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
USG will identify a partner to implement basic program evaluation activities that will primarily be focused on investigating the impact of general population abstinence and/or be faithful (AB), other prevention (OP) and most at risk populations (MARP) prevention intervention activities that USG Mozambique will be beginning in FY 2010. The primary objectives of this multi-prevention program evaluation are to quantify and qualify the impact of the newly developed prevention interventions on behavior change, normative behaviors, beliefs and attitudes that impact behavior change and attitudes towards HIV and sexual transmission practices for general populations and for MARP populations. Another primary goal of this program evaluation will be develop rigrous costing methodologies that will allow the USG and the government of Mozambique to have better estimates and projections around prevention interventions.
This activity will also provide data around multiple concurrent partnership reduction and other quantitative data related to general population and MARP activities, that will be used for baseline, target and ongoing program monitoring.
The evaluation will be a multi-province evaluation. The evaluation will first field test various methodological and logistical questions for feasibility. The evaluation may also include interviews and focus group sessions with participants of the multiple different types of prevention interventions that took place and would provide comparative impacts of different types of interventions with different populations.
Given the crucial importance of improving the GOM and the USG's understanding of how to effectively reduce HIV incidence in Mozambique a basic program evaluation of this sort is urgently needed. The basic program evaluation content may also include collecting HIV, survey, qualitative and other data to allow for a multivariate analysis and triangulation of potential associations between self-reported behavior, exposure to interventions, and HIV incidence.
Regardless of the exact shape of the basic program evaluation, it will be critically important to employ rigorous methods for measuring behavioral outcomes in addition to HIV status and/or other biomedical indicators. Key behavioral indicators to be collected include measures of multiple concurrent partnerships, e.g.: 1) the % of adult males and females reporting two or more partners during the previous 6 month period; 2) the % of adults reporting two or more "regular" partners (defined as someone with whom one has been having sex for at least 6 months) over the previous period; and 3) normative and structural behaviors of the general population and MARP that impact people's decision to engage in high- risk behaviors.
This basic program evaluation will provide a costing component that will both provide additional information around the general costs associated with prevention programs (an area in which there is little information), costs associated with behavior change outcomes and potential methods to increase cost- efficiencies. Based on costing data and increased data availability, USG and GOM will be able to better coordinate and target specific programs based on available cost data.
This is a new activity. The selected partner to implement this general prevention basic program evaluation will provide qualitative and quantitative data around the impacts in the general population and MARPs populations of sexual prevention interventions. The evaluation will encompass a baseline data collection based on either secondary data sources or a primary data collection process. The evaluation will encompass rigourous data collection and analysis to be implemented during the beginning point of the interventions and carried out regulary during the life of the project.
The selected partner will be responsible for implementing the evaluation and ensuring that there are mechanisms in place for quality assurance and supportive supervision to data collection officers in the field.