The U.S. Government and International Family Planning & Reproductive Health Efforts

Key Facts

Global Situation

Access to family planning and reproductive health (FP/RH) services is critical to the health of women and children worldwide. Improving access to FP/RH services globally can help prevent maternal deaths and reduce unintended pregnancies. Each year, approximately 303,000 women die from complications during pregnancy and childbirth, almost all in developing countries.1 It is also estimated that approximately one-third of maternal deaths could be prevented annually if women who did not wish to become pregnant had access to and used effective contraception.2

Family Planning (FP): The ability of individuals and couples to anticipate and attain their desired number of children and the spacing and timing of births.3

Reproductive Health (RH): The state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the reproductive processes, functions, and system at all stages of life.4

Key Factors

Key factors contributing to maternal deaths and unintended pregnancy include:5

Worldwide, 214 million women have an unmet need for modern contraception (i.e., they do not wish to get pregnant and are using no contraceptive method or a traditional method).6 Access to FP methods varies significantly by region (see Table 1). Unmet need for FP is highest in regions like sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania where contraceptive prevalence is lowest.7 Adolescent fertility rates have declined slowly and remain particularly high in sub-Saharan Africa, where child marriage remains common, and in Latin America and the Caribbean.8 While the percentage of pregnant women receiving the recommended minimum number of four antenatal care visits has been on the rise, it is 52% in developing countries and lower still in sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia.9 Each year, approximately 47,000 women die from complications associated with unsafe abortion.10 Access to and use of effective contraception reduces unintended pregnancies and the incidence of abortion.11

Reasons for the lack of access to and, in some cases, utilization of FP/RH services include low awareness of the risks of sexual activity, such as pregnancy and HIV; cost; gender inequality; and laws in some countries that require women and girls to be of a certain age or have third party authorization, typically from their husband, to utilize services.12

Table 1: Key Family Planning/Reproductive Health (FP/RH) Indicators by Region13
Region14 Unmet Need for FP
Contraceptive Prevalence 
Adolescent Birth Rate 
(per 1,000)
Antenatal Care Coverage
Developing Regions 12 63 56 52
Developed Regions 17
Sub-Saharan Africa 24 28 116 49
Southern Asia 14 59 47 36
Oceania 25 39 53
Caucasus and Central Asia 14 57 32
South-Eastern Asia 12 64 44 84
Western Asia 14 58 45
Northern Africa 12 61 38 89
Latin America and the Caribbean 11 73 73 97
Eastern Asia 4 83 6
NOTES: — indicates data not available. Antenatal Care Coverage for women attended four or more times by any provider during pregnancy.


FP/RH encompasses a wide range of services that have been shown to be effective in decreasing the risk of unintended pregnancies, maternal and child mortality, and other complications. These include:

Global Goals

There are several key global goals for expanding access to and improving FP/RH services, including:

SDG 3: Achieving Universal Access to Reproductive Health

This goal, adopted in 2015 as part of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3 – “ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages,” is to “ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health care services, including for family planning, information, and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programmes.”16 The SDGs are the successor to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which also included this goal as a specific target under MDG 5 (improve maternal health).17

FP2020: Providing Access to Voluntary FP to an Additional 120 Million Women

In July 2012, the government of the United Kingdom and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation – in partnership with the United Nations Population Fund (U.N. Population Fund or UNFPA), civil society organizations, developing countries, donor governments, the private sector, and multilateral organizations – co-sponsored the London Summit on Family Planning, an effort to provide voluntary family planning services to an additional 120 million women and girls in developing countries by 2020 through new commitments. This goal is being monitored by Family Planning 2020 (FP2020), a global partnership created as an outcome of the Summit. In July 2017, the second London Summit on Family Planning will review progress made thus far.18

U.S. Government Efforts

The U.S. has a long history of engagement in international family planning and population issues, and today, the U.S. government is the largest donor to global FP/RH efforts and is one of the largest purchasers and distributors of contraceptives internationally.19 Congress first authorized research in this area in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.20 In 1965, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) launched its first FP program and, in 1968, began purchasing contraceptives to distribute in developing countries. In the 1980s, USAID programs expanded to address maternal, newborn, and child health as well as the relationship between population, health, and the environment; and in the 1990s, USAID FP/RH programs began to recognize the need for male involvement in FP/RH and focus on the needs of young people.21 More recently, the U.S. adopted a longer term global health goal of ending preventable child and maternal deaths by 2035 and highlighted the important role of FP/RH efforts in achieving this goal.22


USAID has long served as the lead U.S. agency for FP/RH activities, with other agencies also carrying out FP/RH activities.


USAID operates FP/RH programs in more than 30 countries, with a focused effort in 24 priority countries that are mostly in Africa and Southern Asia.23 The agency’s stated FP/RH objective is to expand sustainable access to quality voluntary FP/RH services, commodities, and information (see Table 2) to: enhance efforts to reduce high-risk pregnancies; allow sufficient time between pregnancies; provide information, counseling, and access to condoms to prevent HIV transmission; reduce the number of abortions; support women’s rights; and stabilize population growth.24 These efforts aim to contribute to the global goal of reaching more than 120 million more women and girls in the world’s poorest countries with access to voluntary FP information, contraceptives, and services by 2020.25

Table 2: USAID-Funded Family Planning/Reproductive Health (FP/RH) Interventions26
  • Addressing child marriage
  • Addressing gender-based violence
  • Biomedical and contraceptive research and development
  • Contraceptive supplies and their distribution
  • Contributions to UNFPA
  • Counseling and services such as birth spacing
  • Eliminating female genital mutilation
  • Financial management
  • Linking FP with HIV/AIDS & STD information/services
  • Linking FP with maternity services
  • Post-abortion care
  • Prevention and repair of obstetric fistula
  • Public education and marketing
  • Sexuality & reproductive health education
  • Training of health workers
Other U.S. FP/RH Efforts

Also carrying out FP/RH efforts are the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (research, surveillance, technical assistance, and a designated World Health Organization Collaborating Center for Reproductive Health);27 the Department of State (diplomatic and humanitarian efforts); the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (research); and the Peace Corps (volunteer activities).

Additionally, USAID’s FP/RH and maternal and child health (MCH) efforts are closely linked, although Congress directs funding to and USAID operates these programs separately. Recent years have also seen greater emphasis on coordinating FP/RH investments with global HIV efforts through the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).28 See the KFF fact sheet on U.S. MCH efforts and the KFF fact sheet on U.S. PEPFAR efforts.

Multilateral Efforts

The U.S. works with several international institutions, partnerships, and other donors, to carry out FP/RH efforts. Among them are the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA, the largest purchaser and distributor of contraceptives worldwide – though the U.S. will not contribute to it in FY 2017; see below); Family Planning 2020 (FP2020, an international partnership to expand access to family planning services in which the U.S. is a core partner); and the Global Financing Facility (GFF, a partnership to improve the health of women, children, and adolescents through innovative financing in which the U.S. is an investor).29


Total U.S. funding for FP/RH, which includes the U.S. contribution to the U.N. Population Fund, has increased from $425 million in FY 2006 to $608 million in FY 2017 (see Figure 1). However, the current Administration has withheld the U.S. contribution to UNFPA for FY 2017 due to the Kemp-Kasten Amendment.31 Additionally, it has proposed eliminating FP/RH funding for FY 2018.32

Most U.S. funding for FP/RH is part of the Global Health Programs account at USAID, with additional funding provided through the Economic Support Fund account. FP/RH funding is also provided through the International Organizations & Programs account at the Department of State for the U.S. contribution to the U.N. Population Fund.

Figure 1: U.S. Global Health Funding: Family Planning/Reproductive Health (FP/RH), FY 2006-FY 2018 Request

Requirements in Law and Policy33

Several legal, policy, and programmatic requirements exist for U.S. funding for international FP. These include (also see the KFF fact sheet on these requirements):

Helms Amendment

Since 1973, through the Helms Amendment, U.S. law has prohibited the use of foreign assistance to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortion.

Mexico City Policy

First instituted by President Reagan in 1984 through executive order, the Mexico City Policy (the “Global Gag Rule”) required foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to certify that they would not perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning using funds from any source as a condition for receiving U.S. funding. A highly debated issue, this policy was rescinded by President Clinton, reinstated by President Bush, rescinded by President Obama, and reinstated – in an expanded form – by President Trump in January 2017. See the KFF explainer on the Mexico City Policy.

UNFPA & the Kemp-Kasten Amendment

Although the U.S. government helped create the U.N. Population Fund (UNFPA) in 1969 and was a leading contributor for many years, there have been several years in which funding has been withheld due to executive branch determinations that UNFPA’s activities in China violated the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, which prohibits funding any organization or program, as determined by the President, that supports or participates in the management of a program of coercive abortion or involuntary sterilization.34 In January 2017, President Trump directed the U.S. Secretary of State to “take all necessary actions” to implement the Kemp-Kasten Amendment, and in March 2017, the Administration invoked the Kemp-Kasten Amendment in order to withhold FY 2017 funding for UNFPA.35 See the KFF explainer on UNFPA funding and the Kemp-Kasten Amendment.

Voluntarism and Informed Choice

The principles of ensuring voluntary use of FP/RH services as well as informed choice of FP/RH options are specified in legislative language and program guidance.

Key Issues for the U.S.

In recent years, growing global attention has highlighted the need to augment FP/RH services worldwide and increase coverage and access. As the global community endeavors to support and fund efforts to achieve
SDG 3’s FP/RH targets, key issues and challenges for U.S. efforts include:

However, with President Trump’s Jan. 2017 reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy, the Kemp-Kasten determination regarding UNFPA, and the Administration’s proposed elimination of FP/RH funding, along with single-party control of both Congress and the White House, the future of U.S. FP/RH efforts is more uncertain. Policy debates and discussions within and among Congress and the Trump Administration regarding the U.S. role in FP/RH (such as its role in fostering progress toward global goals related to providing access to FP/RH services) and the amount and use of U.S. funding (including legal and policy requirements) are likely to continue.

  1. WHO, et al., Trends in maternal mortality: 1990 to 2015, 2015.

    ← Return to text

  2. S. Ahmed, et al., “Maternal deaths averted by contraceptive use: an analysis of 172 countries,” The Lancet, July 14, 2012 (Vol. 30, no. 9837: 111-125).

    ← Return to text

  3. World Health Organization (WHO), Family Planning website,

    ← Return to text

  4. WHO, Reproductive Health website,; International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD), Programme of Action, Cairo, 1994.

    ← Return to text

  5. United Nations (UN), The Millennium Development Goals Report 2009, 2009; WHO, World Health Report 2005 – Making Every Mother and Child Count, 2005.

    ← Return to text

  6. Guttmacher Institute, Adding It Up: Investing in Contraception and Maternal and Newborn Health, 2017, fact sheet, June 2017.

    ← Return to text

  7. UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015, 2015.

    ← Return to text

  8. UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015, 2015.

    ← Return to text

  9. WHO, World Health Statistics 2014, 2014; UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015, 2015.

    ← Return to text

  10. WHO, Unsafe abortion: global & regional estimates of the incidence of unsafe abortion and associated mortality in 2008, 2011.

    ← Return to text

  11. Eric Zuehlke, “Reducing Unintended Pregnancy and Unsafely Performed Abortion Through Contraceptive Use,” PRB, 2009.

    ← Return to text

  12. WHO, World Health Report 2005 – Making Every Mother and Child Count, 2005. See also Guttmacher Institute, Unmet Need for Contraception in Developing Countries: Examining Women’s Reasons for Not Using a Method, June 2016.

    ← Return to text

  13. UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015, 2015.

    ← Return to text

  14. Country classifications are based on Millennium Development Goals’ regional designations.

    ← Return to text

  15. USAID, “Family Planning & Reproductive Health Programs - Saving Lives, Protecting the Environment, Advancing U.S. Interests,” fact sheet, undated; USAID, “Fast Facts: Family Planning,” fact sheet, Dec. 2009; WHO, Johns Hopkins, and USAID, Family Planning: A Global Handbook for Providers, 2007; USAID, Report to Congress: Global Health and Child Survival Progress Report – FY 2008, 2009; UNESCO, International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education, Dec. 2009.

    ← Return to text

  16. UN, Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 2015.

    ← Return to text

  17. This goal was originally specified in the 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development’s (ICPD) Programme of Action and was added in 2007 as a specific target of Millennium Development Goal 5 (MDG 5), which aims to improve maternal health. This addition to MDG 5 was a recognition by governments and world leaders of the need to address challenges related to access and utilization of RH services. The world did not reach this target, but some progress was made, with more women attending a health provider four times or more during pregnancy and using contraceptives, though these indicators still vary widely across regions. ICPD, Programme of Action, Cairo, 1994; UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2009, 2009; UN, The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015, 2015.

    ← Return to text

  18. Family Planning Summit, July 11, 2017 – London website,

    ← Return to text

  19. KFF, Mapping the Donor Landscape in Global Health: Family Planning and Reproductive Health, 2014; KFF, Donor Government Assistance for Family Planning, report series; UNFPA, Contraceptives and Condoms for Family Planning and STI & HIV Prevention (2014), 2015.

    ← Return to text

  20. Congressional Research Service (CRS), U.S. International Family Planning Programs: Issues for Congress, Jan. 2016.

    ← Return to text

  21. USAID, USAID Family Planning Program Timeline, undated.

    ← Return to text

  22. U.S. Government Global Health Programs website,; USAID: Acting on the Call: Ending Preventable Child and Maternal Deaths, June 2014; USAID: Acting on the Call: Ending Preventable Child and Maternal Deaths, June 2014.

    ← Return to text

  23. KFF analysis of data from the U.S. Foreign Assistance Dashboard website, USAID reports that it works in more than 40 countries; see USAID, “Family Planning Countries,” webpage, Countries are selected based on high rates of unmet need for FP, prevalence of high-risk births, low contraceptive use, and significant population pressures on land and water resources (per KFF personal communication with USAID, April 2, 2010).

    ← Return to text

  24. USAID: “Family Planning and Reproductive Health,” webpage,; Report to Congress: Global Health and Child Survival Progress Report – FY 2008, 2009.

    ← Return to text

  25. USAID, “USAID Global Health Programs: FY 2016 President’s Budget Request, Ending Preventable Child and Maternal Deaths,” fact sheet, March 2015.

    ← Return to text

  26. USAID, “Family Planning & Reproductive Health Programs - Saving Lives, Protecting the Environment, Advancing U.S. Interests,” fact sheet, undated; USAID, “Fast Facts: Family Planning,” fact sheet, Dec. 2009.

    ← Return to text

  27. CDC, Global Reproductive Health website,

    ← Return to text

  28. For example: OGAC, PEPFAR Fiscal Year 2014 Country Operational Plan (COP) Guidance, Version 2, Nov. 8, 2013; OGAC, PEPFAR Blueprint:Creating An AIDS-free Generation, Nov. 2012; OGAC, U.S. PEPFAR: Five-Year Strategy, Dec. 2009.

    ← Return to text

  29. The GFF was launched in 2015 as “a multi-stakeholder partnership that supports country-led efforts to improve the health of women, children, and adolescents,” and the U.S. is as a member of the Investors Group that oversees the partnership’s overall activities; see

    ← Return to text

  30. KFF analysis of data from the Office of Management and Budget, Agency Congressional Budget Justifications, Congressional Appropriations Bills, and U.S. Foreign Assistance Dashboard website, For an in-depth discussion of U.S. government FP/RH funding, including trends, see KFF, U.S. Funding for International Family Planning & Reproductive Health, April 2016.

    ← Return to text

  31. For several years, including FY 2017, Congress has required that funding withheld from UNFPA be reallocated to USAID’s family planning, maternal, and reproductive health activities. U.S. Congress, FY 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 115-31), May 5, 2017.

    ← Return to text

  32. While the FY 2018 Request eliminates funding for the FP/RH program under the Global Health Programs (GHP) account, it does note in proposed legislative language that GHP funds could be used for "reproductive health activities, such as fistula repair, prevention and response to gender-based violence, and ending child marriage and female genital cutting or mutilation."

    ← Return to text

  33. KFF, The U.S. Government and International Family Planning & Reproductive Health: Statutory Requirements and Policies, fact sheet; KFF, Statutory Requirements & Policies Governing U.S. Global Family Planning and Reproductive Health Efforts, brief, 2012; USAID, USAID's Family Planning Guiding Principles and U.S. Legislative and Policy Requirements webpage,

    ← Return to text

  34. CRS, The U.N. Population Fund: Background and the U.S. Funding Debate, Feb. 2010.

    ← Return to text

  35. White House, “Subject: The Mexico City Policy,” Memorandum for the Secretary of State[,] the Secretary of Health and Human Services[, and] the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, Jan. 23, 2017,; State Department: Letter to Bob Corker, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, from Joseph E Macmanus, Bureau of Legislative Affairs, State Department, dated April 3, 2017, and accompanying “Determination Regarding the ‘Kemp-Kasten Amendment,’” dated March 30, 2017, and “Memorandum of Justification for the Determination Regarding the "Kemp-Kasten Amendment,” undated. Available online (follows the article) at:

    ← Return to text