Search News


Browse Archives

News

A Dollar a Day Not to Get Pregnant

July 9, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

A pregnancy prevention program based at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro that pays 12 to 18 year old girls one dollar for every day they are not pregnant has spurred conversation and raised eyebrows as it has made its way through the blogosphere. College Bound Sisters was founded in its most infant stages almost 20 years ago by Hazel Brown, professor of nursing, and Rebecca Saunders, associate dean of the graduate school. But the program made headlines after a Fox News story brought to light its incentive-based system.

Brown emphasized that College Bound Sisters is more than just a monetary transaction. The money -- which gets deposited into a college savings account -- is given to the participants only after they achieve all three goals of the program: not getting pregnant, graduating from high school and enrolling in college. The girls also receive $5 per week for transportation to the program's classes in sexual health and preparation for college. Some students who have stuck with it have received over $2,000 toward a college degree.

The program is specifically set up for girls whose sisters had a baby before the age of 18, which statistically puts them at risk for teen pregnancy as well. Participants are separated into groups of 12-14 and 15-18.

While money might be the initial impetus that gets students involved with the program, they stay with it because of the education and support they receive, Brown said. Weekly meetings give students sexual education, among other things. Educators promote abstinence but discuss the importance of birth control for those who are sexually active. The girls also learn about college, taking trips to different campuses and getting assistance filling out their applications. The fact that the program takes place on the Greensboro campus further serves to put pregnancy prevention within the context of higher education aspirations.

"It's a balance between working for the money and the more they get into studying and talking about colleges, the more they see that's what they want to do," Brown said. "I feel accurate in saying that no one in the program has parents who have been college graduates."

Shanise Thompson joined the program after finishing 7th grade. Her mother, Alice Thompson, had a child at the age of 17, and her older sister got pregnant at 15, so Shanise was what experts would consider to be one of the most statistically at-risk girls for teenage pregnancy. But Alice Thompson says the program helped Shanise to set her sights in the right direction. Now, she plans to go to a community college for two years and then transfer to Winston-Salem State University, in North Carolina, where she wants to study child psychology.

Alice Thompson added that College Bound Sisters also helped to create a more open relationship between her and her daughters -- one in which the topics of sex and pregnancy were discussed freely. She found the incentive piece of the program to be a great idea, but did not know about it until Shanise had signed up. "The generation of today, you have to have some kind of incentive for children to look forward to, to give them something to strive for. It's easy to tell them you want them to complete school and go off to college, but if there is a program to give incentives, it pays off," Alice said.

The money additionally serves to get the girls into the habit of long term goal-setting, which is accompanied by weekly goals that each participant sets for herself. In this way, Brown says that the girls learn to see not getting pregnant at a young age as part of a long-term path to success.

Brown added that by most accounts the program has been successful. Of the 125 participants who have stuck with it for more than six months, about half have made it all the way through and half have dropped out. 5 percent of the students got pregnant, another 5 percent dropped out of high school, and others parted ways with the program for unrelated reasons. The money saved by those who do not make it through the program is divided up among the remaining girls. Most of those who end up going into higher education attend a college in North Carolina, but the money may be used anywhere.

At the same time, Brown and Saunders have set up a control group of girls with similar characteristics to those in the program, and periodically check in with them. The girls who did not go through the program were four times more likely to become pregnant as teenagers and half as likely to enroll in college. Brown and Saunders have presented their curriculum to the state of North Carolina, and other educators within and outside the United States, but no other colleges are known to have started a similar program.

With operating costs at $75,000 per year, most of which goes to pay the program manager, there is very little overhead. Brown noted that this pales in comparison to the expenses of a single teen pregnancy, which can cost taxpayers up to half a million dollars between healthcare and welfare expenses.

Teen pregnancies currently cost taxpayers $9.1 billion annually, according to Bill Alpert, chief program officer at the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. While Alpert acknowledged the possibility of uneasiness about the idea of paying to avoid pregnancies, he said that any program that reduces teen birth rates should be considered a success. With teen birth rates up again for the second year in a row after 14 straight years of decline, he stressed that "we are going to need to try new and innovative things."

"I know that this program generates passion among people," he said, "but the critical question is whether it works. Does it help prevent pregnancy? If it works, it seems to me like an incredibly modest investment."

He added that these incentives are no different from parents giving their kids presents for good behavior or the tax code issuing deductibles for giving to charity.

Other pregnancy prevention approaches that Alpert calls innovative include revising classroom sexual education to focus on "relationships, not just body parts." This similarly puts sex in a larger social context, rather than treating it in isolation. Use of technology has also brought sexual education into the digital age through mechanisms like digital messages that remind girls to take their birth control pills and online games with sexual education information.

Yet, Alpert acknowledged that sex educators are slow to respond to the need for new teaching methods, which is one possible reason why teen pregnancies are up. Furthermore, at a time when many school budgets are forcing principals to cut classes like physical education and math, Alpert said that it becomes harder for the school to be the innovator in sex education programs. Prevention experts must put efforts into figuring out what types of education work, Alpert stressed.

"One of the things [the National Campaign does] is isolates interventions that have success. If this program has been shown to prevent pregnancy through careful testing, we would suggest continuing it."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on A Dollar a Day Not to Get Pregnant

  • Good investment
  • Posted by GusPhD03 , Ed Research on July 9, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • Better to pay them a little now than a LOT more in welfare later...

  • Dollar a day not to get pregnant
  • Posted by Jodi , Director, Women's Center at Slippery Rock University on July 9, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • When are we as a society going to focus on men's and boys' role in pregnancy? Programs aimed at reducing unintended pregnancies need to be targeted to both sexes. Socializing boys and girls into traditional gender roles exacerbates the problem by perpetuating a double-standard.

  • Posted by Waldo Jaquith at University of Virginia on July 9, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • When are we as a society going to focus on men's and boys' role in pregnancy?

    When somebody can develop a simple, inexpensive mechanism by which a small nonprofit can monitor whether a teenaged boy has gotten anybody pregnant.

  • More of the same again
  • Posted by Bob Stevens on July 9, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • A more modest but meaningful investment would have been for the family to rear the child within the conrtext of a troubled society. Being incentivised by cash has never worked effectively for any period of time in America's welfare programs. It tends to produce a class of people who develop a life style not unlike the one now being paid to think and act more appropriately. What can be expected for paying youth to bathe, not do drugs, eat properly, don't kill animals, respect life and property, stay out of jail or get a job? It probably will produce adults who produce kids who generally live and act based on that incentivised behavior. I'm not sure we saved anything, including them, at the end of the day. Just look at what we have now from doing that in the past.

  • Posted by Alice12 on July 9, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  •  

    I’m an 18-year-old girl who is not sexually active. In talking to my friends at school who are, I’ve found that the majority of them have sexual relations with boys for the same reasons. In today’s world, many teen girls do not have good self-images and may never have been told of their self-worth. Because of this, many girls are looking desperately for love and acceptance. In addition, many teen girls have no refusal skills, meaning they don’t know how or why to say no when they feel pressured. This is not helped by the fact that many teens also seem to assume that all college relationships involve sexual activity, which is most certainly not true. Put all this together, and we end up with a lot of sexually active teenagers. 

    I completely sympathize with teen mothers and the difficulties they face trying to raise a child while still in high school or college themselves, and I sincerely hope that teen girls will learn from the mistakes of others and abstain from sexual relationships. We had a great speaker named Justin Lookadoo come to my high school this year and speak to us about what a healthy and safe relationship looks like. If you would like to know more about Justin and his “Datable” message, go to www.justsayyes.org 

     

  • Shallow
  • Posted by Amy De Rosa on July 9, 2009 at 9:30pm EDT
  • The girls are reminded to take their birth control pills and learn about sex through on-line games?

    What about parents teaching their kids not to have sex until they're married? What about trying to build back some standards of behavior into our society? What about teaching our kids that sex is not a recreational past time that they can indulge in at whim? What about teaching kids that sex separated from marriage and committment is an unhappy, dead end---especially for girls.

    The problem isn't getting pregnant. The problem is that our society embraced the unbridled approach to sexuality ushered in by the sexual revolution of the 60s.

    This program is shallow and gimmicky and misses the point.

  • It works...
  • Posted by Dollar a Day Graduate on July 10, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • As a 23 year-old graduate of a Dollar-a-Day program run by Planned Parenthood in the inner-city of Denver, Colorado, I can speak from experience when saying these programs work. Some may consider them shallow or unattentive to the true need for societal change (around gender socialization, parental involvment, etc) and I agree. Deeper change should happen, but what is to become of those already born into a world and a context they do not yet understand? These teenage girls likely do not yet know what "socialization" is or what "parents ought to do." In fact, they probably don't yet understand the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Their interests and concerns are much more immediate. These programs teach young women to think in the long term, to plan, to analyze, and to learn to set healthy boundaries for themselves in ALL types of relationships. What draws them in is the money. If you want to be able to engage people you have to tap into their self interests. If they don't see the value/reward, it's hard to entice a young person who "has better things" (likely detrimental) to do with their after school hours. None of us go to work for free. Incentives/rewards for hard work are very appropriate. Most kids who are not living in poverty are promised incentives for good behavior everyday explicitly and implicitly. The "at-risk" young women in these programs likely have never had anything promised to them in such a way...not an allowance for good grades, not a college education,not lunch money, nothing. People need to open their eyes and think a little more critically about contexts.

    The programs ARE effective, they don't cost too much, and ultimately they are an investment with a high yield potential. None of the participants in my group (which lasted from 8th grade until graduation) got pregnant as teens, all of us graduated, and some of us went to college. I personally have already obtained two degrees and give back to my community everyday. I can tell you this program contributed a great deal to who I have become and I'm sure the other participants would say the same.

  • To Dollar-A-Day graduate
  • Posted by Amy De Rosa on July 10, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • I don't see what evidence you give of the program's value other than anecdotal reporting to say that it was great for you. That's wonderful, but it doesn't make the program any less shallow.

    As for 'thinking critically about contexts', try some common sense instead as in the old adage, 'Two wrongs don't make a right.' I know a lot of kids who don't live in poverty and, contrary to your comment, they are not given monetary incentives to do much of anything. But, even if they were, such incentives would be as shallow and gimmicky as the dollar a day given in the Dollar-A-Day program.

  • Missing the point
  • Posted by Stephanie Downie , Instructor at Arizona State University on July 10, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • In response to Miss De Rosa's argument that this program is "shallow and gimmicky and misses the point.", I must disagree.  In fact, I think it hits the point straight on: we cannot rely on parents to do the right thing any more than we can expect their  children to.  History has shown over and over that, while ideals are nice, reality tends to have its own agenda.  I would love for the parents of at-risk kids to all step up and raise their children well.   But I'm not so naive as to believe this will happen.  Let's remember that we're fighting against cultural conditioning, which takes generations, not finger wagging, to undo.