10% of All Client Appointments Are At Risk for Abortion Is Average?

At the average medical PRC, why is it that only 10% of the entire client load actually pregnant women seriously considering abortion? We have found that it has to do with how services are provided . . . based on a secular humanistic model of counseling. Can those Pregnancy Care Centers reverse that trend to 90% or more? The bad news is that we have only found one way to fix this problem and it cannot be done in less than 4 months and with nothing short of changing the way services are offered. To read a more detailed history of the pregnancy resource center model and why it is not working click the following link: Analysis of Why the PRC Is Not Working and How to Fix It

Let me clarify. Ultimately we need to have a trend reversal in the mission critical areas of the pregnancy center. This number of just 10% of all clients seen as at risk for abortion represents a deeper problem. For example, let’s say that your organization schedules an average of 200 appointments per year that actually show up. And of those 200 only 20 are considered pregnant and at risk for abortion. Furthermore lets say that you have the capacity to see 500 more clients this year. Since the typical PRC service strategy affords you the opportunity to see approximately 10% of your entire client load at risk for abortion (20 out of 200) you need to find a way to increase that.

Is this a marketing problem or is it deeper?

Let’s explore that question. To increase your client load to 700 using your same service strategy will only get you 105 total pregnant women at risk for abortion assuming you get all 700 women in the door. If the annual number of women in the market for an abortion in your area is 2,000 and you want to reach them all you immediately have a problem. To reach 2,000 using your current strategy would mean you would have to serve a little under 14,000 clients per year. I don’t know about you but our organization could not afford that. We had to find another way.

While advertising may be a valid concern it is not the primary problem. Women respond over time more to what an organization does and less to how it advertises. The real challenge for us is to come up with a model of service delivery that is laser focused on that one type of woman who is seriously considering abortion in our respective communities (i.e. 18-24 year old, college or young professional, single woman who is predominantly Caucasian). If you can reach her you can reach anyone else who may be considering abortion. But to do that you will need to re-engineer the services you provide as well as how you provide them. Building an organization that consistently reaches pregnant, at risk women requires 1) adopting a new more Biblical philosophy of service, 2) re-engineering your service to be consistent with that philosophy of service, and 3) time for news to spread into the population (6-18 months after re-invent).

I have uploaded a position paper Analysis of Why the PRC Is Not Working and How to Fix It providing more historical background on these issues. Also, consider exploring some of the case histories of PRCs that have made the jump to a new model of service and have seen a dramatic shift in their patient load on CompassCare’s Training website at www.compasscaretraining.org.

Comment are closed.