There is a dearth of research into the consequences of systematic reductions of prevalence of target behaviors, such as bullying, in school-based prevention science.  Reducing prevalence may also result in making bullying more difficult to uncover (Cunningham et al., 2015). Preventing bullying at school is a much researched field (Ttofi & Farrington, 2011).  In international comparisons, prevalence of bullying at school varies widely, with rates for Swedish schools regularly being lowest (e.g., among 66 countries, Due & Holstein, 2008: among 27, OECD, 2015).  Conditions influencing program efficacy are likely to vary as prevalence of target behavior is reducing.  School-wide prevention strategies, in schools with one or more victims in every class, present a very different challenge compared to schools where victims are found in every second of third class.  Recent longitudinal data from Sweden (Swedish Agency for Education, 2011; Hellstedt, Johansson & Gill, 2016 forthcoming) has revealed a cyclical replacement of victims, after successful intervention, showing that while rates at cross-sectional measurement intervals may remain the same (typically 6/7% in Swedish schools), up to 75% of victims at one time will self-report not being victimized at one-year follow-up (op.cit.).  Low rates of bullying in Sweden are the result of intervention strategies based on a wide variety of ‘standard’ (international, Scandinavian & national) prevention programs, at least 21 according to the Swedish Agency for Education (2003).  A national evaluation revealed extensive program cross-contamination, proving the unviability of “gold standard” evaluation practices. “What works” conclusions were described in terms of program components.  When “promising” evidence for effective program components is produced, there is an inevitable momentum to package components into replicable “programs”.  We argue that this momentum may hamper response flexibility, particularly when program providers, in seeking to be “evidence based” may place more importance on implementation functions such as program fidelity and dosage rather than individual outcomes. We argue that considerations such as dosage and program fidelity are less relevant when anti-bullying initiatives are being adapted to variations in school contexts and climates (Gregory, Henry & Schoeny, 2007).  Component efficacy and effectiveness may also be masked by confidentiality requirements in program evaluations and outcome assessments that are based on follow-up, cross-sectional, cohort statistics.  What works in Sweden, for example, found by Frisén, Hasselblad & Holmqvist (2012), based on evidence from former victims, in descending order of importance: Support from school personnel; Transition to new school level; Change of coping strategies; Support from parents; Change of appearance or way of being; Change of school or class as a deliberate attempt to make the bullying stop; New friends; The bullies changed their attitude; No particular reason; and Support from peers, may not translate to other cultures, school systems and traditions.  With observed low prevalence, extensive program implementation, research evidence on effective components and extensive judicial obligations, it is likely, that in most Swedish municipalities, active anti-bullying programs may, theoretically, be located at the later phases of an implementation research continuum (Chalamandaris &  Piette, 2015, after Flay,1986, & Flay et al., 2005).  Late stage program/component development also has an impact on schools’ potential capacity to improve (Oterkiil & Ertesvåg, 2012).  Given these contexts, it is important to research the present state of evidence-based anti-bullying strategies in Sweden.  Using best practice in program implementation evaluation a descriptive case study of scaled-up, school district-wide (Rhoades, Bumbarger & Moore 2012), research-to-action (Guhn et al., 2012) anti-bullying strategies in a Swedish municipality is presented. The goal is to investigate conditions, participants, hindrances, responses and outcomes at different stages of a rolling implementation process.  This Swedish example may help to enlighten problems with cultural measurement equivalence (Trimble, 2010).

Bosworth, K. & Judkins, M. (2014) Tapping into the Power of School Climate to Prevent Bullying: One Application of Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports. Theory Into Practice, 53 (4), 300-307; Chalamandaris, A-G. & Piette, D. (2015) School-based anti-bullying interventions: Systematic review of the methodology to assess their effectiveness. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 24, 131–174; Due, P. & Holstein, B.E. (2008) Bullying victimization among 13 to 15 year old school children: Results from two comparative studies in 66 countries and regions. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 20 (2), 209-222; Flay, B. R. (1986). Efficacy and effectiveness trials (and other phases of research) in the development of health promotion programs. Preventive Medicine, 15(5), 451–474; Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., Castro, F. G., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S., et al. (2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prevention Science, 6(3), 151–175; Gregory, A., Henry, D.B. & Schoeny, M.E. (2007) School Climate and Implementation of a Preventive Intervention. Am J Community Psychol., 40, 250–260; Guhn, M., Schonert-Reichl, K.A., Gadermann, A.M., Marriott, D., Pedrini, L., Hymel, S. & Hertzman, C. (2012) Well-Being in Middle Childhood: An Assets-Based Population-Level Research-to-Action Project. Child Indicators Research, 5, 393–418; Hellfeldt, K., Johansson, B. & Gill, P.E. (2016 forthcoming) Longitudinal analysis of links between bullying victimization and psychosomatic maladjustment in Swedish schoolchildren; Larsson, P. & Wermke, W. (2016, forthcoming) Supported Decentralised Reasoning: Bullying prevention in a Swedish municipality; OECD (2015), Skills for Social Progress: The Power of Social and Emotional Skills, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris; Oterkiil, C. & Ertesvåg, S.K. (2012) Schools’ readiness and capacity to improve matter. Education Inquiry, 3 (1), 71–92; Rhoades, B.L., Bumbarger, B.K. & Moore, J.E. (2012) The Role of a State-Level Prevention Support System in Promoting High-Quality Implementation and Sustainability of Evidence-Based Programs. Am J Community Psychol., 50(3-4), 386-401; Ttofi, M.M. & Farrington, D.P. (2011) Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: a systematic and meta-analytic review, J Exp Criminol (2011) 7, 27–56; Swedish Agency for Education (2003) Olikas lika värde: Stödmaterial och vägledning för ett arbete mot mobbning och kränkande behandling, Stockholm; Stassen Berger, K. (2007) Update on bullying at school: Science forgotten? Developmental Review, 27, 90–126; Trimble, J.E. (2010) Cultural Measurement Equivalence in Clauss-Ehlers, C.S. (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural School Psychology, pp. 316-318.