FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 8, 1997
PRIVATE FUNDERS OFTEN OVERLOOK VALUABLE PREVENTION PROGRAMS, ACCORDING TO
UCSF SURVEY
Effective HIV prevention programs, such as condom distribution and
needle exchange, are often overlooked by private funding agencies in the
United States, according to a new UCSF survey of foundations that support
HIV/AIDS prevention programs.
In addition, the UCSF survey found that more grants were given to
programs that target the general population than those that target drug
users, gay men or ethnic minorities--groups that contain more people at
risk for HIV infection.
"Government funding for HIV prevention is shaped and limited by the
often contentious social, moral, and political context of the AIDS
epidemic," says Joshua Schechtel, MD, MPH, a research fellow at the UCSF
Center of AIDS Prevention Studies.
"Because of this and the uncertain future of federal funding from
year to year, AIDS service organizations must diversify their sources of
income by seeking non-governmental funding."
Non-governmental funding includes grants from independent,
community and corporate foundations. In 1994, over 38,000 foundations and
corporate giving programs contributed $11.3 billion of the total $130
billion given to charities by the American public, Schechtel says. Private
foundations gave about $32 million for AIDS-related causes.
"Private funding sources face pressure to choose between funding
AIDS care and services or HIV prevention programs," Schechtel says. "As
prevention funds become a scarcer commodity, it is important that funds are
applied to programs known to be effective."
Schechtel and colleagues asked a total of 86 non-governmental
funders across the U.S. about the amount of money they spend on AIDS and
HIV prevention, the types of prevention projects and populations their
grants served, and the source of AIDS information used by the foundation
staff. The survey participants provided a total of 583 grants worth more
than $8.1 million, almost one-fourth of all AIDS-related funding by
foundations. Results were then compared to the types of projects known to
be effective and to the populations most at risk for HIV infection.
"We were happy to find that the types of programs funded are
largely those that have been shown to be effective in preventing new HIV
infections, such as those focused on public policy, outreach and community
mobilization," Schechtel says.
"Unfortunately, needle exchange, a program that has been shown to
be successful in preventing HIV infection, was not well-supported by
private funders," he says. "This is especially tragic because needle
exchange programs are denied federal funding as well. Private funding
could offset lack of government funding in this case."
The researchers also found that funding agencies use the national
and local print media as their primary sources of AIDS information,
including information about the effectiveness of programs.
"Better sources of information are available to help funders gauge
the effectiveness of proposed programs," Schechtel says, "including
intervention studies and outcome evaluations--information that can be
obtained from local health departments."
Effective programs incorporate several factors, including designing
culturally relevant and language appropriate programs, embedding AIDS
information into broader social contexts, providing creative rewards and
enticements for participants, repeating essential prevention messages and
creating a forum for open discussion.
"Funders should determine if proposed programs include any of these
and other effectiveness 'enhancers' in their design prior to supporting
them," Schechtel says. "In addition, they should also consider the
specific population the program will serve."
###
Note: For copies of "A Survey of AIDS Prevention Funders: Which Programs
Are Funded, and Why?" media should call UCSF News Services at (415)
476-2557.