Abstinence-Only Education: Federal Funding and State Rules

What is abstinence-only education?

Abstinence-only education is instruction that presents refraining from sex as the expected standard and, in its strictest form, leaves out or limits information on contraception. The term comes from the policy debate rather than from the statute, and the current federal text does not use it. Since 2018, the funding program in Section 510 has been called "sexual risk avoidance education," which the statute defines as voluntarily refraining from sexual activity ^[1].

Two other models are usually contrasted with it. Comprehensive sex education covers abstinence along with contraception and disease prevention, and "abstinence-plus" programs stress abstinence while also discussing contraception. In practice, the boundaries are blurred, and what a student receives depends mostly on state law, local school districts and the curriculum chosen. Guttmacher's state tables record these differences state by state ^[2].

The history of the policy begins in the 1990s. Section 510 was added to the Social Security Act by the 1996 welfare-reform law, Public Law 104-193, title IX, section 912, enacted on August 22, 1996 ^[1]. NPR reported that states funded over 700 programs in the first two years after that law, and that the George W. Bush administration later opened a separate grant stream, Community-Based Abstinence Education, that let community and faith-based groups apply directly ^[5].

The policy sits near the cultural movement described in the article on purity culture, though the two are distinct. The True Love Waits campaign was a church initiative whose co-founder said it took no government money, while federal funding supported school and community programs ^[5].

State sex and HIV education requirements (Guttmacher Institute, updated September 16, 2025)

Requirement	Count
Sex education and/or HIV education mandated	41 states and DC
Sex education mandated	29 states and DC
HIV education mandated	32 states and DC
Abstinence required to be covered or stressed	43 states and DC
Contraception required to be covered	22 states and DC
Medically accurate content required	26 states
Consent instruction required	16 states and DC
Parental notice required	30 states and DC
Parental consent required	10 states
Parents may opt a child out	43 states and DC

What does federal law require of funded programs?

Federal law requires funded programs to teach that avoiding nonmarital sexual activity is the optimal health behavior, while also meeting standards for accuracy, age and culture. The 2018 revision of Section 510 says the primary message must normalize avoiding nonmarital sexual activity as the optimal health behavior; the content must be medically accurate and complete, age-appropriate, based on adolescent learning and developmental theories, and culturally appropriate ^[1]. Public Law 115-123, enacted February 9, 2018, replaced the prior provisions and applied as if it had been enacted on October 1, 2017 ^[1].

The statute also lists topics the programs must cover. These include personal responsibility, self-regulation and goal setting; the benefits of refraining from nonmarital sex for future prospects and health; self-sufficiency and the reduced risk of poverty; the components of healthy relationships and their effect on marriages and families; the way drug and alcohol use raises sexual risk; and how to resist and report sexual coercion and dating violence ^[1]. On that last point, the text adds that teen sex remains a risk behavior even when it is consensual ^[1].

Contraception is treated in a separate paragraph. Information about it must be medically accurate and complete, and it must convey that contraception reduces physical risk without eliminating it ^[1]. The law forbids demonstrations, simulations and the distribution of contraceptive devices in the funded programs ^[1]. Students may therefore learn that contraception exists and what it can and cannot do, but the federal program does not fund demonstrations of how to use it.

The 2026 funding notice for the competitive grant describes the same approach in operational terms. It targets youth ages 10 to 19, and it requires projects to teach them how to voluntarily refrain from nonmarital sexual activity and to "normalize avoiding non-marital sexual activity" ^[3]. The statute defines youth as individuals who have attained age 10 but not age 20 ^[1].

How much money goes to sexual risk avoidance?

The law appropriates $75 million for each of fiscal years 2018 through 2026, and Congress has repeatedly extended the program in short steps. Under the current text of 42 U.S.C. § 710, $75,000,000 is appropriated for each of those fiscal years, and the pro rata share of the fiscal year 2026 amount applies for October 1 through December 31, 2026 ^[1]. The most recent amendment, Public Law 119-75 (division J, title III, section 6301, February 3, 2026), updated these periods, and earlier amendments in 2024 and 2025, including Public Laws 118-158, 119-4 and 119-37, adjusted dates ^[1].

The Secretary of Health and Human Services may reserve up to 20 percent of the appropriation for administration, national evaluations and technical assistance ^[1]. The rest is allotted to states that apply, in proportion to each state's share of low-income children ^[1]. If a state does not apply, the Secretary holds a competitive process for organizations in that state ^[1]. Recipients may spend up to 20 percent of their allotment on research, which must be rigorous and carried out by independent researchers ^[1].

The statute also builds in accountability. Recipients must collect program information and report data to the Secretary, who must conduct rigorous evaluations in consultation with state and local agencies and report the results to Congress ^[1]. Evaluation is a recurring theme, since the older Title V programs were themselves the subject of the federal study discussed below ^[4].

The competitive stream for fiscal year 2026 shows the scale at the margin. The notice (HHS-2026-ACF-ACYF-TS-0013) was posted on July 16, 2026, offered a total of $8,358,870 for about 20 awards of between $13,501 and $450,000, and closed on August 17, 2026 ^[3]. It was limited to local organizations, including faith-based and community groups, in states that did not accept their fiscal year 2026 state allotment, and a revised announcement on July 28, 2026 added New Hampshire to the eligible locations ^[3].

One point remains open. The statute as compiled by Cornell's Legal Information Institute funds the program only through the end of 2026, and its application language already refers to fiscal year 2027 ^[1]. Whether Congress will extend the $75 million level beyond December 31, 2026 could not be confirmed from the sources consulted.

How do state sex-ed laws treat abstinence?

Most states touch on abstinence in their sex or HIV education laws, with great variation in how hard they stress it. Guttmacher's state policy page, updated on September 16, 2025, counts 41 states and DC that mandate sex education, HIV education or both, with 29 states and DC mandating sex education and 32 states and DC mandating HIV education ^[2]. It counts 43 states and DC where the law requires abstinence to be covered or stressed (a count of its state table suggests 34 states that require it to be stressed and 10 states and DC that require it to be covered), and 22 states and DC that require contraception to be covered ^[2].

Other rules shape what happens in the classroom. Twenty-six states require that the content be medically accurate, and 16 states and DC require instruction on consent ^[2]. For parents, 30 states and DC require notice before sex education is taught, 10 states require parental consent, and 43 states and DC allow parents to opt a child out ^[2].

Advocacy groups reach somewhat different totals under different definitions. SIECUS, a sex-education advocacy organization, reported to NPR in 2024 that 35 states require abstinence to be emphasized and 17 provide abstinence-only education ^[5]. The numbers differ from Guttmacher's because the organizations classify the laws in different ways and update at different times. The Tennessee example cited by NPR shows how far a state can go: its Gateway law allows teachers to be sued for encouraging or condoning "gateway sexual activities" ^[5].

What does research say about effectiveness?

The main federal evaluation found no effect of four Title V abstinence programs on sexual behavior. The study, by Mathematica Policy Research for the Department of Health and Human Services and published on April 30, 2007 ^[6], randomly assigned youth to a program group or a control group in four communities: Powhatan, Virginia; Miami, Florida; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Clarksdale, Mississippi ^[4]. It enrolled 2,501 youth, and 2,057 were analyzed in the final report, with surveys in 2005 and early 2006, between 42 and 78 months after enrollment ^[4].

About half of both groups (49%) said they had always remained abstinent, and the average age at first sex was 14.9 years in both ^[4]. Unprotected first intercourse was 7% in the program group and 8% in the control group, and the groups did not differ significantly in the number of partners or in the use of birth control ^[4]. The evaluators found no significant effects on behavior, though program youth scored higher on identifying sexually transmitted infections ^[4].

The study's own summary of knowledge outcomes was more mixed: program youth scored significantly higher on identifying sexually transmitted infections, mostly because of one program, My Choice, My Future!, though understanding of the health consequences of these infections was less clear in both groups ^[4]. One program, Families United to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, also made participants more likely to say they expected to abstain until marriage ^[4].

Two cautions apply. The evaluation covered four programs funded under the older Title V rules, not the 2018 program, and it cannot speak for all abstinence curricula. Meanwhile, a congressional report on other federally funded abstinence curricula, as NPR described it, found that 80% of the grantee programs contained false, misleading or distorted information on reproductive health ^[5].

The 2018 law added requirements that did not exist before: medical accuracy and completeness, rigorous evaluation, and research by independent researchers ^[1]. Whether evaluations of programs run under those requirements show different results is a question that the sources consulted for this article cannot answer. For how common premarital sex is among young adults, the backdrop to the debate, see the premarital sex statistics.

Frequently asked questions

Is abstinence-only education still funded?

Yes. Section 510 of the Social Security Act, now called the Title V Sexual Risk Avoidance Education program, provides $75 million a year for fiscal years 2018 through 2026 under 42 U.S.C. § 710. A February 3, 2026 amendment extended the funding periods, and the text currently runs through December 31, 2026.

What is the difference between abstinence-only and comprehensive sex ed?

Abstinence-only programs present avoiding sex as the expected standard and restrict what they say about contraception, while comprehensive programs teach abstinence together with contraception and disease prevention. Federal sexual risk avoidance programs may not demonstrate or distribute contraceptives, but they must describe contraception accurately.

Which states require teaching contraception?

According to Guttmacher's September 2025 data, 22 states and DC require contraception to be covered in sex or HIV education. Another 43 states and DC require abstinence to be covered or stressed. Guttmacher's state tables list each state individually.

Can parents opt children out of sex education?

In most states, yes. Guttmacher counts 43 states and DC that allow parents to opt a child out, 30 states and DC that require parental notice and 10 states that require parental consent.

What does sexual risk avoidance mean?

It is the federal term, since 2018, for education about voluntarily refraining from sexual activity. The statute requires programs to treat avoiding nonmarital sexual activity as the optimal health behavior and to be medically accurate and age-appropriate. It replaced the older phrase "abstinence education."

Does abstinence-only education reduce teen sex?

A major federal evaluation found no effect. In a randomized study of four Title V programs, published in 2007, about half of both program and control youth had always remained abstinent, and the average age at first sex was 14.9 in both groups. The study covered only four programs.