Abstinence, Sex education and HIV prevention

Graphic Version of the Heading

Sex education is an important part of effective HIV prevention. It is generally accepted that it enables people to acquire knowledge and develop skills that they can use to protect and promote their sexual health through minimising the risks that they might face in the course of their sexual experiences. In recent years there has been discussion about what form sex education should take and the advantages and disadvantages of adopting an abstinence-based approach as an alternative to a more comprehensive approach. This discussion has assumed added significance with an increasing emphasis on the provision of funding for abstinence-based approaches to sex education in the United States and, now, through funds made available through PEPFAR (President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief), the prospect of advocates of abstinence-based approaches exporting their programmes of sex education to some of the parts of the world worst affected by HIV and AIDS.

What is an abstinence-based approach to sex education?

An abstinence-based approach to sex education focuses on teaching young people that abstaining from sex until marriage is the best means of ensuring that they avoid infection with HIV, other sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancy. As well as seeing abstinence from sex as the best option for maintaining sexual health, many supporters of abstinence-based approaches to sex education also believe that it is morally wrong for people to have sex before they are married.

Abstinence approaches are represented in programmes such as Project Reality and True Loves Waits (both developed in the US), which aim to teach young people that they should commit to abstain from sex until marriage 1 2.

How does this differ from comprehensive sex education?

The main difference between abstinence-based and comprehensive approaches to sex education is that comprehensive approaches do not focus either solely or so closely on teaching young people that they should abstain from sex until they are married. And although they do explain to young people the potential benefits of delaying having sex until they are emotionally and physically ready, they also make sure that they are taught how to protect themselves from infections and pregnancy when they do decide to have sex.

Examples of what programmes of comprehensive sex education comprise include SHARE (Sexual Health and Relationships: Safe, Happy and Responsible) in the UK and the guidelines produced by SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States) in the US 3 4.

Can abstinence-based and comprehensive approaches to sex education be combined?

Some people have argued that is it possible to combine the main elements of both comprehensive and abstinence-based approaches to sex education in one approach. These people point out that supporters of both abstinence-based and comprehensive approaches share the view that sex education plays an important role in HIV prevention and both approaches emphasise the potential benefits of delaying having sexual intercourse in terms of helping young people avoid HIV, other STIs and unintended pregnancies. On the basis of this it has been argued that abstinence-based and comprehensive approaches can be reconciled into one inclusive approach which is sometimes called abstinence-plus 5.

In abstinence-plus sex education, although the main emphasis is on abstaining from sex as the preferred choice of protection, young people are also provided with information about contraception and disease prevention so that they can protect themselves when they do become sexually active 6. Abstinence-plus approaches include programmes such as the Reducing the Risk and APAUSE (Added Power And Understanding in Sex Education) which have been developed in the US and UK, respectively 7 8 9. Both these programmes comprise school-based curricula which explicitly emphasise that students should avoid unprotected intercourse, either by not having sex or (for students who choose to have sex) by using contraceptives.

So why is there so much disagreement?

Despite the similarities in some of the things that supporters of abstinence-based and comprehensive approaches believe about sex education and what it can achieve in terms of young people's sexual health, it is probably overly optimistic to think that it is possible to build consensus on a single approach. This is because these superficial similarities mask profound differences in the values and attitudes which inform the views of supporters of abstinence-based and comprehensive sex education.

Many supporters of abstinence-based sex education have a background in or connection to Christian organisations that have strong views about sex and sexuality. Not only do they often believe that sex should only take place in the context of marriage, but some are also opposed to same-sex relationships and abortion 10. As a result of the strong faith basis for their beliefs about sex, supporters of abstinence education see the main objective as being to equip (and encourage) young people to refuse or avoid sex altogether, and they may exclude from their programmes any other information that they believe conflicts with this view. This may result in an abstinence-only course failing to include basic information about what activities transmit HIV and how such transmission can be avoided.

As a result of the strong faith basis for their beliefs about sex, supporters of abstinence education see the main objective as being to equip (and encourage) young people to refuse or avoid sex.

Even where supporters of abstinence-based sex education disavow a strong religious basis for their beliefs about what young people should be taught, they often highlight issues about fidelity to one partner, and reject provision of information about steps young people can take to protect themselves against disease and unintended pregnancy because they argue that to do so sends a mixed message 11.

In contrast, most supporters of comprehensive sex education regard having sex and issues to do with sexuality as matters of personal choice that should not be dictated by religious or political dogmas. Working from an understanding of human rights, which means that people are entitled to access information about matters that affect them and the decisions that they make, they see sex education as being about providing young people with the means by which they can protect themselves against abuse and exploitation as well as unintended pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and HIV/AIDS 12 13 14 15. They argue that without access to information about all aspects of sex and sexuality making these decisions freely is impossible 16. While they think that is important that sex education is sensitive to faith issues, they assert that it should not be based on any set of specific religious values 17 18.

These fundamentally different views about sex and sexuality mean that supporters of abstinence-based and comprehensive approaches to sex education see the 'problem' of what to do about young people and sex quite differently and therefore reach quite different conclusions about the 'solution'. If, as supporters of comprehensive sex education tend to believe, the underlying premise of sexual health interventions is to meet social and utilitarian ideals then the solutions that are proposed are more likely to include earlier and more comprehensive sex education, more liberal abortion laws and freely available contraception. By contrast if, as supporters of abstinence-based approaches feel, the underlying motive has a strong religious dimension then the solutions are more likely to revolve around abstinence campaigns and be characterised by reluctance to promote contraception 19.

But which method is best?

One of the ways in which the debate between supporters of abstinence and comprehensive approaches to sex education has been framed is in terms of which is the most effective.

Although at first glance the evidence can seem confusing, with claims coming from both groups about the proven effectiveness of programmes embodying their values, when only the most reliable studies are taken into account the position is clear 20. There is good evidence, from studies of programmes implemented in the US, UK and other European countries and countries in Africa and Asia 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28, that comprehensive sex education can reduce behaviours that put young people at risk of HIV, STIs and unintended pregnancy. Studies have repeatedly shown too that this kind of sex education does not lead to the earlier onset of sexual activity among young people and, in some cases, will even lead to it happening later.

In contrast there is no such robust evidence for the effectiveness of abstinence education. Almost all the studies that have claimed to show any positive outcomes are not well-enough designed to sustain these claims 29 30 31 so it is not possible to infer whether they work or not from the research reports.

So, what does the research evidence show about the effects of abstinence-based approaches?

The research that is available currently shows at best mixed outcomes for abstinence-based approaches to sex education, benefiting some young people in the short term but placing them at greater risks later. For example, two studies suggest that for some young people making pledges to abstain from sexual intercourse until marriage does lead to delay in the timing of their first sexual intercourse. But these young people tend to hold strong religious beliefs and enjoy being an exclusive group among peers who do not take abstinence pledges. As the researchers note this means that pledging abstinence is not appropriate for young people who do not hold strong religious views and, moreover, if lots of young people are involved in making pledges (as using abstinence education as a method of sex education requires) the sense of being special will be dissipated 32. In addition, while making an abstinence pledge may work for some groups of young people as a way of delaying when they have sexual intercourse, the majority still have sex before they are married and when they do they report using condoms less often than 'non-pledgers' and are more likely to substitute anal or oral sex for vaginal sexual intercourse 33 34.

In April 2007 a company called Mathematica Policy Research published the results of a Congressionally mandated evaluation of federally funded abstinence-based programmes in American schools 35. The investigation, which looked at four programmes offering a range of settings and strategies, found that rates of abstinence and unprotected sex in students who took part in the programmes were virtually identical to rates among students who had been randomly assigned to not take part. The ages at first sexual intercourse were also nearly identical, as were the numbers of sexual partners. It appears that the programmes had no impact on how the students behaved.

With regards to HIV prevention, a systematic review of all relevant studies 36, published in October 2007, concluded, "Evidence does not indicate that abstinence-only interventions effectively decrease or exacerbate HIV risk among participants in high-income countries; trials suggest that the programs are ineffective." Nevertheless the authors stressed the paucity of robust data and the need for more rigorous trials. They noted that most studies have been conducted among American youth, which may limit the generalisability of their findings.

What is the difference in the content of abstinence-based and comprehensive programmes of sex education?

Another way in which the debate gets framed is in relation to differences in beliefs about what the 'real facts' are that young people should be presented with in the context of sex education. Many supporters of abstinence-based sex education say that comprehensive programmes are too positive about the protective potential of contraceptives and understate their failure rate and the risks of contracting HIV or another STI 37. In addition, they criticise programmes of comprehensive sex education for placing too little emphasis on abstinence and sending young people a mixed message by referring both to abstaining from or delaying when they first have sexual intercourse, and the benefits of using contraception 38.

Some reviews of abstinence -based programmes suggest factual inaccuracies.

For their part critics of abstinence-based programmes have said that they are too negative about the effectiveness of contraception and sometimes include inaccurate information about failure rates. Proponents of abstinence-based approaches have been accused of overstating condom failure rates, exaggerating the risks of infection with HIV and other STIs, reinforcing gender and sexuality stereotypes, and presenting sex and sexuality in an overly negative way 39 40 41 42

The criticisms levelled against comprehensive programmes of sex education are difficult to sustain because research suggests that in practice many sex educators are very concerned not to present sex in too positive a light and tend to avoid coverage of sensitive and potentially embarrassing subjects like homosexuality and abortion. Young people consistently report that the underlying message is that they should not have sex 43 44 45 46. Moreover, much of the evidence for the ineffectiveness of condoms and other contraceptives cited by critics of comprehensive programmes is highly suspect, being based on poor quality research or the outcome of a partial reading of its results 47.

In contrast, those criticisms levelled at abstinence-based approaches do seem to have a firmer foundation. Some reviews of programme materials suggest factual inaccuracies - such as massively overestimating the prevalence of HIV and STIs and the failure rates of condoms when properly used - are common 48. These reviews have also shown that these programmes tend to project stereotypes about gender, repress information about positive aspects of sexual relationships, and overstate the emotional risks and dangers associated with sex 49.

Is it realistic to encourage abstinence until marriage?

The premise on which abstinence education is founded - that it is reasonable to wait until marriage before having sex for the first time and then be faithful to that one partner for life - may well be unrealistic for many young people because it fails to reflect the nature of modern, industrial societies in which people marry later in life, if at all. And with the high frequency of breakdown in marriage, people are very likely to have several sexual partners over their lifetime. Across the US, the UK and the rest of Europe data on sexual lifestyles consistently show that the age at which people first marry has risen to around 30 years old and that about a fifth of marriages end in divorce or separation within five years 50 51. Yet while the age at which people marry has risen, the age at which they first have sexual intercourse has been falling to around 16 years old, and a diminishing minority of people report that their first sexual partner was also their marriage partner 52 53.

So can we decide whether one approach is better than the other?

It is very important to note that debates about research into the effectiveness of different types of sex education, and criticisms of the extent to which programmes contain factual inaccuracies and are guilty of stereotyping, do not always represent objective attempts to weigh the evidence that these studies have produced. While the debate between supporters of both approaches has populated these areas of difference it is not in pursuit of a resolution of their differences but rather a definitive answer that suits their moral agenda. There is no doubt that, whatever evidence is assembled, people who hold particular strong moral views are unlikely to give up supporting their preferred approach regardless of whether it works or whether someone else thinks it presents a distorted picture of the facts.

Which view is in the ascendancy?

There is no doubt that abstinence-based approaches have gathered political and financial support in the United States where they have become strongly associated with the moral and religious inclinations of the Republican Party and the Presidency of George W. Bush 54 55.

As a result, the current situation is that of the $1.5 billion spent on abstinence education since 1982 more than 80% has been spent under the current Presidency 56. Approximately $204 million was granted in the President's 2007 Budget to abstinence-only education programmes 57.

The bulk of this funding has been available annually since 1996 when an amendment to health and welfare legislation affecting support to families initiated an annual cycle of federal funding to abstinence education 58. From this point funding became available to states if they matched the Government grant with some money of their own. This money then became available to organisations through several funding strands if they agreed to use it for work that meets the following eight characteristics defining abstinence education as that which:

  • Has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
  • Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children;
  • Teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
  • Teaches that a mutually faithful, monogamous heterosexual relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity;
  • Teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
  • Teaches that bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society;
  • Teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increases vulnerability to sexual advances; and
  • Teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity.

The situation is the UK is rather different in that abstinence education has no support in public policy and receives no funding from government, although there is an expectation that sex educators in schools will emphasise the potential benefits of delaying or abstaining from sexual activity alongside providing information about contraception, sexual health services, sexuality and gender issues 59.

What is the current situation with abstinence education in the US?

Despite federal financial support the picture of what takes place in schools and colleges across the United States is difficult to piece together since most policies on sex education are decided at state level and even then school districts may enjoy a considerable degree of latitude to determine exactly what form provision takes within this policy context 60.

However, a survey in 1999 found that all school districts with a sex education policy required that abstinence be taught and around 4 in 5 required that it be promoted as the best option for young people. About 35% not only required abstinence to be covered but either did not allow discussion of contraceptives or allowed discussion only of their failure rates. The other 51% required that abstinence be taught as the preferred option, but also allowed discussion of contraception as an effective means of protection. Only 14% had a policy of teaching abstinence as part of a comprehensive programme 61.

Recent research has suggested that while overall abstinence education continues to grow in influence, some states are actively seeking to consolidate comprehensive provision. As of May 2007, ten states had chosen not to receive federal funding for abstinence education 62. New York followed suit in September 2007 63.

Is abstinence education supported by young people, parents and schools?

No. Surveys of teachers, parents and young people consistently show little support for abstinence education. In the US a recent major survey found overwhelming support for sex education in school and little local controversy about its provision and organisation within schools. However, the survey did find some differences in parental views on the focus it should have with 46% preferring an abstinence-plus approach, 36% a comprehensive approach and 15% abstinence only 64.

In the UK an even greater proportion of parents and young people support comprehensive approaches to sex education 65 Young people want AIDS education in school and want to be informed of the facts that will enable them to make their own informed decisions.

Why is the debate about abstinence education important in terms of HIV/AIDS prevention?

Globally, the greatest HIV/AIDS burden falls on young people. Sex education is recognised as a major component of HIV prevention targeting young people; what form it takes and whether or not it works impacts directly on the HIV risk to which they are exposed 66 67 68. AIDS education for young people is a crucial factor in determining the extent to which they are at risk of HIV infection.

With the allocation of $15 billion under the President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief, abstinence education is being promoted in some of the countries worst affected by HIV and AIDS 69. This raises a number of concerns about whether this is an appropriate approach in contexts where HIV is very prevalent and sexual intercourse before marriage is widespread, and, particularly, whether such programmes will withhold accurate information about condoms.

Despite generating considerable debate and political support, particularly in the United States, abstinence education represents, primarily, a minority moral movement rather than an effective response.

All the evidence clearly shows that the best way to progress HIV prevention through sex education is through comprehensive programmes. Despite generating considerable debate and political support, particularly in the United States, abstinence education represents, primarily, a minority moral movement rather than an effective response to the sexual health needs and behaviour of young people.

As the experiences around the world demonstrate - a good example of which can be found in Uganda - what works in terms of sex education for HIV prevention is a comprehensive approach that is sensitive to the needs and experiences of particular groups. For unmarried, sexually active young people abstinence messages are not effective, whereas promoting faithfulness to one partner, condom use and abstinence is effective. Abstinence messages work to some extent for younger sexually inactive people, but they need to have information about contraception and risk-reduction behaviour for when they do decide to have sex. Everyone has the right to the information that can enable them to protect themselves against HIV infection - it is neither Christian nor moral to refuse them.

back to top

AddThis Social Bookmark Button What's this?

Written by Simon Forrest.

References

  1. Project Reality, projectreality.org/
  2. True Love Waits, www.lifeway.com/tlw
  3. Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Science Unit (2005) SHARE: Sexual Health and Relationships: Safe, Happy and Responsible.
  4. National Guidelines Taskforce (2004) Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education, www.siecus.org/pubs/guidelines/guidelines.pdf
  5. Halperin, D. T., Steiner, M. J., Cassell, M. M. et al. (2004) The time has come for common ground on preventing sexual transmission of HIV, The Lancet 364: 1913-1915.
  6. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (2003) Sex Education in the US: Policy and Politics, www.kff.org/youthhivstds/3224-02-index.cfm
  7. Barth, R. (2004) PASHA Program Archive PP04: Reducing the Risk, www.socio.com/srch/summary/pasha/paspp04.htm
  8. Card, J. (1999) Teen Pregnancy Prevention: Do any programmes work? Annual Review of Public Health 20: 257-285
  9. APAUSE, www.programmes.ex.ac.uk/apause/
  10. Maher, B. E. (2005) Abstinence until marriage: The best message for teens, Family Research Council. www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS03B1
  11. Choosing the best: The leader in abstinence education. www.choosingthebest.org/why_abstinence/index.html
  12. United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights www.un.org/rights/HRToday
  13. European Convention on the Exercise of Children's Rights conventions.coe.int/Treaty/...
  14. United Nations General Assembly, Declaration of commitment on HIV/AIDS August 2nd 2001 www.un.org/ga/aids/docs/aress262.pdf
  15. International Planned Parenthood Foundation www.ippf.org
  16. Sex Education Forum (1999) The Framework for sex and relationships education. London: Sex Education Forum.
  17. Blake, S and Katrak, Z. (2002) Faith, values and sex and relationships education. London: Sex Education Forum.
  18. Whitehead, B.D., Wilcox, B.L., Rostosky, S.S., et al. (2001). Keeping the faith: The role of religion and faith communities in preventing teen pregnancy. Washington, DC: National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy.
  19. UNICEF. (2001) A league table of teenage births in rich nations. Innocenti report card No. 3. UNICEF Research Centre: Florence,
  20. Oakley, A., Fullerton, d., Holland, J, et al. (1995) Sexual health education interventions for young people: a methodological review, British Medical Journal, 310: 158-162.
  21. Collins, C., Alagiri, P. and Summers, T. (2002) Abstinence only vs. comprehensive sex education: What are the arguments? What is the evidence? University of California, San Francisco: AIDS Research Institute
  22. Kirby, D., Short, L., Collins, J., Rugg, D., Kolbe, L., Howard M et al. (1994) School-based programmes to decrease sexual risk behaviours: a review of effectiveness, Public Health Report 109 pp.336-360
  23. Dickson, R., Fullerton, D., Eastwood, A., Sheldon, T., Sharp, F et al. (1997) Effective Health Care: Preventing and reducing the adverse effects of unintended teenage pregnancies, National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination University of York
  24. Dicenso A, Guyatt G, Willan A et al. (2002) Interventions to reduce unintended pregnancies among adolescents: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 324 1426-1435
  25. Dennison, C. (2004) Teenage Pregnancy: An overview of the research evidence. London: Health Development Agency
  26. Swann, C., McCormick, G. and Kosmin, M. (2003) Teenage Pregnancy and Parenthood: A Review of Reviews. London: Health Development Agency
  27. notes Alford S, Cheetham N, Hauser D. Science and Success in Developing Countries: Holistic Programs That Work to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, HIV & Sexually Transmitted Infections. Washington, DC: Advocates for Youth, 2005.
  28. Cheesbrough, S., Ingham, R. and Massey, D. (2002) Reducing the rate of teenage conceptions: A review of the international evidence on preventing and reducing teenage conceptions: The United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, London: Health Development Agency
  29. Kirby, D. (2002) Do abstinence-only programs delay the initiation of sex among young people and reduce teenage pregnancy? The National Campaign for the Prevention of Teen Pregnancy.
  30. Collins, C., Alagiri, P. and Summers, T. (2002) Abstinence only vs. comprehensive sex education: What are the arguments? What is the evidence? University of California, San Francisco: AIDS Research Institute
  31. Underhill, K., Operario, D. and Montgomery, P. (2007) Reporting deficiencies in trials of abstinence-only programmes for HIV prevention, AIDS 21 266-267
  32. Bearman, P. and Bruckner, H. (2001) Promising the Future: Virginity pledges and first intercourse, American Journal of Sociology 106(4): 859-912.
  33. Bruckner, H. and Bearman, P. (2005) After the promise: the STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges, Journal of Adolescent Health 36: 271-278.
  34. The Alan Guttmacher Institute (2002) Fact in Brief: Sexuality Education, www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_sex_ed02.html
  35. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (2007) Impacts of Four Title V, Section 510 Abstinence Education Programs
  36. Underhill, K., Operario, D. and Montgomery, P. (2007) Abstinence-only programs for HIV infection prevention in high-income countries, Cochrane Database Systematic Review
  37. Stammers, T. G. (2003) Abstinence under fire, Post Medical Journal 79: 365-366
  38. The Physicians Consortium, (2002) Sexual Messages in Government-Promoted Programs and Today's Youth Culture. www.physconsortium.com/pdfs/sexual_messages_in_government_04_00_02.pdf
  39. United States House Of Representatives Committee On Government Reform � Minority Staff Special Investigations Division (2004) The Content Of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs, www.democrats.reform.house.gov/Documents/20041201102153-50247.pdf
  40. Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States Siecus reviews fear-based, abstinence-only-until marriage curricula. www.siecus.org/reviews.html
  41. Blake, S. and Frances, G.(2001) Just say no to abstinence education, National Children's Bureau, 2001
  42. The Seattle Times (2007) Inaccurate statistics cited in abstinence-only education
  43. The Alan Guttmacher Institute (2002) Fact in Brief: Sexuality Education, www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_sex_ed02.html
  44. Buston, K., Wight, D., Hart, G. and Scott, S. (2002) Implementation of a teacher-delivered sex education programme: obstacles and facilitating factors. Health Education Research: Theory and Practice, 17(1), 59-72.
  45. Forrest, S. Strange, V. Oakley, A. and The RIPPLE study team. (2004) What young people want from sex education? The results of a needs assessment from a peer-led sex education programme, Culture, Health and Sexuality, 6(4) 337-354
  46. Measor, L., Tiffin, C. and Miller K. (2000) Young People’s Views on Sex Education: Education, Attitudes and Behaviour. London: Routledge/Falmer.
  47. Paton, D., 'The economics of family planning and underage conceptions', Journal of Health Economics 21 (2002) 207-225
  48. Batchler, M (2004) Keeping our Youth ‘Scared chaste’ SIECUS Curriculum Review: Choosing the best life A fear-based abstinence-only-until-marriage program for high school students, www.siecus.org/reviews.html
  49. Blake, S. and Frances, G.(2001) Just say no to abstinence education, National Children's Bureau, 2001
  50. National Centre for Health Statistics (2004) Marriage and Divorce (data for US 2003) www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm
  51. National Statistics (2005) Marriages, 1846-2002: median age at marriage by sex and previous marital status.
  52. Wellings K, et al. Sexual behaviour in Britain: early heterosexual experience. The Lancet 2001; 358 1843-1850
  53. Hubert, M., Bajos, N., and Sandfort, T. (1998) Sexual behaviour and HIV/AIDS in Europe, London: University College London Press
  54. Sex & Censorship Committee, National Coalition Against Censorship (2005) Abstinence-only Education, Washington DC, Planned Parenthood Federation of America
  55. Kaiser Family Foundation (2002) Sex Education in the US: Policy and Practice, Issue Update October 2002, California: Kaiser Family Foundation.
  56. Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (2006) SIECUS State Profiles (2006): A Portrait of sexuality education and abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in the States
  57. Budget of the United States Government, FY 2007
  58. Maternal and Child Health Bureau,
    US Department of Heath and Human Service: Health Resources and Services Administration.
    mchb.hrsa.gov/programs/adolescents/abstinence.htm
  59. DfES (2000) Sex and Relationships Guidance, HMSO: London
  60. Kaiser Family Foundation (2002) Sex Education in the US: Policy and Practice, Issue Update October 2002, California: Kaiser Family Foundation.
  61. Landry, D.J., Kaeser, L. and Richards, C.L. (1999) Abstinence promotion and the provision of information about contraception in public school district sexuality education policies, Family Planning Perspectives, 31(6):280-286.
  62. Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (2006) SIECUS State Profile: A Profile of sexuality education and abstinence-only-until-marriage programs in the States, www.siecus.org/policy/states/index.html
  63. New York Times (2007) New York Just Says No to Abstinence Funding, 21 September
  64. National Public Radio/Kaiser Family Foundation/John F Kennedy School of Government Harvard University (2004) Sex Education in America, Kaiser Family Foundation. www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/pomr012904oth.cfm
  65. BMRB International (2001) Evaluation of the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy. Tracking Survey. Report of results of benchmark wave, January 2001. www.dfes.gov.uk/teenagepregnancy
  66. DFID, Education Development Center,
    Education International, European Commission, ILO, UNESCO, UNAIDS,
    UNDCP, UNDP, UNFPA, UNICEF, USAID, WHO, and World Bank. (2003) HIV/ AIDS & Education: A strategic approach, Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning/UNESCO, unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001286/128657e.pdf
  67. Department of Health (2002) Sexual Health and HIV Strategy, HMSO: Department of Health
  68. Prevention Research Synthesis Project. with Evidence of Prevention (1999) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention HIV/AIDS Compendium of HIV Prevention Interventions Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Effectiveness.
  69. USAID (2004) $ 100 million in abstinence-focused grants for HIV/AIDS prevention awarded under PEPFAR, www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2004/pr041005.html

Last updated April 07, 2008