Study: Abstinence programs no guarantee

[Harold Tuttle]

Study: Abstinence programs no guarantee


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Students who took part in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not, according to a study ordered by Congress.

Also, those who attended one of the four abstinence classes that were reviewed reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as those who did not attend the classes. And they first had sex at about the same age as other students -- 14.9 years, according to Mathematica Policy Research Inc.

The federal government now spends about $176 million annually on abstinence-until-marriage education. Critics have repeatedly said they don't believe the programs are working, and the study will give them reinforcement.

However, Bush administration officials cautioned against drawing sweeping conclusions from the study. They said the four programs reviewed -- among several hundred across the nation -- were some of the very first established after Congress overhauled the nation's welfare laws in 1996.

Officials said one lesson they learned from the study is that the abstinence message should be reinforced in subsequent years to truly affect behavior.

"This report confirms that these interventions are not like vaccines. You can't expect one dose in middle school, or a small dose, to be protective all throughout the youth's high school career," said Harry Wilson, the commissioner of the Family and Youth Services Bureau at the Administration for Children and Families.

For its study, Mathematica looked at students in four abstinence programs around the country as well as students from the same communities who did not participate in the abstinence programs. The 2,057 youths came from big cities -- Miami and Milwaukee -- as well as rural communities -- Powhatan, Virginia, and Clarksdale, Mississippi.

The students who participated in abstinence education did so for one to three years. Their average age was 11 to 12 when they entered the programs back in 1999.

Mathematica then did a follow up survey in late 2005 and early 2006. By that time, the average age for participants was about 16.5. Mathematica found that about half of the abstinence students and about half from the control group reported that they remained abstinent.

"I really do think it's a two-part story. First, there is no evidence that the programs increased the rate of sexual abstinence," said Chris Trenholm, a senior researcher at Mathematica who oversaw the study. "However, the second part of the story that I think is equally important is that we find no evidence that the programs increased the rate of unprotected sex."

Trenholm said his second point of emphasis was important because some critics of abstinence programs have contended that they lead to less frequent use of condoms.

Mathematica's study could have serious implications as Congress considers renewing this summer the block grant program for abstinence education known as Title V. The federal government has authorized up to $50 million annually for the program. Participating states then provide $3 for every $4 they get from the federal government. Eight states decline to take part in the grant program.

Some lawmakers and advocacy groups believe the federal government should use that money for comprehensive sex education, which would include abstinence as a piece of the curriculum.

"Members of Congress need to listen to what the evidence tells us," said William Smith, vice president for public policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, which promotes comprehensive sex education.

"This report should give a clear signal to members of Congress that the program should be changed to support programs that work, or it should end when it expires at the end of June," Smith said.

Smith also said he didn't have trouble making broader generalizations about abstinence programs based on the four reviewed because "this was supposed to be their all-star lineup."

But a trade association for abstinence educators emphasized that the findings represent less than 1 percent of all Title V abstinence projects across the nation.

"This study began when (the programs) were still in their infancy," said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association. "The field of abstinence has significantly grown and evolved since that time and the results demonstrated in the Mathematica study are not representative of the abstinence education community as a whole."

The four programs differed in many respects. One was voluntary and took place after school. Three had mandatory attendance and served youth during the school day. All offered more than 50 hours of classes. Two were particularly intensive. The young people met every day of the school year.

Common topics included human anatomy and sexually transmitted diseases. Also, classes focused on helping students set personal goals and build self-esteem. The young people were taught to improve communication skills and manage peer pressure.

[Eleven Mike]

So, let's all jump to conclusions from one study of four abstinence programs.  Let's not ask for the success rates of safe-sex programs.  Let's not even ask what other studies of abstinence education have yielded.  No, let's all just jump to conclusions. 

[MattC]

14.9?  Apparently I was clueless as to what my classmates were doing.  I would like to see the standard deviation on that average.

[DJJ]

Students who took part in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not...

Technically, doesn't that mean they're NOT taking part in an abstinence program? 

[Manedwolf]

The problem with abstinence-only education is that only works until it doesn't...once.

Then it's too late. If they weren't taught safe sex, the chances of a teenage mom are much higher.

[glockfan.45]

I attended catholic schools K-12. I can assure you abstinence based education has little to no effect. I find it sad that certian segments of society preach unrealistic values that contradict one of the main driving points of human nature. They then wonder why little Jenny got herpes, or pregnant, or both. Teach your kids the things they will need to know in life early or somebody else will. Schoolyards are not good places to learn about safe sex practices, but if the schools or parents will not discuss it with them their classmates will.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I had exactly the opposite experience.  I attended Lutheran schools, and the abstinence "education" they provided did work fairly well.  By the time I'd graduated high school, I estimate that less than half of my classmates had had sex.  Of those that did have sex before graduating, the majority had waited until their senior year, when they were 18 years old.  I can only think of a handful of people that I suspected were having sex at 14 or 15 years old.

Obviously the abstinence expectations at my high school didn't work for everyone.  But they did make a huge difference for most folks, either delaying their sexual activity until after high school or at least postponing it until they were much older and more mature than the average 14.9 years cited as the national average.

One or two abstinence classes won't work.  But if parents expect abstinence, and teachers expect abstinence, and the social environment generally expects abstinence, then most children will abstain.  I think it's the expectations that matter, not the presence or absence of one or two abstinence "classes."  There were no formal abstinence classes at my school, but there were strong expectations.

I also think it makes a difference if the school administers are willing to judge a wrong action as wrong, rather than taking the PC "anything goes" moral relativism stance.  Most folks, especially government bureaucrats (including public school teachers), are unwilling to call a spade a spade and tell someone they screwed up when they decided to have sex before they were old enough to legally drive.

[SteveS]

If we are spending that much money on those programs, then they should be carefully studied.  If they don't work, then stop wasting our money on them.  I wish the gov't seemed to be serious about how they spend money instead of throwing at whatever social program looks good.  There were several studies that indicated the DARE program had no effect on drug use, but I still see the program is going.

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

Why is it the government's job to teach anything to do with sex to kids?  Stay out of it.

[El Tejon]

I was lucky in high school, I had my personality to keep me from getting any females preggers.

[Perd Hapley]

One or two abstinence classes won't work.  But if parents expect abstinence, and teachers expect abstinence, and the social environment generally expects abstinence, then most children will abstain.  I think it's the expectations that matter, not the presence or absence of one or two abstinence "classes."  There were no formal abstinence classes at my school, but there were strong expectations.

Well said. 

I find it sad that certian segments of society preach unrealistic values that contradict one of the main driving points of human nature. They then wonder why little Jenny got herpes, or pregnant, or both.

If you said it was unrealistic to expect a few abstinence classes to have much impact, I might agree with you.  But to say the values themselves are unrealistic?  Lust, stealing, hatred, greed; all "main driving points of human nature."  Which she would stop telling children not to indulge in?  Even if we teach safe-sex methods, it would be utterly uncaring not to tell children they can avoid such dangers by abstinence.  But maybe it is not so unrealistic to expect abstinence, especially for little Jenny.  Countless multitudes of women have been virgin brides.  It's less common in our current culture, sure, but it's not unrealistic.  As HTG pointed out, a few classes will make little difference. Real cultural change is needed.

Also, as Eleven Mike stated, this story means little without comparison to other studies and other programs.

[De Selby]

Well said fistful.  Those most opposed to teaching abstinence seemed to be presuming that sexual behavior has always been like it is in 21st century America, and I don't think that's a fair presumption.

That doesn't mean you don't teach kids the biology behind reproduction, or refuse tell them anything about medical practices that have evolved to manage it.  But why not also tell them about the benefits of abstinence? Protecting their physical and emotional health, maybe talk about the way past cultures and religions have approached the issue...as a supplement to just saying "here's how to try not to get pregnant or catch a disease" and sending them out the door.

[MattC]

I was taught about prophylactics, reproductive organs, the birthing process (that was a scarring movie...), STDs, etc.  And then we played a game.  Everyone got a folded piece of paper with something written on it, and one of them said "IT".  That one had to discreetly tap the wrist every time they shook someone's hand, and then those people have to do the same next time.  We all had to go shake three people's hands.  First round: 2 people have IT.  Second round: 4 people have IT.  Third round: 8 people have IT.  At the end, everyone who'd been tapped was asked to raise their hand.  If it had gone one more round, 16 people would have had IT.  If instead of handshakes, it was unprotected sex, these people could have crabs, herpes, or even AIDS.  They briefly mentioned that if it had been kissing, it could be oral herpes.  Fun stuff.  Abstinence, they explained, was the only sure way to avoid this, becomes condoms can break and oral sex is often unprotected.  That scared the hell out of me.  Abstinence education, combined with the other education, has worked well for me so far.  If the other education part had been lacking, however, curiosity might have won.

[Marnoot]

While I don't remember exactly which things were taught when I went through sex-ed, I do remember it being more or less comprehensive, as MattC's, covering both abstinence and prophylactics at least to some degree. As has been said, a class here or there isn't going to make much of a difference. I think values taught by parents, religion, and cultural attitudes have a much more extensive influence over resulting behavior.

It is against my religious values to engage in pre-marital sexual activity of any kind, and thus I do not. Were I not brought up with those values in the home, nor had them reinforced by my religion, I can't honestly say one way or the other that the couple of sex-ed classes I had in school would have had any effect on whether or not I chose abstinence. But I do think that if I had not grown up with those values, and my sex-ed classes were also silent on the subject of abstinence, I most likely would not have considered it an option on my own.

Fistful and HTG are right, real cultural change is needed for there to be a significant change in behavior. Cultural, familial, and social expectations have the biggest impact. That said, abstinence-education is still important. How many youngsters would not even ever see abstinence as an option if it were never presented as a viable one in school? Think about the culture many grow up with (*cough*gangstarap*cough*) where gettin' it on is the subject of almost all of the music they hear; sex is constantly being thrown at them in "music," TV, movies, everywhere. No wonder so many 14 year-olds are sexually active. They've learned that if they're not having sex, they must be losers.

The problem with abstinence-only education is that only works until it doesn't...once.

Then it's too late. If they weren't taught safe sex, the chances of a teenage mom are much higher.

I agree, that's why I think a comprehensive approach is the best. But safe-sex-only education is limiting their choices. Abstinence education certainly is no guarantee; but it's exposing them to an alternative, to a choice that maybe they would never have considered otherwise.