LIHEAP Public Opinion Poll
Detailed Survey Responses: 2002

download survey as PDF
download charts as PDF

HEATING METHODS

As was seen in 1999, half of Americans use natural gas to heat their homes, while roughly three in ten rely on electrical energy. Fuel oil is used by nine percent. Fifty-nine percent also use supplemental methods, mostly space heaters (electric 21%, kerosene 8%, wood stove 12%). Fireplaces are used in 22 percent of homes for supplemental heating. Finally, as was the case in 1998 and 1999, fully nine percent admit that they use kitchen appliances such as range tops and ovens to warm themselves during cold weather.

First, I'm going to read a list of various fuels people use to heat their homes. Please tell me which one of the fuels, if any, is the primary heating source for your home:

Next I would like to read though a list of some supplemental methods people sometimes use to keep their home and themselves warm during cold weather. As I read each one, please tell me if you ever use this method in your home.

Energy sources used for home heating vary substantially by region. While natural gas is dominant when one looks at the U.S. as a whole, electric heating methods are widely relied upon in the following regions: West, Mountain, W.S. Central, E.S. Central and the South Atlantic. Fuel oil is also widely used in the Mid Atlantic and New England regions.

Use of supplemental methods to heat the home is registered in 59 percent of households and also varies by region. Space heaters and fireplaces are the most common supplemental methods, although wood burning stoves rise in popularity in the Mountain states and particularly in New England.

COOLING METHODS

Central air conditioning is the most widely used method for cooling the home during summer months. In this survey, only three percent of Americans report they have no cooling methods but 26 percent admit they rely on open windows and fans for cooling. Electricity is the dominant fuel used for cooling equipment.

In general, ceiling fans seem to have risen in popularity since 1999, now being reported by 36 percent of respondents as a cooling method for their home.

During the summer, which, if any, of the following do you use to keep your home cool?

Next I will read you a list of various fuels used to cool homes. Please tell me which one, if any, is the primary energy source for cooling your home:

As with home heating, cooling methods vary widely by region. As can be seen in the next table, central air conditioning reaches 62 percent or higher in the W.N. Central, W.S. Central, E.S. Central and South Atlantic regions. Evaporative cooling spikes to 25 percent in the Mountain states. Air movers such as ceiling fans are also widely used, especially in New England where air conditioning is the least common.

HISTORIC HIGH IN CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS ABOUT RISING ENERGY COSTS

Very few (3%) of Americans believe the cost of the energy they buy to heat or cool their homes is lower compared to five years ago. Seventy-one percent opine that their energy costs have gone up over the past five years, compared to 62 percent of that opinion in 1999.

These days would you say the cost of energy to heat homes in the winter and cool them in the summer is higher, about the same, or lower than compared to five years ago?

In no region of the country does the proportion who believe heating fuel costs are on the rise fall below 65 percent, and the figure rises to over 70 percent in every region of the country, except in the South Atlantic and New England regions where the figure ranges between 65 and 68 percent.

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 today than five years ago for low income families to pay their energy bills. This compares to 67 percent holding this view in 1999.

From what you read or hear, do you think it is more difficult, neither more nor less difficult or less difficult for low income families to pay their heating and cooling bills today than it was five years ago?

As might be expected, attitudes on this issue are directly correlated to family income. Thus as income rises, the proportion answering "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.

SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT FUND ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS?

By a ratio of 78 to 14 percent, Americans answer "yes" to the following statement: "Should the government provide funding to help senior citizens and the poor pay for services such as home heating, cooling and lighting." These readings are exactly the same as were recorded in 1999.
In no region does the "yes" response fall below 70 percent and in no region does the "no" response exceed 23 percent.

Should the government provide funding to help low income senior citizens and the poor pay for services such as home heating, cooling and lighting?

Additionally, belief the government should provide funding for senior citizens and the poor to pay for these services cuts across all incomes and age groups. Support for such policy is inversely related to income and age and peaks among women. Also, between 1999 and today, support for such federal funding has increased dramatically among America's most affluent sectors.

AWARENESS OF LIHEAP PROGRAM

General awareness of the federally funded Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) is registered among 26 percent of respondents up from 20 percent in 1998 and 25 percent in 1999. Awareness is highest in the E.S. Central, E.N. Central and Mid Atlantic census regions of the country and well below the norm only in the W.S. Central region. Awareness in the Mountain region literally doubled over the past three years.

"I'd like to ask you about the federally funded Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program also known as LIHEAP? ("LIE HEAP"). Were you aware of the LIHEAP program before I mentioned it to you just now, or is this the first time you have heard of it?

SUPPORT FOR LIHEAP INCREASES TO 89 PERCENT

Eighty-nine percent of Americans favor the LIHEAP program, while six percent oppose it and the balance (5%) had no opinion. In no region of the country does support fall below 82 percent and in no region does opposition exceed nine percent.

Next, I'd like to ask you about the federally funded Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program also known as LIHEAP. In general, do you favor or oppose the LIHEAP program to help poor elderly and low income families pay their energy bills during cold or hot weather emergencies?

BY 72% TO 9%, PUBLIC FAVORS EXPANDED FUNDING FOR LIHEAP

Thirty-one percent believe Congress should "substantially increase funding" for LIHEAP and another 41 percent favor modest funding increases. Reduced funding is advocated by four percent and another five percent favor eliminating the program entirely. A handful (6%) favor keeping the LIHEAP budget at its current level and the balance, 13 percent, have no opinion.

Among those with an opinion, support for increased funding totals 83 percent. Reduced funding is the view of ten percent and seven percent favor no change.

In efforts to reduce the federal budget, funding for LIHEAP has been cut in half in recent years and some members of Congress have proposed that the LIHEAP program be cut further or even eliminated. Other members of Congress say LIHEAP has taken more than its fair share of budget cuts, serves only one of five people who need the assistance, and that it should have its funding increased to provide a safety net to help impoverished elderly and poor families meet their energy bills. What do you think: should Congress substantially increase funding for the LIHEAP program, increase funding modestly, reduce funding further or should the program be eliminated altogether?

LIHEAP SEEN AS VALUABLE TOOL IN WELFARE TO WORK TRANSITION

Nine of ten Americans believe the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program can be valuable in helping former welfare recipients with jobs stay off welfare and remain in the workforce. Nearly half think the program could be "very helpful". Both readings represent an increase in these beliefs, compared to 1999.

As you may be aware, even after they obtain jobs, many former welfare recipients live below the poverty level. In helping these people successfully complete the transition from welfare to work, do you think the LIHEAP program can be very, somewhat or not at all helpful?

WINTER ASSISTANCE SEEN AS MOST CRITICAL

Notwithstanding that this survey was completed during August, Americans are more impressed with the need for LIHEAP assistance for people in the cold weather. Thus, although 54 percent say the assistance is needed in both seasons, 94 percent believe it is critical in cold weather compared to 57 percent for summer.

And finally, which would you say is more important: providing heating assistance in the winter, cooling assistance in the summer, or are both equally important?

THREE POWERFUL PRO-LIHEAP ARGUMENTS

Three position statements in favor of LIHEAP are widely supported by Americans. Each draws agreement from 80 percent or more. Additionally, each has a powerful impact on individuals who initially expressed opposition to the idea of federal funding of this type, as may be seen in the fact that four of ten, or more, agree with the pro-LIHEAP arguments. The three strongest arguments are as follows:

A. Eighty-seven percent believe that programs like LIHEAP should be kept in place since energy prices are likely to increase and there is still a chance that severe weather will threaten the safety of elderly and poor people. Additionally, four in ten persons who initially oppose government funding of LIHEAP agree with this point of view.

It is very likely that energy prices will continue to rise in the future, so programs like this should be continued so long as there is a chance of severe weather that threatens the lives of elderly and poor people.

B. Another compelling argument is that LIHEAP helps people who need it the most since two-thirds of assistance recipients have family incomes under $8,000 per year. This argument puts strong cross-pressures on people who initially said they oppose LIHEAP -- 42 percent agree with the statement, while a smaller proportion (36%) disagree.

Since two-thirds of the people receiving help from LIHEAP have family incomes of less than $8,000 per year, the program is helping the people who need it most.

C. The argument that poor and elderly people should not be forced to choose between fuel and food is the most persuasive of the three -- especially with those who initially oppose LIHEAP funding. Eighty-eight percent say they agree with this argument as do 62 percent of those who were initially opposed to LIHEAP funding. Finally, among Americans who were initially unsure about the wisdom of LIHEAP funding, 67 percent agree with this argument as justification for funding.

During severe weather seasons, people living in poverty and low income elderly should not have to choose between buying fuel to heat their homes and buying food for themselves and their families.

FOUR SOLID SECONDARY ARGUMENTS

Two Pro-LIHEAP assertions yield high levels of agreement from the American public, but at a somewhat lower level than the three arguments just discussed. One simply argues that it is a better value 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 become ill or are forced from their homes. Seven of ten Americans agree with this logic, as do 41 percent of those initially opposed to LIHEAP funding.

It makes more sense for the government to pay the winter heating bills of low income and elderly people than paying to care for or house these people in a hospital or shelter if they become ill or are forced from their homes.

The second argument posits that elected officials from mild climate states should support LIHEAP even if it does not directly effect voters in the state of that elected official. By an impressive 76 to 15 percent ratio, Americans agree with this proposition.

I believe elected officials from my state should be supportive of programs like this to help the poor and the elderly even if severe cold or hot weather is not a problem in my state.

A third argument finds 77 percent agree that LIHEAP should be high on the list of programs to keep. In 1999, 74 percent agreed that LIHEAP should be high on the list of programs to be kept operating.

Since LIHEAP serves an important human need and is one of the most effective social programs receiving federal money, it should be high on the list of programs to be kept operating in the future.

Notwithstanding the appeal of additional tax cuts at the federal level, 70 percent believe that the life saving aspects of the LIHEAP program are so important that its funding should not be reduced in the name of an income tax cut. This compares to 65 percent holding this view in 1999. Support for cutting LIHEAP as a part of income tax reductions shrank to 16 percent, from 21 percent in 1999.

Life saving programs such as LIHEAP are so important that funding for this program should not be reduced in the name of an income tax cut.

BY 72 TO 16 PERCENT, AMERICANS REJECT REDUCING LIHEAP FUNDING IN THE NAME OF NATIONAL DEFENSE BUDGET

A new question in this year's survey explored whether, in the wake of the September 11th tragedy, Americans would favor setting aside LIHEAP needs in favor of the defense budget. By an impressive 72 to 16 percent, Americans say "no", clearly underscoring their belief that both can be funded within the federal budget.

Life saving programs such as LIHEAP are so important to protecting Americans who are elderly or poor that funding should not be reduced simply in the name of adding to the defense budget.

View survey summary | methodology | download survey as PDF | download charts as PDF