Compiling the Intervention Plan Data
Public reporting burden of this collection of
information is estimated to be 0.83 hours per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid
OMB control number.
Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to
CDC/ATSDR Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, MS D-24, Atlanta,
Georgia, 30333; ATTN: PRA (0920-0497).
Back to top
The intervention plan reflects basic characteristics of interventions for
specific risk populations as they are proposed at the beginning of a funding
cycle in the jurisdiction. These data provide a timely snapshot of the
distribution and coverage of HIV prevention services scheduled to occur in the
CDC requests that health departments provide aggregate data from their
jurisdiction for each of the seven types of interventions5 for each
risk population (defined here as a risk exposure category). The
jurisdiction-level aggregate data for all intervention types requested by CDC
- a count of the agencies providing the interventions, by type
(e.g., minority-owned CBO, local health department)
- a projection of the number of clients to be served
For some types of interventions, health departments will be requested to
- a categorization of the funded interventions based on
- the adequacy of the evidence or theory used to support the development
and implementation of the intervention in addition to the providers’
experience with the intervention and their constituent population
- the extent to which the service provider explained how and why the
intervention will achieve its intended effects in their setting
- the adequacy of the service plan for implementing the intervention
Each individual intervention plan—which may be in the form of contracts,
workplans, or other agreements between the health department and the
provider—may include much more information than is requested here. For instance,
each intervention plan likely includes process and outcome objectives, detailed
plans for implementing the intervention, and descriptions of quality assurance
The data requested here constitute a minimal standard description of the HIV
prevention services that can be used by CDC for accountability and program
improvement. Health departments may want to collect additional information for
their own management, accountability, and program improvement purposes. In
addition, the data asked for here are an aggregate reflecting a type of
intervention in the jurisdiction for a particular population (e.g., all outreach
in the jurisdiction for injection drug users). Each health department will have
more detailed information on each separate intervention to be used for
management and evaluation purposes. Data at the separate intervention level are
not being asked for by CDC through this reporting system.
Back to top
Compiling the Intervention Plan Data
In order to aggregate data for reporting to CDC, each jurisdiction will need
a mechanism to obtain the relevant data from each provider (either a contracted
agency or the health department itself). Once the data are available for each
separate intervention, they can be compiled and aggregated for reporting to CDC.
Each jurisdiction is asked to report the data elements in the manner defined
on the example report form for each type of intervention. Reports should ensure
that the data are presented in the same format (e.g., using the same terms,
categories, etc.) as that shown in the example. However, these data may be
collected, managed, analyzed, and reported using the technology that is most
convenient for the health department. In other words, these data may be
submitted as hard-copy on these example forms, or they can be submitted as an
electronic file, with the data formatted to match that used on the forms.
The Seven Types of Interventions (Which Data to Report)
Each aggregate intervention plan report consists of descriptive data for one
of seven particular types of interventions that will be provided for a specific
risk population in the jurisdiction. The table on the following pages defines
each of these seven types of interventions. An aggregate intervention plan
compiles the data describing all of a single type of intervention for one risk
For example, one intervention plan report should include all the outreach
that is funded for MSM throughout the jurisdiction. If the health department
funds or provides 10 outreach interventions for MSM, then the one outreach
intervention plan report should reflect all 10 of those. Another report would
cover all outreach funded for IDUs, and a third would include all outreach
targeting people with heterosexual risks.
Similarly, a separate report would be used to describe all individual-level
interventions for MSM, another for health communications or public information
for MSM, and another for prevention case management for MSM.
||No intervention plan report needs to be made for
intervention types that are not funded for a given population. Thus, if
jurisdiction does not fund any individual-level interventions for people
with heterosexual risk, no report is needed for this group. Similarly,
if no interventions at all are funded for the general population, no
reports would be needed for this risk population.
|Intervention Types Used in CDC’s Evaluation Data
- Individual-level Interventions (ILI)
|Health education and risk-reduction counseling provided to one
individual at a time. ILIs assist clients in making plans for individual
behavior change and ongoing appraisals of their own behavior and include
skills building activities. These interventions also facilitate linkages
to services in both clinic and community settings (e.g., substance abuse
treatment settings) in support of behaviors and practices that prevent
transmission of HIV, and they help clients make plans to obtain these
Note: According to a strict categorization,
outreach and prevention case management also are individual-level
interventions. However, for the purposes of this reporting, ILI does
not include outreach or prevention case management, which each
constitute their own intervention categories.
- Group-level Interventions (GLI)
|Health education and risk-reduction counseling (see above) that
shifts the delivery of service from the individual to groups of varying
sizes. GLIs use peer and non-peer models involving a wide range of
skills, information, education, and support.
providers may consider general education activities to be group-level
interventions. However, for the purposes of this reporting, GLI does
not include “one-shot” educational presentations or lectures (that
lack a skills component). Those types of activities should be included
in the Health Communication/Public Information category.
|HIV/AIDS educational interventions generally conducted by peer or
paraprofessional educators face-to-face with high-risk individuals in
the clients’ neighborhoods or other areas where clients’ typically
congregate. Outreach usually includes distribution of condoms, bleach,
sexual responsibility kits, and educational materials. Includes peer
opinion leader models.
- Prevention Case Management (PCM)
|Client-centered HIV prevention activity with the fundamental goal of
promoting the adoption of HIV risk-reduction behaviors by clients with
multiple, complex problems and risk-reduction needs; a hybrid of HIV
risk-reduction counseling and traditional case management that provides
intensive, ongoing, and individualized prevention counseling, support,
and service brokerage.
- Partner Counseling and Referral Services (PCRS)
|A systematic approach to notifying sex and needle-sharing partners
of HIV-infected persons of their possible exposure to HIV so they can
avoid infection or, if already infected, can prevent transmission to
others. PCRS helps partners gain earlier access to individualized
counseling, HIV testing, medical evaluation, treatment, and other
- Health Communications/Public Information (HC/PI)
|The delivery of planned HIV/AIDS prevention messages through one or
more channels to target audiences to build general support for safe
behavior, support personal risk-reduction efforts, and/or inform persons
at risk for infection how to obtain specific services.
Media: Means by which information is electronically conveyed to
large groups of people; includes radio, television, public service
announcements, news broadcasts, infomercials, etc., which reach a
large-scale (e.g., city-, region-, or statewide) audience.
Print Media: These formats also reach a large-scale or nationwide
audience; includes any printed material, such as newspapers, magazines,
pamphlets, and “environmental media” such as billboards and
Hotline: Telephone service (local or toll-free) offering
up-to-date information and referral to local services, e.g.,
counseling/testing and support groups.
Clearinghouse: Interactive electronic outreach systems using
telephones, mail, and the Internet/Worldwide Web to provide a responsive
information service to the general public as well as high-risk
Presentations/Lectures: These are information-only activities
conducted in group settings; often called “one-shot” education
- Other Interventions
Category to be used for those interventions funded
with CDC Announcement 99004 funds that cannot be described by the definitions
provided for the other six types of interventions (example forms A - F). This
category includes community-level interventions (CLI).
CLI are interventions that seek to improve the risk conditions and behaviors
in a community through a focus on the community as a whole, rather than by
intervening with individuals or small groups. This is often done by attempting
to alter social norms, policies, or characteristics of the environment. Examples
of CLI include community mobilizations, social marketing campaigns,
community-wide events, policy interventions, and structural interventions.
Data Elements Found on All Forms
||Each data element is preceded by an item number that
corresponds to the numbered section on the example form for each
intervention type. There are a number of common data elements/groups of
elements that are on every form. The same numbering is used consistently
for all these common items. For some forms there are unique data
elements, and the numbers for those will not occur in sequence.
The numbers are not for use in data entry; rather, they identify
sections of the form to assist in following the instructions. A codebook
to aid with data entry is under development, pending finalization of the
The intervention plan data elements are the same for all interventions except
for health communications/ public information (HC/PI) and other interventions;
HC/PI and other interventions each has one section that differs from the
standard set of data elements. The next section of this document discusses the
common data elements found in the intervention plans for the seven types of
interventions. Where appropriate, the intent of particular items is examined,
and definitions of the terms used are provided. The final sections of this
document describe the unique data elements for HC/PI and other interventions.
The following categories reflect the major sections of the jurisdiction
aggregate form for all intervention types. The italicized numbers and words
correspond to the accompanying form. The material that follows provides
additional explanation or guidance for obtaining and aggregating the requested
Item #1 Jurisdiction ID
This field should be completed with the name of the grantee jurisdiction
(state, territory, or directly funded city).
Item #2 Number of interventions this form describes
Report the number of interventions of this type funded by the health
department (including those implemented by health department staff) for a
particular risk population. It will be assumed that all other data elements on
the form will be based on that number of interventions.
Item #3 and #4 Risk Population: Mark the primary risk population this form describes on
the list in the left column. If an intervention serves multiple risk
populations, choose one primary and one secondary risk population.
Each jurisdiction aggregate intervention plan form is designed to capture
data about interventions funded to provide HIV prevention services addressing
distinct risk behaviors. The risk populations used here (with the exception of
General Population) reflect the routes of potential exposure to HIV that
correspond to particular risk behaviors. In this section, the health department
notes which risk population(s) is served by the interventions that the current
form is describing. Operational definitions for these categories are shown in
the following table.
|Risk Population Categories Used in CDC’s Evaluation Data System
||Intervention will address the HIV prevention needs of men who report
sexual contact with other men or with both men and women.
||Intervention will address the HIV prevention needs of men who
report both sexual contact with other men and injection drug use.
||Intervention will address the HIV prevention needs of people who are
at risk for HIV infection through the use of equipment to inject drugs (e.g.,
syringes, needles, cookers, spoons, etc.).
||Intervention will address the HIV prevention needs of persons who report
specific heterosexual contact with a person with, or at increased risk for, HIV
infection (e.g., sex with an injection drug user, a bisexual male, or a person
known to be HIV-positive or to have AIDS).
|Mother with/at risk for HIV
||Intervention will address the HIV prevention needs of women who have HIV or
are at risk of becoming infected and who are pregnant and, thus, at risk
of transmitting HIV to their infant.
||Intervention will not be targeted to any specific groups whose behavior puts
them at high risk for HIV infection. These interventions may be aimed at
enhancing awareness of HIV transmission modes and prevention, supporting
prevention-enhancing social norms, and providing information or education.
||Note that the risk for exposure to HIV is the focus of this
item, not other characteristics of the risk population. Some funding streams may
be organized around identity-based populations (e.g., “Hispanic adults” or
However, the behavior that the intervention addresses (e.g., condom
use with a partner of the opposite sex) will identify the primary risks of that
Primary vs. Secondary: CDC recognizes that a single intervention may
address more than one exposure risk population. If more than one exposure risk
is addressed, a distinction between the primary and secondary risk populations
may be necessary.
The first way to make this distinction is to consider if one of the
populations is the major focus of the interventions. For example, an
intervention serving female sex partners of male IDUs and focusing on their
sexual behaviors may also provide some needle-related prevention services to
their IDU partners. In this case, Heterosexual would be the primary risk
population and IDU would be the secondary because sexual behavior is the
primary emphasis of the intervention.
However, some interventions may address more equally two different risk
behaviors. For instance, an intervention may be targeted to women who are at
risk because of their own injection drug use and their sex partner’s drug
use. The content of the intervention may emphasize both drug-related
transmission and heterosexual transmission. In this case, the intervention
should be reported twice—in the two reports appropriate for each population.
While this may slightly inflate the count of unique service units, it will
provide a more accurate picture of the prevention efforts being made for
particular risk populations. This latter concern is viewed as the more important
of the two for CDC’s purposes.
For purposes of aggregating and reporting to CDC, use the primary risk
population. For internal purposes, supplemental reports can be generated
that combine primary and secondary populations or otherwise use those
There are two particular exceptions to this general rule. First,
interventions serving men with both a history of sexual contact with other men
and injection drug use make up a separate category:
MSM/IDU. Second, interventions targeting the general population should be
categorized using that label, even if people with more specific risks may be
reached. Examples of this include school-based interventions where young MSM or
IDUs may be reached or education/informational interventions for a particular
group in which the risk status of particular audience members may be unknown.
Item #5 Number of interventions for this risk population to be provided by
the following types of agencies (sum should equal total interventions this form
Within the jurisdiction, health departments may fund many types of agencies
to provide a particular type of intervention for one risk population. In
addition, health department staff may implement that type of intervention. This
item will describe the array of service providers offering those interventions
for a risk population. An example, using “Jurisdiction K,” is provided below.
Jurisdiction K has a total of 10 individual-level interventions for MSM. The
example shows how these 10 ILIs are distributed over various types of providers.
Example: Counting the agencies providing 10 individual-level interventions
for MSM in the jurisdiction.
Four individual-level interventions for MSM are provided by
several CBOs. One CBO with a minority board provides one of
these interventions, and it is entered on the first line below.
The other three interventions conducted by CBOs are provided by
two different non-minority board organizations. Therefore, a “3”
is entered on the second line below.
The State Health Department provides one of the individual-level
interventions. On the appropriate line, a “1” is entered.
|Number of ILIs for this risk population provided by the following
types of agencies (sum should equal total interventions this form
|CBO - Minority Board
||State Health Department
|CBO - Non-Minority Board
||Local Health Department
||Research Center Individual
The state also funds three local health departments to provide
MSM individual-level interventions. One of the local health
departments delivers two of these, and the other two local
health departments provide one each, for a total of 4
interventions on the “local health department” line above.
A school of public health at a university in the jurisdiction
provides the remaining individual-level intervention, and it is
entered in the appropriate line above.
The category research center is used here to describe a stand-alone
research facility, a facility so designated within a university or other
academic institution, or a for-profit research organization. A research center
within a health department should identify themselves as a health department
(either state, county, or city) rather than as a research center.
Item #6 Clients to be served with CDC funds
These fields are for estimated numbers of clients expected to be served
during the ensuing year. The required column and row totals are found at far
right of the table. However, if data are available for the cross tabs
(age by sex by race/ethnicity) and the jurisdiction chooses to report these,
then the last group of cells titled “age data not available” should be left
blank. Instead, the first three groups of cells should be completed, entering
the number of clients to be served with this type of intervention in each of the
following age bracket X sex X race categories. Per guidelines from the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Hispanic ethnicity is requested
separately from other racial and ethnic categories. Regardless of the extent of
data available, the column and row totals should be completed, and the sum of
the row totals should equal the total number of clients expected to be served
with this intervention.
For PCRS, these estimates are for the number of HIV-infected
clients who are expected to be the index case for which PCRS will be initiated.
A person who is identified as an exposed partner through this process may become
an index case (and thus counted in this total) if he or she is found to be
HIV-infected and receives PCRS.
Age: If age breakdowns are not available or the jurisdiction chooses not
to report these data, complete the group of cells in the far right section of
the table. If these data are available and the jurisdiction chooses to
report these data, note the ages of clients of each race/ethnicity to be served
by this type of intervention using the first three groups of cells and complete
the column and row totals at the far right end of the table.
Ethnicity and Race: The racial and ethnic categories are those used by
the U.S. Census Bureau and OMB. All data collected on clients’ race and
ethnicity should be in compliance with OMB requirements, which give clients the
opportunity to identify themselves with more than one race. Therefore, the
“More Than One Race” category should be used to aggregate data on clients
who report that they are members of more than one race. When interventions do
not target particular racial and ethnic groups, use the “NT” (not
Sex: If interventions do not target a particular sex, then enter the
number of clients to be served in the “NT” (not targeted) columns.
Transgender (also referred to as transsexual) refers to those
individuals who have undergone or who are undergoing a physical and
psychological sex change. This category should be used when interventions target
the Transgender population or when people known to identify as transgender are
part of the population served. Typically, this designation is used when it is
reported by the client. In some cases, a client’s transgender status will not be
known, and they will identify as the sex to which they have changed.
Item #7 Basis of intervention
Justification for application to this target population and setting
Item #8 Service delivery plan
The purpose of this section is to determine the extent to which the
development of and plans for funded interventions are based on a strong
foundation of scientific evidence or theory (as called for in the supplemental
guidance for community planning) and have adequate plans to help ensure that
they can be implemented well to achieve their outcome objectives. The three
criteria are scientific or empirical evidence, justification of this
intervention to the target population and setting, and sufficient detail in the
plans for implementing the intervention.
These sections are designed to be completed by a health department grantee
staff person who is familiar with these categories and the interventions that
are being proposed. It is assumed that service providers will furnish the
underlying information, in some form, to the health department. The information
for each of these characteristics is likely to be found in proposals, contracts,
or other supporting documents that providers make available to the health
Each of the characteristics in this section requires a judgment to be made by
health department staff. There are no absolute criteria for what constitutes
STEP 1. Assessing the intervention’s evidence basis
Interventions developed by local providers are often the result of multiple
sources of information. Their professional and community experience is a
critical source of important, practical information about “what works.” In
addition to practical experience, it is important that interventions have a
basis in evidence or theory. This item calls for grantee staff to make a
determination about the sufficiency of the evidence used in the development of
each intervention. That is, someone must decide whether activities based on
scientific evidence have been adequately integrated into the proposed
intervention. The resulting determination is a simple designation of “Evidence
Provided” or “Evidence Not Provided.”
There are multiple types of evidence or theory that can be used to support a
provider’s proposed intervention. These include, but are not limited to:
- Data from an evaluation of their own intervention
- Data from an evaluation of a similar intervention
- A theoretical basis from the scientific literature
- A fully articulated informal theory
Care must be taken in making this assessment to determine the extent to which
the evidence has actually been used and not just referred to in the proposal.
For example, there may be cases in which a proposal contains a long discussion
about a behavioral theory (e.g., the Health Belief Model) or another agency’s
previously evaluated intervention. However, a careful reading of the proposed
intervention suggests that the provider did not actually include substantial
program elements based on that theory. Similarly, another intervention may be
based solely on a provider’s past experience, with little incorporation of
scientific principles or methods that have been evaluated and found to be
STEP 2. Assessing the intervention’s justification for application to this
target population and setting
In addition to a description of the basis for the intervention (scientific or
otherwise), an intervention plan should also make clear how they believe the
proposed intervention activities are expected to lead to the outcome
objectives stated for it. In particular, the plan should discuss how the
intervention is expected to work with the target population and in the
provider’s specific setting. This logic can be described with words and it can
be depicted graphically with a logic model that depicts the proposed
relationship between the intervention and expectations concerning its outcomes
This assessment will also result in a judgment to designate the justification
to the particular target population and setting as “Sufficient” or
STEP 3. Determine the ONE cell in item #7 that best describes each
intervention with respect to these two characteristics
When the sufficiency of the evidence or theory and of the justification for
the setting (Steps 2 and 3) have been determined, each intervention can
be categorized into one cell of the table shown (see example on next page). Each
cell represents different combinations of the two alternatives for each
characteristic (i.e. sufficient vs. insufficient evidence, sufficient vs.
insufficient justification). Therefore, only one of the four options should be
selected for each intervention.
For example, if you have examined one intervention and found that it has
sufficient evidence or theory but inadequate justification for its current
target population and setting, you would place it in the bottom left-hand cell
(see the following example table).
Example with 1 intervention
| Evidence or Theory Basis for the
Intervention and Justification for Application to the Target
Population and Setting
||Evidence or Theory Provided
||Evidence or Theory Not
|Intervention Is Justified for Application to
the Target Population and Setting
|Intervention Is Not Justified for Application
to the Target Population and Setting
STEP 4. On Item #7 below, enter the total number of interventions per cell
that correspond to these characteristics.
To determine the aggregate counts across the jurisdictions, total the number
of interventions in each cell. If there are, for example, 10 interventions of a
particular type that you are assessing, each one must be categorized and the sum
of each cell reflected in the table that is reported. While calculating the
aggregate for this table, you may find it easier to make tally marks as you are
entering these data.
In the following example, two interventions were determined to have both
sufficient evidence or theory and justification for their target population and
setting. Another three were justified for their target population and setting,
but were deemed to have insufficient scientific evidence. Four had adequate
scientific evidence but were not justified for their current target population
and setting. Finally, one intervention was judged to have fallen short on both
| Evidence or Theory Basis for the
Intervention and Justification to the Target
Population and Setting
||Evidence or Theory Provided
||Evidence or Theory Not
|Intervention Is Justified for Application to
the Target Population and Setting
|Intervention Is Not Justified for Application
to the Target Population and Setting
STEP 5. Determining the sufficiency of the service plan
The final decision that grantee staff are asked to make is a determination of
the sufficiency of the service plan for implementing the intervention. The
service plan should address a variety of logistical issues, including
- format, setting, content, and delivery of the intervention
- a realistic plan for reaching the proposed number and type of clients
- provider training and supervision
- quality assurance and accountability mechanisms (including the methods
for collecting the necessary process and outcome monitoring data)
Once again, it is important to note that there are no absolute criteria for
what constitutes sufficiency. This section requires a judgment on the
part of grantee staff as to whether the resources and plans will allow the
intervention to be successfully executed given its current context within the
A determination of “sufficient” or “insufficient” should be made for each
STEP 6. On Item #8 below, enter the total number of interventions with
sufficient service plans and the total number of interventions with insufficient
service plans. The sum of the two cells should equal the number of interventions
the form describes.
Enter the total number of interventions of this type that have sufficient and
insufficient service plans.
Item #9 Notes/Comments field
This optional field provides the grantee with an opportunity to
provide explanation, clarification, or additional information that it believes
is necessary for understanding the categorical and numeric data provided on this
form. This field is to be used at the discretion of the jurisdiction and may be
left blank if irrelevant or not needed.
Data Elements Specific to Particular Interventions Health
Item #10 In the table to the right, enter the number of HC/PI interventions
for this risk population to be provided by the following types of agencies. The
sum should equal the total interventions this form describes.
This item is similar to the Interventions by Type of Agency data
element present for the other types of interventions. The difference for HC/PI
is that there are spaces for the four different types of HC/PI interventions
(electronic and print media, hotlines, and clearinghouses). Thus, this item will
describe the array of service providers who are funded to offer those four types
of HC/PI interventions for a risk population during the previous year.
Item #11 Mark the one category that best describes the other interventions to
This item should be used to characterize the type of other interventions that
are funded in the jurisdiction that cannot be described by using the
intervention categories found on example forms A - F. Please note that because
this category does not describe one discrete type of intervention, a separate
data set (or the optional example form) should be completed for each type of
intervention characterized as an “Other Intervention.”
If the intervention cannot be characterized by one of the five common types
shown on the example form, check Additional Intervention and use the
following line to briefly describe this intervention. If additional space is
necessary when using the example form, please attach additional sheets as
necessary. A narrative description should be provided here to help CDC clarify
the additional kinds of interventions that are being implemented across the
nation that cannot be captured by one of the major categories of intervention
Counseling and Testing
Item #12 Please describe any expected changes in the number or
characteristics of clients who will receive counseling and testing services in
the next year. The following is a partial list of issues that may affect your
services; please address any issues you believe to be relevant.
- Priorities in areas of high rates of HIV seroprevalence or AIDS
- Priorities in areas serving clientele known to have high rates
of HIV infection or risk behaviors that place them at risk of HIV infection
- Changes due to HIV reporting
- Changes due to managed care activities in the jurisdiction
There are no new reporting requirements related to Counseling and Testing.
However, CDC needs to be able to estimate anticipated service levels for this
type of intervention. As noted on the example form, CDC staff will use data from
the last year’s “HIV Counseling and Testing Report Form” to estimate the number
and characteristics of clients you anticipate serving in the coming year.
If substantive changes from your previous year’s service are expected, you
can report these anticipated differences with this item.
Back to top
Monitoring and Evaluating the Implementation of HIV Prevention Programs
||For the purpose of the CDC data system, “intervention” is
defined as “...a specific activity (or set of related activities) intended to
bring about HIV risk reduction in a particular risk population using a common
method of delivering the prevention messages. An intervention has distinct
process and outcome objectives and a protocol outlining the steps for
implementation.” (See chapter 3 of Volume 2: Resources for further
discussion of this distinction).
The seven types of interventions addressed here include individual-level
interventions, group-level interventions, outreach, prevention case management,
partner counseling and referral services, health communications/public
information, and other interventions. Later sections of these instructions
provide guidance on using these categories to classify various interventions.