PEPFAR's annual planning process is done either at the country (COP) or regional level (ROP).
PEPFAR's programs are implemented through implementing partners who apply for funding based on PEPFAR's published Requests for Applications.
Since 2010, PEPFAR COPs have grouped implementing partners according to an organizational type. We have retroactively applied these classifications to earlier years in the database as well.
Also called "Strategic Areas", these are general areas of HIV programming. Each program area has several corresponding budget codes.
Specific areas of HIV programming. Budget Codes are the lowest level of spending data available.
Expenditure Program Areas track general areas of PEPFAR expenditure.
Expenditure Sub-Program Areas track more specific PEPFAR expenditures.
Object classes provide highly specific ways that implementing partners are spending PEPFAR funds on programming.
Cross-cutting attributions are areas of PEPFAR programming that contribute across several program areas. They contain limited indicative information related to aspects such as human resources, health infrastructure, or key populations programming. However, they represent only a small proportion of the total funds that PEPFAR allocates through the COP process. Additionally, they have changed significantly over the years. As such, analysis and interpretation of these data should be approached carefully. Learn more
Beneficiary Expenditure data identify how PEPFAR programming is targeted at reaching different populations.
Sub-Beneficiary Expenditure data highlight more specific populations targeted for HIV prevention and treatment interventions.
PEPFAR sets targets using the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting (MER) System - documentation for which can be found on PEPFAR's website at https://www.pepfar.gov/reports/guidance/. As with most data on this website, the targets here have been extracted from the COP documents. Targets are for the fiscal year following each COP year, such that selecting 2016 will access targets for FY2017. This feature is currently experimental and should be used for exploratory purposes only at present.
Years of mechanism: 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
This mechanism continues a TBD mechanism funded and described in COP 2012.
Over the past five years, the USG team has funded URC to provide technical assistance (TA) and mentoring to support quality improvement (QI) for HIV/AIDS prevention, care, and treatment services using a collaborative, team-based approach. Since COP11, URC has expanded this approach to build capacity among regional and district health managers (DRs and DDs) to oversee and monitor QI activities in their zones, with a view to transitioning responsibility for QI activities to the DRs and DDs.
In COP13, at the central level, URC will continue working with PNPEC, DRH, DFR and other offices of MSLS to 1) ensure that they possess the technical and programmatic information needed to sustain existing QI activities and 2) develop a coherent and feasible transition strategy.
At the decentralized level, URC will continue building the capacity of DRs and DDs in 10 regions to oversee QI activities; this will involve supporting the organization of quarterly meetings between DRs and DDs, as well as regular district-level meetings. URC will focus its site-level quality improvement collaboratives at a smaller number of health facilities that will serve as demonstration centers for organizations and health managers interested in integrating QI collaboratives at the sites they support or oversee. URC will use the findings from its 2012 case-control study on factors in loss to follow-up among ART patients to inform the focus of its regional, district and site-level QI activities in COP13. Those service quality issues most closely linked with patient attrition will be given priority.
URC will also carry out a second study on loss to follow-up focusing on either the PMTCT cascade or retention in care.
This mechanism, funded and described as a TBD in COP 2012 and later identified, is being continued. As such, OGAC guidance was that no narrative is needed.
