The aim of the study of literature is to create a picture of and gain knowledge about Nordic research of violence prevention programs. In light of the growing research field of gender and violence it’s interesting to analyse if gender research has an impact on how violence preventions programs are created and evaluated. The overall question is; is there any violence prevention program with focus on young people, which understand and use a gendered understanding of violence? The more specific questions in the study are; how does the researcher, in the selected literature, cope with and understand the presence of violence in young peoples every day life? How does the research of gender and violence influence the dispositions of the prevention program?

Following criteria have dictated (styrt) the selection of research: Scientific reviewed articles and books about violence prevention, harassment and bullying, on the first hand universal preventions. Research that focus on children from 13 to 20 years old, research done in Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark. The search for literature ended up with a majority of effect studies of violence prevention, especially Dan Olweus anti-bullying program and Aggressive Replacement Training (ART).

The research field of violence prevention uses theories from psychology and methods from experimental/quasi-experimental research design. The most satisfying method to measure effect of an intervention considers being effect studies. To know what effect an intervention has on the participants is an important insight, but it gains only a limited knowledge about a programs effect. An effect study does not answer the question why a program works. Only a few of the selected studies were interested in the question how young people creates meaning of violence and bullying. That’s why I accomplish a formative evaluation, which has focus on four programs primary assumptions (grundantaganden). The four analysed programs are; Olweus anti-bullying program, Prevention at school (PS), Social Emotional Training (SET) and Aggressive replacement Training (ART).

My analysis of the selected literature and the formative evaluation points out that there is no Nordic effect evaluated violence prevention program, in particular against sexual violence, which uses gender perspective and gender pedagogic. If sex is mentioned, both in the literature and in the four programs, it is as variable, and not as tool for interpretation.
The programs universal- and gender-neutral ways of understanding behaviour neglect the gendered dimensions in young peoples every day life. Still it is particularly boys that use aggressive and violent behaviour and in the four programs the issue is comment, but no gendered analysis is done. In the four programs prosocial behaviour (empathy, sensitiveness, and carefulness) prescribes as the norm of behaviour. From a gendered perspective can prosocial behaviours be understood as coded feminine, which is something that boys don’t want to be mixed up with. The use of gendered tools, that gains the complexity of doing masculinity, can motivate boys to use less violence. To have time to reflect on how gendered norms of behaviour restrain and facilitate, can make is easier to choose to act prosocial.

The analysed programs – Olweus, PS, SET and ART – do not come to terms with the dimension of gender. If we want to prevent violence amongst youth, particularly amongst boys, we need to develop violence preventions program that also come to terms with the young peoples gendered every day life.