» Articles » PMID: 29534176

Donor Funding for Family Planning: Levels and Trends Between 2003 and 2013

Overview
Date 2018 Mar 14
PMID 29534176
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The International Conference on Population and Development in 1994 set targets for donor funding to support family planning programmes, and recent initiatives such as FP2020 have renewed focus on the need for adequate funding to rights-based family planning. Disbursements supporting family planning disaggregated by donor, recipient country and year are not available for recent years. We estimate international donor funding for family planning in 2003-13, the period covering the introduction of reproductive health targets to the Millennium Development Goals and up to the beginning of FP2020, and compare funding to unmet need for family planning in recipient countries. We used the dataset of donor disbursements to support reproductive, maternal, newborn and child health developed by the Countdown to 2015 based on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Creditor Reporting System. We assessed levels and trends in disbursements supporting family planning in the period 2003-13 and compared this to unmet need for family planning. Between 2003 and 2013, disbursements supporting family planning rose from under $400 m prior to 2008 to $886 m in 2013. More than two thirds of disbursements came from the USA. There was substantial year-on-year variation in disbursement value to some recipient countries. Disbursements have become more concentrated among recipient countries with higher national levels of unmet need for family planning. Annual disbursements of donor funding supporting family planning are far short of projected and estimated levels necessary to address unmet need for family planning. The reimposition of the US Global Gag Rule will precipitate an even greater shortfall if other donors and recipient countries do not find substantial alternative sources of funding.

Citing Articles

Community and Health Care Provider Perspectives on Barriers to and Enablers of Family Planning Use in Rural Sindh, Pakistan: Qualitative Exploratory Study.

Memon Z, Mian A, Reale S, Spencer R, Bhutta Z, Soltani H JMIR Form Res. 2023; 7:e43494.

PMID: 36897626 PMC: 10039412. DOI: 10.2196/43494.


Assessing the cost-effectiveness of contraceptive methods from a health provider perspective: case study of Kiambu County Hospital, Kenya.

Ngacha J, Ayah R Reprod Health. 2022; 19(1):11.

PMID: 35039047 PMC: 8762951. DOI: 10.1186/s12978-021-01308-3.


Women Deprivation Index and Family Planning Utilisation in Urban Geography of West African Countries.

Akinyemi A, Mobolaji J, Abe J, Ibrahim E, Ikuteyijo O Front Glob Womens Health. 2021; 2:656062.

PMID: 34816213 PMC: 8594053. DOI: 10.3389/fgwh.2021.656062.


A Stalled Revolution? Misoprostol and the Pharmaceuticalization of Reproductive Health in Francophone Africa.

Suh S Front Sociol. 2021; 6:590556.

PMID: 33954164 PMC: 8091168. DOI: 10.3389/fsoc.2021.590556.


Government stakeholders' perspectives on the family planning environment in three Nigerian cities: qualitative findings from the Nigerian Urban Reproductive Health Initiative (NURHI) Sustainability Study.

McGuire C, Calhoun L, Mumuni T, Maytan-Joneydi A, Odeku M, Speizer I Glob Health Action. 2020; 13(1):1847821.

PMID: 33373279 PMC: 7717862. DOI: 10.1080/16549716.2020.1847821.


References
1.
Crane B, Dusenberry J . Power and politics in international funding for reproductive health: the US Global Gag Rule. Reprod Health Matters. 2005; 12(24):128-37. DOI: 10.1016/s0968-8080(04)24140-4. View

2.
Alkema L, Kantorova V, Menozzi C, Biddlecom A . National, regional, and global rates and trends in contraceptive prevalence and unmet need for family planning between 1990 and 2015: a systematic and comprehensive analysis. Lancet. 2013; 381(9878):1642-52. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62204-1. View

3.
Hardee K, Kumar J, Newman K, Bakamjian L, Harris S, Rodriguez M . Voluntary, human rights-based family planning: a conceptual framework. Stud Fam Plann. 2014; 45(1):1-18. DOI: 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2014.00373.x. View

4.
van Dalen H, Reuser M . What drives donor funding in population assistance programs? Evidence from OECD countries. Stud Fam Plann. 2006; 37(3):141-54. DOI: 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2006.00094.x. View

5.
Sidze E, Pradhan J, Beekink E, Maina T, Maina B . Reproductive health financing in Kenya: an analysis of national commitments, donor assistance, and the resources tracking process. Reprod Health Matters. 2013; 21(42):139-50. DOI: 10.1016/S0968-8080(13)42738-6. View