The federal government spends approximately $176 million annually on abstinence programs. A $7.7 million study conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. of Princeton, New Jersey for the United States Administration for Children and Families reported their findings last week.
Mathematica’s final report titled, Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs examined education programs on adolescent sexual activity and related knowledge and behaviour outcomes. “The impact findings show no overall impact on teen sexual activity, no differences in rates of unprotected sex, and some impacts on knowledge of STDs and perceived effectiveness of condoms and birth control pills."
I do not need to identify for you what a huge amount of money is, do I? It was spent on a huge problem in our country. It is a huge amount of money to spend without meeting its objective. Most will say, situation normal, that’s how our government works. Add the cost of the study to the cost of the abstinence program and someone benefited but not our teens.
Look at these teen facts:
Teen Sexual Activity and Its Consequences 1. In 2005, women 15 to 19 years of age had 831,000 pregnancies, most out of wedlock.
2. In 2005, 14.3 percent of high school students and 21.4 percent of twelfth grade students had had sex with four or more persons.
3. In 2005, 37.2 percent of sexually active high school students and 44.6 percent of sexually active twelfth grade students did not use a condom during their last sexual intercourse.
4. Of the approximately 19 million new STD infections in the U.S. in 2000, nearly half were among persons 15 to 24 years of age.
5. STDs have been linked to infertility, miscarriages, cervical cancer, increased HIV risk, and numerous other health problems. Their cost is estimate at several billion dollars annually.
What is Title V, Section 510 Funding? Beginning in 1998, the Title V, Section 510 funding provided $50 million of annual federal support for “abstinence education that teach abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage is the expected standard for school-age children."
The Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB) of the Health Resources and Services Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) originally administrated program funds. The Title V, Section 510 funding is currently distributed to states by the Administration of Children and Families (ACF) in the form of grants.
Definition of Abstinence Education Upon receipt of federal funding, states have discretion over which programs to fund and at what level. However, all funded programs were required to be consistent with the “A-H" definition of abstinence education prescribed in the Social Security Act.
A. Have as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity
B. Teach abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children
C. Teach that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems
D. Teach that a mutually faithful, monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity
E. Teach that sexual activity outside the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects
F. Teach that bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society
G. Teach young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances
H. Teach the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity
This is what the children were taught at four “impact sites" located in Powhatan, Virginia; Miami, Florida; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Clarksdale, Mississippi. After reading the report, I am disturbed and perturbed. The terminology is to be questioned. Using archaic terms such as “wedlock" in the new millennium is disturbing. Although the A-H definitions of Abstinence Education sound impressive on paper, they sound clinical and not very pragmatic. The youth of today are quite frankly, more hip and straightforward than they were given credit by these federal guidelines. No wonder the study failed!
Nowhere have I read in the initial, interim or final studies these young people were taught anything about their self-worth and respecting their bodies. It’s no secret when a person has a strong sense of self; their actions are governed by a more discerning and less promiscuous behaviour. A person has to believe there is a reward for them if they were to abide by rules, regulations and guidelines. Young people are no different.
Title V, Section 510 abstinence education did not succeed in reaching its main objective. The impact results from the four selected programs show no impacts on rates of sexual abstinence. The careful evaluation of the abstinence-only programs conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. shows that youth enrolled in the abstinence-only programs were no more likely than those not in the programs to delay sexual initiation, have few sexual partners, or abstain from sex entirely. It is important to note that there is a profound difference between abstinence as a message and abstinence-only interventions.
Did we fail our young people or did we simply determine what would not work?
Copyright © —
Avis Ward of AWard Consulting, LLC
