about peer abuse, there remained significant barriers to them reporting abuse. [footnote 44]

On our visits, we found that professionals still rely too much on children telling someone about abuse instead of recognising other indicators, such as emotional or behavioural changes. We also found this in our joint targeted area inspection on the theme of child sexual abuse in the family.

In some schools we visited, teachers recognised that they needed to do much more than rely on children and young people’s verbal reports of sexual violence or sexual harassment, including online. In these schools, they had taken steps to create a culture where it is clear what acceptable and unacceptable behaviour is for staff, children and young people. Teachers were encouraged to log indicators of concern on a centralised recording system so that DSLs could ‘build a picture’ and decide whether further investigation was required.

Professionals’ and victims’ groups we spoke to also said that it is rare that children and young people talk about abuse as a ‘one-off’ and that this may be a process that happens over time. Victims’ groups we spoke to also considered that children and young people are much more likely to talk about abuse when secure and trusting relationships have been developed within a supportive culture.

Who, if anyone, do children and young people talk to about sexual harassment and violence?

Most children and young people we surveyed told us they would feel able to tell someone about their experiences of sexual harassment or sexual violence, including online (either inside or outside school). In order of most likely to least likely, they said they would tell:

a parent or carer

another family member

an adult at their school or college

a helpline/charity

someone else, including a social worker, coach or religious leader

Most of the children and young people said they would feel most comfortable talking to friends, something that was also highlighted in our discussions with victims’ groups. This emphasises the importance of schools teaching acceptable and unacceptable behaviours, with clear guidance and support, so that children and young people can support each other to bring issues to trusted adults.

The children and young people we asked said that, if they were to talk to an adult, it would be a parent or someone in their family. Lower numbers of children and young people said they would talk to adults in their school. When children and young people said they would talk to someone in school about sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online, they tended to identify senior staff. Research indicates that when children and young people do tell a professional about these issues, it is most likely to be a teacher or leader at their school. [footnote 45] This highlights the importance of training leaders and teachers on good practice in this area and supporting children to bring issues to trusted adults. It also shows that taking time to build trusting relationships with children and young people can help them talk about abuse.

Inspectors found that, in more than half of the schools they visited, procedures were clear and safeguarding teams were visible and known to children and young people. Children and young people were aware of the procedure for reporting concerns and, in this respect, schools were supporting them to tell them about sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online sexual abuse. However, staff, children and young people told us that, even with this good practice, children and young people do not always report incidents for a variety of reasons.

This illustrates that schools cannot rely on children talking about sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online abuse. Just having clear procedures and visible staff are not sufficient to support children and young people to talk about these issues.

What prevents children and learners from reporting sexual harassment and violence?

Children and young people in the surveys and focus groups told us that there is a range of barriers that prevent them from talking about sexual abuse and harassment, including online. These included:

worry that what happened next would be out of their control

worry that they would be branded by their peers as a ‘snitch’ who got a peer into trouble

worry that they would be ostracised from friendship groups

worry that there would be damage to their reputation, for example through sexual rumours being circulated about them

feeling that they would not be believed

feeling that they might be blamed for doing things they were told not to do, for example sending nudes, even if they were pressured to do so

feeling that nothing would be done

feeling that things were so commonplace ‘there’s no point’ in raising it

feeling embarrassment and shame when talking to someone from a different generation about sex

The most common reason that the children and young people who answered our survey gave for not reporting an experience was not knowing what would happen next. Victims’ groups also told us that a poor response by professionals can leave children and young people feeling out of control. In one school, the DSL was aware of this issue and had educated children and young people about what would happen if they told someone about abuse, emphasising how children’s best interests were at the heart of any investigation. In the same school, the DSL took the time to develop a trusting relationship with a victim of sexual violence. This helped the victim get to the point where they could talk about the incident fully to the school, the police and other multi-agency partners.

In focus groups, children and young people told us that deciding whether to report an incident depends on the perceived severity of the incident. For example, children and young people thought they would be listened to if they reported ‘serious’ incidents but would be less likely to report what they see as ‘common’ incidents, such as ‘being asked for nudes’ and ‘comments from boys in corridors’. This is largely because they feel that some of the incidents are so commonplace ‘there’s no point’ reporting them. Some forms of sexual harassment and online sexual abuse have become so normalised for children that they do not see the point in reporting and challenging this behaviour.

Some children and young people talked about previous incidents that have been reported, which in their view had ‘come to nothing’. Consequently, they did not believe that the school would do anything if they did report abuse, especially if incidents took place outside school. Some DSLs told us that, at times, this view was compounded when criminal investigations did not lead to a prosecution or conviction. DSLs also told us that the confidential nature of investigations left some victims or children and young people perceiving that ‘nothing had been done’. Again, this led to them thinking that there was little point in telling someone about abuse.

Schools and multi-agency partners need to strike the right balance. Over-criminalisation of children and young people is not desirable or helpful. This means that, when dealing with peer-on-peer abuse, multi-agency partners, including the police, may decide to provide intervention and support for the perpetrator. They may find this the best way of preventing further abuse, instead of criminalising the child. However, this can sometimes lead to the victim feeling that agencies have not responded appropriately. Furthermore, as safeguarding investigations must be confidential, it can also feel to some children and young people as though nothing has been done, when in reality action has been taken.

Our visits found that, in a minority of schools, there were unhealthy cultures that prevented children and young people from talking to adults about sexual harassment and online sexual abuse. They did not think anything would be done as a result. In these schools, many children and young people talked about not being believed. They also thought that teachers were willing to condone sexualised name-calling and harassment. Worryingly, one governor reported that ‘blokeish banter’ was just part of growing up. This is in line with previous research on the topic, where children and young people reported that some teachers dismiss sexual harassment as ‘banter’ or ‘messing around’. [footnote 46] , [footnote 47]

Reputational damage and social consequences

In more than half of schools, children and young people said worry about ‘reputational damage’, for example being ostracised from a social group or damage to a sexual reputation, stopped them reporting. They were also worried about being labelled as a ‘snitch’ who got their peers into trouble. Some said that by the time incidents were shared on social media it was too late for leaders to address reputational damage. As one pupil put it, although leaders were trying to help, they ‘wouldn’t be able to – it’d be too late’. Feedback from victims’ groups also supported this finding.

In these discussions, it was clear that, while their sense of embarrassment and shame was a common reason for not reporting, children and young people also weighed up other complex issues. This included the social consequences for them if they did report, relative to the severity of the incident. Previous research on this topic identified that, when children and young people did talk about sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online, this resulted in social isolation and the victim being stigmatised and harassed by peers. [footnote 48]

Some children and young people had a clear desire for justice, but this was at odds with others who told us that harsh sanctions for their peers put them off talking to an adult about abuse. These children and young people told us that sometimes the consequences of reporting abuse have been so ‘punitive’ for the perpetrator that, rather than acting as a ‘deterrent’ to harmful sexual behaviour, the result is to ‘put off’ children and young people from reporting incidents. They were also worried about police involvement. They said that they would prefer a pastoral and supportive approach without the immediate threat of police involvement.

Some children and young people told us that their perceptions of the behaviour policy can be a barrier to reporting incidents to staff if, in their view, the policy is ‘unfair’. These children and young people do not feel confident that staff would ‘deal with things sensitively’. Some said that school leaders are not as interested in their ‘personal well-being’ as they are in the ‘outward appearances’ of the school.

This highlights the complexity for schools and multi-agency partnerships in managing peer-on-peer sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online. Children and young people need to feel confident that staff will respond in a proportionate and fair way to incidents. They also need to be told the different potential consequences of reporting. Schools need to have a range of responses to different forms of behaviour and intervene in a proportionate way at the right time.

We are aware of some research that explores how schools tackle sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online. [footnote 49] However, the terms of reference of this review did not include a consideration of which systems of consequences deter children and young people from future harmful sexual behaviour. It is an area that warrants further research.

We recognise that it can be challenging for school leaders to get their approach right and that, sometimes, what children and young people say they want is not necessarily in line with what statutory guidance requires. Schools are often the place that parents, children and young people turn to first in cases of sexual violence before going to the police. Professionals must follow statutory guidance. But they also have a responsibility to explain to children and young people what will happen if they do report abuse. Better dialogue in schools about the different forms of behaviours and likely responses to such behaviours may mean children feel better informed to make decisions about reporting. Ultimately, it is for schools (with the support of multi-agency partners where relevant) to decide the appropriate course of action.

Reaction from adults and worry about what would happen next

Some children and young people told us that they felt that if they did tell an adult about abuse, they could be ‘blamed or not taken seriously’. These children and young people were worried that they would be judged and would feel embarrassed by the inevitable questioning.

Being blamed or parents finding out were the third and fourth most common reasons that children and young people who answered our survey gave for not talking about harmful sexual behaviour. In the focus groups, they said being worried about their parents finding out would be a reason for them not to talk to an adult about abuse. This was especially the case where drugs and alcohol were involved. Some also said that they feared they would be blamed for doing something they had explicitly been told not to do, for example sending nudes, even when they had been pressured into doing so. They were also worried they would have to show images to staff members and that they would feel embarrassed and ashamed when talking to someone from a different generation about sex.

These findings emphasise the need for adults, including parents, to be better educated and informed about sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online, between peers. It is also vital that adults are supported by professionals to provide appropriate, non-judgemental responses to children and young people who talk about abuse. Children and young people need reassurance and open discussion in schools about what they can expect, and what will happen if they do need to report concerns. They also need trusted adults they can talk to.

Understanding confidentiality

Pupils’ concerns about confidentiality can be a barrier to reporting. Children and young people know that schools cannot always keep everything confidential and may need to share information with other agencies. But they want assurance that there are some things that are ‘not to be passed on’. Children and young people do not always know ‘what will be done with the information’. They are also worried that responses such as a whole-school assembly would just set the ‘rumour mills going’ and could undermine the anonymity of those involved.

While all the professionals we spoke to highlighted the need for confidentiality when a child reports sexual harassment and/or violence, including online abuse, some children and young people gave examples of how they could be made aware that an investigation was ongoing. As one pupil put it, ‘sometimes if you report something in school everybody quickly knows about it. A teacher takes you out of a lesson. Everyone is like, “What was that about?” when you come back into the classroom’. Confidentiality may also be compromised if a pupil speaks to a friend first, as many told us they would, or if an incident is shared on social media before the child or young person has spoken to an adult about it.

In light of this, all schools should take a whole-school approach to tackling sexual harassment and online sexual abuse because it is likely that they are underestimating the scale of the problem. This should include speaking to children, and listening to their views and experiences and using these to inform a preventative approach to sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online sexual abuse.

What does good practice look like?

There are several good practice models that encourage children and young people to tell someone about abuse. The ‘Beyond referrals’ project includes several recommendations to help schools develop an environment where children and young people can talk to professionals about abuse. These recommendations include:

engaging students in small-group sessions to discuss different forms of harmful sexual behaviour

mapping the school and out-of-school spaces to identify where harmful sexual behaviour takes place

using a curriculum-based approach to tackle a culture where reporting is perceived as ‘snitching’ [footnote 50]

The project also highlights the following as important:

children having a trusting and positive relationship with an individual staff member

children being aware of previous positive experiences of school responses

teachers showing that they respect students, listen and respond subtly

having staff with a specialist role not linked to teaching or behaviour

This last point was raised by some children and young people on our visits. They were worried that they would get into trouble if they spoke to the DSL when this individual had a dual role as the deputy headteacher for behaviour. Some schools we visited countered this by having a small number of trained staff who can deal with safeguarding matters in collaboration with the DSLs . However, we recognise that in some schools, especially small ones, it is not possible to manage this. Schools should consider the DSL ’s role carefully, including how children and young people may perceive it. They should try to avoid any negative associations that might compound children’s misplaced sense of shame, embarrassment or ‘being in trouble’.

The NSPCC has also developed guidance for professionals to support children and young people when they talk about abuse. This highlights the importance of:

demonstrating to a child that you are listening

putting a child in charge of the conversation

reassuring a child and showing empathy [footnote 51]

The recent guidance from the UK Council for Internet Safety outlines some good practice in dealing specifically with incidents of youth-produced sexual imagery. [footnote 52]

In our visits, we found promising practice that places the voices of children and young people at the heart of the approach to safeguarding. For example, one school had held ‘listening events’ to help children and young people share worries and speak to adults in a safe environment. Another school used an anonymous questionnaire to ask children and young people what the issues for their age group were and what language they used when discussing sexual harassment and online sexual abuse. Responses were built into staff training and helped build a culture where children and young people, leaders and teachers had a shared understanding of what sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online, were. One leader explained:

So often, nobody is talking to young people about these things – including or especially their parents. These conversations are awkward so there has almost been a tacit agreement not to have them. This means that we risk not knowing what young people do, or think, and how what they do is affecting them.

In some schools, we also found evidence of how RSHE lessons had helped children and young people’s understanding of these issues. This had led to a culture where children and young people felt able to talk to someone about sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online, or to raise concerns about their peers. The victims’ groups we spoke to also outlined the importance of creating this kind of supportive and open culture.

In some schools, leaders were reflecting on the testimonies on the Everyone’s Invited website to critically evaluate and strengthen their processes. For example, in one school, there was a ‘changing the narrative’ pupil group. The group sensitively gathered information from other children and young people, talked about issues and informed leaders of their findings. In another school, leaders were trialling different reporting methods such as private messages through Teams chat. There was a whole-school approach to educating children and young people and encouraging them to come forward, delivered through assemblies, tutor time, posters and leaflets. They were also actively engaging parents and alumni to discuss concerns and address them where possible.

While it is too early for leaders to talk about the impact of such initiatives, children and young people in these schools told us that they can see that leaders are trying to respond in positive ways to the Everyone’s Invited testimonies. They told us that they feel confident in talking about sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online, when there is a positive and open school culture.

To what extent do schools know about sexual abuse? When they do know, how do they respond?

In this section, we outline schools’ understanding of the prevalence of sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online, and how they respond when they do know about it. We also share what approaches schools are taking to tackle these issues and where there are still gaps.

Responding to incidents

There were many examples where incidents of sexual violence were dealt with appropriately and school policies and statutory guidance such as ‘Keeping children safe in education’ were informing practice. Examples of practice in these schools often included:

involving other agencies where appropriate

providing support for all children and young people involved (victims and perpetrators) through pastoral teams and professional counselling

informing and working with parents

However, our visits highlighted some inconsistencies in responses where professionals had interpreted guidance differently. There was also variability in DSLs ’ understanding of which incidents needed be referred to the police and children’s social care, meaning that some historical incidents that should have been referred were not. Some of the schools in our visits used different mechanisms to strengthen their own decision-making processes. For example, they were part of wider networks of DSLs or would call on the local authority to ‘sense check’ decisions when unsure.

In around two fifths of the schools visited, inspectors noted that leaders had recently adapted either their safeguarding protocols, systems for monitoring or staff training on harmful sexual behaviours. This was in reaction to the Everyone’s Invited website.

As we outlined earlier, many professionals tended to underestimate the scale of sexual harassment and online sexual abuse. DSLs and leaders in schools assessed the extent of the problem more accurately than teachers, although they acknowledged that reported incidents of sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online were the ‘tip of the iceberg’, as one DSL put it.

Furthermore, some schools were dealing with incidents of sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online, in an isolated way, without considering the context and wider safeguarding risks. This meant that they were not considering factors such as:

whether other children and young people were at risk

whether there were spaces in or outside school where children and young people were at particular risk

where power dynamics in peer relationships were creating unhealthy cultures

In these schools, incidents were dealt with reactively instead of proactively. In some cases, we found evidence that behaviours were not monitored well enough following an incident.

In addition, in about a quarter of schools, sexual harassment such as inappropriate sexualised language was not always addressed and identified early enough. In other instances where school leaders were aware of the problem, there was a limited and ineffective response to support children with this issue. Children and young people reported to inspectors that this behaviour had become normalised in their schools.

In one positive example, a group of girls raised issues with the headteacher after the Sarah Everard case about the normalisation of harmful sexual behaviour, which they felt needed to be addressed. Leaders updated the RSHE curriculum following this. The girls reported that, since this intervention, there had been a reduction in unwanted sexual language. The boys in this school also said they appreciated the changes to the curriculum and would like more time to discuss these kind of issues as they are so important.

Recent government advice for those in education on how to tackle the sharing of nudes and semi-nudes talks specifically about how individual case management impacts on school-wide culture: [footnote 53]

Individual incidents of peer abuse and sexual behaviour (the sharing of nudes and semi-nudes can fall under this category) can lead to unhealthy or damaging cultures within the school community. How these incidents – including incidents of ‘low level’ harmful sexual behaviour – are responded to directly affects the culture of the school. If handled poorly, an unsafe and unhealthy set of norms can be created which enable peer-on-peer abuse and this can also prevent other children and young people from disclosing. It must be recognised that the individual case management can affect school-wide culture, peer response and all children’s ability to speak out.

The government’s expectation of schools and colleges and how they should respond to all forms of sexual harassment and violence is clearly set out in advice and guidance. [footnote 54] Ofsted has also previously written about peer-on-peer abuse and how education providers should respond. [footnote 55]

It is a concern that this review has identified that many instances of sexual harassment, including the pressure to share nudes and the sharing of youth-produced sexual imagery without consent, are going unrecognised or unchallenged by school staff. We are especially concerned that for some children and young people this is so commonplace that they see no point in raising it as a concern with staff.

How schools perceive their responsibility in the context of sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online sexual abuse

Schools are in a difficult position when it comes to navigating responsibility and subsequent decisions when there is an incident of harmful sexual behaviour that occurs between peers outside school. When they are made aware of incidents, schools have a duty to inform multi-agency partners and work with them to prevent further abuse and ensure that children and young people are safe. In the schools we visited, it was clear that schools were following the guidance in this respect.

However, some leaders talked to us about how hard it is to take decisions when investigations are ongoing over a significant period of time or when the police do not have the basis to act. They reported feeling left with difficult decisions to make, such as whether to separate the peers when criminal investigations did not lead to a prosecution or conviction.

Leaders in some schools said they were unclear about the scope of their safeguarding responsibilities and about how and when they could intervene. They reported some of the challenges they faced as:

supporting children and young people to trust professionals enough to talk about harmful sexual behaviour that happened outside school

parents’ lack of understanding about what their children were doing outside school

their ability to protect children and young people outside school, for example when parties take place with parents’ consent and incidents happen there

the role of exclusion when there has been a serious incident of sexual violence and how this intersects with any criminal investigation and action (some leaders say that this has caused them great anxiety and further guidance on it would be welcome)

how they could help children and young people to be safe when using rapidly changing social media outside school

While recognising these challenges, it is interesting to note the different approaches of some school leaders. Clearly, if children are at risk, whether within or outside the school gates, schools have a responsibility to work with multi-agency partners to share information where appropriate and refer children on for support and protection. However, it is important to note that, while sometimes multi-agency work may continue, the ‘aftermath’ of any investigation is often left with school leaders, who have little guidance to support their decision-making. Some leaders also talked about how difficult it was to make effective decisions when police and other lengthy multi-agency investigations were ongoing.

In-school approaches to address sexual harassment and violence

In the schools we visited, leaders told us that they used a wide variety of sanctions for perpetrators of sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online sexual abuse. They intended these to be proportionate and to take account of individual circumstances. Examples included fixed-term exclusions, detentions, internal referrals and removal of privileges. Schools also included parents and carers as part of any response. Some children and young people were moved permanently to a different class or form. Some leaders said they found it more difficult to issue sanctions for incidents taking place outside school than inside school because they consider that their behaviour policy does not apply to these incidents.

Some children and young people, particularly girls, believe that sanctions are often not tough enough or that the wrong person is sanctioned. In one school, for example, girls felt that boys who pressured others to send ‘nudes’ were punished less than the girls who sent the images. In another, girls felt that the lack of severe sanctions meant that the harmful sexual behaviour continued. This suggests that, in some schools, the threat of being caught and punished is a much weaker influence on behaviour than an underlying culture where sexual harassment and online sexual abuse can thrive. In some schools, inspectors noted that children and young people did not seem to know enough about the range of sanctions that could be used and that this seemed to affect children and young people’s willingness to talk to adults about sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online sexual abuse.

In addition to sanctions, many schools told us that they offered support to the victim and the perpetrator to prevent future incidents and tackle any underlying causes of harmful sexual behaviour. This included counselling, pastoral support, educative approaches and the involvement of families, social care and external agencies, such as child and adolescent mental health services and specialist services. Many schools recognised the importance of family involvement and the need to support parents and carers. In some schools, leaders said they would appreciate more support services for perpetrators of harmful sexual behaviour, especially at an early stage, when inappropriate and problematic behaviours are first identified.

The extent to which leaders evaluate whether sanctions and/or interventions are effective varies, as does the evidence of ongoing monitoring of children and young people who have perpetrated harmful sexual behaviour. For example, in one school, records state that perpetrators should have received education following an incident. But there was no evidence that this happened or what the content was. In other schools, leaders reported checking regularly with victims and perpetrators to ensure that support systems were having the desired effect.

Staff training and development

Most staff receive annual safeguarding training, which includes updates on ‘Keeping children safe in education’. This training aims to ensure that staff understand the latest guidance, and there were examples where it included an understanding of different forms of harmful sexual behaviour.

In most schools we visited, leaders understood the continuum of harmful sexual behaviours, but not all of them appeared to have shared this understanding with all staff. For example, only a handful of schools had provided detailed training for staff on the continuum of harmful sexual behaviour and how to address the context behind incidents of harmful sexual behaviour, such as peer group dynamics or unsupervised spaces where poor behaviour occurred. Where this training was in place, it was part of a wider school ethos and long-term strategy for preventing abuse. Evidence from previous research indicates that this is the most effective way to tackle sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online. [footnote 56]

Most staff training on harmful sexual behaviours tended to be piecemeal. This was often because it was incorporated into training on other important aspects of safeguarding. For example, in one school, information on peer-on-peer abuse was confined to one slide in a much longer presentation on safeguarding. In a few schools, there was no training on peer-on-peer sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online. These schools expected staff to read the guidance instead.

It is important that, in any school, governors have a good understanding of sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online, so that they can provide the right level of support and challenge for school leaders and DSLs . In just over a quarter of the schools we visited, inspectors reported that governors had some sort of safeguarding training, although it was not always clear that this included specific training on harmful sexual behaviour. Evidence indicates that there are gaps in governors’ knowledge of online safety issues in particular. [footnote 57] Around a quarter of the schools we visited had a specific safeguarding governor, and some of those met regularly with the DSL . In around a third of the schools, inspectors highlighted that governors are involved in reviewing incidents, safeguarding logs, behaviour logs or procedures related to harmful sexual behaviour. This could be to help identify wider patterns, or to check that school policies and procedures have been adhered to. Our visits indicate that governors could receive better training and be more involved in tackling harmful sexual behaviours.

Training and development for DSLs

Being a DSL requires regular training and additional support to help with the emotional impact of the role and the expertise that is required. In some schools, we saw good practice. DSLs were engaging fully with the LSPs and forming support networks locally with other DSLs . They had protected time on timetables, opportunities for supervision and regular training from LSPs . However, some DSLs talked about a lack of high-level training at LSP level in how to address, manage and follow up on allegations of a serious sexual nature.

Some DSLs said it was hard to keep up with guidance, and that publishing updates before the summer holidays instead of September would allow them to plan staff inset days in September accordingly. The Home Office’s ‘Tackling child sexual abuse strategy’ includes a commitment from the DfE to provide high-quality resources on addressing child sexual abuse. [footnote 58] These will be held on a digital support platform for DSLs . Once released, this should help to upskill professionals and help with some of the training needs that DSLs identified.

Learning from incidents

Inspectors noted there were inconsistencies in how staff were defining and recording instances of sexual abuse, including recording of discussions with multi-agency partners and the outcome of referrals. Without an agreed and shared system of recording, schools are limiting their ability to track and monitor concerns and appropriately plan their response to sexual harassment and violence in order to reduce risk. Some schools had systems in place for recording incidents, but they did not all then analyse the data and information to identify any patterns or trends that could inform their response.

A few schools had enhanced systems in place to record concerns and track patterns of behaviour. These, together with systems to gather information about pupils’ concerns, for example through surveys, gave schools a better understanding and oversight of issues. DSLs were able to build a better picture of low-level changes in behaviour or incidents that may indicate a response is required, either at pupil, peer group or school level, instead of just referring on to multi-agency partners. These schools used the RSHE curriculum and assemblies, for example, to address concerning patterns of behaviour.

How are schools successfully delivering the new RSHE curriculum and how can they be supported further?

The terms of reference of this review asked us to consider the new RSHE curriculum. However, the disruption of the last year means that schools’ ability to plan and deliver the new curriculum will have been significantly affected. Most children and young people talked about their previous experience of RSHE and PSHE , which we know does not necessarily address how the curriculum will support them in future. Where we can, we point to how schools and colleges are implementing the new RSHE curriculum and where they can be supported further. The DfE ’s research into schools that adopted the RSHE curriculum early also provides insights. [footnote 59] We recognise that RSHE is just one part of a whole-school approach to tackling sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online. Other factors, and the role of parents, are also vital.

Our visits identified a number of issues that meant that children and young people were not getting the quality of education in this subject that they should be. These included weak implementation of RSHE , poor teacher subject knowledge, and significant gaps in curriculum coverage. The children and young people we spoke to were seldom positive about their RSHE and PSHE lessons. They felt that the quality of the input varied according to who was teaching them and that the lessons were not relevant to their daily experiences and the reality of their lives. Some teachers also talked about not feeling prepared to teach outside their subject specialism and receiving resources too late to prepare for sessions.

In half of the schools visited, leaders had developed an RSHE curriculum. This commonly involved expertise from a trained RSHE / PSHE lead in planning and organising the curriculum. Inspectors viewed detailed planning in these schools that showed clear examples of a strong curriculum narrative. Emphasis was placed on the importance of respect and prioritised teaching about consent and healthy relationships. Concepts were generally sequenced and interwoven in an ‘age and stage’ manner, allowing for content to be revisited and built on in further depth at appropriate points in children and young people’s learning. Many leaders spoke knowledgeably about the content of their RSHE curriculum.

However, inspectors also noted that in many of these schools, despite a well-planned curriculum, there were often constraints in place that impacted on its implementation. Similar to our findings in other subjects, [footnote 60] some of the main weaknesses in the delivery of RSHE were linked to the lack of subject knowledge that teachers had on topics like consent, healthy relationships and sharing of sexual images.

In a few schools, planning was almost non-existent. Leaders did not value the importance of the subject. In others, leaders were confident in the delivery of some areas of PSHE , such as cyber-bullying and respecting differences, but were less assured when it came to including relationships and sex education. This meant that, in many of these schools, teachers were not teaching about consent, healthy relationships and the use of sexual imagery. These findings reflect the picture from our last PSHE subject survey. [footnote 61] In that report, we found some schools focused on the mechanics of reproduction and not enough on understanding healthy sexual relationships.

In a few schools, teaching about sexual relationships was covered in science or, in faith schools, religious education lessons, but this did not commonly address same-sex relationships. Some children and young people noted that RSHE lessons were not inclusive enough and only focused on heterosexual relationships. In a few schools, planning was piecemeal. Inspectors found that these schools treated it as a tick-box process to ensure that some coverage was provided over all the statutory requirements. It is a concern that in a few schools, children and young people told us that they had learned more about sexuality ‘from social media than from school’ or had got their education about relationships from their peers and social media.

In around half of the schools, teachers, who were often expected to deliver content through tutorial time, had not received any formal training on RSHE . Several teachers reported that resources for the lesson were sent late, sometimes too late for them to look through fully before having to teach the lesson. Others expressed resentment that they had to teach relationships and sex education beyond their own subject specialism. As children and young people from the focus groups suggested:

It’s like a task that teachers have to do, they don’t take it seriously, so it’s not a good environment to learn about it. How can any of us take it seriously if they don’t? You can tell they don’t want to do the PowerPoint. It’s always stuff we’ve done before anyway.

This meant they were less keen to discuss sensitive issues and speak to them about sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online. They were unsure what the reactions of less confident teachers would be.

Many leaders confirmed that staff were generally not very confident to deliver the curriculum in areas related to sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online. On this basis, there was in-school variation in the consistency of how RSHE was delivered. Children and young people from the same schools reported both positive and negative experiences, depending on teachers’ level of subject knowledge and confidence. These findings indicate that additional resources to support non-subject specialists to teach RSHE would be beneficial for schools to help them successfully implement the new RSHE curriculum.

In some schools, leaders did not regularly or systematically check on the effectiveness and impact of teaching. This meant they were unaware that some staff lacked knowledge or confidence in delivering content. Leaders also did not seek feedback from children and young people. This left them unaware that children and young people were not getting the rich discussion required to fully understand complex concepts, such as consent.

In some of the schools with a more secure curriculum plan, leaders tended to alleviate this variation in teachers’ expertise by allocating discrete curriculum time to RSHE , rather than delivering it through a class tutor system. Leaders in these schools had carefully considered which staff should deliver the RSHE curriculum and provided appropriate training, rather than placing expectations on all staff. They also invited trusted external speakers with specialist knowledge to talk to children and young people and delivered aspects of the curriculum through assemblies. However, some mentioned that aligning speakers’ availability with the curriculum was tricky. One school also used external speakers to hold remote sessions on aspects of the RSHE curriculum for parents, carers and their children.

Some leaders told us that finding space in the timetable for RSHE was problematic. The actual hours set aside for it were sometimes minimal and did not meet the requirements set out in the curriculum plan to teach content fully. Therefore, teachers and tutors often struggled to cover the curriculum in the detail in which it had been planned. Several children and young people also identified that the time planned for RSHE was not always valued, particularly by some teachers, and was often ‘taken for other things’. This was particularly the case for older children and young people who had other pressures, such as revision or catch-up interventions.

Children and young people were generally concerned that the curriculum did not take account of their level of maturity. They felt that they could deal with more challenging content than teachers realised. This was particularly raised as an issue in the teaching of issues around consent. Older children and young people accepted that teaching about consent through analogies made sense in younger years. But this became jarring and patronising for them when the same or similar content was repeated in their later years of school. Some said that the popular ‘cup of tea’ consent video could only go so far.

Year 6 pupils we spoke to had a good understanding of friendships and relationships. However, in one faith school, the Year 6 children said they were taught about being a good friend in an indirect way (through religious teachings) and would value something more direct.

When planning the RSHE curriculum, it is essential that schools work closely with parents and carers to talk them through areas covered, address any gaps in their understanding and equip them with the confidence to be able to have open discussions with their children. Research indicates that there is a particular gap in parents’ understanding of issues around online sexual abuse. Many parents are interested in learning more about the issue through schools and online resources. They also want more support in understanding how to talk about these issues with their children. [footnote 62]

How well are multi-agency safeguarding arrangements working?

We held discussions with 12 LSPs to seek their views on how well multi-agency safeguarding arrangements to tackle sexual harassment and violence were working between LSPs , schools and colleges. We did not review the work of the LSPs as part of this thematic review. This section reflects their views, alongside the views of school and college leaders.

Some LSPs we spoke to took a strategic approach to tackling sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online. For some, this was part of wider work on peer-on-peer abuse and extra-familial safeguarding. These LSPs reported that they had been working closely with schools and colleges to collate and analyse data on sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online. They could speak fluently about the experiences of children and young people, ranging from criminal cases to sexual harassment. They reported working closely with schools and colleges through the multi-agency audits and had systems in place to understand children and young people’s experiences. They were aware that some of these issues were so common that may become somewhat normalised, a view that was also supported by the victims’ groups we spoke to.

However, not all LSPs took this approach. A small number of LSPs told us that sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online, in schools and colleges were not significant problems for children and young people in their area. It was not clear whether this was because a clear assessment had been made or because they were underestimating the problems. Given what children and young people have told us about the prevalence of sexual harassment and online sexual abuse in their lives, it is likely to be the latter.

We were presented with a mixed picture of partnership working from schools, colleges and LSPs . There were examples of LSPs reporting effective engagement with a range of schools and colleges, including local authority, academy, independent and faith schools. But this was not the case in all areas. LSPs told us that some schools and colleges do not always engage as fully with them as they are required to as a ‘relevant agency’. For example, LSPs reported that independent schools may commission outside training rather than accessing partnership training, which makes it hard for them to know and understand what is being delivered in these schools and harder for the schools to link into an early help offer. Some LSPs also reported that independent schools may be less likely to complete audits commissioned by the LSP . They described this as a ‘significant barrier’ to their ability to have oversight of safeguarding practices in these schools, and to provide support where it is needed. However, some LSPs did report effective working relationships with independent schools as a result of proactive and persistent strategic partnership arrangements.

Some schools and colleges have reported to us, in previous inspections and as part of these visits, that they struggle to engage with LSPs and get the support they need. This may be why some are choosing to commission training elsewhere. One DSL at an independent single-sex school we spoke to also emphasised that while a network of other DSLs in the LSP was helpful more broadly, it was particularly useful to be part of a network of DSLs from other corresponding single-sex independent schools in the local area to help identify patterns and trends of behaviour and intervene early.

In the current guidance, once the LSP names a school or college as a ‘relevant agency’, that places the school or college under a duty to cooperate with the LSP arrangements. However, some LSPs raised concerns that changes to ‘Working together to safeguard children’ did not make clear how the engagement of schools and colleges as ‘relevant agencies’ should work in practice. They were concerned that leaving LSPs to reach their own conclusions on how best locally to engage individual institutions was too vague. Therefore, the wording in the statutory guidance could be made more explicit so that it clearly outlines the relationship between LSPs and schools and colleges, and their individual responsibilities.

Both LSPs and some DSLs said that centralised training for DSLs from LSPs was useful. They used this training to then train others in schools and colleges on how to identify and address sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online. They also identified training and meetings as being routes for helping schools/colleges to develop a preventative approach. LSPs also highlighted the importance of DSLs having enough time and support from school and college leaders to enable them to engage in partnership planning, training and meetings.

Where arrangements were working well, LSPs found that they provide a forum for the sharing of information, such as patterns and trends in emerging local risks to children and young people. This can then inform clear preventative approaches within individual schools and colleges that take account of local risks. Some of the schools and colleges we spoke to also talked about how helpful their LSP and local authority were, not just for helping with specific cases, but also for the training and networks they provided.

However, some school and college leaders told us it was a challenge for them to access the right information or support from multi-agency partners as it can vary across local authorities. Some also mentioned the difficulties of having different thresholds across different areas. This becomes a particular challenge when their school or college population comes from a wide area, such as schools in London, independent schools and some faith schools. LSPs also recognised that it was important that schools and colleges had clear support from them on how to manage sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online. They recognised that it was their responsibility to ensure that school and college leaders are supported to understand local thresholds and pathways for referral into services.

Inspection is a critical lever in the accountability system. It provides a ‘point in time’ snapshot of an education provider, including its approach to tackling sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online. Inspection evidence can be aggregated to provide insights at a system level and to influence behaviour. While it provides broad assurance, the inspection model is not designed or resourced to investigate or address specific incidents in schools and colleges. If the government wishes to support schools to develop their approach to tackling sexual harassment and violence, it will need to employ a range of approaches, of which inspection is just one.

Statutory guidance sets clear expectations for schools and colleges to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and young people. Generally, school and college leaders tell us that the guidance is clear, although they would appreciate all guidance being in one easily accessible place and updates to be made in good time before the school year starts so they can plan training accordingly. The phrasing in ‘Working together to safeguard children’ could also be updated to explicitly state that all types of schools and colleges are expected to be one of the ‘relevant agencies’ that LSPs need to engage with and that multi-agency audits should be completed regularly.

There is a gap in guidance for how schools and colleges should respond when there are lengthy investigations or no prosecution or conviction. Some school and college leaders also want clearer guidance on where their responsibilities start and end, for example with incidents of harmful sexual behaviour that happen outside school. Developing clearer guidance in this area would help school and college leaders assure parents, children and young people that they are making decisions in their best interests and in line with guidance.

To assess whether the current safeguarding framework and guidance for Ofsted and ISI inspectors were strong enough, we carried out an internal review of:

both inspection frameworks and Ofsted’s schools and further education and skills inspection handbooks

evidence bases gathered on inspection of 108 schools and colleges, including state-funded schools, independent non-association schools that Ofsted inspects and independent schools that ISI inspects

safeguarding guidance and training for inspectors of both inspectorates, with a particular focus on peer-on-peer harmful sexual behaviour

We also reviewed our previous handling of complaints about schools and colleges that focused on peer-on-peer sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online. This included complaints about the non-association independent schools that we inspect. You can find further details of this internal review in the methodology .

ISI also carried out a similar review of complaints it has received that focused on sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online, which it shared with the review team.

Frameworks, handbooks, guidance and training

The review looked at our ‘Inspecting safeguarding’ guidance, which covers early years, education and skills settings. [footnote 63] It found that this clearly outlines how inspectors should inspect how well schools and colleges respond to peer-on-peer abuse, such as sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online. Since the introduction of the education inspection framework ( EIF ) in September 2019, the school inspection handbook has also made specific reference to peer-on-peer abuse. All inspectors were trained on how to consider such abuse during inspection earlier that year. The handbook was updated recently to reflect the government’s changes to guidance on RSHE . All school inspectors have received mandatory training on what this means for inspection practice.

However, the review also found that, although Ofsted’s education inspectors are trained using ‘Inspecting safeguarding’, the further education and skills inspection handbook does not specifically refer to sexual violence and sexual harassment, including online. We will therefore update it to include this.

ISI inspects independent schools’ compliance with The Independent School Standards Regulations. [footnote 64] ISI reports on the extent to which the independent school standards are being met. The ISI inspection framework provides for 2 types of routine inspection: regulatory compliance only or educational quality with focused compliance. Both inspection types always consider whether the school meets the expected independent school standards in welfare, health and safety. These standards include whether a school is meeting the statutory standards, which includes safeguarding expectations as set out by the government. Although the independent school standards do not make explicit reference to peer-on-peer sexual violence and harassment, they require the school’s leaders to actively promote the well-being of the pupils. Leaders must also follow all statutory guidance relating to safeguarding, which includes peer-on-peer abuse. When inspecting compliance with the relevant standards, ISI inspectors record whether the school’s safeguarding policy sets out its response to peer-on-peer abuse and whether it includes procedures to minimise the risk of peer-on-peer abuse.

In the visits we did as part of this review, inspectors found that talking to single-sex groups was an effective way to gather evidence about sexual harassment and violence. Therefore, both Ofsted and ISI will make it explicit to inspectors that they should do this during future inspections wherever possible. This will help inspectors to understand how a school’s or college’s approach to tackling sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online, is working.

The review of Ofsted’s training showed that all school and further education and skills inspectors were trained in 2018 and 2019 on peer-on-peer abuse. This included sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online. The training is covered in different modules for education and social care inspectors. For example, further education and skills inspectors do not complete the same training as school inspectors.

ISI provided Ofsted with a chronology of training since 2017. It also showed us examples of its inspector training materials relating to safeguarding and peer-on-peer abuse. Most training was mandatory. Some was optional, such as a workshop on peer-on-peer abuse delivered at a conference held for all ISI inspectors in January 2019. Training materials referenced government statutory guidance on safeguarding, including guidance relating to peer-on-peer abuse, sexual harassment and violence. ISI reported that it held follow-up discussions to make sure that inspectors understood the implications for inspection activity.

For 2021/22 and beyond, Ofsted and ISI will work together to produce and jointly deliver further training on inspecting safeguarding in education settings. This will include issues of peer-on-peer abuse.

State-funded and independent schools and colleges have to implement statutory guidance. This should ensure that they have a common approach to safeguarding, including peer-on-peer abuse. Ofsted and ISI will continue to work together to prioritise a consistent standard of inspection practice in this area.

Previous inspections

We reviewed the evidence bases for 93 inspections under Ofsted’s EIF . The inspections all took place between September 2019 and March 2020, when routine inspections were suspended due to the pandemic.

The review found that evidence bases demonstrated that inspectors have a good knowledge of ‘Keeping children safe in education’. They use this knowledge to determine the questions they will ask on inspection. Scrutiny of inspection evidence found that inspectors had explored children and young people’s experiences of sexting and upskirting, and what school and college staff had done in response.

Following notification of a school inspection, school leaders are asked to present their records and analysis of sexual violence and sexual harassment, including online, in school by 8am on the first day of the inspection. This is set out as a requirement in our school inspection handbook.

In September 2019, when this requirement was brought in, we expected to see a substantial flow of evidence about these issues, given that there was already considerable information about their prevalence in schools. In fact, this has not been the case. It is surprising that, in the inspections we looked at for the review, only 6% of schools gave evidence of sexual violence and sexual harassment, including online, in response to the request. Forty-six per cent of the schools provided a nil return. These figures may reflect the gap between staff’s and children and young people’s knowledge and perceptions, as discussed earlier. The remaining 48% of schools neither provided information nor a statement that there was no relevant information. In most of the inspections where no information was provided, inspectors did not record how they followed up with leaders to determine whether a nil return was an accurate picture.

As a result, we cannot yet say that EIF inspections are sufficiently assessing the extent and nature of sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online, between peers in schools. We will mandate that, in future, inspectors should follow up and record schools’ responses to the request. We will quality assure future evidence bases to make sure that this happens. We will also reiterate this through inspector training.

The requirement for leaders to provide records and analysis of sexual violence and sexual harassment, including online, is not currently in our further education and skills inspection handbook. We will amend this. In future, on notification of college inspections, leaders will be asked to supply this information to inspectors. Inspectors will also be mandated to follow this up with college leaders. ISI will also ask for this information from schools on notification.

The review also found that inspectors seek evidence from a variety of sources to triangulate their findings about safeguarding. For example, they speak to staff, children and young people, governors, senior leaders, support staff and external colleagues such as local authority representatives. When a safeguarding issue emerges on inspection, they follow it up.

Furthermore, the scrutiny of Ofsted inspection evidence shows that when inspectors have focused on the PSHE curriculum (known as a ‘deep dive’) in EIF inspections, they examine relationships and sex education very effectively. However, unless there is a deep dive into PSHE , there is little time on inspection to look closely at a school’s or college’s approach to creating a culture of safeguarding around peer-on-peer sexual harassment and violence. Inspection resource constraints limit the number of deep dives to 3 or 4 per inspection. Ofsted’s inspectors cover a sample of curriculum areas rather than every subject in depth. It is therefore not possible to review PSHE fully on every inspection.

We also reviewed 15 evidence bases of ISI inspections. We found that they included appropriate consideration and clear evaluation of how well schools managed their procedures and policies related to safeguarding and handling complaints. The review also found careful pre-inspection planning and appropriate recording of evidence in relation to the independent school standards. However, the inspection evidence did not always identify how the curriculum developed children and young people’s understanding of acceptable and unacceptable behaviours. It also did not always show how inspectors cross-referenced leaders’ and pupils’ views with other evidence, such as record-keeping. In a few evidence bases, inspectors appeared to give weight to the views of leaders, who responded that reporting systems and effective pastoral care were in place, rather than to those of pupils, where a significant minority had concerns.

Handling of complaints about schools that refer to peer-on-peer sexual harassment and violence

A review of Ofsted’s handling of complaints about schools we inspect found that they are dealt with comprehensively. We also review annually how we handle them. All complaints about independent schools were referred on to the DfE , and those about colleges to ESFA . When a complaint about a school or college refers to sexual abuse, we may notify the local authority for a maintained school or ESFA for an academy, free school or college. We may also inspect immediately or use the information to inform the school’s or college’s next routine inspection.

When ISI receives complaints about the schools it inspects, it currently refers to the DfE only those that relate to the independent school standards. ISI has told us that all complaints about sexual abuse are referred to the DfE . ISI has recently reviewed its policy and from September 2021, all complaints (whether they refer to the independent school standards or not) will be referred to the DfE .

The DfE , in collaboration with ESFA , Ofsted and ISI , may wish to review how complaints are handled.

As a result of this review, both Ofsted and ISI will update training and inspection handbooks where necessary. This will strengthen inspectors’ ability to inspect how schools and colleges are tackling peer-on-peer sexual harassment and sexual violence, including online.

This rapid thematic review has revealed how prevalent sexual harassment and online sexual abuse are for children and young people. It is concerning that for some children, incidents are so commonplace that they see no point in reporting them. This review did not analyse whether the issues are more or less prevalent for different groups of young people, and there may well be differences, but it found that the issues are so widespread that they need addressing for all children and young people. It recommends that schools, colleges and multi-agency partners act as though sexual harassment and online sexual abuse are happening, even when there are no specific reports.

Methodology

This review has a limited scope, constrained both by the terms of reference given to Ofsted by government and also the time constraints. The findings from our visits are not fully representative of schools or colleges across England.

Our sample sizes are also not big enough to draw any conclusions about the protection of children from minority ethnic groups or those with special educational needs and/or disabilities ( SEND ). Reporting of sexual abuse by these children is thought to be even less common. Further research into the prevalence, experiences and outcomes for these children is crucial.

Visits to schools and colleges

We carried out 32 2-day visits to schools and colleges in April and May 2021. The inspection team had at least one female inspector as part of each visit. ISI inspectors shadowed Ofsted’s inspectors on 13 visits. Before the visits, both ISI and Ofsted inspectors received 2 days of refresher safeguarding training with a specific focus on peer-on-peer sexual harassment and violence.

In selecting the research sample, we sought to include some schools where concerns have been reported. We identified these through complaints made to Ofsted or the publicly available Everyone’s Invited testimonials. We also included others to provide a more balanced cross-section of school/provider types. We sought to ensure a mix of independent and state-funded schools, as well as covering different geographical locations. Given the focus on adequacy of current inspection models, the sample was also weighted in favour of schools/colleges inspected since September 2019. The overall small sample size does not make it possible to compare and contrast different types of schools. But it gives confidence that where we saw patterns of behaviours or experience, they were not limited to one particular type.

The sample included:

14 state-funded schools

14 ISI -inspected independent schools

2 Ofsted-inspected independent schools

2 FE colleges

The majority of the schools were secondary schools or all-through schools. Two were state-funded primary schools.

In one visit, we identified serious safeguarding failures. Inspectors ended the visit and we carried out an initial inspection under section 8 (‘no formal designation’). This led to a full inspection. Findings from the early part of the visit are used in this report.

Focus groups with children and young people

In the visits, we held up to 4 focus groups with children and young people on each visit. These lasted for 45 minutes. In total, we had over 125 focus groups with approximately 900 children and young people participating. Parents were given an ‘opt out’ letter if they did not want their child to take part. Inspectors also gave children and young people the option not to take part on the day. Leaders highlighted where it would not be appropriate for us to talk to children and young people due to ongoing investigations or additional context. Inspectors spoke to the children and young people in single-sex, same-age groups. Where there was an existing LGBT+ pupil group, we asked whether members would like to speak to us. We made time to do so where they agreed.

Activities that inspectors led children and young people through in the focus groups included the following:

colouring in/marking areas on a map of their school according to how safe/unsafe parts of the school were, discussing this among the group as they did so

answering a short questionnaire about the prevalence of sexual abuse among their peers and who they would speak to, if anyone, if they were the victim of abuse or harassment (we did this with those in Year 9 and above only)

choosing from 4 scenarios to use to talk hypothetically about what might be said/done among their peer group in different situations, as well as who they might speak to/tell

explaining what they are taught in school/college about relationships and sex and whether they thought it was enough/well taught

Inspectors summarised the conversations from each focus group and collated the questionnaires, both of which were analysed by the research team.

Discussions with school and college staff

As part of each visit, inspectors spoke to:

the headteacher/principal

the behaviour lead

the lead for PSHE and/or RSHE

2 groups of staff

Inspectors looked at records of sexual harassment and sexual abuse; behaviour records; policies for safeguarding, behaviour, equal opportunities and staff conduct; and the policy and curriculum documentation for PSHE and RSHE .

Inspectors collated all the evidence from each visit, which was analysed by the research team.

Focus groups with multi-agency partners

From our list of 32 schools and colleges, we identified 12 LSPs with whom we held 45-minute focus groups. Each group had a representative from children’s social care, the police and health partners. The discussions were framed around the terms of reference for the review covering the 2 multi-agency safeguarding questions, from the partners’ perspectives:

How well are safeguarding guidance and processes understood and working between schools, colleges and LSPs ?

Does working between schools, colleges and LSPs , including local authority children’s social care, the police, health services and other support, need to be strengthened?

The information from these focus groups was analysed by the research team and triangulated with the perspectives from schools themselves.

Victim/survivor focus groups

Ten individuals from 6 organisations spoke to Ofsted to share their experiences and views from a survivor/victim perspective.

Everyone’s Invited testimonies

As of 6 April 2021, there were 2,340 testimonies publicly available on the Everyone’s Invited website. We extracted this text using web scraping.

Our text analysis then focused on the 2,030 testimonies thought to relate to young people of school or further education age in England. For example, we excluded testimonies that referred to universities or to other countries. The testimonies were analysed using computer-based learning techniques, including key-word searches and topic modelling. This was complemented by textual analysis of 250 random testimonies, which were read in full.

Data from these was recorded, including:

• what the incident was
• where it happened
• the characteristics of the victim and their relationship to the perpetrator
• the response to the incident
• the incident’s impact on the victim

The intention of this analysis was to identify common themes and build a broad picture of the experiences young people are reporting.

Ofsted and ISI complaints

Between September 2019 and March 2021, Ofsted received 291 complaints against schools and colleges about peer-on-peer sexual abuse. All were logged as safeguarding concerns.

In order for Ofsted to consider a complaint against a school as a ‘qualifying complaint’, it must meet certain legislative requirements:

• it must be made in writing
• it must not be a prescribed exception (that is, a concern for which another statutory agency has responsibility for handling)
• it must be a prescribed description (leadership and management, standards of education being achieved, quality of education, how far the education meets the needs of pupils, social, spiritual, moral and cultural development and well-being of pupils)
• it must have been through the local complaints routes

For this report, we reviewed 16 complaints that we chose to meet the following criteria:

they contained an element of alleged sexual abuse, harassment or violence

they came from all Ofsted regions

they involved maintained schools and academies, pupil referral units ( PRUs ), independent schools and colleges

they allowed us to sample complaints about child serious incident notifications, local contextual information, qualifying and non-qualifying complaints and 11A investigations

they were retained for the next inspection, resulted in inspections being brought forward or resulted in a no formal designation inspection under section 8

Between September 2019 and March 2021, ISI reports that it received 37 complaints against schools about peer-on-peer sexual abuse and that all were logged as safeguarding concerns and referred to the DfE .

Review of inspection evidence bases

Ofsted reviewed 93 evidence bases, the majority of which were from inspections carried out between September 2019 and March 2020. This covers the period when the EIF was in place and pauses when routine EIF inspection activity ceased. Another 16 evidence bases from Ofsted-inspected residential special schools and boarding schools were also reviewed. We sampled evidence bases from across all 8 Ofsted regions. We included those from inspections of primary, secondary and special schools and PRUs . Within this sample, there were 30 independent school inspections, 20 emergency inspections and 10 standard inspections.

Ofsted also reviewed ISI evidence bases from 15 inspections that took place between October 2018 and December 2020.

Literature review

The literature that fed into this report covered a broad range of topics, including:

statistics of child peer-on-peer sexual harassment and violence, including the prevalence for children with protected characteristics or from different socio-economic backgrounds, such as LGBT+ or minority ethnic children and young people

definitions of child sexual abuse, including peer-on-peer sexual harassment and violence

barriers that prevent children and young people talking about abuse and good practice

online sexual abuse

pornography

preventative measures in schools

Parent focus groups

Ofsted carried out one focus group with state-school parents and another with independent school parents. The number of parents participating was too small to draw conclusions but we used their comments as part of the wider evidence base for this report.

List of stakeholders we spoke to as part of the review

Reference group members.

Chief Constable Simon Bailey (NPCC lead on child protection)

Geoff Barton (Association of School and College Leaders)

Tom Bennett ( DfE behaviour advisor)

Professor Chris Bonell (Faculty of Public Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)

Dame Rachel de Souza (Children’s Commissioner)

Hilary Garratt (Deputy Chief Nursing Officer for England, NHS)

Sarah Hannafin/James Bowen (National Association of Head Teachers)

David Hughes (Association of Colleges)

John Jolly (ParentKind)

Ian Keating (Local Government Association)

Julia Lagoutte/Rowan Davies (Mumsnet)

Michele Lawrence/Wendy Nicholson (Public Health England)

Charlotte Ramsden (Association of Directors of Children’s Services) Julie Robinson (Independent Schools Council)

Andrea Simon/ Denise Ugur (End Violence Against Women Coalition)

Russell Viner (Professor in Adolescent Health, University College London and former President, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health)

Peter Wanless (NSPCC)

Vanessa Ward ( ISI )

Other stakeholders

DfE ministers

Officials from DfE , No 10 and Home Office

Dame Vera Baird (Victims’ Commissioner)

Dan Bell (Men and Boys Coalition)

Mary Bousted (National Education Union)

Leora Cruddas/ Steve Rollett (Confederation of School Trusts)

Helen Earner (Charity Commission)

Anna Glinski (Centre for Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse)

Jonny Gutteridge (Male Survivors Trust)

Amelia Handy (Rape Crisis England)

Emma Hardy MP

Nicole Jacobs (Domestic Abuse Commissioner)

Emma James (Barnardo’s)

Dr Jenny Lloyd (University of Bedfordshire)

Amy Norton (Office for Students)

Jess Phillips MP

Patrick Roach (National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers)

Soma Sara/ Wendy Mair (Everyone’s Invited)

Wes Streeting MP

Gail Tolley (London Borough of Brent)

Colin Walker (Safeline)

Bibliography

AR Beech, IA Elliott, A Birgden and D Findlater, ‘The internet and child sexual offending: a criminological review’, in ‘Aggression and Violent Behavior’, Volume 13, Issue 3, 2008, pages 216 to 228.

AJ Darling, S Hackett and K Jamie, ‘Female sex offenders who abuse children whilst working in organisational contexts: offending, conviction and sentencing’, in ‘Journal of Sexual Aggression’, Volume 24, Issue 2, 2018, pages 195 to 213.

A Phippen and E Bond, ‘UK schools online safety policy & practice assessment 2020’ , SWGfL, February 2020.

A Phipps, J Ringrose, E Renold and Ca Jackson, ‘Rape culture, lad culture and everyday sexism: researching, conceptualizing and politicizing new mediations of gender and sexual violence’ , in ‘Journal of Gender Studies’, Volume 27, Issue 1, 2018, pages 1 to 8.

A Wood, ‘Sexuality and relationships education for people with Down syndrome’, in ‘Down Syndrome News and Update’, Volume 4, Issue 2, 2004, pages 42 to 51.

‘Action to end child sexual abuse and exploitation. A review of the evidence’ , UNICEF, 2020.

‘BBC Three survey - Porn: what’s the harm?’ , BBC, 10 April 2014.

‘BBFC research into children and pornography’ , British Board of Film Classification, September 2019.

‘Beyond referrals: levers for addressing harmful sexual behaviour in schools’ , Contextual Safeguarding Network, July 2020.

C Lemaigre, E Taylor and C Gittoes, ‘Barriers and facilitators to disclosing sexual abuse in childhood and adolescence: a systematic review’ , in ‘Child Abuse and Neglect’, Volume 70, 2017, pages 39 to 52.

C Ricardo, M Eads and G Barker, ‘Engaging boys and young men in the prevention of sexual violence: a systematic and global review of evaluated interventions’ , Sexual Violence Research Initiative, 2011.

C Smith and F Attwood, ‘Lamenting sexualization: research, rhetoric and the story of young people’s “sexualization” in the UK Home Office review’, in ‘Sex Education’, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2011, pages 327 to 337.

‘Child sexual abuse’ , Barnardo’s, 2021.

‘Child sexual abuse’ , Rape Abuse and Incest National Network, 2021.

‘Child sexual abuse in England and Wales: year ending March 2019’ , Office for National Statistics, January 2020.

‘Child sexual abuse in residential schools: a literature review independent inquiry into child sexual abuse’ , Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, November 2018.

‘Child sexual abuse in the context of schools’ , Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, December 2020.

‘County lines exploitation: applying “All Our Health”’ , Public Health England, February 2021.

‘County lines violence, exploitation and drug supply’ , National Crime Agency, November 2017.

‘COVID-19 series: briefing on local areas’ SEND provision’ , Ofsted, October 2020.

‘Curriculum for Wales guidance’ , Welsh Government, February 2020.

D Allnock and P Miller, ‘No one noticed, no one heard’ , NSPCC, 2013.

D Buckingham, R Willett, S Bragg and R Russell , ‘Sexualised goods aimed at children: a report to the Scottish parliament Equal Opportunities Committee’ , 2010.

D McNeish and S Scott, ‘Key messages from research on children and young people who display harmful sexual behaviour’ , Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, July 2018.

‘Digital romance’ , Brook and the National Crime Agency’s Child Exploitation and Online Protection Command, December 2017.

E Martellozzo, A Monaghan, JR Adler, J Davidson, R Leyva and MAH Horvath, ‘I wasn’t sure it was normal to watch tt…’ , NSPCC, 2016.

E Runarsdottir, E Smith and A Arnarsson1, ‘The effects of gender and family wealth on sexual abuse of adolescents’ , in ‘International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health’, Volume 16, Issue 10, 2019, article 1788.

E Rutger Leukfeldt, J Jansen and WP Stol, ‘Child pornography, the internet and juvenile suspects’, in ‘Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law’, Volume 36, Issue 1, 2014, pages 3 to 13.

F Attwood and C Smith, ‘Investigating young people’s sexual cultures: an introduction’, in ‘Sex Education’, Volume 11, Issue 3, 2011, pages 235 to 242.

F Briggs and R Hawkins, ‘Low socio-economic status children are disadvantaged in the provision of school-based child protection programmes’, in ‘British Journal of Social Work’, Volume 26, Issue 5, 1996, pages 667 to 678.

GT Mundakel, ‘What is the prevalence of physical and sexual abuse in patients with Down syndrome?’ , May 2020.

‘Girls’ attitudes survey 2018’ , Girlguiding UK, 2018.

‘Girls’ attitude survey 2020’ , Girlguiding UK, 2020.

‘Guidelines for medico-legal care for victims of sexual violence’ , World Health Organization, 2003.

H Baker, P Miller, E Starr, S Witcombe-Hayes and C Gwilym, ‘Let children know you’re listening’ , NSPCC, July 2019.

H Beckett, C Warrington and J Montgomery Devlin, ‘Learning about online sexual harm’ , Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, November 2019.

H Bentley, A Fellowes, S Glenister, N Mussen, H Ruschen, B Slater, M Turnbull, T Vine, P Wilson, S Witcombe-Hayes, S Allardyce, G Fairchild, C Hamilton-Giachritsis, J Lloyd, S Meader, ESetty and S Thomas, ‘How safe are our children?’ , NSPCC, 2020.

H Siddique, ‘Child sexual abuse in schools often an open secret, says inquiry’ in ‘The Guardian’, 17 December 2020.

‘Harmful sexual behaviour: statistics briefing’ , NSPCC, 2021.

‘Help after rape and sexual assault’ , NHS.

‘How remote education is working for children and young people with SEND ’ , Ofsted, March 2021.

‘How to report rape and sexual assault’ , The Metropolitan Police.

I Bryce and K Glasby, ‘Child sexual abuse in the context of disability’, in ‘Child sexual abuse: forensic issues in evidence, impact, and management’, edited by I Bryce and W Petherick, Elsevier Academic Press, 2020, pages 137 to 158.

‘Inspecting safeguarding in early years, education and skills’ , Ofsted, September 2019.

‘It’s just everywhere – sexism in schools’ , UK Feminista and National Education Union, January 2019.

J Krohn, ‘Sexual harassment, sexual assault, and students with special needs: crafting an effective response for schools’ , in ‘University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change’, Volume 17, Issue 29, 2014.

J Lloyd, J Walker and V Bradbury, ‘Harmful sexual behaviour in schools: a briefing on the findings, implications and resources for schools and multi-agency partners’ , University of Bedfordshire, June 2020.

J White, ‘Investigation into an allegation about Jimmy Savile at an unnamed children’s home in Bournemouth’, Bournemouth Borough Council, October 2014.

J Wigmore, ‘Recognising & acting on signs of “County lines” child exploitation: a case study’, Niche Health and Social Care Consulting Ltd, November 2018.

K Lampard and E Marsden, ‘Themes and lessons learnt from NHS investigations into matters relating to Jimmy Savile: independent report for the Secretary of State for Health’ , Department of Health and Social Care, February 2015.

‘Keeping children safe in education’ , Department for Education, January 2021.

L Clark, ‘The trouble with boys: what lies behind the flood of teenage sexual assault stories? Rape and sexual assault’ , in ‘The Guardian’, 27 February 2021.

L Jones, MA Bellis, S Wood, K Hughes, E McCoy, L Eckley, G Bates, C Mikton, T Shakespeare and A Officer, ‘Prevalence and risk of violence against children with disabilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies’ , in ‘The Lancet’, Volume 380, Issue 9845, 2012, pages 899 to 907.

L Papadopoulos, ‘Sexualisation of young people review’, Home Office, 2010.

L Radford, ‘Rapid evidence assessment: what can be learnt from other jurisdictions about preventing and responding to child sexual abuse’ , Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, 2017.

L Radford, S Corral, C Bradley, H Fisher, C Bassett, N Howat and S Collishaw, ‘Child abuse and neglect in the UK today’ , NSPCC, 2011.

L Sinko, M Munro-Kramer, T Conley and D Saint Arnault, ‘Internalized messages: the role of sexual violence normalization on meaning-making after campus sexual violence’, in ‘Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma’, Volume 30, Issue 5, 2021, pages 565 to 585.

‘Letting children be children’ , Department for Education, June 2011.

‘LGBTQ youth and sexual abuse: information for mental health professionals’, National Child Traumatic Stress Network Child Sexual Abuse Collaborative Group, 2014.

‘Longitudinal study of young people in England cohort 2, wave 1’ , Department for Education, November 2014.

‘Longitudinal study of young people in England cohort 2, wave 2’ , Department for Education, July 2016.

M Daher, ‘World report on violence and health’ , in ‘Journal Medical Libanais’, Volume 51, Issue 2, 2003, pages 59 to 63.

M Friedman, MP Marshal, TE Guadamuz, C Wei, CF Wong, E Saewyc and R Stall, ‘A meta-analysis of disparities in childhood sexual abuse, parental physical abuse, and peer victimization among sexual minority and sexual nonminority individuals’ , in ‘American Journal of Public Health’, Volume 101, Issue 8, 2011, pages 1481 to 1494.

M Hidalgo, LM Kuhns, S Kwon, B Mustanski and R Garofalo, ‘The impact of childhood gender expression on childhood sexual abuse and psychopathology among young men who have sex with men’, in ‘Child Abuse and Neglect’, Volume 46, 2015, pages 103 to 112.

ML Walters, J Chen and MJ Breiding, ‘The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orientation’, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, January 2013.

N Hillman, ‘Sex and relationships amongst students’ , Higher Education Policy Institute, April 2021.

‘New laws to protect victims added to Domestic Abuse Bill’ , Ministry of Justice, Home Office, The Rt Hon Robert Buckland QC MP and Victoria Atkins MP, March 2021.

‘Operation Hydrant Statistics’ , National Police Chiefs’ Council, April 2021.

P Gilligan and S Akhtar, ‘Cultural barriers to the disclosure of child sexual abuse in Asian communities: listening to what women say’ , in ‘British Journal of Social Work’, Volume 36, Issue 8, 2006, pages 1361 to 1377.

‘Permanent and fixed-period exclusions in England’ , Explore Education Statistics, July 2020.

‘Pornography, young people, and preventing violence against women’ , Our Watch, 2020.

‘Premature sexualisation: understanding the risks’, NSPCC, March 2011.

‘Preventing child sexual abuse & keeping children safe’ , NSPCC, 2021.

‘Protecting children from harm’ , Children’s Commissioner, November 2015.

‘ PSHE in schools: strengths and weaknesses’ , Ofsted, May 2013.

R Duschinsky and M Barker, ‘Doing the möbius strip: the politics of the Bailey review’, in ‘Sexualities’, Volume 16, Issues 5 to 6, 2013, pages 730 to 742.

R Fyson, ‘Young people with learning disabilities who sexually abuse: understanding, identifying and responding from within generic education and welfare services’, in ‘British Journal of Learning Disabilities’, Volume 35, Issues 3, 2007, pages 181 to 186.

R Meiksin, J Crichton, M Dodd, GS Morgan, P Williams, M Willmott, E Allen, N Tilouche, J Sturgess, S Morris, C Barter, H Young, G Melendez-Torres, B Taylor, H Luz McNaughton Reyes, D Elbourne, H Sweeting, K Hunt, R Ponsford, R Campbell and C Bonell, ‘A school intervention for 13- to 15-year-olds to prevent dating and relationship violence: the project respect pilot cluster RCT’, in ‘Public Health Research’, Volume 8, Issue 5, 2020, pages 1 to 338.

‘Rape and sexual offences – chapter 6: consent’ , Crown Prosecution Service, 2017.

‘Rape monitoring group digests’ , Rape Monitoring Group, 2019.

‘Relationships education, relationships and sex education (RSE) and health education’ , Department for Education, November 2019.

‘ RSHE : school practice in early adopter schools research report’ , Department for Education, May 2021.

S Chaudhari, ‘Bolton reports a rise in sexual misconduct cases in the classroom – as Ofsted prepares to visit schools and colleges where such allegations have been made’ in ‘The Bolton News’, 27 April 2021.

S Dube, RF Anda, CL Whitfield, DW Brown, VJ Felitti, M Dong and WH Giles, ‘Long-term consequences of childhood sexual abuse by gender of victim’, in ‘American Journal of Preventive Medicine’, Volume 28, Issue 5 2005, pages 430 to 438.

S Kaiser, I Choudhury, R Knight and E Gibson, ‘Engagement report: engagement with support services for ethnic minority communities’ , Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, April 2021.

S Hackett, ‘Children and young people with harmful sexual behaviours’, Research in Practice, 2014.

S Hackett, J Phillips, H Masson and M Balfe, ‘Individual, family and abuse characteristics of 700 British child and adolescent sexual abusers’, in ‘Child Abuse Review’, Volume 22, Issue 4, 2013, pages 232 to 245.

S Livingstone, J Davidson, J Bryce, S Batool, C Haughton and A Nandi, ‘Children’s online activities, risks and safety: a literature review by the UKCCIS Evidence Group’ , UK Council for Internet Safety, October 2017.

S Smallbone, WL Marshall and R Wortley, ‘Preventing child sexual abuse: evidence, policy and practice’, Routledge, 2008.

‘Safeguarding children from sexual abuse in residential schools’ , Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, April 2020.

‘School report: the experiences of lesbian, gay, bi and trans young people in Britain’s schools in 2017’, Stonewall, 2017.

‘Sexting: how to respond to an incident’, UKCCIS, 2016

‘Sexual assault and the LGBTQ community’ , Human Rights Campaign.

‘Sexual harassment and sexual violence in schools’, House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee, September 2016

‘Sexual harassment in the workplace’ , House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee, July 2018.

‘Sexual offences’ , Crown Prosecution Service, 2017.

‘Sexual violence and sexual harassment between children in schools and colleges’ , Department for Education, May 2018.

‘Sexuality’ , National Down Syndrome Society, 2021.

‘Sharing nudes and semi-nudes: advice for education settings working with children and young people’ , Department for Education, December 2020.

‘Statistics briefing: child sexual abuse’ , NSPCC, 2021.

‘Supporting SEND ’ , Ofsted, May 2021.

The Education (Independent School Standards) Regulations 2014 .

‘The Internet Watch Foundation: annual report 2019’ , The Internet Watch Foundation, April 2020.

‘The multi-agency response to child sexual abuse in the family environment: joint targeted area inspections (JTAIs)’ , Ofsted, Care Quality Commission, HM Inspectorate of Probation, and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, February 2020.

‘The relationship between pornography use and harmful sexual behaviour’ , The Behavioural Architects for the Government Equalities Office, February 2020.

‘Tool kit for addressing consent and associated myths for prosecuting advocates in rape trials’, Crown Prosecution Service.

‘What consent looks like’ , Rape Abuse and Incest National Network, 2021.

‘Understanding sexual behaviour in children’ , NSPCC, 2021.

V Hollis and E Belton, ‘Impact and evidence series children and young people who engage in technology-assisted harmful sexual behaviour. A study of their behaviours, backgrounds and characteristics’ , NSPCC, 2017.

V Tobin and K Delaney, ‘Child abuse victimization among transgender and gender nonconforming people: a systematic review’ , in ‘Perspectives in Psychiatric Care’, Volume 55, Issue 4, 2019, pages 576 to 583.

‘What is peer-on-peer abuse?’ , Ofsted, October 2019.

Y Xu and Z Yong, ‘Prevalence of childhood sexual abuse among lesbian, gay, and bisexual people: a meta-analysis’, in ‘Journal of Child Sexual Abuse’, Volume 24, Issue 3, 2015, pages 315 to 331.

Print or save to PDF

To print this content you can:

• use the ‘Print this page’ button under the Contents menu
• right-click or secondary click on the page and choose ‘Print’ in the menu
• press Ctrl + P on a Windows keyboard or Command + P on a Mac

You can also use these options and change the printer destination to save the content as a PDF.

Instructions may vary depending on which internet browser you use, such as Internet Explorer or Google Chrome, and the type of device you use, such as a phone or laptop. You can find your print and save options in your browser’s menu.

In one visit, we identified serious safeguarding failures. Inspectors ended the visit and we carried out an initial inspection under section 8 (‘no formal designation’). This led to a full inspection. Findings from the early part of the visit are used in this report.  ↩

‘Keeping children safe in education’ , DfE , January 2021.  ↩

While adults tend to refer to ‘sexting’, we are aware that some children and young people consider this to mean ‘writing and sharing explicit messages with people they know’ rather than sharing youth-produced sexual images, including sending ‘nudes’ and ‘semi-nudes’.  ↩

S Hackett, ‘Children and young people with harmful sexual behaviours’, Research in Practice, 2014.  ↩

‘Sexual violence and sexual harassment between children in schools and colleges’ , Department for Education, December 2017.  ↩

‘Individual, family and abuse characteristics of 700 British child and adolescent sexual abusers , Simon Hackett and others, 2013.  ↩

‘Key messages from research on children and young people who display harmful sexual behaviour’ , Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, Di McNeish and Sara Scott, July 2018.  ↩

‘Tackling child sexual abuse strategy’ , Home Office, January 2021.  ↩

This review included a sample of 2 colleges. Where there are findings that specifically relate to differences in schools and colleges, we refer to them separately but where findings are common across both, we use schools.  ↩

The report ‘Protecting children from harm’ estimates that only 1 in 8 offences comes to the attention of statutory authorities: ‘Protecting children from harm’ , Children’s Commissioner, November 2015.  ↩

Due to the way this data is collected and different sexual offences are defined, these figures do not capture certain sexual offences committed against 16- and 17-year-olds, such as rape.  ↩

‘Protecting children from harm’ , Children’s Commissioner, November 2015.  ↩

‘How safe are our children?’ , NSPCC Learning, 2020.  ↩

In our visits, we talked to groups of boys and girls and LGBT+ groups, where there was an existing group that was happy to speak to us. We predominantly use the language of ‘children and young people’ and ‘girls and boys’ in the report to recognise that girls are disproportionately more likely to experience sexual abuse than boys but have highlighted the experiences of LGBT+ children and young people where it is appropriate and data is available.  ↩

‘Child abuse and neglect in the UK today’ , Radford, L and others, NSPCC, 2011.  ↩

‘Sexual harassment and sexual violence in schools’ , Women and Equalities Committee, September 2016.  ↩

‘It’s just everywhere’ , UK Feminista and NEU, 2017.  ↩

‘Permanent and fixed-period exclusions in England’ , Explore Education Statistics, July 2020.  ↩

‘School sex crime reports in UK top 5,500 in three years’ , BBC News, September 2015.  ↩

‘Sexual harassment and sexual violence in schools’ Women and Equalities Committee Report, September 2016.  ↩

‘Beyond referrals: levers for addressing harmful sexual behaviour in schools’ , Contextual Safeguarding Network, July 2020.  ↩

Yin Xu and Yong Zheng, ‘Prevalence of childhood sexual abuse among lesbian, gay, and bisexual people: a meta-analysis’, in ‘Journal of Child Sexual Abuse’, Volume 24, Issue 3, 2015, pages 315 to 331.  ↩

‘Digital romance’ , Brook and the National Crime Agency’s Child Exploitation and Online Protection Command, December 2017.  ↩

‘The Internet Watch Foundation: Annual Report 2019 , The Internet Watch Foundation, April 2020.  ↩

‘Sharing nudes and semi-nudes: advice for education settings working with children and young people’ , Department for Education, December 2020.  ↩

‘Learning about online sexual harm’ , Helen Beckett and others, November 2019.  ↩

Martellozzo, E. and others, ‘I wasn’t sure it was normal to watch it: a quantitative and qualitative examination of the impact of online pornography on the values, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of children and young people’, Middlesex University, 2016.  ↩

‘BBFC Research into Children and Pornography’ , British Board of Film Classification, September 2019.  ↩

‘Sex and relationships amongst students , Nick Hillman, Higher Education Policy Institute, April 2021.  ↩

‘Pornography, young people, and preventing violence against women’ , Our Watch, 2020.  ↩

‘The relationship between pornography use and harmful sexual behaviour’ , The Behavioural Architects for the Government Equalities Office, February 2020.  ↩

This analysis only used the testimonies thought to relate to young people of school or further education age in England. For instance, it excluded testimonies that referred to universities or other countries. See the methodology at the end of this report for more information.  ↩

Further details on our analysis of Everyone’s Invited testimonies can be found in the methodology.  ↩

‘Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence’ , World Health Organisation, 2013.  ↩

‘Girls’ Attitudes Survey 2018’ , Girlguiding UK, 2018.  ↩

‘Child sexual abuse in England and Wales: year ending March 2019’ , ONS, January 2020.  ↩

Allnock, D. and Miller, P. ‘No one noticed, no one heard: a study of disclosures of childhood abuse.’ , NSPCC, 2013  ↩

‘A multi-agency response to child sexual abuse in the family environment’ , Ofsted, Care Quality Commission, HM Inspectorate of Probation, and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, February 2020.  ↩

Allnock, D. and Miller, P., ‘No one noticed, no one heard: a study of disclosures of childhood abuse.’ , NSPCC, 2013.  ↩

‘Girls’ Attitudes Survey 2014’ , Girlguiding UK, 2018.  ↩

‘Sexual harassment and sexual violence in schools’ , Women and Equalities Committee Report, September 2016.  ↩

‘Harmful sexual behaviour in schools: a briefing on the findings, implications and resources for schools and multi-agency partners’ , Jenny Lloyd and others, University of Bedfordshire, June 2020.  ↩

Baker, H. and others, ‘Let children know you’re listening: the importance of an adult’s interpersonal skills in helping to improve the child’s experiences of disclosure.’ , NSPCC, 2019.  ↩

‘Sharing nudes and semi-nudes: advice for education settings working with children and young people’ , UK Council for Internet Safety, December 2020.  ↩

‘Sharing nudes and semi-nudes: advice for education settings working with children and young people’ , Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, December 2020.  ↩

‘What is peer-on-peer abuse?’ , Ofsted, October 2019.  ↩

‘UK schools online safety policy and practice assessment 2020’ , Prof Andy Phippen and Prof Emma Bond, February 2020.  ↩

‘ RSHE : school practice in early adopter schools research report’ , DfE , May 2021.  ↩

A series of reviews by Ofsted looking at the research evidence currently available about different curriculum subjects: ‘Curriculum research reviews’ .  ↩

‘ PSHE in schools: strengths and weaknesses’ , Ofsted, May 2013.  ↩

‘Children’s online activities, risks and safety: A literature review by the UKCCIS Evidence Group’ , Prof Sonia Livingstone and others, UK Council for Internet Safety, October 2017.  ↩

‘Inspecting safeguarding in early years, education and skills’ , Ofsted, September 2019.  ↩

The Education (Independent School Standards) Regulations 2014 .  ↩

Is this page useful?

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. Please fill in this survey (opens in a new tab) .