Hamilton, B. Births: Preliminary data for National Vital Statistics Reports, 59 3. Pazol K et al.
More often, states enact laws that dictate the type of information included in sex education if it is taught, leaving up to school districts, and sometimes the individual school, whether to require sex education and which curriculum to use. Two aspects of such research have already been mentioned: the need for better research on the effectiveness of publicly-supported programs that help to finance contraceptive services and the need for new research and demonstration programs at the community level to learn more about how to reduce unintended pregnancy. Infectious Diseases in Obstetrics and Gynecology. This inconsistency raises little concern given that, for teens overall, the original and revised teen pregnancy rates are nearly identical. The campaign should emphasize the fact that reducing unintended pregnancy will ease many contemporary problems that are of great concern. Evaluations of comprehensive sex education programs show that these programs can help youth delay onset of sexual activity, reduce the frequency of sexual activity, reduce number of sexual partners, and increase condom and contraceptive use. Sexual coercion, rape , or even forced pregnancy may be associated with unintended pregnancy, all of which sometimes happens in the context of domestic violence.
Abortion Surveillance — United States, Henshaw S. Personal Communication. Guttmacher Institute, October 31, Utrecht: Rutgers Nisso Groep. Diploma attainment among teen mothers.
Truth About Sexual Behavior And Unplanned Pregnancy (The Truth About Series ) [Mark J., Ph.D. Kittleson, William Kane, Elissa Howard-Barr, Richelle, Ph.D. Every sexual encounter presents the risk of getting a sexually transmitted disease , and unprotected sex risks pregnancy. According to the Centers for Disease.
Child Trends, Washington, DC: Hoffman, S. Kalmuss, D.
Family Planning Perspectives, Martin, J. National Vital Statistics Reports, Basch CE. Adolescent pregnancy and parenthood: recent evidence and future directions. American Psychologist. Harden A. Teenage pregnancy and social disadvantage: systematic review integrating controlled trials and qualitative studies. BMJ ; Kirby D. Emerging Answers Alford S et al. Child Adolesc Soc Work J ; Miller KS et al.
Patterns of condom use among adolescents: the impact of mother-adolescent communication. Am J Public Health; Hacker KA et al. Listening to youth: teen perspectives on pregnancy prevention.
J Adolesc Health ; Family structure, parental strictness, and sexual behavior among inner-city black male adolescents. J Adolesc Research ; Rodgers KB. Parenting processes related to sexual risk-taking behaviors of adolescent males and females. J Marriage Fam ; Next Resource This fact sheet reviews the types of sex education models and state policies surrounding them, the major sources of federal funding for both abstinence and safer sex education, and summarizes the research on impact of these programs on teen sexual behavior.
Sex and HIV Education. State Laws and Policies, as of May 1, Fact sheet examines abstinence education programs, funding and impact on teen sexual behavior. There are two main approaches towards sex education: abstinence-only and comprehensive sex education Table 1.
These categories are broad, and the content, methods, and targeted populations can vary widely between programs within each model. They generally do not discuss contraceptive methods or condoms unless to emphasize their failure rates. Comprehensive sex education is more diversely defined.
Most generally, these programs include medically accurate, evidence-based information about both contraception and abstinence, as well as condoms to prevent STI transmission. Other programs emphasize safe-sex practices and often include information about healthy relationships and lifestyles. The type of sex education model used can vary by school district, and even by school. Some states have enacted laws that offer broad guidelines around sex education, though most have no requirement that sex education be taught at all.
Only 24 states and DC require that sex education be taught in schools Text Box 1. More often, states enact laws that dictate the type of information included in sex education if it is taught, leaving up to school districts, and sometimes the individual school, whether to require sex education and which curriculum to use.
Since then, abstinence education curricula have evolved and federal financial support has fluctuated with each administration, peaking in at the end of the Bush Administration and then dropping significantly under the Obama administration. While these programs have since been eliminated and replaced by other sex education funding streams, the Title V AOUM program remains the largest source of federal funding for abstinence education today.
While not all eight points must be emphasized equally, AOUM programs cannot violate the intent of the A-H definition and may not discuss safer-sex practices or contraception except to emphasize their failure rates. States that accept Title V grant money must match every four federal dollars with three state dollars, and they distribute these funds through health departments to schools and community organizations.
Every state, except California, has received funding from this program at some point, and currently half of states do. Under the Obama Administration, there was a notable shift in abstinence education funding toward more evidence-based sex education initiatives.
The current landscape of federal sex education programs is detailed in Table 2 and includes newer programs such as Personal Responsibility Education Program PREP , the first federal funding stream to provide grants to states in support of evidence-based sex education that teach about both abstinence and contraception.
In addition, the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program TPPP was established to more narrowly focus on teen pregnancy prevention, providing grants to replicate evidence-based program models, as well as funding for implementation and rigorous evaluation of new and innovative models. Nonetheless, support for abstinence education programs continues.
Nine organizations sued in Washington, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, arguing that their grants were wrongfully terminated. Federal judges in each of the four lawsuits ruled in favor of the organizations, allowing the programs to continue until the end of their grant cycle in At the same time, the Trump Administration announced the availability of new funding for the TPP program with updated guidelines. These new rules require grantees to replicate one of two abstinence programs—one that follows a sexual risk avoidance model, and one that follows a sexual risk reduction model— in order to receive funding.
This marks a sharp departure from the rules under the Obama administration, which allowed grantees to choose from a list of 44 evidence-supported programs that vary by approach, target population, setting, length, and intended outcomes. In , a nine-year congressionally mandated study that followed four of the programs during the implementation of the Title V AOUM program found that abstinence-only education had no effect on the sexual behavior of youth. Among those who did have sex, there was no difference in the mean age at first sexual encounter or the number of sexual partners between the two groups.
The study also found that youth that participated in the programs were no more likely to engage in unprotected sex than youth who did not participate. While teens who participated in these programs could identify types of STIs at slightly higher rates than those who did not, program youth were less likely to correctly report that condoms are effective at preventing STIs.
A more recent review also suggests that these programs are ineffective in delaying sexual initiation and influencing other sexual activity. A study that found an abstinence-only intervention to be effective in delaying sexual activity within a two-year period received significant attention as the first major study to do so. Instead, the evaluated programs differed from traditional abstinence-only programs in three major ways: they did not discuss the morality of a decision to have sex; they encouraged youth to wait until they were ready to have sex, rather than until marriage; and they did not criticize the use of condoms.
There is, however, considerable evidence that comprehensive sex education programs can be effective in delaying sexual initiation among teens, and increasing use of contraceptives, including condoms.
The Trump administration continues to shift the focus towards abstinence-only education, revamping the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program and increasing federal funding for sexual risk avoidance programs. Despite the large body of evidence suggesting that abstinence-only programs are ineffective at delaying sexual activity and reducing the number of sexual partners of teens, many states continue to seek funding for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and mandate an emphasis on abstinence when sex education is taught in school.
There will likely be continued debate about the effectiveness of these programs and ongoing attention to the level of federal investment in sex education programs that prioritize abstinence-only approaches over those that are more comprehensive and based on medical information. The Consolidated Appropriation Act, November 3,