World population continues its steady climb, surpassing 7 billion in 2011 and heading to somewhere between 8 and 11 billion by midcentury. But funding to address population-related issues is moving in the opposite direction.

World population continues its steady climb, surpassing 7 billion in 2011 and heading to somewhere between 8 and 11 billion by midcentury. But funding to address population-related issues is moving in the opposite direction.

In 2000, U.S. foundations spent $96 million on population-related initiatives, according to data collected by the Funders Network on Population, Reproductive Health, and Rights. By 2012, that spending had fallen to less than $7 million.

The numbers are stunning, but a few caveats are in order. First, these figures refer only to private U.S. foundations, not public funding. U.S. government spending on international population and family planning has held steady during the Obama presidency, albeit at a lower level than some advocates would like.

Second, this data is only for foundations that are members of the Funders Network. While the Network includes most U.S. donors with an interest in population, reproductive health, and reproductive rights, some new entrants to the field – including Bloomberg Philanthropies – are not represented.

And third, the database relies on foundation staff to categorize their own grants. That means a grant for a family planning clinic in the Philippines may be classified by one funder as “population,” while an identical grant by another funder falls under “reproductive health.”

Yet even with these caveats, the drop-off in funding is significant. Broadly speaking, it reflects a sea change in the field of family planning and reproductive health. For decades, the field has been moving away from a focus on human numbers and toward a commitment to individual health and rights. Even those concerned primarily about population growth have embraced the new paradigm, as evidence shows the best way to slow growth is by addressing unmet need for reproductive health services by ensuring access to voluntary family planning services. That view was affirmed by world governments at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo.

Given that shift, we might assume that foundations have moved their resources from numbers-oriented population programs to other areas of reproductive health. Or that they are simply reclassifying their grants as “reproductive health.”

But the numbers tell a more complex story. Money is not just moving from population to other areas of reproductive health; a substantial amount has left the field entirely. Excluding the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and a single anonymous donor, whose identity is something of an open secret, foundation support is near its lowest level since the Funders Network began collecting data in 1999 (the Gates Foundation and anonymous donor together accounted for 74 percent of the population- and reproductive-health-related funds in the database in 2012).

What explains this downward trend? And what can be done to rebuild support?

A Victim of Its Own Success?

One reason population funding has declined is because “people think the problem has been solved,” said Peter Belden, a former program officer in the Global Development and Population Program at the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, a longtime supporter of population and reproductive health initiatives, in an interview.

Of course, that depends on one’s definition of the “problem.” Since its origins early last century, the family planning movement has sought to address two overlapping concerns: women’s reproductive rights and health, and a neo-Malthusian fear that unchecked population growth would have dire consequences for the planet and its people.

When the international family planning movement took off in the 1960s, neo-Malthusian perspectives prevailed. While many people working in the field cared about women’s lives, it was fear of population growth that moved the money, defining the problem and its solutions. So, in the ensuing decades, as contraceptives became widely available and fertility rates dropped, many pronounced the problem solved. Several large funders whose primary concern had been with population growth – including the Rockefeller Foundation and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation – left the field. Many moved on to new priorities, including the HIV/AIDS epidemic, which gathered deadly momentum in the 1980s and 1990s.

The international family planning movement thus became “a victim of its own success,” said Belden. But, he observed, the problems the movement sought to address have not gone away. Reproductive health and rights remain elusive for many: Some 222 million women still have an unmet need for contraception, and some 800 women die from pregnancy or childbirth-related complications around the world every day. Moreover, while down globally, high fertility rates persist in many of the world’s most impoverished countries, guaranteeing substantial population growth in places that are least able to meet the needs of additional citizens.

Casualties of the Culture Wars

As the urgency surrounding population and family planning has diminished, controversy has also taken a toll on foundation support. Over the past three decades, as the religious right gained political power and influence in the United States, international family planning has often been caught in the crossfire of culture wars.

Opponents of reproductive rights seize on abuses in population and family planning programs (past and present) in order to render those programs politically toxic. While there have been abuses – notably in government-run family planning programs in India, China, and Peru – such practices are certainly not the norm. The client-centered approach affirmed at the 1994 Cairo conference has improved the quality of reproductive health care in many regions, saving the lives of millions. But the perpetuation of controversy may have undercut private foundation support for reproductive health.

Ironically, the Cairo paradigm – which has reduced abuses in family planning programs – may also have had the unintended effect of reducing foundation support for those programs. The Cairo paradigm holds reproductive health as an end in itself, rather than as a means to achieve other objectives, such as slowing population growth or protecting the environment. As such, it may have removed entry points for foundations concerned about a broader range of issues.

At the same time, the culture wars have engulfed reproductive health in the United States, with battles over contraceptive coverage in the Affordable Care Act; funding for Planned Parenthood; and a plethora of state-level abortion restrictions. In response, some U.S. grantmakers have shifted resources from international work to secure reproductive health and rights domestically, working, for example, to lift bans on public funding for abortion.

Rebuilding Support

Overall, private foundation funding for population initiatives has fallen sharply, while support for reproductive health more generally has also declined.

To rebuild support, there is a need to first broaden the base of funding in this field, which has shrunk to a worrying degree. Of the grantmaking tracked by the Funders Network, nearly three out of four dollars now come from the Gates Foundation and the anonymous donor, leaving key NGOs vulnerable to future shifts in priorities. The Funders Network has succeeded in recruiting new funders to the field, but the new entrants are mostly smaller foundations, which have not collectively replaced the funding lost by the withdrawal of larger players.

There are, however, some encouraging signs, according to Denise Shannon, executive director of the Funders Network. Shannon noted that, setting aside Gates and the anonymous donor, “funding was on the upswing in 2012.” Of the other 49 member funders in the database, 57 percent increased their grantmaking. This translated to a five percent overall increase from 2011 giving levels ($171.4 to $180.1 million).

What will it take to build on that momentum? “We need to do a better job of engaging new donors, especially women, who now control significant assets,” said Tamara Kreinin, director of the Population and Reproductive Health Program at the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, a historically prominent funder of reproductive health and population-environment initiatives. Shira Saperstein, deputy director of the Moriah Fund, also a long-time funder of reproductive health and rights work, notes that, aside from Planned Parenthood, most organizations in the field lack a membership base. Cultivating individual and corporate donors could reduce reliance on foundation funding.

And it is important to create more entry points for funders, both individuals and foundations, by emphasizing the connections between population and other trending issues. Belden observed that top philanthropic concerns include climate change, educational attainment, and the intergenerational cycle of poverty. “All of those issues connect to population and family planning,” he said.

Some innovative projects are already making those connections. A decade ago, several private foundations partnered with aid agencies to launch projects that integrate population, health, and the environment (PHE) around the world. These PHE programs have proven effective and popular. By responding to community needs, they often achieve better results in public health and sustainable development than single-sector efforts. But, while USAID continues to support these efforts, lack of private foundation funding may limit their reach.

Public health is another important entry point, and many NGOs and funders are already focusing on links between reproductive health and maternal mortality, for example. There are significant opportunities on this front: Saperstein points out that the United States and many other countries are undergoing health sector reforms, revisiting health care financing, and evaluating investments. “There is a strong case to be made for family planning as a really cost-effective health intervention,” she said.

It’s important to frame reproductive health as an end in itself, rather than as a means to other ends. But it is possible to leverage new support by linking reproductive health to other beneficial outcomes – if it’s done in the right way, says Saperstein. That means “making the link through women’s empowerment and agency, not through reducing human numbers,” she said.

Engaging the Next Generation

Finally, the field must make a significant investment in the next generation of leaders. Some of the attrition in funding reflects a changing of the guard, as the large cohort of family planning professionals (and funders) who led the first wave of concern about population issues reaches retirement. “We must consider innovative ways to attract new people to this field,” said Belden. “Attracting new talent often requires new types of outreach, building relationships, increasing compensation and building the pipeline from academia to foundations and NGOs.”

And, as Saperstein observes, the reproductive health advocacy community must better reflect the shifting demographics of the United States. That means ensuring that the next generation of leaders is more racially and ethnically diverse, and finding the issues and concerns that resonate for those potential leaders.

Kreinin agrees. “We need to cultivate young people as movement builders,” she said. “Where is the next generation on these issues?”