Table 3.

Barriers to congregational HIV activities as reported by clergy and lay leaders

Perceived barriers	# of congregations citing issue			Norms and attitudes	Organization structure and process	Resources	Demographics
	Total	Internala	Externala
Attitudes, values, philosophy	11	10	7	✓
Human capital (lack)	10	10	2			✓
Congregation support (lack)	9	9	0	✓
Material resources (lack)	8	6	6			✓
Perceived needs or demand (lack)	6	4	5	✓
Nature of program	6	5	2		✓
Competing priorities	6	5	1	✓
Clergy support (lack)	5	5	0	✓
Attitudes of demographic/ cultural groups	4	4	4				✓
Program lifecycle	3	1	3		✓
Changing acuity/ mortality of HIV pop	3	0	3				✓
Denomination policy/doctrine	3	0	3	✓
Clients with diverse/difficult needs	2	0	2				✓
External services/ resources	2	0	2			✓
External entities/ linkages (lack)	2	0	2		✓
Coordination or organization (lack)	2	2	1		✓
Other demographic-related challenges	1	1	0				✓

^aThe number of congregations describing a barrier 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., noting attitudes of stigma toward HIV both within the congregation as well as in the community at large). Thus, the sum of the internal and external columns for a barrier may be greater than the total number of congregations citing that issue