Research demonstrates that Teen Dating Violence (TDV) programs impact TDV knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, decreasing the odds of TDV victimization and perpetration. Studies indicate that students who do not complete a TDV intervention have significantly higher odds of physical and emotional TDV victimization and emotional TDV perpetration. This study uses multiple logistic regression and multiple linear regression to examine predictors of the presence and the strength of state legislation addressing TDV education and school policies. Results indicate some success in predicting the existence of TDV laws but less support for forecasting the strength of the policies passed. Dominant political party and state median income were found to be potentially important determinants of TDV state school policies. A state’s political culture influenced the strength of states’ TDV policies. Showing that policy existence and strength are related to different processes is important for advocates to understand. Future research should look at additional variables and explore legislative histories.
AckardD. M.EisenbergM. E.Neumark-SztainerD. (2007). Long-term impact of adolescent dating violence on the behavioral and psychological health of male and female youth. The Journal of Pediatrics, 151(5), 476–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2007.04.034
2.
AtkinsP.FredericoM. (2017). Supporting implementation of innovative social work practice: What factors really matter?The British Journal of Social Work, 47(6), 1723–1744. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcx091
3.
BarrilleauxC.BernickE. (2003). Deservingness, discretion and the state politics of welfare spending, 1990-1996. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 3(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000300300101
4.
BaumgartnerF.JonesB. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. University of Chicago Press.
5.
BeckerC.LeeJ.HudsonS.HooverJ.CivilsD. (2017). A 14-year longitudinal study of the impact of clean indoor air legislation on state smoking prevalence, USA, 1997-2010. Preventive Medicine, 99, 63–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.01.016
BrunnerE.RossS.WashingtonE. (2011). Economics and policy preferences: Causal evidence of the impact of economic conditions on support for redistribution and other ballot proposals. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(3), 888–906. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00088
8.
CallaghanR.SanchesM.GatleyJ.CunninghamJ.ChaitonM.SchwartzR.… BennyC. (2018). Impacts of Canada’s minimum age for tobacco sales (MATS) laws on youth smoking behavior, 2000-2014. Tobacco Control, 27(e2), e105–e111.
ChapmanS.AlpersS.AghoK.JonesM. (2006). Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms: Faster falls in firearm deaths, firearm suicides, and a decade without mass shootings. Injury Prevention, 12(6), 365–372. https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.2006.013714
11.
ChronisterK. M.MarsiglioM. C.LinvilleD.LantripK. R. (2014). The influence of dating violence on adolescent girls’ educational experiences. The Counseling Psychologist, 42(3), 374–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000012470569
12.
De La RueL.PolaninJ.EspelageD. L.PigottT. (2014). School-based interventions to reduce dating and sexual violence: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 10(7), 5–110.
13.
De La RueL.PolaninJ. R.EspelageD. L.PigottT. D. (2017). A meta-analysis of school-based interventions aimed to prevent or reduce violence in teen dating relationships. Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 7–34. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316632061
14.
ElazarD. E. (1972). American federalism: A view from the states. Thomas Y. Crowell Company.
15.
Exner-CortensD.EckenrodeJ.BungeJ.RothmanE. (2017). Revictimization after adolescent dating violence in a matched, national sample of youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 60(2), 176–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.09.015
16.
FarberH.ParkhaleS.NeptuneE. (2016). Tobacco 21: An important public policy to protect our youth. Annals of the American Thoracic Society, 13(12), 2115–2118. https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201604-253AR
17.
FisherP. (2016). Definitely not moralistic: State political culture and support for Donald Trump in the race for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. PS: Political Science and Politics, 49(4), 743–747. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096516001475
FosheeV. A.BaumanK. E.ArriagaX. B.HelmsR. W.KochG. G.LinderG. F. (1998). An evaluation of safe dates, an adolescent dating violence prevention program. American Journal of Public Health, 88(1), 45–50.
20.
FowlerF. C. (2004). Policy studies for educational leaders: An introduction. Pearson.
21.
FowlerL.WittS. (2019). State preemption of local authority: Explaining patterns of state adoption of preemption measures. Publius, 49(3), 540–559. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjz011
GrayV. (2012). The socioeconomic and political context of states. In GrayV.HansonR.KousserT. (Eds.), Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis (pp. 1–29). SAGE.
24.
HoeferR.BlackB.SalehinM. (2012). Dating violence policy: Making the grade. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 34(4), 9-24.
25.
HoeferR.BlackB.RicardM. (2015). The impact of state policy on teen dating violence prevalence. Journal of Adolescence, 44, 88-96.
26.
HolbrookT.La RajaR. (2012). Parties and elections. In GrayV.HansonR.KousserT. (Eds.), Politics in the American states: A comparative analysis (pp. 63–104). SAGE.
27.
JacksonR. D.BouffardL. A.FoxK. A. (2013). Putting policy into practice: Examining school districts’ implementation of teen dating violence legislation. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25, 503–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403412475136
KhubchandaniJ.ClarkJ.WiblishauserM.ThompsonA.WhaleyC.ClarkR.DavisJ. (2017). Prevention and responding to teen dating violence: A national study of school principals’ perspectives and practice. Violence and Gender, 4(4), 144–151. https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2017.0043
30.
KhubchandaniJ.TelljohannS. K.PriceJ. H.DakeJ. A.HendershotC. (2013). Providing assistance to the victims of adolescent dating violence: A national assessment of school nurses’ practices. Journal of School Health, 83(2), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12008
31.
KingdonJ. (2011). Agendas, alternatives, and public policy. Longman.
32.
LargioD. M. (2007). Refining the meaning and application of “dating relationship” language in domestic violence statutes. Vanderbilt Law Review, 60(3), 939–981.
33.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.
MatisoffD. (2008). The adoption of state climate change policies and renewable portfolio standards: Regional diffusion or internal determinants?Review of Policy Research, 25(6), 527–546.
MedoffM.DennisC.StephensK. (2011). The impact of party control on the diffusion of parental involvement laws in the U.S. states. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 11(3), 325–347.
38.
MondakJ.CanacheD. (2014). Personality and political culture in the American states. Political Research Quarterly, 67(1), 26–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912913495112
PeskinM. F.MarkhamC. M.ShegogR.BaumlerE. R.AddyR. C.TortoleroS. R. (2014). Effects of the It’s Your Game . . . Keep It Real program on dating violence in ethnic–minority middle school youths: A group randomized trial. American Journal of Public Health, 104(8), 1471–1477.
41.
PressmanJ.WildavskyA. (1984). Implementation: How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland: Or, why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all (3rd ed.). University of California Press.
42.
ReuterT. R.SharpC.TempleJ. R. (2015). An exploratory study of teen dating violence in sexual minority youth. Partner Abuse, 6(1), 8–8. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.6.1
43.
RuedaH. A.FawsonP. R. (2018). From state policy to school practices: Accessibility and implementation of teen dating violence awareness education. Partner Abuse, 9(1), 379–396. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.9.4.379
ShockD. R. (2008). Securing a line on the ballot: Measuring and explaining the restrictiveness of ballot access laws for non-major party candidates in the United States. Social Science Journal, 451(1), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2007.12.004
46.
SilvermanJ. G.RajA.MucciL. A.HathawayJ. E. (2001). Dating violence against adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 572–579. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.286.5.572
47.
TaylorB. G.MumfordE. A. (2016). A national descriptive portrait of adolescent relationship abuse: Results from the national survey on teen relationships and intimate violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(6), 963–988. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514564070
48.
TempleJ. R.FreemanD. H. (2011). Dating violence and substance use among ethnically diverse adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(4), 701–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510365858
VagiK. J.O’Malley OlsenE.BasileK. C.Vivolo-KantorA. M. (2015). Teen dating violence (physical and sexual) among US high school students: Findings from the 2013 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey. JAMA Pediatrics, 169, 474–482. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.3
51.
WeisbergD. K. (2013). Lindsay’s legacy: The tragedy that triggered law reform to prevent teen dating violence. Hastings Women’s Law Journal, 24(1), 27–58.
52.
WeiszA. N.BlackB. (2009). Help seeking and help giving for teen dating violence. The Prevention Researcher, 16 (1), 12-16.
53.
WienerJ.KoontzT. (2010). Shifting winds: Explaining variation in state policies to promote small-scale wind energy. Policy Studies Journal, 38(4), 629–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00377.x
54.
WrightG.Jr.EriksonR.McIverJ. (1987). Public opinion and policy liberalism in the American states. American Journal of Political Science, 31(4), 980–1001.
