Home | « Prev Next »

Sex I Want My $87 Million Back.

Posted by on April 13 at 17:57 PM

You know all those abstinence education programs we’re funding with our tax dollars (87 million of them)? And you know how the Bush Administration says teaching abstinence is the most effective way to prevent kids from having sex? To the point that real, medically accurate sex ed is pretty much verboten from coast to coast? Well, the numbers came out today on how abstinence-only programs (like Washington State’s “No Sex, No Problems” campaign) are working out. The numbers speak for themselves, but here are some pretty pictures to illustrate them.

abstinence_only_results.jpg

You’ll notice that both bars are basically identical in every graph. In other words, the programs made absolutely no difference. You could tell these kids their genitals would rot if they have sex and they’d still have sex. That’s because kids aren’t stupid—and they like having sex.

And from the report:

The study found that youth in the four evaluated programs were no more likely than youth not in the programs to have abstained from sex in the four to six years after they began participating in the study. Youth in both groups who reported having had sex also had similar numbers of sexual partners and had initiated sex at the same average age.

We spend $87 million a year on these programs, and they have NO effect. Awfully quiet from the White House, isn’t it?

CommentsRSS icon

1

Did anyone else notice that in the last graph there, the abstinence group was more likely than the control group to have four or more partners? Way to go, abstinence educators! Thanks for paving the way for more sex in the world!

2

Spending tax dollars on things that don't work is what the Red Bushies are all about.

That and incompetence.

And lying.

3

Hey, these abstinence-only sex graphs look like the abstinence-only drug-use graphs! Only, instead of spending 87 million on a sex-education policy that doesn't work, we spend 20 billion (with a "B") on a drug messages that backfire and locking people up when they don't listen.

Wake up, you sanctimonious motherfuckers! No amount of money can make people resist natural urges to party and feel good unless we give them good reason. And "because we say so" has proven to be a shitty reason for kids and adults alike. We need a sex policy that says, "Don't be a slut because you don't want to deal with the drama, but when you do play hide the sausage put it in a rubber," and a drug policy that says, "Stick to the soft drugs and use them in moderation, but if you take the hard ones do it on the weekend and don't blow up your heart."

4

The White House, unfortunately, has bigger problems to worry about than horny teenagers. I wish the only stupid, unnecessary war we were fighting was the culture war.

5

These graphs are charming, but what do they compare? I assume the blue bar represents "Abstinence Only," but what's the white? Is it no sex ed, or safe-sex ed, or what?

6

Dominic took my answer, damnit! Actually, from what I understand some of the anti-drug campaigns ("DARE" comes to mind) seemed to actually show a negative correlation to the intended outcome, leading some to speculate that after being exposed to the scare tactics, the kids who were going to drugs anyway went right ahead and did, and in addition some of the kids who hadn't even been thinking about drugs wondered what the big deal was about and got curious.

Seriously, as these things go, $87 Million is a bargain. Remember, it has nothing to do with concern for children. It's about moralistic posturing, which doesn't come cheap.

7

flamingbanjo is kee-rekt. Dare actually shows a negative effect. Kids who went through Dare programs were more likely not just to use drugs, but use them in more problematic ways.

Some studies have shown higher rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections among kids who get abstinence only.

8

Er, aren't we overlooking the fact that the abstinence-only group was every bit as likely to use condoms as the control group?

I thought A-only was supposed to make kids less likely to use condoms, or that real sex ed was supposed to make their use more likely.

I'm all for shutting down abstinence-only education, but I'm pretty depressed to see that kids getting complete and accurate information aren't any more likely to practice safe sex.

9

You guys are all missing a significant point in this debate, namely, that the purpose in spending all these gazillions of dollars on abstinence-only and heavy-handed interdiction programs ISN'T about creating effective messages that will result in a reduction or curtailment of these activities, but rather it's all about shoveling money to the organizations that create these ineffectual messages in the first place, most of which are firmly entrenched at the hard-conservative end of the political spectrum.

And also, so the givers of this largesse can stand in front of their equally conservative constituency to boast about how much money they're spending to combat these Scourges Of Today's Youth. In their eyes, if the programs aren't effective, well then that's just irrefutable proof that even more tax dollars need to be funneled their way.

The irony is of course, that these message-bringers have become rather dependent up this income; one could in fact make the case that they are "addicted" to it. And of course, much of this has been done by siphoning funding away from programs that have proven to be perhaps slightly more effective in terms of the stated goal, but which, unfortunately, don't meet the Right's socio-religious litmus tests.

This is one reason, for example, that you'll never hear law enforcement agencies touting the legalization line, despite decades of evidence from other countries that decrminalization/legalization of drugs reduces crime rates, unclogs the logjammed judicial system, reduces the costs associated with incarceration and hospitalization of offenders etc., etc. They've got their hands on a cash cow, they know it, and they're not going to give up either the money or the fancy toys they can buy (or seize) without a fight.

10

COMTE:

Where do you suppose the money goes when it's spent on other programs?

Unless you're arguing that there should be no sex ed at all, then pockets are going to be lined and interests are going to be vested no matter what kind of curriculum is offered.

11

Robotslave - I noticed that too, I thought it was really interesting. It does fly in the face of what I had heard and personally would have assumed, which is that abstinence-only education actually makes safer sex behaviors less likely.

Maybe it'd be worth having a look at the actual data in the study... bar charts lack subtlety.

12

robotslave: My understanding is that "control group" means the group that received nothing whatsoever -- in drug tests, it would mean a placebo. So for the data to measure the effectiveness of the abstinence program it would have to measure results against a group that received no sex ed whatsoever. That is to say, I believe your assumption that these graphs measure the performance of abstinence-only versus accurate sex-ed to be incorrect.

Of course, to see a real rise in use of contraceptive use it would help to make them freely available to teens, but that's exactly the kind of idea that sends the religious right into conniption fits.

13

flamingobanjo,

We're not talking about drug tests, though, we're talking about education programs. Seeing as how it would be unethical to withhold all forms of sex ed from a group of kids, that's not what "control" means in this study.

From other articles, it's clear that the "control" group was composed simply of kids who didn't participate in abstinence programs, but did get other sex education.

What's more, the group under study were not involved in abstinence-only programs, but rather enrolled in some abstinence program or other, apparently in addition to comprehensive sex ed programs (which explains the condom-use results, I think).

14

Why does Comte always say what I'm thinking but more articulately?

*sighs*

15

Hmmm. Perhaps you're right. But if so, that would seem to negate your original point that kids getting comprehensive sex ed are no more likely to practice safe sex, since both groups would have received that education.

And speaking to Comte's point, I thought one of the hallmarks of this program was that it required specially certified abstinence instructors beyond the normal teachers. That is to say, eliminating the abstinence programs would turn it back over to the regular instructors. Who presumably get paid the same no matter what they teach. Ergo no vested interest.

16

Perhaps the more pertinent question, robotslave would be to ask, "Where did the money being funneled into abstinence-only programs come from originally?"

As I understand Title V Section 510(b), which is the Federal program under which A-O funding is sourced, states much match federal dollars at a 3:4 ratio, that is, they must cough up $3 for every $4 coming from the feds. And it's a mandated program, just like "No Child Left Behind", states that accept the Title V funding MUST use it exclusively for abstinence-only education, and MUST match the funding at the ratio cited above. No match, no adherence to the mandated guidelines, no funding, period.

So, in order to get $4 in federal funding that can only be used for an abstinence-only program, states have to cough up $3 from their own pockets, and presumably much of it is coming at the expense of health/sex education programs that might otherwise have received the funding, were it not being redirected into Title V programs.

And naturally, an entire industry has arisen to take advantage of this financial windfall, and my guess is already understaffed school districts find it easier to use these for-profit programs, rather than further redirect even more resources and staff time, which is sorely needed elsewhere.

In short, if states weren't accepting Title V money (and a few, most notably CA don't), those dollars would be freed up to hire additional teachers for one thing, some of whom presumably would teach the health classes that would hopefully present more realistic, relevent and effective sex education programs to students.

17

ECB - where'd you get that $87 million figure from? SIECUS shows total spending on abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula clocking in just a hair over $240 million.

And COMTE - you nailed it. If districts don't teach a curriculum that adheres to the following guidelines, they don't get a dime of this federal money.

Section 510(b) of Title V of the Social Security Act, P.L. 104–193
For the purposes of this section, the term “abstinence education” means an educational or motivational program which:

has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;

teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children;

teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;

teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity;

teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;

teaches that bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society;

teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances, and

teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

18

Also important to note is that several prior studies conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage have failed to prove that the curriculum has a positive affect on delaying sexual debut. Those skewed studies that have spun 'proof' of AOUM curricula having positive effects were found to rely more attitudinal than behavioral questions. This is in keeping with the tendency of AOUM curricula to consistently emphasizes an attitudinal and values-based approach (I shouldn't have sex before I'm married) rather than equipping students with the behavioral skills to have sex safely if (when, at 14.9 years, per this most recent study) they do.

19

Your country´s approch to sex-education explain the fact that you are the country with the highest HIV-infected of the western countries. How can so many people be so stupied, so a program like this abstinence-idiocy can get tax-money?

20

And when in the news cycle did they decide to release this, of course? Gotta love those "Friday night garbage dumps."

21

It does fly in the face of what I had heard and personally would have assumed, which is that abstinence-only education actually makes safer sex behaviors less likely.

They could've been using condoms but not properly. There are other stats that would've been interesting. How many used birth control? What percentage ended up pregnant? What percentage got an STD?

22

I thought this study was so interesting I forwarded it to comments@whitehouse.gov.

One thought:

Even in completely anonymous surveys there will always be some false reporting. Given the moralistic tone of the abstinence curriculum, we might expect the abstinence group to be more likely to under-report their sexual activity, either because they think others think it wrong or because they have guilt.

There will also be a group of students who exaggerate their sexual activity. This may be the same between groups; if not, I think the exaggeration is more likely to be among the control group than the abstinence group (why would the abstinence group exaggerate more than the control?).

So given the inherent challenge of self-reported research, one could make a guess that the abstinence group's activity is actually higher than reported to a greater extent than the control group.

23

For $87 million, we could simply get them all hookers and not worry about it.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).