Readings and how they've affected my project

Well, the reading tasks we've been assigned over the past couple weeks have been absolutely fascinating....Okay, so maybe not--but they have actually been very useful and quite applicable to some of the roadblocks that keep giving me trouble with my project.
So I'll begin by explaining some of my issues with my project. I think the two greatest problems I'm having are with choosing an appropriate audience and with establishing my authority for this audience. Recall, first, that one goal of my risk communication project is to solidify the risks of teen pregnancy for my audience. (They already know it's not a good thing, but I want to provide statistics and remind them just how bad of a problem it is. I'm considering this portion of my goal to be care communication.) My second goal is to provide suggestions for teen pregnancy prevention programs--either for implementing new ones or for reforming old ones. (I'm considering this portion of my ultimate goal to be consensus communication.) Because I really want to see changes made, I've chosen to focus my efforts on an audience who has the power to make them. That is, my intended audience includes educators in administrative positions, such as principals and school board members.
Maybe it's self-doubt, and maybe I'm just overthinking it, but some of the reading re-awakened concerns I've had with my audience. All the talk in "The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication" made me question--why on earth would school board members listen to me? If I were an expert doing the communicating (all of our reading seems to make this assumption, especially "A Diagnostic for Risk Communication Failure"), perhaps school board members would take the time to consider my arguments. But I'm an undergraduate, not an expert, and I'm outside of the system. I don't know how school board officials allocate money to different programs. Because teen pregnancy affects a minority of students, how am I to convince school board officials that it is important to redistribute funds? Should I instead focus on communicating to philanthropists or "angel" contributors (isn't that what people are called who just donate money for a cause without any apparent connection or reason?). Anyway, the point is that Trust and Credibility reading shook me and has made me worry about the effectiveness of my choice of audience.
For now, I'm going to lower my sights a little. Instead of hoping for actual reforms to take place, I'm going to retain my intended audience and instead focus more on creating awareness. With my non-expert status, I think I would be more successful focusing my efforts on the "care" portion of my goals. I will still include suggestions for reform, thus retaining the consensus portion of my goals, but I will expect less of the educators in terms of actual reform.

Lastly, although the piece in the Risk Communication text (Lundgren & McMakin, ch. 16) on working with the media has very little to do with my project *at this stage in the process*, I found this reading assignment to be quite educational. This class has largely taught us to take on the roles of risk communicators. In this position, I have always assumed my audience was some group out in the public that I was trying to reach out to. But this chapter reminded me that often a risk communicator's first audience (and first hurdle to get over) is the media. I'd forgotten that risk communication isn't always accomplished directly, communicator to intended audience, but quite often is accomplished via a third party. The media is the middleman. This drastically shifts some of the goals of risk communication, and adds plenty more to consider. I guess this will be the focus of our upcoming press release assignment.

"safe" sex or just safer sex?

Class last night got me thinking. It was probably just a result of listening to all these risk buzzwords and phrases, but the phrase "safe sex" got stuck in my head.
And I started wondering--is there really such a thing as safe sex? (i know that sounds very sex and the city, but read on--this actually has a lot to do with my project)

Sex that we (meaning society, I guess) consider safe is sex where STDs won't be spread and unwanted children won't be conceived. But consider other negative effects that even "safe" sex can have. I know this requires some assumptions. I'm assuming most people (though, I'll acknowledge, not everyone) attach some emotional significance to sex. And I'm further assuming that adolesence is a time when people are very if not most vulnerable (i'm sure more than would admit it--but again, not everyone).
I don't really consider myself socially conservative--I'm committed to the belief that everyone has to make their own decisions in life. But I do worry that, especially for teens, "safe" sex isn't safe enough. That's why a big component of my project, the teen pregnancy prevention reforms, suggests that teens could really use mentors, role models, or even just after-school programs that promote personal development.
The intention of mentors would be to give students some guidance. I guess I was hoping students could get to know young adults and ensure that they have good, responsible examples in front of them. (I suggested student teachers taking on a larger role in reaching out to students, because of their youth, their ability to connect to high schoolers, and their lack of authoritative presence.) And I think building teen's skill sets (learning an instrument, college test prep, have them serve the community in some way, playing club sports teams) will also help build teen's self-confidence. A higher self confidence translates to a higher degree of self awareness (knowing if they're emotionally ready). And anyway, it would give them something new to think about!
Just wanted to expand on that thought, and figured I'd record it here--sorry, Jamie, if this is too informal for our class.