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: 2014 2016 2017 2018
NOTE: The following is taken from summaries released by PEPFAR on the PEPFAR Data Dashboard. They are incomplete summary paragraphs only and do not contain the full mechanism details. When the full narratives are released, we will update the mechanism pages accordingly.
The purpose of the Evaluate for Health contract is to establish a mechanism to support USAID/Ghana in strengthening M&E practices in evaluation studies and assessments, performance monitoring and evaluation assistance and strengtheninglLocal capacity for research management. Evaluate for Health will provide overall evaluation support to USAID/Ghana’s Health Systems Strengthening (HSS) Project including establishing baselines, developing and implementing studies and evaluations and rapidly implementing operations research to respond to evolving data or circumstances to guide continual programmatic improvement.
Evaluate for Health will measure overall HSS Project effectiveness, transparency and optimal use of health resources and provide critical project implementation feedbac through studies and rapidly implemented operations research. This will include enabling USAID to contribute to joint assessments and reviews with the Ministry of Health and the Health Sector Working Group. Evaluate for Health will also be responsible for establishing baselines for the HSS Project and will conduct independent mid-term and end-term evaluations of projects.
Pipeline funds will be used to fund this mechanism.
Since COP2014, PEPFAR no longer produces narratives for every mechanism it funds. However, PEPFAR has now included performance targets or indicator information for each mechanism based on the Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting (MER) system. The MER guidance is available on PEPFAR's website https://www.pepfar.gov/reports/guidance/. Note that COP years 2014-2015 were under a previous version of the MER system and the indicators and definitions may have changed as of the new 2.0 guidance.
This mechanism has no published performance targets or indicators.
