Below is a review of recent research on the issue of sexuality education:

Giving teens the information they need to make responsible life decisions about sexuality helps teens delay sex and protects their health.

• A review of a large body of evaluation research on programs to prevent teenage pregnancy found conclusive evidence that sexuality education that discusses the importance of delaying sex and includes accurate information about contraceptive use does not increase sexual activity nor hasten the onset of first intercourse.  To the contrary, several of these programs have been shown to delay the onset of sex or increase condom or other contraceptive use among sexually active teens.

Douglas Kirby, Ph.D. et al., The Impact of Sex and HIV Education Programs in Schools and Communities on Sexual Behaviors among Young Adults, Family Health International, January 2006.

• The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention note that “research has clearly shown that the most effective programs [to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS] are comprehensive ones that include a focus on delaying sexual behavior and provide information on how sexually active young people can protect themselves.”

Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Fact Sheet: Young People at Risk: HIV/AIDS Among America’s YouthNational Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention, March 2002.

Parents want schools to teach comprehensive sexuality education and do not think taxpayer dollars should be spent on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.

• More than 85 percent of Americans believe that it is appropriate for school-based sex education programs to teach students how to use and where to get contraceptives.

National Public Radio, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, Sex Education in America, January 2004.

• Seventy percent of Americans oppose the use of federal funds for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that prohibit teaching about the use of condoms and contraception for the prevention of unintended pregnancies and STDs.

Advocates for Youth and SIECUS, “Americans Oppose Abstinence-Only Education Censoring Information on Contraception,” 1999.

Studies show that most abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are ineffective, and some show that these programs deter teens who
become sexually active from protecting themselves
from unintended pregnancy or STDs.

• A rigorous, multi-year, scientific evaluation authorized by Congress presents clear evidence that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs don’t work.  The study, which looked at four federally funded programs and studied more than 2000 students, found that abstinence-only program participants were just as likely to have sex before marriage as teens who did not participate.  Furthermore, program participants had first intercourse at the same mean age and the same number of sexual partners as teens who did not participate in the federally funded programs.

Christopher Trenholm et al., Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs, Princeton: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., April 2007.

• A review of program evaluations in 11 states (AZ, CA FL, IA, MD, MN, MO, NE, OR, PA, WA) indicates that after participating in abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, teens are less willing to use contraception, including condoms.  And in only one state, did any program demonstrate any success in delaying the initiation of sex.

Debra Hauser, Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact, Advocates for Youth, September 2004.

• Some abstinence-only-until-marriage programs include “Virginity Pledges,” whereby teens sign cards promising to remain virgins until they are married.  While data suggests that under limited circumstances, teens who sign a pledge may delay sexual intercourse, 88 percent still have sex before marriage.  Research also shows that pledgers’ rate of STDs does not differ from the rate of nonpledgers and that pledgers are less likely to use condoms at first intercourse or to be tested for STDS than nonpledgers.

Hannah Brückner and Peter Bearman, “After the promise: the STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges,” Journal of Adolescent Health, 36 (2005) 271-278.

A recent congressional report found that widely used federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula distort information,
misrepresent the facts, and promote gender stereotypes.

• More than 80 percent of the abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula reviewed contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health. 

• The curricula reviewed misrepresent the effectiveness of contraceptives in preventing STDs and unintended pregnancy.  They also contain false information about the risks of abortion, blur religion and science, promote gender stereotypes, and contain basic scientific errors.

The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs,” Prepared for Rep. Henry A. Waxman, United States House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform – Minority Staff, Special Investigations Division, December 2004.

August 2007