Putting Policy Into Practice

Abstract

Texas was the first state to pass a law requiring school districts to develop and adopt a dating violence policy. However, very little attention has been paid to whether and how school districts implemented the policy. The current study examines the implementation efforts of a sample of Texas school districts to gain insight as to how the policy has been carried out. Content analysis was used to examine district handbooks, codes of conduct, and websites. Our findings indicate that a majority of the districts included in the study have developed and adopted the basic parts of the policy (the definition and a general set of consequences) while neglecting to implement specific parts of the policy beneficial to victims. Based on our findings we concluded that as districts move forward in implementing the dating violence policy, emphasis must be placed on providing services to victims and increasing awareness.

Keywords

teen dating violence school policy high school junior high school policy implementation school districts

Introduction

In March 2003, 15-year-old Ortralla Mosley was stabbed to death by her ex-boyfriend in the hallway of her high school in Austin, Texas. This was the first on-campus homicide linked to dating violence in the state. The intense scrutiny following this incident and the activism of Ortralla’s mother and others highlighted the issue of teen dating violence (TDV), especially with regard to behaviors that occur at school and the response of school administrators. In 2007, Texas became the first state to pass a law requiring school districts to adopt and implement a dating violence policy (HB 121). In response to this legislation, a number of state and local victim service agencies mobilized to support school districts in their efforts to respond to this new law, producing a model policy, guides to implementation, sample protocols for dealing with incidents, and training and education. Since this law passed 5 years ago, however, very little systematic attention has been paid to how school districts have developed and implemented dating violence policies in connection with the legislation. Although prior research has produced a substantial body of literature to advance our understanding of intimate partner violence (IPV) in general, comparatively little research has focused more specifically on dating violence among teenagers and the effectiveness of policies designed to respond to TDV.

Importance of the Current Study

Policy implementation is a fluid process in which implementation problems “evolve through a multistage iterative process,” and as the process unfolds a variety of issues and considerations emerge (McLaughlin, 1987, p. 174). As an initial stage of the process, compliance with a policy or mandate as well as efforts to meet the policy goals must be determined prior to addressing some of the more complex issues regarding policy implementation. In addition, McLaughlin (1987) points out that when analyzing a policy implementation process it is vital to examine the implementer’s efforts to put the policy in place and to have evidence of commitment and support for policy goals.

Prior to examining how well the school dating violence policy is being enforced, it is important to demonstrate districts’ efforts to comply with the mandate and to identify methods districts use to implement the policy. As McLaughlin (1987) points out when policy implementation unfolds, issues begin to emerge, and the current study is important because it identifies issues that arise at the initial phase of the policy implementation process. Without a clear understanding of the problems that arise from districts’ basic efforts to comply with the mandate, a buildup of issues that emerge as policy implementation moves forward may occur.

Consistent with other policy-oriented research, this study contributes to the literature by laying the groundwork for future studies to further evaluate the effects of TDV policies and programs as well as issues related to implementation of the policy (Gaines, Lonis-Shumate, & Gropper, 2011; Probart, McDonnell, Weirich, Schilling, & Fekete, 2008; Serrano et al., 2007). Furthermore, the current study offers the first empirical assessment of the extent to which Texas school districts have implemented the legislatively mandated TDV policy.

Teen Dating Violence

Although similar to IPV, TDV is considered a separate form of abuse in which the victims and perpetrators fit a more specific set of criteria. While most definitions of IPV generally describe intimate partner abuse as intentionally injurious acts against a spouse or cohabitating partner (Wallace & Roberson, 2011), adolescent and teen victims of dating violence may be inadvertently excluded from these definitions since they are generally neither married to nor cohabitating with their partner. As with other forms of IPV, the range of violent behaviors that take place during an adolescent or teen dating relationship may vary, but the threat and/or use of physical violence and aggression is the most commonly recognized, reported, and studied behavior (Cornelius & Resseguie, 2007). Sugarman and Hotaling (1989) describe dating violence as the threat of or actual act of physical violence by one person in a dating relationship against the other person in the relationship. In his early work on courtship violence (which would later be called dating violence), Makepeace (1989) described two types of courtship violence: (a) a brutal and sexually motivated type, and (b) a type that stems from relationship difficulties and becomes increasingly harmful the longer the relationship lasts.

Recently, more work has explored the various forms of dating violence outside of physical force. Verbal, emotional, and psychological abuse are described as behavior used to intimidate, threaten, or harm the dating partner (Cornelius & Resseguie, 2007; Hanley & O’Neill, 1997). Sexual aggression and abuse in a dating relationship are described as actions used to coerce a dating partner to engage in unwanted sexual intercourse and activities (Smith & Donnelly, 2001). According to several studies, these various forms of aggression and/or abuse are often interrelated and may occur sequentially or simultaneously (Cornelius & Resseguie, 2007; Jackson, 1999; Ryan, 1995). Contemporary dating violence definitions have begun to emerge, and these definitions include forms of verbal, emotional, and psychological abuse as well as sexual aggression and violence (Cornelius & Resseguie, 2007; Hanley & O’Neill, 1997; Smith & Donnelly, 2001). In sum, TDV is defined collectively as “a pattern of violent behavior—physical, sexual, emotional, or verbal—by one partner in a dating relationship toward the other partner” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2007, p. 3)

TDV among middle and high school students has become more prevalent both on and off school grounds. Statistics indicate that nearly 1.5 million high school students experience physical abuse at the hands of a dating partner (CDC, 2006), with about one in three girls reporting some form of dating violence (O’Keefe, 2005). Specifically, the 2007 Youth Risk Behavior Survey indicates that nearly 10% of students had been purposely hit, kicked, slapped, or physically hurt by their dating partner during the previous year (CDC, 2008). Elias-Lambert, Black, and Sharma (2010, p. 136) “suggest that between 20 to 59% of high school students have experiences with dating violence.” Of the teens experiencing dating violence, almost half report that at least one incident occurred on school grounds or in a school building (Molidor & Tolman, 1998). Like IPV in adults, experiences of dating violence victimization are associated with a number of adverse outcomes among teenagers, including anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, poor school performance, school absenteeism, substance abuse, smoking, suicide, pregnancy, eating disorders, and risky sexual behaviors (Callahan et al., 2003; Elias-Lambert et al., 2010; Murphy & O’Leary, 1989; O’Leary, Malone, & Tyree, 1994; Silverman, Raj, Mucci, & Hathaway, 2001; Temple & Freeman, 2011).

Collectively, prior research described above highlights the important practical, policy, and health-related implications for addressing and reducing TDV. Most dating relationships begin at a young age when adolescents and teens have yet to mature enough to recognize, understand, and respond appropriately to adverse and complex emotions brought on by dating and romantic relationships (Largio, 2007). In addition, many aspects of dating relationships take place in a school setting, and a substantial amount of dating abuse takes place on school grounds (Molidor & Tolman, 1998). Thus, dating violence at school is an important issue for adolescents and teens. As evidenced by the statistics above and the early age at which young people begin dating, it is important to consider the role that school-based policy addressing TDV plays.

School-Based Response to Dating Violence

Although current literature demonstrates that dating violence has deleterious effects on adolescents and that it is prevalent in middle and high schools, very little research has examined the existence and impact of dating violence policies in junior high and high schools. However, a number of studies focused on more general school violence policy appear in the educational, criminal justice, legal, and adolescent violence prevention literatures. As violence in schools increased during the 1990s, numerous policies were designed and implemented to deter and combat school violence in general (Ricketts, 2007). Although school violence policies were adopted widely, very few studies examined how these policies were implemented or the impact they had on school violence. Of those studies that have examined the effect of written policies and prevention curriculum on student behavior as well as student, parent, and teacher perception of the policies and their overall effectiveness, key findings indicate that not only should violence prevention policy be properly implemented, enforced with disruptive students, and evaluated, but also that teacher involvement during creation and implementation of violence prevention policy is vital for the development of an effective policy (Ricketts, 2007; Weiler, Dorman, & Pealer, 1999).

The findings discussed in the school violence policy literature are important because they provide insight about the role that dating violence policy can play in preventing and deterring physical abuse on school campuses. However, these policies are in some cases overly broad, referring to violence generally, or refer to specific forms of violence (e.g., bullying, gang violence), which in both cases may not address issues unique to dating violence, such as anger management (Close, 2005).

Early TDV literature that examined policies and legislation focused on teens’ access to protection from an abuser using existing domestic violence civil and criminal legislation. Suarez (1994) reviewed state domestic violence laws throughout the United States to determine what, if any, provisions were in place for underage victims of dating violence. Similar studies were conducted at the state level in Texas and Illinois (Offenhauer & Buchalter, 2011) and at the national level (Break the Cycle, 2010). Each of these studies found that protection for adolescent and teen victims of dating violence was inadequate. Recommendations for improving the laws included amending state legislation to provide minors with better access to protection orders as well as educating school officials and law enforcement officers on how to keep victims safe from their abusers (Break the Cycle, 2010). Along with examining state laws to determine how well or poorly each state addresses issues unique to adolescents and teens in a dating violence situation, Break the Cycle (2010) applauded states that required school districts to adopt violence prevention/intervention programs and recommended that all states enact similar laws immediately. An education policy brief by Zwicker (2002) examined state-level IPV legislation throughout the United States and determined that more legal protection should be put in place for teens. Zwicker (2002) also reviewed existing TDV prevention programs and concluded that intervention and prevention programs must be implemented in schools. To illustrate the point, Zwicker presented the Campus Security Act of 1990 (Clery Act) as a model for dating violence legislation.

Several studies examine the liability and legal implications that school districts may face for ignoring the problem of dating violence on campus (Carlson, 2003; Mayes, 2008; Stader, 2011). Stader (2011) provides a brief overview of the ways that a school district can be held liable under federal and state law for failure to respond to dating violence incidents on campus or at a school function. Carlson’s (2003, p. 368) detailed discussion, which serves as the basis of Stader’s (2011) argument, uses California law to demonstrate “the educational systems liability for dating violence on school campus.” Mayes (2008) provides recommendations to educators on the enforcement of no-contact orders in the school setting. He indicates that victims with no-contact orders must be treated with respect and that a clear and understandable plan for how schools will respond to TDV must be drafted prior to the occurrence of TDV incidents.

School-Based TDV Policies: The Texas Model

According to section 37.0831 of the Texas Education Code, each school district is required to develop and implement a dating violence policy that must: (a) “include a definition of dating violence that includes the intentional use of physical, sexual, verbal, or emotional abuse by a person to harm, threaten, intimidate, or control another person in a dating relationship” and (b) “address safety planning, enforcement of protective orders, school-based alternatives to protective orders, training for teachers and administrators, counseling for affected students, and awareness education for students and parents.”

Recently, Ramos (2010) provided a review of this new state legislation, which is the first state law that specifically addresses school-based dating violence policy. Rather than evaluate implementation of the policy, Ramos examines the language used in the law and provides recommendations for improvement. For example, Ramos (2010, p. 111) argues that the language used within the statute is “unassertive and fails to provide school districts with sufficient direction for constructing and implementing an effective dating violence policy.” Furthermore, Ramos (2010) highlights the importance of implementing the statute and recommends amendments that will provide school districts with guidance on how to successfully implement the law. Given the importance of implementing TDV policy, the current study offers the first assessment of the ways in which school districts have responded to the recent legislation. More specifically, the present study is the first to systematically examine school districts’ TDV policy implementation, consequences for offenders, rights of victims, and the accessibility of the policies for students and parents.

Method

The current study examined a sample of school districts within the state of Texas to evaluate the level of implementation of the dating violence policy in the Texas education code. The following describes the sampling procedure and the data collected from the sample (e.g., student/parent handbooks/codes of conduct). Next, we feature the results from a content analysis of school districts’ handbooks/codes of conduct regarding the extent to which (a) districts implemented the TDV policy, (b) consequences are outlined for offending students, (c) rights for victims are presented, and (d) the policies are easily accessible to parents and students.

School District Sample

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) website was used to obtain the population of school districts within the state of Texas. There are over 200 school districts located throughout the 20 Education Service Center (ESC) regions in Texas. In selecting the sample, we restricted our search to include only independent/common school districts (i.e., traditional public schools, N = 1,034), which excluded open enrollment charters (e.g., charter and preparatory academies), schools within the Texas Juvenile Justice Department (e.g., correctional institution for juveniles), and the Texas School for the deaf/blind.

Texas public school districts are classified by the TEA into district types using factors such as student enrollment, economic status, and proximity to urban areas. The district types range from major urban to rural, with major suburban districts located close to major urban areas and other central city district types having attributes similar to major urban areas but with lower populations and student enrolments. Independent towns and rural school districts have populations less than 100,000, and low student enrollments. The TEA indicates that larger district types, such as major urban, major suburban, and other central city district types are characterized as having racially and economically diverse student enrollments.

District types in the current study, which include major urban (14%), major suburban (37%), other central city (37%), and independent town (12%), were partially selected based on population size and proximity to urban areas that are more likely to have dating violence resources. Selection of school districts for the current study was further guided by student enrollment counts as of October 2011. More specifically, within each region, districts with student enrollment greater than 25,000 were included because it was determined that they were more likely to have the resources to adopt and implement a TDV policy, and these districts were more likely to have a racially and economically diverse student enrollment. Among those regions that did not have districts with 25,000 or more student enrollments, the two districts with the largest student enrollments within that region were selected.

In total, 73 Texas public school districts that serve k-12 students were selected. For each of the selected school districts, publicly available documents (i.e., student/parent handbooks, student codes of conduct) were obtained from the district website. However, a broken link prevented access to the required materials for one district. Although several attempts were made to obtain a version of the handbook/student code of conduct directly from district personnel, neither a paper version nor an electronic version was obtained. Therefore, the district was removed from the analysis, resulting in a final sample of 72 school districts.

Table 1 presents the descriptive characteristics of the school districts. Across districts, males represented an average of 51.3% of the enrolled student population, and females constituted 48.7%. The average racial breakdown of the student population across districts included 14.8% African American, 27.1% White, and 51.7% Hispanic. The average percentage for the remaining sample was listed as another race/ethnicity (e.g., Asian, American Indian, or Alaska Native). Across districts, an average of 9.7% of enrolled students was identified as economically disadvantaged. According to TEA, economic disadvantage was based on factors such as family income at or below the poverty line, eligibility for food stamp benefits, eligibility for temporary assistance to needy families (TANF), or some other public assistance. Across districts, the average attendance rate was 95.5% for the 2009-2010 academic year (most recent year available), and the average graduation rate across districts was 92.1% for the class of 2010 (most recent year available).

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics by School District.

	Mean	SD
Sex
Percent male	51.3	0.4
Percent female	48.7	0.4
Ethnicity/race
Percent African American	14.8	12.2
Percent White	27.1	18.3
Percent Hispanic	51.7	24.3
Percent Asian	4.1	4.5
Percent Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander	0.1	1.2
Percent American Indian or Alaska Native	0.4	0.3
Percent two or more races	1.9	1.1
Economically disadvantaged	9.7	25.9
Attendance rate	95.5	0.7
Completion rate	92.1	4.4
District rating
Unacceptable	0%
Acceptable	61.6%
Recognized	37.0%
Exemplary	1.4%

Finally, school districts in Texas are rated based on the district’s overall academic performance on the state standardized test (the 2009-2010 Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test). Based largely upon standardized test scores, districts can earn one of four ratings, including academically unacceptable (representing the lowest rating), academically acceptable, recognized, and exemplary (representing the highest rating). Among the districts in our sample, none were ranked as academically unacceptable. Over half (61.6%) of the districts earned an academically acceptable rating, 37.0% earned a recognized rating, and one district (1.4%) was rated exemplary.

Coding Procedure

The research team coded each of the 72 student/parent handbooks and codes of conduct, and an independent research assistant coded 16 randomly selected handbooks/codes of conduct (20% of the sample) to establish interrater reliability. Among the key variables, coders yielded a high agreement rating (82% agreement). Despite the high level of interrater reliability, efforts were made to identify and resolve the very few discrepancies among coders. An independent examination of the few coding discrepancies confirmed the accuracy of the original coding decisions by the research team.

Data for each of the school districts were obtained electronically from several sources, including student/parent handbooks, student codes of conduct, and districts’ public website.¹ Given that the handbooks and codes of conduct were publically available in electronic format on each district’s website and it was unnecessary to contact district personnel to obtain hard copies of these documents, a traditional response rate was not calculated for this analysis. Data were collected from these documents and coded to examine districts’ efforts to implement the legislatively mandated TDV policy. More specifically, data were gathered to answer the following research questions: Do school districts have (a) a dating violence policy? (b) policies regarding consequences for the offending student? (c) policies and procedures that address the safety of the victimized student? and (d) accessible TDV awareness information?

The first key topic area we examined pertained to the general TDV policies contained within the handbooks/codes of conduct for the school districts. Within this broad area, we were particularly interested in whether districts featured a dating violence policy (yes/no), where the policy was located (handbook, code of conduct, or both documents), if the policy included a specific definition of dating violence (yes/no), and if the definition was the only information provided, or if additional information was available (yes/no).

The second key area investigates the districts’ consequences for students who perpetrate dating violence. More specifically, we examined whether a dating violence violation is treated as a unique offense with specific consequences (yes/no), which would indicate that districts are making efforts to address dating violence specifically. Alternatively, dating violence may be treated as a general category combined with other violations, which would indicate that dating violence is not highlighted specifically, but rather considered as a general policy violation (yes/no). We also examined the beginning severity level of consequences for dating violence, which ranged from no consequences for dating violence as the least punitive measure to expulsion as the most serious consequence. School districts that mandate comparatively minor forms of punishment for TDV would indicate less attention and seriousness devoted to TDV whereas moderate and severe consequences would be indicative of school districts’ low tolerance for dating violence on school grounds. Specifically, districts were coded lenient if the consequences for dating violence start at peer mediation or counseling, moderate if the starting punishment was suspension, and severe it the starting consequence was placement in an alternative education program.

The third key area concerns the rights afforded to dating violence victims. Specifically, coders noted the availability of a Disciplinary Alternative Educational Program (DAEP) as a consequence for dating violence (yes/no). DAEP refers to programs that are alternative schools designed for students with behavior management problems as well as for students who commit certain criminal offenses specified in the Texas Education Code. Furthermore, we examined whether the victim’s parent or guardian can request a transfer specifically for dating violence (yes/no), and whether the victim can request to transfer to another classroom or campus for offenses other than dating violence (yes/no). The availability of counseling to victims of dating violence (yes/no) as well as the victim’s ability to report an incident of dating violence to a school official (yes/no) were also examined.

Given the importance of publicizing the seriousness of TDV, the fourth key area addressed by the current study pertained to the ease of locating the information described above as well as TDV awareness information. The level of difficulty for locating both the TDV policy as well as the awareness information was based on the number of clicks required to access the information from the district homepage or the student/parent page. We determined that TDV information was “easily located” if it was available either directly on school districts’ main website or on the parent/student website. Furthermore, TDV information that required accessing either one or two links from the districts’ homepage was considered “moderately difficult” to locate. Finally, TDV information that required accessing more than two links from the districts’ homepage was considered to be “difficult” to locate. Our second interest within the fourth key area concerns the specificity of TDV awareness information. In particular, we assessed whether dating violence awareness information found on the district website was general or specific. Dating violence awareness information was considered general if the information was grouped with other categories that promote healthy choices by teens (e.g., substance abuse prevention, reducing teen pregnancy, increasing physical activity, and healthy eating). If the awareness information was explicit to the topic of dating violence, we considered it to be specific.

Results

The results for the analyses are presented in four parts. The first section presents our findings regarding the implementation of a dating violence policy as well as the location of the policy. The second section presents results regarding the types of consequences listed for dating violence perpetrators and how general or severe the consequences were. The third section features safety provisions available for victims of dating violence as indicated in the handbooks and/or codes of conduct. The final section of the results analyzed information accessibility, including the existence of awareness information as well as how easy or difficult it would be for parents or students to locate dating violence awareness information and/or the district policy related to dating violence.

School District Dating Violence Policies

The vast majority of the districts had implemented a dating violence policy (n = 65; 90.3%), which for the current analysis is defined as having at least a dating violence definition in the student/parent handbook or the student code of conduct (see Table 2). Of the districts that have a dating violence policy, 8 (12.3%) consist of only the definition, and the remaining 57 (87.7%) feature the definition and some set of consequences for engaging in dating violence on or near school grounds or at a school sponsored event. We also examined the location of the TDV policy (e.g., in the student/parent handbook only, in the student code of conduct only, or in both documents). Among the school districts that had a TDV policy, 14 (21.5%) were located only in the student/parent handbook, 21 (32.3%) were only in the student code of conduct, 14 (21.5%) were in the single document form of the student/parent handbook/code of conduct, and 16 (24.6%) were in both the student/parent handbook and the student code of conduct.

Table 2.

School District Dating Violence Policies (n = 72).

Policy information	Number (%)
Dating violence policy present
No	7 (9.7%)
Yes	65 (90.3%)
Definition only (of those with a policy, n = 65)
No	57 (87.7%)
Yes	8 (12.3%)
Location of definition/policy
Student handbook only	14 (21.5%)
Code of conduct only	21 (32.3%)
Handbook/code of conduct (in one document)	14 (21.5%)
Handbook and code of conduct (separate documents)	16 (24.6%)

Although the districts’ TDV definitions are generally similar, variation exists among the districts’ implementation of the dating violence policy (see Table 3). The majority of the districts (n = 37; 56.9%) utilize the following definition:

Dating violence occurs when a person in a current or past dating relationship uses physical, sexual, verbal, or emotional abuse to harm, threaten, intimidate, or control the other person in the relationship. Dating violence also occurs when a person commits these acts against a person in a marriage or dating relationship with the individual who is or was once in a marriage or dating relationship with the person committing the offense. This type of conduct is considered harassment if the conduct is so severe, persistent, or pervasive that it affects the student’s ability to participate in or benefit from an educational program or activity; creates an intimidating, threatening, hostile, or offensive educational environment; or substantially interferes with the student’s academic performance. (Definition #2)

Table 3.

School Districts’ TDV Definition (n = 65).

TDV definition	Number (%)
1 Dating violence is the intentional use of physical, sexual, verbal, or emotional abuse by a person to harm, threaten, intimidate, or control another person with whom the student has or has had a dating relationship, as defined by Section 71.0021 of the Family Code.	12 (18.5%)
2 Dating violence occurs when a person in a current or past dating relationship uses physical, sexual, verbal, or emotional abuse to harm, threaten, intimidate, or control the other person in the relationship. Dating violence also occurs when a person commits these acts against a person in a marriage or dating relationship with the individual who is or was once in a marriage or dating relationship with the person committing the offense. This type of conduct is considered harassment if the conduct is so severe, persistent, or pervasive that it affects the student’s ability to participate in or benefit from an educational program or activity; creates an intimidating, threatening, hostile, or offensive educational environment; or substantially interferes with the student’s academic performance.	37 (56.9%)
3 Dating violence occurs when one partner in a dating relationship, either past or current, intentionally uses physical, sexual, verbal, or emotional abuse to harm, threaten, intimidate, or control the other partner. For purposes of this policy, dating violence is considered prohibited harassment if the conduct is so severe, persistent, or pervasive that the conduct: Affects a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from an educational program or activity, or creates an intimidating, threatening, hostile, or offensive educational environment; Has the purpose or effect of substantially or unreasonably interfering with the student’s academic performance; or Otherwise adversely affects the student’s educational opportunities.	13 (20.0%)
4 Dating violence is the intentional use of physical, sexual, verbal, or emotional abuse by a person to harm, threaten, intimidate, or control another person in a dating relationship, as defined by Section 71.0021, Family Code. It is an act by an individual that is against another individual with whom that person has or has had a relationship and that is intended to result in physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault or that is a threat that reasonably places the individual in fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault, but does not include defensive measures to protect oneself. (b) For purposes of this violation, “relationship” means a relationship between individuals who have or have had a continuing relationship of a romantic or intimate nature. The existence of such a relationship shall be determined based on consideration of: (1) the length of the relationship; (2) the nature of the relationship; and (3) the frequency and type of interaction between the persons involved in the relationship.	2 (3.1%)
5 Dating violence is defined as a pattern of coercive behavior that one partner exerts over the other for the purpose of establishing and maintaining power and control.	1 (1.5%)

Note: TDV = teen dating violence.

In addition to a definition, many of the districts (n = 33; 50.8%) feature a set of examples that identify specific TDV behaviors:

Examples of dating violence against a student may include, but are not limited to, physical or sexual assaults, name-calling, put-downs, threats to hurt the student or the student’s family members or members of the student’s household, destroying property belonging to the student, threats to commit suicide or homicide if the student ends the relationship, attempts to isolate the student from friends and family, stalking, or encouraging others to engage in these behaviors.

Overall, the school districts mostly rely on the definition and information presented in the Texas Education Code dating violence policy mandate for k-12 school districts.

Consequences of TDV

The handbooks and codes of conduct for each district were examined to identify the types of consequences for engaging in dating violence (see Table 4). Forty-two (64.6%) of the districts listed dating violence as a type of general conduct violation as opposed to a specific type of misconduct. A number of these districts (n = 43; 66.2%) described general conduct violations as “categories of conduct . . . prohibited at school and all school-related activities.” The categories include, but are not limited to, mistreatment of others, disregard or disrespect of authority, and property offenses. An example of an offense categorized as disregard or disrespect of authority is failure to comply with instructions given by school personnel. Engaging in dating violence is an example of mistreatment of others, and theft (on school grounds) is an example of property offenses.

Table 4.

Consequences of Teen Dating Violence Among Districts With TDV Policies (n = 65).

Consequence Items	Number (%)
General category offense
Yes	42 (64.6%)
No	11 (16.9%)
N/A	12 (18.5%)
Specific to dating violence
Yes	12 (18.5%)
No	41 (63.0%)
N/A	12 (18.5%)
Severity level
Lenient	0 (0.0%)
General	40 (61.5%)
Moderate	12 (18.5%)
Severe	1 (1.5%)
None	12 (18.5%)

Many of the general conduct violation offenses are subject to punishments from the disciplinary management techniques, which are a general listing of potential consequences intended to encourage students to be responsible members of their school community. Similar to the general conduct violations category, many of the disciplinary management techniques sections used identical language to describe the consequences. One district described disciplinary management techniques as consequences designed to improve conduct and that they shall be correlated to the seriousness of the offense. The consequences suggested range from verbal reprimands, counseling by school personnel, parent–teacher conferences, and removal from the classroom setting. Alternatively, 12 (18.5%) of the districts had a specific misconduct type for dating violence with a specific set of consequences (e.g., suspension, discretionary removal to a Disciplinary Alternative Education Program [DAEP]). Twelve (18.5%) of districts did not specifically mention dating violence as a punishable offense.

The severity level, which includes general, lenient, moderate, and severe starting consequences for engaging in dating violence, was measured as well. Forty (61.5%) of the districts were found to have a generally wide range of starting consequences (e.g., verbal reprimand, in school suspension, removal from school) that were contingent on the severity of the offense. Twelve (18.5%) of the districts were moderate in severity and had techniques such as suspension as a starting consequence for dating violence. One district (1.5%) had discretionary DAEP as a beginning consequence, which was considered to be severe.

Rights of TDV Victims

An important and practical aspect of a dating violence policy is victim safety. Examination of the student/parent handbooks and codes of conduct revealed that provisions specifically for dating violence are lacking (see Table 5). Although 58 (89.2%) of the districts have DAEP available as a consequence for the perpetrator of dating violence, none of the districts indicate that a victim of dating violence or a victim’s parent/guardian can request that the victim be transferred to another classroom or campus in the district as a result of being the victim of dating violence. Forty-seven (72.3%) of the districts indicate that the parent or some other responsible adult can request that a victim of some other relational abuse (i.e., bullying, assault, sexual assault) be transferred to another classroom or campus if the perpetrator attends the same campus as the victim. Similarly, 54 (83.1%) of the districts provide student transfers based on the sexual assault campus assignment, which allows parents or guardians to request (on behalf of a victim) that the perpetrator of a sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault be transferred to another classroom, campus, or DAEP if the offending student has been adjudicated and/or convicted of the offense.

Table 5.

Rights of Teen Dating Violence Victims Among Districts With TDV Policies (n = 65).

Victim safety items	Number (%)
DAEP for dating violence
Yes	58 (89.2%)
No	7 (10.8%)
Victim transfer request for dating violence
Yes	0 (0.0%)
No	65 (100%)
Sexual assault transfer
Yes	54 (83.1%)
No	11 (16.9%)
Victim transfer request for other
Yes	47 (72.3%)
No	18 (27.7%)
Counseling available
Yes	43 (66.2%)
No	22 (33.8%)
Can report to school official
Yes	43 (66.2%)
No	22 (33.8%)

Note: DAEP = Disciplinary Alterative Educational Program.

Finally, 43 of the districts (66.2%) indicate that counseling services for dating violence are available. The remaining 22 districts (33.8%) do not mention counseling as an option for victims of dating violence. Also, 43 districts (66.2%) indicate that students who have been the victim of dating violence or their parent/guardian can report dating violence to a school official, which includes counselors, teachers, principals, and other district personnel.

Accessibility of Dating Violence Policies

Another issue related to TDV concerns the accessibility or ease of locating dating violence awareness information as well as the ability to locate the district response to dating violence (see Table 6). Awareness information, when available, was generally found on the district website. A majority of the districts (n = 42; 64.6%) did not have dating violence awareness information that we were able to locate. Of the 23 districts that had awareness information for students and parents, 18 (27.7%) were difficult to locate and the remaining five (7.7%) could be located with medium ease.² Another aspect of the awareness information is how specific the information is to dating violence. Fourteen (21.5%) of the districts had awareness information that was specifically designed to address dating violence among teens and adolescents, including descriptions of specific programs and/or curricula (e.g., Safe Dates, Choose Respect). Nine (13.9%) had some general mention of dating violence, and 42 (64.6%) districts did not have TDV awareness information.

Table 6.

Accessibility of Dating Violence Policies Among Districts With TDV Policies (n = 65).

Accessibility items	Number (%)
Student/parent TDV information
Specific	14 (21.5%)
General	9 (13.9%)
N/A	42 (64.6%)
Accessibility of awareness information
Easy	0 (0.0%)
Medium	5 (7.7%)
Hard	18 (27.7%)
N/A	42 (64.6%)
Accessibility of district policy
Easy	52 (80.0%)
Medium	7 (10.8%)
Hard	6 (9.2%)

Note: TDV = teen dating violence.

The districts’ TDV policy, which is located in the student/parent handbook and/or the code of conduct, was fairly easy to locate. More than two thirds of the handbooks (n = 52; 80%) were found either on the district’s main website or directly on the student/parent website. Seven of the handbooks and codes of conduct (10.8%) were found with medium difficulty (within one to two clicks of the student/parent website), and six (9.2%) were difficult to find (three or more clicks).

Discussion

Summary of Findings and Implications for Policy

The current study offers the first review of student/parent handbooks to assess school districts’ proposed implementation of the TDV legislation within the state of Texas. Given the recency of this legislation, there are currently no accountability measures in place to assess implementation of the policy, and little is known about the extent to which school districts within the state have complied with the recent law. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to assess the degree to which a sample of school districts have implemented various components of the dating violence policy as specified in the Texas state law. Results from a content analysis of school districts’ student/parent handbooks and codes of conduct reveal four main findings that merit further discussion.

First, findings from the analysis indicate that a majority of the districts in the sample (90%) have complied with the basic components of the dating violence policy mandate. Specifically, many of the districts in the analysis have included a definition of dating violence using elements of the definition presented in the Texas dating violence policy mandate. Furthermore, although the mandate does not specify the location of the policy, the school districts that had a dating violence policy were consistent in that the definition and consequences could be found in the student/parent handbook, code of conduct, or some combination of the documents. Since the handbooks and codes of conduct are items that both parents and students are required to review and to provide a signature attesting to their receipt, a majority of the districts are successfully making the policy available to students and parents throughout the state.

Our second key finding indicates that many districts have a general and wide ranging set of consequences that can be imposed on students who engage in dating violence on or near school grounds and at school-related events. These consequences range from verbal reprimand to expulsion. In addition, the starting severity level for a majority of the districts was broad, consisting of a wide range of consequences. The combination of a general set of consequences and the use of a variety of techniques as a starting consequence for dating violence indicates that a majority of districts in the sample treat incidents of dating violence as general mistreatment of others or as a general form of misconduct instead of as a clearly identified offense with specific consequences for perpetrators.

Third, although we found that a majority of the districts have a policy and some form of consequences for dating violence, none of the districts have safety provisions specifically for TDV victims that allows the victim to request a transfer to another classroom or campus. Thus, victims of dating violence must use an alternative policy or technique to gain protection from their abuser. Two thirds of the districts’ handbooks and/or codes of conduct indicate that victims of dating violence have access to counseling services and that they are able to report dating violence to a school official. Despite a majority of districts showing access to counseling services, it remains problematic that nearly one third of the districts do not clearly indicate that victims of dating violence can get counseling services.

The fourth main finding pertained to the availability of and access to districts’ dating violence policies and awareness information as well as specificity of the awareness information. Although the district policy, which was located in student/parent handbooks and/or codes of conduct, was easily found on district websites, TDV awareness information was generally either nonexistent or difficult to find. Of the few districts that had dating violence awareness information on their website, a majority of them used a specific prevention program such as Safe Dates or Choose Respect.

Collectively, our four key findings have important policy implications. At present, data specifically regarding implementation of dating violence policies is lacking both at the state and federal level. However, Ramos’s (2010) examination of the language used in Texas’ dating violence policy mandate is useful as a roadmap for successful implementation of the dating violence policy as well as a guide for gauging how well districts are implementing the policy. Specifically, Ramos (2010) contends that the TDV statute is insufficient and its effectiveness is limited because districts remain unsure about how to implement the policy as evidenced by the variation in the method of implementation from district to district.

Based on the findings from the current study, we conclude that school districts’ implementation of the dating violence policy as it is currently specified is in need of additional attention. Though most of the districts have a definition and set of consequences, the wide range of disciplinary techniques may unintentionally benefit the offending student. For example, rather than be subject to a distinct set of consequences for engaging in dating violence, perpetrators face punishments that cover a wide spectrum and are contingent on the severity of the offense. Essentially, this means that the severity of the incident as well as the punishment is based on the discretion of school officials, which is problematic for several reasons. For example, school administrators may not realize the severity of TDV, the violence may be deliberately downplayed in an effort to protect the school’s public image, or the perpetrator may be highly regarded by administration (e.g., promising student athlete, class valedictorian, influential status of parent in the community) and, therefore, school responses to TDV may underestimate the seriousness of the offense.

Ultimately, the school districts’ response to TDV may have the most serious effects on the victim. If some school districts have few safety provisions specifically for victims of dating violence, victims will be forced to creatively use district policies that allow victims of interpersonal abuse (i.e., bullying, assault, sexual assault, or harassment) and/or the sexual assault campus assignment listed in a majority of the handbooks if they want to ensure that their abuser is not at the same school. For instance, a dating violence victim may use district policies that apply to bullying (i.e., threats, harassment, and physical assault) to request a transfer to another school. District policies related to other forms of relational abuse and the sexual assault campus assignment policy are important to the current analysis because they provide dating violence victims with alternative forms of relief from their abuser. However, some of the nonphysical elements of dating violence are not compatible with district polices that apply to bullying, harassment, assault, or the sexual assault campus assignment policy. Furthermore, relying upon these other policies to protect TDV victims marginalizes TDV victims and their parents by conveying the message that TDV is not common or important enough for the school district to recognize it as a distinct form of violence that must be taken seriously. Therefore, it is critical for school districts to implement and enforce more specific policies that target dating abuse among teens.

Although nearly two thirds of the school districts stated that TDV victims can report the violence to school officials, it is not clear if the victim may report an incident of dating violence without parental involvement. Certainly, some teens who are experiencing abuse may not seek resources and support services if they are required to notify parents about the abuse (Break the Cycle, 2010), due to a variety of reasons, including embarrassment, fear, or shame. School districts interested in assisting TDV victims may wish to consider revising their TDV policies to indicate students do not need parental consent to report the abuse.

An additional barrier for victims is the lack of easily accessible dating violence awareness information, services (including counseling services), and resources provided by the districts. Awareness information or services made available by school districts are useless unless victims are able to locate and become aware of these resources. The lack of dating violence awareness information as well as the difficulty of locating the information, which was demonstrated by the current study, can be problematic for parents and individuals who have not experienced or been exposed to dating violence and are unaware of its immediate and long-term consequences. Importantly, awareness information educates parents, victims, and others about the signs of abuse (physical, emotional, and psychological), and an inability to access the information means that parents, victims, and potential victims may miss an opportunity to stop or prevent dating violence. To address the lack of dating violence awareness information while making efforts to prevent future violence, districts can implement programs to promote awareness and prevention of TDV. For example, Safe Dates is a school- and community-based adolescent dating violence prevention program that has demonstrated success in reducing various forms of dating violence over time (Foshee et al., 1998, 2000, 2004).

Limitations and Implications for Future Research

Although the current study is an important step forward for addressing TDV, several limitations must be considered. First, because the current study is an analysis of student/parent handbooks and codes of conduct, a more in-depth analysis of school districts’ compliance with the state law was unable to be determined. The law indicates that district employees must be provided dating violence training and awareness information. However, access to employee-designated areas of the district websites was not possible in a majority of the districts. Thus, information about implementation of teacher training and internal policies regarding dating violence was unavailable. Second, district personnel, students, and parents were not surveyed about their awareness of their school’s TDV policy. Therefore, the perception of district superintendents, teachers, counselors, nurses, students, and parents was beyond the scope of the current study, and information about attitudes toward TDV, dating violence victims, data regarding barriers to implementing a dating violence policy and challenges facing district employees remains unknown. Fourth, data for the current study is based on a sample of the larger school districts in Texas. While policy implementation may be more likely to occur in larger districts with more resources, we cannot assess implementation in smaller districts with this sample.

Future research regarding implementation of school districts’ TDV policies can further our understanding of the impact of these policies. Specifically, research that aims to identify variability in implementation of the dating violence policy mandate based on differences in school characteristics (e.g., socioeconomic status, urban/rural location, racial/ethnic) as well as integration with community resources (e.g., local criminal justice agencies and victim service providers) would contribute to this line of research. Another area worthy of future research pertains to the impact of variability in policy implementation on perceptions and attitudes toward healthy dating relationships, TDV, and victimization. Expanding the current study beyond student/parent handbooks and codes of conduct to include areas accessed by district personnel in order to gain information about employee training and resources would provide a better idea of how well districts in Texas are implementing the dating violence policy mandate. Finally, while the law implies that school districts must implement the various features of a dating violence policy, direct interaction with students occurs at the individual schools within districts. We encourage future research to look more closely at schools within districts to fully assess variability in the implementation of dating violence policies and programs.

Overall, findings from the study are beneficial in the sense that districts can use the information to identify where they stand in their implementation of the mandate. Data from the study can be used as a point of reference for districts within the state as they continue to implement the various components of the dating violence policy mandate. As the first empirical assessment of dating violence policy implementation at the public school level, this analysis can serve as a point of reference for future evaluations of dating violence policy in school districts.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

Robin D. Jackson is a doctoral teaching fellow in the College of Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State University. She earned her MBA from Keller Graduate School of Management and has worked as a correctional officer for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Leana A. Bouffard is an associate professor in the College of Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State University. She earned her PhD in criminology and criminal justice from the University of Maryland. Her research interests include violence against women, victimization, and life course criminology. Her work has been published in Criminology, Justice Quarterly, Crime & Delinquency, Journal of Criminal Justice, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, and Feminist Criminology among others.

Kathleen A. Fox is an assistant professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University. She earned her PhD in criminology, law and society from the University of Florida. Her research interests include victimization, gangs, and fear of crime. Her work has recently appeared in Justice Quarterly, Crime & Delinquency, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, and Journal of Criminal Justice.

References

Break the Cycle. (2010). 2010 state law report cards: A national survey of teen dating violence laws. Los Angeles, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.loveisrespect.org/sites/default/files/2010-State-Law-Report-Cards-Full-Report.pdf

Callahan

M. R.

Tolman

R. M.

Saunders

D. G.

(2003). Adolescent dating violence victimization and psychological well-being. Journal of Adolescent Research, 18, 664-681.

Carlson

C. N.

(2003). Invisible victims: Holding the educational system liable for teen dating violence at school. Harvard Women’s Law Journal, 26, 351-393.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2006). Physical dating violence among high school students, United States, 2003. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 55, 532-535.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2007). Choose Respect: 2006-2007 annual report [Annual report]. Retrieved from http://www.vawnet.org

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2008). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2007 [Surveillance Summaries]. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 57.

S. M.

(2005). Dating violence prevention in middle and high school youth. Journal of Child Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 18, 2-9.

Cornelius

T. L.

Resseguie

(2007). Primary and secondary prevention programs for dating violence: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 364-375.

Elias-Lambert

Black

Sharma

(2010). Middle school youth: Satisfaction with and responses to a dating violence and sexual assault prevention program. Journal of School Violence, 9, 136-153.

10.

Foshee

V. A.

Bauman

K. E.

Arriaga

X. B.

Helms

R. W.

Koch

G. G.

Linder

G. F.

(1998). An evaluation of safe dates, an adolescent dating violence prevention program. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 45-49.

11.

Foshee

V. A.

Bauman

K. E.

Ennett

S. T.

Linder

G. F.

Benefield

Suchindran

(2004). Assessing the long-term effects of the Safe Dates program and a booster in preventing and reducing adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 619-624.

12.

Foshee

V. A.

Bauman

K. E.

Greene

W. F.

Koch

G. G.

Linder

G. F.

MacDougall

J. E.

(2000). The Safe Dates program: 1-year follow-up results. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1619-1622.

13.

Gaines

A. B.

Lonis-Shumate

S. R.

Gropper

S. S.

(2011). Evaluation of Alabama public school wellness policies and state school mandate implementation. Journal of School Health, 81, 281-287.

14.

Hanley

M. J.

O’Neill

(1997). Violence and commitment: A study of dating couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 685-703.

15.

Jackson

S. M.

(1999). Issues in the dating violence literature: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4, 233-247.

16.

Largio

D. M.

(2007). Refining the meaning and application of dating relationship language in domestic violence statutes. Vanderbilt Law Review, 60, 939-981.

17.

Makepeace

(1989). Dating, living together, and courtship violence. In Pirog-Good

M. A.

Stets

J. E.

(Eds.), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 94-107). New York, NY: Praeger.

18.

Mayes

T. A.

(2008). Students with no-contact orders against abusive classmates: Recommendations for educators. Preventing School Failure, 52, 37-44.

19.

McLaughlin

M. W.

(1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171-178.

20.

Molidor

Tolman

R. M.

(1998). Gender and contextual factors in adolescent dating violence. Violence Against Women, 4, 180-194.

21.

Murphy

C. M.

O’Leary

K. D.

(1989). Psychological aggression predicts physical aggression in early marriage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 579-582.

22.

Offenhauer

Buchalter

(2011). Teen dating violence: A literature review and annotated bibliography (Federal Research Division, Library of Congress Doc. No. 235368). Retrieved from Federal Research Division (Customized Research and Analytical Services, Library of Congress) Website: http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/

23.

O’Keefe

(2005). Teen dating violence: A review of risk factors and prevention efforts. Harrisburg, PA: VAWnet, a project of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence. Retrieved from http://new.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/AR_TeenDatingViolence.pdf

24.

O’Leary

K. D.

Malone

Tyree

(1994). Physical aggression in early marriage: Prerelationship and relationship effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 594-602.

25.

Probart

McDonnell

Weirich

Schilling

Fekete

(2008). Statewide assessment of local wellness policies in Pennsylvania public school districts. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 108, 1497-1502.

26.

Ramos

(2010). Defining violence on the blackboard: An overview of the Texas Education Code’s approach to teen dating violence. The Scholar: St. Mary’s Law Review on Minority Issues, 13, 105-148.

27.

Ricketts

M. L.

(2007). K-12 teachers’ perceptions of school policy and fear of school violence. Journal of School Violence, 63, 45-67.

28.

Ryan

K. M.

(1995). Do courtship-violent men have characteristics associated with a “battering personality.” Journal of Family Violence, 10, 99-120.

29.

Serrano

Kowaleska

Hosig

Fuller

Fellin

Wigand

(2007). Status and goals of local school wellness policies in Virginia: A response to the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act of 2004. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 39, 95-100.

30.

Silverman

J. G.

Raj

Mucci

L. A.

Hathaway

J. E.

(2001). Dating violence against adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. Journal of American Medical Association, 286, 572-579.

31.

Smith

D. M.

Donnelly

(2001). Adolescent dating violence: A multi-systemic approach of enhancing awareness in educators, parents, and society. Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 2, 53-64.

32.

Stader

D. L.

(2011). Dating violence. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84, 139-143.

33.

Suarez

K. E.

(1994). Teenage dating violence: The need for expanded awareness and legislation. California Law Review, 82, 423-471.

34.

Sugarman

D. B.

Hotaling

G. T.

(1989). Dating violence: Prevalence, context, and risk markers. In Pirog-Good

M. A.

Stets

J. E.

(Eds.), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 3-32). New York, NY: Praeger.

35.

Temple

J. R.

Freeman

D. H.

Jr. (2011). Dating violence and substance use among ethnically diverse adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 701-718.

36.

Texas Education Code Ann. §37.0831 (2007). Retrieved from http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/ED/htm/ED.37.htm#37.0831

37.

Wallace

Roberson

(2011). Victimology: Legal, psychological, and social perspectives (3rd ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

38.

Weiler

R. M.

Dorman

S. M.

Pealer

L. N.

(1999). The Florida school violence policies and programs study. Journal of School Health, 69, 273-279.

39.

Zwicker

T. J.

(2002). Education policy brief: The imperative of developing teen dating violence prevention and intervention programs in secondary schools. Southern California Review of Law and Women’s Studies, 12, 131-158.