The Louisiana family planning program: an analysis of a statistical analysis
Gettys, J.O.; Freedman, B.; Vidrine, R.K.
Journal of the Louisiana State Medical Society Official Organ of the Louisiana State Medical Society 125(3): 77-83
1973
ISSN/ISBN: 0024-6921 PMID: 4734705 Document Number: 501335
The "Statistical Analysis of the Louisiana Family Planning Program (LFPP) 1967-1971," an evaluation of the LFPP which was produced by the LFPP, is criticized as being often slanted, one-sided, and incomplete. Among the criticisms is the use of charts showing declines in the birthrate in Orleans Parish, the site of the program, for the periods 1960-1965 and 1965-1970, when in fact the program was not begun until 1967 and its effect could not possibly be seen until 1968. When the years under study are 1963, 1967, and 1970, the "accelerated decline" in birthrates, claimed by the program as a result of its efforts, is not so evident, particularly among nonwhites. When the same sets of figures are viewed in charts of age-specific birthrates by year, it is evident that although there was a significant drop in the birthrate in 1968, there were also significant drops earlier, and that in 1970 the birthrates for nonwhites of various ages rose. Further, the declines that did occur were statewide and not limited to the program area. The treatment of statistics relating to the ratios of illegitimate births to legitimate births is also called into question. Generally, the whole subject is softpedaled. When it is discussed, the skyrocketing rate in Orleans Parish is attributed to a large surplus of women, a statement not borne out by fact. The LFPP is further criticized for changing its method of analysis from comparing statistics over 2 5-year periods when reporting a decline in the birthrate to a year-by-year analysis when reporting illegitimate rates. This is probably due to the fact that the illegitimate rate for whites dropped sharply in the 1960-1965 period, then rose sharply. For blacks, there has been a steady increase over the 10-year period. These criticisms are not intended as a condemnation of the program. Rather they are a plea for greater honesty in the evaluation process.