7. Where do you count people on the membership grids who work with a population but aren’t actually members of that population (e.g, people who counsel IDUs but aren’t IDUs themselves)?

   The "membership grids" ask for CPG (community planning group) representation by primary and secondary agency and primary and secondary expertise (among other types of representation). If persons work with at-risk populations but are not actually members of the population, they could be counted as an agency representative and/or a representative with expertise in behavioral or social science or interventions.

Evaluating Linkages

8. For Chapter 5 of the Evaluation Guidance on evaluating linkages between the prevention plan, funding application, and resource allocation, are jurisdictions to report service units or number of interventions?

   Chapter 5 discusses the evaluation of two types of linkages: 1) linkages between the comprehensive HIV prevention plan and the CDC funding application and 2) linkages between the comprehensive HIV prevention plan and resource allocation.

   To evaluate linkages between the comprehensive HIV prevention plan and resource allocation, jurisdictions should compare interventions funded in the previous year with interventions recommended in the prevention plan for that year. It is suggested that jurisdictions submit the worksheet found in the appendix to Chapter 5. That worksheet asks for interventions (recommended in the plan and funded) by name of intervention, not by service units or numbers of interventions.

   To evaluate linkages between the comprehensive HIV prevention plan and the CDC funding application, jurisdictions are asked to report which recommended interventions in the plan are not included in the application. There is a worksheet in the appendix to Chapter 5 that can assist jurisdictions in listing the interventions recommended in the plan and funding application.

   Jurisdictions should note that the interventions in the comprehensive HIV prevention plan that are compared to the CDC funding application and to resource allocation could be intervention types, such as individual-level counseling and street outreach, or interventions at specific locations such as individual-level counseling carried out at the St. James public housing development, or outreach conducted at the corner of 14^th Street and Mulberry Place. Also, the target populations in the comprehensive prevention plan may not be the same as the target populations in the Evaluation Guidance. The Evaluation Guidance uses risk population categories, including MSM; MSM/IDU; heterosexual contact; and mother with/at risk for HIV while jurisdictions may have target populations in their plans that are not based on a risk behavior, such as the homeless, youth, and incarcerated persons.

   Beyond these evaluations of linkages, jurisdictions are free to perform enhanced evaluations of linkages that will provide additional data useful for community planning. For example, an expanded worksheet could be used to indicate interventions that do not have CDC funding, such as interventions funded by the state. This enhanced information will minimize the appearance of "gaps" in service.

9. Can alternative means of demonstrating linkages between comprehensive plans, applications, and funded interventions be used instead of the forms in the Guidance?

   The data on linkages need to be reported to CDC; the example forms in the Guidance are provided for reporting convenience. Other ways of reporting the same data are acceptable.

   The Evaluation Guidance requests minimum data on the demonstration of linkages; jurisdictions may report additional data. CDC understands that looking at interventions funded solely by CDC funding may create the "appearance" of gaps, when – in fact -- the gaps are filled by interventions receiving non-CDC funds.