-- APPENDIX B --

In a 1996 nation-wide poll by University of Maryland, those surveyed felt that 5% of the US budget was an appropriate level for the US to spend on development assistance. Currently, less than 1% of the federal budget is earmarked for international aid, and under half of that goes to humanitarian assistance (96G1). Some more poll results follow:

• 72% of US citizens think that population is a critical issue (1998 Roper Poll).
• 72% of Americans believe their government should make contraception available to all (1998 Roper Poll).
• 87% of Americans believe over-population to be a problem in the US. 10% believe it does not. 55% consider those problems "major" (Roper poll, 6/4/90).
• 55% of Americans believe that "over-population is a major national problem that needs to be addressed now" (1996 Roper poll) (96M1).
• 58% of Americans agree with the statement: "The federal government should provide free sterilizations for low-income men and women of child-bearing age who voluntarily choose it" (1998 Roper Poll).
• Funding for voluntary IFP programs (not including abortion services) is favored by 80% of Americans (Washington Post, 4/5/00).
• 60% of Americans believe the Earth is over-populated (Washington Post, 4/5/00).
• 71% of Americans that believe that "too much population growth in developing countries is holding back their economic development" (vs. 55% in 1994) (Washington Post, 4/5/00).
• Hispanics are more likely to support funding for IFP programs than any other group, and 33% of Hispanics rank population growth as a very serious problem, vs. 20% of the general population (Washington Post, 4/5/00).

A recent Rand report (00A1) found that 59% of Americans support international assistance, the highest percentage since attitudes were first tracked in 1974. Of those favoring assistance, 60% believe it will ultimately benefit the US economically. When asked how the assistance dollars should be spent, two of the top goals were improving children's health and increasing child survival rates. The fifth most popular program was helping women in poor countries avoid unintended pregnancies, followed by helping countries slow their rate of population growth.

Understanding that American legislators who tend to vote against abortion are also less likely to support IFP programs, a Rand poll (00A1) of over 1500 people sought to determine if these legislators were representing their constituency. They found that attitudes towards abortion actually exert only "minor influence" in America's attitude towards family planning. 80% of Americans polled supported US funding for voluntary IFP programs in other countries, with another 86% favoring family-planning services for poor women. In analyzing the polls, Rand (00A1) drew two major conclusions:

• About half the public believes that abortion reflects a lack of access to family-planning services;
• Of the 46% opposing funding for over-seas abortions, 2/3 support funding for IFP.

As for lessons learned:

• The public lacks a clear grasp of what IFP means and whether abortion is included;
• Public policy discussions should separate IFP and abortion in order to produce policies which better reflect public opinion;
• The public needs to be better educated on research evidence that suggests better IFP services reduce the number of abortions (00A1).

In another Rand study (00U1) on how swing voters in Congress view global population issues, nearly unanimous support was found for US support of voluntary IFP. Legislative directors report that these members of Congress see links between population growth and national security, the environment, child health, and other issues. They also see voluntary IFP programs as an appropriate way to address population growth rates in developing countries. This judgment did not vary by party, length of time in office, position on abortion, or position on other population-related issues. Respondents frequently noted concern, however, that such programs need to be culturally appropriate, suggesting that Congress would benefit from greater awareness of the research showing how family planning and related health programs can be successfully adapted to local contexts.

In summary, Americans favor government support for IFP by wide and growing margins. Americans are also concerned about over-population in both developing nations and the US - also by wide and growing margins. These same views are held almost globally.

APPENDIX B  REFERENCES:
96G1 Alan Guttmacher Institute, "Endangered: US Aid for IFP Overseas", 1996
96M1 Jim Motavalli, "Contents Under Pressure", E Magazine, Nov./Dec. 1996, pp.28-37.
00A1 David M. Adamson, Nancy Belden, Julie DaVanzo, Sally Patterson, "How Americans View World Population Issues: A Survey of Public Opinion", RAND MR-1114-DLPF/WFHF/RF (2000)
00U1 (Author Unknown) "Opinions that Count: How Swing Voters in Congress view Global Population Issues", RAND, RB-5041 (2000). http://www.rand.org/publications/RB/RB5041/ 

Go To Appendix A -- "Overpopulation in Developing Nations in terms of Food/ Fiber/Water Constraints" 
Go to main document - "An Analysis of the Controversy over US Support for International Family Planning 
Go to home Page - "Review of the Global Literature on Carrying Capacity Issues"