Guttmacher Institute - Center facts. Shape policy. Advance sexual and reproductive rights.

How Youth Advocates Make the Case for Safe Abortion Care

sramashwar — Tue, 29 Sep 2026 17:40:42 +0000

How Youth Advocates Make the Case for Safe Abortion Care sramashwar September 29, 2026

Exclude from search

Video Type

YouTube Short

Senior Data Analyst, Research and Advocacy

lkhan — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 20:37:36 +0000

Senior Data Analyst, Research and Advocacy

Organization

Founded in 1968, the Guttmacher Institute is a global leader in advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights. Through a unique and interrelated program of high-quality research, evidence-based advocacy and strategic communications, the Institute works to generate new ideas, encourage enlightened public debate, and promote sound policy and program development; its overarching goal is to ensure the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health and rights for all people worldwide. The Institute is engaged in building a more inclusive, transparent and equitable organization.

Position summary

The Senior Data Analyst, Research and Advocacy is a position that integrates rigorous quantitative analysis with substantive policy expertise to advance the Institute’s international research programs. The position works collaboratively with program scientists, policy colleagues, and external partners to advance AIU and related international research, while playing a central and substantive role in connecting analytical outputs to policy-relevant questions, country-level programs, and a broad network of research and advocacy partners. The position reports to, and operates under the scientific direction of, a Senior or Principal Research Scientist.

The Senior Data Analyst, Research and Advocacy operates with a substantial degree of independence, contributing original analysis and policy insight to global and country research programs. The position is expected to serve as a credible and authoritative relationship builder and manager with partner organizations, governments, and donors, and to lead the development of research products that address the informational needs of policy audiences at the country, regional, and global levels.

Responsibilities

Research and Analysis

Lead and oversee the annual update cycle of the AIU data collaborating with the AWW team and thinking of how to expand reach.
Lead and oversee data analysis activities within the AIU program and assigned international research projects, including management of large-scale population survey data (DHS, MICS, PMA) and development of analytic code and documentation in Stata and/or R.
Lead the design and interpretation of research through application of deep policy knowledge and analytical expertise, ensuring that quantitative outputs are framed and communicated in ways that are relevant to policy audiences.
Contribute to the development of new SRH indicators, measurement frameworks, and methodological innovations, remaining current with emerging research, data sources, and global standards.
Serve as first or contributing author on peer-reviewed publications, policy reports, and technical documents; provide substantive review of analytical and written outputs produced by junior research staff.
Policy Engagement and Evidence Translation
Contribute as a thought leader for the Institute’s international research programs, bringing demonstrated policy expertise to bear on research design and priorities, including translation of analytical findings into accessible, credible, and actionable evidence for policy audiences.
Co-lead the development and review of public-facing outputs including policy briefs, advocacy materials, donor-facing evidence syntheses, and country-specific analyses.
Engage substantively with regional and country-level policy frameworks, data systems, financing mechanisms and advocacy movements to ensure that research design and outputs are policy-relevant and contextually grounded.
Contribute policy and evidence perspectives to strategic communications and program development activities, in coordination with research leadership.
Team Leadership and Program Support
Provide mentorship, supervision, and technical guidance to junior research staff, supporting professional development and quality of analytical work.
Oversee training on data processing, analytic workflows, and documentation standards; establish and maintain systems for code reproducibility and institutional knowledge retention.
Support the AIU Program Manager and Program Leadership in workplan development, timeline management, staffing planning, and project monitoring.
Represent Guttmacher at external meetings, conferences, and high-level regional and global forums.
Work collaboratively with research scientists, policy and communications colleagues, and cross-divisional teams to advance integrated program goals and ensure coherence between analytical work and the Institute’s broader advocacy and communications strategy.
Perform other duties as assigned.

Qualifications and skills

At least seven years of progressively responsible experience in international SRHR or global health research, with a demonstrated track record of producing high-quality analytical outputs.
Substantive knowledge of SRHR policy and financing frameworks at the country, regional, and/or global level, including familiarity with international normative frameworks, data systems, and policy advocacy environments.
Advanced proficiency in statistical analysis using Stata and/or R; experience working with large-scale population survey data (DHS, MICS, PMA or comparable) required.
Demonstrated experience bridging quantitative research and policy engagement, including development of policy-relevant outputs for non-technical audiences.
Experience working with or managing partnerships with country- or regional-level organizations, civil society, governments, or multilateral bodies.
Strong writing and oral communication skills, with the ability to develop compelling research products across a range of formats and audiences.
Demonstrated capacity to work independently and to lead multi-stakeholder projects in complex, cross-cultural contexts.
Experience engaging with external partners, civil society organizations, or multilateral bodies in a research capacity is desirable.
Master's degree in a relevant field (public health, demography, epidemiology, political science, international development, or related discipline) and a minimum of seven years of progressively responsible related work experience; a doctoral degree may substitute for some experience.

Salary and benefits

The salary range for this position is between $116,000 to $124,650 and will be commensurate with experience,within the Senior Research Associate band. The base pay may vary depending on a wide range of factors. New hires are typically brought into the organization between the minimum to midpoint of the salary range posted depending on knowledge, skills and experience, and qualifications. Internal equity considerations will be reviewed before making a final offer.

We offer excellent benefits, including medical, dental, vision, and life insurance; vacation, personal, and sick time; paid parental leave; tuition reimbursement; commuting subsidy; and a 401(k) plan with employer match.

Guttmacher Institute strives to provide the training and support for staff needed to be successful in their positions and to grow professionally.

lkhan September 28, 2026

Director of Domestic Research

lkhan — Mon, 28 Sep 2026 20:07:19 +0000

Director of Domestic Research

Organization

Position summary

The Director of Domestic Research will report to the VP of Domestic Research and will help shape Guttmacher's scientific vision and strategy. As a member of the Research Management Team, they help lead the Research Division and work closely with the VPs of Research and U.S. Policy and Communications, the Director for International Research, Directors of Policy and Communications, and the Director of Institutional Giving to implement the Institute's wide-ranging policy -relevant domestic research portfolio.

The Director brings their own substantive research focus and will provide broader input across Guttmacher's work, dividing their time between research administration, fundraising, and their own research agenda while serving as a thought partner to the VP. The Director will directly supervise and oversee a team of multilevel researchers responsible for US-focused research activities

Responsibilities

Research oversight and execution

Assume primary responsibility for the current research portfolio within areas of oversight, ensuring timeliness and quality control of research activities and participation in review of activities and products at key stages of each project.
Provide broad, high-level guidance to projects at each key stage, including closer guidance and monitoring when no other principal research scientist (PRS), Director, or VP is on the project.
Devote approximately 50% of time to implement or support research activities, including by serving as project advisor, project principal or conducting research on one or more projects and 50% time to management and research administration and oversight.
Work with research division members to improve research infrastructure and the quality, accuracy, replicability and transparency of our work, including systems (statistical, programming, data management and infrastructure) or other work processes.
Lead, co-lead, stimulate, encourage, and contribute to the development of ideas and new proposals in close collaboration with the Vice Presidents and Development Directors. This includes idea generation/brainstorming, maintaining existent donor relationships and cultivating new donor relationships, advising on which proposals to move forward, drafting of research sections of grant applications, review of other sections as needed, and meeting with donors, as well as ensuring post-award review of interim and final reports to funders written by project managers or Development staff.
Ad-hoc duties as assigned
Divisional management and supervision
As an RMT member, help develop, implement, and monitor strategic plans for the Domestic portfolio
Work with the VP for Domestic Research, Development VP and Directors, and the Grants, Budgets, and Operations Team (gBOT) to develop budgets, manage grant funds, allocate staff time, report on spenddown, and close out projects
Coordinate budgetary and administrative work across the division with VPs, research administration, and other Directors; monitor adherence to budgets and workplans
Coordinate with Policy and Communications Directors to support cross-divisional communication and integration
Supervise principal and senior research scientists, with attention to performance and job satisfaction
Support the VP in recruiting senior/principal staff and lead recruitment on hiring midl-evel and junior staff
For staff under the director’s supervision
Proactively guide staff toward opportunities to grow their skills—methodological, substantive, and managerial alike.
Provide staff with adequate support, mentoring, and guidance.
Oversee promotions, conflict resolution, and disciplinary matters; serve as ombudsperson for staff concerns.
External relations
Cultivate and sustain strategic partnerships and collaborations with other organizations
Represent the Institute at high-level events, including giving presentations
Serve on advisory panels, grant review panels (e.g., NIH, SFP), and participate in other professional and external roles.

Education

Doctoral degree in social science, public health, or a closely related field.

Qualifications and skills

Doctoral degree in social science, public health, or a closely related field.
Minimum of 10 years conducting research on sexual and reproductive health (SRH), with a substantial, field-recognized publication record
Demonstrated commitment to policy-relevant, evidence-based research.
Proven experience managing, mentoring, and motivating researchers across seniority levels (junior through senior/principal), with a track record of helping staff grow professionally
Strong research administration skills: managing multiple concurrent projects, timelines, budgets, and competing priorities
Excellent written and verbal communication skills, including experience producing policy memos, funding proposals, and public-facing materials in addition to scientific publications.
Demonstrated ability to build and sustain collaborative relationships, both internally across divisions and externally with funders, partners, and collaborators.
Experience contributing to organizational or divisional strategy at a senior level.
Ability to travel domestically 10–20% annually

Salary and benefits

The salary range for this position is between $188,800 to $217,100 and will be commensurate with experience. This range is specific to the New York and DC area,and base pay may vary depending on a wide range of factors. New hires are typically brought into the organization between the minimum to midpoint of the salary range posted depending on knowledge, skills and experience, and qualifications. Internal equity considerations will be reviewed before making a final offer. We offer excellent benefits, including medical,dental,vision, and life insurance; vacation,personal, and sick time; paid parental leave; tuition reimbursement; commuting subsidy; and a 401(k) plan with employer match.

lkhan September 28, 2026

Fran Linkin

sramashwar — Fri, 25 Sep 2026 16:30:15 +0000

Fran Linkin

sramashwar September 25, 2026

Director of State Policy

New Guttmacher Data Highlight the Critical Role of Planned Parenthood in Delivering Affordable Contraceptive Care

jloewenberg — Wed, 23 Sep 2026 19:05:41 +0000

New Guttmacher Data Highlight the Critical Role of Planned Parenthood in Delivering Affordable Contraceptive Care September 23, 2026jloewenberg September 23, 2026 News Release

Use link

What Would Happen to Publicly Funded Contraceptive Care Without Planned Parenthood?

sramashwar — Tue, 22 Sep 2026 14:51:36 +0000

What Would Happen to Publicly Funded Contraceptive Care Without Planned Parenthood?

Contraception is a critical component of health and well-being, allowing people to prevent pregnancy, space and plan their pregnancies, manage and treat medical conditions, and prevent sexually transmitted infections. However, many people in the United States face steep barriers to accessing contraceptive services, which may be unaffordable for them or unavailable where they live. For over half a century, the publicly funded contraceptive care network has helped people surmount those barriers, providing funds for free or reduced-cost contraception through programs such as the Title X Family Planning Program and insurance coverage through Medicaid.

Unfortunately, this network is unable to fully meet people’s need for contraceptive care. New research from Guttmacher and Power to Decide provides a comprehensive picture of where gaps exist between the potential need for publicly funded contraception services and access to that care. This fact sheet draws on that research to explore a scenario in which Planned Parenthood health centers were removed from the publicly funded contraceptive care network. While this network includes a range of provider types— including public health departments and federally qualified health centers (FQHCs)— Planned Parenthood clinics play a pivotal role in this system, serving many patients who cannot otherwise afford or access contraceptive care. Nationwide, Planned Parenthood health centers served 1.6 million (33%) of the 4.7 million contraceptive clients who accessed publicly funded family planning centers in 2020. 

For decades, however, lawmakers and activists opposed to abortion rights have been lobbying to “defund Planned Parenthood” and trying to force the closure of Planned Parenthood health centers around the country. Amid sustained campaigns of mis- and disinformation, states have passed laws restricting Planned Parenthood’s ability to care for patients and the first and second Trump Administrations have compromised Title X’s reproductive health funding to clinics. In July 2025, anti-abortion forces came closer than ever to achieving these goals when the Republican majority in Congress passed HR 1, legislation that included an effective federal ban on Medicaid reimbursements to Planned Parenthood clinics for one year. After the law passed, nearly 30 Planned Parenthood clinics closed before the provision expired in July 2026.

Given these relentless attacks, it is important to understand the potential impact across the country if Planned Parenthood health centers were removed from the publicly funded contraceptive care network. The new research on access to contraception reveals that—of the estimated 21.5 million women^* who likely need public support for contraceptive care in the United States—very few live in a county with adequate contraceptive access. Currently, Planned Parenthood plays a key role in the fractured US health care system, ensuring that people in these underserved counties have access to at least some of the contraceptive care they need. Research has shown that without Planned Parenthood, other types of health centers could not accommodate those patients without dramatically increasing their capacity.

This fact sheet and accompanying map depict a scenario in which Planned Parenthood health centers could no longer access federal funding for contraceptive care. It highlights the estimated percentage change in access to publicly funded contraceptive care if Planned Parenthood health centers were no longer eligible to receive federal funding through Title X and Medicaid, and explores this potential impact at the county-level regionally and nationally.

Key Findings

Number of women impacted

If Planned Parenthood health centers were removed from the publicly funded contraceptive care system, 12.4 million women in need of publicly funded contraceptive care would be affected, representing 58% of the total number of US women likely to need this care. (Affected women are those living in a county that would experience any level of reduced access.)

Planned Parenthood is the only publicly funded contraceptive provider in 29 US counties, most of which are located in the Northeast and Midwest regions. The 240,860 women in need of publicly funded contraceptive care who live in those counties would lose their only source of affordable contraceptive care if the Planned Parenthood health centers in these counties were unable to provide these free or reduced-cost services. This loss of access would increase by 24% the number of women with no access to contraceptive care, which stands at over one million even with Planned Parenthoods in the system.
The largest absolute numbers of women who would be affected by Planned Parenthood’s removal from the publicly funded system are concentrated in the West and South. The West, the hardest-hit region by total women affected, has 4.1 million women across 94 counties who would face reductions in contraceptive access, driven largely by California’s 2.3 million women—more than 1 in 10 of all women in need nationally. The South adds another 3.7 million women across 68 counties, with Texas accounting for 1.3 million of those women. The Northeast adds another 2.3 million women across 84 counties, with nearly 963,000 women in need of publicly funded contraceptive care living in the 59 counties that would face reductions in access exceeding 50%.

County-level reductions in contraceptive access

Planned Parenthood affiliates operate in 316 counties, which constitute 10% of all counties in the United States. If all Planned Parenthood clinics were removed from the publicly funded system, 213 counties would experience at least a 50% reduction in contraceptive access from existing levels. These severe reductions in access would impact 6.7 million women (31% of all women in need of publicly funded contraceptive care). 
In 122 of the 316 counties (39%) where Planned Parenthoods are located, the local publicly funded clinic network is able to serve at least a quarter of women in need of affordable contraceptive care. Without Planned Parenthood health centers providing this care, only 21 (7%) of those counties could meet that threshold of need, which would represent a steep decline in contraceptive access across more than 100 counties. 
Planned Parenthood health centers provide the majority of publicly funded contraceptive care across parts of the West and Midwest. In many of these counties, women in need of publicly funded care would face a near-total loss of access if Planned Parenthood health centers were removed from the network. Such women in Washington and Oregon would see a median reduction in contraceptive access exceeding 77%. Women living in Wisconsin's 12 affected counties would face a median access reduction of 96%, and women across 20 affected counties in Ohio and Michigan would face median reductions of 68% and 79% respectively.

Why the Potential Loss of Planned Parenthood’s Affordable Contraceptive Care Matters

Planned Parenthood health centers provide an essential resource for patients who face financial and geographic barriers to accessing contraceptive care. Planned Parenthood’s absence from the publicly funded contraception network would have a devastating impact on patients across the country, with many regions experiencing an acute loss of affordable care. These cascading harms would be even more severe if the ongoing federal “defunding” efforts end up forcing more Planned Parenthood clinics to close, as they did in 2025 and 2026, with patients losing access to reproductive health and cancer screenings, gender-affirming care, abortion care and sex education.

Furthermore, attacks on Planned Parenthood are not happening in a vacuum. They are accompanied by Trump administration efforts to reshape the Title X network into a program that places more emphasis on pronatalism than reproductive autonomy and which would push people toward fertility awareness-based methods over other contraceptive methods, regardless of their preference. These efforts would erode high-quality, evidence-based standards of care and accountability and profoundly aggravate health inequities. HR 1 will also impose significant changes on Medicaid starting in 2027, including work requirements that threaten to eliminate Medicaid coverage for 2.1 million women aged 19‒49 (an age bracket in which women are most in need of reproductive health care).

In a health policy landscape shaped by ideological demands and punitive reductions in coverage, cuts to Planned Parenthood’s contraceptive service provision are most likely to impact those already struggling to access care. It is critical that policymakers and advocates stand up to the attacks on Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health providers who offer abortion care and advance policies that fully support all providers within the publicly funded contraceptive care network. That includes fully funding and strengthening Title X and ensuring that all Medicaid enrollees can use their coverage at the provider of their choice. For state lawmakers, it means they must do all they can to support access to reproductive health and to mitigate restrictive federal policies—as 15 states did when they committed emergency funding to help fill the gap in response to the one-year Medicaid defunding provision in HR 1. Without such funding and protections, millions of people could lose access to the contraceptive care that is essential to their health and well-being.

Methodology

This analysis draws on two key variables, each from distinct sources:  

(1) County-level contraceptive access. This variable represents county-level estimates of alignment between availability of publicly funded health centers providing contraception and women’s need for this care. Data on county-level contraceptive access come from The Contraceptive Access Maps, a collaborative effort between Power to Decide and the Guttmacher Institute.^† 

(2) County-level need for contraceptive services. This variable represents county-level numbers of women with a self-defined need for contraceptive care and who likely need public funding for this care—calculated as the sum of women under age 20 and women ages 20‒49 under 250% of the federal poverty level who indicate a self-defined need for contraceptive services in the county. Data on county-level need for contraceptive services come from New Measure of Self-Defined Need for Contraceptive Services in the United States, 2023, a recently published report from the Guttmacher Institute. 

Estimates of baseline county-level contraceptive access are drawn from The Contraceptive Access Maps and reflect access based on the provider landscape during 2020‒2023, which includes the nearly 30 Planned Parenthood sites that subsequently closed between July 2025 and June 2026 following the loss of federal Medicaid funding. We narrowed the baseline data to focus only on counties where Planned Parenthood affiliates operate within the broader publicly funded contraceptive care health system. Among this narrowed sample of counties, we recalculated estimates of county-level contraceptive access without Planned Parenthood affiliates, following the approach adopted for The Contraceptive Access Maps. Briefly, estimates of county-level contraceptive access were calculated by dividing the estimated number of patients served by the publicly funded network present in the county by the estimated number of women in the county under age 20 and under 250% of the federal poverty level with a self-defined need for contraceptive services. These preliminary estimates were capped at 1.0, and a distance penalty was applied. For this analysis, we removed county-level Planned Parenthood clinic numbers and patient caseloads and reran the original calculations.

The percentage change in county-level contraceptive access was then calculated for each of the 316 counties where Planned Parenthood affiliates operated, as the difference between the baseline estimates (including Planned Parenthoods) and the narrowed estimates (excluding Planned Parenthoods) expressed as a proportion of the baseline estimates. We examined the county-level impact of removing Planned Parenthoods from the overall landscape of publicly funded contraceptive care both in terms of percentage change in access (as described) and in absolute number of women affected, drawing on county-level need for contraceptive services. We looked at national-level impact as well as state and regional impact based on the four US Census regions. This analysis does not account for whether states would or would not use state funds to support individuals’ contraceptive care as a remedy in the absence of federal Medicaid dollars.

sramashwar September 22, 2026

Policy Resources

Contraceptive Services

Contraceptive coverage

Exclude from search

Facebook Image

Gap Fact sheet social@4x.png

Twitter Image

Gap Fact sheet social@4x.png

Power to Decide and the Guttmacher Institute Launch New Interactive Resource Revealing the Gaps in Contraceptive Access Across the United States

jloewenberg — Wed, 16 Sep 2026 13:34:13 +0000

Power to Decide and the Guttmacher Institute Launch New Interactive Resource Revealing the Gaps in Contraceptive Access Across the United States September 16, 2026jloewenberg September 16, 2026 News Release

Use link

Isabella Marte

sramashwar — Fri, 11 Sep 2026 17:02:34 +0000

Isabella Marte

sramashwar September 11, 2026

US Communications Assistant

Guttmacher Institute Announces 2026–2029 Strategic Plan to Meet Urgent Challenges Facing Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights

jloewenberg — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 14:47:37 +0000

Guttmacher Institute Announces 2026–2029 Strategic Plan to Meet Urgent Challenges Facing Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights September 10, 2026jloewenberg September 10, 2026 News Release

Use link

Just the Numbers: The Impact of Norway’s International Assistance for Family Planning, 2020–2025

sramashwar — Thu, 03 Sep 2026 21:01:04 +0000

Just the Numbers: The Impact of Norway’s International Assistance for Family Planning, 2020–2025 Policy Analysis sramashwar September 3, 2026 September 16, 2026

Download Analysis

Exclude from search

Automatic Redirect

Off

Suggested Citation

Sully EA and Rosenberg JD, Just the Numbers: The Impact of Norway’s International Assistance for Family Planning, 2020–2025, New York: Guttmacher Institute, 2026, http://www.guttmacher.org/2026/09/just-numbers-impact-norways-internati….