• Mathematica’s evaluation found no evidence that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs increased rates of sexual abstinence—the entire supposed purpose of the programs.
• Students in the abstinence-only-until-marriage programs had a similar age of first sex and similar numbers of sexual partners as their peers who were not in the programs.  
• The average age of sexual debut was the same for the abstinence-only-until-marriage participants and control groups (14 years, 9 months).

• The study found that no evidence to support the continued investment of public funds.

“In sum, studies of abstinence programs have not produced sufficient evidence to justify their widespread dissemination…Only when strong evidence demonstrates that particular programs are effective should they be disseminated more widely.”

•  The study also found that, to date, no abstinence-only-until-marriage program that is of the type to be eligible for funding by the federal government has been found in methodologically rigorous study to positively impact teen sexual behavior.

“At present, there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence, or reduces the number of sexual partners. In addition, there is strong evidence from multiple randomized trials demonstrating that some abstinence programs chosen for evaluation because they were believed to be promising actually had no impact on teen sexual behavior.”

• Abstinence-only-until-marriage programs were ineffective in changing any of the behaviors that were examined including the rate of vaginal sex, number of sexual partners, and condom use. The rates of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) among participants in abstinence-only-until-marriage programs were unaffected. 
• As a result of this meta-study, the researchers concluded that recent declines in the U.S. rate of teen pregnancy are most likely the result of improved use of contraception rather than a decrease in sexual activity.

• Research on virginity pledges found that for a select group of young people, pledges did delay the onset of sexual intercourse for an average of 18 months (a goal still far short of the average age of marriage).[4] However, the same study also found that young people who took a pledge were one-third less likely to use contraception when they did become sexually active than their peers who had not pledged.[5] In other words, pledges can cause harm by undermining contraceptive use when the young people who take them become sexually active. 
• The researchers also found that pledgers have the same rate of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) as their peers who had not pledged.  Not only were pledgers less likely to use condoms to prevent STDs, they were less likely to seek medical testing and treatment, thereby increasing the possibility of transmission.[6]          
• Further research found that, among those young people who have not had vaginal intercourse, pledgers were more likely to have engaged in both oral and anal sex than their non-pledging peers.  In fact, among virgins, male and female pledgers were six times more likely to have had oral sex than non-pledgers, and male pledgers were four times more likely to have had anal sex than those who had not pledged.
• According to the researchers, in communities where there are a higher proportion of pledgers, overall STD rates were significantly higher than in other settings. Specifically, in communities where more than 20% of young adults had taken virginity pledges, STD rates were 8.9% compared to 5.5% in communities with few pledgers.[7]

• In 2003, Pennsylvania’s evaluation found that, “taken as a whole, this initiative was largely ineffective in reducing sexual onset and promoting attitudes and skills consistent with sexual abstinence.”[8] The report also states that “overall, the evidence indicates that abstinence-only programs should be focused on early adolescence (grade seven). Programs for urban youth, especially females, should begin in grade six. Beyond the eighth grade, abstinence-only programs can continue to play a valuable role in reinforcing and supporting youth who choose to remain sexually abstinent. For those youth who do not remain abstinent, however, the reduction of teenage pregnancies, STDs, and HIV/AIDS requires an alternative strategy.”[9]
• Texas’ 2004 evaluation included five self-selected “abstinence education” contractors who participated in a study conducted by researchers at Texas A&M University. Analysis found that there were “no significant changes” in the percentages of students who “pledg[ed] not to have sex until marriage.”[10] In addition, the analysis revealed that the percentage of students reporting having ever engaged in sexual intercourse increased for nearly all ages between 13 and 17.One of the study’s investigators said, “we didn’t see any strong indications these programs were having an impact in the direction desired…these programs seem to be much more concerned about politics than kids, and we need to get over that.”[11]
• Arizona’s evaluation states that “sexual behavior rates do not appear to be changing.” Despite claiming some success with short-term outcomes and “abstinence success rate” among virgins, the final report, released in 2003, recognizes that “abstinence-only programs work best for sexually inexperienced youth” and that young people’s “intent to pursue abstinence…showed significant decline from post-test to follow-up.”[12] 
• Kansas’ 2004 evaluation revealed that there were “no changes noted for participants’ actual or intended behavior; such as whether they planned to wait until marriage to have sex.” Researchers concluded, “rather than focusing on Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage, data suggests that including information on contraceptive use may be more effective at decreasing teen pregnancies.” [13]
• An independent study commissioned by the Minnesota Department of Health found that sexual activity doubled among junior high school participants in the state’s Education Now and Babies Later (ENABL) program at three schools between 2001 and 2002. The number of participants who said they would “probably” have sex during high school almost doubled as well. Although it found some positive effects on parent-teen communication, the study found no positive impact of the ENABL program on teen sexual behavior. Almost a decade earlier, the state of California also found no impact after state-wide use of the ENABL program.[14]
• The Maryland Center for Maternal and Child Health evaluated its Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage program in 2002. Although the report was not made public, it was possible to determine from the information available that participants’ pre- and post-test scores showed no significant change in attitudes or practices regarding abstinence. In addition, the proportion of youth who reported that they would remain abstinent until the completion of high school and the proportion of youth who reported abstinent behavior in the year prior to the survey both declined between pre- and post-test.[15]

Updated October 2009