Here are some details.

They need letters ASAP "in support of Heritage's Community Based Abstinence Education" grant application. The addressee should be:
Mr. Stanley Koustaal, Ph. D.

Acting Director Abstinence Education
Family and Youth Services Bureau
118 Q Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002-2131.

The letter should be delivered to Heritage of RI (c/o Chris Plante - chris.plante@heritageri.org - Executive Director, Heritage of Rhode Island, 46 Kilvert Street, Warwick, RI 02886) by April 18, 2007 to be included in the application package.

Other letters will be needed for a second application, due June 1, that should be addressed to:

To Whom It May Concern
WilDon Solutions
Office of Grants Management Operations Center
1515 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 310
Arlington, Virginia 22209

In light of the release of Mathematica's long-awaited research report showing that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs do not delay teen sex, nor alter behavior, perhaps it is time to stop funding programs like Heritage. This study is the only long-term controlled study that has been done in the 10 years of funding to the tune of 1.5 billion.
Support the REAL Act, and give kids access to healthcare and information that is essential to their wellbeing.

While TR asks a valid question, there are several reasons to continue funding abstinence education and to be very concerned about the REAL Act.

1. The Mathematica study, while rigorous, only reviewed four, very early (1997/98 era) abstinence programs. The field now boasts over 700 different types of programs. The field and its methodology has matured greatly over the past decade, developing more and more effective programs that are committed to continuing rigorous research and evaluation along the way.

2. The study did not find any negative impacts of the abstinence education programs. Rather, it showed, as most would admit that a discreet shot of abstinence education in Junior High is not enough to change behaviors over the long term. Abstinence is a hard choice. Like any other hard but healthy behavioral choice (diet, smoking, exercise), the maintenance of that choice requires effort and support from the surrounding community.

3. Regarding the REAL Act, other attempts to create "abstinence-first" or "abstinence-based" models have resulted in creating programs that are no more than condom education programs tacking on "abstinence" to gain access to another funding stream. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/abstinencereport.cfm).

4. Heritage of Rhode Island has never called for the RI Dept. of Education, or our schools, to stop teaching kids about condoms and other forms of reproductive health. Heritage's mission here is to see abstinence taught clearly, intentionally, and unapologetically to our State's teenagers as their healthiest choice. Our State's sex education program can rightly be termed "risk-reduction" programming; we advocate telling our children that they can actually "avoid the risk" altogether. A message sorely lacking in our classrooms and academic culture. When parents approach Heritage livid that their middle school child is receiving information about condoms, when teenagers cannot tell Heritage if they have ever been taught about abstinence, and when RI has the highest teen pregnancy rate of the New England states, and ranks in the bottom two or three for the whole Northeast US in Chlamydia or Syphilis rates, what we are already doing is not enough.

5. Finally, while the Mathematic study and statistics have taken headlines, it has clouded the real issue, "What do we think of and want for our children?" Do we really think they are just animals given to pursuing their urges with no ability to control those instincts. Do we think so little of them that we believe that trying to teach them the healthiest choice is beyond them?

Heritage believes that our children deserve all accurate and appropriate information regarding their sexual health. Abstinence, as their healthiest choice, should be the primary message.

Chris Plante
Executive Director
Heritage of Rhode Island
46 Kilvert Street
Warwick, RI 02886
www.heritageri.org
www.2big2ignore.org

While TR asks a valid question...
Actually, Mr. Plant I asked no question at all. I made the statement that in light of what the Mathematica research concluded, we should rethink funding of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.

1. The Mathematica study, while rigorous, only reviewed four, very early (1997/98 era) abstinence programs. The field now boasts over 700 different types of programs. The field and its methodology has matured greatly over the past decade, developing more and more effective programs that are committed to continuing rigorous research and evaluation along the way.
In reality, 11 programs were initially chosen for review. 7 of these had to be excluded because they were "unable to support rigorous impact study of program effectiveness." Incidentally, Mr. Plante, has Heritage had any component of its program evaluated? Either here in RI or in SC? By this question, I do mean a rigorous evaluation, by a non-biased research firm? Further, those 700 programs that you "boast" of have been in effect since 2000, and share most, if not all of the same common curriculum topics that they did then. Changes that may have occured would be in the way of correcting inaccuracies, or distortions that were being touted as factual. (These problems have not been entirely eliminated, but that would be a different topic for a different day.)If I am incorrect, could you please share what goals have changed since 2000?

2. The study did not find any negative impacts of the abstinence education programs.
You're correct, but neither did they show any positive impacts in the areas of delayed activity, use of contraception, or long-term attitude or behavior impacts.

Rather, it showed, as most would admit that a discreet shot of abstinence education in Junior High is not enough to change behaviors over the long term.
Here you demonstrate (intended?) intellectual dishonesty. Mathematica states these programs were chosen for study because each had at least "50 contact hours for one or more years, making them relatively intense among programs funded by the Title V, Section 510 grant."

3. Regarding the REAL Act, other attempts to create "abstinence-first" or "abstinence-based" models have resulted in creating programs that are no more than condom education programs tacking on "abstinence" to gain access to another funding stream.
Here again Mr. Plante, I would question your integrity in making such a statement. Perhaps it is a rerouting of the existing funding stream that would be best. In light of the results of the Mathematica study, abstinence-only-until-marriage programs have been given ample time and plenty of money to show some signs of effectiveness. They failed to do that.

4. Heritage of Rhode Island has never called for the RI Dept. of Education, or our schools, to stop teaching kids about condoms and other forms of reproductive health.
But you do admit that abstinence-only advocates consider those messages completely contradictory, even suggesting that teaching both undermines your message? This attitude justifies, in your minds, the teaching of inaccurate information, that others are then left to rectify.

Heritage's mission here is to see abstinence taught clearly, intentionally, and unapologetically to our State's teenagers as their healthiest choice.
Are you capable of being apologetic when you intentionally mislead children with false and distorted data?

When parents approach Heritage livid that their middle school child is receiving information about condoms...
Based on the evidence of scientific study,parents should not be sticking their heads in the sand. They also should not be livid that their teenagers are receiving information that will enable them to make responsible decisions with their future.

5. Finally, while the Mathematic study and statistics have taken headlines, it has clouded the real issue, "What do we think of and want for our children?" Do we really think they are just animals given to pursuing their urges with no ability to control those instincts. Do we think so little of them that we believe that trying to teach them the healthiest choice is beyond them?
No, Mr.Plante, the Mathematica study has brought light to the issue that has been clouded for far too long, and far too much money - 1.5 billion dollars for something that had no measurable effect whatsoever. It is also unfair and inappropriate for you to label normal human sexual desires as animalistic, or to suggest that people who engage in sexual activity before your desired timeline have a lack of self-control, or that they are somehow lesser people. Finally, Mr. Plante, I disagree with your concept that educating teens with truth about their sexuality, human growth, and responsible decision making demonstrates that we think little of them, or that we think that teaching them healthy choices is beyond them. In fact, I advocate teaching them all about healthy choices, and then honoring them with the respect of learning to make them.

Boy, TR, you're certainly not going for the assumption-of-goodwill bonus. What's your personal investment, I wonder. How about some disclosure?

I haven't the time (yet) to delve into much of your comment (e.g., I've downloaded but have not read the full Mathematica report), but I will say this: You're a bit loose — almost to the point of self-incrimination — with your charge of intellectual dishonesty. Regarding the "discrete shot" comment, I believe Mr. Plante was referring to Mathematica's own suggestion (from its synopsis) that "Targeting youth at young ages may not be sufficient." Expanding: "the findings provide no information on the effects programs might have if they were implemented in high school or began at earlier ages but continued through high school." This strikes me as a recommendation that programs be tweaked, not abandoned.

As for the rest, I'd say it's your integrity that comes into question, as evidenced by statements such as this:

It is also unfair and inappropriate for you to label normal human sexual desires as animalistic, or to suggest that people who engage in sexual activity before your desired timeline have a lack of self-control, or that they are somehow lesser people.

In case, in your drive to reach the sex-ed classroom, you missed that lesson in biology, we human beings are, indeed, animals, Mr. (or Ms.) Ross. What is supposed to set us apart is our ability to control — and to channel — our urges. You may disagree that abstinence is the healthiest choice for adolescents. Fine. Argue your point. But I believe that what Chris was alluding to — and it's something that I'll confirm as a recipient of safe-sex education — is the presentation that teaches children that abstaining from sex is unrealistic.

What's your personal investment, I wonder. How about some disclosure?
My personal investment, Justin, would be the same as most other taxpayers - to the tune of 1.5 billion for failed programming. I also have a sincere desire to see continued decreases in teen pregnancy rates. Therefore, groups that advocate giving teens mis-information on the efficacy rates of birth control leave a bitter taste in my mouth. It also makes me question intent, and yes, integrity.

I haven't the time (yet) to delve into much of your comment (e.g., I've downloaded but have not read the full Mathematica report)
Might I suggest you go ahead and read the report? You might even want to check out the 1st Year Impact report, and the Interim report. Perhaps your comments will be based more on what you know at that point.

Re: My charge of intellectual dishonesty - You are correct that it was in regard to the "discrete shot of abstinence education" comment, as well as Mr.Plante's seeming attempt to diminish the findings of this report by stating that "only four programs were evaluated." Mr. Plante knows very well that these programs that were evaluated were not based on a "dose" of abstinence-only education. They were chosen based on relative intensity of duration as a major factor. I also believe that there was initially a fifth program to be included in the study. Maybe Mr. Plante could tell you more about that particluar program, and its ultimate exclusion.

As for the rest, I'd say it's your integrity that comes into question...
How so, Mr. Katz?

In case, in your drive to reach the sex-ed classroom, you missed that lesson in biology, we human beings are, indeed, animals
Very good, Mr. Katz. Clap clap. Perhaps you should have Mr. Plante attend your biology class. (You may find that would be a whole other topic for a different day!)

You may disagree that abstinence is the healthiest choice for adolescents.
No, I totally agree that abstinence is the healthiest choice for adolescents, I just don't think that it's the choice they tend to make, and therefore I firmly believe they should be educated with facts on how to prevent unintended pregnancy, and reduce the risk of disease exposure.

Well, TRoss, you're a particularly interested average citizen to have read that report so intently. That's a good thing, I suppose, but having read a number of such documents and participated in a number of these discussions, it seems to me that your emphasis on Mathematica's findings presumes a bit too much. When it comes down to it, the most that one can claim on its basis is that having a little more than half of a school's students participate in an abstinence program during their tweens is not sufficient to differentiate their behavior from that of their peers during their teens.

Choices about sexual behavior are at least as much, probably more (especially among teenagers), a matter of cultural influence as informed personal health assessment, and indeed, not just STDs and pregnancies have gone down among teenagers, but sexual activity, as well. Abstinence is not the choice they tend to make, of late, in large part because adults' stands tends to be that they won't be able to make it.

I would prefer accurate comprehensive sex ed, that includes presentation of information about gender, gender identity, sexual/affectional orientation, reproduction, contraception, STDs, safe sex practices, and that abstinence is the best way of remaining STD free.

However, abstinence only programs are being promoted by fundamentalist "christian" organizations that are trying to indoctrinate young people with their interpretation of their religious faith tenets.

And that has no place in public schools.

DRettmann,

I'm not sure what evidence you would cite for your claims, but as I've noted in the past, some of the studies that seek to prove the problems of abstinence curricula are themselves problematic (mostly for being ideological).

Regarding the Christian fundamentalist comment specifically, my gut sense is that it would prove to be an ipso facto thing, whereby supporters of such curricula are Christian fundamentalists by definition.

And as for the place of religion in school, well, that's a whole 'nother topic.

Yes, teaching religion faith tenets in public schools IS a whole 'nother topic. And it's a simple discussion. One word, and that word is "No".

The connections of ab-only sex ed promoters to the fundamentalist Religious Right "christians" is well known.

Here's just one link for info.

http://www.theocracywatch.org/abstinence_only_sex_education.htm

Perhaps that topic would generate some traffic. It could even be linked to all the "research" that you've done on the subject, Justin.

Justin, have you ever seen Heritage's curriculum? I'm just wondering why it is you'd defend them so fiercely without actually knowing?