1. NEADA National Energy Assistance Survey
NEADA Annual Meeting
June 7, 2004
Jacqueline Berger
Donnell Butler

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. Figure 1 describes the scope of the energy burden problem

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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