Implementation of teen dating violence laws and policies in high schools: Staff and student perceptions

Abstract

Purpose:

Many U.S. states and school districts have enacted laws and policies to address teen dating violence (TDV) in schools. There is mixed evidence around their effectiveness, underscoring the need to examine whether and how schools are implementing TDV laws and policies. This study explored barriers to and facilitators of implementing TDV policies and programs in high schools.

Methods:

We conducted semi-structured interviews with school staff (n=14) and students (n=22) in four states with long-standing TDV laws that require districts to develop written TDV policies and provide educational programs (New Jersey, Texas, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts). Interview topics included knowledge and awareness of TDV and response to TDV through policies and programs. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using codebook thematic analysis in Dedoose. Barriers and facilitators were organized by relevant domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

Results:

Implementation barriers and facilitators were identified in the outer setting, inner setting, and individuals domains. Barriers included community pushback and norms, lack of training and resources for TDV, and limited awareness of laws and policies. Facilitators included state-level mandates to address TDV, clear policies and procedures, additional staff training, and willingness to recognize TDV as an issue.

Discussion:

Our findings highlight the multi-level determinants of how schools address TDV through policies and programs and the substantial unmet need that remains. While written laws and policies are promising systems-level strategies to reduce TDV, further resources and attention devoted to implementation are critical to ensure TDV is addressed effectively within schools.

Introduction

Preventing teen dating violence (TDV) is a critical public health priority. Approximately 14% of U.S. high school students who dated in the past year experienced physical and/or sexual violence by someone they dated.¹ TDV is associated with numerous negative physical, mental, academic, and social consequences for adolescents over their lifetime.² Effective strategies to reduce the burden of TDV are needed given the widespread prevalence and adverse short- and long-term outcomes.^3,4

Schools are important settings for prevention of and response to TDV, providing a venue for reaching a broad range of students in a structured manner.⁵ Recognizing this, 38 states had laws requiring schools to address TDV as of September 2020.^6,7 While there is considerable variability in the content of TDV laws across states, two important and common features of these laws are requirements for school districts to have written policies for TDV and requirements for providing educational prevention programs for students and/or staff.^6,8,9 Partly as a result of these state laws, many school districts have implemented written TDV policies that can include information about prevention education, staff training, disciplinary consequences, and designated staff responsible for coordinating TDV efforts.^10,11 Even as TDV laws and policies have become more widespread, limited research to date has shown mixed evidence of effectiveness. While prior studies have shown no significant association between the presence of a state TDV law and TDV prevalence among high school students,^12,13 there is preliminary evidence indicating higher prevalence of TDV victimization in districts without a written TDV policy compared to districts with a TDV policy.¹¹

The mixed evidence around the effectiveness of state TDV laws and district TDV policies underscores the need to examine whether and how schools are implementing these laws and policies to better understand the associations – or lack thereof – found in prior research. While laws exist at the state level and written policies at the district level, implementation of the laws and policies happens more locally within individual schools. Importantly, TDV laws and policies sometimes use vague language, and schools have considerable discretion in interpreting and implementing the requirements with little oversight. Indeed, research on other interpersonal violence issues (e.g., bullying, suicide) has highlighted substantial gaps between state laws and school practices; for instance, only 25% of principals accurately identified their states’ laws about school-based suicide prevention.^14–18 Barriers to antibullying policy implementation include limited funding and staff, difficulty selecting programs, and parental attitudes.¹⁷ There can also be variability across school districts within a state. For example, research in Texas (a state with mandated TDV education) found inconsistencies in implementing prevention education across districts and a need for greater policy awareness.^10,19,20

Given that implementation is a key determinant of effectiveness, further investigation into how TDV laws and policies are implemented is critical.^16,21,22 One widely used implementation science framework to explain determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) of implementation effectiveness is the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). The CFIR includes five domains that interact to influence implementation: innovation (intervention), outer setting (broader sociopolitical context), inner setting (organizational culture, structure, leadership), individuals (knowledge, beliefs), and implementation process (activities and strategies used to implement).²³ The CFIR has been frequently used to understand the multi-level implementation of policies and practices, including in school settings.^24–27

The current study explored barriers to and facilitators of implementing TDV policies and programs in high schools using the CFIR. We conducted qualitative interviews with high school staff and students in four states with TDV laws to understand the variability in policy and programming strategies used by schools to address TDV. While staff are responsible for implementing TDV policies and programs, students are the target population on the receiving end of these efforts. Including both staff and students provided complementary perspectives on challenges and solutions to effective TDV prevention and intervention.

Methods

Research Advisory Board

To guide the study, we first developed a research advisory board with state domestic violence coalition staff members with prevention- or policy-related roles. Members provided feedback on interview questions and assisted with recruitment (e.g., connecting with schools). We also presented thematic findings to advisory board members, who validated that themes aligned with what they saw in their own practice/experience.

Participants

Students in 9^th–12^th grade and staff who were involved in TDV policies or programs (e.g., administrators, counselors, social workers, and health teachers) were eligible to participate. We focused recruitment on New Jersey, Texas, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, states with long-standing state-level TDV laws requiring school districts to develop written TDV policies and provide educational programs.⁶ We recruited participants through several channels, including advisory board connections, social media advertisements, connecting with school district research offices, emailing staff/administration information found publicly online, and snowball sampling. Potential participants could indicate interest in the study via survey, and a team member reached out if eligible. While we experienced recruitment challenges given the sensitive nature of the topic, we recruited for over 18 months to ensure that we reached sufficient information power based on our research questions, inclusion of participants with shared and relevant experiences, and dialogue quality centered around focused interview questions related to implementing TDV programs and policies.²⁸ In addition, we found similar responses from participants across different states related to awareness of laws and policies and barriers/facilitators to feel comfortable ending recruitment. The University of Washington Institutional Review Board approved the study.

Data collection

We conducted 60-minute interviews with staff and 45-minute interviews with students in English via Zoom between December 2022 and April 2024. Before the interview, participants were briefed with study information and confidentiality procedures. Participants verbally consented/assented to be interviewed and audio recorded. Given the research topic and the age of high school students, parental consent was waived.

Interviews were semi-structured, and topics included knowledge and awareness of TDV and response to TDV through policies and programs including implementation barriers and facilitators (Appendix A contains full interview guides). Participants also completed a demographic survey and were provided a gift card ($30 for students, $50 for staff).

Analysis

Interviews were transcribed verbatim and reviewed for accuracy. We analyzed data using a codebook thematic analysis approach.^29,30 Three team members (AR, LH, AS) reviewed several interviews to inductively develop codes and code definitions, which continued to be iteratively developed in group discussion throughout the coding process. While specific codes were developed inductively through reviewing transcripts, codebook structure and code headings (e.g., barriers) were generated deductively based on the interview guides. Given the overlap in interview content, we used a single codebook with select codes only applicable to students or staff. In total, eight transcripts were double coded. Remaining interviews were coded individually by four team members (AA, AR, LH, AS) in Dedoose (version 9.2.014) with regular meetings to discuss unclear excerpts and coding discrepancies. We coded transcripts and held debriefing meetings in parallel while conducting remaining interviews; however, the codebook did not change based on the final few transcripts. Excerpts were exported and examined to identify patterns across transcripts. Themes and subthemes were developed via discussion and by grouping and summarizing excerpts from patterns we identified. We chose quotes that illustrated each domain well and reasonably succinctly, ensuring inclusion of quotes from staff and student perspectives across all states. Additionally, to highlight the multilevel factors that influence implementation, we used the CFIR to organize the barriers and facilitators we identified.²³ Barriers and facilitators noted by our participants fell into three of the five CFIR domains: outer setting, inner setting, and individuals.

Results

We interviewed 14 staff and 22 students across 9 school districts, with the most representation from New Jersey (58.3% of participants) (Table 1). All included school districts should have a TDV policy given their state laws; 8 (88.9%) policies were publicly available online. Most participants identified as female (66.7%) and heterosexual/straight (66.7%). Most students (54.5%) and 14.3% of staff identified as Hispanic/Latino.

Table 1.

Student and school staff demographic information

Demographic Information	Staff (n=14)	Students (n=22)
State, n (%)
Massachusetts	1 (7.1)	3 (13.6)
New Jersey	8 (57.1)	13 (59.1)
Rhode Island	1 (7.1)	2 (9.1)
Texas	4 (28.6)	4 (18.2)
Grade, n (%)
9th	-	4 (18.2)
10th	-	4 (18.2)
11th	-	4 (18.2)
12th	-	10 (45.5)
Age (years)
Mean (SD)	45.3 (13.4)	16.2 (1.1)
Range	26 – 71	14 – 17
Length of time in current role (years)
Mean (SD)	7.6 (5.5)	-
Range	0 – 18	-
Gender identity, n (%)
Man	3 (21.4)	5 (22.7)
Woman	10 (71.4)	14 (63.6)
Genderqueer	- -	2 (9.1)
Not sure/questioning	- -	1 (4.5)
Prefer not to answer	1 (7.1)	- -
Identify as transgender
Yes	- -	2 (9.1)
No	13 (92.9)	19 (86.4)
Prefer not to answer	1 (7.1)	1 (4.5)
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin, n (%)
Yes	2 (14.3)	12 (54.5)
No	12 (85.7)	10 (45.5)
Race, n (%)
American Indian or Alaska Native	- -	1 (4.5)
Asian	- -	3 (13.6)
Black or African American	2 (14.3)	4 (18.2)
White	10 (71.4)	4 (18.2)
Prefer not to answer	2 (14.3)	4 (18.2)
Not listed	- -	6 (27.3)
Sexual orientation identity, n (%)
Heterosexual/straight	11 (78.6)	13 (59.1)
Gay	1 (7.1)	- -
Bisexual	1 (7.1)	5 (22.7)
Pansexual	- -	2 (9.1)
Not sure/questioning	- -	1 (4.5)
Prefer not to answer	1 (7.1)	1 (4.5)

Notes: Participants could select multiple options for race and sexual orientation identity. Only categories that participants selected are shown. Particiapnts were drawn from 9 school districts, which had enrollment ranging from 2,415–56,167 students, student-teacher ratios ranging from 11.9–15.5, and geographic locations across small to large cities and large suburbs.

We present barriers and facilitators organized by CFIR domain (Figure 1). Tables 2 and 3 provide additional illustrative quotes. Given substantial overlap in staff and student themes, results are presented together.

Figure 1.

Summary of barriers to and facilitators of implementing TDV policies and programs in schools by Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) domain

Table 2.

Illustrative quotes for barriers to implementing TDV policies and programs in schools

CFIR Domain	Illustrative quotes
Outer setting	“In Texas we don’t have sex education. We’re only allowed to say don’t do it. And then if you have to get parent permission to even have this kind of lesson it makes it harder…let’s say that all the parents said, I’m fine with this. Well, kids don’t bring back permission forms, you know, and so that’s a barrier right there… And so other than like health class, I’m not allowed to talk to them about like contraception or any of that stuff. I’m allowed to say don’t do it. And I do tell them, you know, the state says, all I can say is don’t do it… But I tell them, your partner doesn’t have the right to say that you can’t use contraception. So I keep it in the context of the dating violence control and that.” (Counselor, Texas) “I think that the admin at the school level is a little also afraid of pushback from the community, which I had already characterized as being quite conservative. And so, you know, there’s that fear of, oh, they’re too young for this, and how is that gonna translate? …And it is age appropriate, but um, there’s a fear. There’s a fear there.” (Administrator, Rhode Island)
Inner setting	“Funding would be first, you know, if we had some money because when, um, the other social worker and I started trying to do this week, we had no money, right. We have no budget, we don’t have one. So we have applied for a grant the last couple of years. And we’ve been able to get $600. Um, and that’s our entire budget to do anything. So, you know, we’ve had to find guest speakers who are really willing to work with us…We’re really fortunate on our campus to have two social workers and then our lead counselor is really passionate about this subject. Um, but you know, if you don’t have people who have that passion on your campus and it’s not required by your city, your state, nothing’s gonna happen. I would love to have more mental health professionals on campuses to be able to carry out this message. I would love, I mean like ideally, wouldn’t that be awesome if it was a requirement that, you know, that we, we, we had to do this along with teaching about, you know, algebra, that we had to teach about healthy relationships and how to make sure you’re safe and your loved ones are safe.” (Social Worker, Texas) “…We had a like positive decision making class and we would cover things like, just to give you like a little visualization. We would cover things like STDs in one 50 minute class. Okay. Like STDs in general, 50 minute class. So maybe we did talk about domestic abuse or you know, violence, but it would not have been more than 50 minutes. And it’s not something I would’ve remembered because it was in sophomore year.” (Student, Massachusetts) “I know at my school we don’t really bring up that topic [dating violence] and it’s kind of not explained to us. For example, there are many different kinds of abuse that go on in a relationship, like you said earlier. And I don’t think that’s something that a lot of kids at our school know because it was never really properly taught or introduced to us. And whenever they think of like dating violence, they just think of, you know, sexual or physical abuse and they don’t think about the other things. But at our school we have these like posters in the back of the bathroom doors and it’s usually like there’s a phone number to call if you are experiencing dating violence. And I think that’s the furthest that my school go for, you know, trying to help students with that issue.” (Student, Texas)
Individuals	“I think they definitely try and they definitely like make attempts to stop violence and to make sure that like, people are safe. But I think with a lot of this kind of stuff, it does go on, like, it happens beyond the walls of the school. So they’re not entirely sure what’s going on. And I think that is a limitation, just like the school system of not fully being aware and then not creating an environment where a lot of students have someone to go tell their teachers or like people that they trust.” (Student, New Jersey)
	“I just don’t see [TDV] as much. You know, like, like fistfights are like somewhat frequent…if we go a couple weeks without a fist fight, it’s probably a long stretch. Um, but I don’t feel like that the dating violence is being reported…I don’t know that it’s not happening, but…we’re not being made aware of it.” (Counselor, Massachusetts) “I think it’s gonna be something that’s a little more private versus an altercation with just a friend. You’re maybe more open with the fact that you guys are having an argument…But when it comes to relationships, I don’t, I could be wrong, but I don’t see it being openly expressed. And so therefore it’s not gonna be dealt the same way because we are not aware of it.” (Counselor, Texas)

Table 3.

Illustrative quotes for facilitators of implementing TDV policies and programs in schools

CFIR Domain	Illustrative quotes
Outer setting	“I just think if it’s our school or our district, I think mandates help like from the district or the school… I think if the principal said, I want everybody to have this lesson and I want this to be kind of the scope of it, you know, and even if we were doing the parent permissions or whatever, the kids who don’t have the permission, we’re just gonna move them elsewhere. I think whether it’s the district or the school, if they actually said we’re we are going to do this and you’re gonna do it, I think people would just be like, oh, okay, we’ll do it. But I think if it’s just me saying, Hey guys, um, no, you know, there’s this law, right? We’re supposed to be doing this. Um, they’re like, no, we’re not. You know, what are you talking about?” (Counselor, Texas)
Inner setting	“A willingness to talk about it in school and talk about it in various ways. So they should hear it in their health class, they should hear it through a presenter who’s professional and then they should receive contact information. So we know they’re not gonna raise their hand during the presentation, so you need to give ‘em a telephone number, a QR code… When I went to a college the bathroom stall had QR codes for um, emergency numbers. And I thought, well it’s weird, but I thought effective cause it’s private and if you wanted to do it, at least you know, no one’s seeing you do that. So maybe that’s something we should do in high schools too.” (Administrator, New Jersey) “I think anything that you can provide and everything is laid out… that’s pretty much lined up, you know, in order, really clearly understandable, where it’s not necessarily needed that you have to go and come up with your plans. Kind of like a lesson plan, just where it’s well thought out, laid out, flyers from programs to activities to, you know, if there’s gonna be, you know, speaker or part of the curriculum in a class or some type of healthy, you know, just connections, communication, relationship, anything that’s well planned and well laid out I think is always gonna be helpful for anybody in education. Because the amount of expectations is not only counselors for, I think for anybody in education, I think it’s, um, I think it’s a little bit much… Sometimes if you put another ounce of something on a teacher, they’re gonna walk out and that’s a huge issue with teachers are leaving the profession. So how do you balance that to meet all the needs? And I would just say as much as it, as much as possible, being clearly laid out, every detail planned where it’s simple.” (Counselor, Texas)
Individuals	“Adults need to understand that eventually we’re not gonna be kids forever and they shouldn’t sugarcoat how important or how dangerous some stuff are because I get it, they want to keep us safe because we are children. Some of us are like 15, 14 while some of us are 17 and 16, but at the end of the day, we will be experiencing these types of stuff… It’s highly important for us to be taught these things at a young age so we can be prepared.” (Student, Texas) “Acknowledge that it happens. Acknowledge that our students are seeing it, acknowledge that it’s happening in the household. And some of our students aren’t even aware. I had one student telling me about how, and they thought it was so normal that the mother has to ask the father or the stepfather for permission to do things… And they don’t realize that this isn’t how it should be. It’s a control issue and we don’t acknowledge it here and we don’t teach it here… We need to build the self-esteem of a lot of these students so that they are comfortable standing up and finding their voice.” (Counselor, New Jersey)

Barriers to implementing TDV policies and programs

Outer setting

Multiple staff described how state laws provide parents and students the ability to opt out of sexual health or TDV education, which can interfere with the intention of universal education for all students. A few staff also reported uncertainty about what they can talk about and the need to find creative ways to navigate other laws and regulations, such as abstinence-only education.

Most staff noted at least one community barrier to addressing TDV: community pushback to discussing TDV in schools, community norms that promote violence or gender inequity, and parents believing TDV is not an issue. A few staff reflected how many communities are often supportive of TDV efforts, but there can be resistance from a vocal minority who raise concerns to the schools about providing TDV and related education to students. One social worker said, “There’s something about the teen dating violence that makes…parents uncomfortable. And then the parents share their concern with the school board and then the school board’s like, okay, well we just won’t worry about it then” (Texas). These community concerns can sway schools to not address TDV to minimize resistance, even if that is a view not shared by all in the community.

Inner setting

Some staff recalled no specific training for TDV, with some using external resources for their own education and training on TDV. Many staff also noted there was limited funding for TDV education. Often, TDV was included in broader health education, which had inadequate time to cover topics comprehensively. One counselor encapsulated this concern about time saying, “Health is one day a week for 50 minutes. How much are you really covering in 50 minutes once a week?…Are you really having the discussions you need to regarding the topics?” (New Jersey). With limited time, staff have to prioritize which topics to address.

Individuals

The majority of participants expressed unawareness and uncertainty about whether their school had TDV specific policies and were more familiar with other policies related to harassment, intimidation, and bullying (HIB). Only a few participants recalled a specific TDV policy. One counselor remembered, “I wanna say it’s very brief and doesn’t provide a lot of guidance” (New Jersey). Sometimes due to lack of knowledge of existing policies, some staff and students had mixed perceptions regarding the effectiveness of TDV policies. One counselor remarked, “I don’t think they’re effective if nobody knows they’re there” (New Jersey). A few participants felt like policies were effective since they were not aware of TDV incidents among students.

Some participants noted that students might not trust staff, which could lead to TDV being undetected or unreported. Several participants also described difficulty recognizing TDV because it may occur outside school property, students may not feel comfortable talking about their relationships, or students may not identify abusive behaviors or unhealthy norms. The lack of visibility poses a barrier to addressing TDV. One health teacher said:

“Has it been brought to my attention in any way from the students? No. Not once. The kids are, I guess they’re guarded. They’re very quiet. They just don’t share those type things. Um, have they shared with someone else in the building? I don’t know. You know, teenagers don’t trust adults with certain things. And like I said before, some of ‘em don’t understand that, you know, this stalking and verbal stuff is considered abuse…So, no, I haven’t, we haven’t, encountered it. I’m sure it’s out there. I mean, I know it’s out there, but we just haven’t, uh, encountered it.”

(New Jersey)

A few staff also noted some level of discomfort implementing TDV policies and programs due to the sensitive nature of the topic, though some staff had experience and felt comfortable with TDV. One administrator commented on the discomfort that persists despite training efforts, calling into question who is the most appropriate person to deliver TDV education:

“There’s so much discomfort…I would say [at] all levels, but like, so let’s just start with teacher level, right? So the health teachers who are PE teachers are the ones that need to be teaching all of this in our district because it’s part of our health curriculum. And I know for a fact that they’re not comfortable with it…I try to pull in [staff from a local community organization] to do some of [staff] training because it’s a topic that they are comfortable with…but even despite the training, I just know that there are varying levels of comfort.”

(Rhode Island)

Facilitators of implementing TDV policies and programs

Outer setting

Some states mandate that schools cover healthy relationships and similar topics from an early age, but there may be opportunities for states to create additional requirements and guidance. One administrator said, “It would build my confidence as the district leader if I had something that the state kind of stamped, like, yep, this is our list of programs that would be highly effective for teen dating violence” (Rhode Island). Even when the requirements for TDV education were known, identifying specific content or programs was challenging for staff.

Inner setting

External speakers (e.g., survivor speakers from community organizations) who share their knowledge and lived experiences often resonated with students, particularly when health education teachers might not always be best suited to deliver TDV education. The majority of staff and students shared suggestions for what they would like to see/learn in TDV education (e.g., TDV education for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer and/or questioning (LGBTQ+) students, signs of unhealthy relationships, how to support someone experiencing TDV). One counselor shared:

“We actually do have a gender sexuality alliance…we’ll do pride day stuff like that, but there’s not really a focus on the dating violence aspect…or even like normalizing the dating violence in that community. So I feel like there’s more of a focus between heterosexual couples and even family violence, but really not LGBTQ+.”

(New Jersey)

Building self-esteem and helping students find their voice was seen as an important component of TDV education. Many students also mentioned that they would like to learn more about how to foster healthy and long-term relationships: “I wanna know how to maintain healthy relationships. ‘cause I feel like …we talk more about avoiding toxic relationships more than how to create a healthy relationship” (New Jersey). A few participants also identified opportunities for additional training for staff (e.g., trauma-informed training) to increase their comfort with TDV-related topics, including scripts for delivering educational content.

TDV efforts were seen as effective when there was a shared commitment to addressing the issue and it was taken seriously by members of the school community. One counselor reflected:

“I think it has to be a change in attitude that people wanna take on and have those uncomfortable conversations and make it part of our everyday language. We’ve done that with HIB. Students know that they know what’s considered HIB, what has to happen…what’s protected by it. But we don’t have that same understanding with dating violence.”

(New Jersey)

The majority of staff and students expressed desires regarding TDV prevention, including additional funding and resources, more education and events, and helping students know their value and how to seek help. Many staff also discussed how TDV efforts relied on having motivated staff and student champions within the school. One counselor noted, “You have to be intrinsically motivated…to do all this because you’re not gonna get rewarded or in trouble for not doing it or doing it” (Texas). This motivation was especially needed as there are few consequences for schools not addressing TDV, even if legally required.

Many participants also discussed other relevant policies and procedures, including sexual harassment policies, general violence policies, harassment/bullying policies, mediation, stay away agreements, and/or schedule changes, that may address TDV. Title IX policies were not generally used across schools, as participants had little awareness of the purpose or existence of Title IX. Some participants noted the lack of clarity around requirements of some of these policies:

“We do have a strong harassment, intimidation, and bullying policy, which everything of dating violence would fall under just by that one line of the unequal balance of power…I don’t know if I would file a claim through that…the policy really is sort of ambiguous with what we’re required to do.”

(Administrator, New Jersey)

Staff expressed a desire for additional clarity on how to identify TDV and which specific policies apply to TDV.

Individuals

Multiple staff and students voiced that adults should understand that high school students are maturing and in relationships, so conversations about TDV should not be sugarcoated or avoided. One student reflected:

“I just think that they should know that a lot of people are dating during this time too. And so violence is happening even if it’s like not physical…a lot of the times I feel like the stereotype is that like, oh, like boys will be boys or like, oh, they’re just young, they’re dumb…yeah, I feel like they just don’t really like talk about it enough.”

(Massachusetts)

A few students also described how adults need to better understand how dating has evolved over time (e.g., with technology). One student said, “Although [adults] were teenagers once, they don’t really understand how different we are now…So dating violence isn’t gonna be the same as it was like 10, 20 years ago or whatever. I feel like they just need to know how the violence can evolve and shift…from physical to emotional” (New Jersey). This sentiment spoke to students’ need for up-to-date and relevant educational content.

Discussion

Interviews with staff and students across four states highlight complexities and gaps in addressing TDV in schools. Awareness of TDV has increased substantially over the past couple decades, reflected by states enacting laws requiring schools to address TDV.^6,8 To date, there has been limited research to understand how these laws are implemented in practice. Overall, we noted substantial variability in how TDV was addressed between schools, even within a single state, indicating the source of variability may not be the content of state laws but rather how they are disseminated and implemented at the discretion of individual schools.

While written laws and policies can establish the importance of TDV and provide useful guidance, district and school implementation is critical.¹⁰ Many staff, even those carrying out TDV protocols and activities, were not aware of existing TDV policies in their schools. Using engaging methods (e.g., discussion) to disseminate information about TDV laws and policies to staff and students may be needed to promote their use and ultimately effectiveness.³¹ Further research developing measures of implementation is needed, given that the effectiveness of laws and policies depends on adequate awareness and implementation.^21,22 A recent study examining implementation of a state’s anti-bullying law found that the law’s efficacy partially depends on how effectively and comprehensively school personnel implement it.¹⁶ Written TDV laws and policies may also benefit from including sanctions or incentives for compliance to increase accountability for implementation.⁶

Some staff discussed how certain TDV incidents might fall under broader violence policies, such as HIB policies. Indeed, because of the shared barriers and risk factors, school policies and programs may benefit from adopting a cross-cutting approach to simultaneously address multiple forms of violence (e.g., TDV, bullying, harassment).^32,33 One potential concern is introducing confusion about when a policy applies, as some participants indicated TDV is included in HIB, while others would not necessarily make a HIB report for TDV.³⁴ If schools have more general violence-related policies, explicitly naming and defining all forms of violence covered and adding considerations specific to romantic/dating relationships would help to adequately address TDV.

Although staff and students viewed TDV as an important issue for schools to address, they noted several barriers that pose logistical and conceptual challenges to doing so, including limited time and resources, invisibility of TDV, staff comfort and training, and concerns with community pushback. These results align with prior research identifying barriers to implementing anti-bullying prevention and sex education.^17,35,36 Participants noted that they face many competing demands and priorities with a limited amount of time to address many issues. Furthermore, implementation challenges may be greater in schools serving disinvested communities, which often have even more limited resources, compounded risks, and low social and political capital.³⁷ Lack of rigorous implementation of violence prevention policies and programs may exacerbate inequities. Countering these barriers will require strong leadership and staff collaboration.^17,35 Clear state laws and standards (e.g., health education, comprehensive sex education) along with recommendations for specific programs and materials for training staff to increase their knowledge and comfort can also facilitate schools having strong content on healthy relationships and TDV.^38,39 Written laws and policies can serve as a buffer against pushback schools might experience from families and communities.^40–42 Parental engagement is vital, as parents/caregivers are a primary source of information on relationships and because their engagement can ensure TDV is taken seriously in schools.^42–45 Overall, our results underscore the multilevel nature of implementation; addressing TDV in schools can involve approval, buy-in, and action of school boards, superintendents, principals, staff/teachers, parents/families, and students.

Many participants discussed the importance of trust between staff and students. Individuals who experience TDV often disclose informally (e.g., to peers, trusted adults), and supportive reactions to disclosure can positively impact survivors.⁴⁶ School staff play a unique role in adolescents’ lives and can help them process and navigate abusive relationships. Trust is a primary determinant of disclosure,⁴⁷ and strategies to build strong, trusting relationships between staff and students can contribute to a supportive school environment. Prior national surveys with school nurses, counselors, and principals have highlighted a lack of protocols and training to receive disclosures and assist students who experience TDV.^39,48,49 Clear response protocols and staff training are needed to meet students’ needs and foster supportive school environments.^49,50 Health education teachers have reported wanting further professional development on violence prevention,⁵¹ which could include training on how to respond to disclosures in a trauma-informed way.

Limitations

While we attempted to capture perspectives of staff and students from diverse districts, we were limited by recruitment challenges. Many districts indicated they could not participate due to the sensitive nature of TDV or bandwidth limitations. Participation was voluntary, so our sample of staff and students may be more aware of and likely to implement TDV policies and programs than those who did not participate. Participants were all English speaking, and recruitment challenges precluded us from selecting participants based on geography or demographic group. However, qualitative studies are not typically meant to be representative, and the results highlight important nuances of addressing TDV within states with TDV laws. Future research with participants who speak languages other than English and with high schools in other states (e.g., without long-standing laws) and types of districts, particularly those serving disinvested communities, is needed to inform tailored strategies. In addition, samples that allow for in-depth exploration of several districts within a single state or allow for comparisons with sub-sampling within states would be particularly valuable. Further exploration of related and overlapping state laws (e.g., anti-LGBTQ+ laws, Title IX) is also warranted.

Conclusion

State laws and district policies hold great promise as systems-level strategies for reducing TDV, potentially equipping schools to serve as effective sites of TDV prevention. While written laws can serve an important function, they may be insufficient for ensuring that TDV policies and programs are implemented in schools as intended. Our findings highlight the multifaceted – and often inconsistent – ways that schools currently address TDV and the substantial unmet need that remains to overcome barriers to implementing TDV policies and programs. Addressing TDV in schools will require a multilevel effort to provide specific guidance, support, and tangible resources for schools to adequately and appropriately respond to and prevent TDV.

Implications and Contributions.

Through interviews with school staff and students across four states, this study highlighted barriers to and facilitators of implementing state laws addressing teen dating violence through policies and programs in high schools. Further attention devoted to implementation is needed to ensure teen dating violence is addressed effectively within schools.

List of Abbreviations:

HIB

harassment, intimidation, and bullying

TDV

teen dating violence