18 o r;.‘r. oi) r 0 *I;)/.5» CARES says NO I A continued from page requiring grantees to use solely urban-based programs,” he maintained. “If they’ve got something that works and is effective ...” At issue, Kleier said, is a new “eval- uation management program” that smaller organizations find “cumbersome to use.” The new system is due to come online in the mid- dle of the grant year — in mid-2005. It’s part of “a general push for accountability,” and also affects substance abuse programs, and others. Asked about the mandates to teach abstinence as a primary prevention method and to portray condoms as less than effective, Kleier said, “We share Kendall’s concern over the effectiveness of abstinence prevention materials. We’ve weighed'in on that at every chance we've had. We’re very concerned about the condoms issue. We are convinced that they can be effective at preventing not just HIV/AIDS, but a whole list of sexually transmitted diseases.” ‘ Reserving Options Susan Bell, executive director of the AIDS Project of Southern Vermont, says that although her agency “is taking a different tack from Vermont CARES, there is not one point on which we disagree with‘Verrnont CARES’ positions.” ' . The AIDS Project of Southern Vermont is applying for funds to address three at-risk populations: MSM, at-risk women identified as heterosexual, and IDU. “In the past, our prevention activities for these three groups totaled $100,000,” Bell said. “One of the tensions this year is that we have no idea whether we will end up with more money or less money. 0 “Vermont CARES has chosen to opt out of the process early on, while We’re reserving that option” for later consideration via a routinely included cancellation provision in the agency’s contracts, Bell explained. Bell noted that programs in other rural states are also objecting to the new data- out in the mountains gathering provisions as well as to “being asked to be a research arm of the CDC.‘[The CDC is saying] ‘Here are programs that have been shown to work (in large urban areas), take them and use them in your rural areas.’ If we were able to run them as [separate] pilots, I ' that would not be such a bad thing.” Bell added, “It feels like we’re,being told to do things differently, with unfamiliar programs, using less funding, knowing that meeting these higher standards will cost more. The question is how we negotiate that.” . She had characterized the new CDC mandates in an April article in the Brattleboro Reformer as targeting people already infected, attempting to control and track their behavior, , instead of focusing attention and resources on ‘ dismantling the social inequities that put peo- ’’ ple at risk for infection. ' R.U.1.2? Queer Community Center V Executive Director Christopher Kaufman . agreed with Bell that he shares CARES’ con- cerns, and supports the agency’s decision to withdraw from the process, but he will apply . for the grant under the mandates. Asked whether R.U.l.2? would benefit by having one ' less competitor for the funding, he grimaced. “We’re set up to compete, and that’s’ too bad. We’re different agencies providing different, " . services, Sharing the same values. We should ‘be collaborating.” ' . The biggest difference he noted is ., that CARES is a large agency_ able to take a ‘calculated risk that fundraising would make up , thedifference, while R.U.1.2?’s» MSM HIV- , prevention program is small, giving R.U.1.2? lessflexibility. This y_ear’s .prograrn— primari- ' ly Internet outreach throughgselected chat- - rooms, along with a website and a recently instituted email’ ‘prevention digest’ — was funded to the tune of $40,000. If R.U.1.2? gets .1 oneof the two MSM grants, it will more than i A double theVCommunity Centerfs HIV program n budget. The grant deadline was September 24. Applicants expect they'll be notified in late November whether they’ve been awarded funding — and how much. Kaufman said his understanding about the new mandates is that the require- ment for ‘unique identifiers’ for clients seek- ing prevention services will not be imposed‘ until 2006. ‘ ' _ ACoRN executive director Tom Mock applauded the principled stand taken by’ Vermont CARES, adding that ACoRN shares, ; the other agencies’ concerns. “But I have a fis- cal responsibility to the agency and a service responsibility to the community to continue our services,” he explained. Besides, he said, the “strings attached to this money may never materialize.” ’ Mock suggested that the data gather-V ing provisions, known as ‘fPEMS,” are “CDC policy and run directly into theface of Vermont legislated law. It would not be . responsible‘ funding based on what might happen. ‘We’re banking on the possibility that it will all just go away.” - ACORN serves Orange and Windsor Counties- in Vermont with .an office in Lebanon, NH. Because it "also serves people in Grafton and Sullivan Counties in New Hampshire, Mock added, “What We’re really concerned about is New Hampshire, where the Health Department has made it very clear they ' want not just ‘unique identifiers,’ but name ‘reporting. I asked them iftheir goal was to shut down our services. They said, oh, no, that wouldn’t happen, after a ‘while it would ‘nor- malize’ and people would come back again.” ~ " That seems -aneven worse gamble with people’_s liv'estl1an the one being played out among the "CDC, the Vermont Department I of Health, and Vermont CARES. "3