Jenny LaChance: The Data Analyst Who Helped Uncover the Flint Water Crisis

Overview

Jenny LaChance is the Hurley Medical Center research coordinator who partnered with Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha to analyze blood-lead data, transforming raw numbers into the first clinical proof that Flint’s water switch had poisoned the city’s children. Though not a public figure like Mona or Marc Edwards, Jenny’s meticulous work in What the Eyes Don’t See provided the statistical foundation that forced the state to acknowledge the crisis. She is portrayed as a Flint native, a mother, and a “superscientific” researcher who brought both professional rigor and personal vulnerability to the investigation.

Plot Role in the Flint Water Crisis

Jenny’s primary contribution occurs in Chapter 10 (“Jenny + the Data”) and continues through Chapter 21 (“Numbers War”). After Mona receives preliminary analyses from Hurley’s clinic, Jenny runs the numbers overnight and produces a one-page PDF showing that elevated blood-lead levels in children under five rose from 1.5% to 8.5% after the water switch, with a p-value of 0.007—statistically significant evidence. This finding becomes the core of Mona’s later press conference and public-health testimony.

Beyond crunching the data, Jenny helps design the study’s methodology: filtering out repeat patients, restricting the sample to children under five, and using only the highest lead level per child. She also flags the need for an Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval to access county-wide data, a step that Mona acknowledges as essential for ethical research. Her behind-the-scenes labor allows the study to move from hypothesis to credible science in days rather than weeks.

Motivations and Traits Shown Through Actions

Scientific rigor and obsession. Mona describes Jenny as “smart, logical, superscientific, and verging on obsessive”—someone who loves designing foolproof studies and who “could talk your ear off about power and sample size, statistical significance, and absolute risk reduction.” This trait is demonstrated when Jenny works through the night to complete the preliminary analysis, sprinting up three flights of stairs to deliver the PDF in person.

Personal stake as a mother. Jenny’s motivation is not purely professional. As a Flint native and nursing mother, she fears that the contaminated tap water may have harmed her infant son, Drew. She asks Mona whether lead could pass through breast milk, and worries about her pregnancy during the months after the water switch. This personal anxiety gives her an emotional urgency that mirrors the fears of other Flint parents.

Collaborative resilience. Jenny works in constant, informal communication with Mona—texting, emailing, and meeting between patient visits and soccer practice. She adapts the study design on the fly, responding to new information about zip codes, potential confounders like lead paint or bullet fragments, and the need for larger sample sizes.

Chronological Arc

1. September 9, 2015: Mona assembles her community pediatrics residents and Jenny to examine raw blood-lead data. The group debates inclusion criteria and decides to limit the analysis to children under five and to equal time periods before and after the water switch.

2. September 10: Jenny texts Mona early in the morning with the preliminary result: “I got something.” She delivers the one-page PDF showing the jump from 1.5% to 8.5% elevated levels.

3. Mid-September 2015: Jenny and Mona prepare and submit an IRB application to access county-wide data. The application is approved in an unusually fast two days, thanks to the trust Jenny and Mona have built at Hurley.

4. October 2015 and beyond: Jenny continues to support Mona as the “numbers war” escalates. The state releases its own tally sheet, and Mona and Jenny find it unscientific. Jenny likely contributes to the GIS mapping analysis that later doubles the estimated prevalence of elevated lead levels.

Relationships

With Mona Hanna-Attisha. Jenny has worked with Mona on previous grant applications and research projects. Their partnership is built on mutual respect for each other’s work ethic and scientific instincts. Mona values Jenny’s ability to “take [a project] home and keep working,” and Jenny trusts Mona’s clinical judgment when asking about her own family’s safety.

With Hurley’s residents. During the September 9 meeting, Jenny takes careful notes while residents contribute literature and chart reviews. She helps guide the group’s methodology, but the residents look to Mona for direction. Jenny’s role is that of a technical expert who translates clinical questions into research design.

With her son, Drew. Drew is an offstage presence, but his health concerns drive Jenny’s personal anxiety. Mona reassures her that the protective steps she took—bringing bottled water from her home outside Flint—were sufficient, and that Drew’s ear infection is unrelated to lead exposure.

Key Decisions and Consequences

• Choosing to include all children regardless of documented lead source. Jenny and the team decide not to exclude children with known paint or bullet exposure, because the goal is to see population-level changes. This decision makes the study more robust and harder for critics to dismiss.

• Requesting IRB approval before accessing county data. Jenny reminds Mona that ethical guidelines require IRB review for data beyond their own clinic. The quick approval enables the team to expand the sample from 71 post-switch patients to the entire county, strengthening the statistical power.

• Working around the clock. Jenny runs the numbers before Mona even formally asks, accelerating the timeline. The consequence is that Mona has actionable evidence within 24 hours of the initial meeting.

Theme and Symbol Connections

Data as truth. Jenny embodies the theme that careful evidence can break through institutional denial. Her blood-lead analysis is the “demonstration of proof” that the state cannot ignore. The p-value of 0.007 becomes a symbol of scientific certainty against the background of government gaslighting.

The personal cost of crisis. Jenny’s dual identity as a researcher and a mother illustrates how the Flint water crisis was not abstract—it touched people inside the system who were both investigating and living the contamination. Her worry about breast milk links to the theme of government betrayal: even those with resources and knowledge could not fully protect their families.

Resilience through collaboration. The partnership between Mona and Jenny models the resilience Mona writes about in the prologue. They meet after hours, text during breastfeeding, and build a study from scratch. This collective effort reflects the book’s emphasis on activism and hope.

Book‑Specific Questions and Answers

1. Why did Mona and Jenny need IRB approval?
   IRB (Institutional Review Board) approval was required because expanding the study to include data from patients outside Hurley’s pediatric clinic involved human subjects research. Jenny flagged this requirement, and Hurley’s board approved the application in two days—far faster than at large universities.

2. How did Jenny’s personal life affect her work on the study?
   Jenny was a nursing mother of a one-year-old son, Drew. She worried that lead from Flint tap water might have passed into her breast milk. This concern gave her an emotional stake in the research and motivated her to work through the night to produce results.

3. What specific data did Jenny’s preliminary analysis reveal?
   Comparing equal time periods, she found that the percentage of Flint children under five with elevated blood-lead levels (≥5 μg/dL) rose from 1.5% before the water switch to 8.5% after. The p-value of 0.007 indicated the increase was statistically significant.

4. How did Jenny contribute to the study’s methodology?
   She helped decide to limit the age range to children under five, use only the highest lead level per child, and include all children regardless of other documented lead sources. She also suggested using zip codes to confirm residence within Flint.

5. Why is Jenny considered an unsung hero of the Flint water crisis?
   Jenny performed the critical statistical analysis that converted clinic observations into publishable evidence. Without her overnight work and methodological precision, Mona might not have had the concrete numbers needed to convince officials and the public. Her role exemplifies how frontline research staff can drive environmental justice.

For a deeper look at the aftermath of the study, see the ending explained and the questions and answers page.