POPLINE Document Number: 013155
Author(s):
McFarlane DR
Glasser JH
Source citation:
[Unpublished] 1982. Presented at the 110th Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association, Montreal, Canada, November 14-18, 1982. 18 p.
Abstract:
The primary study purpose was to examine the variance in the states' respective commitments to family planning, specifically using the hypothesis that the Title 10 program--primarily family planning legislation which provides states or grantees within states the most direct source of federal family planning funds--has stimulated states to spend more discretionary public funds for family planning services. A 2nd study purpose was to identify other state characteristics that may be useful in explaining differential state spending in this area. This paper is a report of preliminary findings from a study of the impact of the Title 10 program on state Title 20 expenditures for family planning. The study period is fiscal year 1976-1981. Indicators of the presence of Title 10 are the grants awarded to a state during a fiscal year; the organization of Title 10 grantees within a state; and the monitoring activities of the respective Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) regional offices. The following were among the study findings: Title 10 is the best single predictor of Title 20 expenditures during the same fiscal year, and this relationship held true for both real and constant dollars; Title 10 and the Work Incentive Program (WIN) were almost equivalent in terms of their value in predicting Title 20 expenditures for family planning with Title 10 as a slightly better predictor; the region of the country in which a state is located appeared to be significant for predicting Title 20 expenditures; the organization of Title 10 grantees within a state did not appear to be a significant factor in predicting the expenditure of Title 20 monies for family planning; the political climate of the state did not emerge as a significant factor in predicting Title 20 expenditures. In sum, the preliminary analysis showed that the Title 20 program was at least a goodpredictor of Title 20 expenditures for family planning in individual status, but this preliminary finding did not explain the dynamics of this relationship. Region was the only factor that emerged as a significant factor explaining the variance in state Title 20 spending for family planning.
Keywords:
United StatesIndex page
Family Planning Programs
Financing, Government
Funds
Geographic Factors
Family Planning Program Administration
Expenditures
Poverty
Developed Countries
North America
Americas
Family Planning
Programs
Organization and Administration
Financial Activities
Economic Factors
Population
Socioeconomic Factors