LIHEAP was under the spotlight again in May, this time being appreciated in academia by the Nicolas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions at DUKE University, recognized in a study for measurably proving year in and out to be “an essential form of relief for those forced to make difficult decisions around how to pay for energy, food, healthcare, housing, water, or other essentials. This policy brief examines the history of LIHEAP and how it operates, the program’s response during periods of crisis…(and) research opportunities for extending the reach of this vital source of energy bill assistance.”
Underscoring the program’s continued relevance and necessity in the introductory remarks of their brief, the experts at DUKE noted that “the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the hardships faced by low-income and minority families and individuals especially, putting them at heightened risk of illness and job loss. As a result, households that were already unable to make ends meet are now facing increased health care costs and a reduced or lost income.”
Under a specific section of the study titled “LIHEAP FUNDING RESPONSES TO THE FINANCIAL CRISIS AND COVID-19 PANDEMIC,” successful statistics in spite of the sadness of the backdrop of lives lost focused in part on lives saved because of the program, noting impressively that boasting some of its best funding numbers in years, “from FY2017 to FY2021, the average LIHEAP appropriation was $3.6 billion.30 The peak funding over that time period was just over $4.6 billion in FY2020, when the initial approximately $3.7 billion release was supplemented by a $900 million release through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Still, focusing on the forms of LIHEAP Assistance and how the aforementioned funding is disbursed locally, DUKE University’s Nicolas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions found that “the largest share of LIHEAP assistance goes towards heating, with a much smaller share going towards cooling; The second largest share of LIHEAP assistance goes towards summer, winter, and year-round crisis assistance.” Putting those findings in context with actual data, the study found that “nationally, 75% of LIHEAP funds went towards cooling, heating, and crisis assistance from 2001 to 2019.” Analyzing the impact on specific demographics within those regions studied, Duke revealed that “those affected by job and income loss during the pandemic are disproportionately low-income and minority households34—the very households that depend the most on LIHEAP funding.”
In offering one poignant example, the findings of DUKE’s study pointed out that “the Southeast is particularly vulnerable to energy insecurity, a chronic problem with roots in the historical racial and economic inequities of the region.35 The region has some of the lowest energy rates in the contiguous U.S. yet has average residential electric bills of over $130/month—the highest in the contiguous U.S. As a result, low-income Southerners spend a disproportionate amount of their income on energy, and they often struggle to do so. The LIHEAP funds have an important role to play in mitigating these difficulties, as they provide direct bill assistance and weatherization assistance to those in need. This program, however, does not reach the majority of Southerners struggling to make ends meet.”
Closing their study with conclusions and recommendations, DUKE began by pointing a spotlight on the fact that “this preliminary exploration of LIHEAP has uncovered areas ripe for additional research and discussion. While attention has been drawn to these research areas throughout the policy brief, specific questions to investigate are highlighted: (1) The disparity in the percentage of LIHEAP funds used nationally for heating assistance (51%) vs. cooling assistance (5%) is notable. Why are funds more likely to be used for heating assistance than cooling assistance?”
DUKE wrapped up by posing several additional compelling questions in their findings, beginning with a query that “given the use of the ‘old’ formula continued emphasis on heating cold homes with the first $2 billion of LIHEAP funding, people in cold-weather states are favored. Is the South getting its fair share of LIHEAP funding? Why do some states (e.g., Kentucky, North Carolina, West Virginia) elect not to provide cooling assistance, despite having high summer temperatures? How many households apply for LIHEAP but are rejected, and for what reasons?” The Nicolas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions recommended in their study summary that “investigating how states report their average benefit numbers would be useful for better understanding the total average benefits that households are receiving.”
Based on this comprehensive examination of the most current LIHEAP numbers available and measuring their substantial positive impact in the lives of those the energy assistance helped during the pandemic. More generally, DUKE’s findings substantially demonstrate the program’s continued vibrancy and essential value to improving the lives of those who use LIHEAP season in and out, and perhaps most importantly, that lives would be in danger without its continued existence and utilization by MILLIONS of families around the U.S.
Reporting by JB