NJ SHARES Evaluation of 2013 Grants

NJ SHARES Evaluation of 2013 Grants
October 24, 2014

Evaluation Goals Characterize 2013 NJ SHARES grant recipients
Characterize 2013 NJ SHARES grants Examine good faith payments Analyze post-grant payment compliance 2

Evaluation Components
Part 1 – NJ SHARES database analysis Characterizes grant recipients Characterizes grants Part 2 – Utility transaction data analysis “Good Faith” Payment Analysis Grant Coverage Analysis Post-Grant Payment Compliance 3

Evaluation Data Data received from all utilities. ACE ETG NJNG PSE&G
RECO SJG JCP&L 4

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Counts
Number of Grants Grant Dollars 2007 Recipients 6,536 $3,842,183 2008 Recipients 11,950 $7,127,444 2009 Recipients 18,534 $11,342,111 2010 Recipients 11,635 $7,125,485 2011 Recipients 3,193 $1,667,327 2012 Recipients 2,461 $1,458,928 2013 Recipients 2,445 $1,620,820 5

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Counts by Fuel Supplier
2013 Grants Utility Number of Grants Percent of All Grants Grant Dollars Percent of Grant Dollars ACE 149 6% $61,441 4% ETG 83 3% $46,120 JCP&L 201 8% $69,309 NJNG 129 5% $73,070 PSE&G 1,762 72% $1,301,719 80% RECO 4 <1% $1,200 SJG 117 $67,961 Oil/Propane -- TOTAL 2,445 100% $1,620,820 6

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Counts by Grant Type
2013 Grants Grant Type Number of Grants Percent of All Grants Grant Dollars Percent of Grant Dollars Electric Only 475 19% $135,900 8% Gas Only 422 17% $238,038 15% Electric & Gas 1,378 56% $1,138,422 70% Electric Heat 170 7% $108,460 TOTAL 2,445 100% $1,620,820 7

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Counts by County
2013 Grant Recipients County Number Served Percent of Total Atlantic 92 4% Middlesex 178 7% Bergen 138 6% Monmouth 105 Burlington 249 10% Morris 121 5% Camden 129 Ocean 72 3% Cape May 2 <1% Passaic 69 Cumberland 28 1% Salem 12 Essex 524 21% Somerset 63 Gloucester 70 Sussex 5 Hudson 275 11% Union 90 Hunterdon 11 Warren 16 Mercer 196 8% TOTAL 2,445 100% 8

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Counts by Agency Type
Q1 2008 Q1 2009 Q1 2010 Q1 2011 Q1 2012 Q1 2013 Q1 2014 # % Legislative Office 64 2% 1,595 14% 789 12% 159 8% 57 6% 87 16 Other Nonprofit 4,194 98% 9,676 86% 5,727 88% 1,745 92% 933 94% 639 235 TOTAL 4,258 11,271 6,516 1,904 990 726 251 Note: NJ SHARES began working with legislative offices in 2008. 9

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Number of Years of Grant Receipt
Percent of Grant Recipients 2010 Evaluation 2011 Evaluation 2012 Evaluation 2013 Evaluation 2014 1 Year 78% 79% 77% 2 Years 15% 14% 3 Years 4% 5% 4 Years 2% 5 Years 1% Note: Fewer than one percent received grants in six or more years. 10

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Income Sources
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Employment 88% 89% 86% 83% 78% 80% 84% Pension or Social Security 12% 13% 14% 18% 23% 22% 20% Unemployment Comp. 6% 5% 15% 11% 10% Disability 4% Child Support 3% 2% Other 11

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Annual Household Income
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 <$20,000 6% 5% 3% <1% $20,000 - $29,999 28% 22% 18% 12% 9% 13% $30,000 - $39,999 29% 26% 23% 21% 24% 25% $40,000 - $49,999 19% 20% $50,000 + 32% 41% 48% 42% 40% Mean Annual Income $38,921 $41,844 $45,567 $49,133 $51,931 $49,429 $48,578 $48,447 12

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Poverty Level
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 <175% 6% 5% 4% 1% <1% % 24% 20% 2% 8% % 18% 17% 16% 11% 3% 15% 19% 225% - 249% 14% 13% 22% 250% - 299% 31% 36% 28% 27% 26% 300% + 29% 32% 42% 34% 30% Mean Poverty Level 257% 273% 277% 280% 294% 278% 275% 270% LIHEAP Eligible 175% 225% 200% Note 1: As of January 23, 2009, income eligibility is capped at 400% of the Federal Poverty Level. Note 2: LIHEAP eligibility is for fiscal years. 13

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Composition
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 <6 Years Old 29% 26% 28% 23% 22% 20% 19% ≤ 18 Years Old 61% 60% 64% 58% 57% 54% 51% 52% > 60 Years Old 8% 13% 12% 16% 18% 21% 17% Note: A household can be included in more than one category. 14

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Agencies Focused on Seniors
2013 Recipients Elderly Agencies Other Agencies All Agencies # % Household Member Over 60 No 222 77% 1,803 84% 2,025 83% Yes 67 23% 353 16% 420 17% Total 289 100% 2,156 2,445 % of all recipients 12% 88% 2012 Recipients Elderly Agencies Other Agencies All Agencies # % Household Member Over 60 No 133 71% 1,865 82% 1,998 81% Yes 54 29% 409 18% 463 19% Total 187 100% 2,274 2,461 % of all recipients 8% 92% Not Updated 15

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Composition
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Single Parent 14% 13% 27% 24% 21% 18% 17% 26% Elderly Only 4% 5% 9% 7% 8% 12% 10% Note: “Single Parent” and “Elderly Only” households were identified using the age grouping variables in the database, not the variable “Category”. 16

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Main Heating Fuel
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Natural Gas 82% 83% 84% 81% 78% 88% Electric 13% 11% 7% 6% Oil 5% 4% 10% 12% 3% Propane <1% 1% Other 17

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Recipient-Reported Bill Balance at Grant Application
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 < $500 33% 28% 30% 26% 27% 31% 19% $500 - $999 38% 37% 41% 34% 36% 39% $1,000 - $1,499 16% 18% 20% 17% 23% $1,500 - $2,000 6% 8% 9% 11% $2,000 + 7% 10% Mean Balance $892 $993 $879 $963 $1,070 $1,028 $936 $1,124 18

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Mean Reported Bill Balance at Grant Application
Grant Type 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Electric Only $563 $566 $557 $635 $723 $687 $737 $767 $769 Gas Only $654 $740 $762 $782 $831 $776 $764 $685 $802 Electric & Gas $1,108 $1,268 $1,168 $1,298 $1,443 $1,407 $1,438 $1,332 $1,324 Electric Heat $823 $904 $1,010 $1,048 $1,088 $1,036 $1,093 $1,306 All Grants $892 $993 $879 $963 $1,070 $1,028 $936 $1,124 19

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Collections Actions Pending at Application
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Past Due Balance 8% 3% 17% 20% 26% 30% 38% 27% 21% Past Due Warning Notice 47% 18% 19% 23% 13% 9% 7% Shut-Off Date Not Passed 22% 16% 15% 24% Shut-Off Date Passed 49% 41% 39% 32% 34% 40% Utility Shut-Off 0% 4% 6% 10% Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% because a household with grants for more than one utility may have two different collections actions. 20

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Reason for Grant Application
Reason for Application 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Temporary Financial Crisis 60% 68% -- High Energy Costs 27% 24% 69% 77% 78% 73% 71% 76% 14%* Medical/Health 7% 5% 11% 8% 6% 20% Unemployment 3% 2% 4% 10% 9% 15% Reduced Hours/Change in Employment 35% Other 18% Not Updated *High Energy Costs was a standard response option in previous years’ data, but was not included in the 2013 data. For 2013 grantees, this reason for application was identified using verbatim responses for the “Other” option. Note: Participants that chose the “Other” option may have indicated more than one reason in their response, which is why the percentages sum to more than 100%. 21

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Detailed 2013 Recipients’ “Other” Reasons for Grant Application
Unspecified Bills/Costs Reduced Income Household Changes (spouse leaving or dying or a new baby) Mortgage or Rent Financial Hardship Home Repairs Tuition/ School Expenses Car Repairs 22

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Guidelines - Maximum Grant Amounts
2005 2014 Electric Only $250 $300 $500 Gas Only $700 Electric & Gas $1,000 $1,200 Electric Heat Oil/Propane -- 23

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Amounts
2013 Recipients Grant Amount Grant Type Electric Only Gas Only Electric & Gas Electric Heat < $300 16% 11% 4% 6% $300 84% 0% 1% $301 - $699 42% 23% 18% $700 47% <1% 75% $701 - $999 24% $1,000 49% Mean Grant $286 $564 $826 $638 24

NJ SHARES Database Analysis % Receiving Max Grant Allowed
Grant Type Electric Only Gas Only Electric & Gas Electric Heat Oil Propane 2005 89% 76% 67% -- 2006 40% 48% 2007 75% 50% 43% 58% 2008 78% 47% 53% 62% 16% 2009 80% 56% 65% 15% 2010 82% 71% 17% 9% 2011 46% <1% 2012 84% 34% 45% 100% 2013 49% Not updated 25

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Mean Grant Amount By Utility
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 ACE $286 $331 $329 $350 $359 $367 $380 $355 $412 ETG $237 $504 $572 $579 $589 $541 $536 $528 $556 JCP&L $278 $303 $333 $332 $339 $362 $353 $345 NJNG $246 $557 $563 $547 $583 $551 $571 $470 $566 PSE&G $420 $669 $698 $710 $704 $740 $659 $700 $739 RECO $284 $319 $326 $309 $360 $389 $300 SJG $236 $544 $586 $565 $594 $580 $555 $527 $581 26

PART 2 Utility Data Analysis Methodology
Focused on Q grant recipients Transaction data from utilities Files contain payments, charges, account balances Analyzed: Existence of “Good Faith Payment” Grant coverage of pre-grant balances Ratio of payments made to charges incurred at key intervals Used Q and Q recipients as comparison groups 27

Utility Data Analysis Sample Group Definitions
2012 Q ANALYSIS PERIOD Q ANALYSIS PERIOD Q ANALYSIS PERIOD GRANT DATE GRANT DATE + 1 YEAR + 1 DAY GRANT DATE + 1 DAY GRANT DATE – 1 DAY 2013 2014 1 YEAR 28

“Good Faith” Payment Analysis “Good Faith” Period Definition
The “Good Faith” payment period is defined as 90 days prior to intake through the day before the grant is applied to the account. Only payments made by the customer are counted. “GOOD FAITH” PERIOD INTAKE DATE – 90 DAYS GRANT DATE INTAKE DATE GRANT DATE – 1 DAY 29

“Good Faith” Payment Analysis Attrition Analysis
Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients Number Submitted 981 725 206 Number Returned 970 724 Eligible for Analysis* 870 631 180 Percent of Requested Accounts 89% 87% * An account was eligible for analysis if the NJ SHARES grant could be located in the utility transactions data, the utility-reported account balances did not conflict with the utility transactions data, and there were at least three months of pre-grant utility data. 30

“Good Faith” Payment Analysis Percent Making “Good Faith” Payment
Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients Utility That Received Grant 96% 94% Any Utility 97% 31

Percentage Making “Good Faith” Payment
“Good Faith” Payment Analysis Percent Making “Good Faith” Payment By Utility Q Recipients Utility Number of Customers Percentage Making “Good Faith” Payment Utility That Received Grant Any Utility ACE 4 50% 100% ETG 5 80% JCP&L 20 90% NJNG 6 PSE&G 140 97% RECO -- SJG TOTAL 180 94% Note: SJG had 4 of 5 customers make $100 or more in good faith payments. The other customer paid $72 to SJG during the good faith period and had a municipal electric utility where additional payments may have been made. 32

“Good Faith” Payment Analysis Amount of Good Faith Payments Made
Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients $0 2% 3% $1 - $99 $100 22% 24% 21% $101 - $250 26% 28% $251 - $500 25% $501 + 23% 19% Mean Payment $366 $324 $326 33

“Good Faith” Payment Analysis Amount of Good Faith Payments Made By Utility
Q Recipients Payments ACE ETG JCP&L NJNG PSE&G RECO SJG Total Number of Customers 4 5 20 6 140 180 Mean Payment $271 $289 $317 $337 -- $114 $326 34

“Good Faith” Payment Analysis Amount of Good Faith Payments Made By Poverty Level
Q Recipients Payments Federal Poverty Level <225% % % ≥ 300% Number of Customers 22 35 47 76 $0 5% 6% 2% 3% $1 - $99 0% $100 32% 29% 9% 22% $101 - $250 23% 40% 28% $251 - $500 27% 24% $501 + 17% 15% 21% Mean Payment $327 $314 $308 $342 35

“Good Faith” Payment Analysis Number of Payments for Those Paying at Least $100
Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients 25th Percentile 1 50th Percentile 2 75th Percentile 3 Mean Number of Payments 2.1 2.0 36

Grant Coverage Analysis Attrition Analysis
Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients Number Submitted 981 725 206 Number Returned 970 724 Eligible for Analysis* 902 663 195 Percent of Requested Accounts 94% 91% 95% * An account was eligible for analysis if the NJ SHARES grant could be located in the utility transactions data and the utility-reported account balances did not conflict with the utility transactions data. 37

Grant Coverage Analysis Grant Coverage
Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients Mean Pre-Grant Balance $957 $1,075 $1,226 Mean Grant $623 $648 $776 Mean Post-Grant Balance $333 $428 $450 Mean Percent of Pre-Grant Balances Covered 80% 79% 84% 38

Grant Coverage Analysis Grant Coverage By Utility
Q Recipients ACE ETG JCPL NJNG PSE&G RECO SJG Total Number of Customers 43 26 60 452 1 38 663 Mean Pre-Grant Balance $1,216 $801 $818 $774 $1,170 $1,116 $724 $1,075 Mean Grant $348 $556 $354 $562 $741 $300 $508 $648 Mean Post-Grant Balance $868 $246 $463 $212 $429 $816 $216 $428 Mean Percent of Pre-Grant Balances Covered 76% 70% 80% 27% 74% 79% 39

Grant Coverage Analysis Grant Coverage By Grant Type
Q Recipients Electric Only Gas Only Electric & Gas Electric Heat Number of Customers 123 141 352 47 Mean Pre-Grant Balance $777 $769 $1,284 $1,211 Mean Grant $276 $565 $817 $601 Mean Post-Grant Balance $501 $204 $467 $609 Mean Percent of Pre-Grant Balances Covered 70% 83% 81% 68% 40

Grant Coverage Analysis Grant Coverage By Main Heating Fuel
Q Recipients Electric Gas Oil Other Number of Customers 50 593 16 4 Mean Pre-Grant Balance $1,203 $1,074 $812 $774 Mean Grant $583 $665 $299 $300 Mean Post-Grant Balance $619 $409 $513 $474 Mean Percent of Pre-Grant Balances Covered 67% 79% 98% 42% 41

Payment Compliance Analysis Attrition Analysis
Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients Number Submitted 863 725 206 Number Returned 859 724 Accounts with Usable Data* 855 720 204 Amount of Data Available for Analysis 3 Months 667 634 154 6 Months 630 578 143 9 Months 594 527 137 12 Months 569 497 126 Percent of Requested Accounts 66% 69% 61% * An account was eligible for analysis if the utility-reported account balances did not conflict with the utility transactions data. 42

Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Percent of Bills Paid
Date Range Months after Grants Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients Q2 2013 3 Months 141% 83% 107% Q3 2013 6 Months 125% 89% 106% Q4 2013 9 Months 121% 91% 101% Q1 2014 12 Months 102% 77% Good payment coverage 2nd year after grant Payment compliance declines at the end of the year following grant receipt. Payment compliance declines prior to grant receipt. 43

Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Percent of Bills Paid
Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients Year After Grant Receipt First Year After Grant Receipt First Second 3 Months 96% 147% 129% 85% 141% 83% 6 Months 102% 137% 101% 116% 93% 125% 89% 9 Months 123% 104% 111% 94% 121% 91% 12 Months 90% 112% 98% >99% Accounts Included 4,211 3,350 1,429 1,089 672 569 497 44

Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Percent of Bills Paid By Utility
Q Recipients ACE ETG JCPL NJNG PSE&G RECO SJG Total Number of Customers 35 17 49 33 334 1 28 497 3 Months 99% 54% 85% >99% 83% 96% 55% 6 Months 95% 72% 88% 98% 90% 82% 74% 89% 9 Months 64% 84% 91% 12 Months 94% 58% 73% 71% 68% 45

Payment Compliance Analysis Percent That Paid More Than 90 and 100 Percent of Billed Amount
2nd year after grant 1st year after grant Year before grant Date Range Month after Grant Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients Pay ≥ 100% Pay ≥ 90% Q2 2013 3 Months 64% 70% 30% 34% 54% 61% Q3 2013 6 Months 66% 75% 33% 43% 55% 62% Q4 2013 9 Months 69% 82% 50% 53% 68% Q1 2014 12 Months 23% 39% 14% 25% 46

Payment Compliance Analysis Percent That Paid More Than 100 Percent of Billed Amount
Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients Year After Grant Receipt First Year After Grant Receipt First Second 3 Months 36% 69% 40% 64% 30% 6 Months 42% 72% 44% 62% 33% 66% 9 Months 38% 71% 51% 34% 12 Months 26% 70% 41% 46% 22% 50% 23% Accounts Included 4,211 3,350 1,429 1,089 672 569 497 47

Payment Compliance Analysis Percent That Paid More Than 90 Percent of Billed Amount
Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients Year After Grant Receipt First Year After Grant Receipt First Second 3 Months 44% 76% 49% 71% 37% 70% 34% 6 Months 53% 81% 59% 73% 75% 43% 9 Months 54% 84% 78% 82% 50% 12 Months 47% 86% 65% 39% Accounts Included 4,211 3,350 1,429 1,089 672 569 497 48

Payment Compliance Analysis By Utility
Q Recipients Pay≥100% ACE ETG JCPL NJNG PSE&G RECO SJG 3 Months 37% 24% 39% 33% 28% 0% 29% 6 Months 40% 35% 32% 36% 9 Months 34% 18% 43% 12 Months 12% 9% Accounts Included 35 17 49 33 334 1 28 49

Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Bill Balance By Utility
Note: There was only one Q RECO grant recipient. 50

Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis
51

Year After Grant Receipt Q1 2006 Q1 2007 Q1 2008 Q1 2009 Q1 2010 Q1 2011 Q1 2012 Q1 2013 Successful 26% 24% 19% 32% 49% 29% Marginal Success 7% 6% 5% Need More Help 67% 70% 76% 61% 62% 44% 69% 66% TOTAL 100% 52

Q Recipients Grant Type Ending Balance <$100 Balance Declined, Ending Balance ≥ $100 Balance Increased by <$100 Balance Increased by TOTAL Electric Only 18% 21% 6% 54% 100% Gas Only 11% 5% 78% Electric & Gas 14% 16% 65% Electric Heat 17% 67%

Note: One account balance did not increase or decrease, but had an ending balance over $100. This account was included in the marginal success group. 54

Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients Year After Grant Receipt First Year After Grant Receipt First Second Successful 32% 73% 49% 50% 26% 53% 29% Marginal Success 6% 7% 12% 5% 10% Need More Help 62% 20% 44% 37% 69% 66% Accounts Included 4,211 3,350 1,429 1,089 672 569 497 55

Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis By Utility
Q Recipients Successful Marginal Success Need More Help 56 56

Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis By Utility
Q Recipients Successful Marginal Success Need More Help Note: There was only one Q RECO grantee. 57 57

Q Recipients Ending Balance <$100 Balance Declined, Ending Balance ≥ $100 Balance Increased by <$100 Balance Increased by Number of Customers 70 74 26 327 Percent of Customers 14% 15% 5% 66% Mean Pre-Grant Balance $587 $1,828 $1,408 $958 Mean Grant Amount $508 $672 $645 $644 Mean Post-Grant Balance $78 $1,156 $763 $314 Mean Number of Payments* 10 9 8 Mean Percent of Bills Paid 107% 115% 97% 70% * Note: Only customer payments are counted. 58

Q Recipients Ending Balance <$100 Balance Declined, Ending Balance ≥ $100 Balance Increased by <$100 Balance Increased by Number of Customers 70 74 26 327 Percent of Customers 14% 15% 5% 66% Mean Charges $1,815 $2,814 $2,586 $2,346 Mean Payments $1,953 $3,233 $2,526 $1,700 59

Q Recipients Balance Increased by $100 - $399 Balance Increased by $400 - $999 Balance Increased by $1,000 + Number of Customers 115 162 50 Percent of Customers 23% 33% 10% Mean Pre-Grant Balance $823 $923 $1,422 Mean Grant Amount $555 $668 $789 Mean Post-Grant Balance $268 $255 $633 Mean Number of Payments* 9 8 7 Mean Percent of Bills Paid 85% 65% 51% * Note: Only customer payments are counted. 60

Q Recipients Balance Increased by $100 - $399 Balance Increased by $400 - $999 Balance Increased by $1,000 + Number of Customers 115 162 50 Percent of Customers 23% 33% 10% Mean Charges $1,971 $2,217 $3,624 Mean Payments $1,733 $1,578 $2,015 61

Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis Mean Charges
Q Recipients Grant Type Balance Increased by $100 - $399 Balance Increased by $400 - $999 Balance Increased by $1,000 + Electric Only $1,495 (31) $2,148 (17) $3,587 (5) Gas Only $1,624 (21) $1,579 (54) $2,020 (7) Electric & Gas $2,365 (53) $2,662 (80) $3,635 (35) Electric Heat $2,086 (10) $2,222 (11) $7,313 (3) TOTAL $1,971 $2,217 $3,624 Note: Number in parenthesis indicates number of accounts in the cell.

Q Recipients Ending Balance <$100 Balance Declined, Ending Balance ≥ $100 Balance Increased by <$100 Balance Increased by Number of Customers 70 74 26 327 Percent of Customers 14% 15% 5% 66% Median Annual Income $42,480 $49,506 $45,288 $47,052 < 225% FPL 20% 16% 27% 18% 225% - 249% FPL 4% 17% 250% - 299% FPL 30% 38% 32% ≥ 300% FPL 34% 39% 31% 33% Percent Single-Parent 21% 8% 28% Percent Elderly-Only 10% 12% 11%

Q Recipients Balance Increased by $100 - $399 Balance Increased by $400 - $999 Balance Increased by $1,000 + Number of Customers 115 162 50 Percent of Customers 23% 33% 10% Median Annual Income $43,392 $47,646 $52,920 < 225% FPL 19% 4% 225% - 249% FPL 11% 17% 30% 250% - 299% FPL 32% 34% ≥ 300% FPL Percent Single-Parent 24% 28% 36% Percent Elderly-Only 12% 64

Payment Compliance Analysis Households with Income Below 225%
Q Recipients Successful Balance Increased by <$100 Balance Increased by $100 - $399 Balance Increased by $400 - $999 Balance Increased by $1,000 + Percent of Customers 29% 8% 33% 2% Mean Pre Grant Balance $1,146 $1,339 $812 $1,108 $885 Mean Post Grant Balance $628 $699 $259 $517 -$34 Mean Charges $2,070 $2,155 $1,801 $2,326 $3,105 Mean Payments $2,408 $2,106 $1,564 $1,699 $1,580 Mean Ending Balance $288 $748 $496 $1,124 $1,491 Percent with >1 Year Grant Receipt 23% 14% 42% 30% 50%

Percent Receiving USF or LIHEAP
Receipt of Energy Assistance Percent Who Received USF or LIHEAP In the 12 Months Following Grant Receipt Q Recipients Utility Number of Customers Percent Receiving USF or LIHEAP ACE 35 11% ETG 17 24% JCP&L 49 6% NJNG 33 9% PSE&G 334 7% RECO 1 0% SJG 28 4% TOTAL 497 8% 66

Percent Receiving USF or LIHEAP
Receipt of Energy Assistance Percent Who Received USF or LIHEAP In the “Good Faith” Period Q Recipients Utility Number of Customers Percent Receiving USF or LIHEAP ACE 35 3% ETG 17 0% JCP&L 47 NJNG 33 PSE&G 295 1% RECO 1 SJG 26 TOTAL 454 67

Key Findings NJ SHARES serves needy households
20% have children under the age of six 26% are single parent households 60% have annual income below $50,000 17% have a family member over 60 However the percent over 60 has declined over past two years NJ SHARES provides grants to those in temporary need of assistance 78% received a grant in only one of the past nine years Recipients made an average of 2.0 payments and $326 in payments in the 90 days preceding the grant 68

Key Findings NJ SHARES serving more households with employment income
Increased from 78% in 2011 to 80% in 2012 to 84% in 2013 Opportunity for referrals 28% have income below 225% of poverty and are eligible for NJCP 69

Key Findings Clients waiting longer to apply for assistance
40% have the shutoff date past, increased from 27% in 2011 and 34% in 2012 Balance at grant application increased from $936 in 2011 to $1,028 in 2012 to $1,124 in 2013 70

Key Findings Q grant recipients had similar levels of success to 2012 29% of Q recipients were successful in their first year, similar to 26% in 2012 Grant recipients may need more than one year to get back on their feet Grant recipients improved their payment behavior in the second year after grant receipt compared to the first (53% successful) Least successful recipients Have the highest energy bills Most likely to have more than one year of NJ SHARES grant receipt (50%) 71

NJ SHARES Evaluation of 2013 Grants

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "NJ SHARES Evaluation of 2013 Grants"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

NJ SHARES Evaluation of 2013 Grants

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "NJ SHARES Evaluation of 2013 Grants"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback