HIV/AIDS policy for employers in religious communities

Surveys of national religious denominational offices and of churches in Texas were conducted to evaluate the prevalence of HIV/AIDS policies for members and employees, and to get feedback on a proposed HIV/AIDS policy. Most religious organizations in Texas do not have a HIV/AIDS policy for their employees. Analysis of the data from 77 church questionnaire surveys revealed only 17 (22.1%) policies in existence. From the current data, policies for employees were most prevalent among Catholic churches with 8 (47.1%) and Baptist churches with 7 (41.2%). Nine of the churches (52.9%) who had HIV/AIDS policies for their employees were categorized as having 2501-5000 members. In 1994 and 1995 the largest number of policies developed by churches totaled 8 (47.1%). The findings of this exploratory study in Texas were consistent with the survey of 7 national denominational offices which demonstrated that only the Lutheran church had a policy (14.3%). The literature is consistent with the finding that some churches have decided no separate HIV/AIDS policy is needed for employees. More than half of the employers reporting a HIV/AIDS related experience still feel they do not need a specific policy (CDC, 1992). The range of number of employees in churches varied widely from a high of 54.5% of churches with 15-50 employees to a low of 7.8% of churches with more than 100 employees. Seventy-one of the churches (92.2%) reported that they had no employees infected with HIV/AIDS, while 1 church (1.3%) reported having more than 1 employee infected with HIV/AIDS. This indicates that churches are reacting to incidence of the HIV/AIDS infection rather than preparing ahead. The results of this study clearly indicate the need to develop a comprehensive HIV/AIDS policy for employees in religious communities. Church employees must carefully consider all the issues in the workplace when adopting and implementing a HIV/AIDS policy. A comprehensive policy was developed and guidelines are suggested. ^

A practice-based culminating experience: Writing a HRSA grant application with Texas Organ Sharing Alliance for public education efforts to increase solid organ donation

In November 2010, nearly 110,000 people in the United States were waiting for organs for transplantation. Despite the fact that the organ donor registration rate has doubled in the last year, Texas has the lowest registration rate in the nation. Due to the need for improved registration rates in Texas, this practice-based culminating experience was to write an application for federal funding for the central Texas organ procurement organization, Texas Organ Sharing Alliance. The culminating experience has two levels of significance for public health – (1) to engage in an activity to promote organ donation registration, and (2) to provide professional experience in grant writing. ^ The process began with a literature review. The review was to identify successful intervention activities in motivating organ donation registration that could be used in intervention design for the grant application. Conclusions derived from the literature review included (1) the need to specifically encourage family discussions, (2) religious and community leaders can be leveraged to facilitate organ donation conversations in families, (3) communication content must be culturally sensitive and (4) ethnic disparities in transplantation must be acknowledged and discussed.^ Post the literature review; the experience followed a five step process of developing the grant application. The steps included securing permission to proceed, assembling a project team, creation of a project plan and timeline, writing each element of the grant application including the design of proposed intervention activities, and completion of the federal grant application. ^ After the grant application was written, an evaluation of the grant writing process was conducted. Opportunities for improvement were identified. The first opportunity was the need for better timeline management to allow for review of the application by an independent party, iterative development of the budget proposal, and development of collaborative partnerships. Another improvement opportunity was the management of conflict regarding the design of the intervention that stemmed from marketing versus evidence-based approaches. The most important improvement opportunity was the need to develop a more exhaustive evaluation plan.^ Eight supplementary files are attached to appendices: Feasibility Discussion in Appendix 1, Grant Guidance and Workshop Notes in Appendix 2, Presentation to Texas Organ Sharing Alliance in Appendix 3, Team Recruitment Presentation in Appendix 5, Grant Project Narrative in Appendix 7, Federal Application Form in Appendix 8, and Budget Workbook with Budget Narrative in Appendix 9.^