Media Spin Conclusions of Abstinence Education Study

Recently, Mathematica Policy Research released its findings about the study of four abstinence education programs conducted in 1996. The media ran giant headings about the study much like the one in the Amarillo Globe News on April 16^th, “Abstinence Students Still Having Sex,” it proclaimed, implying that abstinence education is a failure. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. 

As an abstinence educator, I was once asked “Why are you afraid of evaluation of abstinence programs?” As someone with a media and political background, my reply then and my reply today remains the same. “I will never be afraid of evaluation; however, I am afraid of the spin of evaluation results.”

I am dizzy from all the spin put on the Mathematica findings. It’s time to examine the facts of the study, rather than the spin. The facts are:

• This study evaluated just four programs out of the 900 abstinence programs that have received federal support.
• The study focused on upper elementary and middle school aged students. None of the programs included a high school component, which is a critical time to reinforce the abstinence message.
• The study began in 1996, as abstinence education was just beginning to gain national momentum. The field has changed significantly in the past eleven years, and what we teach now is better organized, more standard, and better evaluated now than in the past.
• Mathematica never concluded in the study that abstinence education doesn’t work. Rather, researchers reached two conclusions: that targeting youth at young ages may not be sufficient, and that peer support for abstinence erodes during adolescence. The media reached its own conclusion.

The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy asked teens and parents what they thought about issues related to teen pregnancy. Overwhelmingly, teens and parents want abstinence education. Ninety percent of teens and 93% of parents said that teens should be given a strong abstinence message. Therefore, this evaluation should be used for what it was intended: to make abstinence programs stronger, better, and more cost-efficient. It should not be used by those who are against abstinence as an excuse to de-fund abstinence education.  It would be a huge disservice to programs like Worth the Wait and others across the country that have demonstrated decreases in sexual activity among program participants.