Reversing the National Abortion Trend

After developing the first and only repeatable Linear Service Model for the pregnancy resource center movement many have asked me where the terms came from and what the differences are between a Linear Service Model or LSM and the traditional way a Pregnancy Center operates. Essentially, we started applying the terms in 2004-05 in an attempt to distinguish between what CompassCare had been doing and what we were now doing.

What is the difference anyway?

The definitions in the context of a Pregnancy Center are as follows:

• Linear Service Model (LSM): An approach to serving women that focuses on solving the common problem of unplanned pregnancy each woman faces by taking each woman through a consistent, chronological, scripted, step-by-step decision-making process in an effort to answer the right questions in the right order. One of the key assumptions in a good LSM is that the manner in which services are provided is just as important as the services themselves. An LSM standardizes services to women and ensures that those services are provided the same way with each and every patient for the purposes of accountability (which safeguards the organization from attack), and for measurability (which allows for targeted changes to keep the organization on the cutting edge of service). This LSM can also accurately be termed the “Problem-focused Model” as it allows the organization to be an expert at solving a particular problem without having to be an expert at the individual circumstances of each patient/client. This is a more Biblical approach because it is the approach that God in Christ took by solving each person’s sin problem through solving the issue of sin itself on the cross.

• Global Service Model (GSM): An approach to serving women that focuses on developing a relationship with each individual client using several different types of services in an effort to provide a place of “unconditional positive regard” an idea first developed by Carl Rogers. This model places the client in the driver’s seat by providing her with a menu board of services from which she can choose, also based on one of Carl Rogers’ ideas known as “Client-centered Therapy.” Each client is served differently at the discretion of client advocate or counselor usually beginning with a client-driven conversation lasting up to an hour. Often the counselor defers to the client as to her abortion-vulnerability rather than an objective assessment of her socio-economic situation which actually is the basis of the pressure to drive a woman to terminate her pregnancy. The counselor then attempts to provide certain types of information to dissuade her from having an abortion. The GSM is based on an unbiblical, modified, secular humanistic counseling model and is difficult to improve primarily because there is no way of accurately assessing the overall performance of the organization when each patient is served differently. Another term that could be used for the GSM is a “Client-centered Model.”

For case studies on centers implementing CompassCare’s Linear Service Model called the Optimization Tool go to www.compasscaretraining.org.

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.

You and I know that the abortion industry has not identified nor do they use proper ethical standards of care when serving women facing unplanned pregnancy. Not necessarily news to you is it? Because of that the likelihood of a woman being victimized by the political and financial interests of those providers is drastically increased. It is unjust and upsetting and reveals an opportunity.

Are You Following Your Standards?

And what about the Pregnancy Resource Center movement? Have we clearly identified proper ethical standards of care for medical services and counseling? For example, let’s say that your Pregnancy Help Clinic provides pregnancy testing. And let’s say a woman comes in who is seriously considering an abortion and your organization provides her with one. Assuming that it takes just 4 minutes for you to get a result on the pregnancy test you decide to ‘counsel’ the woman for 30 or more minutes about the negative aspects of abortion. This could be considered an unethical use of the trust a woman is giving you by withholding critical decision-making information while you offer her what could be considered ‘your agenda’ about what she should do. This is a grey area but could be interpreted as ‘moral entrapment.’ What is the ethical standard you are using to defend the particular way your organization delivers pregnancy tests?

Anytime a group of people interacts with a person or another group of people that interaction should be governed by practical, ethical standards of care. Those standards which could be called ‘normative ethics’ are designed to insure the person or people receiving the service from you because of their distinct need are protected from any harm that could from exposure to the selfish intentions or personal agendas of the people providing the service. You may say, “Since we are Christians and mean only to help a woman considering abortion this is not a problem for us.” To that it must be said, “Abortion providers could also say they have only the best of intentions.” And it is because of the abortion industry’s lack of ethical standards of care we have an opportunity to set a national standard for all organizations serving women facing unintended pregnancy.

But first we must identify them, agree to them, and prove that we follow them in the pregnancy resource center movement. We are not talking about ‘Commitment of Care’ documents. We are talking about something much more specific.

To learn more about developing a system that will help to insure and optimize ethical standards in your Pregnancy Center go to www.compasscaretraining.org.

Update:  See Part II:  Ethical Standards for Organizations Serving Abortion Minded Women.