In recognising the success attained through community-directed treatment with Ivermectin, there has been a growing interest to use a similar approach for delivery of interventions against other communicable diseases. This study was conducted in 2007 to evaluate the impact of community directed intervention (CDI) on delivering five health interventions namely Vitamin A supplementation (VAS), community-directed treatment with Ivermectin (CDTi), distribution of insecticide-treated nets (ITN), directly observed treatment of tuberculosis (DOTS), and home-based management of malaria (HMM). The study was carried out in onchocerciasis endemic districts of Kilosa, Muheza, Lushoto, Korogwe and Ulanga districts in Tanzania. A total of 250 households were involved in the study for the period of two years. During the first year, one new intervention was added in each study district. A second new intervention was then added in the same manner during the second study year. In the control district all interventions, with the exception of Ivermectin distribution, continued to be delivered in the traditional manner throughout the study period. Results showed that Ivermectin treatment coverage in the CDI districts (88%) was significantly (P<0.005) higher than in the control district (77%). The coverage of VAS was 84 +/- 7%, showing very little difference between control and intervention districts (P>0.05). The DOTS treatment completion rate was observed only in Korogwe where 4 out 7 patients had completed their treatment. The proportions of pregnant women and <5 years children sleeping under ITN in the CDI districts (range: 83-100%) were significantly higher (P< 0.05) than those in the control district (40-43%). There was also a higher proportion of malaria cases referred in the intervention districts (42%) than in the control district (21%) (P<0.005). Likewise, the proportion of <5 years children who were presumptively diagnosed with malaria and received appropriated treatment within 24 hours in the intervention districts (17-29%) was higher than those in the control district (4%) (P<0.005). The costs incurred per integrated programme in the intervention districts were much lower than those in the control district. In conclusion, our results showed higher coverage of interventions in the CDI districts without necessarily increasing the cost.