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.
High quality monitoring and evaluation of orphans and vulnerable children (OVC) programs requires effective information gathering systems. To overcome data management challenges, OVC partners are working with grantees and communities on data quality, collection and management procedures to strengthen the validity, reliability, timeliness, completeness, and integrity of data at the different levels. Consistent and constructive supportive supervision with partners is needed to achieve quality monitoring and evaluation. This mechanism will assist in providing this, in a manner that can later be transitioned to government or other local entities.
Strong M&E systems are an essential foundation to improving the effectiveness of OVC programs. Quality M&E provide the evidence and essential information necessary for strategic planning and program improvement as well as increased accountability of funds. This mechanism will work with partners and government to assess existing systems and design activities to improve M&E systems that can be sustained.
OVC programs often lack robust program research and evaluations as well as adequate monitoring and data tracking systems, in part due to a lack of funds committed to this area. The Ethiopian PEPFAR team has been advised through the new guidance for OVC programming, issued in July 2012, to allocate at least 10 percent of HKID budgets to ensure adequate funds for rigorous research, and M&E activities. Accordingly, this mechanism is designed to have a mid-term evaluation of the Yekokeb Birhan program and to consider undertaking assessments or special studies of interventions at the community and household levels per guidance from USG technical working groups and other stakeholders such as the Ethiopian National OVC Task Force.
Program M&E is needed to confirm that OVC programs are achieving the desired results and that those results can be associated with the interventions. Many of the elements needed to provide rigorous research and improve monitoring and evaluation systems require as adequate funding and use of external experts. Thus, in this mechanism external experts will be considered as needed to make program assessments like midterm evaluation, conduct special studies, and measure the technical and management performance of organizations aiming to impact child wellbeing, especially, the degree to which changes in the organizations contribute to improved services to highly vulnerable children at the household and community levels. A possible special study may include review of existing processes to prepare for transition of activities for highly vulnerable children and their families from international to local entities.
