NEADA National Energy Assistance Survey
NEADA Annual Meeting
June 7, 2004
Jacqueline Berger
Donnell Butler
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
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
States Surveyed
California
Colorado
Georgia
Delaware
Iowa
Louisiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Montana
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Washington
Wisconsin
North Carolina North Dakota
Rhode Island
Virginia
Figure 1: Mean Total Residenital Energy Burden and Home Heating
and Cooling Burden
Mean Burden
16%
12%
8%
4%
0%
Total Residential Energy Burden
Home Heating and Cooling Burden
Burden Type
Below 150 Percent of Poverty
At or Above 150 Percent of Poverty
Figure 2: Number of Households with Severe Energy Burden
Number of Households (millions)
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Total
LIHEAP incomeeligible
Below 150% of
poverty
Below 100% of
poverty
Elderly (Age 65 or
older)
Population Type
Severe Total Residential Energy Burden
Severe Home Heating and Cooling Burden
Child (Age 12 or
younger)
Percent of Households
Figure 3: Distribution of Pre-LIHEAP Energy Burden and
Post-LIHEAP Energy Burden
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0-5%
6-10%
11-15%
16-20%
21-25%
>25%
Energy Burden
Pre-LIHEAP Total Residential Energy Burden
Post-LIHEAP Total Residential Energy Burden
Figure 4: Percent of LIHEAP Recipient Households with
Vulnerable Group Members
Percent of Households
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Elderly (Age 60 or
Older)
Disabled
Child (Age 18 or
Younger)
Household Type
Young Child (Age
5 or under)
Single Parent
Figure 5: Annual Income of LIHEAP Recipients
Percent of Households
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Less than
$5,000
$5,001 - $10,000
$10,001 $15,000
$15,000 $30,000
Incom e
$30,000 or more
Don't Know /
Refused
Figure 6: Number of Years Households Received LIHEAP in
Past Five Years
Percent of Households
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
2
3
4
Num ber of Years Received LIHEAP
All
Elderly
Disabled
Young Child
Non-Vulnerable
5
Figure 7: State Reported Mean LIHEAP Benefits Received
$350
$300
Mean Benefit
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
Heating
Cooling
Crisis
LIHEAP Benefit Type
Total
Figure 8: Actions Taken to Lower Energy Bills
Percent of Households
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Performed at
least one of the
follow ing
actions:
Put plastic on
w indow s
Turn dow n the
heat w hen you
go to bed
Keep shades
and curtains
closed in
daytime
Action Taken
Use fans and Wash clothes in Use compact
open w indow s
cold w ater
fluorescent light
bulbs
Figure 9: Experiences with Housing Problems Due to Energy
Bills in Past Five Years
Percent of Households
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Didn't make full rent or
mortgage payment
Evicted from home or
apartment
Moved in w ith friends or
family
Housing Problem
Moved into shelter or
been homeless
Figure 10: Experiences with Other Expenses Due to Energy
Bills in Past Five Years
Percent of Households
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Went w ithout food for at Went w ithout medical or
least one day
dental care
Didn't fill prescription or Unable to pay energy bill
took less than the full due to medical expenses
dose
Figure11: Health Problems of Household Members Due to
Energy Bills in Past Five Years
Percent of Households
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Became sick because
home w as too cold
Needed to go to a
doctor or hospital
because home w as too
cold
Became sick because
home w as too hot
Health Problem
Needed to go to a
doctor or hospital
because home w as too
hot
Figure 12: Experiences Due to Not Having Enough Money for the Energy Bill During Past Year
Percent of Households
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Worried about
Reduced
Borrowed from a Skipped paying Received notice
paying home
expenses for friend or relative or paid less than
or threat to
energy bill
basic household to pay home
entire home
disconnect or
necessities
energy bill
energy bill
discontinue
electricity or
home heating
fuel
Almost Every Month
Some Months
Closed off part of Kept home at
Left home for
Used kitchen
home because temperature one part of the day stove or oven to
could not afford felt was unsafe because it was
provide heat
to heat or cool it or unhealthy
too hot or too
cold
1 or 2 Months
Never / No
Percent of Households
Figure 13: Experienced Loss of Electricity, Main Source of Heating, or Air
Conditioning During Past Year
15%
12%
9%
6%
3%
0%
Electricity shut-off
Heating system
Unable to use main Unable to use main
Unable to use air
Unable to use air
due to non-payment broken and unable to
source of heat
source of heat
conditioner because conditioner because
pay for repair or
because unable to
because utility
it w as broken, and
utility company
replacement
pay for a fuel
company
unable to pay for discontinued service
delivery
discontinued service
repair or
replacement
Figure 14: Energy Insecurity Scale
80%
Percent of Households
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Thriving
Capable
Stable
Vulnerable
Energy Insecurity Threshold
All
Elderly
Disabled
Young Child
Non-Vulnerable
In-Crisis
Figure 15: Energy Insecurity Scale by Post-LIHEAP Total
Residential Energy Burden
Percent of Households
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Thriving
Capable
Stable
Vulnerable
Energy Insecurity Threshold
Burden 0-10%
Burden 11-20%
Burden >20%
In-Crisis
Figure 16: Percent of Households That Experienced
Discontinued Energy Service in the Past Year and
Reported That LIHEAP Helped Restore Heat
Don't Know
1%
No
36%
Yes
63%
Yes
No
Don't Know
Figure 17: Actions and Experiences That Would Have Been
Taken Had LIHEAP Not Been Available:
Percent of Households
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Would you have w orried about
paying home energy bill?
Would you have needed to keep
home temperature at unsafe or
unhealthy levels?
Would you have had electricity
or home heating fuel
discontinued?
Percent of Households
Figure 18: Importance of LIHEAP
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Very Important
Somew hat Important
Of Little Importance
Not At All Important
Im portance Scale
All
Elderly
Disabled
Young Child
Non-Vulnerable
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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