This is an average of the three domain scores below.
The Department of State received a 60 (D-) with transparency and a 65 (D) without transparency. The Family Planning and Maternal and Child Health grades are low because the only guidance that was issued in these domains included the PLGHA Six Month Review and FAQs, neither of which were evidence-based, based in human rights norms, or gender transformative. The Department of State did issue technical guidance and annual reports that support HIV and AIDS programs that are evidence-based, based in human rights norms, and responsive to need, but are not gender transformative. In all three domains, the Department of State’s funding data received a high transparency score and the issued guidance received a lower transparency score.
The Department of State received a 90 (A-) with transparency and 93 (A) without transparency for HIV and AIDS based on eight relevant guidance documents released in 2018. Aside from the guidance documents related to the implementation of PLGHA, the State Department issued guidance documents and reports that were responsive to need, evidence-based, and grounded in human rights principles regarding HIV and AIDS. The Department of State released detailed technical guidance documents that guide country-level PEPFAR programs. The Department of State also released annual reports that document programmatic progress and demonstrate areas for improvement. Overall, the guidance documents and annual reports do not include gender transformative language. The Department of State’s commitment to comprehensive HIV and AIDS programming is demonstrated in the disbursement of funds for HIV and AIDS programming according to country-level incidence.
The State Department received a 35 (F) with transparency and a 40 (F) without transparency for Maternal and Child Health based on two documents related to the PLGHA expansion of the Global Gag Rule: the Six Month Review and the FAQ. Neither is gender aware nor based in evidence or human rights principles. However, both documents are responsive to need because they address concerns and questions from partners regarding the implementation of PLGHA. The omittance of specific references to MCH programming in both documents indicates that the State Department is not considering the unique impact of the implementation of PLGHA on maternal and child health programs. This shortsightedness has serious implications for the ability of the State Department to implement comprehensive MCH programming. With regards to budget allocation, the State Department budget evaluation depicts that funds are being distributed according to countries with the highest maternal mortality.
The Department of State received a 56 (F) with transparency and 60 (D-) without transparency for Family Planning based on two documents related to the PLGHA expansion of the Global Gag Rule: the Six Month Review and the FAQ. Neither is gender aware nor based in evidence or human rights principles. However, both documents are responsive to need because they address concerns and questions from partners regarding the implementation of PLGHA. In the budget evaluation, the Department of State largely disbursed family planning funds in accordance with unmet contraceptive need. However, access to family planning and contraception was severely impacted by the Department of State once again defunding UNFPA due to an unsubstantiated Kemp-Kasten amendment violation in FY 2019.