Skeptical states are shoving aside millions of federal dollars for abstinence education, walking away from the program the Bush administration touts for slowing teen sexual activity. Barely half the states are still in, and two more say they are leaving.
Some $50 million has been budgeted for this year, and financially strapped states might be expected to want their share. But many have doubts that the program does much, if any good, and they're frustrated by chronic uncertainty that it will even be kept in existence. They also have to chip in state money in order to receive the federal grants.
Iowa Gov. Chet Culver, a Democrat, made his decision to leave based on the congressionally mandated curriculum, which teaches "the social, psychological and health gains of abstaining from sexual activity." Instructors must teach that sexual activity outside of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects.
"It was just too strict," said Emily Hajek, policy adviser to Culver. "We believe local providers have the knowledge to teach what's going to be best in those situations, what kind of information will help those young people be safe. You cannot be that prescriptive about how it has to be taught."
A federal tally shows that participation in the program is down 40 percent over two years, with 28 states still in. Arizona and Iowa have announced their intention to forgo their share of the federal grant at the start of the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
The program was created by Congress in 1996 as part of welfare reform.
Since 2002, lawmakers have approved 19 short-term extensions — usually for three or six months at a time. But on three occasions, the program was extended for just a few days.
Whatever state officials think of the program's aims, that's not the kind of bureaucratic consistency they need to budget for employees and to put contracts out to bid.
"The funding stream became inconsistent. We didn't know from one quarter to the next whether we'd be getting the rest of the money," said Elke Shaw-Tulloch of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. "We got to the point where we didn't have any infrastructure to put the money to use. At the same time, there was mounting evidence the abstinence programs weren't proving to be effective."
Throw in a rising pregnancy rate among 15-19 year-olds in Idaho — 2,543 pregnancies in 2006 compared with 2,396 in 2004 — and state officials decided last summer it was time to get out.
Stanley Koutstaal, the federal official who oversees the abstinence-only program at the Administration for Children and Family Services, notes that more than half the states still choose to participate. "Obviously, many states still find it valuable and have adopted it as their approach to addressing the sexual activity of teens," he said.
He called for long-term reauthorization of the block grants so that states and their contractors can be more certain about the future and can plan accordingly.
Some states' officials do speak favorably of the program.
In Georgia, some 250,000 students have participated in abstinence education since 2000 through schools, church groups and nonprofit agencies.
Teachers in Georgia go beyond the abstinence message. They stress community service and doing better in school, said Jen Bennecke, executive director of the governor's office for children and families. Bennecke says the program has led to an almost a 50 percent drop in pregnancy rates for Georgia youth ages 15-17 since the mid-90s. Continue >>
RSS
Comments
Drewby -
Not surprising. Did you read about the reports out of New York. 1 in 4 have herpes. Nice.
The same day this story broke nationally, the Des Moines Register had a front-page article about the increase in reports of STDs across the state, mostly among young people...how interesting...
To Blue 1018: Actually, abstinence (the practice of it) works 100 per cent of the time. It is the only practice that works 100 per cent of the time. Outside of wedlock, it is the only practice that is Biblical. These are two reasons to continue to support abstinence education. Because these reasons make sense,our society will probably reject them in the rush to move to an "anything is appropriate" philosophy. The result will be increases in teenage pregnancy (declining in the last few years), increase in venereal disease, more economic distress resulting in poverty, and untold heartaches for teens and parents. All of that could be avoided by abstinence until marriage.
The thing is, abstinence only goes off the thinking "if we don't teach kids about condoms, they won't use them, and therefore won't have sex." WRONG! As a public school teacher, I can tell you, ALL kids are sexually curious, its a HUGE part of puberty. I think public schools really need to teach comprehensive sex ed: not encouraging kids to have sex, certainly teaching them that abstinence is the only safe and effective way to reamin STD free and not get pregnant, but also recognize that if kids are going to do something, yes, condoms are a huge barrier between pregnancy and STDs compared to those who do not use them. If you want to talk more about abstinence only, thats a conversation to have at home, similarly, if you want to talk more about condom usage, do it at home. There is no reason the schools should be forced to teach anything more than the facts. Morals are fluid, and they change from home to home. Let the home be the place where morals are focused on, reinforced, and discussed as kids have questions.
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/abstinencereport.asp
is where you find the survey....
They checked 4 programs in 4 counties in different states. There are over 700 programs which get Title V money according to the survey.
Now...I could prove ANYTHING with this type of survey method. Each program was only studied in one place. How about if I pick a "free love" sex ed and do the same type of methodoloby to prove that almost all kids get pregnant. How about if I use the school where 17 girls got pregnant that's in the news right now! Wow! Could you imagine the outrage by groups like Planned Parenthood about my methods?
It's a kool-aid survey at best.
Regardless of these so called studies, I'd rather my tax dollars go to something that promotes abstinence rather than going to organizations that teach children anal sex is an altenative sexual act to prevent pregnancy or passing out birthcontrol or helping children get abortions etc..
The problem with "studies" and "polls" etc. is that they are unreliable. Whoever is doing the study/poll (whatever) can make the results turn out the way they want.
alive in christ....all nations are going to hell in a handbag....I just don't want the one I'm living in to get into the flames first....lets slow down the handbag.
I think the whole world has gone crazy!!!! no one cares anymore.........this is why my kids are homeschooled!!!! who can deal with all this and end up with decent, God-fearing adults when it is all said and done!! this country is going to hell in a handbag, as the saying goes..............Jesus, please come and get us...........
i am proud of these states. abstinence programs do absolutely nothing.
jhs, surprise, surprise, something we agree on. If the only source of this type of education is the school and it is not either taught and/or reinforced in the home or the church then I don't care what type of class it is abstinence based or comprehensive it will not be very effective considering what they are hearing from the media and among their peers.
"In April 2007, a federally funded study of four abstinence-only programs by Mathematica Policy Research Inc., found that participants had just as many sexual partners as nonparticipants and had sex at the same median age as nonparticipants"
"As goes the family, so goes the nation" so said Pope John Paul II. These things have to be taught by parents, no matter how well intentioned the government was in setting it up.