c - usaid

.36
desirable. However, it is usefuL to note that negative values of
R represent a shift from an inverted U-shaped distribution of
CPR's in tho b %s a year towards a uniform distribution in the
target year.
W hen R = 0, the u* t I values represent anothar U-shaped
curve, paralLel to the one depicting base year vaLuus.
uc t)I
The case of t he other ext rame vaLue R = --- 1 has already
bean referred to above, since (4.13) than becomes identicaL with
(4.12). In this case, each value of CPR in the target year is
obtained by muLtiplying the corresponding ba rQ year vatue by tha
some number [1+R! . Such a procedure can become unrealistic in the
Long run. For example, the highest age-speci fic CPR vatue in
1901 was 0.2740 (after adjustment) which would go up to nearly
0.74 in the year 2001 by this formula. Such a concentration of
effort in any particu Lar age-group calls for a mere weighty
justification, based on a recent avaLuatian and not sirm ply
because CPR in that age-group was high in thu base year.
The upshot of the above reasoning is that if the agespecific
CPR vaLuos, projected by formulas 4.12) or (4.131 fai l
to achieve simultaneous consistency with TFR and CBR, then the
direction as wa tt as the content of the entire family planning
program should be scientifically evaluated. Such an evaLuation
may be necessary for other reasons as well, but it should, among
other things, help in identifying a strategy for bringing about a
desired reduction in CBR.
On theoretical considerations, we can say that the moot
effective way of reducing CBR through contraception in to