UNFPA's Three Transformative Results: The Framework in Practice

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

UNFPA's "three transformative results" are the organisational framework for measuring and communicating its contribution to global sexual and reproductive health and rights: zero preventable maternal deaths, zero unmet need for family planning, and zero gender-based violence and harmful practices. The framework was introduced in the Strategic Plan 2018–2021 and continued in 2022–2025. The word "zero" in each formulation is aspirational rather than a literal target — the actual measurement architecture is contained in a separate, more granular results framework with specific indicators and numerical targets.

Understanding the framework in operational terms requires separating three distinct layers: the aspirational framing (the "three zeros"), the SDG-aligned numerical targets that provide accountability benchmarks, and the output and outcome indicators in the results framework that track what UNFPA actually delivers and measures. Many critiques of UNFPA's accountability conflate these layers — either holding the organisation responsible for achieving the "zero" aspirations (which no single organisation could achieve) or accepting output counts (people trained, supplies delivered) as sufficient evidence of impact (which they are not). The most honest reading sits between these poles.

The evidence base underpinning the three results varies considerably in quality. Family planning — Result 2 — rests on the strongest evidence: decades of demographic and health survey data establish clear correlations between contraceptive access and reduced unintended pregnancy, improved maternal and child health, and demographic transition. Maternal mortality reduction — Result 1 — has strong evidence for specific interventions (skilled birth attendance, EmONC) but significant attribution challenges in isolating UNFPA's specific contribution. GBV and harmful practices — Result 3 — has the weakest evidence base of the three, particularly for behaviour change and community norm interventions, and this gap is reflected honestly in UNFPA's own evaluations and in the independent literature.

Progress toward the three results as of 2025 is mixed and broadly off-track against the SDG timetable. The global maternal mortality ratio has declined since 2000 but remains dramatically above the SDG 3.1 target of 70 per 100,000 live births by 2030. Unmet need for family planning has declined in absolute terms in some regions but is plateauing or growing in sub-Saharan Africa where the challenge is most acute. GBV prevalence has not shown measurable global decline. These are not failures attributable primarily to UNFPA — they reflect the depth of the structural challenges involved — but they frame the honest assessment of what the three-results framework is achieving.

KEY FACTS

The three transformative results were first introduced in UNFPA's Strategic Plan 2018–2021 and maintained in 2022–2025
The "three zeros" language was crystallised at the 2019 Nairobi Summit on ICPD+25, which generated over 1,200 partner commitments around this framework
The global maternal mortality ratio (MMR) in 2020 was approximately 223 per 100,000 live births (WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA/World Bank joint estimate, published 2023) — the SDG target is fewer than 70 per 100,000 by 2030
Approximately 800 women die every day from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth (UNFPA/WHO figures); approximately 287,000 maternal deaths per year
Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for approximately 70% of global maternal deaths; South Asia approximately 17%
Approximately 257 million women of reproductive age in developing regions have unmet need for family planning (Guttmacher/UNPD joint estimates, most recent cycle)
UNFPA is the world's largest multilateral procurer of contraceptives — procuring on behalf of 150+ countries
An estimated 230 million girls and women alive today have undergone female genital mutilation (WHO 2024 estimate)
An estimated 650 million women alive today were married before age 18 (UNICEF estimate)
Approximately 1 in 3 women globally have experienced physical or sexual violence (WHO systematic review)
The joint UNFPA-UNICEF FGM programme has operated since 2008 across 17 priority countries in Africa
UNFPA's own IEO has conducted thematic evaluations of all three result areas, with the GBV/harmful practices evaluation consistently noting the weakest outcome-level evidence
The results framework for 2022–2025 includes 12 impact indicators, 27 outcome indicators, and 57 output indicators
UNFPA's annual Results Report (formerly the Annual Report) is the primary accountability document against the results framework; independent evaluation provides the critical lens

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

The three transformative results framework did not emerge in a vacuum. It is the product of two converging streams: the internal reorganisation of UNFPA's strategic planning during the 2015–2018 period, and the external politics of the 2019 Nairobi Summit on ICPD+25.

Internally, UNFPA's 2014–2017 Strategic Plan had used a different framework of "impact areas" that were criticised as diffuse and difficult to communicate. The shift to the three transformative results for 2018–2021 was a deliberate simplification — three memorable goals, framed in the "zero" language that had proven effective in international advocacy (the AIDS "zero new infections" framework was an influence).

Externally, the 2019 Nairobi Summit provided a global platform for the three-zeros framing. More than 180 governments participated; over 1,200 commitments were made by governments, civil society, donors, and the private sector, structured around the three zeros. This gave the framework international political legitimacy beyond UNFPA's own strategic documents. The framework thus performs a dual function: it is UNFPA's internal accountability architecture and a global advocacy and mobilisation tool.

The framework's derivation from the SDGs is important for accountability purposes. Each of the three results maps to specific SDG targets:

Zero preventable maternal deaths → SDG 3.1 (MMR below 70 per 100,000 by 2030) and SDG 3.1.2 (proportion of births attended by skilled health personnel)
Zero unmet need for family planning → SDG 3.7 (universal access to sexual and reproductive health care services) and SDG 3.7.1 (proportion of women of reproductive age whose family planning needs are satisfied with modern methods)
Zero GBV and harmful practices → SDG 5.2 (eliminate violence against women and girls), SDG 5.3 (eliminate child marriage and FGM), and related targets

This SDG mapping means UNFPA's three results are embedded in an intergovernmental accountability structure that extends far beyond UNFPA's own reporting — Voluntary National Reviews, UN Women's monitoring, WHO's health statistics, and the SDG Progress Reports all generate data relevant to these same targets.

DETAIL

Result 1: Zero Preventable Maternal Deaths

What "preventable" means The qualifier "preventable" is doing important work. Not all maternal deaths can be prevented with currently available interventions — some result from conditions not yet treatable even in well-resourced health systems. The operationally relevant framing is: maternal deaths preventable with evidence-based interventions in reach of low-income health systems. This includes the three leading direct causes: obstetric haemorrhage (approximately 27% of maternal deaths), hypertensive disorders including pre-eclampsia (approximately 14%), and sepsis (approximately 11%). These three causes are amenable to known interventions.

UNFPA's intervention portfolio UNFPA's contribution to reducing maternal mortality focuses on:

Midwifery: UNFPA is the primary multilateral investor in midwifery workforce development. The 2021 State of the World's Midwifery report (SoWMy 2021, a joint UNFPA/WHO/ICM publication) found a global shortage of approximately 1 million midwives. UNFPA supports pre-service midwifery education, competency-based training standards, and regulatory frameworks. The SoWMy 2021 estimated that achieving universal coverage of essential SRHR services would require 900,000 midwives by 2030 — the gap between current supply and this target is the largest in sub-Saharan Africa.
Emergency Obstetric and Newborn Care (EmONC): UNFPA conducts EmONC facility assessments and supports facility upgrading to meet Basic and Comprehensive EmONC standards. The standard benchmark is: for every 500,000 population, there should be at least 5 basic EmONC facilities and 1 comprehensive EmONC facility. Many sub-Saharan African countries fall dramatically below this benchmark.
Fistula: Obstetric fistula — a childbirth injury that creates an abnormal connection between the birth canal and the bladder or rectum — affects an estimated 500,000 women primarily in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. UNFPA leads the Campaign to End Fistula, supporting both prevention (through skilled birth attendance and EmONC) and treatment (surgical repair). The campaign has facilitated over 100,000 repair surgeries since 2003.
Post-abortion care (PAC): Unsafe abortion is estimated to cause approximately 7–9% of maternal deaths. UNFPA supports PAC — the clinical management of abortion complications — which is endorsed as a life-saving intervention regardless of abortion's legal status. UNFPA does not fund abortion services.

Current trajectory The most recent WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA/World Bank/UNPD joint estimates (released 2023, covering through 2020) show the global MMR at approximately 223 per 100,000 in 2020, down from 339 in 2000 — a 34% reduction over two decades. The SDG 3.1 target of fewer than 70 per 100,000 by 2030 would require an acceleration of approximately 11.6% per year. Current rates of decline are well below this. The UN's assessment is that the SDG maternal mortality target will not be met globally.

Sub-Saharan Africa's MMR was approximately 536 per 100,000 in 2020 — more than twice the global average and representing the largest absolute burden. The challenge is compounded by high fertility rates (meaning more pregnancies per woman, more opportunities for mortality), weak health systems, and humanitarian crises that repeatedly disrupt maternal health services.

Result 2: Zero Unmet Need for Family Planning

Defining unmet need precisely "Unmet need for family planning" has a specific technical definition established through the Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) methodology, standardised in 2012 by Bradley et al. It refers to: women of reproductive age who are married or in union, who are fecund, who want to delay or stop childbearing, but who are not using any method of contraception. A parallel measure — the "modern contraceptive prevalence rate" (mCPR) — tracks the proportion of women using modern methods. Both are SDG indicators (3.7.1 measures satisfaction of family planning needs with modern methods).

The Bradley et al. 2012 revision to the unmet need methodology is important: it changed the denominator and the handling of postpartum amenorrhoea, which shifted estimates in ways that make pre- and post-2012 comparisons difficult. Researchers using long time series of DHS data need to use the revised estimates.

UNFPA's programme portfolio UNFPA's contribution to reducing unmet need operates through:

Procurement and supply chain: UNFPA procures contraceptives through its Supply Chain Management System (SCMS), sourcing from a catalogue of WHO-prequalified manufacturers. It procures on behalf of national programmes that lack procurement capacity, and at prices that leverage volume buying. In 2023, UNFPA procured approximately USD 300 million in reproductive health commodities (contraceptives and other supplies). This makes it a critical infrastructure actor — without UNFPA procurement, many low-income country programmes would face higher costs and supply disruptions.
Commodity security: UNFPA's Supplies programme addresses not just procurement but the full supply chain — forecasting, warehousing, distribution, and stock management. Commodity stockouts (running out of contraceptives at facility level) are a major cause of unmet need in low-income settings; UNFPA's supply chain support is aimed at this specific operational failure.
Demand generation and counselling: Supply-side solutions are necessary but not sufficient. Evidence shows that significant unmet need persists even in settings with physical access to contraceptives, due to side-effect fears, partner opposition, cultural norms, and provider bias. UNFPA supports community health worker programmes, rights-based counselling (offering the full method mix, not pushing specific methods), and demand generation communication.
National family planning programmes: At a policy level, UNFPA supports governments to develop national family planning strategies, set realistic targets, and integrate family planning into national health system planning.

Evidence quality The evidence that contraceptive access reduces unintended pregnancy, improves child spacing, and indirectly reduces maternal mortality is among the strongest in global health. The Guttmacher Institute's "Adding It Up" series provides regularly updated cost-benefit analyses. The 2020 estimate: meeting the unmet need of all women in developing regions would cost an additional USD 12.6 billion per year in contraceptive supplies and services and would prevent approximately 67 million unintended pregnancies, 36 million unsafe abortions, and 76,000 maternal deaths annually.

Where the evidence is more complex Rights-based family planning — ensuring that contraceptive use reflects genuinely voluntary, informed choice rather than programme pressure — is harder to measure and, in some cases, harder to achieve. Studies in several sub-Saharan African countries have found that health worker incentive structures tied to coverage targets create pressure on clients that is inconsistent with voluntarism. UNFPA's IEO country evaluations have flagged this in specific country contexts. This does not undermine the case for family planning investment; it is an argument for rights-based quality standards in programme design.

Result 3: Zero GBV and Harmful Practices

Programme scope This is UNFPA's broadest and most heterogeneous result area. It encompasses:

GBV prevention and response in development settings (community programmes, health sector response, legal and social services)
GBV coordination in humanitarian settings (UNFPA leads the GBV Area of Responsibility globally)
Clinical management of rape (CMR) — the health sector protocol for sexual violence survivors
Female genital mutilation (FGM) — the joint UNFPA-UNICEF programme across 17 countries
Child marriage prevention
Harmful masculinities and gender norm change programmes

GBV in humanitarian settings UNFPA's most distinctive and operationally critical role in this result area is its leadership of the GBV Area of Responsibility (GBV AoR). The GBV AoR is the sub-cluster within the UN's humanitarian coordination system responsible for coordinating GBV prevention and response in emergencies. As global lead, UNFPA is responsible for: activating and coordinating the GBV AoR in new crises, supporting the development of GBV standard operating procedures, managing the GBV Information Management System (GBVIMS), and advocating for GBV to be treated as a life-saving priority from the outset of emergency response.

The GBV AoR coordination function is one of UNFPA's most clearly differentiated roles in the global architecture — no other organisation has this specific coordination mandate. However, coordination quality varies significantly by crisis context, and GBV AoR activations in high-complexity crises (Syria, DRC, South Sudan) have faced documented challenges in coordination effectiveness.

FGM joint programme The joint UNFPA-UNICEF programme to accelerate the abandonment of FGM has operated since 2008. As of its most recent reports (programme Phase V covering 2018–2023), it has worked across 17 priority countries in Africa, reaching over 1,000 communities with community dialogue and social norms change programming. The programme has documented community declarations of FGM abandonment, but the connection between declarations and actual practice change is contested — self-reported behaviour change is not equivalent to verified abandonment, and the measurement methodology has been criticised in independent evaluations.

Evidence quality for GBV programming The evidence base for GBV programming is significantly weaker than for the other two result areas. Key findings from the systematic review literature:

The DFID-funded "What Works to Prevent Violence Against Women and Girls" programme (2014–2020), a flagship evidence synthesis covering over 250 studies, found strong evidence for a small number of approaches (SASA! community mobilisation, Stepping Stones group education, combined economic empowerment and GBV programming), limited evidence for most standard GBV programming, and significant gaps in evidence for child marriage and FGM-specific programmes.
A 2013 Cochrane review of interventions to reduce intimate partner violence found limited high-quality evidence, with most studies having methodological limitations.
Attribution of FGM abandonment to specific programmes is methodologically very difficult due to the long time horizons, community-level effects, and absence of random assignment.

UNFPA's results reporting in this area relies heavily on outputs (safe spaces established, people trained, communities reached with GBV messaging) rather than outcome data (actual change in GBV incidence, prevalence, or survivor outcomes). This is partly a measurement problem — GBV is chronically underreported, and population-level prevalence surveys are expensive and methodologically challenging. But it also reflects a gap in programme design: many UNFPA-supported GBV programmes do not have built-in outcome measurement systems.

The Framework's Architecture and Limitations

Results framework structure The three transformative results are underpinned by a formal results framework with 12 impact indicators, 27 outcome indicators, and 57 output indicators. The output indicators are what country offices primarily report against. Impact indicators reflect population-level change (maternal mortality ratio, mCPR, GBV prevalence) that UNFPA cannot control but can contribute to. Outcome indicators track coverage and quality changes attributable to UNFPA-supported programmes.

Attribution and contribution UNFPA is not — and cannot be — the only actor responsible for changes in maternal mortality, contraceptive prevalence, or GBV. The results framework uses "contribution" rather than "attribution" language for this reason. But contribution claims still require plausible causal pathways and evidence of counterfactual difference. IEO evaluations consistently find that UNFPA's contribution narratives are stronger for output delivery than for demonstrating the causal chain from outputs to outcomes to impact.

The "zero" framing The aspirational "zero" targets are valuable for advocacy — they assert that maternal deaths and GBV are not inevitable — but they create an accountability problem. Progress toward "zero preventable maternal deaths" cannot be measured annually; progress is measured against the MMR, which changes slowly and is affected by many factors beyond UNFPA's programmes. The mismatch between the aspirational framing and the measurement architecture is a persistent source of confusion in interpreting UNFPA's results claims.

EVIDENCE BASE

Result 1 (Maternal Mortality)

What the evidence shows: The strongest evidence links specific clinical interventions to maternal mortality reduction. Magnesium sulphate for eclampsia, oxytocin for haemorrhage, and caesarean section capacity are all strongly evidence-based. Skilled birth attendance, when "skilled" is operationally defined to include genuinely competent practice (not just title), is associated with significant mortality reduction. A 2016 Lancet series on midwifery estimated that midwife-led care, scaled to universal coverage, could prevent up to 83% of maternal and newborn deaths.

Attribution challenge: UNFPA supports health system strengthening that contributes to these outcomes, but so do bilateral programmes, governments, and other multilaterals. Country-level evaluations by the IEO have found it very difficult to isolate UNFPA's specific contribution to MMR change.

Key source: WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA/World Bank joint maternal mortality estimates (produced every three years); Lancet Midwifery series (2014, 2021); SoWMy 2021.

Result 2 (Family Planning)

What the evidence shows: Contraceptive access has one of the strongest evidence bases in global health, supported by over 50 years of Demographic and Health Survey data. The causal mechanism — contraception prevents unintended pregnancy, which reduces maternal mortality risk and improves child health through birth spacing — is biologically direct. UNFPA's procurement function has a clearer-than-average causal chain: commodities procured reach facilities, facilities distribute to clients.

Quality evidence gap: Evidence for rights-based quality — genuine voluntarism, informed choice — is much harder to generate. This is both a measurement challenge and an accountability gap.

Key source: Guttmacher Institute "Adding It Up" series; DHS Programme data; WHO family planning evidence briefs.

Result 3 (GBV and Harmful Practices)

What the evidence shows: GBV programming evidence is the weakest of the three. The "What Works" programme is the most comprehensive synthesis; its headline finding was that most GBV interventions have insufficient evidence of impact, with a handful of exceptions. The evidence is stronger for economic empowerment combined with GBV components than for standalone behaviour change programmes.

Measurement gap: GBV prevalence data is structurally weak — most estimates rely on self-report in survey settings, which underestimates prevalence. Changes in GBV prevalence over time are detectable only through repeated population-level surveys, which are expensive and infrequent.

Key source: "What Works to Prevent Violence Against Women and Girls" (Ellsberg et al., BMJ Global Health 2015; full programme reports 2014–2020); Cochrane reviews of GBV interventions; WHO global prevalence estimates.

FUNDING AND RESOURCES

UNFPA's three result areas do not receive equal funding — the distribution reflects both donor preferences and programme costs.

Family planning and reproductive health commodities are among the best-funded programme areas because the results are measurable, the unit costs are relatively low, and donors can track outputs with precision. Commodity procurement is particularly attractive to donors who want demonstrable, auditable results.

Maternal health and midwifery receive substantial funding, but midwifery workforce development is a long-term investment with slow results timelines — this makes it somewhat less attractive for short-cycle earmarked donors than commodity procurement.

GBV and humanitarian response have seen significant growth in funding as humanitarian crises have multiplied, but the humanitarian funding environment is characterised by extreme volatility and underfunding of appeals. UNHCR and OCHA data consistently show global humanitarian appeals funded at 50–60% of the requested amount, meaning GBV response in emergencies is chronically under-resourced.

The UNFPA Supplies programme — which mobilises funding for reproductive health commodities — is funded separately from UNFPA's core budget through a dedicated fundraising mechanism. In 2022, UNFPA Supplies mobilised approximately USD 200 million from 14 contributor governments. Nordic donors (Denmark, Norway, Sweden) are the largest contributors to this mechanism.

The joint UNFPA-UNICEF FGM programme is funded through contributions from the European Commission and European bilateral donors, with recent funding rounds in the range of EUR 25–30 million per programme phase.

KEY DEBATES AND CONTESTED QUESTIONS

Is the "zero" framing honest or misleading? Some development accountability practitioners argue that aspirational "zero" targets undermine genuine accountability by substituting advocacy rhetoric for measurable commitments. The counter-argument is that aspirational framing is necessary to sustain political will — that stating "reduce maternal mortality by 11.6% per year" is technically accurate but mobilises less resource than "zero preventable maternal deaths." Both positions have merit; the key is maintaining transparency about the distinction between aspiration and measurement.

Does Result 3 (GBV) belong in a results framework at this level of evidence? Given the acknowledged weakness of the evidence base for GBV programming impact, some evaluation practitioners question whether UNFPA should be framing GBV abandonment as a "transformative result" alongside the much better-evidenced family planning and maternal health results. The inclusion of GBV reflects both the rights-based imperative (GBV is a clear violation of rights regardless of whether current programming is effective) and UNFPA's coordination role in humanitarian settings — but it means the results framework spans interventions with very different evidence quality.

Are UNFPA's results reports fit for accountability? IEO evaluations have repeatedly found that UNFPA's results reporting overemphasises outputs and underreports outcomes. The organisation acknowledges this and has, in successive strategic plans, committed to strengthening outcome measurement. Progress has been made in the 2022–2025 framework, but the fundamental challenge remains: outcome measurement in health systems strengthening is expensive and methodologically demanding.

Family planning coverage vs. rights-based quality: can both be measured? The tension between expanding contraceptive coverage (measurable, fundable) and ensuring genuinely voluntary, rights-based access (harder to measure, less fundable) is the central methodological and ethical debate in family planning programming. UNFPA's position is that both matter and both can be tracked, but its results framework is more rigorous on coverage than on rights. Independent researchers (Senderowicz et al.; Hardee et al.) have developed quality-of-care measurement frameworks; their integration into standard UNFPA reporting remains incomplete.

IMPLICATIONS BY AUDIENCE

For Frontline Staff

When reporting against UNFPA's results framework, the distinction between output indicators (what you delivered — training sessions held, kits distributed, facilities upgraded) and outcome indicators (what changed as a result — more births attended by skilled personnel, more women with satisfied family planning needs) is critical. Output reporting is what country offices primarily do; outcome data requires population surveys or health information system data that country offices often do not control.

For family planning programming: understanding the rights-based approach in operational terms matters. "Offering the full method mix" is not just a policy phrase — it means that a programme that only offers injectables, for instance, is not rights-compliant even if its coverage numbers look good. Rights-based quality standards provide a defence against coverage-target pressures that can distort programme integrity.

For GBV programming: the weak evidence base is not a reason to stop GBV programming — GBV causes severe harm regardless of evidence quality on specific interventions. It is a reason to design programmes with strong monitoring components, use validated tools (WHO's VAW survey instrument; GBVIMS), and be appropriately cautious about claims of outcome-level impact.

For Decision-Makers and Funders

The results framework's three levels — impact, outcome, output — correspond roughly to what population-level data can show (impact), what programme evaluations can show (outcome), and what UNFPA's own reporting systems generate (output). Impact-level change (e.g., the MMR declining) is not attributable to UNFPA alone, but it is the level that matters for the world. Outcome-level change is where UNFPA's specific contribution can be assessed. Output-level reporting is useful for accountability but insufficient for impact assessment.

Funding the family planning result, particularly commodity procurement, offers the clearest cost-benefit case. Guttmacher's estimates of USD 120 in reduced social costs per USD 1 of family planning investment are frequently cited; while these estimates rely on modelling assumptions, the underlying evidence for the mechanism is strong.

Funding GBV programming — especially in humanitarian settings — is important despite weaker evidence of impact because the moral case is clear and UNFPA's coordination role in the GBV AoR is not replicated by any other actor. But funders should demand rigorous monitoring systems as a condition of GBV programme funding, because without investment in measurement, the evidence base will remain weak.

For Researchers

The three transformative results framework offers several analytically interesting research angles:

The "aspiration vs. accountability" design question — how to frame organisational goals in ways that are both politically motivating and technically accountable — is a live issue in programme theory and organisational management literature. UNFPA's three zeros are a case study in the trade-offs.

The differential evidence quality across the three result areas maps onto a broader question in global health about how to allocate research investment: more evidence for interventions where evidence is already strong (family planning), or prioritisation of evidence generation for areas of weak evidence (GBV, particularly FGM abandonment)? UNFPA's own research agenda reflects this tension.

The GBVIMS dataset is one of the most extensive administrative datasets on GBV in humanitarian settings. Access is restricted for ethical and safety reasons, but researchers who can obtain access have a unique cross-crisis, cross-country dataset. Published analyses using GBVIMS data (e.g., IRC/UNFPA joint analyses of GBV in specific crisis settings) are worth reviewing for methodological models.

The SoWMy 2021 is a methodologically rigorous global assessment of the midwifery workforce gap with country-level projections. Its modelling assumptions are transparent and it is a good exemplar of the kind of systems analysis that underpins UNFPA's maternal health programming.

CURRENT STATUS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

UNFPA completed a midterm review of the 2022–2025 Strategic Plan in 2024. Publicly available midterm reporting indicates that:

Family planning (Result 2) is tracking most closely to its targets, though sub-Saharan Africa remains significantly off-track
Maternal health (Result 1) is showing progress in skilled birth attendance coverage but is off-track on the MMR trajectory globally
GBV (Result 3) remains the hardest to report against at outcome level, and the midterm review acknowledged the ongoing gap between output reporting and outcome evidence

The successor strategic plan for 2026–2029 is expected to maintain the three transformative results structure (it has become a globally recognised framework through the Nairobi Summit process) but will likely sharpen the outcome-level measurement architecture. There is internal discussion about whether the GBV result area needs a different evidentiary framework given the weaker evidence base — either a more explicit acknowledgment of the evidence gaps or a greater investment in the evaluation infrastructure needed to generate outcome data.

The humanitarian demand on all three result areas continues to grow. UNFPA's humanitarian portfolio — which crosses all three results — has become a significantly larger share of total operations over the 2018–2025 period.

SOURCES

UNFPA Strategic Plan 2022–2025 [unfpa.org]: Includes the full results framework with all 12 impact, 27 outcome, and 57 output indicators. Essential reading alongside this document.
UNFPA Annual Results Report 2022 and 2023 [unfpa.org]: Narrative and quantitative reporting against the results framework. Strong on outputs; read critically on outcomes.
WHO/UNICEF/UNFPA/World Bank/UNPD: Trends in Maternal Mortality 2000–2020 (published 2023): The authoritative global source for MMR data and trends. The note on estimation methodology is important for researchers.
State of the World's Midwifery 2021 (SoWMy 2021) [unfpa.org]: UNFPA/WHO/ICM joint assessment of the global midwifery workforce. Best available source for midwifery gap data.
Guttmacher Institute: Adding It Up (2020) [guttmacher.org]: Most cited cost-benefit analysis of meeting unmet need for family planning and maternal health services. Methodologically transparent; note advocacy orientation.
DHS Programme [dhsprogram.com]: Source of the unmet need and mCPR data that underpins UNFPA's family planning indicators. Country-level data accessible free of charge.
"What Works to Prevent Violence Against Women and Girls" programme [whatworks.co.za]: UK DFID-funded systematic review programme 2014–2020. The most comprehensive evidence synthesis on GBV programming globally.
IEO: Thematic Evaluation of UNFPA's Contribution to Ending Female Genital Mutilation (2020) [unfpa.org/evaluation]: Candid assessment of the FGM programme's evidence and challenges.
IEO: Thematic Evaluation of UNFPA's Contribution to Family Planning (2021) [unfpa.org/evaluation]: Detailed assessment with country-level evidence on rights-based quality and coverage tensions.