Colorado LEAP and EOC
Service Delivery Evaluation
Jackie Berger
February 25, 2009
Introduction
• House Bill 08-1837
• Required the Colorado Governor’s Commission
on Low-Income Energy Assistance to:
• “Make recommendations to the Governor, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, and
the President of the Senate regarding any
necessary legislative changes to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of the state’s lowincome energy assistance services…”
2
Introduction
• Commission was directed to:
– Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the current
delivery system.
– Review service delivery models from other states.
– Make recommendations regarding the best way to:
•
•
•
•
Target energy assistance resources.
Coordinate public and private energy assistance activities.
Streamline administrative processes.
Suggest changes to statutes, rules, or policies affecting
low-income energy consumers in the state.
3
APPRISE
• Nonprofit research institute
• Located in Princeton, NJ
• Research areas:
– Low-income energy bill payment assistance programs
– Low-income energy efficiency programs
– Energy efficiency market transformation programs
• Clients: Federal LIHEAP, Federal WAP, State
LIHEAP offices, State Energy Efficiency offices,
utility companies
4
Presentation Outline
• Study Design
• Alternative Program Models
• Key Findings and Recommendations
•LEAP Administration
•LEAP Outreach and Targeting
•LEAP Application
•LEAP Application Processing
•LEAP CIP
•EOC Administration
•EOC Outreach and Targeting
•LEAP/EOC Coordination
•LEAP Benefits
•LEAP/Efficiency Coordination
• Summary
5
Study Design
6
Study Design
• Program Design and Implementation
Research
• Low-Income Energy Needs Assessment and
Program Analysis
7
Program Design and
Implementation Research
• Document review
–
–
–
–
–
–
Program plans
Program rules
Training materials
Budgets
Contracts
Agency monitoring reports
• Goal:
– Develop understanding of program details.
8
Program Design and
Implementation Research
• State program manager interviews
– LEAP director
– Director of CO’s Dept. of Human Services, Office of
Self Sufficiency
– EOC manager
• Goals:
– Confirm understanding of programs.
– Fill in gaps with respect to program operation and
procedures.
– Obtain statistics on program resources.
– Explore ideas for program modifications.
9
Program Design and
Implementation Research
• State contractor interviews
– eCallogy manager: LEAP hotline
– Bawmann Group: LEAP outreach
• Goals:
– Understand contractor responsibilities and
procedures.
10
Program Design and
Implementation Research
• Agency manager interviews
– 7 LEAP agencies
– 4 EOC agencies
• Goals:
– Document service delivery procedures.
– Identify barriers to effective and efficient
service delivery.
11
Program Design and
Implementation Research
• Key informant interviews
– 2 county agency directors
– 3 utility company managers
– GEO energy efficiency manager
• Goals:
– Obtain informants’ assessment of LEAP and
EOC programs.
– Discuss informants’ recommendations for
program improvement.
12
Program Design and
Implementation Research
• Other state LIHEAP director interviews
– Minnesota: new IT system
– Montana: web-based system
– Ohio: centralized processing
• Goals:
– Discuss alternative program models.
13
Needs Assessment
and Program Analysis
• Public use data analysis
– American Community Survey data
– Statewide analysis: 2007 data
– Regional analysis: 2005-2007 data
• Goals
– Analyze energy needs of low-income
households.
– Document demographic characteristics of lowincome households.
14
Needs Assessment
and Program Analysis
• Program database analysis
– FY 2008 LEAP database
– FY 2008 EOC database
• Goals
– Analyze program characteristics.
• Client characteristics
• Grant characteristics
• Grant processing
15
Needs Assessment
and Program Analysis
• Client survey
– LEAP recipients, denials, non-applicants
– Low-income households
• Goals
– Analyze client characteristics and needs.
•
•
•
•
Problems meeting energy needs
Need for LEAP
Impact of LEAP
Program awareness
16
Alternative Program
Models
17
Alternative Program
Models
1.
2.
3.
4.
Web-based LEAP application system
Centralized LEAP administration
Coordination of LEAP and EOC assistance
LEAP integration with other social service
programs
5. 12-Month LEAP application period
18
Web-based LEAP
Application System
• Potential advantages
–
–
–
–
–
Increased program efficiency
Additional avenue for LEAP client access
Reduced client burden
Ability for vendors to check benefit status
Ability for vendors to accept/reject electronic
payment
– Possibility for concurrent application to several
programs
19
Web-based LEAP
Application System
• Potential disadvantages
– Investment of time and resources
– Learning curve for system users
– Being the first to implement online client
applications for LEAP
20
Web-based LEAP
Application System
• Recommendation
– Montana and Minnesota offered to share their
systems.
– Conduct further investigation of these systems.
– Assess required level of investment.
– Assess potential benefit.
– Determine if one of these systems could be
used in Colorado.
21
Centralized LEAP
Administration
• Potential Advantages
– Increased efficiency and consistency
– Hiring and training of more workers at the state
level
– Reduced burden on local agencies
– Greater state control over application
processing
22
Centralized LEAP
Administration
• Potential Disadvantages
– Counties still need staff for application support
– Challenges for state office
• Recruit and train many temporary workers
• Office space and computers
23
Centralized LEAP
Administration
• Recommendation
– Consider a gradual move toward more
centralized processing.
– Examples:
• Process expedited applications at state office.
• Process CIP applications at state office.
• Process some applications from larger agencies at
state office.
– Examine impact on efficiency and consider
increased centralization.
24
Coordination of LEAP
and EOC Assistance
• Potential Advantages
– Reduced client confusion
– More equitable distribution of benefits
– Reduced client burden
25
Coordination of LEAP
and EOC Assistance
• Potential Disadvantages
– Benefit of different types of agencies
– Different benefit purpose
– Two agency networks provide more client
access points
26
Coordination of LEAP
and EOC Assistance
• Recommendation
– LEAP and EOC could work in a more
coordinated fashion.
• Take LEAP applications at EOC offices.
• EOC staff contact utility to determine total payment
needed.
• County LEAP agencies could take EOC
applications.
• Create joint LEAP/EOC application.
27
Program Integration
• Potential Advantages
– Reduced client burden
– Increased number of program access points
– Increased administrative efficiency
28
Program Integration
• Potential Disadvantages
– Complication of joint application
– Clients may unknowingly apply more than once
– Unique qualifying rules
29
Program Integration
• Recommendation
– Develop joint application for LEAP and energy
efficiency.
– Allow client to opt for joint application (with
other programs) or just LEAP/energy efficiency
application.
30
12-Month Application
• Potential Advantages
–
–
–
–
Reduced need for seasonal workers
Reduced staff turnover
Less need for training staff
Reduced application processing time
31
12-Month Application
• Potential Disadvantages
– Older income information
– Tendency to apply in the fall
– Clients may move
32
12-Month Application
• Recommendation
– Mail applications to seniors in August.
• Seniors are a more stable population.
• Seniors represent about 25% of caseload.
– Send award or denial letters at time of
application.
– Send notice of award amount in November.
33
Alternative Models –
Complimentary Approaches
• Examples
– Increased EOC/LEAP coordination and joint
online application.
– 12-Month application handled by state staff.
– LEAP agencies doing EOC applications will
smooth out the workflow and help with a 12month application system.
34
Key Findings and
Recommendations
35
Key Findings and
Recommendations
•LEAP Administration
•LEAP Outreach and Targeting
•LEAP Application
•LEAP CIP
•EOC Administration
•EOC Outreach and Targeting
•LEAP Application Processing
•LEAP Benefits
•LEAP/EOC Coordination
•LEAP/Efficiency Coordination
36
Key Findings and
Recommendations:
LEAP Administration
37
LEAP Administration
• Working Well
–
–
–
–
–
–
Program documentation
Data collection and maintenance
Vendor agreements
LEAP help line
Training
Quality Control
• Areas for Review
– Administrative funding
– LEAP help line
– Seasonal workers
38
LEAP Administration
Recommendations
• Administrative funding: Re-evaluate county
LEAP agency distributions.
• Agency funding requests: Consider requests
at the beginning of the season.
• LEAP help line: Route all client calls to the
hotline first.
• Data analysis: Assess program performance
and target areas for improvement.
39
LEAP Administration
Recommendations
• Centralized application processing: Test
gradual move toward more centralized
approach.
• IT system: Examine potential for update.
40
Key Findings and
Recommendations:
LEAP Outreach and
Targeting
41
LEAP Outreach
And Targeting
Working Well: Reaching
Households In Need
Bills >$2,000
Borrowed to pay
energy bills
Disconnect notice
Utility shut off
LEAP Recipient
26%
39%
Low-Income
12%
14%
38%
10%
15%
0%
42
LEAP Outreach
And Targeting
Working Well:
Targeting Seniors
% of Low-Income
Households in CO
with Seniors
24%
% of LEAP Clients
with Senior
Household Members
28%
43
LEAP Outreach
And Targeting
How Client Heard About LEAP
Mailed application
Social services
Friend
Heating company
Food stamp office
Direct mailer
LEAP poster
Television
Recipient
50%
13%
12%
11%
11%
7%
6%
4%
Denial
35%
15%
17%
14%
13%
5%
8%
5%
Working
Well
Area for
Review 44
LEAP Outreach
And Targeting
Area for Review:
Only Through Television
All
Seniors
Disabled
Children
Recipient
Number
%
1,858
2%
472
2%
487
2%
915
2%
Denial
Number
341
54
46
181
%
2%
2%
2%
2%
45
LEAP Outreach
And Targeting
Area for Review:
Received Application in Mail
Yes
No
Don’t Know
Non-Applicants
57%
39%
4%
46
LEAP Outreach and
Targeting
• Areas for Review
– Agency LEAP outreach and outreach plans
– Agency targeted outreach
– State oversight of agency outreach
47
LEAP Outreach and
Targeting Recommendations
• Mailed applications: Send to additional groups
of households.
• Mailed packet: Consider more noticeable
package.
• Television advertising: Consider whether it is
cost-effective.
• LEAP website: Make it more client-focused.
• Agency outreach: Increase state assistance and
oversight.
48
Key Findings and
Recommendations:
LEAP Application
49
LEAP Application
• Working Well
– Application information
– Internet availability
• Areas for Review
–
–
–
–
Application issues
Incomplete applications
Affidavit
Lawful presence requirement
50
LEAP Application
Area for Review:
Denials’ Need for LEAP
Bills >$2,000
Borrowed to pay
energy bills
Disconnect notice
Utility shut off
LEAP Recipient
26%
39%
Denials
29%
52%
38%
10%
51%
17%
51
LEAP Application
Area for Review:
Application Types
Long
Spanish
OAP
LEAP Recipient
92%
1%
8%
Denials
96%
1%
2%
52
LEAP Application
Recommendations
• Short application: Examine impact of
elimination on OAP applicants and denials.
• Incomplete applications: Test methods to
reduce rate.
• Valid ID: Train agency staff to accept all
forms.
• Revise affidavit: Make less confusing for
clients.
53
Key Findings and
Recommendations:
LEAP Application
Processing
54
LEAP Application
Processing
• Working Well
– Pending applications
– Application processing review
• Areas for Review
– Application processing requirements
55
LEAP Application
Processing
Area for Review:
Influx of Applications in the Fall
Oct 2007
Nov 2007
Dec 2007
Jan 2008
Feb 2008
Mar 2008
Apr 2008
Recipient Denial
7%
2%
43%
30%
16%
18%
13%
16%
8%
12%
6%
9%
7%
12%
All Applications
6%
41%
16%
13%
9%
7%
8%
56
LEAP Application
Processing
Area for Review:
Date Received to First Payment
LEAP Recipient
<15 Days
8%
15-29 Days
24%
30-44 Days
23%
45-59 Days
20%
60-89 Days
22%
90 Days or More
3%
57
LEAP Application
Processing
Area for Review:
Date Received to Signature Date
<15
Oct
2007
53%
Nov
2007
27%
Dec
2007
24%
15-29
30%
22%
14%
20%
24%
30-44
12%
21%
17%
22%
7%
45+
4%
30%
45%
15%
1%
Days
Jan/Feb Mar/Apr
2008
2008
43%
67%
58
LEAP Application
Processing Recommendations
• Application processing requirement: Assess
how to eliminate inefficient 2-step process.
• Application season: Mail applications to
seniors in August.
• Centralized application processing: Process
some applications at state office.
59
Key Findings and
Recommendations:
LEAP Benefits
60
LEAP Benefits
• Working Well
– Benefit formula
[(6-month heating cost) * (1- % reduction)] –
(monthly income*household contribution)
– Household contribution depends on poverty level
– Reduction in heating cost for:
• Electric heat (use % of total electric costs)
• Shared living arrangement
• Subsidized housing
61
LEAP Benefits
Working Well:
Heating Cost Data
Electronic Data Transfer
Manual Data Transfer
No Data – Heat in Rent
No Data – Electronic Vendor
No Data - Other
Recipients
68%
9%
6%
6%
11%
62
LEAP Benefits
Working Well:
LEAP Payments by Heat Costs
<$250
<$250
$250 - $499
$500 - $749
$750 +
Mean
91%
9%
<1%
<1%
$192
Recipient Heat Costs
$250- $500- $750$1,000 +
$499 $749 $999
57% 21%
9%
3%
31% 32%
13%
6%
11% 33%
25%
10%
1%
14%
52%
80%
$289 $494 $697
$835
63
LEAP Benefits
Working Well:
LEAP Payments by Heat Burden
<$250
$250 - $499
$500 - $749
$750 +
Mean
<=3%
77%
19%
3%
1%
$231
Recipient Heat Burden
3%-6% 6%-9%
22%
9%
37%
22%
30%
31%
11%
38%
$466
$635
>9%
11%
19%
21%
49%
$669
64
LEAP Benefits
Working Well:
If LEAP Had Not Been Available
Problems that May Have Been Faced
Worried about paying energy bill
Kept home at unsafe/unhealthy temperature
Had electricity or heating fuel discontinued
Recipients
81%
70%
63%
65
LEAP Benefits
Working Well:
Reduction in Heating Burden
<=3%
3% - 6%
6% - 9%
>9%
Recipients
Pre-LEAP
Post-LEAP
Burden
Burden
36%
91%
37%
7%
14%
2%
12%
1%
66
LEAP Benefits
• Working Well
– LEAP benefit disbursement
• Areas for Review
– Direct client payment
67
LEAP Benefits
Area for Review:
Heating Burden by Poverty Group
Recipients
Poverty
Group
<=3%
3% - 6%
6% - 9%
>9%
<50%
PreLEAP
3%
18%
22%
57%
51%-100%
101%-185%
PostPre- Post- Pre- PostLEAP LEAP LEAP LEAP LEAP
69%
20%
91% 58% 96%
17%
46%
7%
36%
4%
7%
23%
1%
6%
<1%
7%
11%
1%
1%
<1%
68
LEAP Benefits
Area for Review:
Electric Diversion
Initial
Final
Advance
CIP
Electric Diversion
Recipients
Number
Percent
55,683
60%
92,182
100%
1,491
2%
1,324
1%
40
<1%
69
LEAP Benefits
Recommendations
• Benefit formula: Consider increasing
benefits for clients with income below 50
percent of poverty.
• Electric diversion payments: Consider
eliminating this benefit.
• Electronic card payment: Review number
that are not spent and consider additional
education.
70
Key Findings and
Recommendations:
Crisis Intervention
Program
71
Crisis Intervention
Program
• Working Well
– CIP process
• Areas for Review
– Energy conservation education
72
Crisis Intervention Program
Recommendations
• CIP and energy conservation: Make sure
that LEAP agency staff understand
requirement and weatherization agencies
fulfill the requirement.
73
Key Findings and
Recommendations:
EOC Administration
74
EOC Administration
• Working Well
– Data system
– Case management
• Areas for Review
– Administrative funding
– EOC agency autonomy
Application times
Grant amount
Undocumented residents
Case management
Recent payments
Repeat grants
Assistance with large bills
75
EOC Administration
Recommendations
• Agency administrative funding: Consider
additional funding for agencies that provide
many clients with grants to more than one fuel
vendor.
• Agency procedures: Consider requirements for
more consistent agency procedures.
• Case management: Assess whether some
agencies need to place additional emphasis on
case management.
76
EOC Administration
Recommendations
• High bills: Consider extending high bill process.
• Data analysis: Assess program performance and
target areas for improvement.
77
Key Findings and
Recommendations:
EOC Outreach and
Targeting
78
EOC Outreach
And Targeting
• Working Well
– EOC agency recruitment
• Areas for Review
– EOC agency outreach
– EOC assessment of agency outreach
79
EOC Outreach
And Targeting
Area for Review:
Statistics By Agency
Children
Elderly
Disabled
Mean
Min
60%
8%
32%
0%
0%
0%
10
39%
0%
11%
Percentile
25
50
53%
63%
2%
6%
21%
29%
75
71%
9%
39%
90
76%
15%
57%
Max
94%
50%
95%
80
EOC Outreach
And Targeting
Area for Review:
Awareness of Energy Outreach Colorado
LEAP
Recipient
Yes
15%
No
80%
Don’t Know
5%
LEAP
Denial
6%
94%
0%
NonApplicant
15%
85%
0%
LowIncome
16%
81%
2%
Survey question: Do you know that there is a program through
Energy Outreach Colorado that may provide help with your energy
bills if you are behind on your payments? Energy Outreach
Colorado is a program that may help you with your energy bill in
addition to LEAP or instead of LEAP.
81
EOC Outreach and
Targeting Recommendations
• Senior households: EOC should recruit more
agencies that focus on serving the elderly.
• Agency outreach: EOC should review agency
outreach and work with agencies to develop
more comprehensive strategies.
82
Key Findings and
Recommendations:
Coordination of
LEAP and EOC
83
Coordination of LEAP
And EOC
• Working Well
– More comprehensive benefits
– EOC grant fills gaps
•Benefit amount
•Denials
•Quick turn-around
•Electric benefit
•12 Months •Different agencies
• Areas for Review
– Client confusion
– Inefficiency
– Equity
84
Coordination of LEAP and
EOC Recommendations
• Application availability and assistance: Ensure
LEAP applications are available at EOC offices
and assist clients.
• Joint benefit determination: EOC agency staff
could contact utility to determine total of LEAP
and EOC payment needed to avert shutoff.
85
Coordination of LEAP and
EOC Recommendations
• County agency EOC grant processing: LEAP
staff could take EOC applications for clients
who need additional assistance.
• Joint application: LEAP and EOC could develop
a joint application that would be sent to EOC if
LEAP was not enough or was denied.
86
Key Findings and
Recommendations:
Coordination of
LEAP and Energy
Efficiency
87
Coordination of LEAP
And Energy Efficiency
• Working Well
– Weatherization referral
• Areas for Review
– Weatherization requirement
– Awareness of weatherization services
– No direct application
88
Coordination of LEAP and
Energy Efficiency
Recommendations
• Joint application: Create joint application for
LEAP and energy efficiency services.
89
Summary
90
Program Strengths
• LEAP benefit formula
• LEAP benefit distribution
• Ability of LEAP and EOC together to meet lowincome needs for assistance
91
Areas with Greatest Potential
for Improvement
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
LEAP administrative efficiency
LEAP applications approved on first submittal
LEAP application processing time
EOC outreach to seniors
Awareness of EOC
Coordination of LEAP and EOC
Joint application for LEAP and energy
efficiency
92
Contact Information
Jackie Berger
Director of Program Evaluation
APPRISE
32 Nassau Street, Suite 200
Princeton, NJ 08542
[email protected]
609-252-8009
www.appriseinc.org
93