CDC Expectations — CDC
is committed to the concept of HIV prevention community planning as outlined
in this Guidance.
CDC will monitor the progress health departments and CPGs
are making in meeting these expectations through a select number of required
indicators. In summary,
CDC expects that:
-
Health departments will support a collaborative community planning process, including
providing sufficient financial resources, in compliance with the eight objectives and
guiding principles;
-
Priority target populations and a recommended set of interventions/activities identified in
the comprehensive HIV prevention plan are based on: (a) having the greatest impact on
reducing HIV transmission, and (b) reducing HIV transmission in populations with
highest incidence. Priority target populations and prevention interventions/activities
should be consistent with the epidemiologic profile, community services assessment,
and behavioral/social science data presented in the plan;
-
CPGs will review the entire health department application for federal HIV prevention
funds, including the budget, prior to writing letters of concurrence, concurrence with
reservations or nonconcurrence; and
-
The allocation of CDC-awarded resources should be consistent with the prioritized
target populations and set of appropriate prevention interventions/activities as described
in the comprehensive HIV prevention plan.
A. Program Performance Indicators
Program Performance
Indicators — The
following required indicators provide a gauge for HIV prevention community
planning implementation specifically in
processes, activities, and/or products
that must be developed or implemented to achieve the goals and objectives of
HIV prevention community planning. The data sources detail what data will be
reported to CDC. Furthermore, CDC
will provide specific guidance on how performance indicators will be operationalized
and reported and also how to set baselines and targets for each indicator.
- Indicator E.1: Proportion of populations most at risk, as documented in the
epidemiologic profile, that have at least one CPG member that reflects the perspective
of each population
-
National
Data Source: PEMS: Community Planning Membership Survey, The
Epidemiologic Profile
-
Measure: Numerator: The number of populations most at risk (as documented in the epidemiologic
profile that
have at least one CPG member that reflects the
perspective of each population.
Denominator: Number of populations most at risk (up to 10)
as documented in the epidemiologic profile.
-
Measure(s) Used
to Obtain the Data: Epidemiological Profile CPG Membership Survey
- Indicator E.2: Proportion of key attributes of an HIV prevention community
planning process that CPG membership agreed have occurred.
- National Data
Source: PEMS: Community Planning Membership Survey
- Measure: Numerator: The
total number of key attributes of which CPG members agreed occurred.
Denominator: The total number of valid responses (“agree” or
“disagree”).
- Measure(s) Used
to Obtain the Data: HIV Prevention Community Planning Membership Survey
- Indicator E.3: Percent of prevention interventions/supporting activities in
the health department CDC funding application specified as a priority in the
comprehensive HIV prevention plan.
- National Data
Source: PEMS: Community Planning Linkage Table Worksheet
- Measure: Numerator: The number of prevention/ other supporting
activities in the health department CDC funding
application specified as a priority in the
comprehensive HIV prevention plan.
Denominator: The number of all prevention/ other supporting
activities identified in the health department
CDC funding application.
- Measure(s) Used
to Obtain the Data: Community Planning Linkage Table Worksheet
- Indicator E.4: Percent of health department-funded prevention
interventions/supporting activities that correspond to priorities specified
in the comprehensive HIV prevention plan.
- National Data
Source: PEMS: Community Planning Linkage Table Worksheet & Process Monitoring System
- Measure: Numerator: The number of funded prevention/ other
supporting activities that correspond to
priorities specified in the most current
comprehensive HIV prevention plan.
Denominator: The number of all funded prevention/ other
supporting activities.
- Measure(s) Used
to Obtain the Data: Community Planning Linkage Table Worksheet, Program
Monitoring and Evaluation System
Note: For more guidance or information
on these HIV Prevention Community Planning indicators, please reference CDC’s
Technical Assistance Guidelines for Health Department HIV Prevention Program
Performance Indicators.
B. Concurrence,
Concurrence with Reservations or Nonconcurrence
Letter of Concurrence,
Concurrence with Reservations, or Nonconcurrence — As
part of its application to the CDC for federal HIV prevention funds, every
health department must include a
letter of concurrence or nonconcurrence from each CPG officially convened and
recognized in the
jurisdiction.
CPG members should
carefully review the comprehensive HIV prevention plan and the health department’s
entire application (including the proposed budget) to CDC for federal
funds.
- It is the responsibility
of the health department to provide the CPG with ample time to
review the health department’s application.
- Health departments should
provide the CPG with the jurisdiction’s “Community
Planning Linkage Table Worksheet” showing how the priorities identified in
the plan are being addressed in the jurisdiction and which priorities specifically
are being addressed
in the application for CDC funding.
- It
is the responsibility of the CPG to determine whether the health department’s
application reflects the priorities of the CPG’s comprehensive HIV prevention
plan.
It is critical that
the CPG review the proposed allocation of resources in the health
department’s application using the “Community Planning Linkage Table Worksheet.” In
reviewing the application, CPGs are reminded that:
- CPGs are not asked to review and comment on internal health department issues
such as salaries of individual health department staff or funding to specific
HIV prevention
services agencies,
- The letter of concurrence
or nonconcurrence directly relates to the jurisdiction’s
proposed allocation of CDC funds for HIV prevention, and
- The community planning process requires setting priorities for target populations
and a recommended mix of prevention interventions for each population.
Letters of concurrence, concurrence with reservations, nonconcurrence should
indicate:
- That
the CPG was provided with a copy of the comprehensive HIV prevention
plan and the health department’s application for federal HIV funding,
including the budget;
- The
degree to which (“how well or not”) the health department and CPG
has successfully collaborated in developing, reviewing, or revising
the comprehensive
HIV prevention plan;
- The degree to which
the health department has responded to the priorities in the comprehensive
HIV prevention plan in its application to the CDC for federal HIV prevention
funds;
- The process used
for obtaining concurrence, including:
- A description
of the process used by the CPG to review the application;
- The amount of
time the CPG had to review the application;
- Who from the
CPG reviewed the application (e.g., co-chairs, members, subcommittee
chairs, etc.);
- The degree of
concurrence (i.e., without reservation, with reservations, or nonconcurrence);
and
- At a minimum, the
letter(s) should be signed by the co-chairs of each CPG on behalf of
the CPG. The letter should include an indication that the Co-Chairs
have reviewed and understand the application, are signing the letter
on behalf of the CPG, and will report on the concurrence process to
the entire CPG.
|
The Letter of concurrence may include
reservations or a statement of concern/issues. The health department
will be required to address these reservations or concerns in an addendum
to the HIV prevention application.
Letter(s) of nonconcurrence indicate that the HIV prevention community planning group
disagrees with the program priorities identified in the health department’s
application. The letter should cite specific reasons for nonconcurrence.
In instances when
a health department does not concur with
the recommendations of the HIV prevention community planning group(s) and
believes that public health would be better served by funding HIV prevention
activities/services
that are substantially
different, the health department must submit a letter of explanation in its
application. CDC will assess and evaluate these explanations on a case-by-case
basis and determine
what action may be
appropriate.
When CDC receives a letter of nonconcurrence or if the health department does
not meet the requirements specified by this Guidance, actions may include any
of the following:
- Obtaining more input/information regarding the situation;
- Meeting with the health department and co-chairs;
- Negotiating with the health department regarding the issues raised;
- Recommending local mediation;
- Requesting that the health department provide a detailed corrective action
plan to
address areas of concern and specify a timeframe for completion;
- Conducting an on-site comprehensive program assessment to identify and propose
action steps to resolve areas of concern;
- Conducting an on site program assessment focused on a specific area(s);
- Developing a detailed technical assistance plan for the project area to help
systematically address the situation;
- Placing conditions or restrictions on the award of funds pending a future submission
by the applicant; and
- Loss of funding in future applications, if nonconcurrence or poor performance
is not satisfactorily addressed.
In the event
of the availability of supplemental funds for HIV prevention, CDC will
require a letter of concurrence for health department applications for
such
funds. A Letter of
Concurrence for Supplemental Funds will be expected to address the criteria above.
Sample letters of concurrence, concurrence with reservations or nonconcurrence
are included
in Appendix B. |