LIHEAP | Research | Survey 2002

LIHEAP Public Opinion Poll
Survey Summary: 2002

download survey as PDF
download charts as PDF

BACKGROUND
This study is based on a random sample of adult heads of household in the fifty states. A total of 800 interviews were completed via telephone between August 7 and August 20, 2002. The margin of error for the survey is estimated to be +/- 3.53 percent at a 95 percent confidence interval.

HEATING AND COOLING METHODS
Home heating based on natural gas accounts for 49 percent of U.S. households included in this survey while 31 percent report the use of electricity for this purpose. Fuel oil is used in nine percent and the balance use wood, coal or are unheated.

Seventy-nine percent cool their homes with electric-driven methods, mostly central (56%) or window (23%) air conditioning. Another 30 percent rely on open windows and fans for cooling.

PERCEIVED CHANGES IN ENERGY COSTS
Today, 71 percent of Americans believe the cost of energy they use to heat or cool their homes is higher today than just five years ago. This is up from the 62 percent reading collected in August 1999. Only three percent think these costs have diminished.

PERCEPTIONS ON DIFFICULTY LOW INCOME FAMILIES HAVE MEETING THEIR ENERGY COSTS
Seventy-eight percent of Americans surveyed in this study believe it is more difficult than five years ago for low income families to pay for their energy bills. This is a historic high and compares to 67 percent in 1999.

Attitudes on this issue are directly correlated to family income. As income rises, the proportion stating it is "more difficult" eases off but even among the most affluent, 74 percent believe rising energy costs are more difficult for low income families to manage.

By ratios of roughly 78 to 14, Americans believe the government should provide funding for low income families and low income senior citizens. This figure is stable compared to 1999.

PUBLIC AWARENESS OF LIHEAP LOW BUT GROWING
General awareness of the federally funded Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) totals 26 percent. This is up from 25 percent in 1999 and 20 percent in 1998. Additionally, when subsequently read a description of LIHEAP, Aaided recall@ of the program registers at 34 percent, compared to 32 percent in 1999.

89% FAVOR LIHEAP PROGRAMS TO MEET ENERGY BILLS OF LOW INCOME FAMILIES AND THE ELDERLY DURING SEVERE WEATHER
Eighty-nine percent of Americans favor the LIHEAP program, while six percent oppose it and the balance (5%) have no opinion. Support has grown five points over 1999.

BY 72% TO 9%, PUBLIC FAVORS EXPANDED LIHEAP FUNDING
Thirty-one percent favor "substantial" increased funding for LIHEAP. Four in ten favor "moderate" funding increases and six percent favor the status quo. Overall, support for increased funding rose from 68 to 72 percent between 1999 and today. Reduced funding is supported by only nine percent, including five percent who favor no funding whatsoever.

LIHEAP SEEN AS A VALUABLE TOOL IN WELFARE TO WORK TRANSITION
Nine of ten Americans believe LIHEAP can be valuable in helping former welfare recipients with jobs stay off welfare and remain in the work force. Over half (52%) agree it is "very helpful." Ninety-four percent see assistance in cold winter months as important and 57 percent say the same of hot weather assistance.

PUBLIC REACTION TO LIHEAP POSITIVE STATEMENTS
Three positive statements in favor of LIHEAP funding draw broad agreement from respondents and cross-pressure LIHEAP opponents strongly:

87 percent agree that energy prices will continue to increase so LIHEAP is needed so long as there is a chance of severe weather threatening the lives of poor and elderly people.
81 percent agree that because two-thirds of LIHEAP funds help families with incomes of under $8,000 per year, it is helping those who need it most.
Finally, 88 percent agree that poor and elderly people should not have to choose between buying fuel or buying food.

Additionally, each has a powerful impact on individuals who initially expressed opposition to the idea of federal funding of this type. In fact, four of ten, or more, agree with the pro-LIHEAP argument.

Another set of pro-LIHEAP assertions yield high levels of agreement from the American public, but at a somewhat lower level than the three previously discussed.

One argues that "it makes more sense for the government to pay the heating bill of low income and elderly people during severe weather than it is to pay for their hospitalization or housing if they became ill or forced from their homes."
Seven in ten Americans agree with this logic (of these, 41 percent initially opposed LIHEAP funding).
Another argues that elected officials from "mild climate states should support LIHEAP even if it does not affect voters in the state of the elected official; 76 percent agree.
The third argument finds that 77 percent agree LIHEAP should be high on the list of social programs to keep because it effectively meets an important human need.
Seven in ten further agree that life saving programs such as LIHEAP are important and should not be reduced in the name of an income tax cut.
Setting aside LIHEAP funding in the name of the federal defense budget is rejected by 72 percent and supported by only 16 percent.

View survey details |methodology