Comprehensive hiv prevention programs health departments

As was done with the previous funding opportunity, CDC apportioned funding to each state, territory, or directly funded city based on the number of people reported to be living with an HIV diagnosis in that jurisdiction as of , the most recent year for which complete data were available see map.

In addition, allocations were based on the most recent known address for each person living with HIV rather than their residence at the time their infection was first diagnosed, to account for geographic mobility. Evaluation of the funding program after the first 2 fiscal years FY—FY demonstrated progress made toward goals, even during the initial transition years of the funding opportunity announcement.

Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link. Section Navigation. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Syndicate. Minus Related Pages. With this shift, funding was directed to four core areas demonstrated to be high impact, as follows: HIV testing; comprehensive HIV prevention with persons living with HIV, including antiretroviral therapy; condom distribution; and policy initiatives.

Purpose: This paper examines whether provider-developed interventions based on common factors of effective, evidence-based behavioral interventions led to reduction in drug-related HIV risk behaviors at four study sites in Ukraine. Methods: We trained staff from eight nongovernmental organizations NGOs to develop HIV prevention interventions based on a common factors approach.

We then selected four NGOs to participate in an outcome evaluation. Results: At three sites, we observed reductions in the prevalence of both any risk in drug acquisition and any risk in drug injection. Funding is apportioned to each state, territory, or directly funded city based on the number of people reported to be living with an HIV diagnosis in that jurisdiction in pdf icon [PDF — KB] the best measure of the HIV burden available in every U.

This approach, driven by the latest data, improves on prior health department funding allocations, which were based on AIDS cases earlier in the epidemic.

In addition, to ensure that funding reaches major urban areas where HIV is concentrated in the United States, the number of cities metropolitan statistical areas eligible for direct CDC funding will increase from six to ten. These ten cities account for approximately 37 percent of all Americans living with an HIV diagnosis. This relatively small change will have a major positive impact on the epidemic. Several areas with heavy HIV burdens will see needed increases in prevention funding, including many southern states and several major cities.

While other areas will see decreases, CDC is taking steps to minimize disruptions due to shifts in funding. The new method for allocating resources incorporates a minimum funding level, to ensure that all jurisdictions, regardless of HIV burden, can continue to provide basic HIV prevention services. Funding shifts for all jurisdictions—both increases and decreases—will be phased in over five years, to allow health departments time to adjust strategies and infrastructure as necessary.