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: 2008 2009
The political situation in Cote d'Ivoire has left only two primary donors for HIV/AIDS: PEPFAR and the
Global Fund (GF). Côte d'Ivoire is the recipient of a Round 2 GF grant for HIV/AIDS in the amount of
$46,139,043, beginning Dec. 1, 2003, and ending Nov. 30, 2008. The principal recipient of this grant was
the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), with PricewaterhouseCoopers as local fund agent. The
GF withheld funds from a Phase 2 disbursement planned for Oct. 31, 2006, after UNDP failed to meet
conditions (described in a modification-to-grant agreement) that included a revised procurement plan,
transparency and accountability regarding the cost-recovery system for care and treatment, and revised
guidelines for selecting sub-recipients and monitoring sub-recipients' activities.
Earlier, in August 2006, PEPFAR had to issue an urgent order using country funds to avoid an imminent
stock-out of ARVs due to a previous GF disbursement withholding. Cote d'Ivoire's Minister of Health
requested assistance from funding partners to provide ARVs during this crisis period. In response, the USG
PEPFAR team in Côte d'Ivoire and the Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator (OGAC) authorized the
Partnership for Supply Chain Management (SCMS) to procure ARVs for six months (three months of stock
until March 2007 plus three months of buffer stock), at an estimated cost of $3 million. As of Jan. 25, 2007,
SCMS had committed $2,343,902 to purchase ARVs.
In FY07, the USG country team worked in close collaboration with the GF Geneva team to engage Cote
d'Ivoire's CCM in transparent processes for the nomination of a new PR and for reform of the CCM. A
Management Sciences for Health (MSH) team concluded the first part of the CCM reform assignment in
May 2007. It recommended the following steps:
• Change of the CCM (through modifications in its establishment decree) from an organization that is by
default associated with the Ministry of Health (MOH), with the minister as CCM chair, to an organization that
is associated with a technical section of the prime minister's office or the Ministry of Planning. This is the
most feasible intermediate step to address the immediate, inherited conflict of interests while the CCM
works toward a longer-term solution that would include establishing the CCM as an independent NGO.
• A transition process led by the current CCM, with milestones that include CCM members' election by their
own sectors and dissolution of the current CCM and constitution of the new CCM.
PEPFAR plans to continue to fund technical assistance through the MSH team. In FY08, technical support
will focus primarily on the Oversight Committee to ensure that quarterly oversight is provided and that
committee members and resource persons acquire experience in identifying and resolving problems
surpassing the authority of the PRs. Technical support will also focus on the Executive Committee and its
relations with the full CCM, emphasizing transparency and referral of decisions to the full CCM and fostering
open discussion and debate by all members. Support to the CCM will be directed to ensure that the CCM
makes a timely and informed decision about a Round 8 submission based on a thorough and high-quality
gap analysis for each disease.
Regarding support for a quality-controlled, capacity-building proposal-development process, MSH will
provide a technical support team of facilitators and finance and targeting experts, as well as support for
budgeting, partnership mobilization, and design. The team will guide the CCM/CI through a transparent
proposal-development process mobilizing civil-society partners and based on gap analysis. Skills building
with CCM members will focus on key decisions of themes, objectives, principal recipients, sub-recipients,
size of project, and review of drafts. Skills building with national program managers and future partners will
focus on producing a high-quality, multisector proposal that includes explicit grants-management and
capacity-building activities.
MSH will scale back its support as the CCM demonstrates skills and transparent decision-making and
acquires a strong local expert pool. This phase will end with a one-year evaluation of the CCM
