[Elspode]

The abstinence-only drive was labeled a priority for HHS almost immediately
after George W. Bush stepped into office. Starting in 2002, Congress has
granted more than $100 million each year to organizations that sponsor
abstinence-only programs; the average spending on these programs during the
Clinton administration was about $60 million a year. Currently the only
avenue through which organizations supporting comprehensive sex education
can acquire federal grants is the Department of Adolescent Sexual Health, a
division of the CDC that offers money strictly for HIV/AIDS prevention and
gives out approximately $10 million a year divided among more than 40
organizations.

SIECUS' No New Money Web site urges people to contact their representatives
and demand that funding to abstinence-only programs be stopped. That call to
arms is what provided all the fodder the right wing needed to begin its
retribution.

Only a few weeks after No New Money went live last August, 24 House
Republicans, led by Joseph Pitts, R-Pa., jotted off a letter to HHS
Secretary Thompson asking that both SIECUS and Advocates for Youth (which
was listed on the site along with more than a hundred other "supporting
organizations") be investigated. The letter pointed out that current law
forbids the use of grant money for lobbying and explained that this group of
congressional representatives just wanted to be absolutely sure no
government dollars had gone into the construction or maintenance of No New
Money. "I requested the audit of Advocates for Youth because I was concerned
that the group was using taxpayer money to engage in political activities,
not to help people," Pitts said in an e-mail to Salon. "And I intend to
continue keeping an eye on how taxpayer money is spent, both here in
Washington and by private groups."

Pitts has eagerly taken on a crusade against what he has called the "waste
of taxpayer money." In a statement last month on his official Web site, he
even called for an investigation into the spending practices of the NIH,
suggesting that funding should perhaps be pulled from the venerable
institution if it could not "provide a clear accounting and explanation for
how it spends taxpayer money." He voiced his fears about "government
agencies engaged in clearly useless activities" and illustrated this with
examples from the NIH, such as research on female sexual arousal, gays and
lesbians in the Native American community, and methods for better promotion
of the morning-after pill. He insists that he is "not criticizing the
objectives of these studies" but is "questioning the wisdom of using
taxpayer resources to engage in research that has, at best, spurious
benefits to our nation."

It isn't difficult to find a pattern in the type of programs that Pitts has
targeted for possible defunding: The two specific Advocates for Youth
programs that are funded by federal grant money -- and that are therefore at
risk of being shut down by the findings of these audits -- are HIV
prevention for young women of color and HIV prevention for gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgender youth.

Pitts happens to be an ardent supporter of providing federal funding to
faith-based charities. ("Rather than preempt these organizations with a
government program that would never be as effective, we want to partner with
them," he said in a September press release.) It shouldn't be too hard to
see why groups like Advocates are feeling singled out.

The letter about No New Money that Pitts and his colleagues sent to HHS was
cited to both Advocates for Youth and SIECUS as the impetus for all of their
audits thus far. Strangely, CDC itself seems somewhat confused about exactly
what they've been doing to these nonprofits, both of which were given the
disclaimer that the investigations they went through in September were not
audits. "In this case, CDC does not have official audit authority,"
explained CDC spokesperson Kathryn Harben. "So what we're doing is referred
to as a 'business and financial review evaluation.'"

However, Enrique Tessada, president of Tessada & Associates, the independent
firm contracted by the CDC to perform its most recent "business and
financial reviews," wrote in his company's Spring 2003 newsletter that his
staff was "auditing community-based organizations... [that] receive grants
to conduct HIV/AIDS prevention and training nationwide."

Semantics aside, no one can disguise the fact that, regardless of results,
these audits can have a punitive effect on nonprofits. "Each one of these
rounds costs our organization enormous amounts of time and money," says
Wagoner. "In many ways it can grind you to a halt if you have to go back
through every book, pull every piece of paper, and so on."

When asked why Advocates and SIECUS were being subjected to so many reviews
in such a short period of time, Harben said she thinks "it was really more
poor planning [on the government's part] than anything else." When asked if
every grantee organization was equally subject to CDC review, Harben said
that "the history of that is probably not consistent." She also indicated
that the reviews "could take anywhere from a couple of days to four or five
days," but the groups under investigation report a lengthier time
commitment. Preparation included, Advocates for Youth says it lost almost
four weeks to its last audit, and SIECUS about two weeks.

"If they can't bury our heads in the sand about abstinence-only," says
Wagoner, "they're going to try to bury our organization in audits."

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., fearing an abuse of federal audit power, has
emerged as Advocates for Youth's greatest defender in this struggle. He and
a contingent of 11 other congressional Democrats have voiced their concerns
about the motivation behind these audits in letters to Tommy Thompson. In
those letters they ask that HHS provide information about its auditing
criteria in order "to determine whether there is sound scientific foundation
for HHS' actions." Waxman's first letter received a response that was both
delayed and abbreviated and left most of his questions unanswered. His
follow-up letter, sent on Aug. 14 and requesting answers by Aug. 29, has yet
to receive any response.

While attempting to get a response out of Tommy Thompson has become a
Sisyphean task for Henry Waxman, it appears that all Joseph Pitts needs to
do is mutter something under his breath and HHS will jump into action. On
October 2nd, Pitts and some of his Republican colleagues presented the House
Energy and Commerce Committee a list of 10 scientists whose work is funded
by NIH grants, including some of those whose projects he questioned on his
web site. The NIH has already made calls to these researchers, along with
over 100 others, whose names turned up on a longer list –– one which
apparently originated with the Traditional Values Coalition , an
ultra-conservative organization dedicated to fighting the "evils of
abortion" and the "homosexual agenda." So far, no action has been taken
against any of these NIH grantees and they have only been notified of their
inclusion on what Waxman has referred to as the "hit list," but several have
contacted the California Democrat to tell him that they now fear the loss of
their funding. On Monday, Waxman picked up his pen once again, demanding
that Thompson take a stand and denounce this "scientific McCarthyism."

The true danger is, as Waxman says, "that some organizations will stop
offering comprehensive education programs as a result of these audits,
causing public health to suffer."

That is also the biggest fear of Advocates for Youth. "This is not about the
left vs. the right," says Deb Mauser, Advocates' vice president. "It's about
what works at keeping young people safe and healthy. It's a human right to
have effective science-based strategies available to young people who are
facing an [AIDS] epidemic. Ultimately, Advocates [which receives only a
third of its total funding from government grants] will survive. Whether
young people will get the service they deserve is questionable."

"On one level, we feel vindicated by the audit process," says Wagoner, "but
on another, we can not deny the impact of this kind of tool being used on
nonprofits, and not just the intimidation on a group like ours -- we're
going to wake up in the morning, come to the office, do the work we're
always going to do -- but there's the residual intimidation of other
organizations in this field. There are lots of them that get government
money, that don't have diversified funds. And they may look at Advocates and
say, 'There but for the grace of God go I. And if it's because Advocates is
raising concerns about the subverting of science and research, if it's
because they're raising their heads up a little too high, well, that tells
us we'd better keep ours down real low.'

"You cannot convince me that this campaign isn't aimed at making an example
out of us for the rest of this field," he continues. "My only hope is that
it backfires, that those who have committed their lives to this field and to
young people or to any other group that needs good quality public health --
we will not take it lying down. We will go back to work. We will do what's
right."