NJ SHARES Evaluation of 2009 Grants

NJ SHARES Evaluation of 2009 Grants
October 15, 2010

Evaluation Goals Characterize 2009 NJ SHARES grant recipients
Characterize 2009 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 Components
Data received from: ACE ETG NJNG PSE&G RECO SJG JCP&L* *JCP&L provided data for a random sample of 103 accounts out of 944 accounts that received grants in Q 4

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Counts by Fuel Supplier
2009 Recipients Utility Number of Grants Percent of All Grants Grant Dollars Percent of Grant Dollars ACE 1,112 6% $399,593 4% ETG 886 5% $522,105 JCP&L 2,067 11% $686,260 NJNG 1,071 $624,668 PSE&G 11,453 62% $8,064,986 71% RECO 45 <1% $13,922 SJG 882 $523,913 Others 90 $24,960 Oil/Propane 928 $481,704 TOTAL 18,534 100% $11,342,111 5

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Counts by Grant Type
Q1 2007 Q1 2008 Q1 2009 Q1 2010 Electric Only 715 19% 1,008 24% 2,104 1,358 21% Gas Only 832 22% 1,036 1,993 18% 1,097 17% Electric & Gas 2,031 55% 1,978 46% 5,808 52% 3,188 49% Electric Heat 140 4% 236 6% 655 335 5% Oil -- 672 513 8% Propane 39 <1% 25 TOTAL 3,718 4,258 11,271 6,516 6

NJ SHARES Database Analysis By County
2009 Grant Recipients County Number Served Percent of Total Atlantic 614 3.3% Middlesex 1,311 7.1% Bergen 724 3.9% Monmouth 1,325 7.2% Burlington 1,175 6.3% Morris 687 3.7% Camden 1,032 5.6% Ocean 854 4.6% Cape May 86 0.5% Passaic 950 5.1% Cumberland 398 2.2% Salem 61 0.3% Essex 3,077 16.6% Somerset 665 3.6% Gloucester 689 Sussex 311 1.7% Hudson 1,542 8.3% Union 1,377 7.4% Hunterdon 87 Warren 119 0.6% Mercer 1,450 7.8% TOTAL 18,534 100.0% 7

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Counts by Agency Type
Q1 2007 Q1 2008 Q1 2009 Q1 2010 # % Legislative Office 0% 64 2% 1,595 14% 789 12% Other Nonprofit 3,718 100% 4,194 98% 9,676 86% 5,727 88% TOTAL 4,258 11,271 6,516 8

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Number of Years of Grant Receipt 2005-2010
Percent of Grant Recipients 2009 Evaluation 2010 Evaluation 1 Year 81% 78% 2 Years 14% 15% 3 Years 4% 4 Years 1% 2% 5 Years <1% 6 Years N/A 9

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Number of Household Members Contributing to Household Income
2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients None <1 % 0% <1% One 75% 73% 72% 71% 68% Two 22% 24% 25% 26% 29% Three or More 3% Mean Number 1.3 1.4 10

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Income Sources
2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients Employment 88% 89% 86% Pension or Social Security 12% 13% 14% Unemployment Compensation 6% 5% Disability 4% Child Support 3% 2% Other 11

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Annual Household Income
2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients <$20,000 6% 5% 3% <1% $20,000 - $29,999 28% 22% 18% 12% $30,000 - $39,999 29% 26% 23% $40,000 - $49,999 19% 20% 21% $50,000 + 24% 32% 41% Mean Annual Income $38,921 $41,844 $45,567 $49,133 12

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Poverty Level
2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients <175% 6% 5% 4% 1% % 24% 20% % 18% 17% 16% 11% 225% - 249% 14% 13% 22% 250% - 299% 31% 300% + 28% 29% 32% Mean Poverty Level 257% 273% 277% 280% Note: As of January 23, 2009, income eligibility is capped at 400% of poverty. 13

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Composition
2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients <6 Years Old 29% 26% 28% 23% 22% ≤ 18 Years Old 61% 60% 64% 58% 57% > 60 Years Old 8% 13% 12% 16% Note: A household can be included in more than one category. 14

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Agencies Focused on Seniors
2009 Senior Focused Agencies East Orange Division of Senior Services(East Orange Seniors Only) Hamilton Township Senior Services- Hamilton Twp. Seniors Only- By Appointment Lawrence Township Senior Center-Cedarville Resources For Independent Living-Seniors and Disabled Population Town of Harrison - Senior Center Center For Independent Living South Jersey Camden City Independent Living Center-Camden City of East Orange Division of Senior Services(East Orange Seniors Only) DAWN Center for Independent Living-Sussex Grace Senior Center for Healthy Living MOCEANS- Center For Independent Living-Ocean County Morristown Senior Center - Seniors Only Resources For Independent Living,Inc.-Seniors and Disabled Population Tri County Independent Living Center -Cumberland Agencies were indentified as focused on seniors if they have the words “senior” or “independent living” in their name. Highlighted agencies were new in 2009. 15

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Agencies Focused on Seniors
2009 Recipients Elderly Agencies Other Agencies All Agencies # % Household Member Over 60 No 428 65% 15,197 85% 15,625 84% Yes 232 35% 2,677 15% 2,909 16% Total 660 100% 17,874 18,534 % of all recipients 4% 96% 2008 Recipients Elderly Agencies Other Agencies All Agencies # % Household Member Over 60 No 184 65% 10,274 88% 10,458 Yes 97 35% 1,395 12% 1,492 Total 281 100% 11,669 11,950 % of all recipients 2% 98% 16

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

Household Composition 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients All ≤ 18 Years Old > 60 Years Old <225% 39% 43% 15% 16% 14% 222% - 249% 22% 23% 250% - 299% 18% 19% 17% 31% 30% 300% + 29% 32% 34% TOTAL 100% 18

Household Composition 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients All Single Parent Elderly Only <225% 39% 50% 40% 15% 18% 13% 225% - 249% 14% 22% 26% 24% 250% - 299% 17% 16% 31% 30% 29% 300% + 19% 32% 33% TOTAL 100% 19

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Size
2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients 1 26% 22% 24% 21% 20% 2 30% 28% 29% 3 4 14% 15% 17% 18% 5 + 9% 10% 11% 12% Mean Size 2.5 2.7 2.8 20

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Main Heating Fuel
2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 2009 Recipients Natural Gas 82% 83% 84% Electric 13% 11% 7% Oil 5% 4% 10% Propane <1% 1% Other 21

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Recipient-Reported Bill Balance at Grant Application
2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients < $250 8% 7% $250 - $499 25% 20% 23% 21% 19% $500 - $749 22% 24% $750 - $999 16% 15% 17% $1,000 + 29% 35% 40% Mean Balance $892 $993 $879 $963 $1,070 22

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Reported Bill Balance at Grant Application
2009 Recipients Bill Balance Percent of Federal Poverty Level < 225% % % 300% + < $500 28% 25% $500 - $749 19% 20% 18% $750 -$999 15% 16% $1,000+ 38% 41% 39% Mean Balance $1,038 $1,093 $1,061 $1,079 23

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Mean Reported Bill Balance at Grant Application
Grant Type 2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients Electric Only $563 $566 $557 $635 $723 Gas Only $654 $740 $762 $782 $831 Electric & Gas $1,108 $1,268 $1,168 $1,298 $1,443 Electric Heat $823 $904 $1,010 $1,048 All Grants $892 $993 $879 $963 $1,070 24

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Collections Actions Pending at Grant Application
2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 2009 Recipients Past Due Balance 8% 3% 17% 20% 26% Past Due Warning Notice 47% 18% 19% 23% Shut-Off Date Not Passed 22% 16% Shut-Off Date Passed 49% 41% 39% 32% Utility Shut-Off 0% 9% 4% 6% Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% because a household with grants for more than one utility may have two different collections actions. 25

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Reason for Grant Application
Reason for Application 2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients Temporary Financial Crisis 60% 68% -- High Energy Costs 27% 24% 69% 77% 78% Medical/Health 7% 5% 11% 8% 6% Unemployment 3% 2% 4% Reduced Hours/Change in Employment Other 26

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Detailed 2008 Recipients’ “Other” Reasons for Grant Application
Household changes (spouse leaving or dying or a new baby) Mortgage or rent Over income limit for LIHEAP Temporary financial crisis College Tuition Car Repairs Not receiving child support/alimony Home repairs 27

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Guidelines - Maximum Grant Amounts
2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients Electric Only $250 $300 Gas Only $700 Electric & Gas $500 $1,000 Electric Heat Oil/Propane -- 28

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Amounts
2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients < $300 45% 14% 11% 10% $300 <1% 20% 22% 23% $301 - $699 55% 28% 24% 21% 19% $700 0% 17% 16% $700 - $999 12% 9% 7% $1,000 25% Mean Grant $373 $603 $588 $596 $612 29

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Amounts
2009 Recipients Grant Amount Grant Type Electric Only Gas Only Electric & Gas Electric Heat Oil < $300 20% 9% 3% 6% 10% $300 80% <1% 5% $301 - $699 0% 35% 16% 23% 74% $700 56% 65% 15% $700 - $999 19% $1,000 62% Mean Grant $281 $589 $873 $607 $519 30

NJ SHARES Database Analysis % Receiving Max Grant Allowed
Grant Type Electric Only Gas Only Electric & Gas Electric Heat Oil 2005 89% 76% 67% -- 2006 40% 48% 2007 75% 50% 43% 58% 2008 78% 47% 53% 62% 16% 2009 80% 56% 65% 15% 31

NJ SHARES Database Analysis Mean Grant Amount By Utility
2005 Recipients 2006 Recipients 2007 Recipients 2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients ACE $286 $331 $329 $350 $359 ETG $237 $504 $572 $579 $589 JCP&L $278 $303 $333 $332 NJNG $246 $557 $563 $547 $583 PSE&G $420 $669 $698 $710 $704 RECO $284 $319 $326 $309 SJG $236 $544 $586 $565 $594 32

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 33

Utility Data Analysis Sample Group Definitions
Q Recipient Treatment Group Q Recipient Comparison Group Q Recipient Comparison Group Accounts Included All Q grant recipients Accounts receiving grants in Q only Accounts receiving grants in Q that did not receive grants in Q1 2009 Analysis Period Starts 1 day following grant 1 year + 1 day after grant 1 year + 1 day before grant Analysis Period Ends 2 years + 1 day after grant 1 day before grant Analysis Period Span Q1 2009– Q1 2010 34

Utility Data Analysis Sample Group Definitions
2008 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 2009 2010 1 YEAR 35

“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 36

“Good Faith” Payment Analysis Attrition Analysis
Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients Number Submitted 4,223 10,418 3,657 Number Returned 3,438 9,531 3,217 Eligible for Analysis* 2,677 8,582 2,681 Percent of Requested Accounts 63% 82% 73% * 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. 37

“Good Faith” Payment Analysis Percent Making “Good Faith” Payment
Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients 98% 97% 96% 38

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 ACE 229 93% ETG 122 95% NJNG 185 PSE&G 1,958 98% RECO 10 100% SJG 177 TOTAL 2,681 96% 39

“Good Faith” Payment Analysis Amount of Good Faith Payments Made
Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients $0 1% 2% $1 - $99 $100 10% 6% 8% $101 - $250 25% 13% 19% $251 - $500 30% 27% $501 + 33% 53% 42% Mean Payment $467 $679 $577 40

“Good Faith” Payment Analysis Amount of Good Faith Payments Made By Utility
Q Recipients Payments ACE ETG NJNG PSE&G RECO SJG Total Number of Customers 229 122 185 1,958 10 177 2,681 $0 4% 2% 3% 0% 1% $1 - $99 6% $100 9% 8% 18% $101 - $250 21% 39% 42% 14% 50% 25% 19% $251 - $500 27% 26% 28% 30% 34% $501 + 36% 20% 49% 17% Mean Payment $481 $352 $330 $649 $366 $577 41

“Good Faith” Payment Analysis Amount of Good Faith Payments Made
Q Recipients Payments Federal Poverty Level % % ≥ 300% $0 2% $1 - $99 1% $100 9% 7% $101 - $250 20% 17% 19% $251 - $500 27% 29% 26% $501 + 40% 45% Mean Payment $534 $548 $622 42

“Good Faith” Payment Analysis Number of Payments for Those Paying at Least $100
Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients 25th Percentile 1 2 50th Percentile 3 75th Percentile 5 Mean Number of Payments 2.7 3.5 2.6 43

Grant Coverage Analysis Attrition Analysis
Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients Number Submitted 4,223 10,418 3,657 Number Returned 3,438 9,531 3,217 Eligible for Analysis* 3,229 8,780 2,798 Percent of Requested Accounts 76% 84% 77% * 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. 44

Grant Coverage Analysis Grant Coverage
Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients Mean Pre-Grant Balance $1,197 $1,280 $1,210 Mean Grant $652 $684 $671 Mean Post-Grant Balance $545 $595 $539 Mean Percent of Pre-Grant Balances Covered 69% 71% 72% 45

Grant Coverage Analysis Grant Coverage By Utility
Q Recipients ACE ETG JCPL NJNG PSE&G RECO SJG Total Number of Customers 392 470 103 534 6,859 21 401 8,780 Mean Pre-Grant Balance $775 $923 $799 $874 $1,390 $1,003 $968 $1,280 Mean Grant $333 $595 $354 $605 $728 $306 $604 $684 Mean Post-Grant Balance $442 $328 $445 $269 $663 $696 $364 Mean Percent of Pre-Grant Balances Covered 60% 80% 62% 84% 70% 48% 71% 46

Grant Coverage Analysis Grant Coverage By Grant Type
Q Recipients Electric Only Gas Only Electric & Gas Electric Heat Number of Customers 1,588 2,114 4,628 450 Mean Pre-Grant Balance $869 $1,051 $1,538 $1,148 Mean Grant $272 $607 $603 Mean Post-Grant Balance $597 $444 $669 $545 Mean Percent of Pre-Grant Balances Covered 53% 76% 75% 71% 47

Grant Coverage Analysis Grant Coverage By Main Heating Fuel
Q Recipients Electric Gas Oil Other Number of Customers 474 7,991 296 19 Mean Pre-Grant Balance $1,149 $1,308 $766 $701 Mean Grant $599 $705 $281 $277 Mean Post-Grant Balance $550 $602 $485 $424 Mean Percent of Pre-Grant Balances Covered 70% 72% 61% 59% 48

Grant Coverage Analysis Grant Coverage Distribution
Q Recipients Percentile 10% 25% 50% 75% 90% Percent of Pre-Grant Balances Covered 28% 43% 65% 88% 104% 49

Payment Compliance Analysis Attrition Analysis
Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients Number Submitted 2,818 10,418 3,657 Number Returned 2,131 9,531 3,217 Accounts with Usable Data* 2,051 9,004 2,919 Amount of Data Available for Analysis 3 Months 1,584 7,959 2,309 6 Months 1,429 7,244 2,169 9 Months 1,325 6,631 2,050 12 Months 1,218 5,634 1,907 Percent of Requested Accounts 43% 54% 52% * 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. 50

Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Percent of Bills Paid
Date Range Months after Grants Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients Q2 2009 3 Months 148% 97% 141% Q3 2009 6 Months 136% 102% 133% Q4 2009 9 Months 125% 95% 114% Q1 2010 12 Months 105% 89% Good payment coverage 2nd year after grant Payment compliance declines at the end of year following grant receipt. Payment compliance declines prior to grant receipt. 51

Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Percent of Bills Paid
Q Recipients Year After Grant Receipt First Second 3 Months 84% 148% 6 Months 93% 136% 9 Months 89% 125% 12 Months 79% 105% Accounts Included 2,690 1,218 52

Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Percent of Bills Paid Same Accounts
Q Recipients Year After Grant Receipt First Second 3 Months 86% 146% 6 Months 94% 134% 9 Months 90% 124% 12 Months 81% 104% Accounts Included 1,057 53

Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Percent of Bills Paid By Utility
Q Recipients ACE ETG JCPL NJNG PSE&G RECO SJG Total Number of Customers 292 333 79 424 4,242 16 248 5,634 3 Months 81% 95% 83% 104% 111% 149% 97% 6 Months 79% 105% 92% 119% 98% 102% 9 Months 84% 101% 12 Months 86% 82% 93% 89% 54

Payment Compliance Analysis Percent That Paid More Than 90 and 100 Percent of Billed Amount
Date Range Month after Grants Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients Pay ≥ 100% Pay ≥ 90% Q2 2009 3 Months 64% 70% 37% 45% 59% 65% Q3 2009 6 Months 69% 78% 43% 54% 72% Q4 2009 9 Months 81% 39% 55% 57% Q1 2010 12 Months 76% 27% 48% 23% 41% 55

Year After Grant Receipt
Payment Compliance Analysis Percent That Paid More Than 90 and 100 Percent of Billed Amount Q Recipients Year After Grant Receipt First Second Pay ≥ 100% Pay ≥ 90% 3 Months 32% 40% 64% 70% 6 Months 36% 49% 69% 78% 9 Months 30% 47% 72% 81% 12 Months 16% 59% 76% Accounts Included 2,690 1,218 56

Year After Grant Receipt
Payment Compliance Analysis Percent That Paid More Than 90 and 100 Percent of Billed Amount Same Accounts Q Recipients Year After Grant Receipt First Second Pay ≥ 100% Pay ≥ 90% 3 Months 35% 42% 64% 70% 6 Months 37% 51% 68% 77% 9 Months 33% 49% 71% 80% 12 Months 19% 58% 75% Accounts Included 1,057 57

Payment Compliance Analysis By Utility
Q Recipients Pay≥100% ACE ETG JCPL NJNG PSE&G RECO SJG 3 Months 30% 41% 28% 44% 36% 38% 50% 6 Months 27% 53% 57% 63% 62% 9 Months 25% 45% 33% 42% 39% 12 Months 26% 32% 21% Accounts Included 292 333 79 424 4,242 16 248 58

Payment Compliance Analysis By Utility
Q Recipients Pay≥90% ACE ETG JCPL NJNG PSE&G RECO SJG 3 Months 35% 46% 52% 44% 50% 56% 6 Months 37% 62% 49% 67% 53% 69% 9 Months 42% 59% 54% 12 Months 48% 38% Accounts Included 292 333 79 424 4,242 16 248 59

Payment Compliance Analysis Percent of Bills Paid
Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients < 50% 4% 5% 6% 50% - 75% 8% 20% 23% 76% - 90% 13% 27% 30% 91% - 99% 17% 21% 18% 100% + 59% Mean 105% 89% 60

Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Bill Balance
61

Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Bill Balance By Utility
62

Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis
Successful (32%) 63

Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients Q Recipients Successful 26% 24% 19% 32% Marginal Success 7% 6% 5% Need More Help 67% 70% 76% 61% TOTAL 100% 64

Successful (62%) 65

Q Recipients Year After Grant Receipt First Second Successful 19% 62% Marginal Success 5% 7% Need More Help 76% 31% Accounts Included 2,690 1,218 66

Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis Same Account
Q Recipients Year After Grant Receipt First Second Successful 22% 60% Marginal Success 5% 8% Need More Help 73% 32% Accounts Included 1,057 67

Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis By Utility
Q Recipients Successful Marginal Success Need More Help 68

Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis By Utility
Q Recipients Successful Marginal Success Need More Help 69

Q Recipients Ending Balance <$100 Balance Declined, Ending Balance ≥ $100 Balance Increased by <$100 Balance Increased by Number of Customers 784 1,042 361 3,447 Percent of Customers 14% 18% 6% 61% Mean Pre-Grant Balance $803 $1,913 $1,068 $1,156 Mean Grant Amount $584 $687 $610 $688 Mean Post-Grant Balance $219 $1,226 $458 $467 Mean Number of Payments* 10 9 Mean Percent of Bills Paid 107% 117% 97% 75% * Note: Only customer payments are counted. 70

Q Recipients Ending Balance <$100 Balance Declined, Ending Balance ≥ $100 Balance Increased by <$100 Balance Increased by Number of Customers 784 1,042 361 3,447 Percent of Customers 14% 18% 6% 61% Mean Charges $2,223 $3,164 $2,518 $3,052 Mean Payments $2,383 $3,656 $2,468 $2,343 71

Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis Mean Charges
Q Recipients Grant Type Ending Balance <$100 Balance Declined, Ending Balance ≥ $100 Balance Increased by <$100 Balance Increased by Electric Only $1,751 $2,585 $2,085 $2,419 Gas Only $1,865 $2,464 $2,037 $2,347 Electric & Gas $2,700 $3,766 $3,138 $3,582 Electric Heat $2,059 $3,153 $2,165 $2,903 TOTAL $2,223 $3,164 $2,518 $3,052

Q Recipients Balance Increased by $100 - $399 Balance Increased by $400 - $999 Balance Increased by $1,000 + Number of Customers 1,250 1,491 706 Percent of Customers 22% 26% 13% Mean Pre-Grant Balance $978 $1,109 $1,575 Mean Grant Amount $593 $712 $809 Mean Post-Grant Balance $386 $397 $766 Mean Number of Payments* 9 7 Mean Percent of Bills Paid 87% 74% 57% * Note: Only customer payments are counted. 73

Q Recipients Balance Increased by $100 - $399 Balance Increased by $400 - $999 Balance Increased by $1,000 + Number of Customers 1,250 1,491 706 Percent of Customers 22% 26% 13% Mean Charges $2,445 $2,989 $4,259 Mean Payments $2,120 $2,340 $2,603 74

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 $1,986 $2,555 $3,603 Gas Only $1,898 $2,265 $4,093 Electric & Gas $3,076 $3,409 $4,426 Electric Heat $2,594 $2,845 $3,844 TOTAL $2,445 $2,989 $4,259

Q Recipients Ending Balance <$100 Balance Declined, Ending Balance ≥ $100 Balance Increased by <$100 Balance Increased by Number of Customers 784 1,042 361 3,447 Percent of Customers 14% 18% 6% 61% Mean Starting Balance $127 $1,172 $442 $397 Mean Ending Balance -$33 $680 $492 $1,106 Percent Paying ≥ 90% 87% 100% 99% 19% Percent Paying ≥ 100% 63% 0% 76

Q Recipients Balance Increased by $100 - $399 Balance Increased by $400 - $999 Balance Increased by $1,000 + Number of Customers 1,250 1,491 706 Percent of Customers 22% 26% 13% Mean Starting Balance $335 $329 $651 Mean Ending Balance $581 $978 $2,306 Percent Paying ≥ 90% 46% 5% <1% Percent Paying ≥ 100% 0% 77

Q Recipients Ending Balance <$100 Balance Declined, Ending Balance ≥ $100 Balance Increased by <$100 Balance Increased by Number of Customers 784 1,042 361 3,447 Percent of Customers 14% 18% 6% 61% Median Annual Income $44,400 $48,036 $46,884 $48,000 < 225% FPL 11% 8% 7% 10% 225% - 249% FPL 23% 24% 250% - 299% FPL 30% 34% 37% 32% ≥ 300% FPL 36% Percent Single-Parent 21% 17% Percent Elderly-Only

Q Recipients Balance Increased by $100 - $399 Balance Increased by $400 - $999 Balance Increased by $1,000 + Number of Customers 1,250 1,491 706 Percent of Customers 22% 26% 13% Median Annual Income $47,820 $47,544 $49,356 < 225% FPL 10% 11% 8% 225% - 249% FPL 23% 24% 25% 250% - 299% FPL 32% 33% 31% ≥ 300% FPL 35% 36% Percent Single-Parent 21% Percent Elderly-Only 9% 7% 79

Q Recipients Grant Type Ending Balance <$100 Balance Declined, Ending Balance ≥ $100 Balance Increased by <$100 Balance Increased by TOTAL Electric Only 14% 22% 7% 56% 100% Gas Only 18% 17% 8% 58% Electric & Gas 12% 5% 65% Electric Heat 59%

Q Recipients Grant Type Balance Increased by $100 - $399 Balance Increased by $400 - $999 Balance Increased by $1,000 + TOTAL Electric Only 49% 37% 14% 100% Gas Only 45% 41% Electric & Gas 28% 46% 26% Electric Heat 36% 50% 15%

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 292 8% ETG 333 7% NCPL 79 4% NJNG 424 PSE&G 4,242 RECO 16 6% SJG 248 10% TOTAL 5,634 82

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 292 2% ETG 333 <1% NCPL 79 0% NJNG 424 PSE&G 4,242 RECO 16 SJG 248 TOTAL 5,634 83

Key Findings NJ SHARES provides grants to those in temporary need of assistance. 78% received a grant in only one of the past six years. Recipients made an average of 2.6 payments in the 90 days preceding the grant. Changes in types of households served. Senior households more likely to receive grants than in previous years (16%). Clients have higher income, due to changes in eligibility (LIHEAP). More likely to use oil as main heating source (10%). 84

Key Findings NJ SHARES serving those hit by recession.
12% of 2009 recipients reported receipt of unemployment compensation, compared to about 5% in previous years. 8% of 2009 recipients reported unemployment as reason for grant application, compared to 2% to 6% in previous years. Clients are coming in earlier but they need more help. Grant recipients are more likely to have a past due balance or past due warning notice and less likely to have the shut-off date passed or already be shut off. Balances are higher. 40% have a balance of $1,000 or more and the average balance was $1,070. The percent of clients receiving the maximum grant amount has increased. NJ SHARES continues to cover about 70% of pre-grant balances on average. 85

Key Findings Additional evidence to increase electric only grant.
80% of electric only grant recipients received the $300 maximum. Electric only grant recipients had a mean balance of $869. Electric only grants covered an average of 53% of the balance (71%-76% for the other grant types). There may be a relationship to the use of electric space heating when the main space heating system is not functioning. Need for additional analysis of good faith payments. 96% found to make good faith payments. Only 93% for some utilities. 86

Key Findings Grant recipients still have a difficult time paying their bill in the year following grant receipt. 61% increased their balance by more than $100 in the year following the grant. 32% of Q recipients were successful compared to 19% of Q recipients. Grant recipients may need more than one year to get back on their feet. Grant recipients improve their payment behavior in the second year after grant receipt compared to the first. (62% successful) The only observable difference between more and less successful recipients is that those with higher bills build up greater balances in the year following grant receipt. These households may be a good target for subsidized energy efficiency services. 87

Proposed Pro-Bono Study
Research Questions Need for assistance. Interaction with agency staff. How NJ SHARES has solved temporary problems. Understanding of utility bill. Potential for conservation behavior and measures. Whether additional assistance is needed. Types of additional assistance needed. Research Activities In-depth interviews with grant recipients. Telephone survey of grant recipients. 88

NJ SHARES Evaluation of 2009 Grants

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "NJ SHARES Evaluation of 2009 Grants"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

NJ SHARES Evaluation of 2009 Grants

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "NJ SHARES Evaluation of 2009 Grants"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback