Oregon Balance of State HIV/AIDS Housing & Services Systems ...

Oregon Balance of State 

HIV/AIDS Housing & Services 

Systems Integration Plan 

August 2008

The research, development, and publication of this plan was funded in part by the Housing 

Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) National Technical Assistance Program in partnership 

with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of HIV/AIDS Housing. The 

substance and findings of the work are dedicated to the public. The author and publisher are solely 

responsible for the accuracy of the statements and interpretations contained in this publication. Such 

interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of the Government. 

Prepared for: 

Oregon Department of Human Services, HIV Care and Treatment 

Oregon Housing Opportunities in Partnership (OHOP) 

800 NE Oregon St., Suite 1105 

Portland, OR 97232 

Ryan Deibert 

OHOP Program Coordinator 

(971) 673-0145 

ryan.j.deibert@state.or.us 

Prepared in collaboration with: 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Portland, Oregon Field Office 

400 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 700 


Doug Carlson 

CPD Field Office Director 

(971)222-2612 

doug_carlson@hud.gov 

Prepared by: 

Building Changes 

2014 East Madison, Suite 200 

Seattle, Washington 98122 

(206) 322-9444 

www.BuildingChanges.org 

Info@BuildingChanges.org

Oregon Balance of State HIV/AIDS Housing and Services Systems 

Integration Plan Steering Committee Members 

Sherri Alston 

Eastern Oregon Center for Independent Living 

Elizabeth Anguiano 

Oregon Department of Human Services, Addictions & 

Mental Health 

Ann Brown 

Oregon Housing and Community Services 

Carla Cary 

Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency 

Vince Chiotti 


John Delco 

Community Member 

Nancy Donovan 


Joy Hirl 

Formerly of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 

Oregon Department of Human Services 

Vic Fox 

Program Manager, 

HIV Care and 

Treatment 

Renee Yandell 

Housing Coordinator, OHOP 

Ryan Deibert 

Program Coordinator, 

Oregon Housing 

Opportunities in 

Partnership (OHOP) 

Kristin Kane 

Cascade AIDS Project 

Dawn Martin 

Portland Bureau of Housing and Community 

Development 

Pegge McGuire 


Wayne Miya 

Our House of Portland 

Scott Rich 


Stan Stradley 

Housing Authority of the County of Umatilla 

Richie Weinman 

City of Eugene 

Annick Benson 

Support Services 

Manager, HIV Care 

and Treatment 

Program 

Building Changes / AIDS Housing of Washington 

Katherine Cortes 

Community Planner 

Rachel Moorhead 

Training and Publications 

Coordinator 

Charlie Corrigan 

Community Planner 

Jessica Pemble 

Administrative Assistant 

Denise Fry 

Housing Coordinator, 

OHOP 

Mark Putnam 

Manager of Community 

Initiatives

Key Stakeholders 

ACCESS, Inc. 

Edward Angeletti 

Cindy Dyer 

Ellen Gray 

Housing and Community Services Agency (HACSA) 

of Lane County 

Larry Abel 

Craig Satein 

Housing Authority of Jackson County 

Cara Carter 

Scott Foster 

Christie Van Aken 

Jackson County Health and Human Services 

Billie Arnold 

Mark Orndoff 

Al Solovich 

Lane County Human Services Commission 

Pearle Wolfe 

Lincoln County Board of Commissioners 

Bill Hall 

Neighbor Impact 

Corky Senecal 

Oregon Department of Corrections 

Ginger Martin 

Oregon Department of Human Services, Addictions 

and Mental Health 

Vicki Skryha 

Oregon Housing Opportunities in Partnership 

(OHOP) Program 

Jakki Calhoun 

Portland Bureau of Housing and Community 

Development 

Heather Lyons 

Salem Housing Authority 

Jerry Croft 

Esther Reinecke 

ShelterCare 

Erin Bonner 

Chris Steele 

St. Vincent de Paul Lane County 

Anne Williams 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development 

Doug Carlson

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... i 

Overview of the Systems Integration Assessment and Planning Process .................................. ii 

Critical Issues and Recommendations .......................................................................................iii 

Context of HIV/AIDS Housing in Oregon Balance of State ..................................................... 1 

Oregon Housing and Opportunities in Partnership (OHOP) Program ....................................... 1 

Demographics and Epidemiology............................................................................................... 4 

Poverty, Housing, and Homelessness in Oregon...................................................................... 10 

Integration of HIV/AIDS Services and Housing with Existing Systems................................ 17 

Outreach Strategies ................................................................................................................... 17 

Health Care (including HIV Care)............................................................................................ 19 

Affordable Housing Resources................................................................................................. 21 

Homeless Services and Prevention ........................................................................................... 29 

Addictions and Mental Health Services.................................................................................... 31 

Human Services and Public Assistance .................................................................................... 33 

Employment.............................................................................................................................. 34 

Criminal Justice ........................................................................................................................ 35 

Critical Issues .............................................................................................................................. 41 

Outreach and Partnership Development ................................................................................... 41 

Integration with Housing and Service Systems ........................................................................ 42 

Recommendations....................................................................................................................... 49 

Outreach and Partnership Development ................................................................................... 49 

Integration with Housing and Service Systems ........................................................................ 51 

APPENDICES 

Appendix 1: Affordable Housing Resource Guide ................................................................ A-1 

Appendix 2: Stakeholder Survey Results ............................................................................. A-35 

Appendix 3: HIV/AIDS Housing Options ............................................................................ A-41 

Appendix 4: Federal and State Financing Sources for Affordable Housing..................... A-49 

Appendix 5: Glossary of HIV/AIDS- and Housing-Related Terms ................................... A-57

Table of Figures and Tables 

Figure 1: OHOP Service Regions in the Balance of State.............................................................. ii 

Table 1: Summary of OHOP Grants............................................................................................... 3 

Table 2: Total Population (2006) and Number of People Living with HIV/AIDS (2007) for 

Counties in the Balance of State ............................................................................................. 7 

Table 3: Demographics for the State of Oregon (as of July 2006) and for People Living 

with HIV and AIDS in Oregon (as of March 2007) ............................................................... 9 

Table 4: People Living with HIV and AIDS as of March 2007 in Oregon by Exposure 

Category................................................................................................................................ 10 

Table 5: 2006-2008 Fair Market Rents for One-Bedroom Unit for Oregon Counties in 

Balance of State .................................................................................................................... 14 

Table 6: CDBG and HOME Allocations for Oregon Balance of State, Fiscal Year 2007 ........... 24 

Table 7: Public Housing and Section 8 Resources for Oregon Housing Authorities ................... 26 

Table 8: Continuum of Care Funding Allocations for Fiscal Year 2006...................................... 30

Executive Summary—Oregon HIV/AIDS Housing and Services Systems Integration Plan i 

Executive Summary 

This Executive Summary includes a statement of the purpose behind this systems integration plan, 

an overview of the needs assessment and planning process, key findings, and critical issues that 

were identified and recommendations that were developed by the Steering Committee. 

Many people living with HIV/AIDS, at some point during their illness, find themselves in need of 

housing assistance and support services. Stable housing promotes improved health, sobriety or 

decreased use of alcohol and illegal drugs, and, for some, a return to paid employment and 

productive social activities. As the number of people living with HIV/AIDS continues to grow in 

both urban and rural areas throughout the United States, stakeholders must find new ways to 

address their needs to promote the health and well-being of these individuals and their families. 

Increasingly, maximizing the resources available to people who need them requires partnering 

across mainstream housing and human services systems to ensure continuity of care, program 

efficiency, and that there is “no wrong door” to assistance for clients at risk. 

In order to improve the ability of the State of Oregon to establish and sustain such partnerships, the 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funded the development of the Oregon 

HIV/AIDS Housing and Services Systems Integration Plan in August 2007. The plan was facilitated 

by Building Changes (formerly AIDS Housing of Washington), a national HIV/AIDS housing 

technical assistance provider based in Seattle. Building Changes worked closely with the Oregon 

Department of Human Services, the grantee for HUD’s Housing Opportunities for Persons with 

AIDS (HOPWA) program for Oregon State outside of the five-county Portland metropolitan area. 

This area is referred to as the Oregon “balance of state.” 

The Oregon Housing Opportunities in Partnership (OHOP) program has been administered by the 

Oregon Department of Human Services, Public Health, HIV/STD/TB Section, HIV Care and 

Treatment program (HIV Care and Treatment) since 2002. The four OHOP Housing Coordinators 

serve four regions of the balance of state. 

Figure 1 on the following page shows a map of the four OHOP service regions.

ii Executive Summary—Oregon HIV/AIDS Housing and Services Systems Integration Plan 

Figure 1: 

OHOP Service Regions in the Balance of State 

In addition to the formula funds that the State receives based on the number of residents living with 

HIV/AIDS, HIV Care and Treatment concurrently administers competitive HOPWA funding 

awarded by HUD in previous funding cycles, including two HOPWA Special Projects of National 

Significance (SPNS) addressing formerly incarcerated people and people with co-occurring mental 

illness, respectively. HOPWA fund administration is further described in the first chapter of the 

main report, “Context of HIV/AIDS Housing in Oregon Balance of State.” Since 2002, OHOP has 

provided services to nearly 400 unduplicated people living with HIV/AIDS. OHOP currently 

maintains a wait list of about 50 eligible clients. 

Overview of the Systems Integration Assessment and Planning Process 

The HIV/AIDS housing and services systems integration assessment (conducted between fall 2007 

and spring 2008) provided an opportunity for more than 60 community members to give input, 

discuss, and identify critical issues and strategies for enhancing and integrating HIV/AIDS housing 

and services across the Oregon balance of state. The process was guided by a Steering Committee 

that included a broad cross-section of representatives of State and city agencies, nonprofit service 

providers, housing authorities, community action agencies, and a person living with HIV/AIDS. 

Stakeholders from each of the four OHOP regions participated in the process, through interviews, a 

survey, and/or Steering Committee membership.

Executive Summary—Oregon HIV/AIDS Housing and Services Systems Integration Plan iii 

The Systems Integration Plan includes a summary of the OHOP program as a regional HIV/AIDS 

resource; research on demographic patterns, HIV/AIDS epidemiology, economic factors, housing 

and homelessness among people living with HIV/AIDS in Oregon’s balance of state; and 

descriptions of key features of an array of interrelated housing and service systems across Oregon. 

Among the key findings of this research is the great need for housing for people living with 

HIV/AIDS. Forty percent of Oregonians with HIV need housing assistance, and a survey of Oregon 

service agency representatives cited the lack of affordable housing as the number-one barrier to 

stability for Oregonians living with HIV/AIDS. 

For greater detail on the findings of each aspect of the research, please see the “Context of 

HIV/AIDS Housing” and “Integration of HIV/AIDS Services and Housing with Existing Systems” 

sections of the Plan. Based on these findings, the Steering Committee identified critical issues and 

developed recommendations to improve the ability of these systems to cooperatively meet the 

housing and services needs of people living with HIV/AIDS in Oregon. 

Critical Issues and Recommendations 

The Oregon HIV Housing and Service Systems Integration Plan Steering Committee met twice in 

Salem, Oregon, and also by telephone conference, to review findings from the assessment of 

HIV/AIDS resources and systems integration conducted by Building Changes. Based on these 

findings, the Committee identified critical issues in systems integration that pose challenges to 

meeting the housing and related needs of people living with HIV and AIDS in the state of Oregon 

(outside of the Portland metropolitan area). The Committee then sought to develop strategic 

recommendations that addressed the critical issues. 

Among the critical issues, the Committee identified both general issues related to the outreach and 

partnership strategies of the OHOP program, and issues specific to the various housing and service 

systems which should be involved in an integrated HIV housing and service plan for Oregon 

residents. One or more recommendations were developed to correspond to each type of issue and 

system. For greater detail on each of these issues and recommendations, please read the “Critical 

Issues” and “Recommendations and Strategies” section of the complete Plan. 

Critical Issues 

Outreach and Partnership Development 

1. Limited Awareness of Resources Dedicated to People Living with HIV/AIDS 

Many potential housing and services partners lack awareness or accurate knowledge of existing 

resources dedicated to, or which can be used to serve, people living with HIV/AIDS, and that lack 

of awareness may limit partnerships. 

2. Confidentiality Concerns 

The need to maintain client confidentiality restricts the ways that OHOP housing coordinators and 

other organizations and individuals can publicize their activities and resources. 

3. Limited Staff Capacity and Knowledge

iv Executive Summary—Oregon HIV/AIDS Housing and Services Systems Integration Plan 

OHOP and HIV Care and Treatment staff may lack familiarity with aspects of partner systems, 

including affordable housing, and have limited resources and time to conduct marketing and 

outreach to potential partners and planning bodies. 

Recommendations 

• Develop simple, discreet material to publicize OHOP and related services and opportunities, and 

disseminate widely. 

• Present to current and potential partners, including faith-based and community-based grass roots 

organizations with information tailored to their interests. 

• Engage provider agency staff, clients, and other regional participants in publicizing the need, 

opportunity, and benefits of investing in housing and services for people living with HIV/AIDS. 

• Offer trainings and create forums for sharing best practices to build OHOP and partner staff 

capacity. 

Individualized Housing and Service System Approaches 

Affordable Housing Resources 

4. Prioritizing Participation among Many Planning and Implementation Processes 

Mechanisms for community input are frequently built in to affordable housing planning processes, 

but it can be difficult for OHOP staff and partners to track the time-limited windows to provide such 

input, as well as to prioritize in which meetings and processes their participation will be most 

effective and conducive to cooperative ventures. 

5. Maximizing Access to New Resources for Special Populations 

Steering Committee members noted that affordable housing funders and developers are asked to 

prioritize or include a variety of special population definitions and set-asides in their projects or 

guidelines. Affordable housing resources are limited across the balance of state, resulting in strong 

competition for funding opportunities. 

6. Understanding Affordable Housing System Missions and Cultures 

Stakeholders in the affordable housing “system” have interests and goals that vary from entity to 

entity and may not be clear to OHOP stakeholders or consistent with goals of expanding access to 

housing by people living with HIV/AIDS. 


• Participate consistently in the statewide Consolidated Plan, Continuum of Care, and other 

planning processes. 

• Prioritize strategically between building on existing relationships or seeking new partnerships 

with affordable housing developers and providers, neighborhood associations, and faith-based 

organizations. 

• Seek housing development opportunities in which relatively modest HIV/AIDS-specific 

resources can leverage significant investment from other sources.

Executive Summary—Oregon HIV/AIDS Housing and Services Systems Integration Plan v 

Homeless Services 

7. Lack of Shared Data and Coordinated Planning Between HIV/AIDS and Homeless 

Systems 

Limited data is available on the overlap between the challenges of homelessness and HIV/AIDS, 

and information systems are not well integrated on the client or systems levels. As a result, clients 

risk falling through the cracks and not receiving referrals for needed services. 

8. Incomplete Integration of HIV/AIDS Issues into Continua of Care 

Steering Committee members identified the need for more meaningful inclusion of the needs of 

people living with HIV/AIDS in Continuum of Care planning, including through participation by 

HIV/AIDS system stakeholders in Continuum meetings, and the pursuit of additional Shelter Plus 

Care projects across the state. 


• Focus attention on improving coordination with planning, data, and other elements of homeless 

systems. 

• Promote Shelter Plus Care and other bonus projects through agreements to streamline or share 

sponsor administrative costs. 

• Conduct outreach and seek partnerships with landlords and property managers. 

Addictions and Mental Health 

9. Addictions and Mental Health Services Gap 

The Steering Committee saw a significant gap in services for addictions and mental health services 

among people living with HIV/AIDS in Oregon’s balance of state. 

10. Limited Access by People Living with HIV/AIDS to Mainstream Behavioral Health 

Services 

Steering Committee members noted that limited statewide development funds to serve people with 

behavioral health issues and unmet housing needs have not to date supported developments wholly 

or partially dedicated to people living with HIV/AIDS. 


• Partner with substance abuse and mental health service providers to spotlight need and seek 

expanded support for these services. 

• Build relationships with behavioral health crisis providers. 

Human Services and Public Assistance 

11. Loss and Scarcity of Funding for Human Services 

The budgets of local agencies that provide the bulk of human services in Oregon have been hard-hit 

(especially in smaller, more rural counties) by the loss of timber revenues and other challenges. The 

number of promising “one-stop” centers in which multiple agencies coordinate their services has 

dwindled.

vi Executive Summary—Oregon HIV/AIDS Housing and Services Systems Integration Plan 

12. Family Support Needs 

A substantial number of family households impacted by HIV/AIDS, which have diverse and unique 

needs as compared to individuals, require housing and services support. While HOPWA funds can 

be used to serve households as well as individuals, various program activities (discussed further in 

Appendix 3: HIV/AIDS Housing Options) may be more or less appropriate for family groups. 

Recommendation 

• Prioritize education and outreach to local DHS offices and community action agencies around 

HIV/AIDS and client issues, and support coordinated service delivery models. 

Criminal Justice 

13. Lack of Housing Options 

Offenders living with HIV/AIDS are screened out of public and private housing by background 

checks, and can find it difficult to transition to mainstream housing assistance programs such as 

Section 8, even if they are successfully housed with OHOP assistance. 

14. Multiple Risk Factors 

The inter-related risk factors that are commonly found among offenders translate into high service 

needs – and gaps in receiving services – when prisoners return to the community. 


• Pursue partnerships with local and state criminal justice agencies and stakeholders, including 

grass roots community- and faith-based organizations, and seek federal and other resources to 

serve people with incarceration histories. 

Primary Care, Hospitals and Assisted Living 

15. Lack of Research and Resources for People Living with HIV/AIDS 

Steering Committee members identified a need for more assisted living and long-term care options 

(including in-home assistance) for both HIV-positive people living longer, and those suffering from 

chronic diseases like diabetes which provider observation suggests emerge earlier and more 

frequently among people with HIV than in the general population. 

16. Additional Housing Challenges 

Holding housing units and maintaining housing assistance as people cycle in and out of assisted 

living situations can be difficult, and can require modifications to facility or agency rules and incur 

additional administrative costs. The difficulty of placing clients in assisted living is broader than the 

HIV/AIDS population and is a challenge statewide. 


• Consider that clients may need periodic or long-term care in assisted living situations while 

setting OHOP policies and allocating resources. 

• Conduct outreach about emerging primary care and assisted living needs of people living with 

HIV/AIDS, including to providers of these services.

Executive Summary—Oregon HIV/AIDS Housing and Services Systems Integration Plan vii 

Employment 

17. Limited Coordination among Employment, Service, and Housing Systems 

The level of coordination between OHOP and its partners and employment services providers in the 

balance of state falls short of meeting the level of need for employment assistance among people 

living with HIV/AIDS. 


• Collaborate with workforce systems to provide employment supports and training for people 

living with HIV/AIDS.

Section 1: Summary of HIV/AIDS 

Housing and Services Systems 

Integration

Oregon HIV/AIDS Housing and Services Systems Integration Plan 1 

Context of HIV/AIDS Housing in Oregon Balance of 

State 

This section provides an overview of the OHOP program and describes the overall context for 

HIV/AIDS housing and services in the balance of state. 

Oregon Housing and Opportunities in Partnership (OHOP) Program 

Many people living with HIV/AIDS find themselves in need of housing assistance and support 

services at some point during their illness. As many as 60 percent of all persons living with 

HIV/AIDS report a lifetime experience of homelessness or housing instability. 1 Stable housing 

promotes improved health, sobriety or decreased use of alcohol and illegal drugs, and, for some 

people living with HIV/AIDS, a return to paid employment and productive social activities. 

The federal Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program provides funding, 

distributed by both formula and competition, dedicated to the housing needs of people living with 

HIV/AIDS and their families. In Oregon, HOPWA funds are allocated separately to the Portland 

Eligible Metropolitan Area (EMA)—Clackamas, Columbia, Multnomah, Washington, and Yamhill 

Counties in Oregon, and Clark County, Washington—and the rest of the state of Oregon (referred to 

as the “balance of state”). These two regions (metro Portland and the balance of state) each receive a 

portion of HOPWA formula funding and may compete for additional funding against other 

metropolitan and statewide regions defined by HUD. 

The Oregon Department of Human Services, Public Health, HIV/STD/TB Section, HIV Care and 

Treatment program (HIV Care and Treatment) has provided HOPWA-funded housing services in the 

balance of state through the Oregon Housing Opportunities in Partnership (OHOP) program since 

2002. The four OHOP Housing Coordinators serve four defined regions of the balance of state. 

Figure 1 on the following page shows a map of the four OHOP service regions. 

1 Aidala, A., Columbia University. Homelessness, Housing Instability and Housing Problems among Persons Living with HIV/AIDS. 

Paper presented at the Housing and HIV/AIDS Research Summit, June, 2005. Available online: 

http://www.nationalaidshousing.org/toolkit/sound_investment.pdf (Accessed: February 21, 2008).

2 Oregon HIV/AIDS Housing and Services Systems Integration Plan 

Figure 1: 

OHOP Service Regions in the Balance of State 

Housing Coordinators provide an array of HOPWA eligible housing services for people living with 

HIV/AIDS with incomes below 80 percent of Area Median Income (AMI), including Tenant-Based 

Rental Assistance (TBRA), Short-Term Rental, Mortgage, and Utilities (STRMU) assistance, and 

housing information and referrals. (A discussion of eligible activities defined by the HOPWA 

program, and complementary activities that may be funded by other sources, is in Appendix 3: 

HIV/AIDS Housing Options.) Since 2002, OHOP has provided services to nearly 400 unduplicated 

people living with HIV/AIDS. OHOP currently maintains a wait list of about 50 eligible clients. 

HOPWA formula funds are distributed to two types of grantees: eligible metropolitan areas (EMAs) 

with populations of more than 500,000 and at least 1,500 cumulative AIDS cases, and states with 

more than 1,500 cumulative AIDS cases for areas outside of EMAs. In addition to these formula 

funds, HOPWA competitive program funds are awarded to model projects or programs based on 

their strategies, effectiveness, and ability to be replicated. Although OHOP was initially funded 

through a competitive grant, the state of Oregon became eligible for HOPWA formula funding in 

2006 in recognition of the growing epidemic outside the Portland area. This formula funding 

replaces OHOP’s competitive grant, which expires in July 2008. 

Oregon has been awarded two competitive HOPWA Special Projects of National Significance 

(SPNS) that are administered concurrently with the state’s formula funds. In 2006, HUD awarded 

funding for a SPNS project focused on formerly incarcerated people living with HIV/AIDS. The


Oregon Statewide Supportive Community Re-entry (OSSCR) project is a statewide initiative that is 

administered in areas outside of the Portland metropolitan area by OHOP (within the Portland area, 

OSSCR is administered by Cascade AIDS Project). Clients are referred by Oregon Department of 

Corrections and local criminal justice agencies, and work closely with OHOP Housing Coordinators 

and HIV Care and Treatment Case Managers to develop housing plans that are integrated with other 

supportive service and community corrections plans. The OSSCR program includes TBRA funding 

for about 55 clients per year, including 20 in the Portland EMA, and 35 throughout the rest of 

Oregon. 

In 2007, Oregon was again successful in receiving a SPNS award for the new Oregon Housing and 

Behavioral Health Initiative (OHBHI), which will serve people living with HIV/AIDS along the 

Interstate 5 corridor who have co-occurring mental illness. Outside of the Portland EMA, OHOP 

Housing Coordinators will provide housing services and Cascadia Behavioral Health will provide 

coordinated mental health and addictions services. (Inside the Portland EMA, these services will be 

provided by Cascade AIDS Project.) The OHBHI program includes TBRA funding for about 35 

clients per year, including 24 in the balance of state and about 11 in the Portland EMA. 

Table 1 summarizes the four current HOPWA grants that comprise the OHOP program. Annual 

budgets and TBRA goals are approximate and may vary as grants carry over between years. 

Formula HOPWA Grant 

Table 1: 

Summary of OHOP Grants 

Grant Grant Period 

Competitive (Prior to Formula 

Grantee Status) 

OSSCR SPNS 

OHBHI SPNS 

Every Calendar 

Year 

July 2005 to June 

2008 

January 2006 to 

December 2008 

January 2008 to 

December 2010 

Annual BoS 

Budget 

Annual BoS 

TBRA Goals 

$307,490 26 

$442,968 40 

$277,658 35 

$166,267 24 

Source: Information provided by Oregon Department of Human Services, HIV Treatment and Care Program. 

Note: No totals are provided as budget periods differ, and TBRA goals may not be cumulative. 

HOPWA program strategy is guided in part by the participation of grantees in their local 

Consolidated Plans and in Continuum of Care planning, as well as by HOPWA program goals and 

rules; these processes are discussed further in “Integration of HIV/AIDS Services and Housing with 

Existing Systems,” beginning on page 21 (Consolidated Plan) and page 29 (Continuum of Care). 

The Steering Committee guiding this Plan felt that including comparative information from nearby 

regions could help Oregon to contextualize various potential program approaches and set 

benchmarks to measure success; such information is therefore included here and throughout this 

section of the Plan. The Portland EMA contains more than three-quarters of the people living with 

HIV/AIDS in Oregon, and received $943,000 (more than three times the formula funding for the 

state of Oregon) in HOPWA formula funding in 2007.


Formula funds were distributed similarly in Oregon’s neighbor to the north: the Seattle EMA 

received $1.6 million in HOPWA formula funds in 2007. 2 In addition, the state of Washington 

received slightly more than a third of that amount, or $622,000, to address people living with 

HIV/AIDS throughout the balance of state. 3 

The OHOP program has been particularly successful in securing competitive HOPWA funding in 

recent years. Neighboring jurisdictions have also received competitive grants. Our House of 

Portland, in the Portland EMA, received a three-year, $1.04 million HOPWA competitive grant for 

housing placement, TBRA, and supportive services such as acute care. The Washington balance of 

state received a three-year, $1.15 million HOPWA competitive grant serving eastern Washington. 4 

In 2006, a DHS evaluation of the OHOP program found that nine out of ten clients reported 

satisfaction with their current housing, and 89 percent said their housing situation had improved 

since having a Housing Coordinator. The evaluation stated that landlords were also satisfied with 

the program’s performance and were generally willing to accept additional OHOP clients. 5 

The evaluation indentified two main challenges for the OHOP program. The extended housing 

authority wait lists for Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers limited the ability of the OHOP program 

to transition clients to mainstream housing resources and serve more eligible people on the OHOP 

wait list. A second challenge was serving clients with multiple barriers, such as mental illness, 

substance use, or felony histories. Following the evaluation, Oregon has sought to address the 

challenges of serving clients with multiple barriers by designing two new competitive SPNS 

programs and conducting this systems integration assessment. 

Demographics and Epidemiology 

Population 

Understanding the needs and challenges facing people living with HIV/AIDS in Oregon requires 

some contextual information surrounding conditions and factors affecting life in Oregon as a whole. 

The total population of Oregon was 3,700,758 in 2006. The population of the balance of state— 

outside the Portland Eligible Metropolitan Area (EMA) that includes Clackamas, Columbia, 

Multnomah, Washington, and Yamhill Counties—was 1,986,964 in 2006, or 54 percent of Oregon’s 

2 Washington and Oregon each have two HOPWA formula grantees, including and EMSA and balance of state, and have similar 

general population and HIV demographics. At the request of the Steering Committee, we have provided comparison data for 

Washington state and city of Seattle throughout this section of the plan, to highlight the similarities and differences between these 

neighboring states. 

3 U.S. Housing and Urban Development. Available online: http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/aidshousing/local/wa/index.cfm and 

http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/about/budget/budget08/index.cfm (Accessed: February 7, 2008). 

4 U.S. Housing and Urban Development. Available online: http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/aidshousing/index.cfm and 

http://www.hud.gov/local/ga/news/pr2007-10-10.cfm (Accessed: January 17, 2008). 

5 Oregon Department of Human Services, Program Design and Evaluation Services. Oregon Housing Opportunities in Partnership: 

Summary of Project Evaluation Design and Findings. Available online: http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/hiv/services/housing.shtml 

(Accessed: November 30, 2007).


total population. 6 For comparison, neighboring Washington State (outside the Seattle EMA) 

included about 3.8 million people, or 60 percent of the state’s total population. 7 

Across the balance of the state of Oregon, population trends vary between areas of high growth and 

limited or negative population growth. Deschutes County, which grew the fastest between 1990 and 

2000, continues to lead Oregon counties in population growth. From 2000 to 2006, the population 

of Deschutes increased by 29 percent, fueled by the city of Bend, which grew by 35 percent. 

Neighboring Crook County grew by 20 percent. Other fast growing counties included Polk (17 

percent), Marion (9 percent), and Jackson Counties (9 percent). 

Ten counties in eastern Oregon have lost population since 2000, including Baker, Gilliam, Grant, 

Harney, Malheur, Sherman, Union, Wallowa, Wasco, and Wheeler Counties. These counties are 

largely rural and account for just three percent of Oregon’s total population. 

In 2006, the majority of the population (87 percent) of the state of Oregon was White. Asians were 

three percent of the population and two percent was Black/African American. In the balance of 

state, 89 percent of the population was White, two percent was Asian, and less than one percent was 

Black/African American. Both statewide and in the balance of state, the 2006 population was 10 

percent Hispanic, regardless of race (meaning that a person could be counted as White as well as 

Hispanic, for example). 8 

6 U.S. Census. 2006 American Community Survey estimates. Available online: http://factfinder.census.gov/ (Accessed: November 

26, 2007). 

7 Washington State Office of Financial Management, Washington State Population Estimates. Available online: 

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/april1/default.asp (Accessed: January 10, 2008). 

8 U.S. Census. 2006 American Community Survey estimates. Available online: http://factfinder.census.gov/ (Accessed: November 

26, 2007).


Epidemiology of HIV/AIDS 

As of March 31, 2007, there were 4,777 people reported living with HIV/AIDS in the state of 

Oregon, including 1,291 in the balance of state, or 27 percent of the state total. 9 By comparison, 

with an overall population nearly twice as large, neighboring Washington reported 9,774 people 

living with HIV/AIDS as of June 2000. In Washington, 30 percent of the people living with 

HIV/AIDS were diagnosed in the balance of state, a distribution similar to that between Portland 

and the balance of Oregon. 10 

These totals are based on data collected through HIV/AIDS surveillance data, and do not include 

people who do not know that they have HIV/AIDS nor people who are aware but have not been 

reported yet. Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) estimates that the actual prevalence of 

HIV/AIDS is approximately 48 percent higher, 11 or about 7,077 people statewide and 1,911 in the 

balance of state. 

The AIDS case rate in Oregon was 34 th among states (excluding the District of Columbia) in 2005, 

at 6.0 per 100,000. The state of Washington, by comparison, ranked 28 th . 12 

People living with HIV/AIDS in Oregon are dispersed throughout the balance of state. Nearly every 

county reported at least one person living with HIV/AIDS in 2007, with 21 counties reporting at 

least eight people, and 11 counties reporting at least 30 people. Marion, Lane, and Jackson 

Counties, the three largest in population in the balance of state, have the largest concentrations of 

people living with HIV/AIDS. 13 More than 90 percent of people living with HIV/AIDS reside 

within 25 miles of I-5. 14 

Table 2 on the following page shows the population and number of people living with HIV/AIDS 

by county in the balance of state. 

9 Oregon Department of Human Services, HIV Data and Analysis. Available online: 

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/hiv/data/index.shtml (Accessed: November 26, 2007). 

10 Washington State/Seattle-King County HIV/AIDS Epidemiology Report, First Half 2007. Available online: 

http://www.metrokc.gov/health/apu/epi/1st-half-2007.pdf (Accessed: January 10, 2008). 

11 Oregon Department of Human Services, HIV Care and Treatment Program, 2007 HOPWA NOFA Proposal for the Oregon 

Housing and Behavioral Health Initiative (OHBHI). 

12 The AIDS case rate is calculated by dividing the number of AIDS cases reported during the 12 months of the most recent year for 

which data are available by the population in that same year, multiplied by 100,000. “HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report: Cases of HIV 

Infection and AIDS in the United States, 2005,” National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, 2006. As cited on the Kaiser Family Foundation State Health Facts website. 

Available online: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=513&cat=11&yr=1&typ=1&sort=n&o=d (Accessed: 

January 15, 2008). 




Housing and Behavioral Health Initiative (OHBHI).


Table 2: 

Total Population (2006) and Number of People Living with 

HIV/AIDS (2007) for Counties in the Balance of State 

County Population 

Number of 

PLWHA 

Percentage 

of BoS Total 

Baker County 16,243 *


People living with HIV/AIDS in Oregon have a broad diversity of backgrounds. Similar to 

neighboring Washington State and nationwide, people living with HIV/AIDS in Oregon include 

men and women of all ages. As treatments and medications for HIV/AIDS improve, people with 

HIV/AIDS are living longer, and in 2007, 30 percent of Oregonians with HIV/AIDS were over 50 

years old. 15 

HIV/AIDS also impacts diverse households. People living with HIV/AIDS include single men and 

women, as well as adults living in households with children and other adults. In the balance of state, 

some regions serve a high percentage of adults living with their families, particularly in the Eugene 

area. 

The prevalence of HIV/AIDS is disproportionately high for Blacks/African Americans nationwide, 

and this trend holds true in Oregon. While Blacks/African Americans comprise less than two 

percent of the state population, they account for seven percent of people living with HIV/AIDS. In 

recent years, Blacks/African Americans have six times the rate of new diagnoses compared to 

Whites in Oregon, 16 which reflects the national statistic that Blacks/African Americans face the 

highest rates of new AIDS cases per capita (more than four times that of the general population, and 

more than 10 times that of Whites). 17 

Tables 3 and 4 on the following pages summarize demographics and risk factors for people living 

with HIV/AIDS in the state of Oregon as of March 31, 2007. 



16 Oregon Department of Human Services, HIV Data and Analysis, Epidemiological Profile, 2005. Available online: 

http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/hiv/data/EpiProfile.shtml (Accessed: November 27, 2007). 

17 2005 National Health Care Disparities Report, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2005. Appendix D, Table 52: New 

AIDS cases per 100,000 population 13 and over: Race/Ethnicity. Available online: 

http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/nhdr05/quality/effectiveness/hiv/T52.htm (Accessed: June 20, 2008).


Demographics 

Race/Ethnicity 

White, not 

Hispanic 

Black/African 

American, not 

Hispanic 

Table 3: 

Demographics for State of Oregon (as of July 2006) 

and for People Living with HIV and AIDS in Oregon (as of March 2007) 

State of 

OR 

People Living with 

HIV 

People Living 

with AIDS 


HIV and AIDS 

Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

81% 1,522 81% 2,320 80% 3,842 80% 

2% 139 7% 194 7% 333 7% 

Hispanic 10% 167 9% 304 10% 471 10% 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 

American 

Indian/Alaska 

Native 

4% 15 1% 50 2% 65 1% 

1% 19 1% 33 1% 52 1% 

Multi-Race 2% * * * * * * 

Unknown 0% * * * * * * 

Gender 

Total 100% 1,872 100% 2,905 100% 4,777 100% 

Male 50% 1,587 85% 2,600 90% 4,187 88% 

Female 50% 285 15% 305 10% 590 12% 

Age 

Total 100% 1,872 100% 2,905 100% 4,777 100% 

Under 19 26% 34 2% 9


Table 4: 

People Living with HIV and AIDS as of March 2007 in Oregon by Exposure Category 

Demographics 

Exposure Category 

Men who have Sex with 

Men (MSM) 


HIV 


AIDS 


HIV and AIDS 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

1,168 62% 1,778 61% 2,946 62% 

Injection Drug Use (IDU) 176 9% 349 12% 525 11% 

MSM/IDU 144 8% 249 9% 403 8% 

Heterosexual 195 10% 283 10% 478 10% 

Other/Hemophilia/Blood 

Transfusion 

Pediatric – Mother with/at 

risk for HIV 

10


Homelessness Advisory Council (EHAC), the poverty rate in rural counties exceeded the rate in 

urban counties, and the unemployment rate was higher in rural (6.6 percent) than in urban counties 

(5.1 percent). 23 

Average incomes are also generally lower in rural counties than in urban areas. According to HUD, 

the Median Family Income (MFI) for Oregon was $55,700 in 2007. The MFI was $59,400 in 

metropolitan areas, and $45,600 in nonmetropolitan areas. MFI varied by county, from a low of 

$39,000 in Wheeler County to $67,400 in Benton County. 24 

Many counties in rural Oregon, already struggling with low incomes and higher rates of 

unemployment, are facing budgetary pressures that severely limit the funds available for local 

housing and services. The loss of federal timber replacement revenues in 2007—called O & C 

Revenues for federal land previously owned by Oregon and California Railroad—has caused 

financial crises in several counties. For example, more than two-thirds of the county general funds 

of Josephine and Douglas Counties relied on O & C Revenues. 25 

Health Insurance in Oregon 

In 2006, a total of 576,000 Oregonians lacked health insurance, about 16 percent of the state 

population, 26 compared to nine percent for neighboring Washington. 27 Stakeholders across the state 

cited the restricted eligibility for the Oregon Health Plan (OHP), the state health insurance program, 

and the lack of funding options to serve people who don’t qualify, as a major impediment to 

providing adequate medical care and supportive services (including supportive housing) to lowincome 

Oregon residents. 

During the 1990s, OHP received national praise for its expansion of health insurance coverage 

among state residents, achieved by creating a two-tiered benefits structure. OHP Plus provided a 

full range of services to people who would be categorically eligible for Medicaid, such as lowincome 

families and pregnant women. OHP Standard extended a limited benefits option to people 

who were below the federal poverty line. 

In 2002, OHP Standard attempted a further expansion to residents at 185 percent of poverty or less, 

predicated on cost-sharing and premium policies. The expansion failed, as Oregon’s budget crisis 

facilitated a severe, ongoing drop in enrollment. 28 The Oregon Health Plan Standard program was 

forced to take measures which reduced enrollment from 104,000 people in January 2003 to 49,000 

in December 2003, and to less than 25,000 in January 2007. 29 DHS recently announced that it will 

23 

Ending Homelessness Advisory Council (EHAC). Draft 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness, Part 1: Understanding Homelessness 

in Oregon. Available online: http://www.ehac.oregon.gov (Accessed: November 27, 2007). 

24 

U.S. Housing and Urban Development, Income Limits FY 2007. Available online: http://www.huduser.org/datasets/il.html 

(Accessed: November 27, 2007). 

25 

Dennis Richardson, Oregon State Representative. March 2007 Newsletter. Available online: 

http://www.dennisrichardson.org/lu031607.htm (Accessed: November 29, 2007). 

26 

Oregon Progress Board, Benchmarks Reports. Available online: http://benchmarks.oregon.gov (Accessed: October 15, 2007). 

27 

Washington State Office of Financial Management, 2006 Washington State Population Survey. Available online: 

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/researchbriefs/brief039.pdf (Accessed: January 10, 2008). 

28 

Oberlander, Jonathan. “Health Reform Interrupted: The Unraveling Of The Oregon Health Plan,” in Health Affairs, December 

2006. Available online: http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/short/hlthaff.26.1.w96v1 (Accessed: November 27, 2007). 

29 


in Oregon. Available online: http://www.ehac.oregon.gov (Accessed: November 27, 2007).


reopen enrollment for OHP Standard through a lottery beginning in January 2008, although the total 

enrollment in OHP Standard will maintain a biennial average of 24,000. 30 

The Oregon HIV Care and Treatment Program helps to bridge the insurance gap for people living 

with HIV in Oregon who seek care, using a unique set of tools. Oregon HIV Care and Treatment 

uses federal Ryan White formula funding to pay health insurance premiums and co-pays for any 

presenting income-eligible clients who are not insured through OHP. The program leverages the 

Oregon Medical Insurance Pool (OMIP) to provide coverage for Oregon residents with qualifying 

medical conditions—including HIV/AIDS—that would otherwise restrict their individual health 

insurance coverage through private insurers. 31 

With the enactment of Oregon’s mental health parity law in January 2007, all group health insurers 

must cover insured individuals for a broad range of behavioral health services, including mental 

health and substance abuse treatment, at levels equal to coverage for other medical conditions. 32 

This change may improve the availability of needed care for Oregonians with HIV/AIDS and cooccurring 

disorders, although the health insurance context described above continues to pose 

system-wide challenges. 

Housing in Oregon 

Housing affordability is declining rapidly in Oregon for both renters and owners. The 2006-2010 

State of Oregon Consolidated Plan reported that 73 percent of very low-income households, 60 

percent of low-income households, and 37 percent of moderate-income households in Oregon are 

cost-burdened. 33 Households are considered cost-burdened if they spend more than 30 percent of 

income on housing and utilities. The State of Washington Consolidated Plan reported similar 

findings: 70 percent of very low-income households and 60 percent of low-income households were 

cost-burdened. 34 

Affordable housing is particularly scarce for renters. In 2006, 82 percent of Oregon households 

below the rental median income ($22,669 in 2006) were considered cost-burdened. Forty-six 

percent of homeowners with incomes below the median for homeowners ($56,164) were costburdened. 

35 

The state of Oregon has a relatively low rate of homeownership, 64 percent compared to the 

national rate of 67 percent in 2006. The rate of homeownership is higher in the balance of state (66 

percent) than in the Portland Eligible Metropolitan Area (63 percent). 

Homeownership rates in Oregon vary substantially by county. The low homeownership rates of 

Benton (55 percent) and Lane Counties (61 percent) are likely influenced by their large college 

30 

Oregon Department of Human Services. “Several thousand Oregonians to be added to Oregon Health Plan's Standard benefit 

package” (news release), January 7, 2008. Available online: http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/news/2008news/2008-0107.shtml 

(Accessed: January 14, 2008). 

31 

Oregon Medical Insurance Pool. Available online: http://www.omip.state.or.us/ (Accessed: November 29, 2007). 

32 

Oregon Department of Human Services, HIV Care and Treatment Program, 2007 HOPWA NOFA Proposal for the Oregon 

Housing and Behavioral Health Initiative (OHBHI). 

33 

Oregon Housing and Community Services. State of Oregon Consolidated Plan, 2006-2010. Available online: 

http://www.oregon.gov/OHCS/HRS_Consolidated_Plan_5yearplan.shtml (Accessed: November 27, 2007). 

34 

Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Housing Division, 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan. 

Available online http://cted.wa.gov/site/811/default.aspx (Accessed: January 10, 2008). 

35 

Oregon Progress Board, Benchmarks Reports. Available online: http://benchmarks.oregon.gov (Accessed: October 15, 2007).


campuses. Rental housing is less available in counties with higher homeownership rates, such as 

Polk (74 percent), Josephine (72 percent), and Deschutes (70 percent). 36 

Amid a national trend toward increasing mortgage default rates, Oregon compares favorably to 

other states, but is in line with the neighboring state of Washington. In 2007, 0.54 percent and 0.57 

percent of households in Oregon and Washington, respectively, entered some stage of foreclosure, 

compared with 1.03 percent nationwide. 37 

Each year, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) establishes Fair Market 

Rents (FMRs) to determine payment standards for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, 

as well as other HUD programs such as HOME rental assistance. HUD defines FMRs as the 40th 

percentile rent, or, the dollar amount below which 40 percent of the standard-quality rental housing 

units are rented. 38 FMRs are a good indicator of the variance in housing costs across counties. 

In the balance of state, the FMRs for most counties increased by about eight percent from 2006 to 

2008. For 2008, Baker County has the lowest FMR ($450) and Deschutes County has the highest 

FMR ($614) in the balance of state. 39 

Table 5 on the following page lists the FMR for one-bedroom apartment rentals in the balance of 

state, by county for the years 2006 through 2008. 

36 U.S. Census, 2006 American Community Survey estimates. Available online: http://factfinder.census.gov/ (Accessed: November 

27, 2007). 

37 Data from RealtyTrac, a private firm that tracks nationwide foreclosure trends. Available online: 

http://www.realtytrac.com/ContentManagement/pressrelease.aspx?ChannelID=9&ItemID=3988&accnt=64847 (Accessed: February 

19, 2008). 

38 U.S. Housing and Urban Development, Fair Market Rents. Available online 

http://www.huduser.org/datasets/fmr/fmrover_071707R2.doc (Accessed: December 3, 2007). 

39 U.S. Housing and Urban Development, Fair Market Rents. Available online: http://www.huduser.org/datasets/fmr.html (Accessed: 

November 26, 2007).


Table 5: 

2006-2008 Fair Market Rents for One-Bedroom Unit for Oregon 

Counties in Balance of State 

County 

2006 FMR 

for 1 BR 

2007 FMR 

for 1 BR 

2008 FMR 

for 1 BR 

Baker $415 $430 $450 

Benton (Corvallis MSA) $560 $579 $601 

Clatsop $503 $521 $544 

Coos $471 $488 $512 

Crook $494 $512 $535 

Curry $505 $523 $548 

Deschutes (Bend MSA) $567 $587 $614 

Douglas $453 $468 $491 

Gilliam $483 $499 $524 

Grant $483 $499 $524 

Harney $429 $444 $466 

Hood River $514 $532 $556 

Jackson (Medford MSA) $540 $560 $581 

Jefferson $490 $507 $530 

Josephine $510 $528 $552 

Klamath $431 $446 $467 

Lake $429 $444 $466 

Lane (Eugene-Springfield MSA) $561 $581 $600 

Lincoln $525 $543 $567 

Linn $532 $550 $576 

Malheur $445 $461 $484 

Marion (Salem MSA) $520 $530 $531 

Morrow $483 $499 $524 

Polk (Salem MSA) $520 $530 $531 

Sherman $483 $499 $524 

Tillamook $506 $524 $550 

Umatilla $438 $453 $475 

Union $427 $442 $462 

Wallowa $424 $439 $459 

Wasco $475 $492 $516 

Wheeler $483 $499 $524 

Source: U.S. Housing and Urban Development, Fair Market Rents. Available online: 

http://www.huduser.org/datasets/fmr.html (Accessed: November 26, 2007).


Homelessness 

Oregon has one of the highest rates of homelessness per capita in the nation. Oregon Housing and 

Community Services (OHCS) reported that the number of Oregonians who were homeless on any 

given night increased from 21 per 10,000 residents in 2002, to 31 per 10,000 in 2006. 40 A recent 

report estimated the 2007 homeless rate to be 45 per 10,000. 41 In 2006, the state of Washington 

estimated that 31 per 10,000 residents were homeless on any given night. 42 

The worsening statewide situation contrasts with the nationally recognized successes of the Portland 

10 Year Plan to End Homelessness, enacted in December 2004. During the first two years of the 

plan’s implementation, 1,039 chronically homeless individuals and 770 homeless families with 

children were housed, numbers far above the performance goals initially laid out in the plan. 43 

The 2007 Oregon one-night shelter count identified 13,020 total homeless people, including 4,655 

people who were turned away from shelters. These numbers are point-in-time counts of people who 

spent the night at a shelter or were turned away on one night in January 2007. One-night counts 

typically undercount homeless people in rural areas where shelter facilities are limited. 

Some counties in particular lack the facilities to serve homeless people seeking shelter. In 2007, 

Deschutes County reported 1,403 homeless people, including 1,179 who were turned away from 

shelters. The vast majority of those turned away were people in families with children. 44 

Most shelters and one-night counts do not keep data on the number of homeless people living with 

HIV/AIDS, although homeless people are known to have added risk of HIV diagnosis. The U.S. 

homeless population has an estimated median rate of HIV prevalence of at least three times 

higher—three percent versus one percent—than the general population. 45 The 2005 needs 

assessment for people living with HIV/AIDS in Oregon echoed the national findings on 

homelessness. Twenty-six percent of people living with HIV/AIDS reported being in unstable 

housing situations in the past year, and 15 percent had been homeless in the past two years. 46 

Homelessness is especially dangerous for people living with HIV/AIDS. Effective treatment of 

HIV/AIDS requires a regular regimen of antiretroviral medications, which may be difficult to 

administer under conditions of homelessness or in emergency shelters. Many people living with 

HIV/AIDS may also be more susceptible to life-threatening infections if living on the street or in 

unsanitary conditions. 

40 Oregon Progress Board, Benchmarks Reports. Available online: http://benchmarks.oregon.gov (Accessed: October 15, 2007). 

41 Ending Homelessness Advisory Council (EHAC). Draft 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness, Part 1: Understanding Homelessness 


42 Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Housing Division, 2006 Ten Year Plan to End 

Homelessness. Available online: http://cted.wa.gov/_CTED/documents/ID_3356_Publications.doc (Accessed: January 10, 2008). 

43 City of Portland, Bureau of Housing and Community Development. 2006 Annual Report for the 10 Year Plan to End 

Homelessness. Available online: http://www.portlandonline.com/bhcd/index.cfm?c=38062 (Accessed: November 29, 2007). 

44 Ending Homelessness Advisory Council (EHAC). Draft 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness, Part 1: Understanding Homelessness 


45 Higher rates (8.5 to 62 percent) have been found in selected homeless sub-populations. Song, John M.D., M.P.H., M.A.T., 

HIV/AIDS & Homelessness: Recommendations for Clinical Practice and Public Policy, November 1999, National Health Care for 

the Homeless Council, Health Care for the Homeless Clinician’s Network, p. 1. Available online: www.nhchc.org (Accessed: 

January 10, 2002). 

46 Oregon Department of Human Services, Program Design and Evaluation Services. We Listened…2005: Survey for People Living 

with HIV and AIDS in Oregon. Available online: http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/hiv/services/needs/reports.shtml (Accessed: 

November 27, 2007).


Stable housing enables people living with HIV/AIDS to access and maintain life-saving medical 

care and treatments. Compared to those who were in stable housing, homeless people living with 

HIV/AIDS experience worse overall physical and mental health, are more likely to be hospitalized 

and use emergency rooms, and are less likely to receive medical treatment. Stable housing is 

significantly correlated with treatment success. 47 

In addition, research indicates housing stability decreases the risk factors that can lead to HIV 

transmission. A 2006 study found that each prevented HIV infection saves $303,000 in lifetime 

medical costs. 48 Compared to the modest cost of providing housing for people living with 

HIV/AIDS, the cost savings from preventing HIV transmission are substantial. 

In a study released in 2007, researchers compared the costs of providing rental assistance, case 

management, and related services to the treatment costs associated with new cases of HIV. The 

study found that if just one out of every 19 clients receiving housing support avoided HIV 

transmission, the intervention would be cost-saving. The housing intervention would be costeffective 

if it prevented one HIV transmission for every 64 clients. 49 

Housing Needs for People Living with HIV/AIDS 

Housing assistance is an important need for people living with HIV/AIDS who face a spectrum of 

housing instability, including those who are not currently homeless. Recent research emphasizes 

that housing needs, including but not limited to homelessness, are significant barriers to appropriate, 

effective HIV medical care, and that housing assistance increases access and retention in medical 

care and treatment. 50 

The most recent needs assessment for people living with HIV/AIDS in Oregon found that forty 

percent of people living with HIV/AIDS reported a need for housing assistance (including both 

those who needed and were receiving assistance, and those who needed but were not receiving 

assistance), including more than 500 people in the balance of state. Sixteen percent of needs 

assessment survey respondents reported receiving assistance through a Section 8 voucher or public 

housing, or an estimated 200 clients in the balance of state. A small number of respondents 

indicated receiving assistance through transitional housing programs or Shelter Plus Care. The 

Oregon Housing Opportunities in Partnership (OHOP) Program serves approximately 100 people 

living with HIV/AIDS in the balance of state each year. 51 

47 

National AIDS Housing Coalition. HIV/AIDS Housing: Improving Health Outcomes. Available online: 

http://www.nationalaidshousing.org/toolkit/health_outcomes.pdf (Accessed: December 7, 2007). 

48 

Schackman, et al, “The Lifetime Cost of Current Human Immunodeficiency Virus Care in the United 

States”, Medical Care, Vol. 44, No. 11, p. 990, November 2006. 

49 

Holtgrave, David R., et al. “Cost and Threshold Analysis of housing as an HIV Prevention Intervention,” in the November 2007 

Housing and HIV/AIDS Supplement to AIDS and Behavior. 

50 

Aidala, A., et al. “Housing Need, housing Assistance, and Connection to HIV Medical Care,” in the November 2007 Housing and 

HIV/AIDS Supplement to AIDS and Behavior. 

51 

Oregon Department of Human Services, Program Design and Evaluation Services. We Listened…2005: Survey for People Living 


November 27, 2007).


Integration of HIV/AIDS Services and Housing with 

Existing Systems 

This section describes how HIV/AIDS services and housing are currently integrated into other 

systems in the balance of state and identifies opportunities that exist for further integration with 

existing or potential partners. 

Meaningful integration with mainstream housing and service providers and the general public is 

critical for Oregon Housing Opportunities in Partnership (OHOP) and other programs and agencies 

that serve people living with HIV/AIDS in Oregon. Connections to local service providers and 

housing agencies help ensure that OHOP resources are reaching all of the diverse communities of 

eligible clients in need, and assure that the needs of people with multiple, co-occurring challenges 

are recognized and efficiently addressed. In addition, partnership with mainstream housing 

organizations (such as affordable housing developers or housing authorities) and participation in 

planning processes (such as the Continuum of Care or Consolidated Funding Cycle processes) can 

lead to the development or dedication of new housing resources, targeted either for people with 

disabilities in general or specifically for people living with HIV/AIDS. 

The first part of this chapter presents information on general outreach strategies that OHOP and its 

partners use or could use to communicate with an array of different systems, as well as outlines 

some barriers to transparent and effective communication. The second part of the chapter provides 

context information on some of the most relevant systems, including key components of the 

particular system, the level of integration that exists with HIV/AIDS housing and services, and 

challenges within that system. This “map” of interlocking systems is intended to help OHOP and its 

partners better understand how to employ dedicated HIV/AIDS resources to complement existing 

capacity in these regions, and how to most effectively collaborate with the broader set of affordable 

housing and services systems to increase and maintain capacity to serve as many Oregonians as 

possible. (Critical issues within this context, and specific recommendations for addressing 

challenges and meeting need among people living with HIV/AIDS, are addressed in the subsequent 

section (Section 2), beginning on page 40 of this plan.) 

Information for these sections comes from primary research, interviews with key informants across 

the state, and a survey of stakeholders. The stakeholders that participated in the survey were divided 

between the four OHOP service regions. Half of the respondents represent HIV/AIDS agencies, and 

half represent agencies that do not specifically provide services to people with HIV/AIDS, although 

some of their clients may have an HIV diagnosis. Detailed survey responses are also available in 

Appendix 2. 

Outreach Strategies 

Outreach to a broad spectrum of housing and service system stakeholders and others must be the 

cornerstone of any integration effort. Because the number of Oregon residents living with 

HIV/AIDS outside of the Portland metro area is relatively small and spread out, OHOP and partner 

staff must take a proactive role simply to make known the needs of this population and the


resources they have to offer. Yet staff capacity is a serious challenge for dedicated HIV/AIDS 

programs and agencies, as staff have limited time to dedicate to outreach activities. When they do 

reach out, they may be met with misconceptions or stigma about their clients, or limited willingness 

on the part of other agencies to engage people perceived to have “their own” resources. 

Client confidentiality concerns can also restrict the ways that OHOP and other HIV/AIDS providers 

publicize their activities and resources. For people living with HIV/AIDS, stigma and 

discrimination are factors in finding and maintaining housing, accessing support services, and 

seeking medical care. People living with HIV/AIDS often struggle to keep their HIV status private, 

particularly from landlords and neighbors. For this reason, OHOP tends to market its services 

quietly and to avoid disclosing to landlords and other providers that HOPWA is the source of 

housing assistance for clients they place, or that clients qualify for assistance via an HIV diagnosis. 

This challenge has surfaced acutely in Jackson County, where people living with HIV/AIDS have 

been evicted from affordable housing programs, including one dedicated to pregnant women, when 

their HIV status was revealed. 

Partnerships with organizations that serve people with disabilities in general can help to alleviate 

confidentiality issues, by providing more general cover for making resources available to people 

living with HIV/AIDS. For example, the Eastern Oregon Center for Independent Living (EOCIL) 

provides HIV case management and services in ten counties in eastern Oregon (OHOP Region 4). 

Because EOCIL serves individuals with multiple disabilities, its case managers can work with 

landlords and other partners without having to reveal the HIV status of their clients. 

Making general materials and information about OHOP services available routinely through 

mainstream providers is another way to raise awareness without disclosing clients’ HIV/AIDS 

status. In key stakeholder interviews, providers in Eugene and Medford noted the need for simple 

marketing tools (such as updated brochures about OHOP, with contact names and phone numbers 

that clients can call) that could be disseminated by all types of service agencies as part of their 

general information packets. Another need noted by stakeholders in Jackson County was for 

HIV/AIDS training for mainstream services or housing provider staff. 

Some OHOP resources for people living with HIV/AIDS overlap with programs available to a 

wider client base. In Jackson County, for example, ACCESS has a limited pool of utility assistance 

to distribute among low-income clients, which include some people living with HIV/AIDS who 

could qualify for a greater level of utility assistance through OHOP. One solution to optimize the 

allocation of limited resources may be to include OHOP information on the ACCESS application 

form. 

In some cases, activities undertaken by the clients themselves can strengthen community 

relationships. An example of an effective tool for strengthening landlord connections in particular 

can be found in Lane County. St. Vincent de Paul offers the Second Chance Renters Program to 

individuals who want to demonstrate commitment to good relationships with potential landlords, by 

learning both concrete information about tenant responsibilities and landlord expectations, as well 

as how to demonstrate consistency, trust, and a desire to succeed. 

Outreach can be especially difficult in rural areas which may have relatively few social service 

agencies and networks. Rural outreach may require creative partners to leverage limited housing 

resources. Faith-based organizations can provide community structure, are frequently mission-


driven to assist people with limited assets, and may be willing to provide support, services, or even 

housing. Another opportunity may be the six USDA Rural Development offices in the balance of 

state, which provide rental assistance to low-income residents in rural areas. However, nationally 

this assistance has been greatly reduced in recent years, and these offices in Oregon currently assist 

with only 700 rental units statewide. 

Health Care (including HIV Care) 

People living with HIV/AIDS have a range of health care needs, including treatment for HIV 

disease itself, treatment for other chronic health conditions, supportive services, and in some cases 

care in an assisted living environment. In Oregon, the primary responsibility for meeting the health 

care needs of people living with HIV/AIDS falls to the Oregon Department of Human Services, 

Public Health, HIV/STD/TB Section, HIV Care and Treatment Program, known in brief as “HIV 

Care and Treatment.” HIV Care and Treatment is also the administrator of the OHOP program. At 

least in part because of this structural connection, as well as because all recipients of HIV housing 

assistance are eligible for some health services as a result of their HIV diagnosis, integration 

between these two systems (health care and HIV/AIDS housing) is particularly extensive and well 

developed. 

HIV Care and Treatment administers HIV case management services throughout the Oregon 

balance of state and provides an array of other types of statewide medical assistance, with a 

program-wide budget of approximately $14 million that includes both federal Ryan White 

Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act funds and state general and other funds. 

Federal Ryan White CARE Act funds are awarded to all states by formula to provide primary 

healthcare and support services, including AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs), which 

enhance access to care for people living with HIV/AIDS and their families. HIV Care and 

Treatment activities are therefore commonly referred to as “Ryan White” services, although state 

and other program funding for HIV Care and Treatment roughly equal the federal funding share. 

HIV Care and Treatment program services are provided in the balance of state by a network of 19 

AIDS service providers (15 county health departments, two community-based organizations, and 

two independent contractors) with a total of 42 HIV case managers serving more than 800 people 

living with HIV/AIDS and their families each year. 52 Approximately $1.5 million of services are 

annually targeted to individuals in the balance of state, along with $2.5 to 3 million in ADAP 

funding. Oregon’s ADAP, known locally as CAREAssist, represents the HIV Care and Treatment 

Program’s largest program element by expenditure, and roughly 75 percent of ADAP funds are 

expended in the Portland metropolitan area. 

As part of its CAREAssist portfolio, Oregon HIV Care and Treatment is able to provide access to 

health insurance (as described in the section on Health Insurance above) for low-income people 

living with HIV/AIDS in Oregon who are not covered by the Oregon Health Plan (OHP). Between 

these two programs, any income-eligible Oregonian living with HIV/AIDS who presents with a 

need for health insurance coverage can receive it. HIV Care and Treatment administrators estimate 

that approximately 20 percent of Oregonians living with HIV/AIDS receive medical service 


Housing and Behavioral Health Initiative (OHBHI).


coverage through OHP, but approximately twice that number receive access to medical care through 

CAREAssist. 53 

OHOP Housing Coordinators work closely with HIV Case Managers throughout the state. The 

close coordination between programs allows OHOP to leverage nearly two dollars of other HIV 

Care and Treatment program-funded services for every one dollar of HOPWA assistance. It is 

important to note that, prior to the introduction of the OHOP program, much of Oregon’s locally 

administered HIV case management support service funds were spent on housing. Since the 

inception of the OHOP program, the annual utilization of Oregon HIV case management local 

support service dollars for housing services has decreased by more than 50 percent; those funds are 

now able to be applied to other essential activities, including health care, oral health services, 

medical transportation, and addictions and mental health treatment. 

At the planning level, OHOP and HIV Care and Treatment administrators collaborate regularly, 

including in the development of the Ryan White Title II HIV Client Services Comprehensive Plan 

for 2006-2009. Over 70 percent of surveyed AIDS agencies reported participating in the Ryan 

White planning process, including the Oregon HIV Care Coalition. 

People living with HIV/AIDS, like others throughout Oregon, frequently turn to hospitals for their 

acute care needs, which can sometimes disrupt their housing stability. The Oregon Association of 

Hospitals and Health Systems represents the interests of hospitals and other facilities across the 

state, highlighting key issues for members. 54 A key hospital issue of uncompensated care expenses 

may be limited in the case of people with HIV/AIDS, because of the health insurance assistance that 

HIV Care and Treatment provides (as described above). However, attention is required to ensure 

coordination between the two systems around transitions between inpatient and outpatient care and 

treatment for chronic conditions such as diabetes. 

Research has not yet measured the incidence, age of onset and cause of geriatric diseases in longterm 

survivors of HIV/AIDS. 55 But Steering Committee members observed that these types of 

major medical challenges are common among the growing numbers of clients they serve who have 

been living with the disease for some time. An HIV/AIDS housing provider in Portland reported 

serving an estimated 10 percent of clients in assisted living situations; while OHOP has served very 

few clients in such situations, the number in need of such assistance may increase. 

Mainstream assisted living facilities are not typically equipped to provide specialized HIV care, and 

may resist or encounter challenges in integrating people living with HIV/AIDS with dissimilar 

populations of older individuals or other specialized groups, such as people with developmental 

disabilities. State funding for clients in assisted living facilities is limited for virtually all 

populations, not just people living with HIV/AIDS, and strict admissions criteria can delay clients 

entering care. 

The network of skilled nursing facilities, assisted living and residential care facilities, integrated 

health systems, independent senior living communities and licensed in-home care agencies in 

53 Email from Ryan Deibert, OHOP Program Coordinator, February 15, 2008. 

54 Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Systems website. Available online: http://www.oahhs.org/ (Accessed: January 14, 

2008). 

55 Jane Gross, “AIDS Patients Face Downside of Living Longer,” New York Times, January 6, 2008. Available online: 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/health/06HIV.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1199656842- 

+Wb7LQvnXDGjucLalOJG/g (Accessed: January 10, 2008).


Oregon is represented by the Oregon Health Care Association (OHCA), among other associations. 56 

OHCA provides training in venues that include an annual fall convention and spring expo. 

One alternative approach to long-term hospitalization is to provide services to clients in their own 

homes. Funding for these services is limited, yet this approach may be an appropriate option for 

some clients. For example, Our House of Portland operates a program providing in-home care (such 

as nursing, social work, and occupational therapy) to people living with HIV/AIDS in the Portland 

Eligible Metropolitan Area. Because many funding streams do not allow this type of service, the 

agency must fundraise creatively to support its programs. For more information on this and other 

innovative agencies, please see Appendix 1: Affordable Housing Resource Guide. 


In the survey of HIV/AIDS service agencies in Oregon, the lack of affordable housing was the 

number-one barrier to stability for people living with HIV/AIDS, identified by all 16 respondents. 

Of all respondents (HIV/AIDS agencies and non-HIV/AIDS agencies), 78 percent responded that 

creating more housing opportunities for people living with HIV/AIDS was a high priority for 

systems integration in the balance of state. 

In October 2006, Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) published an inventory of 

housing units that are dedicated as affordable across the state. OHCS reported 54,522 units of 

affordable housing statewide, including 23,881 units in the balance of state, or 44 percent of the 

total. The population of the balance of state is 54 percent of the total Oregon population. 57 

Developing new affordable housing resources usually requires accessing funding sources from 

multiple levels of government. The following sections describe the main sources of affordable 

housing funding in Oregon and the planning processes that determine funding priorities. Affordable 

housing resources include federal and state program funds allocated through the state Consolidated 

Plan and Consolidated Funding Cycle and local Consolidated Plans, Low Income Housing Tax 

Credits, public housing authority resources, and the network of affordable housing developers in 

Oregon. The Continuum of Care planning process is discussed in the following section on homeless 

services, as it funds both services and housing targeted at reducing homelessness. 

The Oregon State Consolidated Plan and Consolidated Funding Cycle 

Consolidated Plans (Con Plans) are comprehensive planning documents required by the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for all states, large cities, and urban 

counties that receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter Grants 

(ESG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), and/or Housing Opportunities for 

Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funding. Of these, CDBG, HOME, and HOPWA can all support 

development activities. This planning process is intended to help local jurisdictions receive public 

input, develop a vision for housing and community development, and coordinate their activities. 

Con Plans are generally submitted on a five-year cycle, with annual action plans to describe 

activities expected in the coming year. 

56 Oregon Health Care Association website. Available online: http://www.ohca.com/ (Accessed: January 14, 2008). 

57 Oregon Housing and Community Services. Low Income Housing State-wide List. Available online: http://www.ohcs.oregon.gov/ 

(Accessed: November 28, 2007).


For the State of Oregon (as opposed to the Oregon cities and counties which plan independently), 

different state agencies take the lead on different programs which are included in the Consolidated 

Plan process. As noted previously, HOPWA is administered by the HIV Care and Treatment 

Program, within the Department of Human Services (DHS). The Oregon Economic and Community 

Development Department (OECDD) administers CDBG funds based on the Con Plan guidelines. 

Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) releases HOME and ESG funds through its 

Consolidated Funding Cycle (CFC), with funding rounds in the fall and spring. The OHCS CFC 

also includes the Oregon allocation of federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) funding, 

the Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credit program, the Housing Development Grant (Trust Fund) 

program, the Low-Income Weatherization program, and the HELP (Financing Adjustment Factor 

Savings Fund) program. (LIHTC is also affected by a separate planning process, the Qualified 

Allocation Plan, discussed below.) Funding is released through the Spring and Fall funding cycles. 

Housing and service providers were asked in the stakeholder survey if their agencies participated in 

the Con Plan planning processes. Forty-four percent of agencies that did not specifically serve 

people living with HIV/AIDS reported participating in their Con Plan planning process, compared 

to just seven percent of HIV/AIDS agencies. Of all respondents, 64 percent did not know how well 

their Con Plan included the housing and services needs of people living with HIV/AIDS. 

The needs of people living with HIV/AIDS have not historically been well represented in the Con 

Plan planning processes. However, there are opportunities to increase recognition of the needs of 

people living with HIV/AIDS in these planning processes. For the past several years, the state Con 

Plan has identified people living with HIV/AIDS as a high priority among special needs 

populations. In 2007, the OHOP Program Coordinator participated in the development of the 

Annual Action Plan for the state Con Plan, and provided information on the housing needs for 

people living with HIV/AIDS. 

The CFC guidelines set aside 30 percent of funding for targeted populations and OHCS priorities. 

In 2007, the CFC guidelines targeted special needs populations, which were defined as “farm 

workers, developmentally disabled, chronically mentally ill, chronically homeless (including single 

persons under the HUD definition of chronically homeless, and homeless families), and exoffenders.” 

The Spring 2008 CFC scaled back the populations targeted by the 30 percent set aside. 

For this round, the set asides will include: 

• Housing for developmentally disabled populations; 

• Housing for the homeless, utilizing Housing PLUS resources; and 

• Preservation of existing affordable housing units. 

The CFC also has a performance target that 50 percent of funded units serve special needs 

populations. OHCS has not met this target since 2002, so there may be an opportunity to more 

aggressively target housing for people with disabilities, including HIV/AIDS, in the next CFC 

round. 58 

One of the important programs funded through the CFC is the HOME tenant-based assistance 

(TBA) voucher program, which can be a valuable tool for assisting clients to gain access to housing 

and develop self-sufficiency. Several Community Action Programs in Oregon operate the TBA 

58 Oregon Housing and Community Services. 2006-2007 Consolidated Funding Cycle Guidelines. Available online: 

www.oregon.gov/OHCS/HRS_CFC_Overview.shtml (Accessed: November 28, 2007).


programs, which have been used extensively in Oregon since the inception of the HOME 

program. 59 HOME TBA is designed to be transitional, with the housing subsidy expiring after 24 

months, during which time the tenant works toward a personal self-sufficiency plan. 

While HOME TBA administrators can include program preferences for people with HIV/AIDS or 

other special needs, in order to maintain successful self-sufficiency programs, they must select 

clients that are likely to resolve financial issues and increase their income by the end of the subsidy 

period. 60 For example, ACCESS Inc. in Jackson County created a secondary preference for people 

living with HIV/AIDS in their HOME TBA self-sufficiency program, but reported some negative 

experiences after receiving referrals of clients who were probably better suited for long-term 

housing assistance. ACCESS and the OHOP Region 3 Housing Coordinator plan to work together 

to ensure the careful use of that preference for appropriate clients with HIV/AIDS. 

One new affordable housing development opportunity that HIV/AIDS housing and services 

stakeholders may access through the CFC is the Housing PLUS (Permanent Living Utilizing 

Services) program, which will help finance permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless 

people. The program includes $16 million that will leverage additional funding to create 150 units. 

The first $4 million will be awarded by OHCS through the Spring 2008 CFC. Stakeholders across 

the state, including housing authorities and nonprofit developers, have expressed interest in 

pursuing this new funding source. By offering the leverage of support services and/or rental 

subsidy, the OHOP program may be able to partner with an affordable housing developer to make 

units available for formerly homeless people living with HIV/AIDS, as described below in the 

“Recommendations” section. For more information on this particular program, please refer to the 

contacts listed in Appendix 1: Affordable Housing Resource Guide. 

Local CDBG and HOME Funds 

Seven cities in the balance of state receive CDBG and/or HOME allocations and are required to 

prepare their own Con Plans: Ashland, Bend, Eugene, Corvallis, Medford, Salem, and Springfield 

(Eugene and Springfield submit a combined Con Plan). 

Most of these city Con Plans do not directly address the housing needs of people living with 

HIV/AIDS. Both the City of Bend and the City of Medford Con Plans describe persons living with 

HIV/AIDS as a “Low” priority among special needs populations. 61 

Table 6 on the following page summarizes the Oregon formula allocations for the CDBG and 

HOME programs for Fiscal Year 2007. 

59 “States, HOME, and Tenant-Based Assistance,” Council of State Community Development Agencies, 1997. Available online: 

http://www.coscda.org/publications/TBA.htm (Accessed: November 30, 2007). 

60 Ibid. 

61 City of Bend. Consolidated Plan 2004-2009. Available online: 

http://www.ci.bend.or.us/depts/urban_renewal_economic_development/ (Accessed: November 28, 2007); and City of Medford. 

Consolidated Plan 2005-2009. Available online: http://www.ci.medford.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=632 (Accessed: November 28, 2007).


Table 6: 

CDBG and HOME Allocations for Oregon Balance of State, Fiscal Year 2007 

Grantee CDBG HOME Total 

City of Ashland $212,738 $0 $212,738 

City of Bend $437,156 $0 $437,156 

City of Corvallis $556,048 $420,259 $976,307 

City of Eugene* $1,415,794 $1,451,705 $2,867,499 

City of Medford $636,217 $0 $636,217 

City of Salem $1,487,449 $924,794 $2,412,243 

City of Springfield* $628,101 $0 $628,101 

Subtotal for Balance of State: $5,373,503 $2,796,758 $8,170,261 

City of Beaverton $612,738 $0 $612,738 

City of Gresham $903,182 $0 $903,182 

City of Hillsboro $666,584 $0 $666,584 

City of Portland $10,441,050 $4,306,019 $14,747,069 

Clackamas County $2,171,598 $1,038,996 $3,210,594 

Multnomah County $302,746 $0 $302,746 

Washington County $2,057,753 $1,639,790 $3,697,543 

Subtotal for Portland EMA: $17,155,651 $6,984,805 $24,140,456 

Oregon State Program $14,314,757 $10,672,782 $24,987,539 

Total for Oregon: $36,843,911 $20,454,345 $57,298,256 

Source: U.S. Housing and Urban Development. 2007 Formula Allocations. Available online: 

http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/about/budget/budget07/states/or.xls (Accessed: November 29, 2007). 

Note: the Cities of Eugene and Springfield submit a joint Consolidated Plan and issue joint funding announcements 

for their combined CDBG and HOME allocations. 

Low Income Housing Tax Credits 

Although Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) funding is released through the OHCS 

Consolidated Funding Cycle, the program is additionally subject to guidelines established through 

the Oregon Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP), which OHCS also coordinates. Like the Con Plans, 

the QAP is open to public input. The 2007 QAP does not mention HIV/AIDS, and does not 

prioritize supportive housing or housing for people with special needs. 62 

Housing and service providers were asked how well the QAP served the needs of people living with 

HIV/AIDS. Eighty-two percent of all respondents said that they did not know how well, and 11 

62 Oregon Housing and Community Services. 2007 Qualified Allocation Plan. Available online: 

www.ohcs.oregon.gov/OHCS/HRS_LIHTC_Program.shtml (Accessed: November 28, 2007).


percent responded “Not well.” This general lack of familiarity among HIV/AIDS stakeholders with 

priorities of the QAP (along with other housing planning processes) presents a challenge, as 

described in the “Critical Issues” chapter below. 

Housing Authorities 

Public housing authorities (PHAs) play a vital role in providing affordable housing in the balance of 

state. PHAs are local governmental bodies that are authorized by state legislation to develop and/or 

administer public rental housing for low-income households, often making them the largest 

landlords in urban areas. In addition, PHAs administer the federal Section 8 Housing Choice 

Voucher Program, which provides rental assistance to individuals and families in privately-owned 

housing. There are 21 housing authorities in Oregon, including 17 outside the Portland EMA. PHA 

resources in the balance of state include 2,230 units of public housing and 19,026 Section 8 

Housing Choice Vouchers. 

Compared to the Portland EMA, housing resources in the balance of state rely more heavily on 

Section 8 than public housing. The housing authorities in the balance of state have 59 percent of the 

state’s Section 8 vouchers, and only 38 percent of the public housing units. 63 Most PHAs have long 

waiting lists for Section 8, and some have closed their lists to new applicants in response to 

decreasing federal funding and high demand for affordable housing. This is a critical piece of 

context for people living with HIV/AIDS who need housing assistance, as HOPWA and other 

programs targeted to this population emphasize the importance of transitioning clients whenever 

possible to mainstream housing assistance, of which Section 8 is the single largest source. 

Table 7 on the following page shows the number of public housing units and Section 8 Housing 

Choice Vouchers for each housing authority in Oregon. 

63 Source: U.S. Housing and Urban Development. Housing Authority Profiles. Available online: 

https://pic.hud.gov/pic/haprofiles/haprofilelist.asp (Accessed: November 29, 2007).


Table 7: 

Public Housing and Section 8 Resources for Oregon Housing Authorities 

Housing Authority 

Public 

Housing Units 

Section 8 

Vouchers 

Total 

Coos-Curry Counties 52 777 829 

Douglas County 155 651 806 

Housing Authority and Community Services 

Agency (HACSA) 

708 2,639 3,347 

Housing Works (formerly CORHA) 48 1,026 1,074 

Jackson County 130 1,605 1,735 

Josephine Housing Council 0 842 842 

Klamath County 57 734 791 

Lincoln County 120 497 617 

Linn-Benton Counties 0 2,435 2,435 

Malheur County 40 349 389 

Marion County 46 1,175 1,221 

Mid-Columbia Housing Authority 0 551 551 

Northeast Oregon Housing Authority (NEOHA) 129 710 839 

Northwest Oregon Housing Authority (NOHA) 0 1,139 1,139 

Salem (SHA) 337 2,868 3,205 

Umatilla County 118 329 447 

West Valley Housing Authority 380 699 1,079 

Subtotal Balance of State: 2,320 19,026 21,346 

Clackamas County 567 1,542 2,109 

Portland (HAP) 2,896 7,723 10,619 

Yamhill County 70 1,303 1,373 

Washington County 293 2,576 2,869 

Subtotal Portland EMA: 3,826 13,144 16,970 

Total for Oregon: 6,146 32,170 38,316 

Source: U.S. Housing and Urban Development. Housing Authority Profiles. Available online: 

https://pic.hud.gov/pic/haprofiles/haprofilelist.asp (Accessed: November 29, 2007). 

In addition to administering public housing and Section 8, some housing authorities play other roles 

in the community. For example, the housing authority in Lane County—Housing Authority and 

Community Services Agency (HACSA)—provides an extensive weatherization program that lowers 

utilities costs for low-income homes. Some housing authorities, including the Salem Housing 

Authority, HACSA, the Housing Authority of Jackson County, the Umatilla Housing Authority, and 

Housing Works, have developed hundreds of units of affordable housing using tax credits and other 

competitive funding sources.


The survey of HIV/AIDS providers in the balance of state indicated that 56 percent had partnerships 

with local housing authorities. Over two-thirds of all respondents (both HIV/AIDS agencies and 

non-HIV/AIDS agencies) wanted to see PHAs more involved in efforts to improve systems 

integration of HIV/AIDS housing and services. 

The evaluation of the OHOP program identified long PHA wait lists as a challenge for transitioning 

OHOP clients to mainstream resources in order to be able to provide services to additional OHOPeligible 

clients. Wait list length and policy varies among PHAs in Oregon’s balance of state: for 

example, the Housing Authority of Jackson County keeps an open Section 8 wait list, which has run 

to as much as four years and more recently is about two and a half years long. The Housing 

Authority and Community Services Agency of Lane County (HACSA), by contrast, closed its wait 

list in October 2005, and is serving July 2004 applicants. Most housing authorities in eastern 

Oregon, where affordable housing resources are particularly limited, have closed wait lists as well. 

Housing authorities have considerable discretion over whether to prioritize specific populations, 

such as people with disabilities, formerly homeless persons, or veterans, for either Section 8 (tenant- 

or project-based vouchers), or public housing. Most PHAs in the balance of state have not 

prioritized special needs populations for either program. One housing authority explained that they 

cannot mandate or fund services in their properties, and would be concerned about additional 

administrative costs of serving people with special needs. They cited bad experiences with 

placements in which tenants with personal challenges such as substance abuse histories were 

inadequately supported by services and relapsed. They also felt a no-preference policy was 

perceived as more fair by people in their jurisdiction. 

Another housing authority said that it did not have the staff capacity to assist people with 

disabilities to find housing once they received their vouchers. For the most part, PHA staff was 

unaware of the housing and case management services that are available for people living with 

HIV/AIDS. This may point to a need for more robust or explicit agreements between service 

providers and housing providers, in order to encourage the latter to more actively use preferences. 

Increased efficiency and higher success rates stemming from this type of partnership could serve as 

a counterbalance to the administrative difficulty or public opposition that PHAs currently associate 

with preferences. 

Affordable Housing Developers 

Oregon has a strong network of affordable housing developers (including private agencies as well 

as PHAs) that leverage and combine limited resources to produce new housing for low-income 

households. Informants across most areas of the state reported that affordable housing developers 

had the expertise and skills needed for development, but were limited in their ability to take on 

additional projects to meet demand due to scarce funding resources. 

The survey of stakeholders asked what types of agencies would they like to see more involved in 

system integration efforts, and the highest number of respondents (88 percent) chose affordable 

housing agencies. Only 44 percent of HIV/AIDS agencies reported currently partnering with 

developers in their region (An example of this kind of partnership could be setting aside a number 

of units for people living with HIV/AIDS within larger affordable housing projects, given a 

commitment of rental subsidy).


By necessity, most developers look for new opportunities and housing approaches to access and 

leverage new funding sources. Developers interviewed for this plan mentioned several new projects 

they are examining that may benefit from partnering with service agencies. For example, several 

mentioned the new Housing PLUS funds for permanent supportive housing. 

The Housing Authority of Jackson County, which historically has not developed special needs 

housing, is looking at different potential scenarios for its first such project. One possibility is a 

Single Room Occupancy (SRO) project to serve formerly homeless individuals. Another possibility 

is the incorporation of special needs units into a large mixed-use, mixed-income redevelopment 

project in downtown Medford. 

Housing authorities have the ability to project-base a percentage of their overall Section 8 voucher 

allocation, which can be especially valuable for projects serving households below 30 percent of 

Area Median Income (AMI). In most projects serving households at or below 30 percent of AMI, 

the rents collected from tenants are insufficient for covering the building’s operating costs. Projectbased 

Section 8 vouchers can help fill the gap between revenue and the project’s ongoing expenses. 

Jackson County reported that it has project-based a small number of vouchers, and is open to 

creating more to support new developments. 

In 2006, the City of Bend implemented an Affordable Housing Fee to provide new local funding for 

affordable housing. Revenue for the fund is provided through a fee assessed to new development in 

the city. The fee, 0.3 percent (one third of one percent) of the total Building Permit Valuation for 

new developments, is expected to provide about two million dollars per year for new construction 

and rehabilitation of affordable homeownership and rental housing. Local agencies apply 

competitively to the City of Bend for the funds, which are intended to be used to leverage state and 

federal financing for affordable housing initiatives. 64 

Other Affordable Housing Resources and Opportunities 

A number of large private service providers across the state manage affordable housing units that 

they or other entities have developed. Like housing authorities, other housing providers also employ 

a range of different wait list and tenant preference models. ShelterCare, in Eugene, maintains a 

centralized waiting list to place homeless people in housing that runs about nine to 12 weeks long. 

The agency selects people from its wait list whose needs (based on intake assessments) match the 

attributes of units that become available – for example, the staffing level and neighborhood that the 

units are in. In contrast, St. Vincent de Paul in Lane County does not maintain a wait list for its 

service-enriched housing, but instead accepts applications for referrals from social services agencies 

when a unit opens up. 

OHCS contracts with 13 Regional Housing Centers, including 11 serving the balance of state. These 

centers provide housing information and referrals to low-income renters and homeowners. Only one 

out of 16 HIV/AIDS service agencies from the stakeholder survey reported partnering with 

Regional Housing Centers. These centers can potentially assist both outreach by the OHOP 

program, and referrals for OHOP clients to additional housing resources. 

64 City of Bend, Department of Urban Renewal and Economic Development. 

http://www.ci.bend.or.us/depts/urban_renewal_economic_development (Accessed: November 30, 2007).


There are also occasional opportunities across the balance of state for housing providers to connect 

and share information on housing needs and programs. Each April, Oregon Housing and 

Community Services (OHCS) hosts the Oregon Housing Conference, which includes presentations 

from housing agencies across the state. Another example of a regional housing forum was the 

February 2006 Southern Oregon Workforce Housing Summit, which included representatives from 

Curry, Jackson, and Josephine Counties. 65 

Homeless Services and Prevention 

The impacts of homelessness can be particularly devastating for people living with HIV/AIDS, for 

whom housing stability is directly linked with access to treatment and health outcomes. Despite the 

need for homeless services and prevention for people living with HIV/AIDS, stakeholders reported 

limited involvement by HIV/AIDS housing and services providers in key homeless services 

planning processes. Agency-level links may exist (such as referral of clients to faith- or other 

community-based homeless shelters, as a bridge to permanent housing and other services), but 

understanding and accessing homelessness system planning is critical to meeting joint challenges. 

The following sections describe the two key planning processes: the Continuum of Care system, and 

state and local 10-Year Plans to End Homelessness. 

Continuum of Care Process 

The Continuum of Care system is a regional planning process that includes a combined annual 

application for HUD’s primary homeless assistance programs, including the Supportive Housing 

Program (SHP), Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Program, and Shelter Plus Care. Like the 

Consolidated Plan process, the Continuum of Care provides opportunities for regional systems to 

set priorities for federal funding. 

There are five Continua of Care that cover the balance of state. Each Continuum is allocated an 

initial pro rata need funding amount based on the relative homeless assistance need determined by 

HUD. Communities can receive funding above this level through successful applications for 

“bonus” projects that must provide permanent housing for chronically homeless individuals. 

65 Southern Oregon Workforce Housing Summit. Available online: http://www.ashland.or.us/Files/wfh_book_final.pdf (Accessed: 

January 15, 2008).


Table 8 shows the five Continua in the balance of state and their Fiscal Year 2006 funding 

allocations. 

Table 8: 

Continuum of Care Funding Allocations for Fiscal Year 2006 

Continuum of Care (CoC) FY 2006 Funding 

Central Oregon CoC $296,759 

Rural Oregon CoC (ROCC) $1,473,673 

Medford / Ashland / Jackson CoC $267,563 

Eugene / Springfield / Lane CoC $1,995,205 

Salem / Marion / Polk CoC $726,978 

Total for Balance of State: $4,760,178 

Total for Oregon: $12,707,015 

Housing and service providers were asked if their agencies participated in the Continuum of Care 

planning processes. Fifty percent of agencies that did not specifically serve people living with 

HIV/AIDS reported participating in their Continuum of Care, compared to just 13 percent of 

HIV/AIDS agencies. Of all respondents, 67 percent did not know how well their Continuum of Care 

included the housing and services needs of people living with HIV/AIDS, and 17 percent 

respondened “Not well.” 

For Fiscal Year 2006, providers from the balance of state received only 37 percent of the state’s 

Continuum of Care funding. Representatives from local Continua of Care indicated that 

administrative requirements are an obstacle for many providers in the balance of state, particularly 

for Shelter Plus Care. Shelter Plus Care programs must ensure that clients meet HUD’s homeless 

definitions, and provide a one-to-one services funding match. 

For example, if the Salem/Marion/Polk Continuum of Care applied for a new bonus project next 

year, the maximum award available would be approximately $30,000 per year for two years. This 

limited funding may support three Shelter Plus Care vouchers, but would represent a new 

administrative cost for the sponsor agency and would require finding a substantial service match. 

Stakeholders in several regions of the state mentioned the potential opportunities for OHOP to 

leverage HOPWA and Ryan White resources by providing service matches and critical 

administrative functions for Continuum of Care programs. For example, Housing and Community 

Services Agency of Lane County (HACSA) and ShelterCare currently partner to run the only 

Shelter Plus Care program in the balance of state. To ensure that the program is maximizing its 

client capacity, they have begun discussion with HIV Care and Treatment to make some program 

slots available for OHOP clients. 

10-Year Plans to End Homelessness 

In 2006, Oregon’s Governor created the Ending Homelessness Advisory Council (EHAC) to 

develop the 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness in Oregon. In 2007, EHAC released a draft of the


first section of the 10-Year Plan, “Understanding Homelessness in Oregon.” 66 Stakeholders indicate 

that the Council is still in its early planning stages. EHAC has focused thus far on understanding the 

extent of the problem and developing a case for more resources and improved coordination between 

agencies to use funding more effectively. 

Several counties in the balance of state, including Coos, Jackson, Lane, Lincoln, and Marion, are in 

the process of developing or implementing 10-Year Plans. Some counties have used the 10-Year 

Plan process to improve community awareness of homelessness issues. For example, the Lane 

County Project Homeless Connect (a one-day event to match drop-in homeless clients directly with 

services and resources in the community) served over 1,000 homeless people in February 2007. 67 

The survey of housing and service providers asked respondents if their agencies participated in the 

development of a local or statewide 10-Year Plan. Of agencies that did not specifically serve people 

living with HIV/AIDS, 50 percent reported participating in their 10-Year Plan, compared to just 13 

percent of HIV/AIDS agencies. Of all respondents, 62 percent did not know how well their 10-Year 

Plan included the housing and services needs of people living with HIV/AIDS, and 21 percent 

responded “Not well.” 

Addictions and Mental Health Services 

People with chemical dependency and/or mental illness face substantial barriers to housing. A 2005 

survey of Oregon community mental health programs found that more than 5,000 people with 

mental illness and over 2,000 alcohol and drug treatment clients were in immediate need of 

affordable housing. Approximately 3,000 adults with mental illness and 3,000 people with 

substance abuse disorders were estimated to be currently homeless. The vacancy rates for all types 

of mental health and alcohol and drug housing programs were reported at well under five percent, 

indicating a very high utilization of existing housing resources. 68 

People living with HIV/AIDS in Oregon have identified a high level of need for behavioral health 

treatment. More than three-quarters of Ryan White clients reported suffering from a mental health 

problem in the past 12 months. 69 People living with HIV/AIDS and co-occurring mental illness are 

significantly more likely to need ongoing help with housing (50 percent versus 31 percent of clients 

without mental health needs). Homelessness was similarly associated with behavioral health needs 

among people living with HIV/AIDS. 70 

The latest OHOP program evaluation identified clients with co-occurring mental illness as 

particularly difficult to serve. In addition, HIV/AIDS service providers in Oregon reported that 

many of their clients had co-occurring substance issues. 

66 



67 

Ending Homeless Advisory Council. Summary of Local 10 Year Planning Efforts. Available online: www.ehac.oregon.gov 

(Accessed: November 29, 2007). 

68 

Oregon Department of Human Services, Mental Health and Addiction Services. Results of the 2005 OMHAS Housing Survey. 

Available online: www.oregon.gov/dhs/mentalhealth/housing.shtml (Accessed: January 10, 2008). 

69 

Oregon Department of Human Services, Ryan White Title II HIV Client Services Comprehensive Plan, 2006-2009. Available 

online: http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/hiv/services/coalplan/2006plan.pdf (Accessed: November 27, 2007). 

70 



November 27, 2007).


The Steering Committee identified the difficulty of HIV/AIDS clients accessing the limited number 

of crisis respite beds. There are a limited number of crisis beds across the state, and many rural 

counties lack any crisis respite beds. A 2005 report on community mental health programs 

identified 343 crisis respite beds in Oregon, including 288 in the balance of state, with an unmet 

need of over 250 beds. 71 

In order to access crisis-respite care, people living with HIV/AIDS must be enrolled in mental 

health services and receive referral from their mental health case workers. But many HIV/AIDS 

clients do not have access to mental health case workers prior to crisis – a challenge addressed in 

the Critical Issues chapter below. In addition, some respite bed providers may be hesitant to accept 

people living with HIV/AIDS due to lack of expertise in providing care for physical illnesses. 

Mental health stakeholders recommend that HIV case managers accompany clients to their initial 

meeting(s) with mental health case workers to coordinate treatment to meet the client’s needs. 

As described above, OHOP recently was awarded funding for a HOPWA Special Project of 

National Significance (SPNS) to serve people living with HIV/AIDS and mental illness. This 

program will leverage HOPWA and Ryan White funds with behavioral health treatment provided 

by Cascadia Behavioral Health. 

In recent years, the Oregon Department of Human Services, Addictions and Mental Health (AMH) 

Division has increased its focus on the housing needs for people with mental illness or substance 

use issues. Three programs provide funding for housing development targeted at these populations. 

The newly-created Expanding Community Living Opportunities (ECLO) program provides funding 

for structured and specialized residential programs for individuals leaving state psychiatric 

hospitals; supportive housing for people leaving psychiatric hospitals, transitioning from youth to 

adult services, or who are ineligible for Medicaid; and housing development grants to develop new 

housing. 

The Community Mental Health Housing Fund supports the development of housing for persons 

with chronic mental illness. Up to $100,000 per project are available for creating new community 

housing opportunities for people with a serious mental illness; and these funds are distributed 

through an annual competitive application process conducted by AMH. 

The Alcohol and Drug Free Housing Fund supports the establishment of new housing for people in 

recovery from alcohol and drug abuse and who are actively involved in an approved treatment 

program. One million dollars are available through the ADF Housing Fund for the 2007-2009 

biennium. 

One potential opportunity for collaboration between behavioral health and HIV/AIDS services and 

housing providers is the development and strengthening of relationships between agencies serving 

special needs populations, and public housing authorities (PHAs) and nonprofit housing providers. 

Few PHAs have priorities for mental health clients for Section 8 or other subsidized housing wait 

lists, and no priorities exist for alcohol and drug treatment clients. Community mental health 

providers did report working successfully with private landlords. 

71 Oregon Department of Human Services, Mental Health and Addiction Services. Results of the 2005 OMHAS Housing Survey. 

Available online: www.oregon.gov/dhs/mentalhealth/housing.shtml (Accessed: January 10, 2008).


Coordinating services integration is a particular challenge in rural areas. The multi-county Eastern 

Oregon Human Services Consortium (EOHSC) is one potential venue for improving systems 

integration. The EOHSC is a cooperative body of community mental health programs that addresses 

the practicalities of delivering mental health, alcohol and drug treatment, and developmental 

disability services to the widespread communities of Eastern Oregon, and represents the region’s 

interests to the state legislature. EOHSC includes the counties of Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Hood 

River, Malheur, Morrow, Sherman, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, Wasco, and Wheeler. 72 


The most recent Oregon HIV/AIDS needs assessment estimated that two-thirds of people living 

with HIV/AIDS across the state have incomes below the federal poverty level. 73 People living with 

HIV/AIDS frequently have an array of basic needs that are common to low-income people in 

general, that also may be linked to their medical condition. These can include food and nutritional 

assistance, medical insurance, transportation, hygiene, family support, and general financial needs. 

Many clients rely on entitlement programs, including Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and 

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), which are administered directly by the federal 

government, and provide income support for people with disabilities. Clients may also seek and 

receive assistance from faith-based or other private relief organizations, which comprise an 

important part of the “safety net” in many communities. 

While mainstream public assistance and human service programs sometimes meet the needs of 

people living with HIV/AIDS as they are, this population sometimes needs enhanced assistance. For 

example, some HIV/AIDS medications require high-calorie diets, and consumers with low incomes 

often need assistance purchasing food and designing well-balanced diets that meet those 

requirements. 

In the survey of service providers for this needs assessment, while 81 percent of respondents from 

HIV/AIDS agencies said that they had partnerships for food assistance, half of all respondents said 

that food and nutritional assistance was insufficient in their region. Fifty-six percent felt that 

increasing access to mainstream services such as food stamps and SSI/SSDI was one of the highest 

priorities for systems integration. 

The primary resources for meeting human services and general assistance needs (beyond what is 

covered by federal disability entitlements for those who qualify) tend to be state and local public 

assistance programs – historically known as welfare. The largest of these programs, Temporary Aid 

to Needy Families (TANF) and food stamps, are federally funded but administered by state agencies 

– in Oregon, by the Department of Human Services (DHS) Children, Adults and Families 

(CAF) Division. DHS also administers (through its Division of Medical Assistance Programs) the 

Oregon Health Plan, the state’s vehicle for administering Medicaid and other health funds, which 

may cover some basic services. Integration efforts among these programs has historically taken 

place at the level of state administrators, but integrated strategies must be reinforced at the local 

72 

Eastern Oregon Human Services Consortium. Available online: http://www.eoddr.com/aboutEohsc.html (Accessed: November 30, 

2007). 

73 



November 27, 2007).


level, across the 110 offices that DHS operates in 16 service delivery areas across Oregon, in order 

for these programs to cooperate effectively. 

Oregon counties and municipalities also offer a range of human services and assistance programs, 

which vary widely from county to county. The structure of coordination among the local and state 

agencies and private or non-profit service providers also varies. The following are three examples of 

human services integration efforts across the balance of state: 

• Lane County coordinates human service delivery with the cities of Eugene and Springfield, 

through the intergovernmental Human Services Commission, the region’s CAP agency, 

which also coordinates the region’s HUD Continuum of Care application. 

• The Association of Oregon Counties has affiliate organizations for particular types of 

administrators involved in health and human services programming, including the Coalition 

of County Children and Families Commissions and Oregon Coalition of Local Health 

Officials. 74 

• In Jackson County, the Rogue Valley Family Center serves as a “one-stop” family resource 

center for a collection of services and assistance programs provided by different agencies. 

Though this model has been difficult to sustain in Oregon communities, in part because of 

declines in county budgets, it is nationally recognized as a best practice for serving lowincome 

people who may be involved in a range of different public systems and have limited 

access to transportation or ability to keep appointments in multiple locations. The Rogue 

Valley facility focuses on families with children, and has staff “mentors” who conduct 

intake meetings with each client to help identify and meet the needs of his or her household 

as a whole. Staff conduct monthly Program Integration Team meetings, as well as weekly 

staffing meetings around particular clients. Some housing assistance is currently available 

through onsite staff of a local nonprofit provider. 

Employment 

Many people living with HIV/AIDS are able and willing to do some kind of income-generating 

work, but face barriers related to periods of absence from the workforce, limited education or skills, 

or other risk factors. Those with low or no income may need assistance finding, obtaining, and 

retaining jobs. In the survey of Oregon stakeholders, nearly two thirds of HIV/AIDS agencies 

reported that employment assistance was unavailable or insufficient in their communities. Less than 

half of all respondents (both HIV/AIDS agencies and non-HIV/AIDS agencies) partnered with 

employment services agencies. Sixty-nine percent of all respondents listed “improve economic selfsufficiency 

of people living with HIV/AIDS” as a high priority for systems integration. 

Oregon receives federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA) funding to provide an array of services 

to job seekers and businesses in offices throughout the state. Most of these offices are called 

WorkSource Oregon One Stop Career Centers and are co-located with the Employment Department 

and other agency partners. Five of the seven One Stop Career Centers serve the balance of state. 

These centers provide anyone who walks in the door with information to help them get a job or 

potentially go to school to train in a new career direction. Services may include information 

74 The Association of Oregon Counties. Available online: http://www.aocweb.org/aoc/ (Accessed: November 30, 2007).


regarding Unemployment Insurance payments, resume writing, application and interview help, 

work skills assessment and other job-seeker assistance. 75 


Prison populations have grown exponentially nationwide over the past two decades. On any given 

day, 2.2 million people are incarcerated in prison or jail across the United States, 76 and the number 

of prisoners is expected to grow significantly (by nearly 200,000) over the next five years. 77 

Because of this extraordinary incarceration rate, as well as the disproportionate number of people of 

color in both poverty and the prison system, programs of all types that serve low-income people 

(from housing, to employment, to public assistance) increasingly find people with incarceration 

histories among their potential clients. 

In addition, the link between incarceration and risk for HIV/AIDS infection is increasingly strong. 

In 1997, individuals released from prison or jail accounted for nearly one-quarter of all people 

living with HIV or AIDS in the United States. An estimated 98,000 to 145,000 HIV-positive 

inmates were released from prisons and jails in 1996; almost 39,000 of these had AIDS. 78 

Basic Facts about Corrections in Oregon 

• 13,516 people were incarcerated in Oregon state prisons as of June 2007, out 

of a total state population of 3,700,758. 

• The Department of Corrections budget for the 2007-09 biennium is 

approximately $1.3 billion. DOC estimates the cost per inmate per day at 

$67.53. 

• Although Blacks/African Americans make up less than two percent of 

Oregon's population, they make up ten percent of Oregon's prison population. 

• As of November 2006, the three-year post-release recidivism rate (offenders 

convicted of new felony crimes) was 31 percent. 

75 Oregon Department of Community Colleges and Workforce Development. Available online: 

http://www.oregon.gov/CCWD/SERVICES/index.shtml (Accessed: November 30, 2007). 

76 William J. Sabol, Todd D. Minton, and Paige M. Harrison. Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2006. Bureau of Justice Statistics 

Bulletin, Washington, DC: US DOJ, Office of Justice Programs, 2007. Available online: 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pjim06.pdf (Accessed: November 26, 2007). 

77 Public Safety, Public Spending: Forecasting America’s Prison Population 2007-2011. Philadelphia, PA: Pew Charitable Trusts, 

2007. Available online: http://www.pewpublicsafety.org/pdfs/PCT%20Public%20Safety%20Public%20Spending.pdf (Accessed: 

November 26, 2007). 

78 National Commission on Correctional Health Care, The Health Status of Soon-To-Be-Released Prisoners: A Report to Congress, 

Vol. 1 (Chicago: National Commission on Correction Health Care, 2002), p. 17. Available online: 

http://www.ncchc.org/stbr/Volume1/Chapter3.pdf (Accessed: September 17, 2007).


Prisoner reentry issues are gaining more attention; however, there are still few resources available to 

people being released from prison and jail. Employers, landlords, subsidized housing providers, 

housing authorities, and even supportive housing programs often screen out people with criminal 

histories. Formerly incarcerated people may also be ineligible for public assistance, educational 

loans, and voting. Without employment or a place to live, successful reentry into the community is 

very difficult. 79 

Respondents to the stakeholder survey indicated that offender transition services were an important 

need for the HIV/AIDS population. Half of respondents thought that reentry transition assistance 

was currently insufficient, and nearly half (47 percent) thought improving discharge planning from 

correctional facilities and hospitals was one of the highest priorities for systems integration to meet 

the needs of people living with HIV/AIDS across the state. While more than half of respondents had 

partnerships with criminal justice or transition services agencies, 44 percent felt that criminal justice 

or corrections agencies should be more involved in improving HIV/AIDS housing and service 

system integration. 

The prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the Oregon state prison population is estimated to be one to two 

percent, or approximately 225 persons; 80 additional people living with HIV/AIDS cycle through 

local jails. Ten percent of people living with HIV/AIDS in Oregon reported having spent time in jail 

or prison in the past two years. 81 Surveys by both DHS and Cascade AIDS Project found that 

housing needs and risk for homelessness were prevalent among clients with histories of 

incarceration. 

With the support of the Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC), OHOP (as the grantee) and 

Cascade AIDS Project (as the sponsor) successfully applied for a HOPWA Special Project of 

National Significance (SPNS) grant in 2006, creating the Oregon Statewide Supportive Community 

Re-entry (OSSCR) program. As described above, OSSCR will serve up to 55 post-incarcerated 

people living with HIV/AIDS in Oregon per year over the three-year grant period with tenant-based 

rental assistance, housing information, and supportive services. OHOP has leveraged funds to 

complement $1.3 million in HOPWA award funds for a total of $3.1 million to serve both the 

Portland metropolitan area and Balance of State. 

Since 2003, the Oregon DOC has incorporated into its Strategic Plan an “Oregon Accountability 

Model” to promote successful transition by prisoners to the community after release. DOC included 

homelessness risk / housing need in its individual intake assessments for the first time in 2007, but 

does not currently provide housing assistance to any individuals released from DOC custody. 

Among the programs that DOC has implemented or partnered to implement to improve offender 

reentry is the Home for Good in Oregon (HGO) transition program, a statewide partnership with 

faith- and community-based organizations and community corrections agencies in which volunteers 

assist and mentor released prisoners. 82 Pilot programs have been implemented in Marion, Linn, 

79 AIDS Housing of Washington, HIV/AIDS, Incarceration, and Housing, 2003. Available online: 

http://www.aidshousing.org/usr_doc/Incarceration_Factsheet_2003.pdf (Accessed: September 17, 2007). 

80 Unpublished voluntary recruitment HIV prevalence study by Portland State University, 2005 and surveillance data from Linda 

Drach, MPH, Epidemiologist, Program Design & Evaluation Services, Oregon DHS, May 2006, as reported in the 2006 SPNS 

application. 

81 Oregon Department of Human Services, Program Design and Evaluation Services. We Listened…2005: Survey for People Living 


November 27, 2007). 

82 Oregon DOC website, Transitional Services Division. Available online: 

http://www.oregon.gov/DOC/TRANS/religious_services/rs_hgo_program.shtml (Accessed: November 26, 2007).


Douglas, and Josephine Counties, and the program has been incorporated into DOC’s 2007-09 

strategic plan. 

In 2007, Oregon established a Governor’s Reentry Council, which met for the first time in 

November. 83 The Council is charged with focusing attention on inmate transition to reduce 

recidivism, and eliminating barriers to successful reentry, including promoting access to affordable 

housing. Members include directors of state agencies, representatives of local public safety 

agencies, legislators, and others. 

Additional criminal justice system resources in Oregon include the advisory Criminal Justice 

Commission, which includes representatives of six counties and two statewide representatives, 84 

and local public safety coordinating councils (LPSCC), 85 established by statute in 1997. LPSCCs 

are intended to serve as a structure for counties to develop plans for the use of state resources to 

serve the local offender population, and to help coordinate local criminal justice policy among 

affected criminal justice entities. An annual conference of LPSCCs was held for the first time in 

2005 to allow them to exchange ideas. In counties where LPSCCs are active, they seem to focus on 

particular issues (such as providing a methamphetamine use prevention and resource guide, in 

Marion County) 86 . However, these bodies may be useful venues for engaging criminal justice 

agencies in addressing housing or other issues among released offenders, and for proposing specific 

partnerships or collaborative activities. 

Agencies that currently provide housing assistance to transitioning offenders in Oregon outside of 

the Portland metropolitan area include Sponsors ex-prisoner transitional housing and services in 

Lane County, 87 and the ARCHES Project of the Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency 

in Salem. 88 

Sponsors provides residential transition programs for both men and women, and operates 28 units of 

alcohol- and drug-free housing for eligible program graduates. In addition, Sponsors houses 15 sex 

offenders and runs an employment assistance program to promote offender self-sufficiency. 

The ARCHES Project serves as a centralized drop-in center designed to provide referral and 

services to homeless individuals and families. In addition to a Day Center and Transitional Housing 

Program, ARCHES operates a HOME Tenant Based Assistance (TBA) program, serving both City 

of Salem and Marion County. The HOME TBA program provides ongoing rental assistance and 

case management for homeless and at-risk individuals and families who are actively receiving 

services through Parole & Probation, Marion County Home for Good, and/or Drug Court. The 

RENT Tenant Education Program assists individuals and families who are homeless and 

encountering barriers to accessing housing due to poor rental histories or poor credit. 

83 

“‘Safety, Justice and Hope,’ Values Guide Governor's New Re-Entry Council” (press release), November 21, 2007. Available 

online: http://www.oregon.gov/Gov/P2007/press_112107.shtml (Accessed: January 16, 2008). 

84 

Criminal Justice Commission, Oregon Governor’s website. Available online: http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/index.shtml (Accessed: 

January 16, 2008). 

85 

Local public safety coordinating councils, Oregon Governor’s website. Available online: 

http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/lpscc_page.shtml (Accessed: January 16, 2008). 

86 

Marion County Bureau of Commissioners. Available online: http://www.co.marion.or.us/BOC/PSCC/ (Accessed: January 16, 

2008). 

87 

Sponsors, Inc. Available online: http://www.sponsorsinc.org/ (Accessed: December 3, 2007). 

88 

Email correspondence with Carla Cary, December 17, 2007. Program information available online: www.committed.to/arches 

(Accessed: December 3, 2007).

Section 2: Critical Issues and 

Recommendations


Critical Issues 

This section summarizes critical issues that need to be addressed to ensure integration between 

HIV/AIDS housing and services and other systems, as developed by the Oregon HIV Housing and 

Service Systems Integration Plan Steering Committee. 

The Oregon HIV Housing and Service Systems Integration Plan Steering Committee met in Salem, 

Oregon, on December 18, 2007, to review findings from the assessment of HIV/AIDS resources and 

systems integration conducted by Building Changes during the second half of 2007. Based on these 

findings, the Committee identified critical issues in systems integration that pose challenges to 

meeting the housing and related needs of people living with HIV and AIDS in the state of Oregon 

(outside of the Portland Metropolitan Area). 

The Committee identified both general issues related to the outreach and partnership strategies of 

the Oregon Housing Opportunities in Partnership (OHOP) program, and issues specific to the 

various housing and service systems which should be involved in an integrated HIV housing and 

service plan for Oregon residents. These issues are described below and divided into two categories: 

Outreach and Partnership Development, and Integration with Housing and Service Systems. 


1. Limited Awareness of Resources Dedicated to People Living with HIV/AIDS 

Steering Committee members noted that many mainstream housing and services partners, all 

potential OHOP partners, lack awareness or accurate knowledge of the OHOP program. This lack 

of awareness of existing HIV/AIDS resources likely extends to the greater community, including 

among faith- and other community-based organizations, and may limit partnerships in several ways. 

Potential housing partners may not be familiar with the Oregon Department of Human Services, 

Public Health, HIV/STD/TB Section, HIV Care and Treatment program, and thus might not 

recognize the availability of service match dollars or other partnership opportunities. For instance, 

providers may have misconceptions about the flexibility of DHS HIV Care and Treatment dollars to 

leverage housing funds. Because services administered by HIV Care and Treatment are supported 

by a blend of state, federal, and revenue funds, they can be used as a service match for federal 

housing programs such as HOME Tenant-Based Assistance, unlike federal Ryan White funding 

alone. 

In addition, some agencies use limited resources when those services could be covered by a 

dedicated funding stream for clients with an HIV diagnosis. For example, both the OHOP program 

and Community Action Agencies (CAAs) offer emergency utility assistance. CAAs that do not 

have or share information about OHOP with their clients may end up spending out their utility 

assistance funds on OHOP-eligible clients, while OHOP funds remain underutilized. 

In addition, some government departments and agencies that are unfamiliar with OHOP and the 

HIV Care and Treatment Program do not keep OHOP staff and HIV Care and Treatment Program


case managers updated on planning processes (including opportunities for community input on 

Continuum of Care, Consolidated Plan, and other processes and applications) or inform them of 

resource availability or collaborative opportunities. This limits the opportunities that HIV/AIDS 

housing and services stakeholders have to help shape inclusive plans, and thus limits the degree to 

which people living with HIV/AIDS are included in mainstream housing and other services. 

Detailed information about the OHOP and HIV Care and Treatment programs is or will be available 

in the form of reports and publications such as this Plan, but not all potential partners are likely to 

seek out or read lengthy documents on these topics. 

2. Confidentiality Concerns 

The need to maintain client confidentiality restricts the ways that OHOP housing coordinators and 

other organizations and individuals can conduct outreach about their activities and resources. For 

people living with HIV/AIDS, stigma and discrimination are significant factors in finding and 

maintaining housing, accessing support services, and seeking medical care. People living with 

HIV/AIDS often struggle with keeping their HIV status private, particularly from landlords and 

neighbors. For this reason, OHOP staff and partners market their services quietly to avoid 

disclosing to landlords and other providers that HOPWA is the source of housing assistance for 

clients they place, or that clients qualify for OHOP via an HIV diagnosis. The need to maintain 

privacy around HIV/AIDS-related services and programs such as OHOP can limit opportunities for 

collaboration, outreach, and landlord education. 

Moreover, CAAs and other community-based providers that would like to be able to make referrals 

to the OHOP program do not necessarily know which of their clients are living with HIV/AIDS, or 

how to ask for or provide information in a way that allows those individuals to maintain privacy. 

3. Limited Staff Capacity 

OHOP and HIV Care and Treatment staff have limited resources and time to conduct marketing and 

outreach to mainstream housing and service providers, in addition to serving individual clients or 

coordinating specific housing activities. In addition, these staff may lack familiarity with aspects of 

partner systems, including affordable housing, and have limited training to expand this knowledge. 

Integration with Housing and Service Systems 


Coordination and partnerships with affordable housing developers and providers (including housing 

authorities) and affordable housing planning processes (such as the Consolidated Plan or Low 

Income Housing Tax Credit processes) can lead to the development or dedication of new housing 

resources, targeted either for people with disabilities in general or specifically for people living with 

HIV/AIDS. Good communication can also lead affordable housing providers to prioritize existing 

resources for people living with HIV/AIDS, whether because of an increased perception of this 

population’s housing need or recognition of the resources that can be leveraged to serve them. 

4. Prioritizing Participation Among Many Planning and Implementation Processes 

Mechanisms for community input are frequently built in to affordable housing planning processes, 

but it can be difficult for OHOP staff and partners to track the time-limited opportunities to provide


such input, as well as to prioritize in which meetings and processes their participation will be most 

effective and conducive to meeting OHOP goals. 

As part of this decision-making, OHOP staff and partners must differentiate among the many 

different stages of the affordable housing finance or development processes at different levels of 

government. OHOP administrators must also determine the best use of limited OHOP resources, 

whether as part of development projects that create a long-term resource to benefit people living 

with HIV/AIDS, or in less resource-intense housing subsidies that depend on the availability of 

existing stock for which OHOP clients compete with other low-income populations. 

OHOP administrators and partners must also consider how to direct resources into relationshipbuilding 

among different kinds of potential partners. Stakeholders in the development of this Plan 

identified landlords as a particularly critical group. In both planning and day-to-day work, staff 

must weigh the advantages of focusing on maintaining and expanding existing relationships or 

seeking to create new partnerships. On the administrator level, the competing interests among 

regions and between city-centered and rurally dispersed affordable housing planning and 

implementation processes must also be considered. 

5. Maximizing Access to New Resources for Special Populations 

As new resources become available within Oregon for populations that may include people living 

with HIV/AIDS, OHOP staff and partners must determine where overlap is significant and how to 

allocate resources for developing proposals and applications to leverage these funding streams. For 

example, OHOP could consider partnering to apply for some portion of the approximately $4 

million in Housing PLUS funds that will be available through the Spring 2008 Consolidated 

Funding Cycle. 

Steering Committee members noted that affordable housing funders and developers are asked to 

prioritize or include a variety of special population definitions and set-asides in their projects or 

guidelines. Affordable housing resources are limited across the balance of state, resulting in strong 

competition for funding opportunities, and some competitions offer “bonus points” to applications 

for projects serving various special populations. While these special population priorities vary, both 

funders and developers value partners that can bring new resources into projects, such as through 

service matches or rental subsidies. 

6. Understanding Affordable Housing System Missions and Cultures 

Stakeholders in the affordable housing system have interests and goals that vary from entity to 

entity and may not be clear to OHOP stakeholders or consistent with OHOP goals. For example, 

Steering Committee members pointed out that affordable housing developers generally seek to 

balance high-need tenants with more independent low-income tenants in any housing complex, 

feeling that such a mix is needed to promote a sustainable community. This goal of balancing levels 

of service need may or may not be consistent with admitting particular proportions of people living 

with HIV/AIDS. 


Oregon, in step with numerous state and local jurisdictions nationally, has focused resources and 

developed infrastructure to address the needs of people who are homeless, both through the HUD 

Continuum of Care process and more recently through state and local 10-Year Plans to End


Homelessness. However, the HIV/AIDS housing and services and homelessness systems are not 

well-coordinated. 

7. Lack of Shared Data and Coordinated Planning Between HIV/AIDS and Homeless 

Systems 

Limited data is available on the overlap between the challenges of homelessness and HIV/AIDS in 

Oregon, and few HIV/AIDS agencies participate in homeless services or housing planning 

processes. Although research shows a strong correlation between HIV and housing instability, and 

HOPWA has recently required grantees to track homelessness among clients, information systems 

are not yet well integrated on the client or systems levels. This makes it difficult for OHOP to 

compare data from its epidemiological and programmatic sources against services being used 

through homeless services providers. Better data integration would allow OHOP to better document 

its resource leveraging and help prevent duplication of services for clients served by multiple 

systems, and could also prevent some clients from falling through the cracks and not receiving 

referrals for needed services. 

Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) uses a customized Homeless Management 

Information System (HMIS) called OPUS to collect data for its homelessness services and Low 

Income Energy Assistance Programs (LIEAP) in the balance of state. The OHOP program has not 

historically used an HMIS program, but is planning to begin using ServicePoint, the HMIS system 

used in the Portland area. Since OHOP does administer an allocation of state LIEAP funds, staff are 

able to access OPUS for the limited purposes of that program, although there is limited funding to 

expand OHOP’s use of and integration with OPUS at this time. 

8. Incomplete Integration of HIV/AIDS Issues into Continua of Care 

Steering Committee members identified the need to provide better information about people living 

with HIV/AIDS for the sections of Continuum of Care applications that address subpopulations. 

The inclusion of this population in Continuum of Care planning should also be more meaningful, 

and include participation in meetings. 

The underutilization of Shelter Plus Care (S+C) was another issue noted by the Steering Committee. 

There is currently only one Shelter Plus Care project in Oregon’s balance of state, in the 

Eugene/Springfield/Lane County Continuum of Care. Some Continua of Care in Oregon are 

reluctant to apply for “bonus” projects (such as S+C projects) beyond pro-rata need, because of the 

potential burden on sponsor agencies of administrative costs and service match requirements. Those 

concerns must be addressed in order to ensure that Oregon’s communities leverage the maximum of 

Continuum of Care funding opportunities. For example, the project in Lane County previously 

accepted client referrals from only one provider, but recently has begun working with OHOP to take 

referrals to fill unused program slots. 


9. Addictions and Mental Health Services Gap 

The Steering Committee saw a significant gap in services for addictions and mental health services 

among people living with HIV/AIDS in Oregon’s balance of state. Oregon’s new competitive 

HOPWA Special Project of National Significance (SPNS) grant (the Oregon Housing and 

Behavioral Health Initiative, or OHBHI) was recognized as an important source of support for 

services and an effort to better integrate HIV/AIDS housing and services with behavioral health


care. But the OHBHI award will not eliminate the gap, and applies only to clients in the I-5 

corridor. 

10. Limited Access by People Living with HIV/AIDS to Mainstream Behavioral Health 

Services 

Steering Committee members noted the availability of limited statewide housing development funds 

to serve people with behavioral health issues and unmet housing needs: Community Mental Health 

Housing, Alcohol and Drug Free Housing, and the new Expanding Community Living 

Opportunities fund. Demand for these funds exceeds availability, and to date they have not 

supported developments with units dedicated to people living with HIV/AIDS. 

On an individual client level, OHOP housing coordinators and partners have also had trouble 

accessing the network of mental illness respite beds across the state. Qualification criteria can be 

strict, and there are limited points of referral such as mental health departments. 


Many people living with HIV/AIDS in Oregon have an array of basic needs that are common to 

low-income people in general. These can include family support, transportation, food and 

nutritional assistance, hygiene, and general financial needs. Awareness and understanding of the 

service needs of people living with HIV/AIDS tend to be limited among the many government and 

nonprofit agencies that provide general human services throughout the balance of state. Stigma 

based on misconceptions and generalizations about HIV disease and people who are living with 

HIV/AIDS can be a barrier to fair and compassionate service delivery. 

11. Loss and Scarcity of Funding for Human Services 

Nationwide, human services tend to be locally funded – and usually underfunded, especially in 

smaller, more rural counties. In some areas of Oregon, the loss of timber revenues upon which such 

counties have relied for many years has compounded with an aging population and loss of young 

people to the cities, dealing major blows to the budgets of human service agencies. The small 

number of “one-stop” centers in which multiple agencies coordinate their services to wrap around 

client households has dwindled, making the services that remain harder to access. 

12. Family Support Needs 

OHOP serves a substantial number of family households (as compared to individuals); this 

proportion varies by region, with more families receiving housing help in Eugene, for example, than 

in Salem. Families typically need larger housing units, of which the supply may be limited. Also, 

different family members may require different kinds of services, thereby increasing the number of 

systems with which a household is involved and the complexity of meeting their needs. Some types 

of housing and services options funded for people living with HIV/AIDS may be more or less 

appropriate to family groups. 


A large percentage of new HIV diagnoses in Oregon are among people who have served time in 

jails or prisons. Research also shows that people with histories of incarceration are much more 

likely to have HIV/AIDS than the general population. Members of the Steering Committee lauded 

the Oregon Statewide Supportive Community Reentry (OSSCR) funding, a HOPWA competitive


grant targeted to serve 55 individuals released from incarceration, through a coordinated effort of 

OHOP, the Department of Corrections, and an array of other partners. 

13. Lack of Housing Options 

Offenders living with HIV/AIDS face challenges related to their criminal histories as well as their 

health diagnoses. They are screened out of public and private housing by background checks, and 

can find it difficult to transition to mainstream housing assistance programs such as Section 8 from 

the OHOP program. 

14. Multiple Risk Factors 

Poverty, credit problems, substance abuse and mental illness are common among prison inmates, 

and may be magnified by their chronic health condition(s). Debts both related and unrelated to 

convictions climb while a person is incarcerated and in treatment, which may be required by the 

justice system. Housing and family situations are disrupted and may be difficult or impossible to reestablish. 

Such risk factors translate into high service needs – and gaps in receiving services – when 

prisoners return to the community. 


15. Lack of Research and Resources for People Living with HIV/AIDS 

Steering Committee members identified a need for more assisted living and long-term care options 

(including in-home assistance) for people living longer with HIV, and those suffering from chronic 

diseases like diabetes, which provider observation suggests emerge earlier and more frequently 

among people with HIV than in the general population. The lack of research in the arena of chronic 

diseases among people living with HIV/AIDS limits the care a patient has access to. For example, 

when screening or preventative measures exist, insurance may not fund those measures for people 

with AIDS if they lack other risk factors. 

16. Additional Housing Challenges 

Holding housing units and maintaining housing assistance as people cycle in and out of assisted 

living situations can be difficult, and can require modifications to rules and incur additional 

administrative costs. People with chronic diseases may need additional accommodations within 

their living units, or may need to live closer to health providers, limiting their ability to move or 

choose among housing options. Moreover, traditional assisted-living environments for elderly 

people may not be a good fit for younger (middle-aged) people living with HIV/AIDS. The 

difficulty of placing clients in assisted living is broader than the HIV/AIDS population but is a 

challenge statewide. 

Employment 

17. Limited Coordination Among Employment, Service, and Housing Systems 

Additional coordination and improved awareness of service needs and available resources are 

needed between AIDS and employment service systems. Typically, employment centers (such as 

One Stop Centers established under the federal Workforce Investment Act) are evaluated based on 

number of successful job placements and similar measures. This may discourage them from serving 

clients with the multiple challenges that people living with HIV/AIDS may have (including gaps in


work history or absences from work due to health issues), and from providing the ongoing 

employment support that they need to retain these jobs. 

Differences in agency missions and cultures among the systems as pertains to employment can 

contribute to poor coordination. Health, human services, and homelessness services providers may 

not prioritize work and self-sufficiency as much as mainstream affordable housing providers 

typically do, adding complexity to partnerships among these systems.



Recommendations and action steps for addressing the critical issues identified during this needs 

assessment and planning process are presented in this section of the plan. 

The Oregon HIV Housing and Service Systems Integration Plan Steering Committee met in Salem, 

Oregon, on December 18, 2007, and then convened by telephone conference on January 24, 2008, 

to develop strategic recommendations to address the critical issues identified at the December 18 

meeting and described in the previous section. 

As noted in the previous section, the Steering Committee considered issues related to the outreach 

and partnership strategies of the OHOP program, as well as issues specific to the relevant housing 

and service systems. The recommendations described below are divided into the same two 

categories, with some recommendations broken down further into possible action steps identified by 

the Steering Committee. 


1. Develop simple, discreet material to publicize OHOP and related services and 

opportunities, and disseminate widely. 

Provide posters, brochures, and other materials to community action agencies, local DHS offices, 

mainstream housing providers, faith- and other community-based organizations, and homeless 

shelters and drop-in centers. Develop or adapt a brochure that describes OHOP as a housing 

assistance program, includes eligibility parameters inside the brochure, provides contact 

information for housing coordinators, and assures that contact with the housing coordinator will be 

kept confidential. 

Action steps may include: 

• Develop a simple website showcasing the systems integration plan and affordable housing 

resource guide for housing and service partners to link to. 

• Seek opportunities to include information on OHOP services on materials and applications 

for assistance programs administered by community action agencies and other social service 

providers. 

• Post the affordable housing resource guide created for this Plan (Appendix 1) online, with 

separate pages (that can be easily linked to) for each region and topic. Link this information 

with the existing Oregon AIDS Hotline website. Update the resource guide regularly. 

2. Present to current and potential partners with information tailored to their interests. 

Continue to seek the support and engagement of potential stakeholders and partners, such as local 

governments and regional housing, homeless services, faith-based and community-based grass roots 

organizations, and HIV/AIDS advocacy groups. Presentations to affordable housing developers and 

funders should provide general background on HIV/AIDS housing and services need, but then focus


on the availability of service matches through HIV Care and Treatment services, and rent subsidies 

through OHOP. 


• Take advantage of events in which Steering Committee members are involved in planning, 

such as the Oregon Housing and Homeless Conference (April 11, 2008). 

• Briefly summarize the detailed information available about the needs of and resources for 

people living with HIV/AIDS in Oregon (such as this Plan), and focus on aspects of OHOP 

and HIV Care and Treatment and their clients that are most relevant to the particular agency 

or audience being targeted. To the extent possible, present locally specific information about 

HIV/AIDS and housing needs in each jurisdiction. 

• Tailor outreach efforts for critical audiences, with specific goals or strategies highlighted. For 

example, information on the cost-savings of providing housing to people with HIV/AIDS in 

each region can help persuade local government officials to allocate funding from human 

service budgets to meet these needs, or to prioritize them in Consolidated Plans. 

3. Engage provider agency staff, clients, and other regional participants in publicizing the 

need, opportunity, and benefits of investing in housing and services for people living 


Work with local stakeholders to build their capacity to foster support and monitor progress in their 

jurisdictions. Stakeholders may include HIV/AIDS service agencies, HIV Housing Task Force 

members, HIV Care case managers, consumer representatives, and other partners across the state. 


• Use the calendar of local funding and planning processes in the affordable housing resource 

guide (Appendix 1) to guide timely outreach efforts, such as participation or presentation at 

public meetings. 

• Create “talking points” for regional partners to guide presentations that advocate for focusing 

local resources on the housing needs of people living with HIV/AIDS. 

• If staff capacity is insufficient for this range of activities, OHOP could choose to direct 

technical assistance funds to contract with a consultant, or seek a university partner, to design 

and coordinate a proactive outreach plan. 

4. Offer trainings and create forums for sharing best practices to build OHOP and 

partner staff capacity. 

Provide staff with opportunities to build knowledge and share successful program strategies, and 

elicit engagement and guidance from a diverse oversight body. 


• Convene monthly or bi-monthly meetings via phone conference for OHOP housing 

coordinators and Ryan White case managers to collaborate on case problem-solving and 

discuss resources for clients. Empower OHOP housing coordinators to seek assistance as 

needed directly from HOPWA technical assistance providers (Building Changes staff) for 

HOPWA program questions.


• Resume regular meetings (likely twice per year) of the HIV Housing Task Force that guided 

the development of the OHOP program. The membership of this Task Force should include 

OHOP staff, other HIV/AIDS service agencies, and affordable housing providers across the 

state. The Task Force should promote the dissemination and implementation of this Plan. In 

addition, members of the Task Force can help diffuse some of the workload of Plan 

implementation by building connections with regional partners and attending meetings such 

as the Continuum of Care. 

• Convene HIV Care and Treatment case managers and OHOP housing coordinators for an 

annual retreat to review program changes, successes and challenges; discuss roles; identify 

ways to improve coordination; and set goals for optimal client case management. 

• To ensure housing discrimination issues and related concerns are addressed and resolved, 

continue working with the Fair Housing Council of Oregon to educate staff and partners and 

to coordinate appropriate strategies for addressing resistant parties. 

Integration with Housing and Service Systems 


5. Participate consistently in the statewide Consolidated Plan, Continuum of Care, and 

other planning processes. 

Participate in state and local Consolidated Plan (“Con Plan”) and Continuum of Care planning 

processes to ensure that the needs of people living with HIV/AIDS are recognized and addressed. 

Reach out to planning representatives to ensure that OHOP staff receive regular updates and 

meeting announcements. 


• OHOP staff should provide information on the housing needs of people living with 

HIV/AIDS to local governments as they develop their five-year Con Plans, especially in cities 

that have previously identified people living with HIV/AIDS as a “low” priority for housing 

resources. 

• Ensure that each Continuum of Care in the balance of state has information and expertise 

available on the local needs of homeless people living with HIV/AIDS. 

• Such participation requires a public planning environment that is supportive to local input. 

Approach agencies who regularly participate in advocacy efforts, such as the HIV Alliance in 

Lane County, to benefit from their guidance and suggestions. 

• Join with broader advocates for people with disabilities to encourage scoring incentives for 

projects serving special needs populations through the Consolidated Funding Cycle, Qualified 

Allocation Plan (QAP), and other funding sources. 

6. Prioritize strategically between building on existing relationships or seeking new 

partnerships with affordable housing developers and providers. 

Reach out to professional associations, including the Association of Oregon Community 

Development Organizations / Community Development Network, to disseminate information 

among their members and to identify both areas of interest to them and potential partners, including


service providers, advocacy groups, and community- and faith-based organizations. Select a few 

agencies that are either receptive to partnership, represent significant resources in areas of need, or 

both to develop and pitch specific potential joint ventures. Successful early partnerships with 

housing providers can serve as examples for future collaborations in other regions of the state. 

7. Seek housing development opportunities in which relatively modest HIV/AIDS-specific 

resources can leverage significant investment from other sources. 

Steering Committee members underscored that even modest commitments of funding for operating 

costs and supportive services in affordable housing development applications can be persuasive to 

government funders. For example, in one case, just $35,000 allocated by the Division of Addictions 

and Mental Health for housing development has leveraged $1.5M in Oregon Housing and 

Community Services (OHCS) funds. 

Given the limited resources available for HIV Care and Treatment and OHOP, focus development 

or rehabilitation partnerships on units integrated into buildings (rather than stand-alone units). 

Promote set-asides for tenants living with HIV/AIDS who already receive case management and 

services, and thus are unlikely to create challenges or administrative costs for property managers. 


8. Focus attention on improving coordination with planning, data, and other elements of 

homeless systems. 

Connect with, and track the activities of, the state Ending Homelessness Advisory Council (EHAC). 

Participate regularly in Continuum of Care and state and local 10-Year Plan processes, using 

strategies described in the previous sections. Seek integration of data at the client level by linking 

information systems across mental health, HIV care, and homeless services, including partnering 

with OHCS to compare OHOP and HIV/AIDS epidemiology data with homeless services 

information. 

9. Promote Shelter Plus Care and other bonus projects through agreements to streamline 

or share sponsor administrative costs. 

Seek to allay the concerns of Continuum of Care partners and potential sponsors of “bonus” projects 

for serving chronically homeless people through coordinated planning to share administrative 

responsibilities. OHOP cannot allocate additional overhead above the administrative percentage 

allowed by its grants, but coordination between OHOP staff and partners may create efficiencies. If 

successful, initial partnering with existing Shelter Plus Care (S+C) providers can enhance and 

demonstrate the capacity of OHOP staff to seek additional S+C projects with new partners. 

10. Conduct outreach and seek partnerships with landlords and property managers. 

Link with regional housing centers that conduct fair housing and other trainings for landlords and 

potential landlords (including faith-based organizations), to promote the inclusion of information on 

the housing challenges and resources available to people living with HIV/AIDS. Effectively use 

existing tenant certification programs, such as St. Vincent de Paul’s Second Chance renter 

rehabilitation program, that connect landlords to tenants who have completed certification. Explore 

opportunities to create or participate in a landlord risk mitigation fund for clients who have histories 

of homelessness or other risk factors.



11. Partner with substance abuse and mental health service providers to spotlight need 

and seek expanded support for these services. 

Capitalize on existing and new opportunities, such as the Expanding Community Living 

Opportunities, Community Mental Health Housing Fund, and Alcohol and Drug Free Housing Fund 

programs, to maximize the availability of resources to people affected by both HIV/AIDS and 

behavioral health issues. 

Make targeted presentations to Local Alcohol and Drug Planning Committees, which are appointed 

by county commissioners to identify needs and establish priorities for alcohol and other drug 

services in the county. 89 

Join efforts to advocate for increased state and local prioritization and funding for mental health and 

substance abuse services, as an important component in supporting client health and housing 

stability. 

When appropriate, encourage community- and faith-based organizations to provide, and seek to 

connect clients with, addiction counseling, peer networking, and other social support structures to 

address substance abuse issues. 

12. Build relationships with behavioral health crisis providers. 

Identify and pursue ways to access limited treatment beds for clients with behavioral health crises, 

including partnerships with mental health departments to refer OHOP clients to crisis beds. Support 

efforts to increase the number of crisis beds and to streamline access to them. 


13. Prioritize education and outreach to local DHS offices and community action agencies 

around HIV/AIDS and client issues, and support coordinated service delivery models. 

The Steering Committee advised that in the human services sector, outreach to relatively 

independent local offices can be more valuable than outreach at the state level. Address 

coordination issues that can emerge in the delivery of services, rather than in policy, with these 

offices. Fortify relationships with “one-stop” centers, such as the Rogue Valley Family Center, that 

provide evidence-based models of co-located services and assistance, and foster the replication of 

this model when possible. 


14. Pursue partnerships with local and state criminal justice agencies and stakeholders, 

and seek federal and other resources to serve people with incarceration histories. 

Expand on the success of the Oregon Statewide Supportive Community Reentry initiative, and 

continue building relationships with Department of Corrections as well as with local criminal justice 

agencies. 

89 Contact information for local committees is available online at: http://www.oregon.gov/OHCS/HRS_ADF_Program.shtml 

(Accessed: January 25, 2008).



• Conduct outreach to agencies that serve people released from prison and jail in Oregon, such 

as Sponsors and Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency, and provide materials 

and education around HIV/AIDS and the HOPWA program to staff and clients. 

• Work with landlords (such as those in high vacancy areas) as well as community- and faithbased 

organizations who are willing to consider tenants with criminal histories, and help to 

build bridges between these landlords and community corrections officers and service 

providers. 

• Consider master leasing (an eligible HOPWA program activity) as a strategy to provide 

housing for clients who face the highest barriers to obtaining private market housing. 

• Connect with the Governor’s Reentry Task Force, whose members were announced in 

November 2007. 

• Explore opportunities to access federal and private resources to support the safe and 

successful transition of prisoners (including those with HIV/AIDS) to the community, such as 

the U.S. Department of Justice’s Prisoner Reentry Initiative. 90 


15. Anticipate that clients may need periodic or long-term care in assisted living situations 

while setting OHOP policies and allocating resources. 

Strategize ways to ensure that housing assistance can continue if clients must move temporarily or 

permanently into assisted living situations, including planning to make transitions smooth. 

Incorporate information on this emerging challenge in OHOP and HIV Care and Treatment staff 

trainings and discussion. Consider ways to provide services to clients in their own homes when 

appropriate, as an alternative to long-term hospitalizations. 

16. Conduct outreach about emerging primary care and assisted living needs of people 

living with HIV/AIDS, including to providers of these services. 

Connect with the Oregon Health Care Association to raise awareness among members about the 

changing needs of people living with HIV/AIDS and co-occurring chronic diseases. Seek improved 

connections to and partnerships with hospitals and health care providers, including assisted-living 

providers, to promote the successful integration of people with HIV/AIDS into their services and 

seamless transitions from one setting to another. Ensure that health department and other outreach 

workers are educated and kept up to date on OHOP resources, program activities, and policies. 

Advocate to increase the availability of a continuum assisted living supports, using the challenges of 

people living with HIV/AIDS in gaining access to such supports to illustrate the need. 

Employment 

17. Collaborate with workforce systems to provide employment supports and training for 

people living with HIV/AIDS. 

90 Available online: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/reentry.html (Accessed: February 1, 2008).


Seek connections with Workforce Training One-Stop Centers: OHOP housing coordinators or HIV 

Care and Treatment case managers could meet with staff there, familiarize themselves with services 

offered, and offer to work collaboratively to support people with HIV. Additionally, identify 

agencies that provide life skills and benefits trainings for case managers and staff that focus on 

going back to work, and participate in these trainings. Encourage community- and faith-based 

partners to eliminate barriers to employment that are correlated with HIV/AIDS risk (such as 

histories of incarceration) and to hire people living with HIV/AIDS.

Oregon HIV/AIDS Housing and 

Services Systems Integration 

Plan 

Appendices 

August 2008

The research, development, and publication of this plan was funded in part by the Housing 

Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) National Technical Assistance Program in partnership 

with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of HIV/AIDS Housing. The 

substance and findings of the work are dedicated to the public. The author and publisher are solely 

responsible for the accuracy of the statements and interpretations contained in this publication. Such 

interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views of the Government.

Table of Contents 

Appendix 1: Affordable Housing Resource Guide .....................................................................A-1 

Housing Planning Processes ........................................................................................................A-2 

Housing Resources ....................................................................................................................A-15 

Appendix 2: Stakeholder Survey Results ..................................................................................A-35 

Appendix 3: HIV/AIDS Housing Options .................................................................................A-41 

Emergency Housing Assistance.................................................................................................A-42 

Transitional Housing Assistance ...............................................................................................A-43 

Permanent Housing Assistance..................................................................................................A-44 

Services to Support Housing Stability .......................................................................................A-48 

Appendix 4: Federal and State Financing Sources for Affordable Housing..........................A-49 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).................................................A-49 

Low Income Housing Tax Credits.............................................................................................A-53 

Human Resources Services Administration, Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment 

Modernization Act ....................................................................................................................A-54 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development, Rural Housing Service..........................A-55 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program.......A-55 

Appendix 5: Glossary of HIV/AIDS- and Housing-Related Terms ........................................A-57

Oregon HIV/AIDS Housing and Services Systems Integration Plan—Appendices A-1 

Appendix 1: Affordable Housing Resource Guide 

The purpose of this resource guide is to describe existing housing resources, identify potential 

partnerships and referral sources, and facilitate the implementation of the Systems Integration Plan. 

As part of the development of the Oregon HIV Housing and Service Systems Integration Plan, 

Building Changes compiled this affordable housing resource guide for the balance of state (31 

counties outside the Portland metropolitan area). This resource guide is divided into two sections: 

information on housing planning processes, and information on available housing resources. 

The first section, Housing Planning Processes, describes statewide and local funding opportunities 

and planning processes for affordable housing, including state and local Consolidated Plans, and the 

Continuum of Care system. Each resource includes information on the planning process and 

provides the main contact. At the end of the first section are two calendars displaying timelines for 

funding applications and planning processes across the balance of state. 

The second section, Housing Resources, describes existing affordable housing resources in the 

balance of state, including housing authorities, local resource guides, regional housing centers, 

affordable housing developers, and community action agencies. Resources are grouped according to 

the four regions served by the Oregon Housing Opportunities in Partnership (OHOP) program (see 

map on page A-15 for map of OHOP regions). 

For information on the OHOP program, contact: 

Ryan Deibert 

Program Coordinator 

(971) 673-0145, ryan.j.deibert@state.or.us 

Denise Fry 

Housing Coordinator, Region 1 (Northwest) 

503-559-4389, denise.fry@state.or.us 

Renee Yandell 

Housing Coordinator, Region 2 (Central) 

541-914-2032, renee.c.yandell@state.or.us 

Jakki Calhoun 

Housing Coordinator, Region 3 (Southern) 

541-840-3592, jacole.j.calhoun@state.or.us 

Meredith Bricker 

Housing Coordinator, Region 4 (Eastern) 

541-325-1014, meredith.bricker@state.or.us

A-2 Appendices—Oregon HIV/AIDS Housing and Services Systems Integration Plan 

Housing Planning Processes 

As in most communities, funding for affordable housing in Oregon is dispersed across many levels 

of government and is subject to different policies, priorities, and timelines. The following sections 

indentify the planning processes across the state (excluding the five-county Portland metropolitan 

area) that define funding priorities for some of the most important resources. Two calendars for 

funding applications and planning processes are found at the end of the section. 

Consolidated Plans and Related Processes 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires a single, consolidated 

submission process for four formula programs: Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), 

Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG), HOME Investment Partnership Program, and Housing 

Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). Local and state governments develop 

Consolidated Plans (Con Plans) with public input to define the funding priorities for these four 

programs in their jurisdictions. 

State of Oregon Consolidated Plan 

Online: www.oregon.gov/OHCS/HRS_Consolidated_Plan_5yearplan.shtml 

Background: Oregon Housing and Community Services (OHCS) administers the HOME program; 

Oregon Economic and Community Development Department (OECDD) administers 

the CDBG program; and Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) administers 

the HOPWA program in the balance of state (OHOP). 

Process: The current five-year Con Plan covers 2006-2010. Each year, OHCS develops an 

Annual Action Plan to describe the implementation of the five-year plan in the 

coming year. The draft 2008 Annual Action Plan was released in September 2007 for 

public comment until October 2007. 

Contact: Loren Schultz, Consolidated Plan Manager, OHCS 

503-230-9963, loren.schultz@hcs.state.or.us 

Notes: Ryan Deibert, OHOP Program Coordinator, participated in the development of the 

2008 Annual Action Plan. 

State of Oregon Consolidated Funding Cycle (CFC) 

Online: www.oregon.gov/OHCS/HRS_CFC_Overview.shtml 

Background: OHCS allocates its affordable housing funding through the Spring and Fall CFC 

process, including the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, Housing PLUS, Oregon 

Affordable Housing Tax Credit, HOME Investment Partnerships, Housing 

Development Grant (Trust Fund), Low-Income Weatherization, and HELP 

(Financing Adjustment Factor Savings Fund) programs. Starting in 2008, the 

majority of funding will shift from the Fall to the Spring cycle. The Fall 2007 CFC 

included $27.5 million in funding. The Spring 2008 CFC includes $11.6 million, 

including the first $4 million distribution of the new Housing PLUS funds.


Process: Funding priorities are influenced by the Oregon Consolidated Plan (for HOME), the 

Qualified Allocation Plan (for Low Income Housing Tax Credits), and OHCS 

performance measures based on legislative goals. 

For the Fall 2007 funding cycle, OHCS released the application in May, held 

trainings in June, and set the application deadline for July 27, 2007. For the Spring 

2008 funding cycle, OHCS released the application in December 2007 with a 

deadline of February 29, 2008. 

In order to apply for CFC funding, the agency must contact an OHCS Regional 

Advisor more than one month before the application deadline to schedule a site visit. 

Contact: OHCS Regional Advisors: 

Vince Chiotti, Metro and Northwest Region 

503-963-2284, vince.chiotti@hcs.state.or.us 

Jack Duncan, Mid-Willamette Region 

503-986-2044, jack.duncan@hcs.state.or.us 

(Temporary Vacancy), Southwest Region 

Contact Deborah Price (see below) 

Deborah Price, Central Region 

541-460-3231, deborah.price@hcs.state.or.us 

Bruce Buchanan, East Region 

541-980-6300, bruce.buchanan@hcs.state.or.us 

Notes: OHCS sets funding targets for the CFC, including 10 percent of units dedicated for 

30 percent AMI or below, and 50 percent of units for individuals with special needs. 

These targets were not met in 2006. The special needs target has not been met since 

2002. In 2007, the definition of special needs was expanded to include ex-offenders 

and chronically homeless persons.


Figure 1 shows the map of the five OHCS regions. 

Figure 1: 

Map of OHCS Regions 

Qualified Allocation Plan (Low Income Housing Tax Credits) 

Online: www.ohcs.oregon.gov/OHCS/HRS_LIHTC_Program.shtml 

Background: The Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) defines funding priorities for the Low Income 

Housing Tax Credit program. 

Process: OHCS accepted public comments on the draft 2007 QAP from April through June 

2006. OHCS is expected to release the draft 2008 QAP in March 2008 and accept 

comments for 30 days. 

Contact: Karen Clearwater, OHCS 

503-986-0968, karen.clearwater@hcs.state.or.us


Local Consolidated Plan Five-Year Cycles 

Each jurisdiction involves substantial community input during the year preceding the adoption of a 

new five-year Con Plan. The following list includes the expiration months for each Con Plan in the 

balance of state: 

June 2008: Corvallis 

June 2009: Bend 

December 2009: Ashland, Medford, and Salem 

June 2010: Eugene/Springfield 

December 2010: State of Oregon 

City of Ashland Consolidated Plan 

Online: http://www.ashland.or.us/CCBIndex.asp?CCBID=196 

Background: In FY 2007, Ashland received $210,000 in CDBG funds. Ashland has a 2005-2009 

Con Plan. 

Process: Applications for funding are due in March 2008, and funding decisions are expected 

in May 2008. 

Contact: Brandon Goldman, Martha Bennett 

541-552-2076, brandong@ashland.or.us 

541-552-2100, bennettm@ashland.or.us 

City of Bend Consolidated Plan 

Online: http://www.ci.bend.or.us/depts/urban_renewal_economic_development/ 

Background: In FY 2007, Bend received $437,156 in CDBG funds. The 2004-2009 Con Plan 

described persons living with HIV/AIDS as a “Low” priority among special needs 

populations. The Con Plan described the unmet housing need as “Minimal,” and had 

a goal of developing 20 units of housing for people living with HIV/AIDS. 

Process: Bend released an RFP for CDBG funds, with applications due in January 2008, and 

funding decisions expected in May 2008. 

Contact: John Russell, Jim Long 

541-312-4915, jrussell@ci.bend.or.us, jlong@ci.bend.or.us 

City of Corvallis Consolidated Plan 

Online: www.ci.corvallis.or.us/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=296&Itemid=247 

Background: In FY 2007, Corvallis received $556,048 in CDBG funds and $420,259 in HOME 

funds. The 2003-2008 Con Plan described persons living with HIV/AIDS as a “Low” 

priority among special needs populations. 

Process: Corvallis issued an RFP for CDBG and HOME funds for 2008-2009. Applications 

are due in January 2008, with funding decisions expected in April. Corvallis is 

currently developing the next five-year Con Plan. The Corvallis Housing and 

Community Development Commission (HCDC) formulates and recommends 

policies on housing issues. Meetings are typically the third Wednesday of the month. 

Contact: Kent Weiss 

541-757-6944 x4, kentweiss@ci.corvallis.or.us


City of Eugene Consolidated Plan 

Online: http://www.eugene-or.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=229&PageID 

=0&cached=true&mode=2&userID=2 

Background: In FY 2007, Eugene received $1,415,794 in CDBG funds and $1,451,705 in HOME 

funds. Eugene has a joint Con Plan with Springfield for 2005-2010. 

Process: Applications for the latest RFP are due by February 2008, with funding decisions 

expected in June 2008. 

Contact: Linda Dawson, Richie Weinman 

541-682-5071, Linda.L.Dawson@ci.eugene.or.us 

541-682-5533, richie.d.weinman@ci.eugene.or.us 

City of Medford Consolidated Plan 

Online: http://www.ci.medford.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=632 

Background: In FY 2007, Medford received $636,217 in CDBG funds. The 2005-2009 Con Plan 

described persons living with HIV/AIDS as a “Low” priority among special needs 

populations, and had a goal of developing zero units of housing for people living 


Process: Applications are due by February 2008, and funding decisions are expected by May 

2008. 

Contact: Louise Dix, Dan Goltz 

541-774-2090, Louise.dix@ci.medford.or.us 

541-774-2089, dan.goltz@ci.medford.or.us 

City of Salem Consolidated Plan 

Online: www.salem.or.us/export/departments/urbandev/housing_federal_cdbg.htm 

Background: In FY2007, the City of Salem received $1.5 million in CDBG funds and $920,000 in 

HOME funds. Salem’s 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan identified four funding 

priorities: homelessness, affordable housing, removal of affordable housing barriers, 

and community development. 

Process: Salem adopted its 2007-2008 Annual Action Plan in April 2007. Applications for 

2008-2009 CDBG / HOME funding were released in October 2007, and were due by 

December 2007. 

Contact: Rena Peck 

503-588-6178, rpeck@cityofsalem.net 

City of Springfield Consolidated Plan 

Online: http://www.ci.springfield.or.us/dsd/Housing/housing.home.htm 

Background: In FY 2007, Springfield received $628,101 in CDBG funds. Springfield and Eugene 

have a joint Con Plan for 2005-2010. 

Process: Applications for the latest RFP are due by February 2008, with funding decisions 

expected in June 2008.


Contact: Kevin Ko 

541-726-3656, kko@ci.springfield.or.us 

Continua of Care (CoC) 

In order to encourage the integration and coordination of community homeless assistance, HUD’s 

three primary homeless assistance programs – the Supportive Housing Program (SHP), Shelter Plus 

Care (S+C), and the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program (SRO 

Mod. Rehab.) – are combined under the Continuum of Care (CoC) planning and allocation process. 

The establishment of a CoC system involves a community-wide or region-wide process involving 

government agencies, nonprofit housing and service providers, private foundations, homeless or 

formerly homeless individuals, and other stakeholders. 

Each CoC is allocated an initial pro rata need funding amount based on the relative homeless 

assistance need assigned to a community using U.S. Census Bureau data. Communities can receive 

funding above this level through successful applications for “bonus” projects that must provide 

permanent housing for chronically homeless individuals. 

Figure 2 on the following page shows the map of the CoC in Oregon, followed by a discussion of 

each CoC in the balance of state.


Figure 2: 

Map of Continua of Care in Oregon 

Salem / Marion / Polk Continuum of Care 

Background: This CoC serves Marion and Polk Counties, including the cities of Salem and Keizer. 

The pro-rata share for this CoC is approximately $400,000. Because of their 

successful applications, their awards for 2006 were about $800,000. Going forward, 

the maximum possible bonus project would be $34,000 per year, which would likely 

fund three tenant vouchers for chronically homeless individuals. There may be 

agencies interested in pursuing bonus projects for the 2008 application. 

Process: The steering committee is called the Housing Collaborative, and evaluates and 

prioritizes programs for funding prior to submitting the application. The CoC meets 

bimonthly, second Friday at 10:30am. Next meeting is March 14, 2008. 

Contact: Carla Cary, Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency (MWVCAA) 

503-585-6232, 503-399-9080, caryc@mwvcaa.org 

Lane County Continuum of Care 

Background: This CoC serves Lane County, including the cities of Eugene and Springfield. The 

pro-rata share is similar to Marion / Polk CoC (approximately $400,000), but


funding awards have been higher (nearly $2 million), partly because of use of Shelter 

Plus Care. Going forward, the maximum possible bonus project would be about 

$60,000 over two years. Administration costs are the biggest barrier to applying for 

bonus. 

Process: CoC typically meets once per month. Contact Pearl Wolfe (below) for information 

on meetings. 

Contact: Pearl Wolfe, Lane County Human Services Commission 

541-682-4629, pearl.wolfe@co.lane.or.us 

Jackson County Continuum of Care 

Background: This CoC serves Jackson County, including the cities of Medford and Ashland. The 

pro-rate share is approximately $200,000, and the CoC was not awarded extra 

funding in FY 2006. Administration and homelessness definitions are obstacles for 

local providers. The Housing Authority of Jackson County has not historically had 

interest in special needs housing. 

Process: The Jackson County Homeless Task Force is the guiding body for the Jackson 

County 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness (with Jackson County Health and Human 

Services) and for the CoC. Contact Ed Angeletti (below) for more information. 

Contact: Ed Angeletti, Cindy Dyer, ACCESS, Inc. 

541-774-4330, eangeletti@access-inc.org 

541-774-4319, cdyer@access-inc.org 

Central Oregon Continuum of Care 

Background: This CoC serves Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson Counties in central Oregon, 

including the cities of Bend and Redmond. The CoC covers a large rural area and 

has a pro-rata share of less than $200,000. The CoC uses its funding across a 

number of programs. 

Process: The CoC usually meets the third Friday of the month at 8:30am, in Bend or 

Redmond. There currently is no HIV/AIDS representation at the CoC. 

Contact: Corky Senecal, Neighbor Impact 

541-548-2380 x101, corkys@neighborimpact.org 

Rural Oregon Continuum of Care (ROCC), also called Oregon Balance of State CoC 

Background: ROCC serves rural areas of the state, including Baker, Benton, Clatsop, Columbia, 

Coos, Curry, Douglas, Gilliam, Grant, Harney, Hood River, Josephine, Klamath, 

Lake, Lincoln, Linn, Malheur, Morrow, Sherman, Tillamook, Umatilla, Union, 

Wallowa, Wasco, Wheeler, and Yamhill Counties. The 2007 awards totaled $1.5 

million, including 19 transitional and two permanent housing projects. One of the 

permanent housing projects is a partnership with the Office of Addictions and 

Mental Health (AMH) to serve chronically homeless individuals with mental illness. 

Process: ROCC usually meets the second Wednesday of each month in Salem. 

Contact: Ann Brown, OHCS 

503-986-2122, ann.brown@hcs.state.or.us


Other Planning Processes and Funding Sources 

Ending Homelessness Advisory Committee (EHAC) 

Online: http://www.ehac.oregon.gov/OHCS/EHAC/ 

Background: Established by the Governor in 2006 to create the 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness 

for Oregon. As of April 2007, five counties in the balance of state were in the 

process of developing 10-Year Plans, and eight more were reported to be considering 

plans. As of January 2008, the first phase, understanding homelessness, was 

completed and the committee was working to narrow and define strategies. 

Process: EHAC typically meets the third Friday of the month, 10am to noon in Salem. 

Contact: Roberto Franco, OHCS 

503-986-6732, Roberto.Franco@hcs.state.or.us 

Lane County Intergovernmental Housing Policy Board 

Online: www.eugene-or.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=281&PageID= 

542&cached=true&mode=2&userID=2 

Background: The Housing Policy Board advises the Board of Commissioners and the Springfield 

and Eugene City Councils on the housing needs of the low-income residents, and 

develops a budget and work plan for targeting local government resources for 

housing related activities. 

Process: The Housing Policy Board is comprised of nine members, including city and county 

officials and public citizens. It typically meets the first Monday of the month. 

Contact: Richie Weinman 

541-682-5533, richie.d.weinman@ci.eugene.or.us 

Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act 

Online: http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/hiv/ 

Background: The Ryan White CARE Act is a federally funded program that provides services to 

people living with HIV/AIDS. Short-term and emergency housing are allowable 

under Ryan White. 

Process: In 2006, the HIV Housing Task Force created recommendations to help guide the 

OHOP and Ryan White housing programs. 

Contact: Annick Benson 

971-673-0142, annick.benson@state.or.us 

Addictions and Mental Health (AMH) Division – ECLO Housing Programs 

Background: AMH accepted funding requests until November 9, 2007, for the Expanding 

Community Living Opportunities (ECLO) 2007-2009 application process. ECLO 

provides funding for: structured and specialized residential programs for individuals 

under civil commitment; supportive housing for people leaving psychiatric hospitals, 

transitioning from youth to adult services, or who are ineligible for Medicaid; and 

housing development grants to develop new housing. All programs serve individuals 

with mental illness.


Process: Depending on the awards made from this funding round (to be announced in 

December 2007), AMH may announce additional application rounds during this 

biennium. 

Contact: Vicki Skryha, Community Housing, Employment & Supports Manager 

503-945-9722, vicki.skryha@state.or.us 

AMH Division – Community Mental Health Housing Fund (CMHHF) 

Background: These funds are used to support the development of housing for persons with 

chronic mental illness. Applicants may request up to $100,000 from the CMHHF for 

the purpose of creating new community housing opportunities for people with 

serious mental illness. 

Process: Solicitation usually occurs October of every year. Applications are reviewed and 

rated by an AMH appointed review panel. The review panel’s recommendations are 

presented to the AMH Assistant Director who makes the final funding decisions. 

Contact: Jeff Puterbaugh, Housing Development Coordinator 

503-947-5533, jeffrey.l.puterbaugh@state.or.us 

AMH Division – Alcohol and Drug Free (ADF) Housing Fund 

Background: The ADF Housing Fund awards were initiated in 1999 when the Oregon legislature 

approved funds for the expansion of alcohol and drug treatment services. One 

million dollars are available through the ADF Housing Fund in 2007-09. These 

funds are available to assist with the establishment of new housing for people in 

recovery from alcohol and drug abuse and who are actively involved in an approved 

treatment program. 

Process: Funds are available every biennium subject to legislatively approved budget. 

Applications are reviewed and rated by an AMH appointed review panel. The 

review panel’s recommendations are presented to the AMH Assistant Director who 

makes the final funding decisions. 

Contact: Elizabeth Anguiano, Housing Projects Coordinator 

503-947-5544, elizabeth.anguiano@state.or.us 

City of Bend Affordable Housing Fee RFP 

Online: http://www.ci.bend.or.us/depts/urban_renewal_economic_development/ 

Background: Bend implemented an Affordable Housing Fee in 2006, and intends to release an 

RFP for new construction and rehabilitation of affordable homeownership and rental 

housing. 

Process: Latest round of applications were due in September 2007. The Affordable Housing 

Advisory Committee meets monthly to discuss local affordable housing and make 

funding decisions. 

Contact: John Russell, Jim Long 

541-312-4915, jrussell@ci.bend.or.us, jlong@ci.bend.or.us


Planning Calendars 

The calendars on the following two pages represent summaries of the planning processes and 

funding applications for affordable housing resources in the balance of state. The first calendar 

includes dates for availability of funding applications, application deadlines, and funding 

announcements. Dates are included for 2008 applications except where noted. The second calendar 

describes the monthly meeting schedules for the Continua of Care and other state and local planning 

processes.


Spring CFC 

Fall CFC 

HUD CoC 

SuperNOF 

A 

LIHTC 

QAP 

Salem 

Con Plan 

Corvallis 

Con Plan 

Eugene / 

Springfield 

Con Plan 

Ashland 

Con Plan 

Medford 

Con Plan 

Bend 

Con Plan 

Bend 

Affordable 

Hsg Fee 

JAN FEB MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 

App. 

Due: 

Jan 10 

App. 

Avail: 

Jan 10 

App. 

Due: 

Jan 9 

App. 

Due: 

Late Feb 

App. 

Due: 

Feb 27 

App. 

Due: 

Feb 22 

App. 

Avail: 

March 07 

Draft QAP available for 

public comments 

App. 

Due: 

March 

Funding 

Decision: 

April 8 

Funding 

Decision: 

May 23 

App. Avail: 

May 

Funding 

Decision: 

May 

Funding 

Decision: 

May 

Funding 

Decision: 

May 7 

App. 

Due: 

June 07 

Funding 

Decision: 

June 

App. 

Due: 

Late July 

App. Avail: 

July 07 

App. 

Due: 

Sept 07 

App. 

Avail: 

Oct 07 

App. Avail: 

Dec 07 

Funding 

Decision: 

Dec 

Funding 

Decision: 

Dec 07 

App. Due: 

Dec 07 

Funding 

Decision: 

Dec 07


First 

Second 

Third 

Fourth 

Meeting dates 

vary 

Schedule of Regular Meetings 

MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY 

Lane County 

Intergovernmental 

Housing Board 

Rural Oregon 

CoC, in Salem 

Abbreviation Guide: 

CFC: Consolidated Funding Cycle 

CoC: Continuum of Care 

Con Plan: Consolidated Plan 

LIHTC QAP: Low Income Housing Tax Credit Qualified Allocation Plan 

Eugene / Springfield / Lane County CoC (monthly) 

Jackson County CoC 

City of Bend Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (monthly) 

Salem / Marion / Polk CoC 

(bimonthly – odd months) 

10:30am in Salem 

Central Oregon CoC, 

8:30am in Bend or Redmond 

Ending Homelessness 

Advisory Committee 

10am in Salem


Housing Resources 

The following sections identify housing resources that are available across the balance of state, 

include online resource guides, housing authorities, housing resource centers, USDA Rural 

Development offices, and affordable housing developers. The resources are grouped by region: 

statewide, Region 1 (Northwest), Region 2 (Central), Region 3 (Southern), and Region 4 (Eastern). 

Figure 3 shows the map of the Oregon Housing Opportunities in Partnership (OHOP) program 

regions, which cover the balance of state outside the Portland metropolitan area. 

Statewide Resources 

Figure 3: 

Map of OHOP Regions 

HUD Subsidized Apartment Search 

Online: http://www.hud.gov/apps/section8/step2.cfm?state=OR 

Contact: n/a 

Programs: HUD offers this online tool to search by city, county, or ZIP for subsidized rental 

housing. Listings include number of bedrooms and contact information.


USDA Rural Development Multifamily Housing Property Search 

Online: http://rdmfhrentals.sc.egov.usda.gov/RDMFHRentals/ (click on Oregon) 

Contact: See below for contact information of USDA RD regional service offices. 

Programs: USDA offers this online tool to search by county for subsidized rental housing. 

Listings include number of units, size of units, and contact information. 

USDA Rural Development in Oregon 

Online: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/OR/ 

Contact: See below for contact information of USDA RD regional service offices. 

Programs: USDA provides several housing programs in rural areas, including Rural Rental 

Housing loans to finance development of multifamily housing; home preservation 

grants; homeownership loans; and rental assistance for low-income households. 

Oregon AIDS Hotline 

Online: http://www.oregonaidshotline.com/ 

Contact: n/a 

Programs: Cascade AIDS Project and Oregon DHS maintain these listings of services available 

throughout the state (including the Portland metropolitan area). Use menu bars on the 

left to search for resources by county. Housing resources are under the “Financial – 

Practical” heading. 

Our House of Portland 

Online: http://www.ourhouseofportland.org/ 

Contact: 503-234-0175 

Programs: Our House operates a residential care facility in Portland that provides services for 

people living with HIV/AIDS across the state. Residents work with skilled 

professionals in nursing, social work and occupational therapy. Our House operates 

additional programs serving people living with HIV/AIDS in the Portland area. 

Oxford Houses 

Online: http://www.oxfordhouse.org/directory.php (directory by state) 

http://www.oxfordhouse.org/locate_houses.php (search for vacancies and by 

gender) 

Contact: See online listings for contacts. 

Programs: Oxford Houses are self-run recovery house programs for individuals recovering from 

alcoholism and drug addiction. Most houses have between six and 12 residents. They 

are strictly alcohol- and drug-free environments. There are approximately 130 

Oxford Houses across the state, including the Portland metropolitan area.


Oregon Tribal Housing Guide 

Online: http://www.frbsf.org/community/native/tribeshousingguide_oregon.pdf 

Contact: n/a 

Programs: The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco compiled this housing guide for Native 

American tribes in Oregon in 2004. 

Oregon Health Care Association 

Online: http://www.ohca.com/default.htm 

Contact: 503-726-5260 

Programs: The OHCA is a statewide trade association that represents the network of skilled 

nursing facilities, assisted living and residential care facilities, integrated health 

systems, independent senior living communities and licensed in-home care agencies. 

Association of Oregon Community Development Organizations / Community Development 

Network 

Online: http://www.aocdo.org/ 

Contact: Sophia McDonald, smcdonald@aocdo.org, (503) 223-4041 (executive director) 

Mike Anderson, mike@cdnportland.org (communications director) 

Programs: Not a direct housing resource, but a way to connect with housing partners. AOCDO 

will merge with Portland-based CDN in July 2008. The two organizations represent 

agencies working in affordable housing and community development. 

Oregon Community Development Collaborative 

Online: http://www.tnpf.org/programs/support_or_cdc/ocdc.php 

Contact: 503-226-3001, info@tnpf.org 

Programs: Not a direct housing resource, but a collaboration between Neighborhood Partnership 

Fund, Enterprise Community Partners, and Oregon Housing and Community 

Services. OCDC provides operating support and technical assistance to communitybased 

organizations.


Region 1 Resources 


Housing Authority of Lincoln County 

Online: www.halc.info 

Contact: 541-265-6057, gstone.halc@newportnet.com 

Programs: Provides 497 Section 8 vouchers, 120 public housing units, and over 100 additional 

low-income units in Lincoln County. Waiting list for Section 8 is up to two years. 

Other waiting lists may be shorter. 

Linn-Benton Housing Authority 

Online: www.l-bha.org 

Contact: 541-926-4497, mail@l-bha.org, donna@l-bha.org 

Programs: Provides 2,435 Section 8 vouchers, and 108 additional low-income units in Linn and 

Benton Counties. The Section 8 wait list is open. Other programs include: 

• Family Self-Sufficiency program for Section 8 residents 

• Special needs housing for individuals with mental illness 

• Homeownership assistance 

Marion County Housing Authority 

Online: www.co.marion.or.us/HA/ 

Contact: 503-373-4448, housingauthority@co.marion.or.us 

Programs: Provides 1,175 Section 8 vouchers and 46 public housing units in Marion County 

(outside the Salem / Keizer Urban Growth Boundary). Waiting list for Section 8 is 

up to six months, typically shorter than Salem Housing Authority waiting list. 

Northwest Oregon Housing Authority 

Online: www.nwoha.org 

Contact: 503-861-0119, john@nwoha.org 

Programs: Provides 1,139 Section 8 vouchers, and 128 additional low-income units in Clatsop, 

Columbia, and Tillamook Counties. Waiting list for Section 8 is up to two years. In 

addition, Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) program provides rental 

assistance for up to six months. 

Salem Housing Authority 

Online: www.cityofsalem.net/sha 

Contact: 503-588-6368, housing@cityofsalem.net 

Programs: Provides 2,868 Section 8 vouchers, 337 public housing units, and 341 additional 

low-income housing units in the Cities of Salem and Keizer. Waiting list for Section


8 is up to two years. Other waiting lists range from three months to three years. SHA 

is an active developer of low-income housing, but has not targeted special needs, 

besides senior housing. Additional programs include: 

• HOME security deposit program for Section 8 recipients 

West Valley Housing Authority 

Online: www.wvpha.org 

• The Interim Housing Program provides a cash assistance grant to help with 

one month’s rent or a security deposit 

• Family Self-Sufficiency program for Section 8 and public housing residents. 

Program helps families increase income, and funds an escrow account that is 

released at program completion 

• Homeownership programs include Individual Development Accounts, down 

payment assistance, low interest loans, and training 

Contact: 503-623-8387, wvpha@wvpha.org, ljenning@wvpha.org 

Programs: Provides 699 Section 8 vouchers and 380 public housing units in Polk County 

(outside the Salem / Keizer Urban Growth Boundary). Waiting list for Section 8 is 

typically shorter than Salem Housing Authority waiting list. 

Regional Housing Centers 

Linn-Benton-Lincoln Housing Center 

Online: www.csc.gen.or.us/lblrhc.htm 

Contact: 541-752-0667, kramsden@csc.gen.or.us 

Programs: Provides housing information and referrals in Benton, Lincoln, and Linn Counties. 

Operated by Community Services Consortium in Corvallis. 

Northwest Oregon Regional Housing Center 

Online: www.cat-team.org 

Contact: 503-397-3511 

Programs: Provides housing information and referrals in Clatsop, Columbia, and Tillamook 

Counties. Operated by Community Action Team, Inc. (CAT) in St. Helens. 

Yamhill-Polk Regional Housing Center 

Online: www.hayc.org/homeowners/housing_resource_center 

Contact: 503-883-4307, 888-434-6571, kbrummert@hayc.org 

Programs: Provides housing information and referrals in Yamhill and Polk Counties. Operated 

by the Housing Authority of Yamhill County in McMinnville.


USDA Rural Development Offices 

USDA Rural Development, Salem Local Office 


Contact: 503-399-5741 

Programs: Serves Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Tillamook, 

Washington, and Yamhill Counties. 


Community Action Team, Inc. (CAT) 

Online: www.cat-team.org 

Contact: 503-397-3511 

Programs: Affordable housing developer in Columbia, Clatsop, and Tillamook Counties. 

Programs include emergency housing, rehabilitation, and energy assistance. 

Polk Community Development Corporation 

Online: http://www.polkcdc.org/ 

Contact: 503-831-3173 

Programs: Affordable housing developer. 

Salem Keizer Community Development Corporation 

Online: http://www.salemcdc.org/ 

Contact: 503-856-7077 

Programs: Affordable housing developer in Marion County. Other programs include 

Homeownership and Financial Education, and Individual Development Accounts. 

Shangri-La Corp. 

Online: http://www.shangrilacorp.org/ 

Contact: 503-581-1732, (x329 for housing assistance programs) 

Programs: Affordable housing developer in Marion, Polk, and Lincoln Counties. Operates lowincome 

and special needs housing. Other programs include: 

• Supported employment services 

• Services for people with mental illness and co-occurring disorders 

• Educational services for ex-offenders 

Other Housing and Related Resources 

Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency, Community Resource Program 

Online: www.mwvcaa.org/crp/crp.html


Contact: 503-585-6232, 503-399-9080 

Programs: Programs include Tenant Based Rental Assistance in Marion and Polk Counties, a 

homeless referral and drop-in center (the ARCHES project), and the Housing 

Stabilization program for families.




Coos-Curry Housing Authority 

Online: n/a 

Contact: 541-756-4111, pcolbert@uci.net 

Programs: Provides 777 Section 8 vouchers and 52 public housing units in the City of North 

Bend and in Coos and Curry Counties. 

Housing and Community Services Agency of Lane County (HACSA) 

Online: www.hacsa.org 

Contact: 541-682-3755, 541-682-2542, section8info@hacsa.org, housinginfo@hacsa.org, 

gsustello@hacsa.org 

Programs: Provides 2,639 Section 8 vouchers, 708 public housing units, and more than 400 

low-income housing units in Lane County. The Section 8 waiting list is currently 

closed. Additional housing programs include: 

• Free weatherization services to income-eligible home-owners and renters. 

Seniors and persons with disabilities are targeted as first priority. 

Linn-Benton Housing Authority 

Online: www.l-bha.org 

• Family Self-Sufficiency program for Section 8 and public housing residents. 

Program helps families increase income, and funds an escrow account that is 

released at program completion. 

• HACSA receives Shelter Plus Care funding from the Continuum of Care, and 

partners with ShelterCare to serve formerly homeless people. 

Contact: 541-926-4497, mail@l-bha.org, donna@l-bha.org 

Programs: (See listing in Region 1 for more details.) 


Homeownership Center of Lane County 

Online: http://www.nedcocdc.org/homeown.htm 

Contact: 541-345-7106 

Programs: Provides housing information and referrals in Lane County. Operated by NEDCO 

(see following page). 

Linn-Benton-Lincoln Housing Center 

Online: www.csc.gen.or.us/lblrhc.htm


Contact: 541-752-0667, kramsden@csc.gen.or.us 

Programs: Provides housing information and referrals in Benton, Lincoln, and Linn Counties. 

Operated by Community Services Consortium in Corvallis. 


USDA Rural Development, Eugene Local Office 


Contact: 541-465-6443 

Programs: Serves Benton, Lane, Linn and Lincoln Counties. 


Metropolitan Affordable Housing Corp. 

Online: http://www.metroaffordablehousing.org/ 

Contact: 541-683-1751 

Programs: Affordable housing developer in Lane County. 

Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation (NEDCO) 

Online: http://www.nedcocdc.org/ 

Contact: 541-345-7106 

Programs: Affordable housing developer. NEDCO also administers Valley Individual 

Development Accounts (VIDA), which provide a savings match for homeownership 

or job training. 

St. Vincent de Paul Lane County 

Online: http://www.svdp.us/ 

Contact: Anne Williams, 541-687-5820 x 127, awilliams@svdp.us, info@svdp.us 

Programs: Affordable housing developer. St. Vincent has existing partnerships with HIV 

Alliance Ryan White case managers. St. Vincent has a closed wait list system but 

accepts applications for brief windows in January, April, July, and October. Other 

programs include: 

• Second Chance renters’ rehabilitation program that links to 60 landlords for 

program graduates 

• Vet LIFT supported housing program for dually-diagnosed veterans 

• Vocational services 

• Overnight parking program 

• Social Services Office and emergency assistance


Umpqua CDC 

Online: http://www.umpquacdc.org/ 

Contact: 541-267-6505, 541-673-4909 

Programs: Affordable housing developer in Douglas, Coos, and Curry Counties. Special needs 

housing currently includes programs for people with brain injuries, victims of 

domestic violence, and autistic adults. Other programs include housing rehabilitation 

and regional housing centers. 


Lane County Human Services Commission 

Online: http://www.lanecounty.org/hsc/ 

Contact: HOME TBA program, 541-682-3798 

Pearl Wolfe, Homeless services, 541-682-4629, pearl.wolfe@co.lane.or.us 

Programs: Community action agency sponsored by Lane County. Programs include: 

• HOME Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBA) 

• Weatherization and energy assistance 

• List of other services available online at: 

http://www.lanecounty.org/HSC/ProvidersPrograms.htm 

ShelterCare 

Online: http://www.sheltercare.org 

Contact: Erin Bonner, 541-686-1262 x313, ebonner@sheltercare.org 

Chris Steele, 541-686-1262 x311, csteele@sheltercare.org 

Programs: Lane County housing and services provider focusing on homeless and mentally ill 

populations. People are selected off wait lists into programs that match their service 

needs, not necessarily in order of application. Programs include: 

• Shelter Plus Care vouchers for formerly homeless, administered with HACSA 

• Emergency Shelter and Support provides support and housing in community 

residential settings 

• Transitional Services provides ongoing staff support after families leave 

shelter for housing in the community 

• Homelessness Prevention provides small amounts of financial assistance 

coupled with one-on-one support and training 

• Crisis management and intensive care programs provide varying levels of 

support and housing needed during a mental health crisis 

• Supported vocational services for individuals with mental illness 

Sponsors, Inc. 

Online: http://www.sponsorsinc.org/


Contact: 541-485-8341 

Programs: Provides housing with services for ex-offenders in Lane County. Programs include: 

• Men’s and Women’s Transitional housing for ex-prisoners. These programs 

are alcohol- and drug-free and seek to help achieve self-sufficiency. 

• Sex offender housing for up to two years




Coos-Curry Housing Authority 

Online: n/a 

Contact: 541-756-4111, pcolbert@uci.net 

Programs: Provides 777 Section 8 vouchers and 52 public housing units in the City of North 

Bend and in Coos and Curry Counties. 

Housing Authority of Douglas County 

Online: n/a 

Contact: 541-673-6548, telye@hadcor.org, jambrosini@hadcor.org 

Programs: Provides 651 Section 8 vouchers and 155 public housing units in Douglas County. 

Housing Authority of Jackson County 

Online: www.hajc.net 

Contact: 541-779-5785, info@hajc.net, Charlene@hajc.net 

Programs: Provides 1,605 Section 8 vouchers, 130 public housing units and has 11 buildings 

providing low-income housing units in Jackson County. The Housing Authority 

maintains an open wait list that can be as long as 2.5 years for Section 8. There are 

no preferences for people with disabilities or special needs units. Other programs: 

• HOME Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBA) 

• Home rehabilitation loans 

Josephine Housing and Community Development Council 

Online: n/a 

Contact: 541-479-5520, teresa_jhcdc@charterinternet.com 

Programs: Provides 842 Section 8 vouchers to very low-income families in Josephine County. 

Klamath Housing Authority 

Online: n/a 

Contact: 541-884-0649, khadirector@cvc.net 

Programs: Provides 734 Section 8 vouchers and 57 public housing units in Klamath and Lake 

Counties.



Klamath-Lake Regional Housing Center 

Online: http://www.klrhc.com 

Contact: 541-884-5593 

Programs: Provides housing information and referrals in Klamath and Lake Counties. 

Southern Oregon Housing Resource Center (SOHRC) 

Online: www.access-inc.org 

Contact: 541-779-6691 

Programs: Housed at ACCESS, SOHRC provides housing information and referrals in Jackson 

and Josephine Counties. SOHRC also maintains a thorough listing of housing 

resources, online at: http://www.access-inc.org/SectionIndex.asp?SectionID=9 

Southern Oregon Coast Housing Opportunities Center 

Online: http://www.umpquacdc.org/html/regional_housing_center.html 

Contact: Brenda Lewis, 541-267-6505, blewis@umpquacdc.org 

Programs: Provides housing information and referrals in Coos and Curry Counties. Operated by 

Umpqua CDC. 

Umpqua Regional Housing Center 

Online: http://www.umpquarhc.org 

Contact: 541-673-4909 

Programs: Provides housing information and referrals in Douglas County. Operated by Umpqua 

CDC. 


USDA Rural Development, Medford Local Office 


Contact: 541-776-4267 

Programs: Serves Jackson, Josephine, Klamath, and Lake Counties. 

USDA Rural Development, Roseburg Local Office 


Contact: 541-673-6071 

Programs: Serves Coos, Curry, and Douglas Counties.



ACCESS, Inc. 

Online: www.access-inc.org 

Contact: 541-779-6691 

Programs: Affordable housing developer in Jackson County. ACCESS conducts biannual needs 

assessment of community to determine project priorities. Current biennium is July 

2007 to June 2009. ACCESS will begin its next assessment in September 2008 

through surveys to clients and key stakeholders. Programs include: 

• HOME Tenant Based Rental Assistance (TBA) program with secondary 

preference for people living with HIV/AIDS, focusing on self-sufficiency 

• Weatherization and energy assistance 

• Rental and deposit assistance 

• Emergency homeless prevention (one or two months rent to prevent eviction) 

• Nutritional assistance 

OnTrack Recovery 

Online: http://www.ontrackrecovery.org/ 

Contact: Rita Sullivan, 541-772-1777 

Programs: Affordable housing developer, including special needs housing. Currently operates 

Allan’s House, the only housing dedicated to people living with HIV/AIDS in the 

balance of state. Space is limited. Other programs include: 

• Stevens Place and Stewart Avenue (special needs housing) 

• Transitional housing 

• Programs for mother and child(ren), and father and child(ren) 

• Chemical dependency services 

Options for Southern Oregon 

Online: http://www.optionsonline.org/ 

Contact: 541-476-1526, 541-476-2373 

Programs: Affordable housing developer. Focus on programs and services for low-income 

individuals and people with psychiatric disabilities, in Josephine County. 


Coos County Resource Guide 

Online: http://www.co.coos.or.us/ccf/ccfrg.pdf 

Contact: n/a 

Programs: Provides list of service agencies in Coos County.


Josephine County Community Action 

Online: n/a 

Contact: 541-474-5440 

Programs: Josephine County Community Action assists with Rental Assistance programs, 

energy assistance, food share, transportation, senior programs and information and 

referrals in Josephine County. 

Klamath County Resources Guide 

Online: http://www.klamathresources.org/services/index.asp 

Contact: n/a 

Programs: Provides list of service agencies in Klamath County. 

Klamath Lake Community Action Agency 

Online: n/a 

Contact: 541-850-5388 

Programs: 

Oregon Coast Community Action (ORCCA) 

Online: www.orcca.us 

Contact: Robert Moore, 541-888-7022, 541-888-7025 

Programs: Serves Coos County. Programs include rental listings, housing stabilization program, 

HOME TBRA program (up to 12 months), and supportive housing in partnership 

with Coos County Mental Health. 

Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation 

Online: http://www.rvcdc.com 

Contact: 541-734-2355 

Programs: RVCDC is primarily involved in the development of for-purchase affordable 

housing. RVCDC also works in coordination with the USDA Rural Development 

Self-Help program. 

Southwestern Oregon Community Action Committee (SWOCAC) 

Online: n/a 

Contact: 541-888-7016 

Programs: 

Umpqua Community Action Network (UCAN) 

Online: http://www.ucancap.org/ 

Contact: 542-492-3501 

Programs: Affordable housing developer in Douglas and Josephine Counties. Other programs 

include weatherization and emergency rental or mortgage assistance.




Housing Works (Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority) 

Online: www.corha.org, www.oregonhousingworks.org 

Contact: 541-923-1018 

Programs: Provides 1,026 Section 8 vouchers, 48 public housing units and 395 low income 

housing units in Deschutes, Jefferson and Crook Counties. Section 8 wait list is 

currently closed. Other programs include: 

• Family Self-Sufficiency program 

• Housing Quest homeownership assistance program 

• Gateway Center, in Redmond, is a "one-stop shop" for employment services 

Housing Authority of Malheur County 

Online: n/a 

Contact: 541-889-9661, tjl@cableone.net, s8hamc@cableone.net 

Programs: Provides 349 Section 8 vouchers and 40 public housing units in Malheur and Harney 

Counties. 

Mid-Columbia Housing Authority 

Online: www.mid-columbiahousingauthority.org 

Contact: 541-296-5462, info@mid-columbiahousingauthority.org 

Programs: Provides 551 Section 8 vouchers in Wasco, Sherman and Hood River Counties. 

Northeast Oregon Housing Authority 

Online: neoha.oregonsearch.net 

Contact: 541-963-5360, neoha@uwtc.net 

Programs: Provides 710 Section 8 vouchers and 129 public housing units in Union, Baker, 

Grant and Wallowa Counties. Wait list is up to two years long. Other programs: 

• Family Self-Sufficiency program 

• Section 8 Homeownership program 

• Transitional housing program 

• Housing for individuals with mental illness 

Housing Authority of the County of Umatilla 

Online: www.umatillacountyha.org 

Contact: 541-567-3241, info@umatillacountyha.org, loretta1@uci.net


Programs: Provides 329 Section 8 vouchers, 118 public housing units and more than 260 lowincome 

housing units in Umatilla, Morrow, Gilliam and Wheeler Counties. 


Community Connections Housing Resource Center 

Online: www.admin.ccno.org/housingcenter.htm 

Contact: Sherri Becker, 541-963-3186, sherri@ccno.org 

Programs: Provides housing information and referrals in Baker, Grant, Union, and Wallowa 

Counties. Operated by CCNO (see listing below). 

Mid-Columbia Housing Resource Center 

Online: www.MidColumbiaHousingCenter.org 

Contact: John Hutchison, 541-296-5462, info@MidColumbiaHousingCenter.org 

Programs: Provides housing information and referrals in Hood River, Sherman & Wasco 

Counties. Operated by Columbia Cascade Housing Corp. 

NeighborImpact Homeownership Center 

Online: www.neighborimpact.org/homeownership.html 

Contact: 541-548-2380 x.109, 541-318-3302, homeownership@neighborimpact.org 

Programs: Provides housing information and referrals in Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson 

Counties. Operated by NeighborImpact (see listing on following page). 


USDA Rural Development, Pendleton Local Office 

Online: www.rurdev.usda.gov/OR/ 

Contact: 541-278-8049 

Programs: Serves Baker, Gilliam, Grant, Malheur, Morrow, Umatilla, Union, and Wallowa 

Counties. 

USDA Rural Development, Redmond Local Office 

Online: www.rurdev.usda.gov/OR/ 

Contact: 541-923-4358 

Programs: Serves Crook, Deschutes, Harney, Hood River, Jefferson, Sherman, Wasco, and 

Wheeler Counties. 


Community Connections of Northeast Oregon (CCNO) 

Online: www.admin.ccno.org/


Contact: Margaret Davidson, 541-963-3186, 800-836-3186, margaret@ccno.org 

Programs: Affordable housing developer in Baker, Union, and Wallowa Counties. Other 


• Energy assistance 

• Housing rehabilitation 

• Food assistance 

NeighborImpact 

Online: www.neighborimpact.org/ 

Contact: Corky Senecal, 541-548-2380 x101, corkys@neighborimpact.org 

541-317-1141 Bend 

541-416-0107 Prineville 

541-475-7017 Madras 

Programs: Affordable housing developer in Deschutes, Crook and Jefferson Counties. Other 



• Group housing for single women 

• Emergency shelter for families 

• Emergency motel vouchers 

• Emergency utility assistance 

• Emergency rental assistance and eviction prevention 


Beehive Cascades Referral Network 

Online: www.thebeehive.org/ (Select “Cascades” region under Oregon) 

Contact: n/a 

Programs: Information listings on services agencies in Crook, Deschutes, and Jefferson 

Counties. 

Bethlehem Inn 

Online: www.bethleheminn.org/ 

Contact: 541-322-8768 

Programs: Offers a nightly shelter and support services for homeless persons in the City of 

Bend. Accepts clean and sober men and women over the age of 18. Limited case 

management provided. 

CAP of East Central Oregon (CAPECO) 

Online: www.capeco-works.org/ 

Contact: Pendleton: 541-276-1926, 541-276-5073


Hermiston: 541-567-7889, 541-289-7755 

Programs: Serves Gilliam, Morrow, Umatilla, and Wheeler Counties. Programs include: 

• Emergency rental assistance 

• Home weatherization 


Cascade Youth and Family Services 

Online: www.jbarj.org/CYFC/cyfc.html 

Contact: 541-382-0934, 1-800-660-0934 

Programs: Offers an emergency and transitional shelter in Deschutes and Jefferson Counties. 

Accepts homeless or at-risk youth between the ages of 12 and 20. 

Deschutes County Social Services Resource Guide 

Online: www.co.deschutes.or.us/go/living-here/social-services 

Contact: n/a 

Programs: Information listings on service agencies in Deschutes County. 

Harney-Malheur Community Action Agency (HMCAA) 

Online: n/a 

Contact: 541-573-6024 

Programs: Newest community action agency in Oregon. 

Madras Ministerial Association 

Online: n/a 

Contact: 541-475-2201 

Programs: Offers a limited number of one-night motel vouchers, hot meals, and auto fuel 

vouchers in the City of Madras. 

Mid-Columbia Community Action Council (MCCAC) 

Online: www.mccac.com 

Contact: 541-298-5131 

Programs: Programs in Wasco, Hood River and Sherman Counties, including: 

• Emergency rental assistance 


• Home weatherization 


Redmond Ministerial Association 

Online: n/a 

Contact: 541-504-3400


Programs: Offers a limited number of one-night motel vouchers, hot meals, and auto fuel 

vouchers in the City of Redmond only. 

Salvation Army 

Online: www.centormall.com/Salvation_Army/index.html 

Contact: 541-447-4168 

Programs: Offers a one-night motel voucher or food voucher for the grocery store. 

St. Vincent de Paul (Bend) 

Online: n/a 

Contact: 541-389-6643 

Programs: Offers a limited number of motel vouchers in the City of Bend.


Appendix 2: Stakeholder Survey Results 

This section includes a summary of a survey of housing and services providers administered by 

Building Changes as part of this systems integration planning process. The survey was distributed 

both to HIV/AIDS housing and services providers, and agencies that do not specifically target people 

living with HIV/AIDS. 

Building Changes distributed an electronic survey to a list of stakeholders identified by the Steering 

Committee. Thirty-two total respondents completed the survey, including 16 respondents that 

identified their agencies as having a primary focus on serving people living with HIV/AIDS, and 16 

that did not. Seven respondents were from the Oregon Housing Opportunities in Partnership 

(OHOP) Region 1, seven from Region 2, eight from Region 3, eight from Region 4, and two from 

the Portland metropolitan area. 

Some questions were asked only of the HIV/AIDS providers, some were asked only of the 

providers that do not primarily focus on serving people living with HIV/AIDS, and some were 

asked of both groups. The following section summarizes survey responses. 

Question: What services are not available or insufficient in your region? (asked HIV/AIDS providers 

only) 

Gap % 

Transportation assistance 69% 

Housing assistance 63% 

Employment assistance 63% 

Food and nutritional assistance 50% 

Reentry transition assistance 50% 

Mental health care 38% 

Substance use treatment 38% 

Medical care 19% 

Case management 6%


Question: What barriers do people living with HIV/AIDS in your area face in becoming stable and/or 

getting access to housing and other assistance? (asked HIV/AIDS providers only) 

Barrier % 

Lack of affordable housing 100% 

Lack of transportation 75% 

Lack of education or job training opportunities 

impacts ability to earn sufficient income 

Application process for housing and/or services is 

too slow or bureaucratic 

69% 

63% 

Not enough funding for support services 63% 

Restrictions on uses of funding 38% 

Lack of coordination / communication between 

providers 

Question: Please note the types of non-HIV/AIDS agencies that your organization coordinates or 

partners with. (asked HIV/AIDS providers only) 

31% 

Partners % 

Food assistance agencies 81% 

Housing agencies 75% 

Chemical dependency agencies 69% 

Mental health agencies 69% 

Criminal justice / corrections agency 63% 

Hospital 63% 

Employment services agency 44% 

Homeless services agency 44% 

Veterans agency 25% 

Question: If you partner with a housing agency or agencies, which type(s) of agencies? (asked 

HIV/AIDS providers only) 

Housing Partners % 

Housing authority 56% 

Landlord or property management firm 50% 

Affordable or supportive housing developer 44% 

Halfway house 13% 

Regional Housing Center 6%


Question: Does your agency have partnerships with HIV/AIDS providers? (asked non-HIV/AIDS 

providers only) 

Partner with HIV/AIDS Agencies? % 

Yes 50% 

No 44% 

Don’t Know 6% 

Question: Does your organization partner with other agencies or programs for any of the following 

services? (asked non-HIV/AIDS providers only) 

Partners % 

Housing services 75% 

Mental health services 69% 

Chemical dependency services 63% 

Medical care and health services 56% 

Employment services 50% 

Reentry or transition services 44% 

Question: Does your agency participate in the following housing and services planning processes? 

(asked all agencies) 

% of HIV 

Providers 

71% 

Planning Process 

Ryan White program planning (including 

Oregon HIV Care Coalition) 

% of Non-HIV 

Providers 

19% 

13% Continuum of Care 50% 

13% 10 Year Plans to End Homelessness 50% 

7% Consolidated Plan 44% 

Question: How well do the following planning processes include consideration of the housing and 

services needs of people living with HIV/AIDS? (asked all agencies) 

Planning Process 

Qualified Allocation Plan 

(LIHTC) 

Don’t 

Know 

Not Well 

Fairly 

Well 

Very Well or 

Extremely 

Well 

82% 11% 4% 4% 

Continuum of Care 67% 17% 7% 10% 

Consolidated Plan 64% 11% 18% 7% 

10 Year Plans to End 

Homelessness 

62% 21% 14% 3%


Question: Please rate your agency’s staff’s ability to refer clients with HIV/AIDS to the resources that 

they need, on a scale from one (not confident) to four (extremely confident). (asked all agencies) 

Non-HIV/AIDS providers rated their confidence lower (2.5) than HIV/AIDS providers (3.4). The 

lowest scores were in Region 4, especially from non-HIV/AIDS agencies in the Bend area. 

Question: What types of agencies or stakeholders would you like to see more involved in efforts to 

improve the systems integration of HIV/AIDS housing and services? (asked all agencies) 

Stakeholders % 

Affordable housing agencies 88% 

Housing authorities 69% 

Mental health agencies 63% 

Homeless services agencies 56% 

Employment services agencies 56% 

Chemical dependency agencies 50% 

Hospitals and health agencies 50% 

Elected officials 47% 

Criminal justice / corrections agencies 44% 

Questions: What outcomes are the highest priorities for systems integration to meet the needs of 

people living with HIV/AIDS in Oregon? (asked all agencies) 

Goals of Systems Integration % 

Create more housing opportunities for people 

living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) 

78% 

Improve access to support services for PLWHA 78% 

Increase economic self-sufficiency of PLWHA 69% 

Increase public awareness of the needs of 

PLWHA 

Increase access to mainstream federal services 

(food stamps, SSI/SSDI, etc.) 

Improve discharge planning form correctional 

facilities and hospitals 

Questions: What is the biggest challenge to improving systems integration for people living with 

HIV/AIDS in Oregon? (asked all agencies) 

Non-HIV/AIDS providers listed insufficient funding for systems integration work as the biggest 

challenge to improving systems integration for PLWHA. HIV/AIDS agencies listed lack of staff time 

to do systems integration work as the biggest challenge. The chart on the following page shows the 

aggregate of all responses. 

56% 

56% 

47%


Stakeholders % 

Insufficient funding for systems integration work 72% 

Not enough staff time to devote to systems integration work 59% 

Lack of interest from non-HIV/AIDS providers 44% 

Incompatibility of funding sources 31% 

Lack of government interest 25%


Appendix 3: HIV/AIDS Housing Options 

This section describes each HIV/AIDS housing continuum type and its relative advantages and 

disadvantages. In addition, eligible HOPWA activities within each housing assistance type are 

noted. HOPWA may be used to fund some of these activities if approved within the Consolidated 

Plan or grant agreements. 

These housing assistance program options are included for reference for the reader and for future 

program planning. 

Generally, HIV/AIDS housing needs fall into an overall, community-wide housing continuum. This 

continuum, which provides a comprehensive way of evaluating a community’s resources, divides housing 

needs and resources into the following categories, each of which are explained in detail in this section: 

• Emergency Housing Assistance 

• Transitional Housing Assistance 

• Permanent Housing Assistance 

• Services to Support Housing Stability 

There are many different methods for delivering each of the above housing services. The charts in this 

section outline many of the housing solutions for each category of housing services, and summarize the 

advantages and disadvantages of each program type. Please note that many different funding sources may be 

required to establish any of these programs, and that each funding source may have restrictions that disallow 

certain program activities. 

In addition, many of the best housing resources for people living with HIV/AIDS are provided by 

mainstream organizations that serve a wide variety of people. It is usually faster, cheaper, and more 

appropriate to draw on mainstream housing resources than to create new facilities and services just for 

people living with HIV/AIDS. Training other providers to understand the special needs of people living with 

HIV/AIDS can provide the same result as, and often more efficiently than, providing a new service tailored 

to specific needs. New HIV/AIDS housing programs should focus on filling gaps not covered by other 

community resources or adapting mainstream resources to meet the needs of people living with HIV/AIDS.


Emergency Housing Assistance 

Very short-term assistance provided to address an immediate housing crisis for those who are homeless or at imminent risk. 

GOALS & DESCRIPTIONS 

Assistance to help households facing a 

crisis that could result in displacement 

from their housing 

Best where financial crises can be 

overcome with short-term assistance 

For use when no alternative exists but 

living on streets or in substandard/inappropriate 

housing 

Best when local waiting lists for 

affordable housing are relatively short, 

and people can transition relatively 

quickly 

Basic, temporary, overnight sleeping 

accommodation 

Best where significant homeless 

population and much affordable 

transitional & permanent housing is 

available as a next step 

ASSISTANCE TYPES & 

HOPWA–ELIGIBLE USES 

STRMU (Short Term Rent, 

Mortgage, Utility) 

- Limited to 21/52 weeks, only 

for people who are already 

housed 

Hotel-Motel Voucher 

(considered Supportive 

Services) 

- Last resort; need reasonable 

rates 

Emergency Shelter 

- Stays limited to 60/180 days in 

facilities housing 50 or fewer 

- Can fund facility operations 

- Can fund acquisition, rehab, etc. 

ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES 

- Easier than developing new 

housing options 

- Can serve many households 

with limited funding 

- Pay once or twice 

- Useful where many in need are 

homeowners 

- Usually available immediately 

- Simple to administer 

- Can be used for families or 

people too sick for shelter 

- Can serve as bridge to other 

solutions when subsidy wait lists 

are short 

- Immediate response 

- Can be cost-effective 

- Often first point of contact for 

newly homeless 

- Does not create long-term 

housing 

- Does not address needs of 

homeless 

- Many need ongoing assistance to 

stay in home 

- May be costly 

- Not home-based housing – no 

cooking facilities or refrigeration, 

less privacy for family members 

- Hotels/motels that will 

participate may be in unsafe 

neighborhoods 

- Not long-term solution 

- Out during day 

- Shared space offers little privacy, 

refrigeration access 

- May be unsanitary / unhealthy 

- Few accommodations for 

families 

- Not long-term solution


Transitional Housing Assistance 

Limited duration housing assistance – usually 30 days to 2 years – intended to help people transition from housing crisis into permanent, stable 

housing. Effective where consumers are likely to become self-sufficient or transition to permanent housing by the time it ends. 


Assistance for more than 1 or 2 

payments. Based on income and 

FMR; often lasts up to 2 yrs 

Best where consumers remain in 

housing while waiting for subsidy; 

and can transition to permanent 

housing within time limit 

Temporary housing plus support 

services to help people overcome 

problems that led to homelessness 

and return to permanent 

independent housing 

Best where homeless population is 

significant and support services are 

in place 



Tenant-Based Transitional 

Housing Assistance 

- Monthly rental assistance 

payments for people on wait lists 

- HUD housing quality standards 

apply 

Supportive Transitional Housing 


- Can fund acquisition, rehab, etc. 


- Tenants can choose housing 

location 

- Can prevent homelessness for 

people waiting for permanent 

housing 

- Can be implemented quickly – 

less complex than facility-based 

assistance 

- Can promote long-term stability 

even after clients leave 

- Provides leverage (conditions of 

residency) to ensure that clients 

benefit from support services 

- Does not create long-term housing 

- Some landlords unwilling 

- Does not include support services 

that some may need to retain 

housing 

- Sometimes not enough quality 

rental units at FMR 

- Support services costly 

- To achieve success, clients must 

be able to access permanent 

affordable housing supply after 

leaving


Permanent Housing Assistance 

Safe, stable, decent long-term housing opportunities with or without support services. 


Ongoing assistance to cover difference 

between market rents (or FMR) and 

30% of tenant’s household income, for 

as long as income falls below 

qualifying standard 

Best administered by partners: housing 

authority willing to administer the 

subsidy and service organization 

willing to market subsidies, prescreen 

tenants, and help them find 

appropriate units 

Rent or mortgage subsidies based on a 

smaller, fixed amount, rather than the 

difference between FMR and 30% of 

tenant’s household income 

Best when housing costs are level, and 

consumers are close to being able to 

afford housing independently 



Tenant-Based Rental 

Assistance (TBRA) 

Monthly rental assistance 

payments 

HUD $ formula and housing 

standards apply 

Shallow Rent/Mtge Subsidy 

(TBRA) 

Not HOPWA-eligible except by 

special approval for a 

competitive grant 


- Local discretion for housing 

undocumented immigrants and 

people with criminal histories 

-Tenants pay only 30% of their 

income and choose housing 

location 

- Can be used in existing units 

- Some HAs give Section 8 

preference to people with 

terminal illnesses or w/ 

HOPWA rental assistance 

-Easier than housing 

development 

- Tenants can choose housing 

location or remain in current 

homes 

- Can serve many households 

with limited funding 

- Can be implemented quickly – 

less complex than facility-based 

assistance 

-Does not create long-term housing 

- Some landlords unwilling 

- Does not include support services 

that some may need to retain housing 

- Sometimes not enough quality rental 

units at FMR 

- Available properties may be in 

unsafe neighborhoods 

-Funding for many TBRA programs 

can be limited to 3-5 years and 

difficult to renew 

- Few funding sources allow this 

activity 

- Does not create long-term housing 

- Does not provide enough assistance 

for many



Negotiated set-asides of units for 

PLWHA in mainstream affordable 

housing projects 

Best in projects already developed 

with rents affordable to PLWHA, or 

when AIDS service organizations can 

contribute debt-free funding (such as 

HOPWA) 

A long-term lease agreement with a 

property manager in which a service 

organization funds a rent reserve to 

pay the difference between market rent 

and the amount that consumers can 

pay 

Best when market rents are not 

affordable and landlords are willing to 

enter long-term agreements 

A service organization leases units that 

are then sub-leased at an affordable 

cost to PLWHA 

Best in communities with active rental 

markets in healthy neighborhoods with 

access to support services 



Set-Asides in Other Housing 

Projects 

- Can fund acquisition, rehab, 

etc. (new construction for SRO 

and group homes only) 

-Can fund facility operations 

Lease Buy-Downs 

- Rent reserves are not 

HOPWA-eligible 

- Can fund monthly lease, 

operations, and repair costs 

Master Leasing 

-Can fund monthly lease, 



- Can help experienced 

developers to create new longterm 

housing capacity 

- Can be quicker and more 

economically efficient than 

dedicated development 

- Can be long-term 

- Residents can integrate into 

community 

- Can be economically efficient 

and ensure stability without 

ongoing subsidy 

- Less complex than facilitybased 

assistance 

- Residents can integrate into the 

community 

- Can allow organizations to 

place consumers quickly 

- Community acceptance issues 

can often be avoided 


community 

- Housing providers’ rules may 

disqualify some consumers 

- Some providers not willing to set 

aside units, or legally constrained 

- Only effective when rents are 

affordable 

- Physical design and operations may 

not accommodate health needs of 

PLWHA 

- Usually requires lump sum to fund 

entire rent reserve up front; cost may 

be high 

- Developing contracts can be 

complicated and time-consuming 

- Funders may prefer ownership to 

long-term lease, or set different 

commitment periods 

- Property managers may not wish to 

enter into long-term leases 

- Housing providers’ rules may 

disqualify some consumers 

- Operating subsidies usually needed 

for each unit 

- Available properties may be in 

unsafe neighborhoods 

- When necessary, displacing tenants 

can be complicated and expensive 

- Housing conditions must be 

carefully assessed, and close landlord 

relationship maintained



A service organization purchases 

condominiums or single-family homes 

and leases the units to PLWHA 

Best in communities with active 

housing markets and networks that can 

deliver services to dispersed 

populations 

Congregate living assistance ranging 

from a group home owned by a service 

organization to a housemate referral 

service 

Best where consumer preference 

indicates sufficient demand to keep 

beds filled 

Independent apartment projects to 

meet the permanent housing needs of 

PLWHA, or to serve a mixed 

population that includes PLWHA 

Best where consumer preference 

indicates sufficient demand to keep 

units filled 



Scattered Site Acquisition 




Group Homes/Shared Living 


etc. 


Independent Apartment 

Development Projects 




- Can fund monthly lease, 



- Can allow quick access to 

housing, relative to construction 

- Can effectively meet scattered 

demand 

- A small number of units can be 

developed efficiently 


community 

- Can be less expensive than 

individual apartments 

- Can offer peer support 

- Various organizations can 

sponsor individual rooms 

- Creates new long-term housing 

capacity 

- Offers owner most control, or 

opportunities to partner with 

other organizations 

- Units can be developed to 

address specific needs 

- Large development projects 

can increase an organization’s 

capacity to raise private 

donations and grants 

- Creates new long-term housing 

capacity 

- Can require complicated property 

management 

- Operating subsidies may be needed 

to keep rents affordable 

- Condominiums can require monthly 

maintenance fees and other costs; 

offer less control than traditional 

ownership; and place restrictions on 

residents 

- Most consumers prefer independent 

living; many prefer not to live in 

HIV/AIDS-dedicated facilities 

- If demand drops, difficult to convert 

facility to new use 

- Can be difficult to manage conflicts 

between housemates and to preserve 

confidentiality 

- Expensive, complex, and timeconsuming 

- Multifamily-zoned land can be hard 

to find 

- Can attract community opposition 

- Number of units needed for 

economic efficiency may be greater 

than local demand for AIDS housing 

- Many consumers prefer not to live 

in HIV/AIDS-dedicated facilities 

- Requires long-term commitment 

and operating subsidies



Short- and long-term housing 

combined with services designed to 

assist people whose health makes 

independent living impossible 

Best where there is a large 

concentration of PLWHA who require 

higher-end care 



Specialized Care Facilities 

- Can fund acquisition, 

rehab, etc. 



- Can provide a high level of 

care for people whose medical 

or behavioral health does not 

allow them to live 

independently, as an alternative 

to hospitalization 

- Very expensive, due to skilled 

staffing needs 

- Consumers living longer prefer not 

to live in specialized care facilities 

- Only possible in areas with a large 

concentration of PLWHA


Services to Support Housing Stability 

One-time assistance for move-in or occupancy or ongoing services to support housing stability 


Supportive services offered as a 

complement to housing, such as 

case management, health care or 

treatment, food and transportation 

assistance, etc. 

Should be an integral part of every 

housing solution. Requires good 

referral arrangements with other 

service providers 

Assists households in overcoming 

the one-time challenges of 

establishing a new residence 

Essential where homeless people 

are transitioning into permanent 

housing 



Support Services* 

- Services including housing 

advocacy, home care, counseling, 

nutrition and meal services, crisis 

intervention, legal assistance, 

transportation, day health 

programs, mental health services, 

personal assistance, and substance 

use treatment 

- Can be offered with or without 

housing 

Move-In/Occupancy Needs 

Assistance* 

- First month’s rent, deposits and 

tenant screening fees up to the 

value of 2 mos. rent under 

HOPWA supportive services 

category, permanent housing 

placement activity 


- Can help tenants remain in their 

home 

- Existing providers and volunteer 

teams can contribute 

- Less complex than facility-based 

assistance; few start-up costs 

required 

- Relatively inexpensive 

- Easy to administer 

- Volunteer teams and local 

businesses can contribute 

- Some consumers will also need 

financial assistance to keep 

housing. 

- Providing services in widely 

scattered locations can be 

expensive 

- Securing ongoing funding can be 

difficult 

- Many need more assistance 

- Deposits may be kept by landlords 

or departing tenants


Appendix 4: Federal and State Financing Sources 

for Affordable Housing 

This section provides information on financing affordable housing for people living with HIV/AIDS. 

Contact information for grant administrators in the Oregon balance of state is available the 

Affordable Housing Resource Guide in Appendix 1. 

This section provides brief descriptions of programs for financing for affordable housing, many of which 

were referenced in the body of this Systems Integration Plan. Because housing is expensive to develop and 

operate, especially when enriched with support services, and because people living with HIV/AIDS may 

have very little income available to pay for rent and services, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS 

(HOPWA) funds alone are not sufficient to develop and operate housing. 

An essential component of HOPWA program grants management is the use of grant funds to leverage 

additional resources to increase housing opportunities for people living with HIV/AIDS. Nationally, HUD 

estimates that every HOPWA program dollar is leveraged by more than two dollars of other funding to 

support people living with HIV/AIDS. For every HOPWA program dollar that is allocated to housing 

development, more than five dollars of other funding is utilized for HIV/AIDS housing programs. 

The list below is not exhaustive, but it comprises some of the larger programs and those most directly related 

to housing people living with HIV/AIDS. More information and resources on financing affordable housing 

are available through the Building Changes / AIDS Housing of Washington website (www.aidshousing.org) 

and the Corporation for Supportive Housing website (www.csh.org/financing). 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

Regional Contacts 

HUD Region X, Seattle Regional Office 

Regional Director 

John Meyers 

909 1st Avenue, Suite 200 

Seattle, WA 98104-1000 

(877) 741-3281 

HUD Field Office, Portland 

Field Office Director 

Roberta Ando 

Community Planning and Development Director 

Doug Carlson 

400 SW Sixth Ave., #700 


(971) 222-2600


HUD Consolidated Plan Programs 

HUD requires a single, consolidated submission process, including all of the planning, application, and 

performance assessment documentation for the following formula programs: 

• Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) 

• Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) 

• HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) 

• Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) 

States, large cities, and urban counties that get any of these grants must have a Consolidated Plan (Con Plan). 

This planning process is intended to help local jurisdictions develop a vision for housing and community 

development and to coordinate their activities. Local governments develop the plan in consultation with 

public and private agencies that provide supportive housing and social and health services, community 

members, and neighboring localities, and Public Housing Authority (PHA) Plans must be consistent with the 

Con Plan. The Con Plan must indicate the activities that will be carried out in the coming year to address 

emergency shelter and transitional housing needs, homelessness prevention, the transition to permanent 

housing and independent living, and services for people who are not homeless but have supportive housing 

needs. 

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 

http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/communitydevelopment/programs/ 

CDBG program funds may be used in a variety of ways to support community development, including the 

acquisition, construction, and rehabilitation of public facilities and housing. However, communities are not 

required to include housing when determining how they would like to use CDBG funds. 

All CDBG-funded activities must address one of the three national objectives of the program: 

1. Benefit low- and moderate-income people. 

2. Eliminate or prevent slums or blight. 

3. Meet other urgent community development needs, where existing conditions pose a serious and 

immediate threat to the health and welfare of the community, and no other financial resources are 

available. 

Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG) Program 

http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/programs/esg/ 

The ESG Program funds are designated to improve the quality of existing emergency shelters and transitional 

housing for homeless people, to help create additional emergency shelters, to pay for certain operating and 

social service expenses in connection with homeless shelters, and for homeless prevention activities. 

HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) 

http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/affordablehousing/programs/home/ 

Communities have the flexibility to use HOME funds for the housing activities that best meet local needs and 

priorities. Uses can include property acquisition, rehabilitation, site improvements, demolition, new


construction, and tenant-based rental assistance. Assistance can take the form of loans, advances, equity 

investments, interest subsidies, and others. A portion (at least 15 percent) of HOME funds must be set aside 

for community housing development organizations (CHDOs), which are nonprofit organizations that meet 

certain HUD-established criteria. 

Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) 

http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/aidshousing/programs/ 

The HOPWA program is also part of the Consolidated Plan process. HOPWA provides grant funds to state 

and local governments to design long-term, comprehensive strategies for meeting the housing needs of lowincome 

people living with HIV/AIDS and their families. Participating jurisdictions have the flexibility to 

create a range of housing programs, including housing information services, resource identification, project- 

or tenant-based rental assistance, short-term rent, mortgage, and utility payments to prevent homelessness, 

development and housing operations, and support services. Ninety percent of HOPWA funds are awarded 

through formula entitlement grants, and the remaining 10 percent are awarded through a competitive grant 

program. 

HOPWA Formula Grants 

HUD awards 75 percent of HOPWA Formula Grant funds to eligible states and qualifying cities. Eligibility 

is based on the number of cases of AIDS reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as of 

March 31 of the year prior to the appropriation. Eligible metropolitan statistical areas (EMSAs) and states 

receive direct allocations of HOPWA funding when 1,500 cumulative cases of AIDS are diagnosed in a 

region. The remaining 25 percent of funds is allocated among metropolitan areas that have had a higher than 

average per capita incidence of AIDS. 

HOPWA formula entitlement grantees may carry out eligible programs themselves, deliver them through any 

of their administrative entities, select or competitively solicit project sponsors, and/or contract with service 

providers. 

HOPWA Competitive Grants 

Competitive grants are awarded in the following categories: 

• Special Projects of National Significance (SPNS). Because of their innovation or ability to be 

replicated, these projects are intended to be models for addressing the needs of low-income people 

living with HIV/AIDS and their families. 

• Long-Term Comprehensive Strategies for Providing Housing and Related Services. 

Applications in this category can be submitted by state or local governments that are not eligible for 

HOPWA formula allocations during that fiscal year. 

HUD Homeless Assistance Continuum of Care 

In order to encourage the integration and coordination of community homeless assistance, HUD’s primary 

homeless assistance programs—Supportive Housing Program, Shelter Plus Care, Emergency Shelter Grants 

(ESG – which is also included in the Consolidated Plan), and Single Room Occupancy Program (formerly 

Section 8 SRO Mod. Rehab.)—are combined under the Continuum of Care planning and allocation process. 

The Continuum of Care system includes four components: outreach to and needs assessment of individuals 

or families who are homeless, emergency shelters with supportive services, transitional housing with support 

services, and permanent independent or supportive housing to meet long-term needs. The establishment of a 

Continuum of Care system involves a community-wide or region-wide process involving nonprofit


organizations (including those representing persons with AIDS and other disabilities), government agencies, 

other homeless providers, housing developers and service providers, private foundations, neighborhood 

groups, and homeless or formerly homeless individuals. It is very important for applicants to understand that 

funding for the Supportive Housing Program, Shelter Plus Care, and Single Room Occupancy projects must 

be applied for within the context of the Continuum of Care process. 

Supportive Housing Program (SHP) 

http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/programs/shp/ 

SHP program funds are used to provide supportive housing, either as transitional housing for homeless 

people or permanent housing for homeless people who have disabilities, including people living with 

HIV/AIDS. In addition, SHP funds can also be used for safe havens, which provide specialized permanent 

housing for severely mentally ill homeless persons who have been unwilling to participate in support services 

as well as support services for people not living in supportive housing, and other innovative supportive 

housing models. SHP funds can be used for a range of activities from land acquisition to administrative 

expenses. 

Shelter Plus Care (S+C) 

http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/programs/splusc/ 

The Shelter Plus Care program provides rental assistance for permanent housing, linked with support 

services funded by other sources, to homeless and disabled people and their families. Activities under Shelter 

Plus Care include tenant-based rental assistance, project-based rental assistance, sponsor-based rental 

assistance, and moderate rehabilitation assistance for single room occupancy dwellings through the Single 

Room Occupancy Program described below. 

Single Room Occupancy Program (Section 8 SRO Mod. Rehab.) 

http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/homeless/programs/sro/ 

Under the Housing Choice Voucher Single Room Occupancy Program (formerly the Section 8 Moderate 

Rehabilitation Program for Single Room Occupancy Dwellings), HUD contracts with public housing 

authorities (PHAs) to enable the moderate rehabilitation 1 of residential properties that, when completed, will 

contain multiple single room dwelling units. The PHAs make rental assistance payments to the landlords on 

behalf of the homeless individuals who rent the rehabilitated dwellings, covering the difference between a 

portion of the tenant’s income (normally 30 percent) and the HUD-established Fair Market Rent of the unit. 

The program does not provide financing for the rehabilitation work, but a portion of this cost is reflected in 

the rent. 

Other HUD Programs 

HUD has many other programs, but three are particularly relevant when developing housing for people living 

with HIV/AIDS: Section 811 - Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities; the Housing Choice 

Voucher Program (formerly Section 8); and the Housing Choice Voucher Mainstream Disabilities Program. 

1 HUD considers moderate rehabilitation to be a minimum of $3,000 of rehabilitation work per unit.


Section 811 - Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities 

http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/mfh/progdesc/disab811.cfm 

Nonprofit organizations can use Section 811 funds to construct, acquire, and/or rehabilitate supportive 

housing for very low-income persons with disabilities, including those with disabilities resulting from HIVinfection. 

The support services should address the residents’ individual needs, provide optimal independent 

living, and provide access to the community and employment opportunities. 

Section 811 funding is provided in two parts: a one-time capital advance, essentially a grant, to fund 

development, and ongoing project-based rental assistance that pays the difference between the tenant 

payment and the operating cost. 

Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8) Rental Assistance Programs 

http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/hcv/about/index.cfm 

The Housing Choice Voucher Program (formerly called the Section 8 Program) provides vouchers which are 

administered by public housing authorities. Vouchers allow income-eligible households to find and obtain 

rental housing independently. Tenants typically pay 30 percent of their income, while the voucher pays the 

difference, up to the HUD-established Fair Market Rent (FMR) for the area. A tenant can pay more than 30 

percent of their income if the cost of the unit exceeds the FMR, but cannot pay more than 40 percent of their 

income. 

Public housing authorities can also designate up to 15 percent of their vouchers to be project-based in new 

construction or rehabilitated housing. Project-based vouchers stay with a particular unit, so that incomeeligible 

tenants can come and go, but the unit stays affordable. Tenants cannot take the vouchers away from 

the unit for use elsewhere. 

Housing Choice Vouchers for People with Disabilities (Mainstream Program) 

http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/programs/hcv/pwd/mainstream.cfm 

In Fiscal Year 1997, HUD moved a portion of the funds originally earmarked for the Supportive Housing for 

Persons with Disabilities (Section 811) program to create this separate tenant-based program. The Housing 

Choice Vouchers for People with Disabilities (Mainstream Program) provides vouchers to persons with 

disabilities to allow for more housing choice. 

Low Income Housing Tax Credits 

http://www.huduser.org/datasets/lihtc.html 

Created in 1986, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit allows qualified owners of or investors in eligible lowincome 

rental housing to reduce their federal income taxes on a dollar-for-dollar basis for a ten-year period, 

subject to compliance. Low-income housing developers use these credits to attract investors, who commit to 

funding a project in return for the tax credit. 

Available tax credit dollars are allocated to states based on population, equal to $1.75 per capita in 2002 and 

adjusted for inflation thereafter. States administer their own competitive process for the credits. The Low 

Income Housing Tax Credit program has become the primary federal resource for developing low-income


housing. Tax credits funded approximately 1.3 million units through 2003, and contribute to the development 

of approximately 73,000 additional units per year. 2 

Human Resources Services Administration, Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment 

Modernization Act 

http://hab.hrsa.gov/treatmentmodernization 

The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Modernization Act (formerly known as the Comprehensive AIDS 

Resources Emergency (CARE) Act) is federal legislation that addresses the unmet health needs of persons 

living with HIV disease by funding primary health care and support services. In fiscal year 2006, Congress 

reauthorized the CARE Act under its new name and appropriated $2.06 billion 3 for use under the Act, which 

serves more than 500,000 people each year. 4 The Act, which is administered by the HIV/AIDS Bureau 

(HAB) of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, is split into titles with different focuses and eligibility. Several titles allow funding of some 

housing services, as described in the HRSA publication “Housing is Health Care” (2000), 5 though policy 

changes have been considered but not finalized since the 2006 reauthorizations. 

Part A (formerly Title I) of the CARE Act funds emergency services for people living with HIV/AIDS in 

metropolitan areas with populations of at least 500,000 and more than 2,000 reported AIDS cases in the 

previous five years. Part B (formerly Title II) funds are awarded to all states by formula and provide primary 

healthcare and support services that enhance access to care for people living with HIV/AIDS and their 

families. Part B/Title II also supports AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs) and, at the local consortia 

level, can fund community needs assessments and the organization and delivery of HIV services. Part C/Title 

III funds early intervention HIV services in outpatient settings and Part D/Title IV supports coordination of 

services to youth, women, and families living with HIV/AIDS through public and private nonprofit groups. 

Two additional new components have been added to the CARE Act; Part E covers General Provisions 

(including audits, privacy protections, and the severity of need index), while Part F consolidates these CARE 

Act programs: 

• Special Projects of National Significance (SPNS), which fund innovative models of care and support 

the development of effective delivery systems for HIV care. The SPNS Program is considered the 

research and development arm of the CARE Act. 

• HIV/AIDS Education and Training Centers 

• Dental Reimbursement Program 

• Community-Based Dental Partnership Program 

2 The Danter Company, Statistical Overview of the LIHTC Program, 1987 to 2003. Available online: 

www.danter.com/taxcredit/stats/htm (Accessed: October 7, 2005). 

3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, HIV/AIDS Bureau, CARE Act 

Administration Fact Sheet. Available online: http://hab.hrsa.gov/programs/Administration/index.htm (Accessed: March 2, 2007). 

4 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS 

Resources Emergency (CARE) Act Appropriations History: FY 1991 to FY 2005. Available online: 

ftp://ftp.hrsa.gov/hab/fundinghis04.xls (Accessed: May 31, 2005). 

5 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, HIV/AIDS Bureau, Housing is 

Health Care (2001). Available online: http://hab.hrsa.gov/tools/guidance/housing.htm (accessed January 31, 2008).


U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development, Rural Housing Service 

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rhs/ 

The Rural Housing Service (RHS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural 

Development provides a number of home ownership and rental opportunities for rural Americans. These 

programs provide a wide range of assistance, from direct loans to very low-, low-, or moderate-income 

households to buy or renovate existing housing to funding organizations to provide technical assistance to 

low- and very low-income households seeking to build their own homes in rural areas. Organizations eligible 

to apply for RHS funds include local and state government entities, associations, non-profit groups, and 

federally recognized Native American groups. Funds are also available to communities for construction of 

essential facilities, such as hospitals, vocational rehabilitation centers, and public transportation, and to 

organizations needing to prepare sites with infrastructure, such as roads and sewage facilities. 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Homeless Providers Grant and Per Diem Program 

http://www1.va.gov/homeless/page.cfm?pg=3 

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care for Homeless Veterans (HCHV) Programs provide 

funding to community agencies providing services to homeless veterans. The purpose is to promote the 

development and provision of supportive housing and/or supportive services with the goal of helping 

homeless veterans achieve residential stability, increase their skill levels and/or income, and obtain greater 

self-determination. 

In February 2007, the VA announced the largest one-time designation in its history programs benefiting 

homeless veterans: $24 million, including $10 million for seriously mentally ill veterans, terminally ill 

veterans, and similarly vulnerable groups, such as veterans living with HIV/AIDS. Non-profit organizations, 

state and local government agencies that wish to start new programs to provide supportive housing or 

supportive services for homeless veterans can apply for funding. Only programs with supportive housing (up 

to 24 months) or service centers (offering services such as case management, education, crisis intervention, 

counseling, etc.), where at least 75 percent of the clients served are veterans, are eligible for these funds.


Appendix 5: Glossary of HIV/AIDS- and Housing- 

Related Terms 

This glossary includes terms used in the plan and terms related to HIV/AIDS and housing. 

AFFORDABLE HOUSING Housing is generally defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development as affordable when the occupant is paying no more than 30 percent of their adjusted gross 

income for housing costs, including utilities. Affordable housing may refer to subsidized or unsubsidized 

units. 

AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. A person with HIV infection is diagnosed with AIDS when 

either a) they develop an opportunistic infection defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

as an AIDS indication, or b) on the basis of certain blood tests related to the immune system. 

ASSISTED LIVING Group residences that offer the delivery of professionally managed personal and health 

care services, including meals, 24-hour attendant care, social activities, assistance with bathing, dressing and 

transferring, dispensing medication, and health monitoring. Assisted living is intended for those who need 

some assistance in performing the activities of daily living but who do not need the high level of medical 

supervision provided by a skilled nursing facility. Assisted living facilities may be HIV/AIDS-specific, or 

they may serve people with many needs. 

ASYMPTOMATIC HIV INFECTION Without symptoms. Usually used in the HIV/AIDS literature to describe a 

person who has a positive reaction to one of several tests for HIV antibodies but who shows no clinical 

symptoms of the disease. 

AT RISK OF BECOMING HOMELESS Being on the brink of becoming homeless due to one or more of the 

following: having inadequate income or paying too high a percentage of income on rent (typically 50 percent 

or more), living in housing that does not meet federal housing quality standards, or living in housing that is 

seriously overcrowded. Also see Homeless Person. 

BEDS The unit of measure when describing the overnight sleeping capacity or availability for shelters, 

skilled nursing facilities, hospices, board and care, adult family living, assisted living, and other such 

facilities. 

CDC The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the lead federal agency for protecting health and 

safety. CDC serves as a national focus for developing and applying disease prevention and control, 

environmental health, and health promotion and education activities. 

CASE MANAGEMENT One key component of HIV/AIDS care is case management. Case managers 

coordinate all the care a client receives from all providers in the community. Typically, case management 

services are provided by agencies separate from the housing providers. When a case management client 

resides in a residence, however, the residential staff members have the most frequent contact with the 

resident and often are responsible for the care coordination. Case management is also provided through other 

social service systems. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (CDBG) A federal grant program (and part of the 

Consolidated Plan process), administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

authorized under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and administered by state


and local governments. CDBG funds may be used in various ways to support community development, 

including acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, and/or operation of public facilities and housing. 

CONSOLIDATED PLAN A document written by a state or local government and submitted annually to the 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that serves as the planning document of the 

jurisdiction and an application for funding under any of the community planning development formula grant 

programs: 

• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 

• Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) 

• HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) 

• Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) 

The document describes the housing needs of the low- and moderate-income residents of a jurisdiction, 

outlining strategies to meet the needs and listing all resources available to implement the strategies. 

CONTINUUM OF CARE Generally, an approach that helps communities plan for and provide a full range of 

emergency, transitional, and permanent housing and service resources to address the various needs of 

homeless persons. The approach is based on the understanding that homelessness is not caused merely by a 

lack of shelter, but involves a variety of underlying, unmet needs—physical, economic, and social. Designed 

to encourage localities to develop a coordinated and comprehensive long-term approach to homelessness, the 

Continuum of Care consolidates the planning, application, and reporting documents for the U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development’s following programs: 

• Shelter Plus Care (S+C) 

• Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single-Room Occupancy Dwellings (SRO) 

• Supportive Housing Program (SHP) 

DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY Any of a variety of disabilities which impact cognitive functioning and 

learning style. Sometimes referred to as mental retardation. 

DISCRIMINATION Treating a person differently because they belong to, or are perceived to belong to, an 

identifiable group. Often discrimination is due to a person’s being from a different race, country, or religion, 

or because he or she is female, has a family, is older, is disabled, or is gay or lesbian. 

DUALLY DIAGNOSED See Multiply Diagnosed. 

EMA OR EMSA Eligible metropolitan (statistical) area. Geographic area based on population and cumulative 

AIDS cases, to receive federal funds through the Ryan White CARE Act and Housing Opportunities for 

Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) Program. 

EMERGENCY HOUSING ASSISTANCE Emergency housing assistance is one-time or very short-term 

assistance provided to address an immediate housing crisis—often for people who are homeless or at 

imminent risk of becoming homeless. The primary goal of emergency assistance is to solve the immediate 

housing crisis. The assistance is usually one of the following: emergency rent, mortgage or utility payments 

to prevent loss of residence, motel vouchers, and/or emergency shelter. 

EMERGENCY SHELTER Any facility with overnight sleeping accommodations, the primary purpose of which 

is to provide temporary shelter for homeless people in general or for specific populations of homeless people. 

EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT PROGRAM (ESG) Part of the Consolidated Plan process, this federal program 

administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development provides funds to local 

governments to help provide additional emergency shelters or improve the quality of existing emergency 

shelters and helps meet operating costs of essential social services to homeless individuals. Funds are


provided to grantees through both a formula-based process for eligible metropolitan areas and urban counties 

and through a national competition for non-formula-eligible counties. 

EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME An individual or family whose income is between 0 and 30 percent of the median 

income for the area, as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (See Low- 

Income) 

FAIR HOUSING ACT The Federal Fair Housing Act prohibits, among other things, the owners of rental 

housing from discriminating against potential tenants based on race, sex, national origin, disability, or family 

size. 

FAIR MARKET RENT (FMR) Rents set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for 

a state, county, or urban area that define maximum allowable rents for HUD-funded subsidy programs. HUD 

calculates FMR to be at the 40 th percentile of recent moves, excluding apartments built within the past two 

years, meaning that 40 percent of recent movers paid less, and 60 percent paid more. 

FAMILY For purposes of the plan and local policy interpretation, and in keeping with HOPWA regulations, 

the term “family” encompasses nontraditional households, including families made up of unmarried domestic 

partners. A family is a self-defined group of people who may live together on a regular basis and who have a 

close, long-term, committed relationship and share responsibility for the common necessities of life. Family 

members may include adult partners, dependent elders, or children, as well as other people related by blood 

or marriage. 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATION (FEMA) An independent agency reporting to the 

President and tasked with responding to, planning for, recovering from, and mitigating disaster. FEMA 

administers the Emergency Food and Shelter Program as mandated by Title III of the McKinney-Vento Act. 

Also see McKinney-Vento Act. 

GROUP HOUSING/SHARED LIVING Two or more single adults, or families with children, sharing living 

arrangements in a house or an apartment. Generally, individuals each have a bedroom and share a kitchen, 

bath, and housekeeping responsibilities. The group facility may provide a limited range of services and be 

licensed or unlicensed. 

HAART Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy. The preferred term for potent anti-HIV treatment. This 

means a combination of drugs (usually three or more) to combat HIV. Usually more than one class of drug is 

included in a HAART regimen. Includes protease inhibitors, and is often referred to as combination therapy 

or the “cocktail.” While it can be complicated to comply with, compliance to this regimen has dramatically 

extended the lives of people living with HIV/AIDS. 

HARM REDUCTION A set of practical strategies that reduce negative consequences of drug use, incorporating 

a spectrum of strategies for safer use, from managed use to abstinence. Harm reduction strategies meet drug 

users “where they’re at,” addressing conditions of use along with the use itself. 

HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus. The virus that causes AIDS. HIV disease is characterized by a gradual 

deterioration of immune functions. During the course of infection, crucial immune cells, called CD4 T cells, 

are disabled and killed, and their numbers progressively decline. People infected with HIV may or may not 

feel or look sick. 

HOME HOME Investment Partnerships Program. Part of the Consolidated Plan process, this program is 

administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and provides grants for lowincome 

housing through rental assistance, housing rehabilitation, and new construction.


HOMELESS PERSON According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a homeless 

person is an individual or family who 1) lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate night-time residence, or 2) has a 

primary night-time residence that is a) a publicly supervised or privately operated shelter designed to provide 

temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for 

the mentally ill); b) an institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be 

institutionalized; c) a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping 

accommodation for human beings. Individuals paying more than 50 percent of their income for housing are 

also considered at such high risk for homelessness that they are included in the definition of homeless for 

some federal programs. The term “homeless individual” does not include any individuals imprisoned or 

otherwise detained under an act of federal or state law. 

HOPE VI HOPE VI, or the Urban Revitalization Program, a program administered by the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, funds rehabilitation and/or replacement of distressed public housing units 

and support services. 

HOPWA Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS. A U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development program which pays for housing and support services for people living with HIV/AIDS and 

their families. Part of the Consolidated Plan process, HOPWA was created by an Act of Congress in 1990. 

HOSPICE A support and care facility for people in the last phases of a terminal illness so that they may live 

as fully and comfortably as possible. Hospice focuses on alleviating pain and discomfort, improving the 

quality of life, and preparing individuals mentally and spiritually for their eventual death. 

HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM (Formerly Section 8) A federal program operated by local housing 

authorities providing rental assistance to low-income persons and administered by the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development. Under the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program, the local housing 

authority determines a standard amount of rental assistance an individual or family will receive. The tenant 

would pay the difference between the amount of assistance and the actual rent, which may require the tenant 

to spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent. The HCV program is a tenant-based program, 

meaning the subsidy is specific to the tenant as opposed to the unit. The following are HCV programs: 

• Housing Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (Mainstream Program) 

The Mainstream Program, created in 1997 and administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, utilizes up to 25 percent of the funds originally earmarked for Section 811 to a 

separate tenant-based rental assistance program for persons with disabilities. Also see Section 811. 

• Moderate Rehabilitation for Single-Room Occupancy Dwellings 

This program provides Section 8 rental assistance for moderate rehabilitation of buildings with SRO 

units (single-room occupancy dwellings). The program, administered by the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, is designed for the use of an individual person. Units often do not 

contain food preparation or sanitary facilities. A public housing authority makes Section 8 rental 

assistance payments to the landlords for the homeless people who rent the rehabilitated units. 

HOUSING COST BURDEN The extent to which gross housing costs, including utility costs, exceed 30 percent 

of gross income, based on data published by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

SEVERE HOUSING COST BURDEN The level of burden at which gross housing costs, including utility costs, 

exceed 50 percent of gross income, based on data published by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

HOUSING UNIT An occupied or vacant house, apartment, or a single room (SRO housing) that is intended as 

separate living quarters.


HOUSING QUALITY STANDARDS (HQS) Standards set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) to ensure that all housing receiving HUD financial assistance meets a certain level of 

quality. HQS requires that recipients of HUD funding provide safe and sanitary housing that is in compliance 

with state and local housing codes, licensing requirements, and any other jurisdiction-specific housing 

requirements. 

HRSA Health Resources and Services Administration. HRSA is an agency of the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services that works toward providing health care to low-income, uninsured, isolated, vulnerable, 

and special needs populations through a number of programs including the Ryan White CARE Act, Rural 

Health Initiative, and other community-based health initiatives. (See Ryan White CARE Act) 

HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD is a cabinet-level agency designed to 

advocate for the housing needs of people with low incomes through programs for public housing, special 

needs housing, and first time homebuyers. 

INFORMATION AND REFERRAL Non-monetary assistance to individuals who are having a difficult time 

finding and/or securing housing. 

LOW-INCOME FAMILY Family whose income does not exceed 50 percent of the median family income (MFI) 

for the area, as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), with 

adjustments for smaller and larger families. HUD may establish income ceilings higher or lower than 50 

percent of the median for the area on the basis of findings that such variations are necessary because of 

prevailing levels of construction costs or Fair Market Rents, or unusually high or low family incomes. 

LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT PROGRAM Formula allotment of federal income tax credits 

administered by states and distributed to nonprofit and for-profit developers of and investors in low-income 

rental housing to encourage capacity development. Since its creation in 1986 by the Tax Reform Act, more 

than a million units have been funded nationwide, utilizing the equivalent of more than $7.5 billion dollars in 

funding annually. 

MAINSTREAM PROGRAM See Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. 

MASTER LEASING A housing strategy in which a sponsor agency leases housing units from private or 

nonprofit housing landlords and subleases the units to individuals and families that meet the sponsor 

agency’s eligibility criteria. This housing option is used mainly as transitional housing. In a transitional 

housing master leasing scenario, subleases with individuals and families can include stipulations for duration 

of tenancy and responsibilities of tenancy, such as a requirement to participate in support services. Master 

Leasing can be an alternative for landlords, since the sponsor agency absorbs some portion of the risk and 

responsibility for hard-to-house clients. 

MCKINNEY-VENTO ACT The primary federal response targeted to assisting homeless individuals and 

families. The scope of the Act includes: outreach, emergency food and shelter, transitional and permanent 

housing, primary health care services, mental health, alcohol and drug abuse treatment, education, job 

training, and child care. There are nine titles under the McKinney-Vento Act that are administered by several 

different federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 

McKinney-Vento Act Programs administered by HUD include: Emergency Shelter Grant Program, 

Supportive Housing Program, Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation for Single-Room Occupancy Dwellings, 

Supplemental Assistance to Facilities to Assist the Homeless, and Single Family Property Disposition 

Initiative. Also see: Emergency Shelter Grants, Federal Emergency Management Administration, Shelter 

Plus Care, Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation for Single-Room Occupancy Dwellings, and Supportive 

Housing Program.


MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME (MFI) The amount, as determined by HUD, which divides an area’s income 

distribution into two equal groups, one having incomes above this amount, one having incomes below. MFI 

is based on the most recent U.S. Census family income data and is adjusted annually for inflation. HUD and 

the U.S. Census Bureau consider a family to be a household comprised of related individuals. For example: 

A family is a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or 

adoption and residing together; all such people (including related subfamily members) are considered as 

members of one family. This differs from Median Household Income, which is the median income of the 

householder and all people living in the house over the age of 15, regardless of relation to the householder. 

MEDICAID A program jointly funded by the states and the federal government (U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services) that provides medical insurance for people who are unable to afford medical care. The 

program focuses mainly on the needs of the elderly, people with disabilities, and children. 

MEDICARE A federal program under the Social Security Administration that provides health insurance to the 

elderly and disabled. 

MENTAL ILLNESS A serious and persistent mental or emotional impairment that significantly limits a 

person’s ability to live independently. 

MODERATE INCOME An individual or family whose income is between 50 percent and 80 percent of the 

median income for the area, as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD), with adjustments for smaller or larger families. HUD may establish income ceilings higher or lower 

than 80 percent of the median for the area if they find that such variations are necessary because of prevailing 

levels of construction costs or Fair Market Rents, or unusually high or low family incomes. 

MULTIPLY DIAGNOSED To be diagnosed with HIV/AIDS and also have histories of other disabilities. This 

term generally refers to people who are HIV-positive and have chronic alcohol and/or other drug use 

problems and/or a serious mental illness. The terms “dually diagnosed” and “triply diagnosed” are also used. 

OPERATING COSTS (in relation to housing) Distinct from capital costs and support services costs. Operating 

costs include property taxes, insurance, maintenance, and repair. 

PERMANENT HOUSING Housing which is intended to be the tenant’s home for as long as they choose. In the 

supportive housing model of permanent housing, services are available to the tenant, but accepting services 

cannot be required of tenants or in any way impact their tenancy. Tenants of permanent housing sign legal 

lease documents. 

PERSON WITH A DISABILITY HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher (formerly Section 8) program defines a 

“person with a disability” on the terms of the Social Security Administration: a person who is determined to: 

1) have a physical, mental, or emotional impairment that is expected to be of continued and indefinite 

duration, substantially impedes his or her ability to live independently, and is of such a nature that the ability 

could be improved by more suitable housing conditions; or 2) have a developmental disability, as defined in 

the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act. 

PROTEASE INHIBITORS A group of anti-retroviral medications for people living with HIV/AIDS. Protease 

inhibitors act by preventing the replication of HIV in the body and are often prescribed in combination with 

other HIV medications. Also see HAART. 

RENTAL ASSISTANCE Cash subsidy for housing costs provided as either project-based rental assistance or 

tenant-based rental assistance. HOPWA short-term rental assistance is available for up to 21 weeks. HOPWA 

long-term rental assistance is provided for longer than 21 weeks. Due to HOPWA regulations, rental 

assistance cannot be guaranteed for longer than three years. Ryan White funds can be used for short-term,


transitional, or emergency housing defined as necessary to gain or maintain access to medical care. The 

following are the various types of rental assistance: 

• Project-based Rental Assistance 

Rental assistance that is tied to a specific unit of housing, not a specific tenant. Tenants receiving 

project-based rental assistance give up the right to that assistance upon moving from the unit. Also 

see Rental Assistance, Shallow Rent Subsidy, and Tenant-based Rental Assistance. 

• Tenant-based Rental Assistance 

A form of rental assistance in which the assisted tenant may move to a different housing unit while 

maintaining their assistance. The assistance is provided for the tenant, not a specific housing unit. 

Also see Project-based Rental Assistance, Rental Assistance, and Shallow Rent Subsidy. 

• Shallow Rent Subsidy 

Short-term or ongoing cash subsidy for housing costs provided as either project-based rental 

assistance or tenant-based rental assistance. Typically, shallow subsidies are for a set amount and are 

not related to the percentage of income paid to rent. Shallow rent subsidies are not an eligible 

HOPWA component unless approved within a competitive application. Also see Project-based 

Rental Assistance, Rental Assistance, and Tenant-based Rental Assistance. 

RYAN WHITE CARE ACT Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act. A program 

of the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) providing funds for health care and supportive 

services for people living with AIDS, including emergency housing. Created by an Act of Congress in 1990. 

Also see HRSA. 

SCATTERED-SITE HOUSING Individual units scattered throughout an area, such as condominiums and single 

family homes in different complexes or neighborhoods, creating dispersed and integrated housing options. 

SECTION 8 See Housing Choice Voucher program. 

SECTION 811 Provides grants to nonprofit organizations for acquisitions, new construction, and/or 

rehabilitation of rental housing with support services for very low-income persons with disabilities. The 

program is administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and includes a capital 

advance and project-based rental assistance payments. (See Housing Choice Voucher Mainstream Program) 

SHELTER PLUS CARE A national grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development providing rental assistance, linked with support services, to homeless individuals who have 

disabilities (primarily serious mental illness, chronic substance abuse, and disabilities resulting from 

HIV/AIDS) and their families. 

SKILLED NURSING FACILITY A nursing home or facility providing 24-hour care from nurses and aides. 

SRO Single-Room Occupancy. Refers to studio apartments which provide very limited cooking facilities and 

typically have shared bathrooms. They are often in rehabilitated hotels, and can be used for emergency, 

transitional, or permanent housing. (See Housing Choice Voucher Program) 

SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY INSURANCE (SSDI) A federal government benefit for individuals who are 

medically disabled and have worked for enough years to be covered under Social Security. (See Medicare, 

SSI) 

SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING Housing for people who require specific accommodations and/or support to 

access and maintain housing. Special needs housing may target the elderly; people with disabilities, 

including HIV/AIDS; and people with histories of homelessness, mental illness, and/or substance use issues.


SUBSIDIZED RENTAL HOUSING Assisted housing that receives or has received project-based governmental 

assistance and is rented to low- or moderate-income households. Subsidized rental housing does not include 

owner-occupied units, nor does it include HCV holders in market-rate housing. 

SUBSTANCE USE ISSUES The problems resulting from a pattern of using substances such as alcohol and 

drugs. Problems can include: a failure to fulfill major responsibilities and/or using substances in spite of 

physical, legal, social, and interpersonal problems and risks. 

SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME (SSI) SSI is a federal government benefit for individuals who are 65 or 

older, or blind, or have a disability and earn a low income. (See Medicaid, SSDI) 

SUPPORTIVE HOUSING Housing, including housing units and group quarters, which include on- and off-site 

support services. (See Permanent Housing, Housing First) 

SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROGRAM (SHP) Provides grants to develop housing and related support services for 

people moving from homelessness to independent living. Program funds help homeless people live in a 

stable place, increase their skills or income, and gain more control over the decisions that affect their lives. 

Funding may be used for capital costs, facility operations, and/or support services. (See Continuum of Care) 

SUPPORT SERVICES Services provided to individuals to assist them to achieve and/or maintain stability, 

health, and improved quality of life. Some examples are case management, medical or psychological 

counseling and supervision, child care, transportation, and job training. 

SYMPTOMATIC HIV INFECTION Any perceptible, subjective change in the body or its functions that indicates 

disease or phases of disease, as reported by the patient. When referring to a person who is HIV-positive, this 

indicates a person who is sick and/or shows medical symptoms of the disease, but does not have an AIDS 

diagnosis. 

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a program administered by the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services. TANF, which replaced and is sometimes referred to as welfare, provides assistance and 

work opportunities to families with low incomes by granting states the federal funds and guidelines to 

administer their own welfare programs. 

TRANSGENDER Individuals whose sense of gender identity does not match their physiological sex, including 

those who have changed or are in the process of changing their sex from male to female or female to male. 

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING A project that is designed to provide housing and appropriate support services to 

homeless persons to facilitate movement to independent living within 24 months, or a longer period 

approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (For purposes of the HOME 

program, there is not a HUD-approved time period for moving to independent living.)

Oregon Balance of State HIV/AIDS Housing & Services Systems ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?