MSM On-Site Work in Munich

1. Service organisation(s)

- Münchner Aids-Hilfe e.V. www.muenchner-aidshilfe.de
- Sub e.V., Projekt Prävention, München, www.subonline.org

2. Authors

Christopher Knoll
Guido Vael
Sebastian Haferkorn

3. Scientific guidance

Berlin Social Science Centre (WZB); Research Group Public Health, Berlin www.wzb.eu

4. Preventive measure subjected to quality assurance

The quality development consisted of the self-evaluation of the “Thanks Campaign”, a HIV prevention campaign organised by Sittenstrolche [Sex Fiends]. Sittenstrolche is a joint project of Münchner Aids-Hilfe [Munich AIDS Service Organisation) and Sub e.V. Being a voluntary team of gay men organising prevention campaigns for gay men, it has been active for more than 10 years. Sittenstrolche provides HIV prevention in the Munich gay scene with the help of show acts, vendors’ trays and informational literature (the target group being gay men in Munich). The Thanks Campaign was designed to convey a feeling of appreciation to gay men who use condoms and encourage them in their safer sex behaviour. Men who do not use condoms are to be encouraged to rethink their attitude to safer sex. Implementation: The Thanks Campaign involved three to four Sittenstrolche workers visiting gay venues together. The guests are approached individually and asked: “Do you have a condom with you?” If the answer is “yes”, the guest receives a gift (see Literature); if the answer is “no”, the guest is given a condom. Additionally, there is a postcard [see Literature), which is distributed to all guests.

5. Aim of the quality assurance

The quality development was aimed at evaluating the Thanks Campaign of Sittenstrolche.

6. What were the benefits of the quality assurance?

Encouragement for Sittenstrolche: The self-evaluation, in particular the guest interviews, show how well the Thanks Campaign and Sittenstrolche are accepted among our target group. The objectives of the campaign were largely achieved. This provides motivation.

• The self-evaluation gave rise to repeated self-contemplation: It raised questions about the campaign’s meaningfulness and made clear how important the fun factor is to Sittenstrolche, also as an indicator of the prevention work’s success.
• Better documentation, better planning: The feedback from the target group and the self-evaluation sheet help us evaluate our campaigns and plan future campaigns even better (where to conduct what campaigns and when, target groups, etc.). The “self-evaluation sheet” will continue to be used in the future. The guest interviews will be repeated as needed.
• Qualification of workers: In the course of the counselling by the Berlin Social Science Centre as well as the development and application of the (self-) evaluation methods, the workers were able to obtain further knowledge in terms of quality assurance and evaluation and learn methods that can be transferred to other projects.

The quality assurance provided benefits for:

• Professional development of workers
• Practical prevention work

7. Methodology

1. Definition of objectives and strategies of the Thanks Campaign
2. Rapid assessment by guests
3. “Self-evaluation sheet” – Questionnaire for self-assessment
4. Evaluation

relating to 1 Definition of objectives and strategies of the Thanks Campaign
Using the ZiWi method, the objectives and strategies of Sittenstrolche’s campaigns were defined in general and those of the Thanks Campaign in particular. There was not enough time for the complete elaboration and transcription of the ZiWi Method, since we had to start the Thanks Campaign and develop an evaluation design.
We defined the following objectives and milestones for progress review:
a) Sittenstrolche workers get into conversation with the guests as part of the Thanks Campaign
b) The campaign is not perceived as annoying
c) Men who receive a gift for having a condom with them feel appreciated (not patronised) by the campaign
d) The participants feel encouraged by the campaign in practicing safer sex

relating to 2 Rapid assessment by guests
The guests were interviewed about the campaign with the help of a short questionnaire. The rapid assessment comprises five questions about the following topics: receiving a gift or a condom; being pleased about the gift/condom; rating of the campaign; feeling encouraged in personal safer sex behaviour; estimating whether the campaign has a favourable influence on other gay men’s attitude to safer sex.
Implementation: As part of the Thanks Campaign, Sittenstrolche workers distributed questionnaires and pencils, which were collected at the end of the campaign by a Sittenstrolche worker who was not directly involved in the campaign (distribution of gifts/condoms). The interviews were conducted on three evenings at 18 locations in Munich (survey period: February – April 2007).

relating to 3 “Self-evaluation sheet” – Questionnaire for self-assessment
Immediately after each Thanks Campaign session at a given location, the Sittenstrolche workers completed a questionnaire, which, as a “self-evaluation sheet”, is an extended version of their previous documentation. This “self-evaluation sheet” comprises questions about the location and the number of guests, the fun factor, the meaningfulness of the campaign, the visitors, resistances, positive responses, the number of interviews as well as observations and estimations about what proved effective and what needs to be changed. The self-evaluation sheet was completed by the Sittenstrolche workers on three evenings and was also used in other campaigns on a trial basis.

relating to 4 Evaluation
The questionnaires of the guest interviews were provided with a number, the date and a code for each location. The data was subsequently entered into a statistical programme (SPSS) and evaluated. The “free” answers of the guests (to the semi-open question 3 as well as remarks provided in response to questions 4 & 5) were transferred into a Word document, printed out and evaluated together within the scope of a team meeting (classified into groups, provided with headings and interpreted). Photos of the evaluation meeting can be seen here. The entries in the “self-evaluation sheets” were transferred into a Word document and evaluated together by Sittenstrolche workers in one of their team meetings.

Which method(s) of this platform was/were applied?
Rapid assessment

8. Results of the quality assurance

The guest interviews show that the campaign met with a very positive response. Altogether, 215 men participated in the guest interviews – this corresponds to three-quarters of all men who were present at the locations (all guests present were approached). Out of the 215 men, 87% were pleased about the gift/condom (35% had a condom with them and received a gift). When the participants were asked “How did you like the campaign?”, 65% of them ticked “meaningful”, 41% “funny” and only 1 to 2% considered it “boring” or “unnecessary” (multiple answers were possible). “Annoying” was not ticked by anyone.
The majority of participants (69%) indicated that the campaign encouraged them in practicing safer sex. A somewhat smaller majority (53%) also assumed that the campaign had a favourable influence on (other) gay men’s attitude to safer sex. To this question, however, there were many “free” remarks such as “remains to be seen”, “hopefully”, “I hope so”, which was interpreted to mean that there is both doubt and hope regarding the attitude of other men in the gay scene.
The evaluation of the self-evaluation sheets showed that the Thanks Campaign enabled Sittenstrolche workers to get into conversation with guests more often than in common vendors’ tray campaigns. Furthermore, it became evident how important the “fun factor” is for the implementation of campaigns and how closely it is connected to the estimation of the campaign’s meaningfulness at a given location.
We were surprised by the following results:

• The guests’ high level of willingness to participate in the interviews. Prior to the campaign, we had doubts about whether such interviews are feasible at all and were surprised to see how willingly the guests took part in the short survey;
• The positive response to the campaign. Prior to the campaign, some team members were sceptical about whether the Thanks Campaign could be perceived as patronising. Not all guests at the locations took part in the campaign, but those who were willing to do so (76%) gave us clear feedback that they were pleased about the gifts and condoms and liked the campaign.

For a detailed description of the interview results, see the evaluation of the Thanks Campaign.

9. Experience and tips

• A guided self-evaluation is very time-consuming, but it is worthwhile (see below “Benefits”).

• The discussions were partly strenuous, lengthy and tedious (especially with the ZiWi method). It was not always possible to find a common language. There were also some uncertainties about directly applying the newly acquired quality assurance and evaluation methods. Bottom line: External moderation and scientific guidance are desirable; efforts should be made to keep the discussions in plain and clear terms and adequately address the questions and needs of workers.

• Not all Sittenstrolche workers were able or willing to participate in the counselling meetings; there was also some resistance to the (self-) evaluation. Bottom line: Collaborative partners should be involved in quality development processes as early and comprehensively as possible.

• The guest interviews show the target group’s high level of willingness to participate in the interviews. Only very few of them refused to take part. Bottom line: Research is possible.

• “Self-evaluation sheet”: Three to four Sittenstrolche workers, who conducted a Thanks Campaign together, had some difficulties rating the campaign consistently. Bottom line: The self-evaluation sheet needs to be adapted in such a way that several, also different, opinions can be reflected.