Effectiveness and implementation of state laws for addressing teen dating violence in schools

• In Event: Policy Interventions for Domestic Violence Prevention and Support: Evaluating Impacts and Implementation

Abstract

Introduction/Background: One in seven U.S. high school students has experienced physical and/or sexual dating violence in the past year. Recognizing the seriousness of teen dating violence (TDV) and the central role of schools, most U.S. states have enacted laws to address TDV in schools. These laws are structural interventions that lay the foundation for a range of required activities in schools, including adopting written policies and providing prevention programs. Despite these laws gaining momentum over the past two decades, there is minimal research on their effectiveness and implementation.

 

Purpose/Research Question: Using quantitative and qualitative methods, this presentation will highlight policy-relevant research examining the effectiveness of TDV laws at the state level and implementation of TDV laws at the district and school levels.

 

Methods: State-level: Using rigorous policy surveillance methods, we examined the content and variability of state TDV laws. We then examined the association between state TDV laws and changes in physical TDV victimization among high school students using a difference-in-differences approach with an event study design. District-level: We explored the implementation of TDV laws by examining the content of school district written TDV policies across 23 large urban districts. School-level: We conducted semi-structured interviews with school staff and students in four states with long-standing TDV laws to explore barriers to and facilitators of implementing TDV laws and policies in high schools.

Results/Findings: State-level: As of September 2020, 38 states (75%) had at least one law explicitly addressing TDV prevention and response in secondary schools. Fewer than half (37%) of states with laws required school districts to develop a written policy addressing TDV. We found no significant association between the presence of a state TDV law and past-year physical TDV. Six or more waves after enactment, we observed a non-significant 1.7% percentage point reduction in TDV in states with TDV laws (95% CI: -3.6 to 0.3 percentage points; p = 0.10). District-level: Among the 23 school districts, 18 (78%) had a written TDV policy available online. Fifteen districts (65%) defined TDV, six (26%) specified disciplinary consequences for TDV perpetration, and 100% designated a liaison for TDV coordination. School-level: Implementation of TDV laws and policies varied greatly across schools. Most staff and students were not aware of specific TDV policies, and TDV was sometimes addressed in other policies (e.g., bullying). Implementation barriers and facilitators included awareness of laws and policies, broader community attitudes, and training and resources for TDV.

 

Conclusion/Implications: State laws and district policies are promising systems-level strategies for reducing TDV. However, there is considerable variation in their content and comprehensiveness. Furthermore, while written laws and policies serve an important function, they may be insufficient for ensuring that TDV policies and programs are implemented in schools as intended. Our findings underscore substantial inconsistency in implementation, even within states with strong laws. Further resources and attention devoted to implementation of laws and policies are critical to ensure TDV is addressed effectively within schools.

Author

• Avanti Adhia, University of Washington
  Presenting Author