The instructions will be revised to match the forms. "Clinic/Health Care Facility" will not include an STD clinic. (The instructions also refer to "Social Services Agency" but there is no corresponding designation on the form under type of setting. For social services agency, the "other" designation should be used.)

The process monitoring forms should contain data on the primary risk populations being served by the intervention. Data are not reported on secondary risk populations. It is possible that new primary risk populations will be added to an intervention type over time, and health departments should provide data on them when process monitoring data are due. If you find that you are serving different populations than the ones you originally planned to serve in your intervention plans, you should report process monitoring data about that new population if you redesigned your intervention to accommodate the new population or the new clients you are serving total at least 25% of your caseload. In regard to the question’s example, if the heterosexual population comprises roughly 25% or more of the population reached during outreach, then process monitoring data should be provided on that population.

Group-level interventions (GLIs) should consist of multiple sessions. There will undoubtedly be cases where clients do not attend all of the sessions. Clients who attend only one session of a GLI should be reported under GLI and not ILI since GLI was the intervention being delivered.

For some intervention types, it is appropriate for the interventionist to conduct a risk assessment. For example, a risk assessment should always be completed for clients in PCM, and CDC strongly encourages risk assessments for other interventions as well. When there is no risk assessment, the intent of the intervention should guide reporting for process monitoring. If the intent of GLI, for example, is to serve MSM and there is no risk assessment to document the risk behavior, then clients should be reported as MSM since the intervention is targeted and tailored for MSM. Since risk assessments are not done during outreach, the venue for the outreach should be considered. For example, if outreach is taking place in gay bars, then the risk population should be reported as MSM. If no specific risk population is targeted by an intervention (this could be the case for health communications/public information), then "General Population" should be used as the risk population category.

In this scenario, health communications/public information seems to be the intended intervention. Students are the targeted population and there is probably no one risk behavior that is targeted. If this is the case, "General Population" would be the risk population. However, the numbers of clients served cannot be reported until those data are provided, in writing, by the teachers who received training. The teachers should report back to the Contractee after their prevention education session takes place. If the intervention is designed to address heterosexual contact as the risk, then that risk population category should be used for reporting when data are provided by the teachers.

The intent is to capture data on the types of agencies actually carrying out interventions. Therefore, the agency that has been sub-contracted by the health department’s grantee should be used for agency type.