Cargando…
An Evaluation of Local Implementing Partner Performance During the First 2 Years of the USAID/PEPFAR Transition
INTRODUCTION: Locally led and owned development is considered the best practice for international aid. As an implementing agency for the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) supported the goal of transitioning 70% of its port...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Global Health: Science and Practice
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10285723/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37348934 http://dx.doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-22-00337 |
Sumario: | INTRODUCTION: Locally led and owned development is considered the best practice for international aid. As an implementing agency for the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) supported the goal of transitioning 70% of its portfolio funding directly to local organizations by 2020, including partner country governments. However, limited evidence or evaluation exists on how such a transition can help achieve HIV-related health outcomes. METHODS: We evaluated monitoring, evaluation, and reporting performance; calculated indicators; and quality of service across the HIV/AIDS treatment cascade for local and international partners in the USAID/PEPFAR portfolio implementing similar programs during the U.S. Government fiscal years (FY) 2019 to 2020 (October 1, 2018–September 30, 2020). We compared results aggregated globally, by country, and across individual partners. RESULTS: Globally, local partners met a lower proportion of their treatment targets than international partners and did not meet targets for pre-exposure prophylaxis or voluntary medical male circumcision in FY2020. However, local partners exceeded targets in programs supporting orphans, vulnerable children, and key populations affected by HIV/AIDS. Local partners also had testing positivity, linkage rates, and viral load suppression that were equivalent to or higher than that of international partners. Based on available assessments, local partners displayed quality of service delivery comparable to international partners. CONCLUSION: Local partners faced challenges, including unfamiliarity with USAID funding, increasing targets across several indicators, and the syndemics of HIV/AIDS and COVID-19. A higher percentage of targets and funding led South African local partners to yield an outsized effect on global percent target achievement. While these findings should be interpreted cautiously due to limited sample size and short time horizon, they are a key first step in evaluating the local partner transition support of the long-term goal of sustained epidemic control of HIV/AIDS. |
---|