Annual expenditure on family planning from government domestic budget (US$)Annual expenditure on family planning from government domestic budget (US$) Definition: The total amount of public sector “Expenditure” is defined as all government disbursements that support FP, including commodities, logistics, service delivery, management, and program costs (e.g., demand creation campaigns, training, research). This includes expenditures by all levels of government. Data Requirement: Government domestic budget with expenditure data on FP costs Data Sources: Data for this indicator are obtained either directly from a country’s government, a series of surveys conducted by UNFPA, the World Health Organization’s System of Health Accounts country reports, or from Track20’s Family Planning Spending Assessment (FPSA). Indicator Type: Number (in US$) Purpose: This indicator captures the amount a government spent on FP in a budget year and should be tracked from year to year. Tracking expenditure data is critical to monitoring governments’ financial commitment to FP and improving accountability and oversight for FP programs. Current domestic expenditures for FP in many low- and middle-income countries are insufficient and the growing demand for voluntary FP will require a substantial increase in financial resources (HIPs, 2018). Many low- and middle-income countries continue to rely heavily on donor financing for FP and other health areas despite a decline in donor funding (HIPs, 2018). To continue to promote and sustain higher levels of modern contraceptive prevalence and provide a budgeted flow for FP programming, low- and middle-income countries will need to increase the value of domestic public financing for FP and make domestic government spending the mainstay of their FP programs. In many countries government spending on FP is decentralized, with some amounts coming from national budgets and some from sub-national government bodies. Thus, there is also interest in understanding how decentralized government entities—such as provinces, states, local government administrations/units and municipal governments, districts, and even facilities—might increase their funding for health programs and for FP (FP2030). Issues: In some countries, it is difficult to separate FP from other health expenditures. Potential sources of decentralized funding are not invested in health/FP and contribute to other government sectors instead. Furthermore, decentralized funding amounts are often small and hard to capture. Domestic financial commitments have not always translated to increased spending on FP (HIPs, 2018). Thus, although it is typically easier to gather data on budgets and allocations than on expenditures, for this indicator, it is important to collect expenditure data to see if the actual amount of funds earmarked for FP were executed for that purpose. References: FP2030. https://progress.fp2030.org/finance/. Accessed June 2024. High Impact Practices in Family Planning (HIPs). Domestic public financing: Building a sustainable future for family planning programs. Washington, DC: USAID; 2018 Apr. Available from: https://www.fphighimpactpractices.org/briefs/domestic-public-financing/
