The Impact of Abstinence Education - What Does the Research Say?

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Grenda

The article examines controversy surrounding school-based sexuality education, focusing on abstinence education. It addresses critics’ concerns about promoting religion, providing inaccurate information, and delivering ineffective programming. The central question is whether abstinence education reduces risky sexual behavior among teens. It reviews published evaluations with behavioral outcomes and discusses analyses by Doug Kirby and defenses by Robert Rector, also covering evaluation-related issues and federal requirements.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages9

Reading Time23 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Introduction

Federal involvement and legal challenges

Review process for educational materials

Welfare Reform Act and federal definitions

Critics’ concerns and curriculum disputes

The Waxman Report and inaccurate information

ResearchArticles The Impact of Abstinence Education: What Does the Research Say? Michael Young and Tina Penhollow ABSTRACT There has long been controversy in this country about the implementation of school-based sexuality education. In recent years, however, the controversy has centered on abstinence education. Critics of abstinence education programs seem to have three major concerns relative to abstinence education programming: (1) promotion of religion; (2) provision of inaccurate information; and (3) ineffective programming. The focus of this article is on the charge that abstinence education programs are ineffective in reducing risky sexual behavior among teens. Since the federal government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on programs that must meet thea-h definition of abstinence education this isan important public policy issue. This article includes areview of published evaluations of abstinence education programs (limited to evaluations that addressed behavioral outcomes), commentary on aspects of Doug Kirby’sanalysis of the effectiveness of abstinence programs, as well as commentary on Robert Rector’s defense of the effectiveness of abstinence programs. Additionally, other evaluation issues are addressed, such as apparent opposition to evaluation efforts, concerns with the evaluations of state abstinence education programs, concerns with federally funded evaluation efforts, and evaluation requirements of federal funding agencies. INTRODUCTION There has long been controversy in this country about the implementation of school-based sexuality education.1 In recent years, however, the controversy has centered on abstinence education. Federal involvement in abstinence education began under President Reagan (1981) with the Adolescent Family Life (AFL) Act administered by the Office of Adolescent Pregnancy Programs (OAPP) .2 Grants to promote abstinence education were made to a number of community and faith-based groups. AFL was challenged in the courts and the case (Kendrick) went all the way to the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs had alleged that AFL was an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state, both on its face and as applied, and the lower court agreed with the plaintiffs. The government appealed this verdict, and in a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court overturned the ruling as to the unconstitutionality of AFL on its face, ruling that the government did have a valid secular reason to promote abstinence. As to the application of the law, however, the Court noted problems with the lower court ruling relative to AFL funds going to “pervasively sectarian organizations.” The lower court had not indicated which grantees it viewed as pervasively sectarian or why these organizations warranted such a classification, nor did it design an appropriate remedy for the wrongful approval of grants. Thus, this aspect of the case was remanded to the lower court for further consideration.3 Early in the Clinton administration, the government and the plaintiffs reached anout-of-court settlement. According to the settlement terms, a stringent review process was established for educational materials proposed for use in AFL projects. Materials Michael Young, PhD, is professor, Program in Health Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701; E-mail: meyoung@ [uark.edu. Tina M. Penhollow](uark.edu. Tina M. Penhollow), PhD, CHES, assistant professor with the Department of Exercise, Science and Health Promotion, Florida Atlantic University, Davie, FL 33314. Michael Young and Tina Penhollow were to be reviewed for medical accuracy, neutrality on religion, and could neither encourage nor discourage abortion. Materials that failed to meet these standards could not be used in AFL projects, unless appropriate revisions were made.4 The terms of the settlement expired in January, 1998, but the agency responsible for AFL programming indicated its commitment to continue the review process (

FAQs

What controversy does the article focus on regarding school-based sexuality education?

The article focuses on the shift in controversy toward abstinence education, especially whether it is implemented effectively and appropriately.

What three major concerns do critics raise about abstinence education programs?

Critics highlight three concerns: promotion of religion, provision of inaccurate information, and ineffective programming.

What does the article examine to address whether abstinence education is effective for teens?

It reviews published evaluations of abstinence education programs with behavioral outcomes and discusses related analysis and defenses, including evaluation requirements tied to federal funding.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Grenda