Unfortunately, the analysis was not able to compare the two programs on the housing status of participants, because each program captures this differently. HOPWA reports on the prior living arrangements of HOPWA-eligible housing participants entering the program during the reporting year, and RWP reports on the housing/living arrangements of clients receiving services as of the end of the reporting period. In addition, HOPWA collects information on a wide range of prior living arrangements, whereas RWP classifies living arrangements as “stable/permanent,” “temporary, unstable,” or “unknown,” It is also challenging to make comparisons between the RWP categories of “temporary” and “unstable” and the HOPWA category of “homeless.” Therefore, we report housing status separately for the two programs.
Housing Status of RWP Clients: Among RWP clients that did not receive housing assistance, relatively few (about 3 percent) reported their housing as “unstable” at the end of 2010 (Figure II.9).25, 26 This percentage was slightly higher when looking only at RWP clients who received a housing service (5 percent). In addition, 19 percent of clients receiving a housing service reported their housing status as temporary, compared to 11 percent of clients not receiving a housing service. There was a much higher percentage reporting an unknown or missing housing status among clients not receiving a housing service (18 percent).
Examination of RDR data on housing status shows there were no significant changes in this percentage over the four years examined (2007–2010).27 However, the percentage varied across states and territories (Appendix J). Four states (New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and West Virginia) served less than 5 percent of RWP HIV-positive/indeterminate clients in nonpermanent housing situations, whereas Guam, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming each served more than 15 percent of HIV positive/indeterminate clients who were in nonpermanent housing.
Figure II.9. Housing Status/Living Arrangements of RWP Clients
Source: HRSA Ryan White Program Services Report, 2010.
Housing Status of HOPWA Participants: Thirteen percent of HOPWA HIV-positive participants enrolling in housing services reported their prior living situation as homeless, defined as “a place not meant for human habitation, an emergency shelter, or transitional housing for homeless persons.” The most common prior living situation reported was “rented room or apartment of house.” Across states, the proportion of homeless status of the participants entering the HOPWA program varied. In five states (Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Wyoming), no participants entered the program from a homeless living situation. In contrast, 44 percent of new participants in Puerto Rico were previously homeless; in two other states (Alabama and California), 20 percent of the new HOPWA participants were previously homeless (Appendix J).
25 “Unstable” includes participants who are homeless, as well as those living in transient or transitional housing. “Homeless” includes shelters, vehicles, the streets, or other places not intended as regular accommodations for living. “Transitional housing” includes any stable but temporary living arrangement, whether or not it is part of a formal program. “Homeless” is defined as having a prior living situation that includes a place not meant for human habitation, an emergency shelter, or transitional housing for homeless persons.
26 Housing status was not collected for 7,250 RWP participants; therefore, the percentage is calculated using the 548,925 participants for whom housing status was collected.
27 RDR data do not provide an unduplicated across programs.