Assessment of Variation in US State Laws Addressing the Prevention of and Response to Teen Dating Violence in Secondary Schools

Abstract

Importance: Teen dating violence (TDV) is widespread and has adverse consequences across the life course. Many US states are actively seeking strategies to prevent and address TDV in schools, including enactment and implementation of TDV laws. These state laws are upstream, system-level interventions that lay the foundation for an array of downstream targeted interventions to be deployed in schools. Despite these laws gaining momentum in the past decade, there has been minimal research examining their content and variability. Objective: To assess the content and comprehensiveness of US state laws addressing prevention of and response to TDV in secondary schools. Design, Setting, and Participants: A team of public health and legal researchers used systematic policy surveillance methods to develop a comprehensive database of state laws addressing TDV in schools in all 50 US states and the District of Columbia (referred to hereinafter as "states") in effect as of September 30, 2020. Using LexisNexis and state legislature websites, state laws (statutes and administrative codes) were identified. Main Outcomes and Measures: Components for each law were coded within 5 categories: scope, prevention education, policy, response, and implementation. Results: Overall, 38 states (74.5%) had at least 1 law addressing TDV in secondary schools and 13 states (25.5%) did not. Fewer than half of states with a law (15 of 38 [39.5%]) defined TDV. All 38 states addressed prevention education, with 29 (76.3%) requiring and 9 (23.7%) encouraging these efforts. Prevention education was largely for students in most states (35 [92.1%]), but some states also required school staff (18 [47.4%]) and parents (8 [21.1%]) to receive prevention education. Fewer than half of states required (14 [36.8%]) or encouraged (3 [7.9%]) school districts to develop a policy addressing TDV. Very few states included requirements for how schools must respond to TDV incidents. Fewer than a third of states designated an individual to coordinate TDV efforts (12 [31.6%]), included a funding provision in their laws for TDV programs and policies (10 [26.3%]), and included explicit consequences for noncompliance with TDV laws (12 [31.6%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that most US states had laws addressing TDV in schools, but there was significant variation in the content and comprehensiveness of the laws. These findings can inform the development of more comprehensive laws on TDV that may ultimately reduce such incidents..