Contact Name
Barbara Dietsch
562-799-5126
bdietsc@WestEd.org

If only we could bottle it. The 18% decline in the teen birth rate since 1991 reflects a seven year trend that adolescent pregnancy prevention advocates itch to capture and spread around so that the new millennium might mark a true turning point — a U.S. teen birth rate as low as that of other developed countries. At this moment, however, it is an open question how policy makers will respond to this continuing success story. The denouement might be policy complacency — a time for policy makers to turn to new, more intractable issues. Alternatively, some perceived cause of the success may get legislated. Both responses could cause a dilemma.

The 1996 welfare law provided a stage for Congress to play out positions on teen pregnancy prevention. The basic script of the 1996 welfare overhaul was devolution of decision-making to the states regarding who was eligible for welfare as well as the types and levels of help. However, even as state flexibility to direct welfare programs took center stage, off "in the wings" some relatively prescriptive provisos related to pregnancy prevention were enacted. The passage of these provisions offers evidence that Congress was anything but complacent about the topic of pregnancy prevention and that, when it could, it would tell states what to do about the problem. Among the prescriptive and other pregnancy prevention provisions, the 1996 welfare law:

• Prohibits states from spending federal welfare funds on minor, unmarried, custodial parents who do not live in an adult-supervised setting unless the state determines an exception is appropriate;

• Prohibits states from spending federal welfare funds on minor, unmarried, custodial parents who do not participate in education;
• Provides $500 million over 5 years in federal and state funds for ‘abstinence-unless-married’ programs.
• Provides a "Bonus to Reward a Decrease in Illegitimacy" which gives a $100 million general incentive in each year (1999-2002) that is divided among up to 5 states with the greatest decreases in rates of "illegitimacy" and decreases in abortion; and,
• Allows states explicitly to spend federal welfare funds on "pre-pregnancy family planning".

On the "illegitimacy" front, the first bonus round has been awarded to Alabama, California, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts and Michigan. The award reflects a decline in the non-marital births of all women in the state — teens as well as adult. It is difficult, if not impossible, to identify any programs or policies common to all five states that would cause them to win the bonus. Because the bonus is part of the welfare law, a typical assumption is that the welfare law propelled these states’ success. This assumption ignores the fact that the award is based on statistics that essentially pre-date the federal welfare law: birth data from 1994-95 are compared to 1996-97. The welfare bill did not become law until August, 1996 and while some states implemented a range of welfare changes earlier, Alabama, the District of Columbia, and Massachusetts did not. Another assumption is that those states with the worst problem would most likely become the winners since those states enjoy the greatest room for improvement. Again, the winning states share little in common: while the District of Columbia ranked number 1, another winning state, Massachusetts, ranked 40^th in the nation with respect to the percent of births to unmarried women.

Do the funds for abstinence-unless-married education deserve credit for the decline in teen births? Certainly, the 1996 monies cannot explain a birth rate decline that began in 1991. Research regarding the impact of abstinence programs is scanty. The lack of proof that abstinence-unless-married education programs can cause a birth rate decline is not to suggest that an overall more conservative sexual culture has no influence. Indeed, Alan Guttmacher Institute researchers conclude that 20% of the decline since the late 1980s is attributable to an increase in abstinence. The researchers also note that 80% is attributable to improved contraceptive use among sexually active youth (Saul, 1999). The national evaluation of abstinence-unless-married programs funded by the law should prove informative in the future.

While there is little clarity about the impact of these two welfare law initiatives on teen pregnancy prevention, in other respects the 1990’s provide encouraging developments for the new millennium. In contrast to earlier decades:

• new research findings now allow us to point to a set of programs with proven and promising teen pregnancy prevention outcomes. Some — The Teen Outreach Program (TOP), The Quantum Opportunities Program (QOP), and the Reach for Health Community Youth Service Learning Program (CYS) share a number of youth development components, including community service by participants;

• new funds — $9 billion unexpended and available welfare funds — could also contribute to investment in proven and innovative voluntary pregnancy prevention programs. These monies may be spent on not only welfare recipients but also those who have never received welfare (teens and adults). Some states have begun to make such investments, including $11 million in Georgia, over $14 million in Florida, and more than $7 million in New York (Cohen, 1999);
• new pregnancy prevention collaborations are beginning to emerge. Increasingly states and localities are moving to ensure that welfare and family planning agencies streamline access. Training in appropriate referral has been undertaken in states such as Utah, Alaska, and Montana; in other areas, co-location is underway; for example in Washington welfare recipients and other low income individuals can now access family planning at three-quarters of the state’s social service offices.

Despite these encouraging developments, the millennium may mark a disinterest in teen pregnancy prevention per se. Instead, some lawmakers may promote marriage at all costs as the policy paradigm. Under this scenario, pregnancy among teens diminishes as a problem if teenagers marry or if infants are put up for adoption (Gallagher, 1999). If this is what is wished for, the policy genie may legislate an array of marriage proposals including those that fail to weigh whether a marriage is likely to be sound. If available funds become devoted to this wish, the dream may recall the 1950’s when the teen birthrate was approaching double that of today — but most teens with babies bore wedding rings as well. Certainly, encouraging sound marriages is desirable; however, legislation that promotes a teen marriage, independent of such variables as age and history of abusive relationships may not establish a sound marriage. As we enter the millennium, we would do well to worry about what we wish for.

For a list of references, please contact the Author.