nj shares evaluation of 2009 grants
Post on 15-Jan-2016
33 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
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 Q1 2009.
4
NJ SHARES Database AnalysisGrant Counts by Fuel Supplier
5
2009 Recipients
UtilityNumber of
GrantsPercent of All
GrantsGrant Dollars
Percent of Grant Dollars
ACE 1,112 6% $399,593 4%
ETG 886 5% $522,105 5%
JCP&L 2,067 11% $686,260 6%
NJNG 1,071 6% $624,668 6%
PSE&G 11,453 62% $8,064,986 71%
RECO 45 <1% $13,922 <1%
SJG 882 5% $523,913 5%
Others 90 <1% $24,960 <1%
Oil/Propane 928 5% $481,704 4%
TOTAL 18,534 100% $11,342,111 100%
NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Counts by Grant Type
6
Type Q1 2007 Q1 2008 Q1 2009 Q1 2010
Electric Only
715 19% 1,008 24% 2,104 19% 1,358 21%
Gas Only 832 22% 1,036 24% 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 6% 335 5%
Oil -- -- -- -- 672 6% 513 8%
Propane -- -- -- -- 39 <1% 25 <1%
TOTAL 3,718 4,258 11,271 6,516
NJ SHARES Database Analysis By County
7
2009 Grant Recipients
CountyNumber Served
Percent of Total
CountyNumber 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 3.7% Sussex 311 1.7%
Hudson 1,542 8.3% Union 1,377 7.4%
Hunterdon 87 0.5% Warren 119 0.6%
Mercer 1,450 7.8% TOTAL 18,534 100.0%
NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Counts by Agency Type
8
Agency Type Q1 2007 Q1 2008 Q1 2009 Q1 2010
# % # % # % # %
Legislative Office
0 0% 64 2% 1,595 14% 789 12%
Other Nonprofit
3,718 100% 4,194 98% 9,676 86% 5,727 88%
TOTAL 3,718 4,258 11,271 6,516
NJ SHARES Database Analysis Number of Years of Grant Receipt2005-2010
9
Number of Years Percent of Grant Recipients
2009 Evaluation 2010 Evaluation
1 Year 81% 78%
2 Years 14% 15%
3 Years 4% 4%
4 Years 1% 2%
5 Years <1% 1%
6 Years N/A <1%
NJ SHARES Database Analysis Number of Household Members Contributing to Household Income
10
Number of Household Members
2005 Recipients
2006 Recipients
2007 Recipients
2008 Recipients
2009 Recipients
None <1 % 0% 0% <1% <1%
One 75% 73% 72% 71% 68%
Two 22% 24% 25% 26% 29%
Three or More
3% 3% 3% 3% 3%
Mean Number
1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4
NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Income Sources
11
Income Source 2005
Recipients 2006
Recipients 2007
Recipients2008
Recipients2009
Recipients
Employment 88% 89% 88% 89% 86%
Pension or Social Security
12% 12% 13% 12% 14%
Unemployment Compensation
6% 5% 5% 5% 12%
Disability 5% 4% 5% 5% 4%
Child Support 4% 4% 3% 2% 3%
Other 3% 3% 3% 3% 4%
NJ SHARES Database Analysis Annual Household Income
12
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% 29% 26% 23%
$40,000 - $49,999 19% 20% 21% 23%
$50,000 + 19% 24% 32% 41%
Mean Annual Income $38,921 $41,844 $45,567 $49,133
NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Poverty Level
13
Household Poverty Level
2006 Recipients
2007 Recipients
2008Recipients
2009 Recipients
<175% 6% 5% 4% 1%
175-199% 24% 20% 20% 4%
200-224% 18% 17% 16% 11%
225% - 249% 14% 13% 14% 22%
250% - 299% 16% 17% 18% 31%
300% + 22% 28% 29% 32%
Mean Poverty Level 257% 273% 277% 280%
Note: As of January 23, 2009, income eligibility is capped at 400% of poverty.
NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Composition
14
Note: A household can be included in more than one category.
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% 8% 13% 12% 16%
NJ SHARES Database Analysis Agencies Focused on Seniors
15
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.
NJ SHARES Database Analysis Agencies Focused on Seniors
16
2009 RecipientsElderly 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% 17,874 100% 18,534 100%% of all recipients 4% 96% 100%
2008 RecipientsElderly Agencies Other Agencies All Agencies
# % # % # %Household Member Over 60
No 184 65% 10,274 88% 10,458 88%Yes 97 35% 1,395 12% 1,492 12%
Total 281 100% 11,669 100% 11,950 100%% of all recipients 2% 98% 100%
NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Composition
17
Note: “Single Parent” and “Elderly Only” households were identified using the age grouping variables, in the database not the variable “Category”.
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%
NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Poverty Level
18
Household Poverty Level
Household Composition
2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients
All ≤ 18
Years Old
> 60 Years Old
All ≤ 18
Years Old
> 60 Years Old
<225% 39% 43% 39% 15% 16% 14%
222% - 249% 14% 15% 14% 22% 23% 22%
250% - 299% 18% 19% 17% 31% 31% 30%
300% + 29% 23% 30% 32% 30% 34%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Poverty Level
19
Household Poverty Level
Household Composition
2008 Recipients 2009 Recipients
All Single Parent
Elderly Only
All Single Parent
Elderly Only
<225% 39% 50% 40% 15% 18% 13%
225% - 249% 14% 14% 14% 22% 26% 24%
250% - 299% 18% 17% 16% 31% 30% 29%
300% + 29% 19% 31% 32% 26% 33%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
NJ SHARES Database Analysis Household Size
20
Household Size
2005 Recipients
2006 Recipients
2007 Recipients
2008 Recipients
2009 Recipients
1 26% 22% 24% 21% 20%
2 30% 30% 28% 29% 28%
3 21% 22% 21% 22% 22%
4 14% 15% 17% 17% 18%
5 + 9% 10% 11% 12% 12%
Mean Size 2.5 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8
NJ SHARES Database Analysis Main Heating Fuel
21
Main Heating Fuel
2005 Recipients
2006 Recipients
2007 Recipients
2008Recipients
2009 Recipients
Natural Gas 82% 83% 84% 84% 83%
Electric 13% 11% 11% 11% 7%
Oil 5% 5% 4% 4% 10%
Propane <1% <1% <1% <1% 1%
Other <1% <1% <1% <1% <1%
NJ SHARES Database Analysis Recipient-Reported Bill Balance at Grant Application
22
Reported Bill Balance
2005 Recipients
2006 Recipients
2007 Recipients
2008Recipients
2009 Recipients
< $250 8% 8% 7% 7% 7%
$250 - $499 25% 20% 23% 21% 19%
$500 - $749 23% 22% 24% 21% 19%
$750 - $999 16% 15% 17% 17% 16%
$1,000 + 29% 35% 29% 35% 40%
Mean Balance $892 $993 $879 $963 $1,070
NJ SHARES Database Analysis Reported Bill Balance at Grant Application
23
2009 Recipients
Bill Balance
Percent of Federal Poverty Level
< 225% 225-249% 250-299% 300% +
< $500 28% 25% 25% 25%
$500 - $749 19% 19% 20% 18%
$750 -$999 15% 15% 16% 16%
$1,000+ 38% 41% 39% 41%
Mean Balance $1,038 $1,093 $1,061 $1,079
NJ SHARES Database Analysis Mean Reported Bill Balance at Grant Application
24
Grant Type 2005
Recipients 2006
Recipients 2007
Recipients2008
Recipients2009
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 $831 $823 $904 $1,010 $1,048
All Grants $892 $993 $879 $963 $1,070
NJ SHARES Database Analysis Collections Actions Pending at Grant Application
25
Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% because a household with grants for more than one utility may have two different collections actions.
Collections Actions 2005
Recipients 2006
Recipients 2007
Recipients 2008
Recipients 2009
Recipients
Past Due Balance 8% 3% 17% 20% 26%
Past Due Warning Notice 47% 18% 17% 19% 23%
Shut-Off Date Not Passed 20% 22% 20% 17% 16%
Shut-Off Date Passed 26% 49% 41% 39% 32%
Utility Shut-Off 0% 9% 4% 6% 3%
NJ SHARES Database Analysis Reason for Grant Application
26
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% 6% 4% 8%
Reduced Hours/Change in Employment
-- -- 6% 5% 6%
Other 3% 2% 8% 6% 3%
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
28
Grant Amount
2005 Recipients
2006 Recipients
2007 Recipients
2008 Recipients
2009 Recipients
Electric Only $250 $300 $300 $300 $300
Gas Only $250 $700 $700 $700 $700
Electric & Gas
$500 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
Electric Heat $500 $700 $700 $700 $700
Oil/Propane -- -- -- $700 $700
NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Amounts
29
Grant Amount
2005 Recipients
2006 Recipients
2007 Recipients
2008 Recipients
2009 Recipients
< $300 45% 14% 11% 11% 10%
$300 <1% 14% 20% 22% 23%
$301 - $699 55% 28% 24% 21% 19%
$700 0% 10% 17% 16% 16%
$700 - $999 0% 12% 10% 9% 7%
$1,000 0% 22% 17% 22% 25%
Mean Grant $373 $603 $588 $596 $612
NJ SHARES Database Analysis Grant Amounts
30
2009 Recipients
Grant Amount
Grant Type
Electric Only
Gas Only Electric & Gas Electric Heat
Oil
< $300 20% 9% 3% 6% 10%
$300 80% <1% <1% 5% <1%
$301 - $699 0% 35% 16% 23% 74%
$700 0% 56% <1% 65% 15%
$700 - $999 0% 0% 19% 0% 0%
$1,000 0% 0% 62% 0% 0%
Mean Grant $281 $589 $873 $607 $519
NJ SHARES Database Analysis % Receiving Max Grant Allowed
31
Grant Type
Electric Only
Gas Only Electric & Gas Electric Heat
Oil
2005 89% 89% 76% 67% --
2006 67% 40% 40% 48% --
2007 75% 50% 43% 58% --
2008 78% 47% 53% 62% 16%
2009 80% 56% 62% 65% 15%
NJ SHARES Database Analysis Mean Grant Amount By Utility
32
Utility 2005
Recipients 2006
Recipients 2007
Recipients2008
Recipients2009
Recipients
ACE $286 $331 $329 $350 $359
ETG $237 $504 $572 $579 $589
JCP&L $278 $303 $333 $329 $332
NJNG $246 $557 $563 $547 $583
PSE&G $420 $669 $698 $710 $704
RECO $237 $284 $319 $326 $309
SJG $236 $544 $586 $565 $594
PART 2Utility Data Analysis Methodology• Focused on Q1 2009 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 Q1 2008 and Q1 2010 recipients as comparison groups
33
Utility Data Analysis Sample Group Definitions
34
Q1 2009 Recipient Treatment Group
Q1 2008 Recipient Comparison Group
Q1 2010 Recipient Comparison Group
Accounts IncludedAll Q1 2009 grant
recipients
Accounts receiving grants in Q1 2008
only
Accounts receiving grants in Q1 2010 that did not receive grants in Q1 2009
Analysis Period Starts 1 day following grant1 year + 1 day after
grant1 year + 1 day before
grant
Analysis Period Ends1 year + 1 day after
grant2 years + 1 day after
grant1 day before grant
Analysis Period Span Q1 2009– Q1 2010 Q1 2009– Q1 2010 Q1 2009– Q1 2010
Utility Data Analysis Sample Group Definitions
35
2008
Q1 2009 ANALYSIS PERIOD
Q1 2008 ANALYSIS PERIOD
Q1 2010 ANALYSIS PERIOD
GRANT DATE
GRANT DATE + 1 YEAR + 1 DAYGRANT DATE + 1 DAY
GRANT DATE
GRANT DATE – 1 DAY
2009 2010
GRANT DATE + 1 DAY
GRANT DATE
1 YEAR
“Good Faith” Payment Analysis “Good Faith” Period Definition
36
• 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.
INTAKE DATE – 90 DAYS
INTAKE DATE
GRANT DATE
“GOOD FAITH” PERIOD
GRANT DATE – 1 DAY
“Good Faith” Payment AnalysisAttrition Analysis
37
Q1 2008 Recipients
Q1 2009 Recipients
Q1 2010 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.
“Good Faith” Payment AnalysisPercent Making “Good Faith” Payment
38
Q1 2008 Recipients Q1 2009 Recipients Q1 2010 Recipients
98% 97% 96%
“Good Faith” Payment AnalysisPercent Making “Good Faith” Payment By Utility
39
Q1 2010 Recipients
UtilityNumber of Customers
Percentage Making “Good Faith” Payment
ACE 229 93%
ETG 122 95%
NJNG 185 93%
PSE&G 1,958 98%
RECO 10 100%
SJG 177 93%
TOTAL 2,681 96%
“Good Faith” Payment Analysis Amount of Good Faith Payments Made
40
PaymentsQ1 2008
RecipientsQ1 2009
RecipientsQ1 2010
Recipients
$0 1% 2% 2%
$1 - $99 1% 1% 1%
$100 10% 6% 8%
$101 - $250 25% 13% 19%
$251 - $500 30% 25% 27%
$501 + 33% 53% 42%
Mean Payment $467 $679 $577
“Good Faith” Payment Analysis Amount of Good Faith Payments MadeBy Utility
41
Q1 2010 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% 2% 0% 1% 2%
$1 - $99 3% 3% 4% 1% 0% 6% 1%
$100 9% 4% 4% 8% 0% 18% 8%
$101 - $250 21% 39% 42% 14% 50% 25% 19%
$251 - $500 27% 26% 28% 27% 30% 34% 27%
$501 + 36% 26% 20% 49% 20% 17% 42%
Mean Payment
$481 $352 $330 $649 $366 $330 $577
“Good Faith” Payment AnalysisAmount of Good Faith Payments Made
42
Q1 2010 Recipients
Payments
Federal Poverty Level
225-249%
250-299%
≥ 300%
$0 2% 2% 2%
$1 - $99 2% 2% 1%
$100 9% 9% 7%
$101 - $250 20% 17% 19%
$251 - $500 27% 29% 26%
$501 + 40% 40% 45%
Mean Payment
$534 $548 $622
“Good Faith” Payment Analysis Number of Payments for Those Paying at Least $100
43
PaymentsQ1 2008
RecipientsQ1 2009
RecipientsQ1 2010
Recipients
25th Percentile 1 2 2
50th Percentile 2 3 2
75th Percentile 3 5 3
Mean Number of Payments
2.7 3.5 2.6
Grant Coverage AnalysisAttrition Analysis
44
Q1 2008 Recipients
Q1 2009 Recipients
Q1 2010 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.
Grant Coverage AnalysisGrant Coverage
45
Q1 2008 Recipients
Q1 2009 Recipients
Q1 2010 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%
Grant Coverage Analysis Grant Coverage By Utility
46
Q1 2009 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 $595
Mean Percent of Pre-Grant Balances Covered
60% 80% 62% 84% 70% 48% 84% 71%
Grant Coverage Analysis Grant Coverage By Grant Type
47
Q1 2009 Recipients
Electric Only
Gas OnlyElectric &
GasElectric
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 $869 $603
Mean Post-Grant Balance $597 $444 $669 $545
Mean Percent of Pre-Grant Balances Covered
53% 76% 75% 71%
Grant Coverage Analysis Grant Coverage By Main Heating Fuel
48
Q1 2009 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%
Grant Coverage Analysis Grant Coverage Distribution
49
Q1 2009 Recipients
Percentile
10% 25% 50% 75% 90%
Percent of Pre-Grant Balances Covered
28% 43% 65% 88% 104%
Payment Compliance AnalysisAttrition Analysis
50
Q1 2008 Recipients
Q1 2009 Recipients
Q1 2010 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.
Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Percent of Bills Paid
51
Date Range
Months after
Grants
Q1 2008 Recipients
Q1 2009 Recipients
Q1 2010 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% 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.
Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Percent of Bills Paid
52
Q1 2008 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
Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Percent of Bills PaidSame Accounts
53
Q1 2008 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 1,057
Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Percent of Bills Paid By Utility
54
Q1 2009 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% 95% 111% 149% 97%
6 Months 79% 105% 92% 119% 98% 102% 149% 102%
9 Months 84% 95% 95% 98% 95% 101% 102% 95%
12 Months 86% 82% 93% 92% 89% 97% 89% 89%
Payment Compliance Analysis Percent That Paid More Than 90 and 100 Percent of Billed Amount
55
Date Range
Month after
Grants
Q1 2008 Recipients Q1 2009 Recipients Q1 2010 Recipients
Pay ≥ 100%
Pay ≥ 90%Pay ≥ 100%
Pay ≥ 90%Pay ≥ 100%
Pay ≥ 90%
Q2 2009 3 Months 64% 70% 37% 45% 59% 65%
Q3 2009 6 Months 69% 78% 43% 54% 64% 72%
Q4 2009 9 Months 72% 81% 39% 55% 57% 70%
Q1 2010 12 Months 59% 76% 27% 48% 23% 41%
Payment Compliance Analysis Percent That Paid More Than 90 and 100 Percent of Billed Amount
56
Q1 2008 Recipients
Year After Grant Receipt
First Second
Pay ≥ 100% Pay ≥ 90% 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% 32% 59% 76%
Accounts Included
2,690 1,218
Payment Compliance Analysis Percent That Paid More Than 90 and 100 Percent of Billed AmountSame Accounts
57
Q1 2008 Recipients
Year After Grant Receipt
First Second
Pay ≥ 100% Pay ≥ 90% 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% 35% 58% 75%
Accounts Included
1,057 1,057
Payment Compliance Analysis By Utility
58
Q1 2009 Recipients
Pay≥100% ACE ETG JCPL NJNG PSE&G RECO SJG
3 Months 30% 41% 28% 44% 36% 38% 50%
6 Months 27% 53% 38% 57% 41% 63% 62%
9 Months 25% 45% 33% 42% 39% 50% 44%
12 Months 26% 27% 30% 32% 27% 38% 21%
Accounts Included
292 333 79 424 4,242 16 248
Payment Compliance Analysis By Utility
59
Q1 2009 Recipients
Pay≥90% ACE ETG JCPL NJNG PSE&G RECO SJG
3 Months 35% 46% 35% 52% 44% 50% 56%
6 Months 37% 62% 49% 67% 53% 69% 69%
9 Months 42% 59% 59% 59% 54% 69% 56%
12 Months 49% 46% 54% 54% 48% 69% 38%
Accounts Included
292 333 79 424 4,242 16 248
Payment Compliance Analysis Percent of Bills Paid
60
Percent of Bills Paid
Q1 2008 Recipients
Q1 2009 Recipients
Q1 2010 Recipients
< 50% 4% 5% 6%
50% - 75% 8% 20% 23%
76% - 90% 13% 27% 30%
91% - 99% 17% 21% 18%
100% + 59% 27% 23%
Mean 105% 89% 89%
Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Bill Balance
61
Payment Compliance Analysis Mean Bill Balance By Utility
62
Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis
63
Successful (32%)
Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis
64
Q1 2006 Recipients
Q1 2007 Recipients
Q1 2008 Recipients
Q1 2009 Recipients
Successful 26% 24% 19% 32%
Marginal Success
7% 6% 5% 6%
Need More Help 67% 70% 76% 61%
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100%
Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis
65
Successful (62%)
Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis
66
Q1 2008 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
Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation AnalysisSame Account
67
Q1 2008 Recipients
Year After Grant Receipt
First Second
Successful 22% 60%
Marginal Success
5% 8%
Need More Help 73% 32%
Accounts Included
1,057 1,057
Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis By Utility
68
Q1 2009 Recipients
Successful
Marginal SuccessNeed More Help
Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis By Utility
69
Q1 2009 Recipients
Successful
Marginal SuccessNeed More Help
Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis
70
Q1 2009 Recipients
Ending Balance <$100
Balance Declined, Ending Balance
≥ $100
Balance Increased by
<$100
Balance Increased by
≥ $100
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 10 10 9
Mean Percent of Bills Paid 107% 117% 97% 75%
* Note: Only customer payments are counted.
Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis
71
Q1 2009 Recipients
Ending Balance <$100
Balance Declined, Ending Balance
≥ $100
Balance Increased by
<$100
Balance Increased by
≥ $100
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
Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation AnalysisMean Charges
72
Q1 2009 Recipients
Grant TypeEnding Balance
<$100
Balance Declined, Ending Balance
≥ $100
Balance Increased by
<$100
Balance Increased by
≥ $100
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
Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis
73
Q1 2009 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 9 7
Mean Percent of Bills Paid 87% 74% 57%
* Note: Only customer payments are counted.
Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis
74
Q1 2009 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
Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation AnalysisMean Charges
75
Q1 2009 Recipients
Grant TypeBalance
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
Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis
76
Q1 2009 Recipients
Ending Balance <$100
Balance Declined, Ending Balance
≥ $100
Balance Increased by
<$100
Balance Increased by
≥ $100
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% 100% 0% 0%
Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis
77
Q1 2009 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% 0% 0%
Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis
Q1 2009 Recipients
Ending Balance <$100
Balance Declined, Ending Balance
≥ $100
Balance Increased by
<$100
Balance Increased by
≥ $100
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% 23% 18% 24%
250% - 299% FPL 30% 34% 37% 32%
≥ 300% FPL 36% 36% 37% 34%
Percent Single-Parent 21% 17% 21% 21%
Percent Elderly-Only 10% 8% 10% 8%
Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis
79
Q1 2009 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% 32% 36%
Percent Single-Parent 21% 21% 22%
Percent Elderly-Only 9% 8% 7%
Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis
80
Q1 2009 Recipients
Grant TypeEnding Balance <$100
Balance Declined, Ending
Balance ≥ $100
Balance Increased by
<$100
Balance Increased by
≥ $100TOTAL
Electric Only 14% 22% 7% 56% 100%
Gas Only 18% 17% 8% 58% 100%
Electric & Gas
12% 18% 5% 65% 100%
Electric Heat 12% 22% 7% 59% 100%
Payment Compliance Analysis Segmentation Analysis
81
Q1 2009 Recipients
Grant TypeBalance
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% 14% 100%
Electric & Gas
28% 46% 26% 100%
Electric Heat 36% 50% 15% 100%
Receipt of Energy AssistancePercent Who Received USF or LIHEAPIn the 12 Months Following Grant Receipt
82
Q1 2009 Recipients
Utility Number of Customers Percent Receiving USF or LIHEAP
ACE 292 8%
ETG 333 7%
NCPL 79 4%
NJNG 424 8%
PSE&G 4,242 8%
RECO 16 6%
SJG 248 10%
TOTAL 5,634 8%
Receipt of Energy AssistancePercent Who Received USF or LIHEAP In the “Good Faith” Period
83
Q1 2009 Recipients
Utility Number of Customers Percent Receiving USF or LIHEAP
ACE 292 2%
ETG 333 <1%
NCPL 79 0%
NJNG 424 0%
PSE&G 4,242 2%
RECO 16 0%
SJG 248 2%
TOTAL 5,634 2%
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 Q1 2009 recipients were successful compared to 19% of Q1 2008 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
top related