NEADA National Energy Assistance Survey

1
NEADA National Energy Assistance Survey NEADA
Annual Meeting June 7, 2004 Jacqueline
Berger Donnell Butler
2
Survey Goals

• Interview a nationally representative sample of
  LIHEAP-recipient households
• Document the choices that LIHEAP-recipient
  households make when faced with unaffordable home
  energy bills
• Compare and contrast the findings from this study
  with other low-income energy research studies
• Furnish data and tables that can be used by
  policymakers and researchers

3
Survey Design

• Random selection of 20 states to represent LIHEAP
  recipients around the country
• 7 states unable to participate, substitutes
  chosen
• Telephone interviews conducted between November
  and December 2003 (1978 respondents)
• Mail follow-up conducted in January and February
  2004 (183 respondents)
• Total of 2,161 completed interviews

4
States Surveyed
California Colorado Georgia Delaware
Iowa Louisiana Maine Massachusetts
Minnesota Montana New Mexico New York
North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Pennsylvania
Rhode Island Virginia Washington Wisconsin
5
(No Transcript)
6
(No Transcript)
7
(No Transcript)
8
(No Transcript)
9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
Summary of Findings

• Households with elderly and disabled members are
  more likely to receive LIHEAP every year
• Almost all LIHEAP-recipient households take
  constructive actions to reduce their energy bills

24
Summary of Findings (continued)

• In the past five years
• 28 did not make a rent or mortgage obligation
• 22 went without food for at least one day
• 38 went without medical or dental care
• 30 went without full prescription
• 21 became sick because home was too cold
• 7 became sick because home was too hot

25
Summary of Findings (continued)

• In the past year
• 8 had electricity shut off due to non-payment
• 17 were unable to use main source of heat due to
  discontinued utility service or inability to pay
  for fuel

26
Summary of Findings (continued)

• Energy Insecurity scale
• Developed with Roger Colton
• Measures all aspects of low-income energy
  affordability
• Can measure incremental change in circumstances

27
Summary of Findings (continued)

• Energy Insecurity scale
• Crisis definition the household has lost energy
  service or faced unsafe situations due to
  inability to pay the energy bill
• 62 of LIHEAP-recipient households are in crisis
• Households with elderly members are less likely
  to be in crisis and households with young
  children are more likely to be in crisis
• Households with the highest energy burden are
  most likely to be in crisis

28
Summary of Findings (continued)

• LIHEAP Impact
• 62 said it helped restore heat
• 54 said would have kept home at unsafe
  temperature if LIHEAP had not been available
• 48 said would have had electricity or home
  heating fuel discontinued if LIHEAP had not been
  available
• 88 said LIHEAP has been very important in
  helping meet needs

29
Key Findings

• Low-income households have high energy burdens
• LIHEAP only serves a small fraction of eligible
  households
• Households that receive LIHEAP still face
  significant hardship in attempting to pay energy
  bills
• Some of the vulnerable groups show greater need
  for LIHEAP assistance
• LIHEAP makes a significant difference for
  recipient households

30
Potential Future Research

• Comparison of state LIHEAP procedures and
  low-income energy programs
• Survey research and technical assistance
• Survey conducted with additional states
• Tracking study repeat the 2003 survey
• New survey module on program administration
• Research on non-recipients