Donor Government Funding for Family Planning in 2024

In 2025, the donor government funding landscape fundamentally changed. Under the new administration, the United States (U.S.), the largest donor to family planning in the world, has instituted significant changes to global health programs including freezing, and then cancelling, most global family planning projects, restricting allowable activities, rescinding family planning funding previously provided by U.S. Congress for 2025, and seeking to eliminate family planning funding in 2026. Collectively, these actions have significantly driven down disbursements. In addition, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) projects that total international assistance from donor governments will decline in 2025 as many, including several other large donors to family planning – the Netherlands, United Kingdom (U.K.), and Canada – have also signaled reductions in their development assistance budgets. As such, this report, which focuses on both bilateral and multilateral funding for family planning provided by donor governments in 2024, shows a decrease compared to 2023, and is likely a high point as funding will likely continue to decline moving forward. With the U.S. historically providing the largest share of funding for family planning annually, its abrupt reductions leave large gaps and could have a significant impact on global family planning efforts, as some studies have estimated.

Key Findings include the following:

• Family planning funding from donor governments was US$1.36 billion in 2024, a decline of 8% compared to 2023 (US$1.47 billion) and a return to the 2022 level (US $1.37 billion). This is one of the lowest funding levels since the London Summit on Family Planning in 2012 and more than US $200 million below the peak level reached in 2019 (US $1.58 billion).¹
• Most funding is provided bilaterally (US$1.3 billion or 96%). The remainder – US$55.6 million (4%) – is for multilateral contributions to UNFPA’s core resources (adjusted for an estimated family planning share).
• The overall decrease was largely due to decreased bilateral funding; multilateral funding (contributions to UNFPA’s core resources) also declined slightly.
• No donor government increased funding in 2024, marking the first time there were no increases since tracking began in 2012. Five donors decreased funding (Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the U.K.) and four remained flat (Australia, Denmark, Norway, and the U.S.).^2,3,4,5 These trends were the same after accounting for exchange rate fluctuations.⁶
• As in the past, the U.S. was the largest donor government to family planning in 2024, accounting for 43% (US$579.6 million) of total funding, followed by the Netherlands (US$194.7 million, 14%), the U.K. (US$190.0 million, 14%), Sweden (US$116.1 million, 9%) and Canada (US$101.7 million, 7%). However, when family planning funding is standardized by the size of donor economies, Sweden ranked first, followed by the Netherlands, and Norway; the U.S. ranked 7th.

Looking ahead, donor government funding for family planning is expected to decline in 2025 and beyond. Due to the new administration’s actions targeting U.S. foreign assistance programs, including the rescission of family planning funding for 2025, U.S. funding will be significantly lower than prior year levels. In addition, the administration has proposed eliminating the entire family planning budget in 2026. If these cuts were to materialize, other donor governments would need to nearly double their funding in 2025 to maintain current levels, a scenario that seems unlikely due to previously announced plans to reduce international assistance budgets more broadly.

Introduction

This report provides an analysis of donor government funding for family planning in low- and middle-income countries in 2024, the most recent year available, as well as trends over time. It includes both bilateral funding from donor governments and their contributions to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). It is part of an effort by KFF to track such funding that began after the London Summit on Family Planning in 2012. Overall, donor government funding for family planning decreased in 2024 and was one of the lowest levels of funding since the London Summit.

Findings

Total Funding

In 2024, donor government funding for family planning through bilateral and multilateral channels totaled US$1.36 billion, a decrease of US$112.8 million, or 8%, compared to 2023 (US$1.47 billion) and a return to the 2022 level (US $1.37 billion). This marks one of the lowest levels of funding since the London Summit in 2012 (see Figure 1 & Table 1). While bilateral and multilateral funding both decreased, the overall decline was largely due to decreased bilateral support (see “Bilateral Funding” and “Multilateral Funding” sections below).

No donor government increased family planning funding in 2024, marking the first time there were no increases since tracking began in 2012. Five donors decreased funding (Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the U.K.) and four remained flat (Australia, Denmark, Norway, and the U.S.) (see Figure 2).^7,8,9,10 The Netherlands had the largest decrease, accounting for approximately half the overall decline, followed by Canada, the U.K., and Sweden. Canada’s decline was due to the timing of disbursements as it “front-loaded” multi-year bilateral projects that began in 2023 (even after the decline, Canada’s funding total in 2024 was its second largest since tracking began in 2012). These trends were the same after accounting for exchange rate fluctuations.¹¹

The vast majority of donor government funding for family planning is provided bilaterally (96%). The remainder (4%) is for multilateral contributions to UNFPA’s core resources, adjusted based on the share used to support family planning activities. All donor governments provided a larger share of their family planning funding bilaterally (see Figure 3).

The U.S. continued to be the largest government donor to family planning in 2024, accounting for 43% (US$579.6 million) of total donor government funding (see Figure 4). The Netherlands was the second largest donor (US$194.7 million or 14%), followed by the U.K. (US$190.0 million or 14%), and Sweden (US$116.1 million or 9%).

Bilateral Funding

Bilateral disbursements for family planning from donor governments – that is, funding disbursed by a donor on behalf of a recipient country or region – totaled US$1.30 billion in 2024, a decrease of US$98.8 million, or 7%, compared to 2023 (US$1.40 billion) (see Appendix 1). Five donor governments (Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the U.K.) decreased bilateral funding and four remained flat (Australia, Denmark, Norway, and the U.S.). Canada’s decline was due to the timing of disbursements as it “front-loaded” multi-year bilateral projects that began in 2023 (even after the decline, Canada’s bilateral funding in 2024 was its second largest since tracking began in 2012). These trends were the same after accounting for exchange rate fluctuations.

The U.S. and U.K. have been the top two donors over the entire period since the London Summit (2012-2024). However, U.S. funding has been relatively flat while funding from the U.K., which fluctuated over the period, has declined in recent years. When these two donor governments are removed, bilateral funding from the other donor governments has generally increased over the period, with some fluctuations, particularly in recent years (see Figure 5).

Multilateral Funding

While the majority of donor government assistance for family planning is provided bilaterally, donors also provide support for family planning activities through core contributions to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (where donors direct or earmark funding for specific family planning activities, such as for UNFPA Supplies, these are included as part of bilateral funding). In 2024, UNFPA estimates that 15% of its core funding was directed to family planning activities.¹²

These totaled US$55.6 million in 2024, a decrease of US$13.9 million compared to 2023 (US$69.6 million) (see Appendix 2). The decrease was due to a decline in total contributions to UNFPA’s core resources as well as a lower share of core resources directed to family planning activities (15% in 2024 compared to 18% in 2023). Germany decreased funding, while Sweden increased funding and all other donor governments remained flat. Norway was the largest donor government to UNFPA’s core resources, followed by Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands.

Fair Share

We looked at two different measures to assess the relative contributions of donor governments, or “fair share”, to family planning (see Table 2) as follows: rank by share of total donor government disbursements for family planning, and rank by funding for family planning per US$1 million in gross domestic product (GDP).

• Rank by share of total donor government funding for family planning: By this measure, the U.S. ranked first in 2024, followed by the Netherlands, the U.K., Sweden, and Canada. The U.S. has consistently ranked #1 in absolute funding amounts over the entire period since the London Summit (2012-2024).
• Rank by funding for family planning per US$1 million GDP: When funding for family planning is standardized by the size of donor economies (GDP per US$1 million), Sweden ranks at the top, followed by the Netherlands, Norway, and the U.K. (Figure 6); the U.S. ranks 7^th.

Methodology

Totals presented in this analysis include both bilateral funding for family planning in low- and middle-income countries as well as the estimated share of donor government contributions to UNFPA’s core resources that are used for family planning. Amounts are based on analysis of data from the 33 donor government members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) in 2024 who had reported Official Development Assistance (ODA). Bilateral and multilateral data were collected from multiple sources.

Bilateral Funding:

Bilateral funding is defined as any earmarked (family planning designated) amount and includes family planning-specific contributions to multilateral organizations (e.g., non-core contributions to UNFPA Supplies). For purposes of this analysis, funding was counted as family planning if it met the OECD CRS purpose code definition: “Family planning services including counselling; information, education and communication (IEC) activities; delivery of contraceptives; capacity building and training.”

The research team collected the latest bilateral funding data directly from nine governments: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States during 2024. Direct data collection from these donors was desirable because they represent the preponderance of donor government assistance for family planning, and the latest official statistics – from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Creditor Reporting System (CRS) (see: http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/data) – do not include all forms of international assistance (e.g., funding to countries such as Russia and the Baltic States that are no longer included in the CRS database). In addition, the CRS data may not include certain funding streams, such as family planning components of mixed-purpose grants to non-governmental organizations, provided by donors. Data for all other OECD DAC member governments – Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, the European Union, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Lithuania, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, and Switzerland – which collectively accounted for approximately 3 percent of bilateral family planning disbursements, were obtained from the OECD CRS database and are from 2023 calendar year.

For some donor governments, it was difficult to disaggregate bilateral family planning funding from broader population, reproductive and maternal health totals, as the two are sometimes represented as integrated totals. In other cases, funding for family-planning-related activities provided in the context of other official development assistance sectors (e.g., humanitarian assistance, education, civil society) was included if identifiable (e.g., if donors indicate specific family planning percentages for mixed-purpose projects, or if it was possible to identify family planning specific funding based on project titles and/or descriptions).

With some exceptions, bilateral assistance data represent disbursements. A disbursement is the actual release of funds to, or the purchase of goods or services for, a recipient. Disbursements in any given year may include disbursements of funds committed in prior years and in some cases, not all funds committed during a government fiscal year are disbursed in that year. In addition, a disbursement by a government does not necessarily mean that the funds were provided to a country or other intended end-user. Enacted amounts represent budgetary decisions that funding will be provided, regardless of the time at which actual outlays, or disbursements, occur. In recent years, most governments have converted to cash accounting frameworks, and presented budgets for legislative approval accordingly; in such cases, disbursements were used as a proxy for enacted amounts.

Amounts presented are for the fiscal year period, which vary by country. The U.S. fiscal year runs from October 1-September 30. The Australian fiscal year runs from July 1-June 30. The fiscal years for Canada and the U.K. are April 1-March 31. Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden use the calendar year. The OECD uses the calendar year, so data collected from the CRS for other donor governments reflect January 1-December 31. Most UN agencies use the calendar year, and their budgets are biennial.

All data are expressed in US dollars (USD). Where data were provided by governments in their currencies, they were adjusted by average daily exchange rates to obtain a USD equivalent, based on foreign exchange rate historical data available from the U.S. Federal Reserve (see: http://www.federalreserve.gov/) or in some cases from the OECD. Funding totals presented in this analysis should be considered preliminary estimates based on data provided and validated by representatives of the donor governments who were contacted directly.

Specific notes pertaining to the donor governments where direct data collection was conducted are as follows:

• Project-level data were reviewed for Canada, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden to determine whether all or a portion of the funding could be counted as family planning.
• Project-level data were also reviewed for France for 2012-2020, but comparable data were not available for 2021-2024, so totals for these years are based on the OECD DAC CRS database. Totals for 2021-2024 will be updated once comparable data become available. Starting with the report presenting 2022 funding amounts, totals for France were included under the amounts presented for all other DAC members; prior reports presented totals for France separately.
• Funding attributed to Australia and the United Kingdom is based on a revised Muskoka methodology as agreed upon by donors at the London Summit on Family Planning in 2012.
• For the U.S., funding represents final, Congressional appropriations (firm commitments that will be spent) to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), rather than disbursements, which can fluctuate from year-to-year due to the unique nature of the U.S. budget process (unlike most other donors, U.S. foreign assistance funding may be disbursed over a multi-year period). U.S. totals for 2017-2020 also include some funding originally appropriated by Congress for UNFPA that was transferred to the USAID family planning & reproductive health (FP/RH) account due to specific provisions in U.S. law including the Kemp-Kasten amendment (see KFF “UNFPA Funding & Kemp-Kasten: An Explainer”).

Multilateral Funding:

UNFPA core contributions were obtained from United Nations Executive Board documents and correspond to amounts received during the 2024 calendar year, regardless of which contributor’s fiscal year such disbursements pertain to. Data were already adjusted by UNFPA to represent a USD equivalent based on date of receipts. UNFPA estimates of total family planning funding provided from core resources were obtained through direct communications with UNFPA representatives for 2012-2021; family planning funding estimates from UNFPA’s core resources for 2022-2024 are based on amounts reported on UNFPA’s Transparency Portal and designated as for “Ending the Unmet Need for Family Planning”.

UNFPA’s core resources are meant to be used for both programmatic activities (family planning, population and development, HIV/AIDS, gender, and sexual and reproductive health and rights) as well as operational support. Donor government contributions to UNFPA’s core resources were adjusted to reflect the share of core resources supporting family planning activities in a given year based on information from UNFPA. For instance, in 2024, UNFPA reported expenditures totaling US$522 million from core resources including US$79 million for family planning activities, which results in an estimated 15% of a donor government’s core contribution in 2024 being included in its total funding for family planning.^13,14

Other than core contributions provided by governments to UNFPA, un-earmarked core contributions to United Nations entities, most of which are membership contributions set by treaty or other formal agreement (e.g., United Nations country membership assessments), are not identified as part of a donor government’s family planning assistance even if the multilateral organization in turn directs some of these funds to family planning. Rather, these would be considered as family planning funding provided by the multilateral organization and are not included in this report.

Endnotes

1. Family planning totals may be different from those reported in previous years due to updated data received after the publication of prior reports. Donor amounts may not sum to total amounts due to rounding. ↩︎
2. Since contributions to UNFPA’s core resources were flat for all donor governments except Germany and Sweden (and the adjustments for an FP share reflect UNFPA decisions, not those of donors), year-to-year assessments of the changes in overall funding were largely based on bilateral totals. Bilateral declines less than $2 million were categorized as “flat”; declines greater than $2 million were categorized as “decreases”. Germany’s bilateral funding and core contributions to UNFPA both decreased. While Sweden’s core contribution increased, it was not large enough to offset bilateral declines. ↩︎
3. In 2023, the U.K. Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) undertook an update of its family planning funding data including a move from reporting disbursements by fiscal year to calendar year. Updated data for the entire period were not available at the time of publication. As such, U.K. totals for 2021-2024 are based on the calendar year; totals for 2012-2020 are still based on the U.K. fiscal year. All U.K. totals are based on the revised-Muskoka methodology. ↩︎
4. The assessment that total U.S. family planning funding was flat in 2024 compared to 2023 is based on the amounts specified by the U.S. Congress in annual appropriations bills. The family planning amounts specified by Congress were the same in 2023 and 2024. ↩︎
5. Canada’s decline was due to the timing of disbursements as it “front-loaded” multi-year bilateral projects that began in 2023 (even after the decline, Canada’s funding in 2024 was its second largest since tracking began in 2012). ↩︎
6. In most cases, donor governments provide funding data in their currency of origin, which are converted to U.S. dollars for this report (see Methodology). ↩︎
7. Since contributions to UNFPA’s core resources were flat for all donor governments except Germany and Sweden (and the adjustments for an FP share reflect UNFPA decisions, not those of donors), year-to-year assessments of the changes in overall funding were largely based on bilateral totals. Bilateral declines less than $2 million were categorized as “flat”; declines greater than $2 million were categorized as “decreases”. Germany’s bilateral funding and core contributions to UNFPA both decreased. While Sweden’s core contribution increased, it was not large enough to offset bilateral declines. ↩︎
8. In 2023, the U.K. Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) undertook an update of its family planning funding data including a move from reporting disbursements by fiscal year to calendar year. Updated data for the entire period were not available at the time of publication. As such, U.K. totals for 2021-2024 are based on the calendar year; totals for 2012-2020 are still based on the U.K. fiscal year. All U.K. totals are based on the revised-Muskoka methodology. ↩︎
9. The assessment that total U.S. family planning funding was flat in 2024 compared to 2023 is based on the amounts specified by the U.S. Congress in annual appropriations bills. The family planning amounts specified by Congress were the same in 2023 and 2024. ↩︎
10. “Other DAC Countries”, which includes: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, European Union, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, and Switzerland, is not listed under any assessment of increasing, decreasing, or remaining flat because there may be differences among the donor governments included. ↩︎
11. In most cases, donor governments provide funding data in their currency of origin, which are converted to U.S. dollars for this report (see Methodology). ↩︎
12. The family planning share of UNFPA’s core resources is based on several sources including: expenditure totals as reported in UNFPA’s annual report; family planning expenditure totals as presented on the UNFPA Programme Expenses portal (see here), and direct communication with UNFPA (see Methodology). The 15% share for 2024 is a preliminary estimate. ↩︎
13. UNFPA, “World at a Crossroads: 2024 Annual Report”; June, 2025. ↩︎
14. UNFPA, UNFPA Programme Expenses portal (see here); accessed October 2025. ↩︎