Index Logo
TRANSPARENCY SCORE
The transparency grade represents the expectation that the federal government should make data about U.S. global health assistance available, accessible, and informative. To see the transparency grade, toggle below.

OffOn
TRANSPARENCY SCORE
The transparency grade represents the expectation that the federal government should make data about U.S. global health assistance available, accessible, and informative. To see the transparency grade, toggle below.

OffOn
Arrow
Home
D

This is an average of the three domain scores below.

YEAR 2018

Family Planning (FP)

The U.S. Government received a 63 (D) with transparency and a 66 (D) without transparency for Family Planning across all actors. This reflects the negative impact of the PLGHA FAQ and Six Month Review documents as well as insufficient funding for key family planning providers, including UNFPA.

F
D-

Department of State

 

The Department of State received a 56 (F) with transparency and 60 (D-) without transparency for Family Planning based on two documents related to the PLGHA expansion of the Global Gag Rule: the Six Month Review and the FAQ. Neither is gender aware nor based in evidence or human rights principles. However, both documents are responsive to need because they address concerns and questions from partners regarding the implementation of PLGHA. In the budget evaluation, the Department of State largely disbursed family planning funds in accordance with unmet contraceptive need. However, access to family planning and contraception was severely impacted by the Department of State once again defunding UNFPA due to an unsubstantiated Kemp-Kasten amendment violation in FY 2019.

The CHANGE data index grades government agencies on policies and funding impacting family planning, maternal and child health, and HIV & AIDS foreign assistance.

Selecting a document will download the file
2018_Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Six Month Review
The Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) Six Month Review summarizes the PLGHA policy and identifies solutions to challenges that have arisen in the process of PLGHA implementation. The review is responsive to need in that it addresses concerns expressed by partners affected by the policy, but is not evidence-informed, based in human rights principles, or gender transformative. The document states that it is too early to assess the impacts of Trump's expanded GGR on family planning despite research and literature documenting the harm caused by the current policy. The Six Month Review substantially hinders the Department of State's ability to implement comprehensive family planning programs.
2018_Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance FAQs
The Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) FAQ provides detailed guidance on the implementation of Trump's expanded GGR for implementing partners. The FAQ document is responsive to need in that it clarifies areas of the policy that partners have expressed are vague or unclear. The FAQs are neither based in human rights principles nor evidence. The FAQs are also not gender transformative and substantially hinder the Department of State's ability to implement comprehensive family planning programs.
D
D

US Agency for International Development

 

USAID received a 66 (D) with transparency and 65 (D) without transparency for Family Planning. USAID was graded based on three family planning-related guidance and procedures that were issued in 2018. These documents varied in their grades, but none of them were gender transformative or explicitly based in human rights norms. As the agency that coordinates family planning funds through bilateral programs and partners with local civil society, USAID has the potential to implement truly evidence-based and human rights-based programming. These documents are evidence that USAID did not fully step into this role in 2018. The USAID budget grade reflects these conclusions, as a significant portion of the funds disbursed for family planning programming in FY 2019 was not responsive to unmet family planning need by country.

The CHANGE data index grades government agencies on policies and funding impacting family planning, maternal and child health, and HIV & AIDS foreign assistance.

Selecting a document will download the file
2018_Acting on the Call Report
Acting on the Call is USAID's annual flagship report for reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health services. The report cites country-level annual progress toward family planning targets and provides recommendations to advance family planning in each country context in a manner that is responsive to need. At the same time, the 2018 report, when compared to the 2017 version, includes more language regarding USAID's "Journey to Self-Reliance" framework for program countries. This language is consistent with the Trump administration's efforts to reduce U.S. funds for global health as a means to increase the incentive for countries to increase domestic funding. This method of achieving self reliance is neither evidence-based nor sustainable and, given this context, the addition of self reliance language in the report is concerning. Though Acting on the Call reports on both family planning and maternal and child health data, the report does not provide substantial detailed analysis of family planning programming. The evaluation of family planning efforts is not included within each country analysis. Additionally, the report does not mention gender norms or human rights principles as they apply to family planning.
2018_Maternal and Child Health Agency Priority Goals
The Agency Priority Goals (APGs) for Maternal and Child Health provide quarterly updates on family planning commodity delivery and an overview of family planning programs implemented by USAID. The goals are responsive to need and evidence-based in that they cite statistics regarding family planning that have informed the APGs. However, this report is lacking references to international human rights norms and does not include discussions surrounding gender norms in family planning programs. There is only one mention of family planning in each of the quarterly and annual indicators without any programmatic detail or guidance. These mentions of family planning are geared toward families and spacing of births, neither of which may apply to people who give birth outside of traditionally defined families or for people who seek contraceptives for purposes other than spacing births. The cited family planning indicator, "Absolute change in modern contraceptive prevalence rate," does not include any consideration for access to contraceptives for key populations, specifically, and does not account for the role of gender norms in shaping family planning and contraceptive access.
2018_Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance FAQs
The Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) FAQ provides detailed guidance on the implementation of Trump's expanded GGR for implementing partners. The FAQ document is responsive to need in that it clarifies areas of the policy that partners have expressed are vague or unclear. The FAQs are neither based in human rights principles nor evidence. The FAQs are also not gender transformative and substantially hinder USAID's ability to implement comprehensive family planning and SRHR programs that are evidence-informed, responsive to need, consistent with internationally-recognized human rights principles and gender transformative.
2018_Acquisition and Assistance Strategy
As USAID’s first-ever Acquisition and Assistance (A&A) Strategy, this guidance document increases the accountability and transparency of USAID's procurement, partnering, and project management processes across the Agency. The goal of this Strategy is to streamline "approaches to design and procurement" and develop "new and innovative methods of collaboration" to advance USAID's Journey to Self-Reliance mandate. The Strategy is responsive to need and evidence-based because it cites the current make-up of USAID foreign assistance funding recipients and sets specific goals to diversify this partner base. Many of the strategies and shifts put forward in the report incorporate feedback received from smaller and/or local partners. The Strategy also demonstrates a commitment to human rights norms, specifically to the rights of self determination, by actively incorporating local partners in the design, procurement, and implementation of USAID's programming. Though the Strategy references the importance of "diverse" partners, it does not define who these partners are except for a specific mention of faith-based organizations. Women's rights and human rights groups should also be explicitly mentioned as underutilized partners because of their important role in advancing SRHR for all populations. This Strategy indicates a meaningful effort by USAID to ensure that local partners and recipient countries are included and supported throughout the Journey to Self-Reliance. However, this effort by USAID seems to be in direct conflict with the Trump Administration's strategy of decreasing appropriated funds as a means to motivate self reliance and haphazardly decrease U.S. involvement in foreign assistance. It is unclear in this strategy how USAID aims to reconcile this conflict.
NA
NA

Department of Health and Human Services

 

HHS does not receive a grade within the family planning domain because they do not work in international family planning.

NA
NA

Department of Defense

 

DoD does not receive a grade within the family planning domain because they do not work in international family planning.

C
C

Congress

 

Congress received a 74 (C) with transparency and a 74 (C) without transparency for Family Planning because the enacted FY 2019 Congressional budget appropriated inadequate funds for UNFPA and USAID. Congress did not pass any legislation on family planning in 2018. Information on family planning legislation and funding was available, so the transparency score did not decrease Congress’ grade for this domain.

F
F

White House

 

The White House received a 54 (F) with transparency and 59 (F) without transparency in Family Planning. In the FY 2019 budget request, the White House did not request any funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and zeroed out all family planning funds for USAID. These budgetary determinations significantly hindered the ability of U.S. global health assistance to support comprehensive family planning programs. The White House did not issue any executive orders or presidential memoranda related to family planning nor did it sign any family planning policies into law in 2018. The transparency score for the White House is low for family planning due to the difficulty accessing budgetary and policy information.