**DEVELOPMENT OF LIHEAP TARGETING**

**PERFORMANCE MEASURES**

December 23, 1997

**ACKNOWLEDGMENTS**

The National Energy Assistance Directors Association (NEADA) would like
to thank the participating state energy assistance officials for
contributing their time and effort towards developing pilot projects.
These officials include: Sandra Vinson and Diana Felden, California
Department of Community Services and Development; JoAnn Choate, Maine
State Housing Authority; Mark Kaszynski, Minnesota Department of
Children, Families, and Learning; Nieves Lopez, Texas Department of
Housing and Community Affairs; and Steve Tryon and Sue Brown, Wisconsin
Division of Housing. NEADA would also like to thank Leon Litow with the
Office of Community Services, for serving as the Project Officer and
providing helpful guidance on the reports design and its final review.

This project was directed by Mark Wolfe, Executive Director of NEADA.
David Carroll, Vice President of Response Analysis, prepared the case
study on Maine, the statistical sampling plan for Texas, and portions of
the text of this report. For additional information about this report
and its contents, please contact Mark Wolfe at 202-237-5199.

This publication was prepared by NEADA under contract order number
ACF-960289 for the Division of Energy Assistance, Office of Community
Services, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. The contents of this report do not
necessarily reflect the views of the Federal government.

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

[Page]{.underline}

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.1 Government Performance and Results Act 1-1

1.2 Project Status 1-2

1.3 Barriers 1-3

2.0 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 2-1

2.1 Household Vulnerability 2-2

2.2 Household Income 2-3

2.3 Household Energy Expenditures 2-3

2.4 LIHEAP Benefits 2-5

3.0 PERFORMANCE MEASURES 3-1

3.1 Vulnerability and Income Targeting Indices 3-1

3.2 Energy Burden Reduction Indices 3-2

3.3 Issues in Computing Performance Measures 3-3

4.0 A CASE STUDY 4-1

4.1 Program Goals, Definitions, and Targeting Procedures 4-1

4.2 Performance Indicators and Measures 4-4

4.3 Data Measurement System 4-7

4.4 Next Steps 4-11

**1.0 INTRODUCTION**

The Office of Community Services (OCS) within the U.S Department of
Health and Human Services\' Administration for Children and Families
(ACF) administers at the federal level the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program (LIHEAP). LIHEAP block grants are awarded annually to
the 50 states and the District of Columbia, Indian tribes and tribal
organizations, and the insular areas to assist eligible low income
households in meeting their home energy costs.

The Human Services Amendments of 1994 (Public Law 103-252) reauthorized
LIHEAP through FY 1999. As part of this reauthorization, the Department
was directed to develop in close consultation with LIHEAP grantees model
LIHEAP performance goals and measures that may be used by the grantees
at their option to assess their success in achieving the purposes of
LIHEAP. OCS issued model LIHEAP performance goals and measures to LIHEAP
grantees on 11/30/95.

In October 1996, the National Energy Assistance Directors Association
(NEADA) published under contract to OCS, **Implementing Model
Performance Goals and Measures for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program: Preliminary Pilot Project Results**. Since then, NEADA has been
under contract to OCS to work with several \"pilot\" states on
developing data that can be use to measure grantee performance in the
targeting of LIHEAP assistance. The pilot states include: California,
Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Texas and Wisconsin.

**1.1 Government Performance and Results Act**

The development of the model LIHEAP performance goals and measures in
November 1995 is related to the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) of 1993. GPRA establishes a government-wide requirement for
federal agencies to develop performance goals and measures for federal
programs, with the intention to use this information in making decisions
on budget and appropriation levels. GPRA focuses on program results to
provide Congress with more objective information on the achievement of
statutory objectives. Under GPRA, federal agencies need to ask the
following basic questions in their administration of federal
programs:[^1]

What is our mission?

What are our goals, and how can we achieve them?

How can we measure our performance?

How will we use performance information to make improvements?

GPRA requires virtually every federal agency to develop multi-year
strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance
reports. Federal agencies were required to submit by September 30, 1997
their strategic plans and annual performance plans to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).

ACFs first annual GPRA Performance Plan includes as a strategic goal the
building of healthy, safe, and supportive communities and tribes. LIHEAP
is one of five ACF programs that focuses upon this strategic goal. With
regards to this strategic goal, OCS has proposed to focus on the model
LIHEAP performance goal (Primary Goal A), the targeting of LIHEAP
assistance to eligible households with the highest home energy
needs.[^2] More specifically, OCS has proposed to measure the following
results:[^3]

Increasing the availability of LIHEAP heating assistance to eligible
households with at least one member whose health is vulnerable to a home
without sufficient heat; and

Increasing the affordability of home heating for eligible households
which are at risk of unsafely heating their homes due to their low
income and high energy expenditures.

**1.2 Project Status**

The Project staff began its work by reviewing the pilot states\'
manuals, program reports, and LIHEAP application forms. This review
provided background information on how LIHEAP targeting is implemented
and what program data are available that could be used to measure the
results of LIHEAP targeting.

As described in Section 2 of this report, performance indicators for
measuring the results of LIHEAP targeting were identified. Project staff
worked with the pilot states in tabulating available data or collecting
additional data so that databases could be prepared.[^4]

As described in Section 3, data which were collected on the performance
indicators were used to calculate several performance measures. The most
extensive work on the measures has been conducted with Maines LIHEAP
program. This work resulted in the development of a prototype
performance measurement system which is described in Section 4.

**1.3 Barriers**

LIHEAP grantees collect information on the presence of vulnerable
members in recipient households at the time that these households apply
for LIHEAP benefits. However, while grantees collect the information,
they may not have the ability to retrieve anything more than basic
statistics on recipient households. Grantees face several barriers in
developing more meaningful statistics about their recipient households,
including:

Paper record-keeping systems: For some grantees, record-keeping systems
are not computerized. Statistics on the number of recipient households
with vulnerable members are developed by keeping tallies of households
that fit into certain categories.

Decentralized record-keeping systems: For some grantees, subgrantees
have responsibility for maintaining information on recipient households.
While these individual subgrantees can generate statistics for the
households they serve, it is difficult for the grantee to furnish
summary information for the entire service area. In some cases, there is
not a uniform system used throughout a state.

Inaccessible record-keeping systems: For some grantees, while the data
are maintained by the program office, the computer system may not offer
the program manager the ability to conduct \"ad hoc\" queries of the
system. In these situations, the program manager must make a special
information request to obtain the required statistics. Even then, a
program manager may have to wait a considerable time to receive computer
reports from a central office computer mainframe.

Sampling can furnish a solution for grantees that face any of these
problems. The grantee who has a paper record-keeping system can use
administrative file sampling techniques. A grantee with a decentralized
record-keeping system can ask each subgrantee to select a systematic
sample of cases. A grantee who has an inaccessible computer system can
request a sample file that may be more manageable with personal computer
software.

In addition to the above barriers, several of the pilot states
experienced the following:

**Insufficient staff resources**. Several of the pilot state LIHEAP
offices did not have sufficient in-house resources to prepare a
database.

**Lack of energy expenditure data.** Few states collect energy
expenditure data to develop baseline information. Several of the states
that were interested in participating in the project did not collect
energy expenditure data.

**Lack of standard definitions**. States do not always define
performance indicators in the same way, hindering the compilation of
uniform performance data at the national level..

**2.0 PERFORMANCE INDICATORS**

Performance indicators are the attributes or characteristics that
represent a programs outputs (goods or services produced by a program ),
outcomes (the direct results achieved by outputs), or impact (the degree
to which program goals are achieved are met by outcomes).

In order to measure the outcomes of LIHEAP targeting, grantees need to
first collect information on their eligible and recipient populations.
In particular, information is needed on the number of vulnerable
households in their eligible and recipient populations. Information on
LIHEAP recipient households is obtained during the eligibility
determination process and is generally available from program databases.
Information on eligible households must be developed from other data
sources.

­­More specifically, the following performance indicators are relevant to
measuring the output of LIHEAP targeting:

the number of eligible and recipient households with vulnerable members,
i.e., an elderly member, an individual with disabilities, or a young
child;

the amount of gross income of eligible and recipient households, i.e.,
household income expressed in dollars and as a percentage of poverty;

the amount of energy expenditures of eligible and recipient households;
and

the amount of heating assistance benefits of recipient households.

As indicated above, information on eligible households must be
developed. For this Project, Response Analysis developed data estimates
on LIHEAP eligible households based on the Current Population Survey
(CPS). The Census Bureau conducts the CPS on a monthly basis throughout
the year. In March of each year, it supplements the sample and adds a
series of questions that furnish information on income and demographics
for U.S. noninstitution­al population. While the data from the March CPS
can be used to make state-level estimates, the statistical variances for
many states are too large to make the data reliable for analysis. A
state-level profile of LIHEAP eligible households was developed for this
Project, using three-year averages based on the 1994, 1995, and 1996
March CPS files and each states income cutoff for a household of
four.[^5]

Energy expenditure data for LIHEAP eligible households can be derived at
the national and regional level from the U.S. Department of Energys 1993
Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) and the 1993 State Energy
Price and Expenditure Reports (SEPER). However, such data are not
available on LIHEAP eligible households at the state level. In addition,
the LIHEAP statute does not require grantees to collect energy
expenditure data on recipient households. Nevertheless, some of the
pilot states were able to generate energy expenditure data on recipient
households by collecting the data or estimating energy expenditures
through various proxies.

Information is presented below on performance indicator definitions and
data collection issues. In addition, examples of data for each
performance indicator are presented in the tables below.

**2.1 Household Vulnerability**

Unless indicated otherwise, the definitions below were used for both
LIHEAP eligible and recipient households.

Elderly member\--A person 60 years or older.

Individual with a disability\--For LIHEAP eligible households, a person
with an impair­ment which limits one or more major life activities;
includes an individual receiving ­­federal disability benefits. For LIHEAP
recipient households, each state uses its own definition of disability.

Young child-A child under the age of 6 years.

**Table II-1. Wisconsins LIHEAP Eligible and Recipient Households by
Vulnerability Group, FY 1996**

  ----------------------------- ----------------- -----------------------
  **Vulnerability Group**       **Recipients**    **Eligibles**

  Elderly                       38,364            108,796

  Disabled                      37,576            34,646

  Young Child                   32,413            83,037

  All Households                125,072           303,789
  ----------------------------- ----------------- -----------------------

Data issues include:

The LIHEAP statute uses the term frail elderly with respect to household
vulnerability without defining the term. LIHEAP grantees are required by
statute to collect data on households with at least one member 60 years
or older. Accordingly, the Project has made use of available data for
this age group as a proxy for frail elderly.

There can be a mismatch between the data on LIHEAP eligible and
recipient households having an individual with a disability as grantees
can define the term in any manner. For example, Wisconsins data
indicates that there were more recipient households with at least one
member with a disability (37,576 households) than eligible households
with at least one member with a disability (34,646 households).

**2.2 Household Income**

The definitions below were used for both LIHEAP eligible and recipient
households.

Gross household income\--household income before any deductions are
made.

Number of household members\--number of persons residing in a household

Poverty level\--gross household income divided by income at 100 percent
of poverty, adjusted by number of household members

**Table II-2: Wisconsins LIHEAP Eligible and Recipient Households by
Poverty Group, FY 1996**

  ---------------------------------- ---------------- -------------------
  **Poverty Group**                  **Recipients**   **Eligibles**

  0- 75% Poverty                     41,636           97,759

  76%-125% Poverty                   59,832           140,955

  126%-150% Poverty                  23,604           65,075

  All Households                     125,072          303,789
  ---------------------------------- ---------------- -------------------

Data issues include whether data on similar sources of household income
are collected on LIHEAP eligible and recipient households, and whether
annual vs. annualized income data are being reported on LIHEAP recipient
households.

**2.3 Household Energy Expenditures**

The definitions below were used for LIHEAP recipient households.

Residential energy expenditures\--the cost to the household for all
residential uses of energy, including home heating, home cooling or
ventilation, water heating, refrigeration, clothes, drying, etc.

Home energy expenditures\--the cost to the household for home space
heating and cooling, including ventilation.

**Table II-3. Maines Mean Energy Expenditures for LIHEAP Recipients by
Poverty Group**

  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
  **Poverty Group**                     **Mean Energy Costs**

  0-\<75% Poverty                       \$649

  75%-\<125% Poverty                    \$786

  125%-\<150% Poverty                   \$836

  All House­holds                        \$730
  ------------------------------------- ---------------------------------

Data issues include the following:

**Availability of billing data**. Clients or their fuel suppliers need
to provide energy billing data that include data on household energy
consumption and expenditure.[^6] Such data are more readily available
from electric and natural gas companies than from bulk fuel providers.

**Primary vs. secondary heating fuel expenditures**. Data on a
households primary and secondary heat fuel expenditures are needed to
develop complete expenditure data. However, data on secondary heating
fuel expenditures are difficult to obtain when such expenditures are for
bulk fuels.[^7]

**Home energy data**. Energy billing data rarely separate out the amount
of the energy bill used for home heating and cooling.[^8]

**Extrapolating a yearly average of heating and cooling data from one
months worth of data.** California has determined that one months worth
of data would be sufficient to calculate energy burden because home
energy consumption levels remain fairly consistent through the year for
most households. Fluctuating temperatures in most of the Northeast and
Midwest rule out the possibility of this approach for those areas.

**Developing a model to project annual heating consumption to predict
annual fuel use by housing unit and fuel type.** Several states model
heating expenditure data as a proxy for predicting the home heating bill
for program applicants. The accuracy of such models needs to be verified
empirically.

**Heat in rent**. Energy billing data are not directly available for
households whose residential energy costs are included in their rent.

**2.4 LIHEAP Benefits**

For this Project, LIHEAP benefits are defined as the dollar amounts of
fuel assistance provided to LIHEAP recipient households.

**Table II-4. Californias Average LIHEAP Benefit by Poverty Group and
Vulnerability Group, FY 1996**

  --------------- ------------- -------------- ----------- ----------- --------------
  **Poverty       **Elderly**   **Disabled**   **Young     **Other**   **All
  Group**                                      Child**                 Households**

  0‑75% poverty   \$164         \$170          \$172       \$169       \$169

  76%‑125%        \$154         \$155          \$160       \$157       \$156
  poverty                                                              

  126%‑150%       \$117         \$126          \$134       \$129       \$127
  poverty                                                              

  All Households  \$145         \$150          \$155       \$152       \$151
  --------------- ------------- -------------- ----------- ----------- --------------

**3.0 PERFORMANCE MEASURES**

Performance indicators are used to calculate measures about the level of
achievement of a programs goal. The data on the performance indicators
described in Section 2 can be used to calculate several performance
measures relevant to LIHEAP targeting. The measures include:

A **target eligibility rate** is the percent of the LIHEAP eligible
population that is represented by a target group. A **target recipient
rate** is the percent of the LIHEAP-recipient population that is
represented by a target group. A **targeting index** is computed as the
target recipient rate divided by the target eligibility rate multiplied
by 100. The targeting index is a relative measure; the higher the index
for a group the greater the amount of targeting that the group has
received. An increase in the targeting index for a group over time would
indicate increased targeting for that group. *(Note: Small differences
between the targeting indices for two groups need to be interpreted with
caution as the differences may be due to the sampling variability
involved in obtaining estimates on LIHEAP eligible households.)*

A **burden reduction ratio** is computed as the net group burden divided
by the group energy burden. An **energy burden reduction index** is
computed as the burden reduction ratio for all recipient households
divided by the burden reduction ratio for a group of recipient
households. A burden reduction index greater than 100 indicates that the
group of households has had a greater percentage reduction in their
energy burden than all recipient households.

The targeting and burden reduction indices furnished in this section are
preliminary, using data that were already available. The development of
final indices requires a thorough examination of state-level program
guidelines and of the data sources from which the indices were
developed.

**3.1 Vulnerability and Income Targeting Indices**

Targeting indices provide for the comparison of participation levels for
vulnerable groups and income groups of recipient households, as seen in
the Tables III-1 and III-2 below.

**Table III-1. Maines Vulnerability Targeting Indices by Vulnerable
Group**

+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Vulnerable        | **FY   | **     | **FY   | **     | **Tar  |
| Group**             | 1995   | Target | 1997   | Target | geting |
|                     | el     | eligi  | rec    | rec    | I      |
| (LE = less than or  | igible | bility | ipient | ipient | ndex** |
| equal to)           | househ | rate** | househ | rate** |        |
|                     | olds** |        | olds** |        |        |
| (GT = greater than) |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Elderly LE 125%     | 28,631 | 30.5%  | 11,623 | 32.8%  | 107    |
| poverty             |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Disabled LE 125%    | 19,409 | 20.7%  | 10,179 | 28.7%  | 139    |
| poverty             |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Young child LE 125% | 5,539  | 5.9%   | 2,653  | 7.5%   | 127    |
| poverty             |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Vulnerable GT 125%  | 14,817 | 15.8%  | 2,496  | 7.0%   | 45     |
| poverty             |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| No vulnerable       | 32,198 | 34.3%  | 13,005 | 36.7%  | 107    |
| members             |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

**Table III-2. Maines Income Targeting Indices by Poverty Group**

  -------------- ----------- -------------- ------------ ------------- -------------
  **Poverty      **FY 1995   **Population   **FY 1997    **Recipient   **Targeting
  Group**        eligible in rate for       recipients   rate for      Index**
                 target      target group** in target    target        
                 group**                    group**      group**       

  0- 75% poverty 28,921      30.8%          17,294       48.8%         158

  76%-125%       50,080      53.4%          15,653       44.1%         83
  poverty                                                              

  126%-150%      14,817      15.8%          2,496        7.0%          45
  poverty                                                              
  -------------- ----------- -------------- ------------ ------------- -------------

**3.2 Energy Burden Reduction Indices**

Energy burden represents the percent of income spent on energy. The
following definitions are used with respect to energy burden:

*Energy Burden*\--the share of annual gross household income used to pay
annual energy bills.[^9]

*Mean Group Energy Burden\--*mean (or average) energy expenditures for a
group of households divided by mean income for the group.

*Mean Net Group Energy Burden*\--mean net energy expenditures for a
group of households (i.e., mean energy expenditures minus mean heating
assistance benefits) divid­ed by mean in­come for the group.

*Net Energy Burden*\--The share of annual gross household income used to
pay annual net energy bills (i.e., energy bills minus LIHEAP bene­fits)
ex­pressed as a per­cent­age.

The calculation of energy burden indices provides for the comparison of
energy burden reduction resulting from energy assistance benefits
awarded to groups of recipient households, as seen in Table III-3.

**Table III-3. Maines Energy Burden Reduction Rates for LIHEAP
Recipients by Poverty Group, FY 1995**

+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Poverty     | **     | **     | **Mean | **     | **Mean | **     |
| Group**       | Mean** | Mean** | Group  | Mean** | Net    | Burden |
|               |        |        | En     |        | G      | Red    |
|               | **En   | **In   | ergy** | **Ben  | roup** | uction |
|               | ergy** | come** |        | ­efit** |        | I      |
|               |        |        | **Bu   |        | **Bu   | ndex** |
|               | **C    |        | rden** |        | r­den** |        |
|               | osts** |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 0-\<75%       | \$649  | \      | 9.4%   | \$318  | 4.8%   | 111    |
| poverty       |        | $6,932 |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 75%-\<125%    | \$786  | \$     | 7.8%   | \$316  | 4.7%   | 95     |
| poverty       |        | 10,094 |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 125%-\<150%   | \$836  | \$     | 5.9%   | \$300  | 3.8%   | 88     |
| poverty       |        | 14,291 |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| All           | \$730  | \      | 8.1%   | \$316  | 4.6%   | 100    |
| House­holds    |        | $9,023 |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

**3.3 Issues in Computing Performance Measures**

The following issues must be addressed in computing the above measures:

Consistency of definitions: In attempting to compute \"eligibility
rates\" and \"recipient rates,\" one must be careful to use the same
definition for participants and eligibles. A simple example relates to
the definition of individuals with disabilities. The CPS furnishes
information on individuals who did not look for work because of a
disability. However, many grantees target households with individuals
who receive certain types of disability benefits. In those cases, it
will be difficult for a grantee to obtain a reliable \"eligible rate\"
for households with an individual with disabilities.

Participation in multiple LIHEAP grant program components: Many grantees
have two or more different LIHEAP assistance programs. They may have a
regular benefit program that is available to all eligible households and
a crisis benefit program that is available only to households whose
service has been terminated. In addition, a grantee may have a
weatherization program or a cooling program. When computing a
\"recipient rate,\" one must be clear in defining which program is the
focus of the analysis. To compute \"recipient rates\" for all benefit
options, the grantee must first get an unduplicated count of
participation.

Other sources of energy assistance. According to the National Center for
Appropriate Technology (NCAT), close to \$575 million in supplemental
LIHEAP-type assistance was provided from state and local programs in FY
???. The addition of these supplemental funds could make a significant
difference in the net energy burden level for some program recipients in
states with large supplemental programs. By not including these
additional funds as part of a recipient households net energy burden
calculation, is it possible that the program data will overstate the
need for assistance by some program recipients.

Presence in multiple target groups: In the LIHEAP statute, the primary
target groups for households with vulnerable individuals are households
with very young children, individuals with disabilities, and frail older
individuals. It is certainly possible for a household to have
individuals in two or more of these target groups.

Block grant programs: The use of performance measures needs to be seen
in the context of block grant programs. LIHEAP is operated through a
block grant that allows each state the flexibility to design its program
in a way that best meets the needs of its low income population. Clearly
that will result in different targeting and reduction rates across
states. Therefore, they should not be used to compare targeting
performance across other states.

**4.0 A CASE STUDY**

In conjunction with the National Energy Assistance Directors
Association, Response Analysis conducted an in-depth case study of
performance measurement of LIHEAP targeting in cooperation with the
Maine State Housing Authority (MSHA), which administers the LIHEAP
program in Maine.

MSHA contracts with subgrantees on an annual basis. Each subgrantee
serves a discrete geographic area in the state. Subgrantees are
responsible for all applicant LIHEAP services, including: outreach,
determining eligibility and benefits, delivering energy education and/or
budget counseling, and delivering usage reduction program services.

MSHA distributed \$14.271 million in LIHEAP benefits in FY 1997. Of
that, \$11.705 million was used for heating assistance, with an average
household benefit of \$304 and benefits ranging from \$1 to \$595. In
addition, \$0.305 million was used for crisis assistance, and \$2.261
million was used for weatheriza­tion and heating equipment
re­pair/replacement. In addition, Maine allows its subgrantees to use a
small amount of funds to conduct energy education and/or budget
counseling.

This section reports on performance measurement data on LIHEAP targeting
within the context of a performance measurement system developed for
Maine\'s case study. This case study demonstrates how the general
performance measurement guidelines developed in Section 3 need to be
tailored to meet the needs of individual state LIHEAP programs.

**4.1 Program Goals, Definitions, and Targeting Procedures**

The first step in the development of a performance measurement system is
to conduct strategic planning in which the program\'s mission and
program goals are identified, performance indicators are defined, and
the procedures that are expected to achieve the program\'s goals are
documented and reviewed.

**4.1.1 Program goals**

LIHEAP targeting is the program goal which is the focus of this case
study. Accordingly, Maine\'s program documentation on LIHEAP targeting
was reviewed with MSHA\'s LIHEAP Coordinator. The documents reviewed
included the State Plan (submitted to the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services), the State Rule (the state regulations), and a *Program
and Fiscal Handbook* (used by program operations staff).

The introduction to Maine\'s *Program and Fiscal Handbook* states that
\"the goal of the Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP) is to provide
fuel assistance to low-income households in the State of Maine, and to
respond to energy-related crises affecting those households.\" The
review of Maine\'s program documents make it clear that considerable
thought has gone into the development of Maine\'s LIHEAP program with
respect to its goal. It has extensive outreach activities, a benefit
distribution procedure that operationalizes its targeting objectives, a
system to obtain LIHEAP recipient households\' energy usage and
expenditure reports from vendors, a sophisticated database system to
track program recipients, and linkages between its heating assistance,
crisis intervention, and weatherization programs. However, the program
documents do not *explicitly* identify how the individual program
elements are linked to the overall program mission and program goals
related to LIHEAP targeting. In order to fully develop its LIHEAP
targeting performance measurement system, Maine should consider making
this linkage explicit as part of its strategic planning.

**4.1.2 Program Definitions**

The definitions in table IV-1 are used with regards to Maine\'s LIHEAP
targeting procedures.

**Table IV-1. Program definitions relevant to Maine\'s LIHEAP targeting
procedures**

**Term** **Definition**

*Elderly Person* A person who is 60 years old or older

*Energy Cost* Cost of energy used for heating a residential dwelling
regardless of whether another person or another benefit program actually
pays such cost

*Person with* Person with a physical or mental impairment, which limits
one or more major life

*Special Needs* activities; includes per­sons receiving vocational
rehabilitation services, and persons receiving Social Security
disability insurance­, SSI, and/or Veter­ans disability benefits

*Priority Applicants* Households with direct heating costs and with a
person who is (I) elderly, (ii) a person with special needs, or (iii) a
young child

*Young Child* A child under 25 months of age

**4.13 Program Targeting Procedures**

The program targets priority applicant households, high home energy
expenditure house­holds, and lower income house­holds. The program
attempts to deliver benefits to a greater number of its priority
applicant households. It attempts to furnish higher benefits to
households with higher home energy expenditures and households with
lower incomes. Currently, it does not have explicit standards against
which progress toward these goals can be measured.

Maine has targeting procedures for increasing the **number/participation
level** of priority applicant households, but not for lower income or
higher energy burden households. The targeting procedures include:

*Outreach*: Subgrantees are expected to \"conduct client outreach in a
manner consistent with the HEAP Act.\"

*Eligibility*: For most households, the income cutoff is 125% percent of
poverty. However, priority applicant households with incomes up to 150%
of poverty are eligible for heating assistance benefits.

The procedures for targeting heating assistance **benefit levels** for
certain types of households include:

*Heating Expenditures*: The heating assistance benefit is calculated
using a formula that assigns a certain number of points to each
recipient household. Points are first assigned based on the *projected*
level of heating expenditures for the recipients dwelling unit. (The
projection is based on Maine\'s \"Design Heat Load Computation\" model.
Households that fall into certain energy expenditure categories are
assigned a certain number of points.[^10] For FY 1997, households were
granted \$15 dollars per point.

*Household Income*: The number of points for heating expenditures is not
adjusted for households with incomes under 75% of poverty. However, the
number of points (and the benefit level) is adjusted downward by 10% for
house­holds with incomes from 75% to less than 125% of poverty and
downward by 20% for households with incomes from 125% to less than 150%
of poverty.

*Households with Other Subsidies:* Renters with any other federal
subsidy for home heating costs have their heating assistance benefit
reduced by the amount of the other federal subsidy, with a minimum
LIHEAP benefit of \$75. (For example, if the household was assigned a
benefit of \$350, but received another federal subsidy of \$100, the
final benefit amount would be \$250.)

*Subsidized Housing Tenants with Heat in Rent*: Any household which
receives a federal housing subsidy and has heat includ­ed in its rent is
assigned a heating assis­tance benefit of \$1 to maintain the maximum
food stamp benefit level.

These targeting procedures are not directly tied to *actual* home
heating burden. By using *modeled* heating expenditures, a household is
having its benefit level based on the *average* expenditures for all
households living in housing units that are similar to its own. In
addition, by assigning points based on *ranges* of expenditures and
income, the benefit determina­tion formula offers different levels of
burden reduction to different households.[^11]

In summary, Maine\'s HEAP program attempts to target LIHEAP benefits by:
giving heating assistance benefits to more priority applicant households
(i.e., through outreach and raising income eligibility limits for
priority applicant households), by giving higher benefits to house­holds
with higher modeled home heating expenditures and lower income, by
giving lower benefits to households which receive other federal
subsidies or which liver in subsidized housing with heat included in
rent, and by targeting usage reduction programs to high usage and
priority applicant households.

Maine\'s HEAP program does not set **explicit** participation or benefit
targeting standards for its program. However, program administrators do
review program perfor­mance each year to examine whether benefits are
being distributed in a way that appears to meet the needs of different
groups equitably.

**4.2 Performance Indicators and Measures**

The second step in the development of a performance measurement system
is to create performance indicators and measures which describe what
data will be collected and calculated on the outputs and outcomes of the
program. Sections 2 and 3 described a set of performance indicators and
measures that describe the outcomes of a state\'s effort to target
LIHEAP program benefits.

**4.2.1 Performance indicators**

The source of population data on Maine\'s ***LIHEAP-eligible***
households characteristics for this study is from the three-year March
Current Population Survey averages, as described in Section 2 of this
report.[^12] The estimated number of Maine\'s LIHEAP-eligible households
for FY 1995 was 93,818.

The source of population data on Maine\'s ***LIHEAP-recipient***
households is Maine\'s LIHEAP program database for FY 1997. In FY 1997,
Maine provided heating assistance benefits to 38,565 households.[^13]
Table IV-2 identifies the key data needed to assess the effectiveness of
Maine\'s targeting mechanisms. It demonstrates that Maine\'s LIHEAP
program captures the informa­tion required to analyze the program.

As previously indicated, Maine\'s program uses a \"Design Heat Load
Computation\" (DHLC) model to estimate the expected energy expenditures
for a housing unit and then, in part, assigns a benefit to the household
based on that estimate. However, a special feature of Maine\'s heating
assistance program is that it requires energy vendors to submit a report
at the end of the heating season to document the heating consumption and
expenditures for individual households receiving heating assistance.
These vendor reports are used each year to update the DHLC model. In
addition, these vendor reports can help program managers to identify
households which have exceptionally high energy bills. Such households
can receive priority in the state\'s LIHEAP weatherization program. It
appears that this combination of procedures for benefit distribution and
subsequent data collection is unique among State LIHEAP programs. It
allows Maine to have a relatively simple benefit distribu­tion procedure
while also having the data necessary to track energy burden reduction.

**Table IV-2. Availability of Program Recipient Data on Performance
Indicators**

+---------------+------------+----------------------------------------+
| **Data        | **A        | **Notes**                              |
| Element**     | vailable** |                                        |
+===============+============+========================================+
| Elderly       | Yes        | Person over 60                         |
| Mem­ber        |            |                                        |
+---------------+------------+----------------------------------------+
| Individual    | Yes        | Person with physical or mental         |
| with          |            | impair­ment, which limits one or more   |
|               |            | major life activities; includes person |
| Dis­abilities  |            | re­ceiv­ing vocational reha­bilitation    |
|               |            | ser­vices, or Social Securi­ty­           |
|               |            | disability insurance, SSI­­, or Veterans |
|               |            | dis­ability benefits                    |
+---------------+------------+----------------------------------------+
| Young Child   | Yes        | Person under 25 months of age          |
+---------------+------------+----------------------------------------+
| Household     | Yes        | Gross annual income, including all of  |
| Income        |            | the compo­nent parts of in­come for the  |
|               |            | household                              |
+---------------+------------+----------------------------------------+
| \# of Family  | Yes        | Needed for % of poverty calculation    |
| Mem­bers       |            |                                        |
+---------------+------------+----------------------------------------+
| Heating Cost  | Yes        | Total annual usage and cost furnished  |
|               |            | by ven­dor at the end of the heating    |
|               |            | sea­son                                 |
+---------------+------------+----------------------------------------+
| LIHEAP        | Yes        | Heating assistance benefit only        |
| Ben­efit       |            |                                        |
| Amount        |            |                                        |
+---------------+------------+----------------------------------------+

Table IV-3 identifies the supple­mental data that would be valuable, but
not critical to an analysis of program targeting. It demonstrates that
Maine could \"fine tune\" its program targeting with the rich data it
has on individual household members, public assistance program
recipiency and benefits, housing unit type and size, work status, and
tenure. Other data that are also available in the program database
include: recipient-reported information on the housing unit\'s water
heating system, insulation characteris­tics, and the current performance
of the home\'s heating system. These additional data elements furnish a
valuable link to the heating system replacement and weatherization
programs.

**Table IV-3. Availability of Supplemental Data Elements on Program
Recipients**

+-----------------+---------+------------------------------------------+
| **Data          | **Avai  | **Notes**                                |
| Element**       | lable** |                                          |
+-----------------+---------+------------------------------------------+
| Household       | Yes     | A household roster allows the State to   |
|                 |         | exam­ine the differential targeting for   |
| Roster          |         | alternative definitions of vulner­able    |
|                 |         | households; for example, the State could |
|                 |         | examine targeting for households with an |
|                 |         | individual over 75 com­pared to targeting |
|                 |         | for households with an individual over   |
|                 |         | 60; some states have only a check off    |
|                 |         | box for the current definition of        |
|                 |         | elder­ly households                       |
+-----------------+---------+------------------------------------------+
| Assistance      | Yes     | Medicaid, Food Stamps, General           |
|                 |         | Assis­tance; also can assess cash         |
| Pro­gram         |         | assis­tance recipiency through household  |
|                 |         | in­come grid                              |
| Pa­rticipation   |         |                                          |
+-----------------+---------+------------------------------------------+
| Work            | Yes     | Can assess by presence of wages or       |
|                 |         | self-employment income in household      |
| Status          |         | income grid                              |
+-----------------+---------+------------------------------------------+
| Owner or        | Yes     | Renters would include those households   |
|                 |         | which pay for heat in their rent         |
| Renter          |         |                                          |
+-----------------+---------+------------------------------------------+
| Information on  | Yes     | One secondary source entered             |
|                 |         |                                          |
| Sec­ondary Heat  |         |                                          |
| Sourc­es         |         |                                          |
+-----------------+---------+------------------------------------------+
| Payment         | Yes     | Direct payment of heating costs vs.      |
|                 |         | included in rent                         |
| arrange­ments    |         |                                          |
+-----------------+---------+------------------------------------------+

Tables IV-2 and IV-3 indicate that Maine currently collects all of the
data required to complete a complete baseline analysis of its targeting
mechanisms.

**4.2.2 Performance measures**

Section 3 of the report identified the \"target eligibility rates,\" the
\"target recipient rates,\" and the targeting index as available
performance measures. The population rate for a target group describes
the percent of the eligible population that is represented by the target
group. Similarly, the recipient rate is the percent of the recipient
population that is represented by the target group. The ratio of the two
numbers multiplied by 100 is the targeting index.

For targeting benefits to high burden households, Section 3 identified
the *energy burden reduction index* as an available performance measure.
This measure allows for an examination of how the LIHEAP program changes
energy burden among different target groups.

**4.3 Data Measurement System**

The third step in the development of a performance measurement system is
to develop a data measurement system to collect, report, and analyze
baseline and subsequent performance data which measure what the program
has achieved. The tables below present the results of the performance
measurement system developed for Maine\'s LIHEAP program.

**4.3.1 Targeting rates**

Tables IV-4 through IV-6 present information targeting rates for Maines
heating assistance program. Table IV-4 shows the targeting rates and
indices for vulnerable household groups. Tables IV-5 and IV-6 show the
income targeting rates and indices by dollar income and poverty groups.

Table IV-4 shows that for two of the target groups, households with an
individual with disabilities[^14] and households with a young child, the
targeting indices significantly exceed targeting index for households
with no vulnerable members, indicating that these groups are being
targeted. For households with an elderly individual, the targeting index
is the same as the targeting index for households with no vulnerable
members.[^15]

**Table IV-4. Maine\'s Vulnerability Targeting Rates by Vulnerable
Group**

+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Vulnerable        | **FY   | **     | **FY   | **     | **Tar  |
| Group**             | 1995   | Target | 1997   | Target | geting |
|                     | el     | eligi  | rec    | rec    | I      |
| (LE = less than or  | igible | bility | ipient | ipient | ndex** |
| equal to)           | househ | rate** | househ | rate** |        |
|                     | olds** |        | olds** |        |        |
| (GT = greater than) |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Elderly LE 125%     | 28,631 | 30.5%  | 11,623 | 32.8%  | 107    |
| poverty             |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Disabled LE 125%    | 19,409 | 20.7%  | 10,179 | 28.7%  | 139    |
| poverty             |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Young child LE 125% | 5,539  | 5.9%   | 2,653  | 7.5%   | 127    |
| poverty             |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Vulnerable GT 125%  | 14,817 | 15.8%  | 2,496  | 7.0%   | 45     |
| poverty             |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| No vulnerable       | 32,198 | 34.3%  | 13,005 | 36.7%  | 107    |
| members             |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

Table IV-5 shows that households with incomes between \$4,000 and less
than \$8,000 are the most highly targeted. The targeting index for the
other three groups of households are approximately the same, indicating
that they are all served at about the level. While it might be
surprising that households with incomes between \$0 and less than
\$4,000 are not served at a high rate, this pattern has also been
observed in other states, as well. In part, this pattern occurs because
this group includes some \"high wealth\" households which incurred a
loss during the year. In addition, the March CPS data show that this
group of households includes some low wage, single individu­als who are
not accessing any part of the social welfare system.

**Table IV-5. Maine\'s Income Targeting Rates by Income Group**

  -------------------- ----------- -------------- ------------ ------------- -------------
  **Income Group**     **FY 1995   **Population   **FY 1997    **Recipient   **Targeting
                       eligible in rate for       recipients   rate for      Index**
                       target      target group** in target    target        
                       group**                    group**      group**       

  \$0-\<\$4,000        12,512      13.3%          4,247        12.0%         90

  \$4,000-\<\$8,000    30,222      32.2%          14,105       39.8%         123

  \$8,000-\<\$12,000   28,985      30.9%          9,702        27.4%         89

  \$12,000+            22,099      23.6%          7,411        20.9%         89
  -------------------- ----------- -------------- ------------ ------------- -------------

Table IV-6 shows that the program is clearly targeted by poverty group.
The targeting index is 158 for the lowest poverty group, 83 for the
middle poverty group, and only 45 for the highest poverty group.

**Table IV-6. Maine\'s Income Targeting Rates by Poverty Group**

  -------------- ----------- -------------- ------------ ------------- -------------
  **Poverty      **FY 1995   **Population   **FY 1997    **Recipient   **Targeting
  Group**        eligible in rate for       recipients   rate for      Index**
                 target      target group** in target    target        
                 group**                    group**      group**       

  0- 75% poverty 28,921      30.8%          17,294       48.8%         158

  76%-125%       50,080      53.4%          15,653       44.1%         83
  poverty                                                              

  126%-150%      14,817      15.8%          2,496        7.0%          45
  poverty                                                              
  -------------- ----------- -------------- ------------ ------------- -------------

**4.3.2 Energy burden reduction rates**

An analysis of data from the Department of Energys 1993 Residential
Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) and the Department of Energys 1993
State Energy Price and Expenditure Report (SEPER) suggests that the
average home heating costs for low income households in Maine in 1993
were approxi­mate­ly \$515. Between 1993 and the 1996-97 winter, average
fuel oil costs in Maine rose by 23.3%. Since about 80% of Maine\'s low
income households use fuel oil as their main home heating fuel, our best
estimate of the average home heating costs for low income households in
Maine for FY 1997 is \$635. The mean income for LIHEAP-eligible
households in Maine (using the 1994-1996 average from the March CPS) is
\$8,831. Using these two figures, the mean group home heating burden is
7.1% for LIHEAP eligible-households, before taking into account the
effect of any LIHEAP benefits.

Tables IV-7 through IV-10 furnish information on the mean group energy
burden, mean benefit level, mean net group energy burden, and the burden
reduction index for Maine\'s LIHEAP heating assistance recipients. These
tables make use of data from Maine\'s DHLC model, household income data,
and heating assistance benefit data to examine the home heating
expendi­tures, home energy burden, and net home energy burden for
Maine\'s LIHEAP recipient house­holds.[^16]

Table IV-7 presents data by vulnerable group. Table IV-8 pres­ents data
by income level. Table IV-9 presents data by poverty group. Table IV-10
presents data by energy burden group.

Summary data from Table IV-7 show that for LIHEAP heating assistance
recipients, the mean home heating cost was \$730, mean income was
\$9,023, and average benefit level was \$316. Using these numbers, mean
group home heating burden was 8.1% and mean net group home heating
burden was 4.6%. Note that the mean group home heating burden of 8.1%
for recipients is somewhat higher than the 7.1% mean group home heating
burden estimated from the RECS/SEPER procedure for eligible households.

Table IV-7 shows that there was little or no targeting of benefits by
vulnerable group. The mean benefit ranged from \$302 for households with
a young child to \$320 for households with an elderly individual and for
households with no vulnerable members. Moreover, the burden reduction
indices fall in a very narrow range, from 97 to 103.

**Table IV-7. Energy Burden Reduction Rates for LIHEAP Recipients by
Vulnerable Group**

+-----------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
| **Target        | **M   | **     | **Mean | **     | *     | **     |
| Group**         | ean** | Mean** | Group  | Mean** | *Mean | Burden |
|                 |       |        | En     |        | Net   | Red    |
|                 | **Ene | **In   | ergy** | **Ben  | Gr    | uction |
|                 | rgy** | come** |        | ­efit** | oup** | I      |
|                 |       |        | **Bu   |        |       | ndex** |
|                 | **Co  |        | rden** |        | **Bur |        |
|                 | sts** |        |        |        | ­den** |        |
+-----------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
| Elderly         | \$769 | \      | 8.8%   | \$320  | 5.1%  | 97     |
|                 |       | $8,740 |        |        |       |        |
+-----------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
| Disabled        | \$730 | \      | 8.2%   | \$308  | 4.7%  | 98     |
|                 |       | $8,941 |        |        |       |        |
+-----------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
| Young Child     | \$699 | \$     | 6.1%   | \$302  | 3.4%  | 100    |
|                 |       | 11,532 |        |        |       |        |
+-----------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
| No Vulner­able   | \$711 | \      | 8.0%   | \$320  | 4.4%  | 103    |
| Mem­bers         |       | $8,906 |        |        |       |        |
+-----------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+
| All House­holds  | \$730 | \      | 8.1%   | \$316  | 4.6%  | 100    |
|                 |       | $9,023 |        |        |       |        |
+-----------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+-------+--------+

Table IV-8 shows that there was little or no targeting of benefits by
income group. The mean benefit for households with incomes less than
\$8,000 was \$304, while it was \$20 to \$30 higher for higher income
groups. The probable source of the increased benefit for the higher
income groups is that they had higher DHLC model estimates of energy
expenditures. As with Table IV-7, the burden reduction index falls
within a very narrow range.

**Table IV-8. Energy Burden Reduction Rates for LIHEAP Recipients by
Income Groups**

+-------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Income    | **     | **     | **Mean | **     | **Mean | **     |
| Group**     | Mean** | Mean** | Group  | Mean** | Net    | Burden |
|             |        |        | En     |        | G      | Red    |
|             | **En   | **In   | ergy** | **Ben  | roup** | uction |
|             | ergy** | come** |        | ­efit** |        | I      |
|             |        |        | **Bu   |        | **Bu   | ndex** |
|             | **C    |        | rden** |        | r­den** |        |
|             | osts** |        |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| \$          | \$684  | \      | 24.4%  | \$304  | 13.6%  | 102    |
| 0-\<\$4,000 |        | $2,801 |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| \$4,00      | \$698  | \      | 11.3%  | \$304  | 6.4%   | 100    |
| 0-\<\$8,000 |        | $6,191 |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| \$8,000     | \$745  | \      | 7.6%   | \$321  | 4.3%   | 100    |
| -\<\$12,000 |        | $9,750 |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| \$12,000 +  | \$793  | \$     | 5.0%   | \$336  | 2.9%   | 98     |
|             |        | 15,746 |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| All         | \$730  | \      | 8.1%   | \$316  | 4.6%   | 100    |
| House­holds  |        | $9,023 |        |        |        |        |
+-------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

Table IV-9 shows that there was more targeting of benefits by poverty
group. The mean benefit for households with incomes less than 75% of the
poverty line was \$318, while it was only \$300 for households with
incomes between 125% and less than 150% of the poverty line. The burden
reduction index is clearly higher for the lowest poverty groups.
However, table IV-8 and table IV-9 together might cause Maine\'s program
managers to consider a more significant differential in benefit levels
by income or poverty group. As noted earlier, households with incomes
between 75% and less than 125% of the poverty level receive a benefit
that is 10% smaller than households with incomes at or below 75% of the
poverty. A greater differential may be appro­priate given that the net
energy burdens are lower for the two higher income groups.

**Table IV-9. Energy Burden Reduction Rates for LIHEAP Recipients by
Income Groups**

+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Poverty     | **     | **     | **Mean | **     | **Mean | **     |
| Group**       | Mean** | Mean** | Group  | Mean** | Net    | Burden |
|               |        |        | En     |        | G      | Red    |
|               | **En   | **In   | ergy** | **Ben  | roup** | uction |
|               | ergy** | come** |        | ­efit** |        | I      |
|               |        |        | **Bu   |        | **Bu   | ndex** |
|               | **C    |        | rden** |        | r­den** |        |
|               | osts** |        |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 0-\<75%       | \$649  | \      | 9.4%   | \$318  | 4.8%   | 111    |
| poverty       |        | $6,932 |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 75%-\<125%    | \$786  | \$     | 7.8%   | \$316  | 4.7%   | 95     |
| poverty       |        | 10,094 |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 125%-\<150%   | \$836  | \$     | 5.9%   | \$300  | 3.8%   | 88     |
| poverty       |        | 14,291 |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| All           | \$730  | \      | 8.1%   | \$316  | 4.6%   | 100    |
| House­holds    |        | $9,023 |        |        |        |        |
+---------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

Table IV-10 probably furnishes the clearest picture of the extent of
benefit level target­ing in Maine\'s heating assistance program. It
clearly demonstrates that the highest burden households receive the
highest benefits; households with an energy burden of less than 5%
receive an average benefit of \$227, while households with an energy
burden greater than 15% receive an average benefit of \$420. However,
even with this level of benefit targeting, the lowest burden households
have the highest burden reduction index (i.e., they have the greatest
percentage reduction in their energy burdens).

**Table IV-10. Energy Burden Reduction Rates for LIHEAP Recipients by
Energy Burden Group**

+------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Energy** | **     | **     | **Mean | **     | **Mean | **     |
|            | Mean** | Mean** | Group  | Mean** | Net    | Burden |
| **Bur­den** |        |        | En     |        | G      | Red    |
|            | **En   | **In   | ergy** | **Ben  | roup** | uction |
| **Group**  | ergy** | come** |        | ­efit** |        | I      |
|            |        |        | **Bu   |        | **Bu   | ndex** |
|            | **C    |        | rden** |        | r­den** |        |
|            | osts** |        |        |        |        |        |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 0-\<5%     | \$401  | \$     | 3.3%   | \$227  | 1.4%   | 131    |
|            |        | 12,066 |        |        |        |        |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 5-\<10%    | \$692  | \      | 7.2%   | \$306  | 4.0%   | 102    |
|            |        | $9,597 |        |        |        |        |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 10-\<15%   | \$889  | \      | 12.1%  | \$354  | 7.3%   | 94     |
|            |        | $7,339 |        |        |        |        |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 15%+       | \      | \      | 21.1%  | \$420  | 13.1%  | 91     |
|            | $1,110 | $5,267 |        |        |        |        |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| All        | \$730  | \      | 8.1%   | \$316  | 4.6%   | 100    |
| House­holds |        | $9,023 |        |        |        |        |
+------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

**4.4 Next Steps**

The next step for Maine\'s LIHEAP program in further developing an
effective performance measurement system on targeting is to examine the
baseline performance measurement statistics and to refine them until
they meet the information needs of Maine\'s program managers. The
following are some examples of investigations that might be valuable as
Maine pushes forward in the development of its performance measurement
system.

> *Data on individuals with disabilities*: Currently there is a mismatch
> between the program definition of individuals with disabilities and
> the definitions used with the CPS to estimate the population of
> individuals with disabilities. Maine should investigate other
> information sources that could give a more accurate estimate of these
> households.
>
> *Integration of this analysis with analysis of its other types of
> LIHEAP assistance*: Maine also provides crisis assistance,[^17]
> weatherization assistance,[^18] and furnace replacement programs.[^19]
> Since this analysis is focusing only on heating assistance, it may not
> be accurately representing the overall targeting associated with
> Maine\'s LIHEAP program.
>
> *Analysis of actual energy bills:* This analysis used the information
> on *estimated* energy bills from the DHLC model. However, Maine has
> data on *actual* energy bills from vendor reports. The *actual* energy
> bills will furnish a better picture of how the overall program is
> targeting *individual* households.

Finally, Maine\'s program managers should integrate the findings from
these baseline performance measures with their management practices to
set performance standards from which they will then be able to measure
program progress, and revise the program accordingly. As stated earlier
in this Section, Maine\'s LIHEAP program is very advanced with respect
to the tools that are available for program management and the
procedures employed for targeting benefits. However, it does not
explicitly set performance goals and performance standards against which
it can assess it performance.

[^1]: ^?^From: *The Government Performance Results Act: 1997
    Governmentwide Implementation Will be Uneven* (GAO/GGD-97-109, June
    1997).

[^2]: ^?^As defined by the LIHEAP statute, \"highest home energy needs\"
    takes into account both the energy burden and \"the unique situation
    of such household that results from having members of vulnerable
    populations, including very young children, individuals with
    disabilities, and frail older individuals.\"

[^3]: ^?^Finalization of the measures will be done in collaboration with
    LIHEAP grantees and stakeholders through a LIHEAP GPRA Partnership
    Project that NEADA is conducting under contract to OCS.

[^4]: ^?^The pilot states are in various stages of collecting baseline
    data. In addition to Maine, case studies are available from NEADA
    for California and Wisconsin. Texas is in the process of completing
    a sample survey in developing its database. Several of the other
    project states are in the process of developing databases or
    completing their data analysis activities which will be available at
    a later date.

[^5]: ^?^To estimate the number of persons in poverty at the state
    level, the Census Bureau has developed a procedure that uses the
    three-year average from the three most recent March CPS files. The
    use of three-year averages can reduce the standard errors of the
    estimated data signifi­cantly. For example, the 1995 estimate of the
    percent of persons in poverty for Alabama was 20.1% (+/- 3.8% at the
    95% confidence interval). For the three-year period of 1993 through
    1995, the estimate of the percent of persons in poverty for Alabama
    was 18.0% (+/- 2.7% at the 95% confidence interval). Using the
    three-year average, the 95% confidence interval decreased from +/-
    3.8% to +/- 2.7%.

[^6]: ^?^In this regard, both the House and Senate Committees on
    Education and Labor urged that LIHEAP grantees use actual energy
    bills in determining energy burdens and designing their benefit
    structures (H. Report 103-483, Part I, dated April 26, 1994, and S.
    Report 103-251, April 19, 1994).

[^7]: ^?^Wisconsin has been able to develop comprehensive data on the
    energy expenditures on primary heating fuels used by recipient
    households. In some cases, applicants used two or three fuels, as a
    result, their primary fuel could account for less than 50 percent of
    fuel consumption. For those households, Wisconsin set a floor
    consumption level based upon the average consumption level for
    households living in similar housing stock.

[^8]: ^?^The LIHEAP statute requires that program benefits be limited to
    assisting eligible households in meeting their heating and cooling
    costs.

[^9]: ^?^­­There are several ways to calculate energy burden\--mean group,
    median individual, and mean individual, resulting in different
    interpretations of what may constitute high energy burden. See
    Appendix B of any recent LIHEAP Report to Congress for a further
    discussion on computing these burdens.

[^10]: ^?^The points were assigned for the following ranges of projected
    heating expenditures: \$0-\$200 = 5 points; \$201-\$400 = 10 points;
    \$401-\$600 = 15 points; \$601-\$800 = 20 points; \$801-\$1,000 = 25
    points; \$1,001-\$1,200 = 30 points; \$1,201+ = 35 points.

[^11]: ^?^For example, a household with modeled expenditures of \$390
    receives 10 points, while a household with modeled expenditures of
    \$401 receives 15 points. By having modeled expenditures \$11
    higher, the second household receives 5 additional points, or \$75
    additional dollars.

[^12]: ^?^FY 1995 data estimates on eligible households are used in
    order to complete the baseline assessment in a timely manner. In
    order to calculate estimates for FY 1997 on eligible households,
    March Current Population Survey data on eligible households for the
    three-year average calculations would not be available until the
    Fall of 1999. Since year-to-year changes in the characteristics of
    the eligible household population are likely to be small, the use of
    FY 1995 data on eligible households is believed to be acceptable for
    measuring targeting performance.

[^13]: ^?^The preliminary data file used for this analysis included
    35,465 LIHEAP households which received LIHEAP heating assis­tance.
    The basic findings are unlikely to change when the final data on the
    38,565 LIHEAP-recipient households are included in the tables.

[^14]: ^?^Recipient households are categorized as disabled according to
    Maine\'s definition. Eligible households are categorized as disabled
    if there is one person in the household (age 15 years or older) who
    did not look for work because of a disability. Maine\'s program
    managers could improve this targeting analysis by reestimating the
    number of eligible households using state-level administra­tive
    statistics on participation in other programs identified as
    qualifying a person as having special needs.

[^15]: ^?^While these data estimates of targeting rates should be useful
    to grantees, they should be used with caution. The estimates for
    eligible households are from a sample and have a variance associated
    with them. Some of the differences in participation rates could be
    solely due to sampling variability. In addition, estimates for
    recipient households are for 1997, while the estimates for eligible
    households are for 1995.

[^16]: ^?^The fuel vendor data were not available at the time these
    tables were developed. This analysis will furnish a preliminary
    assessment of the burden reduction target­ing. The final analysis of
    burden reduction targeting will require additional data from the
    Maine program.

[^17]: ^?^Crisis heating assistance was furnished under the Energy
    Crisis Intervention Program (ECIP-A) in FY 1997. An eligible
    household could receive an ECIP-A grant if the household has
    \"received a disconnection notice and has exhausted its ability to
    negotiate and pay the terms of a reasonable payment arrange­ment.\"
    The maximum ECIP-A benefit was \$200.

    Crisis equipment repair/replacement assistance was furnished under
    ECIP-B. Up to \$2,500 could be spent to repair or replace faulty and
    dangerous equipment. More restrictive limits are imposed on
    renter-occupied units.

[^18]: ^?^Weatheriza­tion assistance was provided in the following order
    of priority: (1) households which offer a leveraging opportunity,
    (2) households with the highest usage, and (3) households with an
    elderly member, special needs person, or young child. Households
    with high usage were identified by comparing the household\'s
    *self-reported* heating expenditures to Maine\'s Design Heat Load
    Computation estimate of *expected* expenditures. Those households
    with the highest differential between reported usage and expected
    usage were placed highest on the priority list. Second, among a set
    of house­holds who have similar differentials, priority applicant
    house­holds were placed higher on the priority list than other
    house­holds.

[^19]: ^?^Households could receive benefits either under the Central
    Heating Improvement Program (CHIP) or ECIP-B in FY 1997. Up to
    \$2,500 could be spent to repair or replace faulty and danger­ous
    equipment. More restrictive limits were imposed on renter-occupied
    units.