Evaluation of Abstinence Education Programs Funded Under Title V Section 510

General Information

View a brief abstract of this project.

View a complete, printer-friendly profile of this project.

Evaluator(s) Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
Investigator(s) Rebecca Maynard (University of Pennsylvania)
Barbara Devaney (Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.)
Christopher Trenholm (Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.)
Sponsor(s) US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
Funder(s) US Department of Health and Human Services
Subcontractor(s) University of Pennsylvania
 
Domain Child/Family
Status Operational with Findings
Duration Sep 1999 - Jan 2006
Type Research and/or Program Evaluation
Goal To evaluate the effectiveness of Abstinence Education program funded under Title V Section 510.

This act provides funds for over 900 programs across the nation. Annual award amounts vary widely from state to state ranging from $50,000 to $800,000. States have awarded grants to community based organizations, local school districts, health departments, faith based organizations, universities and others. The funding guidelines encourage states to fund grantees efforts directed at local priority needs. Local grantees use funds for community based projects, as well as for evaluation and program monitoring, technical assistance training, media campaigns, advisory councils, resource and communication networks, toll free hotlines and satellite conferences.

Most of these programs aim their message at middle school students. Some target a wider audience starting younger and longer.

The three research questions addressed by this study are:

  • What are the nature and underlying theories of the abstinence education programs supported with Section 510 funding?
  • What are the implementation and operational experiences of local communities and schools that have received Section 510 abstinence education funding?
  • What are the impacts of abstinence education programs?
    • How successful are they in changing the knowledge, attitudes, and intentions of youth?
    • How successful are they in reducing teen sexual activity among youth?
    • How do they change the risk of pregnancy and STDs?
Program/Policy 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.

Notes Reports can also be found on the Mathematica Policy Research website.
 
Last Updated 06/16/05
Type of Summary Reviewed
Contact(s) Rebecca Maynard (rmaynard@gse.upenn.edu)
University of Pennsylvania
3700 Walnut Street
(T) 215-898-3558
(F) 215-573-2241
Submitter(s) Research Forum Staff (info@researchforum.org)
National Center for Children In Poverty
215 West 125th St, 3rd Fl
(T) (646)284-9600
(F) not reported

Populations Studied

Target Population Children
Adolescents
Subgroups Analyzed None
Sample Size and Unit 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)

Sites Studied

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.