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: 2011 2012
Funded by the Presidents Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and established in fiscal year 2005, the Supply Chain Management System (SCMS) project is helping host nations increase their capacity for delivering essential lifesaving HIV/AIDS medicines and supplies to people in need of treatment and care. Operating in some of the countries most severely impacted by HIV/AIDS, SCMS works in collaboration with host-country governments and local and global partners; procures essential medicines and supplies at affordable prices; helps strengthen and build reliable, secure and sustainable supply chains systems; and fosters coordination of key stakeholders. In Kenya SCMS is responsible for procuring, warehousing and distribution of laboratory reagents, equipments and consumables including HIV test kits. SCMS collaborates with the Government of Kenya and in-country partners to maintain a system for ensuring that PEPFAR-supported government sites receive continuous supplies of laboratory commodities. This activity supports GHI/LLC and will be funded completely with FY12 funds. SCMS has not purchased/will not purchase vehicles with PEPFAR-Kenya funds.
In December 2011, PEPFAR removed Bioline HIV test kit from the list of authorized test kits to be used by PEPFAR partners. In Kenya Bioline was being used as the confirmatory test, therefore the withdrawal of Bioline meant that there was an urgent need for a new test kit to be used as a confirmatory test. The GOK with support from the Kenya USG team decided to move unigold test kit from being to a tie-breaker to become the new confirmatory test. This meant that the country needed urgent stocks of unigold to enable the testing to continue. Unigold is more expensive than bioline but in addition there were associated costs for recalling bioline. In view of the costs associated with the recall of bioline and buying Unigold, Kenya requested for support to finance this unplanned for expenses and it was agreed that the money will be refunded from the COP 12 allocation. Therefore, the requested funds under this budget code are expected to be used for refunding the money used to support the recall.
