The enactment of Title V, Section 510 of the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 significantly increased the funding and prominence of abstinence education as an approach to promote sexual abstinence and healthy teen behavior. Since fiscal year 1998, the Title V, Section 510 program has allocated $50 million annually in federal funding for programs that teach abstinence from sexual activity outside of marriage as the expected standard for school-age children. Under the matching block grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS), states must match this federal funding at 75 percent, resulting in a total of $87.5 million annually for Title V, Section 510 abstinence education programs. All programs receiving Title V, Section 510 abstinence education funding must comply with the
.A-H. definition of abstinence education (Table 1).
In the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress authorized a scientific evaluation of the
Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Program. This report presents final results from a multi-year, experimentally-based impact study conducted as part of this evaluation. It focuses on four selected Title V, Section 510 abstinence education programs: (1) My Choice,
My Future! in Powhatan, Virginia; (2) ReCapturing the Vision in Miami, Florida; (3) Families
United to Prevent Teen Pregnancy (FUPTP) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and (4) Teens in Control in
Clarksdale, Mississippi. Based on follow-up data collected from youth four to six years after study enrollment, the report presents the estimated program impacts on youth behavior,
including sexual abstinence, risks of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and other related outcomes.
FOCAL PROGRAMS FOR THIS REPORT
The four selected programs offered a range of implementation settings and program strategies, reflecting the array of operational experiences of the Title V, Section 510
programs operating nationwide. The programs served youth living in a mix of urban communities (Miami and Milwaukee) and rural areas (Powhatan, Virginia and Clarksdale,
Mississippi). In three of these communities, the youth served were predominantly African-
American or Hispanic and from poor, single-parent households. In Powhatan, youth in the programs were mostly white, non-Hispanic youth from working- and middle-class, two-