Domestic Violence Shelters’ Efforts to Prevent Teen Dating Violence

Abstract

This research note reports data from a national survey of 213 domestic violence shelters regarding their teen dating violence (TDV) prevention efforts. More than half of the shelters reported that they provide TDV programing to at least 1/2 of the high schools in their communities; about 1/3 of shelters provide TDV programming to parents. Approximately 85% of shelters reported that they use or adapt a TDV curriculum. Shelters use information booths and Internet-based activities most often to increase public awareness, and they work through coalitions to advocate for TDV prevention efforts. This study is a first step toward documenting shelters’ TDV prevention work.

Keywords

shelters violence teens

Introduction

This research note examines the teen dating violence (TDV) prevention work being conducted by domestic violence shelters across the country. TDV is recognized as an important public health problem (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], n.d.). National studies find that between 7-14% of adolescents experience physical violence and approximately 9-10% experience sexual violence (Eaton, Davis, Barrios, Brener, & Noonan, 2007; Kann et al., 2014). Dating violence negatively impacts youths’ physical and psychological well-being (Callahan, Tolman, & Saunders, 2003; Silverman, Raj, & Clements, 2004). In contrast to adolescents who have not experienced TDV, victims of violence have lower self-esteem, poorer school performance, lower employment opportunities, and higher rates of depression, absenteeism from school, substance abuse, smoking, suicide, pregnancy, eating disorders, and risky sexual behaviors (Banyard & Cross, 2008; Callahan et al., 2003; Silverman et al., 2004).

Many federal agencies such as the CDC, the National Institute of Justice, and private organizations, like the Liz Claiborne Foundation and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, have focused attention on the prevention of TDV. Domestic violence shelters also often engage in the prevention of TDV because they are well aware that adolescents in abusive relationships may carry these patterns of abuse into future relationships (Smith, White, & Holland, 2003). The prevention of violence is often primary and inherent in shelters’ mission statements. However, we know little about the extent to which shelters are involved in various specific TDV prevention efforts within the school setting and also within communities. This research note addresses two specific research questions:

Research Question 1: To what extent do domestic violence shelters provide TDV prevention programming within schools?

Research Question 2: What TDV prevention efforts are shelters conducting in their communities?

Method

To conduct the national survey on domestic violence shelters’ TDV prevention efforts, researchers collected email addresses of domestic violence shelters within each state. We reviewed individual states’ domestic violence coalition websites for their state resource list of shelters. Eligible shelters included those that housed victims of domestic violence. This selection criterion was adopted for pragmatic reasons—such shelters are ones most likely to be included in state resource lists and allowed us to be consistent from one state to the next. A total of 1,154 shelters across the United States were emailed a survey regarding their TDV prevention efforts. As an incentive to encourage survey participation from domestic violence shelters, researchers included a detailed list of the top six evidence-based TDV prevention curricula. A secondary follow-up email was sent out one week after the initial request to remind participants to complete the survey. Overall, 78 emails were returned as undeliverable. A total of 1,076 emails were sent out to domestic violence shelters, and 213 shelters (20%) completed the online survey.

Survey

The survey developed by the research team asked shelters about their organizational characteristics and about efforts to address TDV in schools and in their communities. Shelters that did not engage in TDV prevention work did not continue with the survey answering the demographic questions.

The survey consisted of 27 questions that asked the domestic violence shelters to report their TDV prevention efforts including (a) estimates of the percentage of middle and high schools in which they provide TDV programming; (b) estimates of the percentage of students and parents receiving the programming; (c) length of TDV programming; (d) use of media billboards, public awareness campaigns, information booths at conferences, public service announcements, newspaper articles, Internet-based activities, and parent education classes; and (e) use of various advocacy techniques (working with coalitions, media, and administration; contacting decision makers; and encouraging people to contact decision makers) to affect TDV policy. The survey also asked shelters for organizational characteristics such as the number of full-time employees (FTEs), length of executive leadership, and the educational degree of the shelter director.

Survey Administration and Data Collection

The survey was emailed to the participants, and they were asked to complete an online version of the survey through Survey Monkey. Each of the 1,076 shelters was assigned an identification number as a method of tracking who had participated in the survey. Shelters were asked to enter their identification number in Question 1 of the survey. By assigning identification numbers, the researchers were able to limit the emails sent out to participants requesting their participation after they had already completed the survey. The identification number also allowed the researchers to gather statistics based on states and regions. To try to gain participation from all 50 states, a reminder message was emailed to the states that had no participation. A total of three states had no respondents to the survey: Mississippi, Kentucky, and Hawaii. The other 47 states had between 1-14 shelters that responded to the survey. Shelter respondents came from a fairly equal distribution of states throughout the United States. The Northeast region contained the fewest number of participating shelters with 19% (n = 39) of the sample, the Midwest represented 26% (n = 54), the South had the highest number of participating shelters with 31% (n = 66), and the West represented 24% (n = 51) of the total responding shelters.

Results

Results from the survey indicate that shelters are engaged in significant TDV prevention efforts. Not all of the shelters responded to every question, which changed the sample size for each question slightly. We discuss the organizational characteristics of the shelters, their individual-level prevention efforts, and their community-level prevention efforts.

Organizational Characteristics

The directors of the domestic violence shelters have held their leadership positions for varying lengths of time, but the majority of directors are relatively new to their positions. As shown in Table 1, just less than half (47%, n = 100) of the shelters’ executive leaders have held their positions for 5 years or less. Almost one third (n = 58) of the directors of the domestic violence shelters have a degree in social work; the other directors (71%, n = 145) have degrees in various other disciplines.

Table 1.

How Long Has the Organization’s Executive Leader Held This Position?

	Frequency	%
0-5 years	100	49
6-10 years	43	21
11-15 years	19	9
16-20 years	20	10
More than 20 years	23	11
Total	205	100

The size of the shelters surveyed across the United States varied in the number of FTEs who worked for the agency. As shown in Table 2, most of the shelters (46%; n = 93) are small and have between 1-10 FTEs.

Table 2.

Approximately How Many FTE Work in Your Agency?

	Frequency	%
1-10	93	46
11-20	44	22
21-30	33	16
31-40	7	4
41-50	3	2
More than 50	22	11
Total	202	101

Note. FTE = full time employees.

Individual-Level TDV Prevention Efforts

Of the participating domestic violence shelters, 77% (n = 163) indicated that they provide TDV programming to students in at least one school within their communities. Many shelters provide programming in middle and high schools in their communities with an emphasis on high schools. Many also try to reach the parents of middle and high school students.

Middle schools and students reached with TDV programs

Approximately 84% (n = 129) of the shelters stated that they provide some TDV programming at the middle school level. As shown in Table 3, more than 50% of the shelters indicated that they provided programming to 50% or fewer of the middle schools in their community. However, almost one third of the participating shelters reported that they provide programming to more than half of the middle schools in the community.

Table 3.

In Approximately What Percentage of the Middle and High Schools in Your Community Do You Provide TDV Programming?

	Middle schools (n = 154) %	High schools (n = 154) %
0	16	5
1-25	30	23
26-50	21	18
51-75	9	21
76-100	23	33

Note. TDV = teen dating violence.

Survey respondents were also asked about the approximate percentage of students reached with the TDV programming within the middle school setting (see Table 4). The largest number of respondents (31%; n = 46) indicated that their programming reaches from 1-25% of the middle school students. Twenty-five percent of domestic violence shelters (n = 36) responded that they reach 76-100% of the students within the middle schools. Of the shelters providing TDV programming in the middle schools, 44% (n = 64) of the shelters indicated that they do not use a standardized curriculum when working with middle school students. Thirteen percent of shelters stated that they use a standardized curriculum, and the other 42% of the shelters stated that they use parts of a curriculum or have adapted a curriculum in some way.

Table 4.

In the Middle and High Schools in Which You Present, About What Percentage of Students in Those Schools Receive TDV Programming?

	Middle schools (n = 147) %	High schools (n = 148) %
0	15	3
1-25	31	37
26-50	20	28
51-75	10	9
76-100	25	24

Note. TDV = teen dating violence.

High schools and students reached with TDV programs

Approximately 95% (n = 146) of responding shelters indicated that they provide TDV programming at the high schools within their communities (see Table 3). The largest percentage of shelters (33%, n = 50) reported that they provide TDV programming to 76-100% of high schools. The largest group of shelters (37%; n = 54) indicated that they reach less than 25% of the students within the high schools, but 35 shelters (24%) indicated that they provide programming to 76-100% of high school students (Table 4).

Shelters’ use of a standard TDV curriculum within the high schools was very similar to their use of a standard TDV curriculum in the middle schools. Of the shelters that indicated they provide programming, 15% (n = 22) stated that they use a standard curriculum without adapting it. Approximately 41% (n = 62) indicated that they adapt a curriculum, and 44% (n = 66) stated that they do not use any form of a standardized TDV curriculum in their high school programs.

Parent education

Shelters were also asked about the programming that they provide to the parents of both middle and high school students. At the middle school level, 29% (n = 45) of the shelters stated that they provide some form of programming for parents, that number increases to 34% (n = 54) at the high school level. Of the shelters that provide programming to parents, they reported that they present about seven programs each year to both middle and high school parents. The length of their presentations varied. Approximately 52% (n = 27) of parents at the middle school level received a presentation between 1-60 min in length; 55% (n = 34) of high school parents received a 1-60 min length presentation. Of the shelters that present to middle school parents, 35% (n = 18) of parents received between a 61-120-min presentation. Similarly, 36% (n = 22) of high school parents received a presentation that ranged from 61-120 min in length. The average length of TDV programming for parents at both the middle and high school levels is 60 min.

Community-Level TDV Prevention Efforts

The study was interested in what shelters did to change the larger system in their efforts to prevent TDV. We found that shelters engaged in both public awareness and advocacy efforts in their communities. However, the use of these efforts was limited and varied among shelters.

Public awareness efforts

As shown in Table 5, of the shelters that participate in public awareness efforts, more than half reported that they “somewhat” use or “considerably/a great deal” use information booths at conferences (74%, n = 149), public awareness campaigns (64%, n = 126), Internet-based activities (59%, n = 118), and newspaper articles (57%, n = 112) to increase public awareness about TDV. Shelters reported that they use public service announcements (43%, n = 86), parent education classes (35%, n = 65), and media billboards (15%, n = 28) the least often in their public awareness efforts. Clearly, there is a range of use—even the least popular tool is used somewhat and considerably/a great deal by 15% of the respondents.

Table 5.

Public Awareness Campaigns and Advocacy Efforts to Prevent TDV.

	Total n	Not at all/very little % (n)	Somewhat % (n)	Considerably/a great deal % (n)
Public awareness campaigns
Information booths at conferences	201	26 (52)	38 (77)	36 (72)
Public awareness campaigns	199	37 (73)	35 (69)	29 (57)
Internet-based activities	197	40 (79)	29 (58)	30 (60)
Newspaper articles	197	43 (85)	43 (84)	14 (28)
Public service announcements	194	56 (108)	34 (66)	10 (20)
Parent education classes	187	65 (122)	23 (42)	12 (23)
Media billboards	191	85 (163)	10 (19)	5 (9)
Advocacy efforts
Working through coalitions to contact decision makers	190	15 (29)	28 (54)	56 (107)
Contacting decision makers directly to explain the shelter’s position	186	26 (48)	42 (78)	32 (60)
Encouraging people in the community to contact decision makers	192	33 (63)	39 (75)	28 (54)
Working with administrators to change implementation of policy	182	32 (59)	39 (71)	29 (52)
Working with media outlets to contact decision makers	187	51 (95)	33 (62)	16 (30)

Note. Not all sum to 100% due to some missing data. TDV = teen dating violence.

Advocacy techniques to affect policy

Participating shelters were asked about their level of policy activism to prevent TDV. As shown in Table 5, shelters use the five tactics to varying degrees, but most of the advocacy tools are used “somewhat” and “considerably/a great deal” by well over half of the respondents. Working through coalitions to contact decision makers at the “considerably” level was the response of the highest percentage (56%, n = 107). Contacting decision makers directly either somewhat or considerably was a tool for two thirds (74%, n = 138) of respondents. Other tactics that were somewhat less often used included encouraging people in the community to contact decision makers (67%, n = 129) and working with administrators to change implementation of policy (68%, n = 123). The least often used advocacy approach is working with media outlets to contact decision makers (49%, n = 92), which is still used by nearly half of respondents somewhat or considerably/a great deal.

Discussion

This survey is a first step in understanding domestic violence shelters’ efforts to prevent TDV in their communities. It adds to the literature by focusing on prevention efforts through education of teens and their parents and public awareness and advocacy campaigns rather than treatment activities.

Results show our responding domestic violence shelters have few staff (and, thus, probably fairly low budgets) as well as executive leaders who have not been in their positions long. These facts are important because they show the context for prevention efforts. Two thirds of respondents have 20 or fewer staff members to do all the work they set out to do—including treatment and prevention. While volunteers may be used (this was not asked), even volunteers must be trained and managed, and thus add work for staff as well as helping staff.

These organizational realities may help explain the types of TDV prevention services that shelters can conduct with their limited resources. Length of executive leadership may relate to an organization’s connections within the community. This could be significant to get organizations into the school system to provide prevention work. It may also indicate the stability of an organization.

Our results indicate that shelters conduct more TDV programming in high schools than in middle schools. Although we did not ask shelters about this, it may be due to greater difficulty in accessing middle schools than high schools in their communities. Weisz and Black (2009) found that middle schools are more difficult to access due to the nature of the information that programming entails. Future research should explore the question of intervention efficacy at the middle and high school levels. Beginning to teach TDV prevention may be more effective if begun at an earlier, possibly pre-dating, age. It may be that shelters would like to intervene earlier, but due to the limited number of staff members employed, they simply do not have the capacity. Capacity issues may also explain the large percentages of students who do not receive services at all, even in schools where TDV programming is provided.

The finding that 44% of shelters do not use any type of TDV standardized curriculum in their prevention efforts suggests that shelters may adapt curricula due to time constraints in program delivery or perhaps to meet their specific communities’ needs. The lack of standardized curricula suggests that TDV prevention educators use their practice wisdom in deciding what content to present and how best to present it. The adaptation of curricula suggests that prevention efforts across communities vary widely. This presents challenges for program evaluation efforts. Weisz and Black (2009) found that prevention educators valued the evaluation of their efforts; however, it was difficult and challenging for them.

The results regarding community-level prevention efforts are also important. Given small staff sizes, the immediate need for direct shelter services, and large numbers of students in schools, the surprise may not be how few organizations conduct public awareness campaigns and advocacy efforts, but rather how many manage to do anything at the community prevention level. Shelters may desire to rethink the relatively large use of newspaper articles and devote even more effort to Internet-based activities if they are reaching out to teens directly. This target population does not use newspapers as their primary source of information (Pardun & Scott, 2004). Questions regarding the significant number of shelters that do not use the Internet to spread information should be asked. Once again, the cause may be a lack of staff time or skills, but one can imagine shelters turning to teens to help design effective web-based education and advocacy efforts.

The most common form of advocacy by shelters is working through coalitions to contact decision makers. Further research regarding the impact that coalitions have on affecting policy is crucial. Given the constraints on these organizations, it is impressive that so many are able to engage in the advocacy efforts listed.

The findings from this research note must be considered in the context of several limitations. The respondents are a national sample but are not truly representative due to resource limitations and response rate. Results should not be overly generalized and should be used primarily as a heuristic representation of the reality on the ground for TDV prevention efforts. The study was limited in the online survey process and shelters self-selected whether to participate in the study. The data may be biased toward shelters that participate in TDV programming due to their interest in the survey topic. In addition, the data are limited to only domestic violence shelters and do not include non-shelter programs or strictly sexual assault programs. The survey also did not ask about the organization’s budget and instead used number of FTEs as a proxy. This study does not establish any causal links; nevertheless, the findings do suggest several directions for future research.

Conclusion

Several important policy, research, and practice conclusions can be made from this research. Continued policy advocacy work to require TDV prevention programming at both the middle and high school levels is important along with the use of evidence-informed standard curricula. Advocacy for additional funding at all levels is also needed as we suspect that small agencies are already working diligently but with too few resources. Further research should explore which of these efforts, alone and in combination, are most effective in reducing TDV. In addition, an exploration of outreach organizations, not just residential shelters, should be analyzed for TDV prevention efforts in communities. Shelters receive various sources of funding to conduct intervention and prevention services. A thorough analysis of funding sources and the impact that funding can have on a shelter’s TDV prevention efforts is another important area that should be researched in the future. Training in effective prevention practices would also enhance the efficacy of current efforts and help curb the large-scale problem that TDV is today.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This research project would not have been possible without the feedback from domestic violence shelters. The authors wish to express sincere thanks to all who participated.

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.

Author Biographies

Alicia Hawley is a third-year PhD student in the School of Social Work at the University of Texas at Arlington (UTA). Her research focuses on the internal and external processes of leaving an abusive relationship, intimate partner violence, and teen dating violence. Prior to attending UTA, she earned her BSW from Texas Christian University in 2009. She graduated from UTA in 2011 with her MSSW. She worked for a nonprofit domestic violence agency where she conducted case management as well as individual and group counseling.

Beverly Black holds the Jillian Michelle Smith endowed professorship in family violence research at the School of Social Work at University of Texas at Arlington (UTA). She also serves as the director of the school’s doctoral program. She previously held faculty positions at Florida International University and Wayne State University in Michigan. She conducts research and publishes extensively on issues related to domestic violence, sexual assault, adolescent dating violence, and prevention programming.

Richard Hoefer is a Roy E. Dulak professor for community practice research, School of Social Work, University of Texas at Arlington (UTA). He also leads the Center for Advocacy, Nonprofit and Donor Organizations (CAN-DO), and is the director of the Professional Development Program. He has authored or co-authored seven books and more than 75 journal articles/book chapters on social policy, nonprofit administration, and community practice. He is an award-winning teacher and has co-written translational reports to bring research to practice, including Number 1 Amazon best-selling social work book, Old Organizations, New Tricks: Five Practical Keys to Unlocking an Organization That Never Stops Learning.

Tracey Marie Barnett is an assistant professor in the School of Social Work at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Her area of research focuses on health promotion and weight-related disease prevention. In addition, she is the co-founder of Parents Supporting Child Wellness with Financial Control, an obesity prevention program for low-income families at-risk for health disparities.

References

Banyard

V. L.

Cross

(2008). Consequences of teen dating violence: Understanding intervening variables in ecological context. Violence Against Women, 14, 998-1013. doi:10.1177/1077801208322058

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. doi:10.1177/0743558403254784

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Teen dating violence as a public health issue. Retrieved from http://www.childrenssafetynetwork.org/sites/childrenssafetynetwork.org/files/TeenDatingViolenceasaPublicHealthIssue.pdf

Eaton

D. K.

Davis

K. S.

Barrios

Brener

N. D.

Noonan

R. K.

(2007). Associations of dating violence victimization with lifetime participation, co-occurrence, and early initiation of risk behaviors among U.S. high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 585-602. doi:10.1177/0886260506298831

Kann

Kinchen

Shanklin

Flint

K. H.

Hawkins

Harris

W. A.

. (2014). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2013. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summaries, 63(4), 1-170.

Pardun

C. J.

Scott

G. W.

(2004). Reading newspapers ranked lowest versus other media for early teens. Newspaper Research Journal, 25(3), 77-82.

Silverman

J. G.

Raj

Clements

(2004). Dating violence and associated sexual risk and pregnancy among adolescent girls in the United States. Pediatrics, 114, 220-225.

Smith

P. H.

White

J. W.

Holland

L. J.

(2003). A longitudinal perspective on dating violence among adolescent and college-age women. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1104-1109.

Weisz

A. N.

Black

B. M.

(2009). Programs to reduce teen dating violence and sexual assault: Perspectives on what works. New York: Columbia University Press.