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 North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Pennsylvania Rhode Island Virginia Washington Wisconsin

Figure 1 describes the scope of the energy burden problem

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