Anti-Bullying Programs as Community Outreach: What Martial Arts Schools Can and Cannot Claim

A California anti-bullying program has split its free school work from its paid instructor certification. It is a useful prompt for every owner who runs assemblies: what the research supports, what marketing can honestly say, and what must be in place first.

Can a martial arts school market an anti-bullying program? Yes, but carefully. Free school sessions are a legitimate form of community outreach. The research on whole-school anti-bullying programs is positive but modest, and the evidence for martial arts specifically is limited and mixed. Under FTC rules, outcome claims need substantiation before they are published. Testimonials must reflect typical results, and connections with endorsers must be disclosed. A school should never imply that a district endorses it. Every adult working with children needs screening and a written safeguarding policy.

What changed on October 1, 2026?

In an announcement distributed through openPR and datelined Glendora, California, October 1, 2026, Bully.org said it “is now a for-profit company, separate from Bully Proof Inc, the 501(c)(3) nonprofit.” According to the release, Bully Proof Inc runs free live sessions in K-12 schools and youth groups and publishes a free library of more than 100 resources. Bully.org “trains martial arts school owners and youth instructors to teach the Bully Proof curriculum, and certifies them once they qualify.” The release also says that earlier materials describing Bully.org as a nonprofit “date from when the name covered the nonprofit’s programs.” One of those materials is an earlier openPR release that called Bully.org “the bullying prevention nonprofit.”

Federal records support the nonprofit half of that description. The IRS Exempt Organizations Business Master File, as shown on ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer, lists Bully Proof Inc (EIN 33-1404197, Glendora, California) as a 501(c)(3) with a ruling date of October 2024. No Form 990 filings appear there yet. The nonprofit’s website gives the same EIN and the address 364 W Foothill Blvd, Glendora. The release gives that same address for Bully.org’s media office, and Bully.org’s locations page lists it as Red Dragon Karate’s Glendora West headquarters.

The program reports that it has reached “more than 85,000 students.” That number comes from the organization and has not been independently verified. Its own pages report different totals: 81,574 kids on one page and 87,375 on another. The release also says monthly suspensions at four Los Nietos School District schools “fell from about 50 to fewer than 3 over two years.” This journal found no independent or peer-reviewed evaluation of the program. (An unrelated, similarly named program, Bully-Proofing Your School, was evaluated by the National Institute of Justice; those findings do not apply here.)

This matters beyond one vendor. Many schools use the same model: a free session at a public school, delivered by a local owner, with a paid program waiting afterward.

Why do martial arts schools run free anti-bullying assemblies?

The reasons are easy to see. Bullying worries parents, schools want outside help, and an assembly reaches a whole grade at once. The nonprofit says as much on its homepage: “One assembly reaches a whole grade band at once.” For a school owner, a free session builds local goodwill and introduces the school to families who would never see an ad. The commercial side is stated openly too. Bully.org’s free school-owner toolkit is described as “marketing flyers, and retention scripts that turn one-day bully events into year-round enrollments.” That is legitimate, provided the claims are honest and the host school knows who it is dealing with. (On publicizing outreach, see our piece on using press releases.)

What does the research say about school anti-bullying programs?

The strongest evidence comes from Hannah Gaffney, Maria Ttofi and David Farrington at Cambridge. Their 2019 meta-analysis of 100 evaluations found that school programs reduced bullying perpetration by “approximately 19–20%” and victimization by “approximately 15–16%.” The 2021 Campbell Collaboration update reached similar figures and described the effect sizes as “modest.” A companion analysis asked which components mattered. A whole-school approach, anti-bullying policies, classroom rules, information for parents, informal peer involvement and work with victims were all associated with larger effects.

The Olweus Bullying Prevention Program has some of the largest U.S. evidence. A 2018 study followed more than 70,000 Pennsylvania students in grades 3–11. It found clear reductions in bullying and being bullied, an average absolute change of about 3%, and effects that “were stronger the longer the program had been in place.”

That last point is the key one for assembly providers. The federal guidance sheet “Misdirections in Bullying Prevention” on StopBullying.gov lists “simple, short-term solutions” as a common mistake. It names “a school-wide assembly” as an example of an approach that does not “address the entire issue” by itself. The evidence supports sustained, school-wide efforts. It does not show that a single 60-minute session reduces bullying.

Does martial arts training reduce bullying or aggression?

The evidence is promising in places, thin overall, and not all in one direction.

• A 2017 meta-analysis by Harwood, Lavidor and Rassovsky pooled 12 studies with 507 participants aged 6–18. It found a medium effect (0.65) on reducing externalizing behavior in the nine intervention and longitudinal studies. The authors said further research is needed.
• A 2020 meta-analysis by Moore, Dudley and Woodcock of 14 studies found small-to-medium benefits for wellbeing and internalizing symptoms. It found a “minimal non-significant” effect on aggression.
• A 2019 Italian randomized trial of 100 high-school students found that 12 weeks of karate improved resilience and self-efficacy. It measured those traits, not bullying itself.
• A 2005 longitudinal study by Endresen and Olweus of 477 Norwegian boys found the opposite. Participation in “power sports,” including what the authors called “oriental martial arts,” was associated with increased antisocial behavior outside sport. The authors linked it partly to “macho” attitudes, norms and ideals.

The honest reading: how a program is taught probably matters more than the fact that it is martial arts, and no body of research yet shows martial arts training reduces bullying.

What can a school claim in its marketing, and what can’t it?

Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibits unfair or deceptive practices. Most states have parallel consumer-protection laws, often enforced by the state attorney general. Under the FTC’s Advertising Substantiation policy, advertisers must have “a reasonable basis for advertising claims before they are disseminated.” If an ad says “studies show,” the FTC expects “at least the advertised level of substantiation.”

Testimonials are covered by the Endorsement Guides, 16 CFR Part 255. The FTC’s guidance says that if an advertiser cannot show a testimonial reflects what people generally achieve, the ad must make clear “what the generally expected results” are. A “results not typical” line is not enough. Material connections, such as a paid endorser, an employee or a relative, must be disclosed. The FTC’s 2024 rule on reviews and testimonials (16 CFR Part 465) bans fake testimonials and undisclosed insider reviews.

In practice, the claims fall into three groups.

• Safe: describe what you do. For example: “Our free 60-minute session teaches verbal boundary-setting and how to get adult help.” “We have presented at 12 local schools since 2024,” if your records show it.
• Needs evidence and context: “Builds confidence.” Back it with research and describe it as a goal, not a promise.
• Avoid: “Bully-proofs your child,” “guaranteed,” “stops bullying,” or “reduces suspensions” based on one school’s report. Avoid any statistic you cannot trace to a source. Never use “approved by” or “endorsed by” a school district, and never use a district or school logo, unless you have written permission. Being allowed to present is not an endorsement.

If you quote a principal, get written consent, quote them exactly, and say whether they are a customer. Attribute vendor figures to the vendor (“the program reports…”).

How should nonprofit and for-profit roles be kept separate?

The IRS says a 501(c)(3) “must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator’s family.” It also says no part of its net earnings may benefit any private individual. Those are the inurement and private benefit rules. In plain terms, a charity’s donations and free programs should serve the public. They should not work as a lead-generation channel for an insider’s company. A shared founder or a shared address is common in small nonprofits and is not improper in itself. What matters is how the relationship is run: fair-value written agreements, separate accounts, and no charitable dollars paying for commercial training or marketing.

For a school owner who delivers a nonprofit’s free session, three practices help:

• Tell the host school, in writing, who you are and that you operate a paid business.
• Do not tell families that donations or enrollments “support the free program” unless that is literally and verifiably true.
• Ask the nonprofit in writing whether recruiting at the event is allowed. Many districts prohibit it, and the decision belongs to the district.

What safeguarding must be in place before you enter a school?

Districts set their own vendor and volunteer rules, and some states write them into law. In California, for example, Education Code §45125.1 requires any entity with a contract with a local educational agency to ensure that employees who interact with pupils have a valid criminal records summary. Expect requests for background checks, insurance and a signed agreement.

Use the same standards inside your own school. The U.S. Center for SafeSport’s Minor Athlete Abuse Prevention Policies are mandatory only in the Olympic and Paralympic movement, but any organization can adopt them. Their core rule is that one-on-one contact between an adult and a minor “must be observable and interruptible.” The CDC’s guide for youth-serving organizations covers screening, interactions, monitoring and response. NAPMA’s Safe Training Environment standard and its one-page checklist adapt that work for martial arts schools. For background on why most schools sit outside these systems, see our report on the safeguarding gap. For what to do when something goes wrong, see the first 24 hours after an accusation.

Checklist: running an ethical school-outreach anti-bullying program

1. Get it in writing. Have a signed agreement with the school or district covering date, content, who presents, and whether any promotion or flyers are allowed.
2. Meet the district’s screening rules before the date is set. That means background checks for every presenting adult, plus insurance certificates if required.
3. Follow the two-adult rule. No adult from your school is ever alone with a child. All contact is observable and interruptible.
4. Keep current safeguarding training and a written policy. This includes a code of conduct, a physical-contact standard and a reporting protocol that every presenter has signed.
5. Show the curriculum in advance. Share an outline with the school counselor. Present the session as a supplement to the school’s own anti-bullying policy, not a replacement.
6. Teach seeking help first. Emphasize verbal skills and telling an adult. Any physical drills should be age-appropriate and approved by the school.
7. Disclose who you are. Tell the host that you run a paid school and whether you are certified by, or pay, a curriculum company.
8. Market only what you can document. Describe the activity, not guaranteed outcomes. Attribute vendor statistics to the vendor. Never imply district endorsement or use a district logo without written permission.
9. Handle testimonials correctly. Get written consent, quote people exactly, disclose any connection, and state typical results.
10. Know your reporting duties. Learn your state’s mandated-reporter rules and the school’s procedure if a child discloses abuse or bullying during a session.
11. Keep the money separate. If a nonprofit is involved, keep commercial activity away from its donations and do not suggest that enrollments fund charity.
12. Follow up honestly. Summarize what was delivered; do not report outcomes you did not measure.

Sources

• Bully.org, “Bully.org and Bully Proof Inc Now Operate as Two Separate Organizations,” openPR, October 1, 2026; earlier Bully.org release, openPR.
• Bully Proof Inc and Bully.org websites (locations, host an event, training academy), accessed October 2, 2026.
• ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer, Bully Proof Inc, EIN 33-1404197 (IRS EO BMF data); IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search.
• Gaffney, Ttofi & Farrington (2019), Aggression and Violent Behavior 45:111–133; (2021), Campbell Systematic Reviews 17(2):e1143; (2021), Journal of School Psychology 85:37–56.
• Limber, Olweus, Wang, Masiello & Breivik (2018), Journal of School Psychology 69:56–72.
• StopBullying.gov, “Misdirections in Bullying Prevention and Intervention”.
• Harwood, Lavidor & Rassovsky (2017), Aggression and Violent Behavior 34:96–101; Moore, Dudley & Woodcock (2020), Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies 24(4):402–412; Greco, Cataldi & Fischetti (2019), Journal of Physical Education and Sport; Endresen & Olweus (2005), Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 46(5):468–478.
• National Institute of Justice, Evaluation of Bully-Proofing Your School (unrelated program, cited only to distinguish it).
• FTC Act §5, 15 U.S.C. §45; FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation (1984); 16 CFR Part 255; FTC, “FTC’s Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking”; 16 CFR Part 465 and FTC release, August 14, 2024.
• IRS, “Inurement/Private Benefit: Charitable Organizations”.
• California Education Code §45125.1; U.S. Center for SafeSport, MAAPP; CDC, Preventing Child Sexual Abuse Within Youth-serving Organizations; NAPMA, Safe Training Environment.

By Stephen Oliver, Publisher. Not legal or tax advice. Corrections under this journal’s editorial policy.