Description:
A study of program staff delivering abstinence education will be presented. Staff of programs funded by the Title V Abstinence-Only Sexuality Education funds in Texas will be described using survey data acquired through an “Abstinence Education Program Staff Survey”. Additionally, a range of categories including a combination of professional preparation, self-efficacy, and beliefs regarding the Welfare Reform law will be addressed.
Objectives: 1. Participants will understand the scope of program staff in the state of Texas. 2. Participants will be able to compare programs and abstinence education staff in their state with those in Texas. 3. Participants will recognize issues and concerns within abstinence-only sexuality education professional staff.
Background:
In the field of human sexuality, the recurring infusion of federal monies into abstinence-only sexuality education programs nation-wide has sparked the interest of educators and researchers alike concerning program staff. In Texas, 31 programs have been funded through the Texas Department of Health, with federal dollars from the welfare reform act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) to provide abstinence-only education within the state. In the years 2000 and 2001, a team of evaluators from Texas A&M University conducted an evaluation of these programs. A questionnaire, “Abstinence Education Program Staff Survey,” was designed and administered to assess specific program deliverer’s intra-personal factors.
Purpose:
Participants in this session will take an in-depth look at abstinence education program deliverer’s intra-personal factors. Attention will be given to the program deliverers’ professional preparation, self-efficacy, and beliefs regarding the Welfare Reform law.
Significance:
School Health education programs involve issues of sexuality education and its various components. School educators need knowledge of the nature and characteristics of state funded abstinence education initiatives in order to be equipped to make decisions about their programming, including decisions regarding program staff.
Findings:
The program staff delivering abstinence education programs to youth and community are educators who have a wide range of training. These are also professionals whose training has not appropriately prepared them to deliver sexuality-related content. Most deliverers’ felt “extremely confident” in scenarios regarding the delivery of abstinence education, however, confidence levels were less certain regarding certain items. Results indicate respondents espouse strong beliefs favoring abstinence education for youth, but are unsure about its theoretical foundations.