1 / 29

Mike Janson, Research & Evaluation Pamela Ogata, Research & Evaluation

2003 Countywide Risk Assessment Survey Findings From a Large-scale Multi-site Survey in Los Angeles County: South (SPA 6). Mike Janson, Research & Evaluation Pamela Ogata, Research & Evaluation Office of AIDS Programs and Policy February 18, 2004. Los Angeles. Lynwood. Compton.

michon
Download Presentation

Mike Janson, Research & Evaluation Pamela Ogata, Research & Evaluation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2003 Countywide Risk Assessment SurveyFindings From a Large-scale Multi-site Survey in Los Angeles County:South (SPA 6) Mike Janson, Research & Evaluation Pamela Ogata, Research & Evaluation Office of AIDS Programs and Policy February 18, 2004

  2. Los Angeles Lynwood Compton Service Planning Area (SPA) 6 South • 87 Square Miles • 1 Million Residents • Proportion of County Population: 10.6% • Proportion of LivingAIDS Cases: 9.7% • Living with AIDS: 1,736 • Population:Latino/a 59.2%White 2.6%Asian/PI 1.6%African-American 35.2%Native American 0.2% Mixed 1.2% Source: United Way of Greater Los Angeles, 2003; HIV Epidemiology Program, 2002; U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

  3. Background • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) requirements • Community Planning Process • Prevention Plan • Allocation of HIV Prevention Resources • Evaluation

  4. Data Utilization An integral data source for • Priority Setting • Evaluation of the linkage between: • HIV Prevention Plan • Resource Allocation • CDC application • Local needs assessment

  5. Eligibility • Inclusion • Persons receiving HIV prevention services from OAPP-funded contractors • Surveys conducted in Los Angeles County • Exclusion • Less than 12 years old • Previously surveyed in 2003

  6. Instrument • Part A: Assesses Demographic Information • Race/ethnicity • Age • Gender • Sexual orientation • Part B: Examines Drug and Alcohol Usage • Injection drug use, needle sharing • Part C: Assesses Sexual Risk Behavior • Barrier use • Unsafe sex with HIV positive partners • Number of partners • Part D: Measures Service Utilization

  7. Provider Trainings • 22 trainings (May 2003) • 238 staff from 50 agencies attended • Training covered • Sampling Methodology • Overview of Survey Instruments • Survey Procedures • IRB and HIPAA protocols • California Mandated Child and Elder Abuse Reporting

  8. 2003 Participation Surveys • Total Expected: 2,520 • Total Received: 2,107 • Survey Return Rate: 83.6% • Total Complete: 1,847 • Proportion of Surveys Completed: 73.3% Agencies • 47 out of 50 participated (94.0%) Programs • 164 out of 175 participated (93.4%)

  9. Data Collection and Analysis • Surveys were administered between May 5, and July 30, 2003 by agency staff in one-on-one interviews. • Clients were randomly selected using systematic sampling and received an item valued at $10 for compensation. • OAPP staff entered the data into a password-protected database. • Data entry error rate was <2%, no critical variables involved.

  10. Weighting • Surveys were weighted to provide a representation of the average number of clients who received prevention services from OAPP-funded contractors monthly. • All analyses are weighted and based on an estimated client count of 5,147. • Estimated client count for SPA 6 is 374.

  11. Clients Surveyed by SPA N=5147 SPAs Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  12. Clients Surveyed by Gender n=374 N=5147 SPA 6 All SPAs Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  13. Clients Surveyed by Age Percent Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  14. Clients Surveyed by Race/Ethnicity Percent Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  15. Clients Surveyed by Living Situation Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  16. Immigration (SPA 6) • 6% (n=27) were born in another country • 67% were born in Mexico • 7% were born in Guatemala • 26% were born in other countries Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  17. Substance Use Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  18. Substance Use (Cont.) Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  19. Needle Use Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  20. Sexual Behaviors Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  21. Drug Use and Sex Trading Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  22. Sexual Orientation vs. Behavior • Self-reported sexual orientation • Does not correspond to self-reported behavior Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  23. Behavioral Risk Groups (BRG) n=315 n=3684 SPA 6 All SPAs Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  24. Condom/Barrier Use Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  25. HIV Counseling & Testing (HE/RR, HCT clients) Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding, missing answers, or refused to answer Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  26. Services Utilized Source: 2003 CRAS Data (weighted)

  27. Limitations Time period 6 months May not capture all drug users May contribute to the unknown BRG category

  28. Conclusions • CRAS • Provides demographic information and risk behaviors of individuals receiving services. • Reflects strong outreach efforts. • Demonstrates response to HIV/AIDS epidemic in communities of color.

  29. Acknowledgements AMASSI Center of South Central Los Angeles Asian American Drug Abuse Program Bienestar Human Services, Inc. California Drug Consultants, Inc. Caring for Children & Families with AIDS FAME Health Corporation JWCH Institute, Inc. Los Angeles Shanti Minority AIDS Project Prototypes Reach LA T.H.E. Clinic, Inc. Thank you for your participation

More Related