Contact Name
Barbara Dietsch
562-985-9488

Contact Email
bdietsc@WestEd.org

Sarah Pfau, M.P.H.
Policy Analyst
Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs

In August 1998, approximately one year after states began implementing funding for the federal abstinence education program, the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs (AMCHP) surveyed all state maternal and child health (MCH) directors and adolescent health coordinators. Forty-six states and one territory returned completed surveys, for a response rate of 81 percent. AMCHP surveyed states to gather information about lessons learned and any other issues that have arisen since the implementation of the first year of abstinence education funding. States provided information about their program implementation, funding and evaluation activities.

Input provided by the 47 states and territories responding to the AMCHP survey is invaluable to understanding the impact of abstinence education legislation across the country in the first year of funding. While each state has unique demographic, geographic and economic characteristics, states also share many similar methodologies, priorities and challenges in their implementation of abstinence education programs. Listed below are some of the key findings that the state-by-state survey of abstinence education programs yielded.

Program Administration

Nearly all states and territories have applied for and received funding for abstinence education in the first two years of the national program.

In 90 percent of states, the governor has appointed the state MCH office to have the primary responsibility for administering the abstinence education program.

Most states are using a combination of approaches to meet the federally required match of $3 in state funds for every $4 in federal funds. These approaches include: use of other state dollars; private or foundation dollars; in-kind volunteer staffing, facilities and equipment; and matching funds from community-based grantees, when applicable.

State legislatures generally do not oversee the day-to-day operations of abstinence education initiatives. Their primary role appears to be that of approving the allocation of matching funds within a state. In a few states, individual legislators provide input on state applications to MCHB or become involved in statewide advisory committees because of a personal interest.

Program Implementation

Over 90 percent of states that have funded community-based organizations or local programs have funded local school districts. Some states have collaborated with the state education agency to provide abstinence education in local schools.

Some common community-based organizations implementing abstinence education programs in many states include: Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCAs/YWCAs, social service agencies, crisis pregnancy centers and civic organizations.

Over half of the states are targeting youth ages 10 to 14 with their abstinence education initiatives; nearly half also are targeting youth ages 15 to 17. One-third of the responding states are targeting youth under the age of 10. Five states target adults ages 20 to 24 in addition to teens, and two states target adults over the age of 24.

Evaluation

The average proportion of total state Title V abstinence education budgets (federal plus state plus matching dollars) set aside for evaluation is 5 percent.

More than half of the states responding have contracted out evaluation activities to university research centers or private contractors.

Over half of the states are implementing media campaigns as part or all of their abstinence education initiative. Most of the states will be evaluating these campaigns separately from other efforts.

Technical Assistance Needs

States are interested in sharing information and experiences with other states in a variety of forums such as conferences, electronic listservs or newsletters.

States are struggling to find abstinence education curricula that meet the Section 510 guidelines, have been evaluated and are consistent with public health principles of health education and promotion.

States need assistance with responding to media attention about the implementation of abstinence education initiatives in their communities.

States need technical assistance with their evaluation activities.

Common Observations and Lessons Learned Among the States

Collaboration with other state-level agencies in the development and implementation of abstinence education assures more coordinated and successful programs.

It is beneficial to include a broad base of the constituency within a community in developing abstinence education initiatives; this will garner more support in the long-term implementation of initiatives.

Training of and regular communication with community organizations or other grantees in states where requests for proposals (RFPs) are used is helpful in assuring consistency and quality in the implementation of abstinence education initiatives.

Implementing programs at the community level provides the opportunity for extensive support and reinforcement of the abstinence education messages via peers, adult mentors and other community leaders.

Community involvement, including both parents and youth, in program development and implementation is an essential component of abstinence education initiatives.

Focus groups with teens provide valuable information for implementing abstinence education programs.

It is helpful to employ a variety of education and intervention strategies to determine the most effective method of communication with targeted youth age groups.

With one full year of abstinence education program planning and implementation behind them, states have discovered some important aspects of implementing the new federal abstinence education initiative. Their comments about lessons learned can be summarized in one overarching message: In the planning and early phases of program implementation, collaboration and communication with key groups and agencies are indispensable in establishing a program's infrastructure and support for future related efforts. So far, such collaboration has taken place among parents, community organizations, state agencies, and other key groups. Regular opportunities for communication are fostering consensus among interest groups and other organizations that may operate from different perspectives.

States will gain more experience and insight with further implementation of the national abstinence education program. AMCHP will continue to provide technical assistance to state MCH directors, adolescent health coordinators, abstinence education program coordinators and others, and report on the changing issues and needs.

This information is an excerpt from the AMCHP issue brief entitled, Abstinence Education in the States: Implementation of the 1996 Abstinence Education Law. For a free copy of the 19 page issue brief, please contact the National Maternal and Child Health Clearinghouse at (703) 356-1964.