View the full project profile

Project Description

In 1996, Congress authorized $50 million annually for five years to promote abstinence education. This funding was established through a new formula grant program authorized under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996. The funding became available to states in 1998 and is administered by the Maternal and Child Health Bureau. States must provide $3 in matching funds for every $4 in federal funds, resulting in a total of up to $87.5 million available annually for such state programs. Abstinence education programs funded through this new grant program teach an unambiguous abstinence message to youth. Programs receiving these abstinence education funds may not endorse or promote contraceptive use.

The “A-H definition” (Title V Section 510 (b)(2)(A-H) of the Social Security Act), specifies that an abstinence education program funded under the block grant must:
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.

Project duration: Sep 1999 - Jan 2006

Sites studied include 11 sites across the nation:
Miami, FL;
Clarksdale, MS;
Edgefield, SC;
Powhatan, VA;
Milwaukee, WI;
Cedar Rapids, IA;
Monroe County, NY;
SC;
Fort Bend County, TX;
McLennan County, TX;
Tooele County, UT;

Five of the eleven sites are known as “targeted” programs i.e. they target their programs to specific groups of identifiable youth.

Sample Characteristics and Sites Studied

n= 3,300 children or youth randomly assigned to the control (Regular health, family life and sex education services available to youth in their school and community) or program group (Section 510 Abstinence Education)

Recent Findings in Brief

06/17/05: Evaluation of Abstinence Education Programs Funded Under Title V Section 510: First-Year Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education

Interim Impact Findings:

• Each of the four programs show evidence of having increased the level of health, family life, and sex education services youth received during their first year of program participation relative to that received by the control group.
• There is evidence that the programs affected in intended ways youth's views on abstinence and teen sex and their perceptions of potential negative consequences of teen and nonmarital sex.
• There is limited evidence of program impacts on both dating and expectations to abstain.
• Program and control group youth reported similarly on the remaining measures examined including their views on marriage, self-concept, refusal skills, communication with parents, perceptions of peer pressure to have sex, and the extent to which their friends hold supportive views of abstinence.

Contact