A Program of CIFAL Atlanta
Hosted by Emory Rollins School of Public Health
Atlanta, GA, June 19-23, 2005
• Workshop Home

Session 1: Discussion about Self Assessment Process in Cities

Topic: Plenary (All Participants)

GROUP 1

Representatives: Quito, Ecuador; Seattle, WA; Province, Honduras

1. Ecuador and Honduras had very similar experiences

A) Ecuador

• UNDP called together 14 organizations to participate in the self-assessment process

• 50% participation

B) Honduras

• No organization took lead in calling together participants

• A group of concerned community members who work with youth and prevention efforts decided to call together community members and organizations

• 50% participation

• Skipped the municipality level – went straight to community level

2. Major findings

A) Difficulties

• When you combine everyone’s perspectives, you end up not having one concrete finding (difficult to find an average)

• Problem of underreporting/accurate statistics – difficult to know how many people are affected by HIV/AIDS in community

B) Makes it difficult to prioritize efforts

• Decision makers are often absent in many conversations and discussions

3. Seattle

A) One person does needs assessment and analysis for the entire city of Seattle

• Responsible for coordinating $10 million; how to best spend this?

• Unites care, prevention, counseling and all aspects of HIV care

B) Despite having an excellent coordinating committee, the paperwork got held up, so there was no process to report on

4. Positive Feedback

A) Interesting to sit and learn different perspectives from different cities

B) The 50% that show up are the ones who are interested

GROUP 2

Representatives:  San Juan, Puerto Rico; Atlanta, GA; Seattle, WA; Houston, TX

1. Seattle and Houston did not go through process, reporting on Atlanta and San Juan

2. Findings

A) Found that they did the same thing in different ways

B) Positive Points

• Receiving a chart – good starting point, worked for both delegations

• Diversity within evaluation group – including professionals, consumers, persons living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), CBOS, NGOs, government

• The process led to a planning group and an action plan – came up with a commitment to follow up on evaluation and improve in identified areas

• Led to identification of major needs and issues

• In San Juan, helped make program improvements

C) What needs to be improved

• Enlarge participation

D) In Atlanta, mayor did not participate, while in San Juan, Mayor was very involved and committed

• Identify key contacts in each city

E) Will allow more people to participate in this process

• San Juan was able to identify areas that were not on the matrix that needed improvement

GROUP 3

Representatives: Kingston, Jamaica; Port of Spain, Trinidad; Denver, CO

1. Findings

A) Problems

• Lack of linkage between national programs and local communities

• A lot happening at the national level, how do you think this to the local/city level
• Difficult to get data, information and funding; these often don’t filter down to local level

• Timing of letter affected the process – needed more time

• Need for very clear directions on who should be part of the process

• If the team that works on the process are already “in the know”, will only get consensus
• In order to get the perspective of the entire city, need to include communities/individuals who do not already have experience in this work

• Need more time

• Limited time prevented involvement/pulling together a diverse group

GROUP 4

Representatives:  San Francisco, CA; Port au Prince, Haiti; Denver, CO; Houston, TX

1. Findings

A) Difficulties

• None of the groups received the documents/instructions in time to do a full assessment

B) City Perspectives

• Haiti had the most complete assessment

• Involved providers, politicians, PLWHA
• Came up with clear issues with respect to HIV/AIDS in Haiti, and how to address and improve major issues

• Denver

• 3 people involved: 2 from mayor’s office, 1 from community
• Limited timing, limited participants prevented getting a broad view of the issues on the matrix

• Houston

• Limited to representatives from the local AIDS foundation
• Little perspective beyond their viewpoint

• San Francisco

• Letter sat in the mayor’s office for a long time, had less than 1 week to work on assessment

C) All the groups felt that they could improve on Items 3 and 9 on the matrix (Linking Care with Prevention and Ways of Working)

D) All enjoyed the process and opportunity of working together

E) Concerns

• Issue of vulnerability – how to get a collective sense of what this means?

• Different groups (government, PLWHA, CBO’s) have different perspectives; how to synthesize this?

GROUP 5

Representatives:  Buenos Aires, Argentina; San Pedro Sula, Honduras: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

1. Findings

A) City Perspectives

• San Pedro Sula

• Representation from church, government and PLWHA was very poor

• Buenos Aires

• Short notice
• Little government involvement, civil society had to lead assessment

B) Problems/Concerns

• Framework was a little problematic, some levels were confusing; Reframe statements to make more clear

• Documentation needs to be accessible at least 6 months in advance

• Advance notice is needed because it is not only an issue of government, but also individuals, NGOs, CBOs; need to involve all of them for a complete perspective

• Approach to this issue has to be more aggressive and production; lots of work to be done

GROUP 6

Representatives:  Curitiba, Brazil; Mexico City, Mexico

1. Findings

A) City Perspectives

• Curitiba

• Has been able to work on this assessment for some time
• Government, NGO’s, PLWHA represented
• Though they have experience with this process, they also feel they need to involve more actors, go deeper in this process

• Mexico City

• First time working on this assessment
• Are very interested in this process, admire the work that has been done by Curitiba
• Government, Civil Society, NGOs and PLWHA represented
• Emphasis on access to treatment, but have left behind prevention
• Need more time in order to involve more actors in this process
• Want more Ways of Working, want to improve on this area

Group 7

Representatives:  Oakland, CA; Durban, South Africa

1. Findings

A) City Perspectives

• Durban

• Had a hard time going out into community to do a true assessment
• Need more time to talk and involve the community/population and truly conduct the assessment

• Oakland

• Despite limited time, able to bring community together (speaker’s organization provides funding!)
• Lack of participation from faith community
• Planning community included representatives who provide care and prevention services
• Felt they did a fairly good job despite limitations

B) Problems

• Neither city had enough time to do a true/complete assessment

• Need more input from the community in the future

• Time is especially critical for cities in other parts of the world

WRAP UP

Facilitator:  Charlotte

• Tool not perfect, but generates dialogue

• Will continue in afternoon by looking at river diagrams

• Any input on improving process/matrix would be appreciated, please let us know