Colorado LEAP and EOC Service Delivery Evaluation

1. Colorado LEAP and EOC Service Delivery Evaluation Jackie Berger February 25, 2009

2. Introduction • House Bill 08-1837 • Required the Colorado Governor’s Commission on Low-Income Energy Assistance to: • “Make recommendations to the Governor, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the President of the Senate regarding any necessary legislative changes to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the state’s low-income energy assistance services…”  2

3. Introduction • Commission was directed to: • Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the current delivery system. • Review service delivery models from other states. • Make recommendations regarding the best way to: • Target energy assistance resources. • Coordinate public and private energy assistance activities. • Streamline administrative processes. • Suggest changes to statutes, rules, or policies affecting low-income energy consumers in the state. 3

4. APPRISE • Nonprofit research institute • Located in Princeton, NJ • Research areas: • Low-income energy bill payment assistance programs • Low-income energy efficiency programs • Energy efficiency market transformation programs • Clients: Federal LIHEAP, Federal WAP, State LIHEAP offices, State Energy Efficiency offices, utility companies 4

5. Presentation Outline • Study Design • Alternative Program Models • Key Findings and Recommendations • Summary 5

6. Study Design 6

7. Study Design • Program Design and Implementation Research • Low-Income Energy Needs Assessment and Program Analysis 7

8. Program Design and Implementation Research • Document review • Program plans • Program rules • Training materials • Budgets • Contracts • Agency monitoring reports • Goal: • Develop understanding of program details. 8

9. Program Design and Implementation Research • State program manager interviews • LEAP director • Director of CO’s Dept. of Human Services, Office of Self Sufficiency • EOC manager • Goals: • Confirm understanding of programs. • Fill in gaps with respect to program operation and procedures. • Obtain statistics on program resources. • Explore ideas for program modifications. 9

10. Program Design and Implementation Research • State contractor interviews • eCallogy manager: LEAP hotline • Bawmann Group: LEAP outreach • Goals: • Understand contractor responsibilities and procedures. 10

11. Program Design and Implementation Research • Agency manager interviews • 7 LEAP agencies • 4 EOC agencies • Goals: • Document service delivery procedures. • Identify barriers to effective and efficient service delivery. 11

12. Program Design and Implementation Research • Key informant interviews • 2 county agency directors • 3 utility company managers • GEO energy efficiency manager • Goals: • Obtain informants’ assessment of LEAP and EOC programs. • Discuss informants’ recommendations for program improvement. 12

13. Program Design and Implementation Research • Other state LIHEAP director interviews • Minnesota: new IT system • Montana: web-based system • Ohio: centralized processing • Goals: • Discuss alternative program models. 13

14. Needs Assessment and Program Analysis • Public use data analysis • American Community Survey data • Statewide analysis: 2007 data • Regional analysis: 2005-2007 data • Goals • Analyze energy needs of low-income households. • Document demographic characteristics of low-income households. 14

15. Needs Assessment and Program Analysis • Program database analysis • FY 2008 LEAP database • FY 2008 EOC database • Goals • Analyze program characteristics. • Client characteristics • Grant characteristics • Grant processing 15

16. Needs Assessment and Program Analysis • Client survey • LEAP recipients, denials, non-applicants • Low-income households • Goals • Analyze client characteristics and needs. • Problems meeting energy needs • Need for LEAP • Impact of LEAP • Program awareness 16

17. Alternative Program Models 17

18. Alternative Program Models • Web-based LEAP application system • Centralized LEAP administration • Coordination of LEAP and EOC assistance • LEAP integration with other social service programs • 12-Month LEAP application period 18

19. Web-based LEAP Application System • Potential advantages • Increased program efficiency • Additional avenue for LEAP client access • Reduced client burden • Ability for vendors to check benefit status • Ability for vendors to accept/reject electronic payment • Possibility for concurrent application to several programs 19

20. Web-based LEAP Application System • Potential disadvantages • Investment of time and resources • Learning curve for system users • Being the first to implement online client applications for LEAP 20

21. Web-based LEAP Application System • Recommendation • Montana and Minnesota offered to share their systems. • Conduct further investigation of these systems. • Assess required level of investment. • Assess potential benefit. • Determine if one of these systems could be used in Colorado. 21

22. Centralized LEAP Administration • Potential Advantages • Increased efficiency and consistency • Hiring and training of more workers at the state level • Reduced burden on local agencies • Greater state control over application processing 22

23. Centralized LEAP Administration • Potential Disadvantages • Counties still need staff for application support • Challenges for state office • Recruit and train many temporary workers • Office space and computers 23

24. Centralized LEAP Administration • Recommendation • Consider a gradual move toward more centralized processing. • Examples: • Process expedited applications at state office. • Process CIP applications at state office. • Process some applications from larger agencies at state office. • Examine impact on efficiency and consider increased centralization. 24

25. Coordination of LEAP and EOC Assistance • Potential Advantages • Reduced client confusion • More equitable distribution of benefits • Reduced client burden 25

26. Coordination of LEAP and EOC Assistance • Potential Disadvantages • Benefit of different types of agencies • Different benefit purpose • Two agency networks provide more client access points 26

27. Coordination of LEAP and EOC Assistance • Recommendation • LEAP and EOC could work in a more coordinated fashion. • Take LEAP applications at EOC offices. • EOC staff contact utility to determine total payment needed. • County LEAP agencies could take EOC applications. • Create joint LEAP/EOC application. 27

28. Program Integration • Potential Advantages • Reduced client burden • Increased number of program access points • Increased administrative efficiency 28

29. Program Integration • Potential Disadvantages • Complication of joint application • Clients may unknowingly apply more than once • Unique qualifying rules 29

30. Program Integration • Recommendation • Develop joint application for LEAP and energy efficiency. • Allow client to opt for joint application (with other programs) or just LEAP/energy efficiency application. 30

31. 12-Month Application • Potential Advantages • Reduced need for seasonal workers • Reduced staff turnover • Less need for training staff • Reduced application processing time 31

32. 12-Month Application • Potential Disadvantages • Older income information • Tendency to apply in the fall • Clients may move 32

33. 12-Month Application • Recommendation • Mail applications to seniors in August. • Seniors are a more stable population. • Seniors represent about 25% of caseload. • Send award or denial letters at time of application. • Send notice of award amount in November. 33

34. Alternative Models – Complimentary Approaches • Examples • Increased EOC/LEAP coordination and joint online application. • 12-Month application handled by state staff. • LEAP agencies doing EOC applications will smooth out the workflow and help with a 12-month application system. 34

35. Key Findings and Recommendations 35

36. Key Findings and Recommendations 36

37. Key Findings and Recommendations: LEAP Administration 37

38. LEAP Administration • Working Well • Program documentation • Data collection and maintenance • Vendor agreements • LEAP help line • Training • Quality Control • Areas for Review • Administrative funding • LEAP help line • Seasonal workers 38

39. LEAP AdministrationRecommendations • Administrative funding: Re-evaluate county LEAP agency distributions. • Agency funding requests: Consider requests at the beginning of the season. • LEAP help line: Route all client calls to the hotline first. • Data analysis: Assess program performance and target areas for improvement. 39

40. LEAP AdministrationRecommendations • Centralized application processing: Test gradual move toward more centralized approach. • IT system: Examine potential for update. 40

41. Key Findings and Recommendations: LEAP Outreach and Targeting 41

42. LEAP Outreach And Targeting 42

43. LEAP Outreach And Targeting 43

44. LEAP Outreach And Targeting Working Well Area for Review 44

45. LEAP Outreach And Targeting 45

46. LEAP Outreach And Targeting 46

47. LEAP Outreach and Targeting • Areas for Review • Agency LEAP outreach and outreach plans • Agency targeted outreach • State oversight of agency outreach 47

48. LEAP Outreach and Targeting Recommendations • Mailed applications: Send to additional groups of households. • Mailed packet: Consider more noticeable package. • Television advertising: Consider whether it is cost-effective. • LEAP website: Make it more client-focused. • Agency outreach: Increase state assistance and oversight. 48

49. Key Findings and Recommendations: LEAP Application 49

50. LEAP Application • Working Well • Application information • Internet availability • Areas for Review • Application issues • Incomplete applications • Affidavit • Lawful presence requirement 50