RD191 - Annual Report on the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative


Executive Summary:
Background

Since 1994 there has been a consistent decline in the teenage pregnancy rates in Virginia. The rate per 1,000 population age 10 – 19 females was 38.7 in 1994 and in the preliminary data report for 2003 the rate is 27.4. This reflects a decrease in rate of 11.3 over the past 10 years.

Through the Teenage Pregnancy Prevention Initiative (TPPI) the Virginia Department of Health funds seven health districts to implement pregnancy prevention strategies. These health districts have been identified as those that have pregnancy rates that are higher than the state rate. The seven health districts are Alexandria, Crater, Eastern Shore, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Richmond and Roanoke. A variety of programmatic strategies are implementing in school, community and clinical settings.

Results

Sixty-six percent of the overall TPPI participants received a minimum of 75% of the program dosage. This is an improvement in participation over the previous year (when 42% of participants received a minimum of 70% of the program dosage).

During FY03 the seven TPPI funded sites revamped their programs and evaluation plans to include monitoring the goal of 10 or more hours of intervention. In FY03, only 36% of participants received 10 or more hours of program intervention. The increase to 56% in FY04 should strengthen the probability that program participation will have a positive effect on teen pregnancy prevention.

With the exception of Richmond, each of the TPPI funded localities has seen a reduction in the teen pregnancy rate since the program’s inception. Roanoke has experienced the greatest decrease in the teen pregnancy rate from 1994 to 2002. While Alexandria has experienced an apparent increase from 2002 to 2003, the overall decrease since 1994 is almost 10%.

The City of Richmond has seen the least amount of change in teen pregnancy rates during this period. It should be noted that it appears that Richmond experienced a significant increase in the rate of teenage pregnancies in 2003. This is preliminary data that reflects a change in the reporting criteria related to the residence of the person completing an application for pregnancy related services in the City of Richmond. These preliminary data reflect not only City of Richmond residents but also persons who actually reside in one of the surrounding counties but obtained services in the City of Richmond, thus the rate is inflated. This change in reporting criteria affects all localities in Virginia, but among the TPPI sites, it appears to disproportionately impact the City of Richmond.

Recommendations

The VDH TPPI has to strike a balance between meeting the needs of the program participants while grappling with changing sources of and limitations to funding. The program would be well served to consider the following:

• Continue to respond to best practices and evaluate programs based on outcomes to provide accurate and reliable data to support the continued efforts of the VDH TPPI.

• Continue to monitor each site for incorporation of the recommendations included in the individual program evaluations.

• The VDH should work closely with the local sites to develop and promote community-wide coalitions.

• Continue to develop programs based on best practices and demonstrated curricula, and

• Conduct an overall TPPI evaluation to measure the following:

* Readiness to participate in program evaluation,
* Commitment and participation of program staff,
* Support of local school systems (and other agencies),
* Competing programs,
* Staff turnover, and
* Any other barriers to program implementation and evaluation.

• Continue to reinforce the need for rigorous data collection consistent with Institutional Review Board requirements,

• Consider the feasibility of implementing an electronic data collection system to streamline data and make reporting more timely,

• Merge the local evaluation team into an evaluation consortium that pulls research, methodology, theory, best practices, and shares knowledge with evaluators from other programs to create new energy and positive forward momentum, and

• Continue to monitor program goals and objectives to assure that they are being met; make changes to the logic model as needed to maintain the impact of the program on participants.