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.
THIS IS A NEW ACTIVITY.
NEED
Throughout the last four years of PEPFAR, the emphasis of M&E has largely been on "M" - monitoring -
through the collection of routine data. In Tanzania the USG team has identified a need to focus on basic
evaluation of programs to generate information that can be immediately applied to improve program
implementation. To date, there has been no mechanism to assist interagency technical teams (ITT) in
Tanzania to rapidly develop and implement Basic Program Evaluations (BPEs). While implementing
partners may individually assess their own programs, simple yet well-developed BPE have not been
undertaken at the ITT level.
This activity proposes to fund rapid, well-defined and locally focused BPEs. Program evaluations would be
developed and coordinated by the Tanzania ITTs with assistance from the IQC funding mechanism.
Findings from these evaluations will not be generalizable beyond the program but will be immediately
available to programs to improve activities. BPE is considered necessary to help guide PEPFAR
programming and to inform policy development.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Capacity development in BPE was initiated at the USG level in October 2007 when a team of six PEPFAR
staff (USAID and CDC) attended a two-week USAID-sponsored certificate program in Evaluation. Following
that course, the Community Services Strategic Results Unit conducted an assessment of home-based care
services (HBC) provided by PEPFAR Tanzania partners and related monitoring systems. This assessment
was designed and implemented over a short period of time; the proposal was developed at the ITT level
and the assessment was completed in March and April of 2008.
The assessment included a self-administered questionnaire completed by 20 PEPFAR-funded regional
HBC partner programs, group interviews with 125 HBC volunteers, and a review of 11 field monitoring
systems. Results were provided to partners and the Government of Tanzania to inform efforts to improve
the national M&E system and advocate for guideline changes in home-based care. The process and
outcomes of the BPE enhanced understanding within the ITT of HBC services and related challenges in
service-delivery, and also provided valuable information for the COP 09 planning cycle.
The assessment was carried out using USG staff in collaboration with selected partners. While this BPE
proved a successful and valuable undertaking, staffing and logistics for the assessment were a significant
challenge to be addressed with FY09 funding.
ACITIVITES
FY09 funding will support 4-5 basic program evaluations to be developed by the eight ITTs and
implemented with the assistance of the IQC mechanism. These will be rapid evaluations completed within a
limited period of time and dissemination of results to key stakeholders will be an integral part of the
evaluation process. BPEs are not Public Health Evaluations, but short targeted assessments producing
findings and recommendations that can be immediately applied to improve programs.
Each ITT, with the help of agency M&E officers, will identify basic evaluation questions they deem important
to their program area. Questions will be submitted to the PEPFAR Management and Operations Unit which
will prioritize 4-5 projects. ITTs with priority projects will develop a proposal detailing the purpose,
objectives, main questions, methodology, use of results, budget and timeline of their evaluation. Each
proposal will also include a special section addressing capacity development.
The IQC mechanism will be used to support data collection, interviewers, logistics, and travel. The needs of
each BPE will depend on scope of the BPE and other time commitments of USG and partner staff. All BPE
will include a strong capacity development component for the local partners involved.
Examples of BPE that this activity will fund include;
oProcess evaluations to measure performance in terms of input, process and or outputs among the
populations enrolled in the program or receiving the services
oDescriptive process assessments
oPeriodic system evaluations
oBaseline needs assessments
oUtilization of existing data for program improvement
New/Continuing Activity: New Activity
Continuing Activity:
Table 3.3.17:
