2014
DOI: 10.1111/coep.12050
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Impact of Low‐income Home Energy Assistance Program Participation on Household Energy Insecurity

Abstract: The impact of the low-income home energy assistance program (LIHEAP), the single largest energy assistance program available to poor households in the United States has received little rigorous attention. If LIHEAP participation significantly improves low-income household energy security, funding cuts or eliminating the program could negatively impact the poor. This article empirically estimates the impact of LIHEAP on household energy security. The results indicate participation in LIHEAP significantly increa… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
4

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
(34 reference statements)
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Both the LIHEAP and WAP programs serve far fewer households than are eligible (Hernández et al, 2014) and few studies have evaluated the impact of these programs on energy security or broader measures of well-being. One recent study used policy simulations to assess the impact of LIHEAP on energy security and found that eliminating this program would reduce the number of energy secure low-income households by at least 17% (Murray and Mills, 2014). Another study found that LIHEAP is associated with better nutrition among young children in low-income renter households (Frank et al, 2006), underscoring the interdependent nature of hardships involving basic needs.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both the LIHEAP and WAP programs serve far fewer households than are eligible (Hernández et al, 2014) and few studies have evaluated the impact of these programs on energy security or broader measures of well-being. One recent study used policy simulations to assess the impact of LIHEAP on energy security and found that eliminating this program would reduce the number of energy secure low-income households by at least 17% (Murray and Mills, 2014). Another study found that LIHEAP is associated with better nutrition among young children in low-income renter households (Frank et al, 2006), underscoring the interdependent nature of hardships involving basic needs.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…comparison, an estimated 16% of eligible households nationally receive benefits from LIHEAP. 24 The largest proportion of heat-associated deaths during the study period occurred among people who had lived in Arizona for ≥20 years. Although long-term Arizona residents might be better acclimated to heat than the average population, 9 acclimation does not eliminate the risk for death from heat-associated illness.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The federally funded low-income home energy assistance program (LIHEAP) can help people who are unable to afford electricity for heating or cooling. 24 However, in 2014, LIHEAP funding supported fewer than 5% (n = 50 520) of 617 000 eligible Arizona households 25 ; by Arizona residency was based on address information on the death certificate. f Data on Arizona residency were available for 913 decedents; data on years lived in Arizona were available for 727 of 842 Arizona residents.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consequently, reduction focused strategies or metrics embedded within a national energy poverty policy to understand the effectiveness of each program's response were not established. Nonetheless, each program has a list of successes, namely, reducing energy costs 22,23 , improving children's growth and health 24 , and reducing greenhouse gas emissions 15,25 . Despite measurable successes, without formal and comprehensive recognition of energy poverty, the effectiveness of current responses continues to be masked by poor performance measures not aligned with national energy poverty reduction.…”
Section: Evaluation Of Us Responses To Energy Povertymentioning
confidence: 99%