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: 2010 2011 2012
In January 2010 the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator (OGAC) MC Technical Working Group (TWG) offered to the Swazi Ministry of Health (MOH) MC Task Force (TF) that if the Government of the Kingdom of Swaziland (GKOS) were supportive, OGAC would be able to financially support an accelerated scale up of the five year plan so that all MCs could be carried out within one year. By the end of February, the GKOS had approved this option. A detailed action plan is being prepared in Swaziland by the MOH MC TF.
Reaching 80% of 15-49 year old men with MC services in less than 12 months could prevent 88,000 (44% of all) new HIV infections through 2025 (compared to 64,000 and 33% in the current five year strategy). Through the ASI, Swaziland will be uniquely situated to demonstrate actual population-level reductions in HIV incidence nationally, most quickly among circumcised men and shortly thereafter among women and uncircumcised men. Post-MC scale-up reductions in HIV incidence among womenan indirect benefit of declining population-level prevalencehas yet to be demonstrated. This initiative will be the first chance to show these results and will have broad implications for future MC programs in the region.
Swazilands MC ASI strategy endeavors to provide voluntary MC for HIV prevention services to approximately 125,000-175,000 Swazi males 15-49 years of age in a 12 month period. There are approximately 236,594 Swazi boys/men of this age; 8% (18,928) are already circumcised, and 26% (61,514) are HIV positive. HIV testing will be offered (but not required) for all men participating in the ASI. Presently, approximately 82% of men electing to go for MC choose to also be tested for HIV. Comparable statistics for the ASI will show 140,000 150,000 men who will elect to take an HIV test. So as not to deplete the national supply of test kits PEPFAR will need to procure the test kits and other commodities to support this aspect of the ASI. The money received to date from OGAC is insufficient to cover all supplies and commodities needed, hence why this one-time funding is requested through unallocated country funds.
