Table 2.
Facilitators to congregational HIV activities as reported by clergy and lay leaders
| Perceived facilitators | # of congregations citing issue
|
Norms and attitudes | Organization structure and process | Resources | Demographics | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Internala | Externala | |||||
| Perceived needs or demand | 8 | 6 | 4 | ✓ | |||
| External entities/linkages | 8 | 0 | 8 | ✓ | |||
|
| |||||||
| Personal experience | 7 | 7 | 1 | ✓ | |||
| Supportive clergy | 7 | 7 | 0 | ✓ | |||
| Human capital | 7 | 7 | 0 | ✓ | |||
| Attitudes, values, philosophy | 5 | 5 | 1 | ✓ | |||
| Material resources | 4 | 3 | 2 | ✓ | |||
|
| |||||||
| Nature or appeal of program | 3 | 2 | 2 | ✓ | |||
| Institutionalization of program | 3 | 3 | 0 | ✓ | |||
| Prevalence/risk among demographic groups | 2 | 2 | 1 | ✓ | |||
a
The number of congregations describing a facilitator as internal to the congregation and the number describing it as external are not mutually exclusive, since some congregations may report the issue as being both (e.g., perceiving needs or demand for HIV services both within the congregation as well as in the community at large). Thus, the sum of the internal and external columns for a facilitator may be greater than the total number of congregations citing that issue