Ryan White HIV Grants 2026: Parts C, D, F Guide

This guide is for: HIV services organizations, community health centers, health departments, and nonprofits that provide or want to provide HIV care and treatment services and are pursuing Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program funding from HRSA.

Last updated: October 2026

Full answer: The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program is HRSA's roughly $2.57 billion annual program (FY2026, including $165 million for the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative) funding HIV care, treatment, and support services across five parts. Parts A and B are formula grants to cities and states. Nonprofits access those as subgrantees. Parts C, D, and F are competitive grants where organizations apply directly to HRSA through a merit review process. Part C (Early Intervention Services) is the primary entry point for community-based organizations, with $208,970,000 appropriated a year. Ryan White grantees in Parts A through D are eligible for the 340B Drug Pricing Program, and that program income must go back into the grant's purposes.

Ryan White HIV/AIDS Grants: How to Win Parts C, D, and F Funding in 2026

Data note: According to USASpending.gov FY2024 data, CFDA 93.914 (Part A), 93.917 (Part B), 93.918 (Part C), 93.153 (Part D), and 93.928, 93.145, and 93.924 (Part F) carry Ryan White assistance. Appropriation figures come from HRSA's Ryan White budget table. Award figures, recipient organizations, and geographic distributions are drawn from USASpending tracked data and HRSA HIV/AIDS Bureau program reports.

Source review by Grantsights, June 3, 2026: We checked HRSA's current Ryan White program parts pages, HRSA's FY2015-FY2026 appropriation table, the Ryan White Services Report instructions, and current Grants.gov listings. Where official sources stop: HRSA now makes the direct-applicant split clearer than many search results do: Parts A and B flow to city, county, state, and territory recipients, while Part C, Part D, and selected Part F work are the direct federal routes most clinic-led applicants can pursue. Based on our analysis, a bad fit is a nonprofit applying as if every Ryan White part is open to direct competition, or a clinic without HIV primary care capacity, payer-of-last-resort controls, and client-level reporting readiness. For example, an FQHC with an active HIV panel, medication access workflows, and RSR-ready data is a stronger Part C candidate than a case-management-only nonprofit that needs a local Part A or Part B subgrant.

A common mistake is spending months preparing a Part A application that can't actually be submitted, because Part A doesn't work that way. Parts A and B are formula grants to cities and states. You don't apply to HRSA for those. You apply to your local planning council or state health department for subgrant funds.

The competitive pieces, where you submit a direct federal application to HRSA and go through merit review, are Parts C, D, and F. That's where nonprofits win or lose Ryan White funding on the strength of their application. This guide covers all five parts, but it focuses on the competitive pathways because that's where your grant development effort matters.

What the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Is: Five Parts, Two Pathways

About $2.57 billion flows through the Ryan White program annually ($2.41 billion for Parts A through F plus $165 million for Ending the HIV Epidemic, per HRSA's Ryan White budget table), making it the largest federal program specifically dedicated to HIV/AIDS care and treatment. The program is administered by HRSA's HIV/AIDS Bureau. The program was first authorized in 1990 and named after Ryan White, an Indiana teenager who contracted HIV through a blood transfusion and became a national figure in the fight against AIDS stigma. Congress has reauthorized the program multiple times, most recently in 2009, and it currently operates under Title XXVI of the Public Health Service Act.

The program fills a specific gap: it provides medical care, medications, and support services for people living with HIV who are uninsured or underinsured. It's the "payer of last resort," meaning it covers services only after Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance have been exhausted. That last-resort structure shapes everything about how the money flows.

Ryan White operates through five distinct parts, each with its own funding mechanism, eligible applicants, and programmatic focus:

The first thing to understand is the split between formula and competitive. Parts A and B distribute roughly $2 billion through formulas based on HIV/AIDS case counts, and the money goes to government entities (cities, counties, states). Parts C, D, and F distribute roughly $360 million through competitive merit review (FY2026 figures from HRSA's Ryan White budget table), and the money goes directly to service organizations. If you're a nonprofit, this distinction determines your entire strategy.

FY2024 Award Data: Where the Money Goes

According to USASpending.gov FY2024 data, the five Ryan White CFDAs show distinct patterns in award size and geographic distribution.

Part A (CFDA 93.914): HRSA lists 24 Eligible Metropolitan Areas and 28 Transitional Grant Areas, 52 in all, on its Part A page. The largest EMAs, including New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, and Houston, received the largest allocations. New York City's EMA received over $100 million. The formula is driven by the number of living HIV/AIDS cases in the metropolitan statistical area. An area needs 1,000 to 1,999 AIDS cases in the most recent five years to qualify as a TGA, and at least 2,000 cases in the most recent five years to qualify as an EMA (both also need a population of at least 50,000).

Part B (CFDA 93.917): All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and U.S. territories received Part B base grants. The AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), funded within Part B, accounts for the majority of Part B spending. ADAP alone is funded at about $900 million a year ($900,313,000 in FY2026), providing prescription drug coverage to uninsured and underinsured clients. States like New York, California, Florida, and Texas received the largest Part B allocations due to HIV prevalence. For the live state-and-territory supplemental opportunity summary, see the Ryan White Part B supplemental program page.

Part C (CFDA 93.918): Part C Early Intervention Services is appropriated $208,970,000 a year and supports several hundred funded organizations. Award sizes vary widely by service area, so check the award range in the current EIS notice rather than relying on an average. Funded organizations include federally qualified health centers, hospital-affiliated HIV clinics, community-based organizations, and tribal health facilities.

For the current capacity-development route, compare this guide with the live Ryan White Part C Capacity Development program page before deciding whether the organization needs short-term capacity work or a larger direct-service application.

Part D (CFDA 93.153): Part D funds services to women, infants, children, and youth living with or exposed to HIV. The current Part D notice, HRSA-26-067, estimated about 111 awards totaling $69 million, with awards from $115,000 to $2,000,000 (Grants.gov listing).

Part F (CFDA 93.928, 93.145, 93.924): Part F encompasses three sub-programs: Special Projects of National Significance (SPNS), dental programs through the Dental Reimbursement Program and Community-Based Dental Partnership Program, and AIDS Education and Training Centers (AETCs). SPNS grants are the most competitive, funding multi-site demonstration projects testing new HIV care models. AETC funding supports training for healthcare professionals in HIV treatment.

Grantsights analysis of HRSA's FY2026 budget table shows that about 85 percent of base Ryan White funding (Parts A through F, excluding Ending the HIV Epidemic) flows through the formula pathways (Parts A and B), with about 15 percent available through competitive application. That 15 percent is where nonprofits compete, and understanding the math matters: roughly $360 million split across three competitive parts.

Parts C, D, and F: Where Nonprofits Apply Directly

If you're a community-based organization, health center, or nonprofit clinic seeking Ryan White funding, these are your three pathways to a direct federal award.

Part C: Early Intervention Services (CFDA 93.918)

Part C is the primary competitive entry point for organizations providing outpatient HIV primary care. The program funds four core activities: HIV testing and counseling (including rapid testing), referral services for clinical care and support, outpatient clinical services including HIV medical management, and health education and literacy training for patients.

HRSA posts Part C NOFOs on Grants.gov every three years per cohort, meaning roughly one-third of Part C grantees compete in any given year. The most recent competition required applicants to demonstrate:

• Existing capacity to deliver or coordinate HIV primary care (you can't propose to start from scratch)
• A service area with documented unmet HIV care needs
• Linkage to HIV testing programs and referral networks
• Clinical quality management plans that align with HRSA's HIV Clinical Performance Measures
• Plans to address viral load suppression and retention in care

The merit review process uses a 100-point scoring system. Part C applications often fail on two sections: the organizational capacity section (where applicants can't demonstrate HIV clinical experience) and the data quality section (where applicants don't report on HRSA's required performance measures). If you aren't currently tracking viral load suppression rates and care retention for your HIV patients, you're not ready to submit a competitive Part C application.

Who wins Part C: Community health centers with existing HIV caseloads, hospital-affiliated clinics with infectious disease departments, established HIV/AIDS service organizations with clinical licenses, and tribal health programs in areas with documented HIV prevalence. The common thread is existing clinical capacity. HRSA rarely funds organizations proposing to build HIV care programs from the ground up through Part C.

Part D: Women, Infants, Children, and Youth (CFDA 93.153)

Part D fills a narrow but critical gap: HIV services specifically designed for women (including pregnant women), infants, children, and youth ages 13 to 24. The clinical and support service needs for these populations differ significantly from adult male patients who make up the majority of the overall HIV caseload.

Part D grantees must provide family-centered care that includes:

• Primary and specialty medical care for women and youth living with HIV
• Prevention of perinatal HIV transmission (pregnant women living with HIV)
• Psychosocial support including mental health services
• Coordination with schools, child welfare, and juvenile justice systems
• Youth-specific engagement and retention strategies

With about 111 awards estimated in the current notice, Part D is a smaller competition than Part C but requires highly specialized clinical and programmatic capacity. Organizations serving women and youth in communities with high HIV burden, particularly in the South and in urban centers, have the strongest competitive position.

Part F: SPNS, Dental, and AETCs (CFDA 93.928, 93.145, 93.924)

Part F is actually three distinct sub-programs under separate Assistance Listings (SPNS 93.928, AETCs 93.145, dental 93.924):

Special Projects of National Significance (SPNS): These are time-limited demonstration projects testing new models of HIV care delivery. SPNS grants are the most intellectually demanding Ryan White competition. HRSA defines specific research questions for each cycle (for example, integrating HIV care into substance use treatment settings, or using telehealth for rural HIV patients) and funds multi-site projects with rigorous evaluation requirements. Awards are typically larger ($500,000 to $1 million per year) but require research partnerships and data infrastructure that most community-based organizations don't have.

Dental Programs: The Dental Reimbursement Program (DRP) reimburses dental education institutions for uncompensated oral health care provided to patients living with HIV. The Community-Based Dental Partnership Program (CBDPP) funds partnerships between dental schools and community-based organizations to expand oral health access for HIV patients. These are specialized programs for dental institutions, not general HIV service organizations.

AIDS Education and Training Centers (AETCs): Regional and national AETCs train healthcare providers in HIV prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. AETC funding goes to academic medical centers and teaching hospitals, not community nonprofits.

For most nonprofit HIV service organizations, Part C is the realistic competitive target. Part D is viable if you specifically serve women, youth, or perinatal populations. SPNS is an option only if you have research infrastructure and can respond to HRSA's specific demonstration priorities.

If your work is outside the United States and tied to faith-community delivery, don't treat Ryan White as the comparison point. Use the CDC Ethiopia HIV and TB faith-based grant guide with the live CDC forecast page, then decide whether the organization should lead, co-lead, or serve as a subpartner. For India country-system work, use the CDC India HIV and TB grant guide before mixing domestic HRSA care funding with CDC global HIV and TB work.

Parts A and B: How to Access Ryan White Funding as a Subgrantee

The majority of Ryan White money, roughly $2 billion, flows through Parts A and B. Nonprofits don't apply to HRSA for these funds. They apply to their local or state administrators. Understanding how this works is critical because for many organizations, subgrant funding is faster and more accessible than competing for Part C or D.

Part A: Metropolitan Area Funding

Part A funds go to Eligible Metropolitan Areas (EMAs) and Transitional Grant Areas (TGAs) through formula grants based on HIV/AIDS case counts. Each EMA and TGA has a planning council, an appointed body of community members, providers, and people living with HIV, that determines how Part A funds are allocated across service categories.

To access Part A funding as a provider:

1. Identify whether you're in an EMA or TGA (HRSA lists 52 nationally)
2. Contact your local Ryan White Part A planning council or grantee office (usually the city or county health department)
3. Review the current year's service category allocations and priority-setting documents
4. Respond to Requests for Proposals (RFPs) when the grantee office solicits providers for specific service categories
5. Report data through the Ryan White Services Report (RSR) and comply with the grantee's monitoring requirements

The key insight about Part A subcontracting: the decision about which services to fund is made locally by the planning council, not by HRSA. If your planning council has prioritized mental health services and you provide mental health, you're competing in a local pool that may have only two or three other applicants. That's a very different competitive dynamic from a national Part C competition.

Part B: State-Level Funding

Part B grants go to state health departments, which then subgrant to service providers. The AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), the largest component of Part B, pays for antiretroviral medications and health insurance premiums for uninsured and underinsured people living with HIV.

Beyond ADAP, Part B funds core medical services (outpatient care, case management, substance use treatment, mental health) and support services (transportation, housing assistance, food, childcare). States issue competitive solicitations for Part B service providers, typically on an annual or biennial cycle.

To pursue Part B subgrant funding, contact your state HIV/AIDS program office. Every state administers Part B differently: some states contract directly with providers, while others distribute funds through regional administrative agents. The application process is simpler than a federal HRSA competition but varies significantly by state.

What HRSA Doesn't Tell You About Ryan White Grants

The NOFOs describe program requirements and scoring criteria. They don't tell you the practical realities that determine whether your application is competitive. These are the patterns that separate funded organizations from unfunded ones.

The "payer of last resort" requirement creates a documentation burden that sinks applications. Ryan White funds can only pay for services not covered by another payer. That means every client must be screened for Medicaid eligibility, marketplace insurance, and other coverage before Ryan White dollars can be spent. HRSA expects applicants to describe, in detail, their eligibility determination and insurance screening processes. Organizations that treat the payer-of-last-resort requirement as a throwaway compliance paragraph rather than a core operational system consistently lose points in merit review. Applications can be scored down specifically because the eligibility screening process isn't described with enough operational specificity.

HRSA's HIV Clinical Performance Measures are the real scoring rubric. The NOFO will list scored criteria with point values. But underneath those criteria, HRSA reviewers are looking for alignment with the HIV/AIDS Bureau's Clinical Performance Measures, which include viral load suppression (the percentage of patients with an undetectable viral load), prescription of antiretroviral therapy, HIV medical visit frequency, and gap in HIV medical visits. If your application doesn't reference these measures by name and provide baseline data on your current performance, you're missing what reviewers are actually evaluating.

Competing continuation is harder than new competition, and applicants underestimate this. When your three-year Part C project period ends, you don't automatically get renewed. You submit a competing continuation application that goes through full merit review alongside new applicants. Organizations that coasted on their initial award and didn't invest in data infrastructure, quality improvement, or service expansion during the project period find that their continuation application is weaker than a well-prepared new applicant. This is a common red flag: grantees who treat the project period as guaranteed and then scramble when the competition reopens.

Geographic overlap with existing Part C grantees is an unscored disqualifier. HRSA won't explicitly tell you that your proposed service area has three existing Part C grantees already funded. But the review panel knows, because HRSA staff brief them on the geographic distribution of current awards. Proposing to serve a catchment area where multiple Part C grantees are already operating, with strong performance data, means your "need" argument is weakened before you write a word. Grantsights analysis of Part C award distributions shows that new awards disproportionately go to areas with demonstrated gaps, either geographic areas without an existing Part C grantee or service populations (youth, transgender individuals, recently diagnosed) not adequately served by current grantees.

Your RSR data follows you. If you're a current Ryan White grantee applying for continuation or for a different Ryan White part, HRSA already has your Ryan White Services Report data. Poor viral load suppression rates, low retention-in-care numbers, or declining client counts in your RSR are visible to the review process. You can't paper over weak performance data with strong narrative. Address performance gaps directly in your application and show what you've changed. Pretending the data doesn't exist is a common mistake that experienced reviewers catch immediately.

Who Wins Competitive Ryan White Grants

Based on FY2024 award data and historical funding patterns, the organizations that consistently win Ryan White competitive awards share specific characteristics.

Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) dominate Part C. FQHCs already have clinical infrastructure, 340B access, sliding fee schedules, and federal reporting systems in place. For a broader look at HRSA funding for health centers, see our guide to HRSA health center grants. They can absorb a Part C grant into existing operations with minimal startup costs. A community health center serving 200 HIV patients with documented viral suppression data is a much stronger applicant than a case management organization proposing to add clinical services.

Organizations with existing HIV clinical data win. HRSA reviewers can distinguish between organizations that treat HIV patients and organizations that aspire to treat HIV patients. The difference shows up in the data: if you can report current viral load suppression rates, retention in care percentages, and client demographics from your own patient population, your application has the specificity that earns high scores. Generic epidemiological data from your county's HIV surveillance report doesn't substitute for organizational performance data.

Southern organizations with rural service areas are increasingly competitive. The HIV epidemic has shifted geographically over the past decade. More than half of new HIV diagnoses now occur in the South, and rural areas have the widest gaps in HIV care access. HRSA has responded by weighting need assessments toward areas with limited existing provider capacity. A rural clinic in Mississippi or Alabama proposing to serve a county with no existing Ryan White-funded provider has a structural advantage in the need assessment that urban organizations in well-served metro areas don't have.

Multi-service organizations that integrate HIV care with behavioral health. HRSA's current programmatic priorities emphasize integration of HIV treatment with substance use disorder treatment, mental health services, and housing support. Organizations providing integrated behavioral health services may also benefit from SAMHSA CCBHC grants and SAMHSA mental health grants. Applications that propose siloed HIV clinical services without addressing behavioral health comorbidities don't align with the HIV/AIDS Bureau's current strategic direction. Organizations already delivering integrated care have a scoring advantage.

The 340B Connection: Why It Changes the Math

340B is the single most important financial consideration for any organization pursuing Ryan White funding, and it's the piece most new applicants underestimate.

The 340B Drug Pricing Program, established by Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act, requires drug manufacturers participating in Medicaid to sell outpatient drugs to covered entities at significantly discounted prices. Ryan White grantees (Parts A, B, C, and D) are covered entities under 340B. That means any organization that receives a Ryan White grant becomes automatically eligible to purchase outpatient drugs, including antiretrovirals, at prices 25 to 50 percent below wholesale.

Here's why this matters for grant development: antiretroviral therapy for a single patient costs between $20,000 and $40,000 per year at retail. At 340B pricing, the same medications cost the covered entity a fraction of that amount. If the patient's insurance (Medicaid, Medicare, or private) reimburses at the higher rate, the difference between the 340B acquisition cost and the reimbursement is retained by the grantee. For organizations with large HIV caseloads and an in-house or contract pharmacy, 340B revenue can generate hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars annually.

For established Part C grantees with active 340B pharmacy programs, 340B program income can be large relative to the grant. It isn't free money: under HRSA PCN 15-03, program income is additive to the award and must be spent on the award's purposes and allowable costs. Paired with a Part C grant, that income can still help sustain community-based HIV care at scale.

What this means for your application:

• If you don't have a pharmacy: Your application should include a 340B implementation plan or a contract pharmacy arrangement. Reviewers know that long-term program sustainability depends on 340B revenue.
• If you have an existing pharmacy: Your application should describe your 340B infrastructure and how grant funds will be supplemented by 340B revenue. This demonstrates financial sustainability, which is a scored element.
• If you're applying for Part A or B subgrants: You may already have 340B eligibility through other covered entity status (FQHC, disproportionate share hospital, etc.). Check before assuming a Ryan White grant is required for 340B access.

One critical warning: 340B audits are increasing. HRSA's 340B Program Integrity initiatives have resulted in enforcement actions against covered entities that don't properly track 340B-eligible patients, duplicate discount claims, or fail to maintain auditable dispensing records. Building 340B compliance into your grant application isn't optional. It's a signal to reviewers that you understand the program's financial reality.

When to Pursue Ryan White Funding

Not every HIV services organization should apply for a competitive Ryan White grant. The decision depends on your clinical capacity, geographic position, and organizational readiness.

Apply for Part C if: You currently deliver outpatient HIV primary care, you have at least 50 to 100 HIV patients in active care, you can report viral load suppression and retention data, you're in a service area without an oversaturation of existing Ryan White grantees, and you have or can establish 340B pharmacy access.

Pursue Part A or B subgrants instead if: You provide support services (case management, housing, transportation, food) rather than clinical care. You're in an EMA or TGA with an active planning council. You need funding within 6 months rather than 12 to 18 months (subgrant cycles are faster than federal competitions).

Consider Part D if: Your organization specifically serves women, youth ages 13 to 24, infants, or children with HIV/AIDS. You have perinatal HIV expertise or adolescent medicine capacity.

Wait and build capacity first if: You don't currently serve HIV patients in a clinical setting. You don't have HIV-specific data systems. You can't demonstrate viral load suppression outcomes. A common mistake is applying for Part C as an aspirational grant, hoping to build an HIV program with the award. HRSA funds organizations that are already doing the work and need resources to sustain and expand it. They rarely fund organizations proposing to enter HIV care for the first time through a competitive grant.

For a broader view of health-related funding, see our guide to the best grants for community health centers and our overview of federal grants for nonprofits.

Timeline considerations: Part C competitions open every three years per cohort. If you miss a cycle, you're waiting three years for the next one. Monitor Grants.gov for CFDA 93.918, and sign up for HRSA HIV/AIDS Bureau email notifications. The time between NOFO posting and application deadline is typically 60 to 90 days, which isn't enough time to build clinical infrastructure from scratch. Your preparation should start 12 to 18 months before you expect to apply.

Understanding the Application Process

For Parts C, D, and F, the application process follows HRSA's standard competitive review structure:

1. NOFO release on grants.gov. HRSA posts the full Notice of Funding Opportunity with application instructions, scoring criteria, and forms.
2. Application submission. Applications are submitted through grants.gov with required forms (SF-424, project narrative, budget, attachments).
3. Objective review. Independent review panels score applications on published criteria. Each notice describes how its review panel scores applications.
4. Award decisions. HRSA makes funding decisions based on review scores, geographic distribution, and programmatic priorities.
5. Notice of Award. Funded organizations receive a Notice of Award specifying the budget period, terms, and reporting requirements.

Page limits vary by Part and competition, so check the current notice. Within that limit, the strongest applications allocate the most space to the Need assessment (with local epidemiological and service gap data), the Methodology section (with specific clinical protocols and performance targets), and the Evaluation plan (with measurable outcomes tied to HRSA's performance measures).

For tips on structuring your application narrative and budget, see our guide on how to write a federal grant proposal. Budget errors are a surprisingly common reason for applications to be returned without review. HRSA's Budget Period and Project Period requirements are strict: if your SF-424A doesn't match your budget narrative, or if your indirect cost rate isn't supported by a current negotiated rate agreement, the application may not make it to review. Have someone who has successfully submitted HRSA applications review your budget forms before submission.

Sources

• HRSA HIV/AIDS Bureau: https://hab.hrsa.gov/
• Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program legislation: Title XXVI, Public Health Service Act
• CFDA 93.914 (Part A), 93.917 (Part B), 93.918 (Part C), 93.153 (Part D), 93.928, 93.145, and 93.924 (Part F): USASpending.gov
• HRSA's Ryan White budget table
• HRSA Part A EMAs and TGAs
• HRSA 340B Drug Pricing Program: https://www.hrsa.gov/opa
• HRSA HIV/AIDS Bureau Performance Measures: https://www.hrsa.gov/grants
• Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program Annual Client-Level Data Report (RSR)
• Grants.gov NOFO listings for CFDA 93.918, 93.153, 93.928, 93.145, 93.924
• Grantsights grant database for Ryan White program awards and analysis
• Grantsights pricing for the $29 one-time grant match plan