HHS Releases Report Criticizing Comprehensive Sex Ed
In response to a 2005 request by Senators Santorum and Coburn, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s Administration for Children and Families commissioned the Sagamore Institute for Policy Research to review the curriculum of comprehensive sex ed programs. In their letter to ACF, the Senators asked for:
“…a review that explores the effectiveness of these programs in reducing teen pregnancy rates and the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. In addition, please assess the effectiveness of these programs in advancing the greater goal of encouraging teens to make the healthy decision to delay sexual activity. Please also include an evaluation of the scientific accuracy of the content of these programs. Finally, we would appreciate an assessment of how the actual content of these programs compares to their stated goals.”
The report is online and downloadable as a PDF.
The researchers note that they could not determine which programs were most frequently used, so they chose curriculum “based on the frequency and strength of endorsements received from leading and recognized sexuality information organizations and resources,” ultimately choosing 9 programs to review (listed on page 5 of the report).
I haven’t read every word of the report, but the initial portion of the review is troubling. The authors state that, “First, each curriculum underwent an extensive content analysis, i.e. a word-by-word count of instances in which certain words or themes (e.g. condoms, abstinence) are mentioned,” intended to “offer insight into the weight each respective curricula give to key themes.” In part, they wanted to know whether condoms or abstinence came up more frequently.
I see two problems with this. One, if you’ve ever taught or given a presentation, you know that the words on your planning pages do not necessarily wholly reflect the content of the oral presentation or discussion. Two, in Appendix A, the authors indicate which words they looked for, and that does include “abstinence/abstain.” It also includes “refuse, refusal/delaying sex tactics” in the word count, but doesn’t include words such as “delay,” “refrain,” or “postpone.” I remain unconvinced that a simple word count of program materials, which appears to be missing some key words and doesn’t analyze the real verbal implementation of the programs, is necessarily a good proxy for generating content ratios. One curriculum producer quoted in the Washington Post’s coverage of the report says, “the materials make the same point with different language, using phrases such as ‘choosing not to have sex’ or ‘saying no to sex.’”
The report also addresses medical inaccuracies in the curricula, and finds that 3 of 9 had “no” inaccuracies. The most frequent inaccuracy reported was discussion of nonoxynol-9 as an HIV preventative, a spermicide mentioned by 3 programs. They also find that 8 of 9 programs had no medical inaccuracies about condoms, but criticize them for not emphasizing the failure rate “as extensively as is done in some abstinence-until marriage curricula.”
They also cite as an inaccuracy the use of the term “dental dam” instead of “the FDA-approved ‘rubber dam.’” While that may be the FDA-approved terminology, “dental dam” is the name for such devices in common language. I’ve never heard anyone refer to it as a “rubber dam,” but I certainly know what a dental dam is and how and why it is to be used. Likewise, a Princeton-based researcher cited by the report says that “the authors got the data right but overstated the importance of the errors.”
“These examples of medical inaccuracies pale in comparison to those in abstinence-only curricula,” he said in an e-mail. “Many errors cited in the Waxman report [criticizing abstinence-only sex ed] are egregious, whereas many errors cited in the [HHS] report are not.”
Read the full report for further discussion of inaccuracies and whether the programs are effective at delaying sex or increasing condom use. I’m sure there is some useful information in the report, but am going to have to spend a little more time with it. At first glance, it seems to have a handful of flaws that cast doubt on its reliability.
Previous related posts:
-More Criticism of Abstinence-Only Sex Education
Update: RHRealityCheck also has a good post on this topic. They think the “dental dam” thing is bunk, too.
I read the report last night, and I agree with the assessment of Dr. Trussell (whom I’ve had the great pleasure of talking with about a couple of issues related to contraception). Basically, they’re nitpicking (if that) and have issues because the comprehensive curricula don’t meet their “ideology” test with respect to stressing abstinence as every third word. When you compare the “errors” delineated in their report with those found by the Waxman Committee’s (and others) analysis of the Abstinence-Only curricula, they do very much pale in comparison. So much as as to be ludicrous, in fact.
When you include the fact that the organization that performed the study has as one of its “Core Beliefs”:
The valuable role of faith and faith-based organizations in public life
I think it is obvious to see that there is an agenda there.
I won’t even use HHS or CDC material to source my articles any longer (with a few exceptions involving incontrovertible facts) because you can no longer rely on the “pre-eminent” health organization of the government to provide honest, legitimate information any longer. How sad is that?
Caitlain,
“Nitpicking” is exactly the word that came to mind when I read the report. Thank you for pointing out that line in the organization’s description – I do know people of faith who are opposed to abstinence-only sex ed, but that particular statement set off warning bells in my mind as to how that declaration did or did not affect the contents of the report.