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: 2008 2009
ACTIVITY UNCHANGED FROM FY 2008 COP.
This activity has been rolled into the Measure Activity Narrative.
TITLE: Data Quality Assessments
NEED and COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE: The quality of achievements on PEPFAR indicators varies
widely among USG partners. Given the level of PEPFAR funding, it is critical to assess and improve data
quality.
USG will contract with an audit firm to conduct Data Quality Assessments (DQAs) with the goals of both
improving data quality and building the capacity of PEPFAR organizations to manage and report data
accurately.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS: This model, used in South Africa has led to better quality PEPFAR data and
enhanced capacity among organizations participating in assessments.
ACTIVITIES: The proposed Data Quality Assessment model is based on that of PEPFAR South Africa.
Tanzania proposes to contract with an audit firm to conduct the DQAs with support from PEPFAR-Tanzania
SI staff and TBD for building SI Capacity (formerly MEASURE Evaluation).
USG will select partners to participate in DQAs based on large budgets, large targets, and concerns about
performance. USG will strive to obtain some balance by USG agency and program area.
The DQAs are designed as a three-phased approach, using standardized tools based on USAID and other
internationally accepted standards. At each phase, the DQA team identifies risks to data quality. This
prompts a dialogue between the assessor and the partner regarding approaches to improving systems, and
resolving problems and data quality risks. The DQA team reports to findings of each phase, with associated
recommendations, in detail to both the USG and the partner. The DQA team prepares a report for each
phase. The partner and USG develop a technical assistance plan.
Phase 1: Phase 1 assessments are conducted with a new group of partners as identified by the USG Task
Force. In this phase, the partner's data management system (DMS) and associated processes and
procedures are examined through a self-evaluation, followed by a review of the DMS by the assessor. The
main objective is to prepare the partner for Phase 2 and familiarize them with the DQA process.
Phase 2: Phase 2 involves validation and verification of reported data. The assessor uses two selected
indicators (from source) and tracks it through the partner's DMS to evaluate the reported data for validity,
reliability, timeliness, precision and integrity. Any identified risks are reported to the partner and the USG
with recommendations for corrective action. Partners with high risk scores are issued compliance notes
indicating poor data management and quality practices. The compliance notes also provide
recommendations for resolving the poor practices.
Phase 3: Phase 3 is the follow-up visit which is only done with those partners who received a compliance
note based on a high risk score in Phase 2. The assessor re-examines the data quality issues found during
Phase 2 and assesses whether the corrective action taken by the partners reduces the risks that were
outlined. If the assessor is satisfied, the compliance note is officially closed. This final visit also serves as
an additional opportunity for the partner to receive technical assistance from the assessor on data quality
practices.
M&E: A tool will be used to assess the quality and timelines of PEPFAR data submissions. Partner
performance will be tracked by partner characteristics including whether they have participated in a DQA.
SUSTAINAIBLITY: The DQA process builds M&E capacity of partners.
New/Continuing Activity: Continuing Activity
Continuing Activity: 17724
Continued Associated Activity Information
Activity Activity ID USG Agency Prime Partner Mechanism Mechanism ID Mechanism Planned Funds
System ID System ID
17724 17724.08 U.S. Agency for To Be Determined 8241 8241.08 IP DQA
International
Development
Table 3.3.17:
