The data indicate the need for national improvement in LIHEAP performance targeting for both household groups. As a block grant program, the improvement in nationwide targeting performance is based upon the targeting performance of each State.
Based on the most inclusive income standards applied, approximately 22 States met or exceeded the FFY 2006 national recipiency targeting index goal for elderly households. Twenty-three States met or exceeded the FFY 2006 national recipiency targeting goal for young child households.
The reporting of State recipiency targeting indexes serves the following purposes:
- as feedback to States on where improvements can be made in LIHEAP meeting or exceeding future national recipiency LIHEAP targeting index goals;
- as feedback to States on how well they are targeting vulnerable households relative to other States;
- to allow each State to assess its recipiency targeting performance with respect to its income eligible elderly and young child populations with respect to heating assistance; and
- to allow for examination of the program design features of those State LIHEAP programs that achieved higher rankings.
How the indexes and rankings are calculated
Heating recipiency targeting indexes for each State have been calculated as follows:
- calculate the percent of LIHEAP heating assisted households that are members of the target group (as obtained from the State’s LIHEAP Household Reports);
- divide that percent by the percent of all LIHEAP-income eligible households that are members of the target group in the State; and
- multiply the result by 100.
For example, if 25 percent of LIHEAP assisted households are elderly households and 20 percent of all income eligible households are elderly households, the recipiency targeting index for elderly households is 125 (25 divided by 20 multiplied by 100). A State's recipiency targeting index indicates whether its LIHEAP program is serving a target group of households at a higher rate (recipiency targeting index greater than 100) or at a lower rate (recipiency targeting index less than 100) than all LIHEAP income eligible households that are members of the target group.
In other words, the recipiency targeting indexes measure whether the program is serving each of these two types of households at a higher or lower rate than their prevalence in the low income target household population.
The calculation of State-level recipiency targeting indexes and rankings rely on:
- 2005 and 2006 Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) statistical estimates of the number of State LIHEAP income eligible (low income ) populations, including for both vulnerable household types; and
- FFY 2006 State-reported numbers of heating assistance households, including for both vulnerable populations.
Based on each State’s FY 2006 heating assistance targeting index, the States were ranked from high to low at the Federal LIHEAP maximum income standard and State LIHEAP maximum income standard for elderly and young child households.
As explained in Attachment C, the recipiency targeting indexes and rankings include the estimate, and the upper and lower limits for each State’s recipiency targeting index and ranking, using a 95 percent confidence interval. Intervals which overlap between or among States indicate that the difference in the targeting index estimates for those States are not statistically significant.
The width of the confidence interval will vary depending on a number of factors. In general, confidence intervals for smaller States are wider than for larger States, though there are certain exceptions to that. In addition, confidence intervals are generally wider for State maximum income than for the Federal maximum income. In both cases, the confidence intervals are wider because the statistic is based on a smaller sample size. The reliability and preciseness of estimates decrease as the width of the confidence interval increases.
Analysis of the Rankings
Overall, the data indicate that at least half of the States ranking at the top for targeting one vulnerable group, consistently ranked near the bottom for targeting the other vulnerable group. One reason for this could be that activities are—intentionally or unintentionally—focused primarily on at one vulnerable group rather than equal focus on both vulnerable groups. Another possibility could be that benefit amounts are higher for one vulnerable group compared to the other.
Another finding from the data indicates that a few States are at the extreme ends of the performance range for targeting both vulnerable groups. For example, three States ranked low for targeting both groups under the Federal maximum and four States ranked low for targeting both groups under the State maximum. Table 3 shows which States ranked high for targeting both vulnerable groups.
Table 3: High Ranked States for Recipiency Targeting of Both Vulnerable Groups
| Income Cutoff |
HiGH RANKED STATES |
Federal Maximum Income Standard |
District of Columbia
Hawaii
South Dakota |
State Maximum Income Standard |
Alaska
District of Columbia
Hawaii
South Dakota |
As seen in Figures 1-4 of Attachment A, the following States obtained the statistically significant highest rankings for recipiency targeting performance:
Table 4: Highest Ranked States for Recipiency Targeting for One Vulnerable Group
| Income Cutoff |
Elderly Targeting |
Young Child Targeting |
Federal Maximum Income Standard |
Georgia |
Nebraska |
State Maximum Income Standard |
Georgia |
Nebraska and North Dakota |
Irrespective of which LIHEAP income standard is applied; however, the data demonstrate that less than one percent of all State LIHEAP grantees are consistently targeting both vulnerable groups at a high level. The data also show that less than one percent of State grantees are targeting both households at a low level. This shows that most State LIHEAP grantees are either targeting both groups at a moderate level or targeting each group inconsistently, i.e., one group at a high level and the other at a low level.
Performance Classifications
Generally, recipiency targeting indexes of 100 or greater indicate that a low income vulnerable group is adequately targeted compared to its representation in the total low income population.
Elderly Households: The targeting data on elderly households have been grouped in the following performance categories in relation to the 100 adequate mark and the national performance goal:
- High: A State having a point estimate or its upper confidence interval limit that is equal to or greater than 100;
- Moderate: A State having a point estimate or its upper confidence interval limit that is between 82 and 99; and
- Low: A State having a point estimate or its upper confidence interval limit that is lower than 82.
Charts 1-2 show the number and percentage of States ranking high, moderate, and low in LIHEAP targeting of low income elderly households for heating assistance.
Chart 1: Federal LIHEAP Maximum Income Standards—Targeting Ranking for Low Income Elderly Households, FFY 2006
Chart 2: State LIHEAP Maximum Income Standards—Targeting Ranking for Low Income Elderly Households, FFY 2006
A comparative analysis of the charts shows that more States are categorized as having a high elderly recipiency targeting index if the State income standard is used to compute the number of LIHEAP eligible households. For most States, using the State maximum income reduces the percent of LIHEAP eligible households that are elderly and increases the elderly recipiency targeting index.
Young Child Households: The targeting data on low income young child households have been grouped into the following performance categories in relation to the 100 adequate mark and the national performance goal:
- High: A State having a point estimate or an upper confidence interval limit that is equal to or greater than 112;
- Moderate: A State having a point estimate or an upper confidence interval limit that is between 100 and 111; and
- Low: A States having a point estimate or an upper confidence interval limit that is lower than 100.
Charts 3-4 show for FFY 2006 the number and percentage of States ranking high, moderate, and low in LIHEAP targeting of low income young child households for heating assistance.
Chart 3: Federal LIHEAP Maximum Income Standards—Targeting Ranking for Low Income Young Child Households, FFY 2006
Chart 4: State LIHEAP Maximum Income Standards—Targeting Ranking for Low Income Young Child Households, FFY 2006
A comparative analysis of the charts indicates that fewer States are categorized as having a high young child recipiency targeting index if the State maximum income standard is used to compute the number of LIHEAP eligible households. For most States, using the State income standard increases the percent of LIHEAP eligible households that are young child and reduces the young child recipiency targeting index.
Future Plans for Reporting State-Level Recipiency Targeting Indexes and Rankings
OCS will issue the States’ annual recipiency targeting indexes and rankings to document recipiency targeting performance over time. It is our intention that the national targeting indexes achieved will improve based on States’ monitoring their own indexes and adjusting their targeting efforts accordingly. It is expected that improvement attributed to State targeting program redesign will not be reflected in the indexes achieved before FFY 2010. OCS will also continue to work with its States’ LIHEAP Performance Measures Work Group in developing outcome measures for LIHEAP aside from the targeting proxy measures discussed herein.
OCS is planning for the following:
- A discussion of the targeting study and the State-level targeting indexes and rankings will be the focus of the Track C workshop session at 11 a.m. on June 16, 2009, at the National Energy and Utility Affordability Conference;
- OCS will use a three year State ACS estimates to reduce sampling error in the estimates of the number of low income households and vulnerable groups;
- Recipiency targeting indexes and rankings for heating assistance will be issued for FFY 2007 and 2008 over the course of this calendar year. Beginning in FFY 2009, OCS plans to issue future recipiency targeting indexes and rankings in the summer following the close of the FFY upon which the data are based;
- Beginning with data for FFY 2011, States will also report to OCS unduplicated numbers of households receiving any type of LIHEAP assistance, including the associated data on vulnerable households (see LIHEAP IM 2009-03, dated January 26, 2009. OCS will then be able to measure recipiency targeting performance for the entire program instead of just heating assistance; and
- OCS is considering implementing some form of national recognition to those States that exhibit high targeting performance for a given FFY.
Organization of Data Tables and Figures
The attached figures show separate rankings of all States depending upon which household group and which income cutoff is being analyzed. The attached tables provide the data values for the rankings, including the point estimate, the confidence interval upper and lower limits, and the numerical rankings for each State. All figures are in Attachment A and all tables are in Attachment B.
Income Cutoff |
Elderly Households |
Young Child Households |
Federal Income Maximum |
Figure 1
Table 1
Table 5 |
Figure 3
Table 3
Table 5 |
State Income Standard |
Figure 2
Table 2
Table 6 |
Figure 4
Table 4
Table 6 |
|
Print
