They report that a rapidly rising age of first marriage has translated to shrinking numbers of young people who abstain from sex before getting married. In the U. Abstinence-only-until-marriage approaches have set back sex education, family planning, and HIV-prevention efforts.
Between and , the percentage of schools in the U. Credit required. The Center for Family and Human Rights C-Fam is a c 3 charitable organization and charitable contributions are tax-deductible from the United States. Media Requests: Please email Media c-fam. Phone: Fax: info c-fam. 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. The federal government has invested heavily in abstinence-only education in recent years.
Abstinence education funding, established in the overhaul of welfare, did not allow talk of any forms of birth control other than to explain their limitations. Critics of such abstinence-only programs said their shortcomings led to a lack of knowledge of contraception among youths who choose to be sexually active. President Obama cut funding for abstinence-only education in his budget. The study did not impart any moral aspects to delaying the onset of intercourse, such as portraying sex in a negative light, Wagoner said.
Nor did the abstinence lesson ask students to delay intercourse until marriage -- only until they are ready. Instead, the scientists said, they were interested in finding the effectiveness of various programs because adolescents who initiate intercourse at younger ages have a greater risk of sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy and report more sexually risky behavior, including multiple partners.
The study looked at African-American sixth- and seventh-graders recruited from four public middle schools that serve low-income communities in an unidentified city in the northeastern United States.
The adolescents were recruited between September and March
0コメント