Contact Name
Barbara Dietsch
562-985-9488

Contact Email
bdietsc@WestEd.org

Daniel Daley, B.A., Director of Public Policy
Vivian Wong, B.A., Public Policy Associate
SIECUS
(The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation provided support for SIECUS' research project.)

To bring the federal welfare reform Section 510(b) abstinence program into reality, state health officials had the sizable task of planning a state program and implementing it in a matter of months-amid controversy over the content and approach of the federal law creating it. They were faced with the difficult challenge of implementing the program in a way that had to satisfy the diverse expectations of Congress, state elected officials, the public health community, the education community, teen pregnancy prevention experts, abstinence-only-until-marriage advocates, the citizens of their state, and especially youth.

SIECUS' new publication, Between the Lines, shows how states negotiated this challenge by reviewing states' implementation of the federal Section 510(b) abstinence program during fiscal year 1998. Below is a selected review of its key findings.

Media Campaigns

SIECUS' survey found that 27 states' and the District of Columbia's Section 510(b) programs included a media campaign. In 20 states and the District of Columbia, media campaigns were new efforts. In the majority of states, media campaigns were one component of overall approaches to the program, but six states focused their efforts exclusively on media campaigns.

The state media campaigns usually included television and radio public service announcements and posters. Prior to the Section 510(b) funding, some states had developed their own abstinence promotion media campaigns: Maryland developed "Campaign for Our Children," Michigan developed "Sex Can Wait," and New York's Monroe County developed "Not Me, Not Now." These media campaigns have been used directly or used as references for several states developing new media campaigns.

Community-Based Organization Grants

Nationwide, 38 states made 447 grants to community-based organizations in fiscal year 1998. Thirty states made grants to more than one type of community-based organization. Twenty-seven states made grants to community-based health service delivery organizations. Youth development organizations received grants in 27 states. Nonprofit education organizations were grantees in 22 states. Nineteen states awarded funds to private social service agencies. In 18 cases, states made grants to faith-based institutions. Seventeen states used Section 510(b) funds to award grants to private social service agencies. Crisis pregnancy centers were funded in 11 states.

Education Agency Grants

Twenty-five states made 251 grants to education agencies in fiscal year 1998. States made grants to a wide variety of education agencies, including state Departments of Education, local school districts, local public schools, local private schools, universities, remedial and vocational education agencies, and cooperative extension agencies. Many states made grants to school districts-22 states did so in fiscal year 1998. In almost every state that made grants to education agencies, the grants resulted in abstinence education programs in the classroom. Classroom programs were funded in 23 states.

SIECUS' survey found that, at this point, the Section 510(b) has not disrupted most existing sexuality and abstinence education programs. Twenty-two states reported that, as a result of the Section 510(b) funds, new abstinence-only programs were introduced in the schools. Section 510(b) funds were used to continue existing classroom abstinence-only education programs in 21 states. Only Missouri reported that the Section 510(b) program resulted in the replacement of any existing abstinence education programs. One state-Iowa-reported that sexuality education programs were replaced. In most states, the Section 510(b) funding did not result in a change in the provision of information about contraceptives and STD prevention.

Evaluation

The Section 510(b) statute did not include a requirement for any kind of program evaluation. However, in August 1997, the Budget Reconciliation Bill stipulated that the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services use $6 million of welfare-to-work evaluation funds to evaluate the Section 510(b) program. In addition to the introduction of the federal evaluation, 39 states and the District of Columbia reported that their Section 510(b) program included an evaluation component. Twenty-three of these states and the District of Columbia indicated that they will conduct an evaluation of their fiscal year 1998 program efforts. Twenty-two states will have an evaluation of the statewide program as well as evaluations of the individual grantees' programs.

Broad Issues for FY 1998 and Beyond

The end of the first year of implementation for the program drew to a close on September 30, 1998. While states have moved forward in their implementation, SIECUS found that approximately a third of the states (14 states and the District of Columbia) had at least one component of their program in a planning phase throughout fiscal year 1998. It is clear that with this degree of implementation during fiscal year 1998, no one can yet fully assess the impact of this program at this time. As such, claims that the Section 510(b) program is directly responsible for changes in young peoples' sexual abstinence behaviors during fiscal year 1998 would be overstated.

SIECUS found there was significant variation among state programs in both format and key messages. Although SIECUS' survey did not specifically ask which components of the federal A-H definition of "abstinence education" were emphasized, only five states specifically offered that the federal A-H definition was the key message for their media campaigns, community-based organization grants, or education agency grants.

There is no question, however, that the infusion of the federal abstinence-only-until-marriage funds is beginning to change the environment for sexuality education, at least in some states. As a result of the Section 510(b) program, there are 698 abstinence promotion grants to community-based organizations and education agencies across the country that did not exist prior to this funding. Likewise there are 21 new abstinence media campaigns that were not in place prior to the Section 510(b) program.

Supporters and critics of the program alike are waiting for the evaluations of the program to begin to provide more information about the effectiveness of the effort. Debates over the validity and effectiveness of this program will continue, at the very least until fiscal year 2002.