In 2008, LIHEAP spent $487 per household to help keep them from freezing.

[Robb]

In 2010, it spent $684 per household (block grants).

The same average gallon of heating oil, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=419042&mesg_id=419042">thanks (again) to Bonobo's research, that in 2008 cost $3.23 cost $3.12 in 2010.

Why did we spend that much more per household, on average, when heating oil was cheaper? And, since LIHEAP is administered as block grants to each state, where the heck did that money go?

Note: I see no upside to anyone freezing, so any suggestion otherwise is not a reasonable substitute for an answer.

[phleshdef]

1. Heating oil is just part of the story too. Natural gas prices have dropped significantly since then.

[pnwmom]

2. Good question. n/t

[truebrit71]

3. How are you coming up with those numbers? Bonobo's post doesn't match...

...unless I'm looking at it wrong? :shrug:

[Robb]

4. 2008: 2.57 B / 5,279,150 = 486.82

2010: 5.1 B / 7,457,223 = 683.90.

...Unless I'm looking at it wrong, which wouldn't be the first time, either. :D

[truebrit71]

5. Oh, I was looking at the spot prices and working that way...

:hi:

[AndyTiedye]

6. It Also Depends on the Weather

I recall 2008 was a rather mild winter compared to the the last couple.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. I've never lived in a place with heating oil in use.

Why is that the only price you give? Millions of homes use other forms of heating. Millions. Not sure why you are claiming this.

[handmade34]

8. weather

and income sensitive payments... lot more poorer people this year than last

[Robb]

16. LIHEAP, as I understand it, pays the bill for qualifying households.

A crappy economy would affect the number of participants -- which we can clearly see -- but I don't believe it affects how much each household receives, since the funds go directly to the energy providers. REACH operates differently, I think, but that funding is much smaller, and isn't proposed to change.

[PA Democrat]

20. LIHEAP benefits are dependent upon

household income and number of people living in the home as well as where you live. The less income per person in the household, the greater the total amount of assistance.

Also, LIHEAP can provide assistance for heating emergencies such as equipment failure or utility shut-offs. Priority is given to households with people who are more vulnerable such as the elderly, the disabilities, the very young.

I don't think you can make the assumptions you have without considering the fact that there are probably more households with lower incomes than in the past. High unemployment numbers plus a greater number of people who are underemployed would affect the amount of benefits per household.

LIHEAP assistance benefit levels for PA:

http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/forfamilies/liheap/liheapbenefitamounttable/index.htm

[Robb]

22. Each state's standards will be different as well.

But I don't think you can assume, for example, that every one -- or even the majority of -- new applicants to the program come in at the rock-bottom, maximum-benefit line. The under-employed, for example, will benefit less than the wholly unemployed.

I would think it reasonable to assume the distribution among qualifying income levels wouldn't have changed significantly, especially across a national level, as people enter the program. This would, I expect, be a question that has a correct answer somewhere.

[PA Democrat]

27. PA raised the income level from 150% to 160% of poverty

to qualify. The maximum benefit for PA has remained at $1,000 per year. For PA, the math would indicate that more people are in more dire financial straits if the average benefit has increased. Don't know how other states handle it, but your claims do not hold true for the residents of PA.

[Robb]

31. They *raised* the qualifying level?

That would imply that PA heating costs went up at a rate that outpaced inflation, right? Less heating cost purchasing power for your dollar, so to speak? Is that the case? Because isn't not so nationwide. :shrug:

[PA Democrat]

32. Yes, they raised the qualifying income level slightly,

but it is not until you reach levels of dire, and I do mean dire, poverty where you qualify for the maximum benefit of $1000 per year (for example, under $10,000 a year for a family of 4 in my county).

http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/ucmprd/groups/public/documents/communication/s_001816.pdf

Not sure how you draw the conclusion that you do about heating costs because other factors such as the weather do go into the calculations of how much money is allocated by the feds.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Don't like what you are hearing?

I find it hard to believe you even gave a moments thought to this. So many factors you leave out to ask where the money went, when any of those factors might explain it. Heating oil? How about hydro? Natural gas? Propane? Coal generated electric? How cold was each winter? Same? Different? If nothing else, very lazy stuff.

[Stinky The Clown]

10. Assuming your numbers are right (which you don't demonstrate) what's your point?

[MadHound]

11. Because not everybody heats with heating oil.

The price of propane has been steadily increasing over the past five years. Natural gas has been increasing, as has electricity in many places. Not to mention that the price of heating oil, like propane, is fairly volatile, and can spike one month and go down the next. If you need oil during that month when it has spiked, you're screwed.

[Robb]

13. The price of NG, actually, was less in 2010 than 2008.

This was my impression as well, but per the DOE, take a peek: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3045us3m.htm

Every month in 2008 was more expensive than those months in 2010. Some by a lot.

Still looking for good sources of LP, but they tend to track NG, at least in an annual sense. You're right on month-to-month volatility, though, as someone who's stood in the snow and written a check to a propane guy in January, I know when they've got me right where they want me.

[xchrom]

12. Increased numbers of users. Nt

[Robb]

14. "Increased number of users" affects per user expense by what, 40%??

[xchrom]

17. you're being curious about this -- other posters have posted their actual bills here -- others have

the dramatic increase in users of the program.

[Robb]

19. Which I note upthread.

My question remains, however: why the increase per household?

[Rex]

15. You won't get a true answer, just excuses with links to other things Obama

is doing to help the American people. Which says it all imo to the rest of DU.

[LoZoccolo]

18. Waste.

That is probably the most reasonable explanation, given the numbers (unless someone else has a better one).

[xchrom]

21. he doesn't seem to want to do his own home work.

how many senators are against this cut again?

you must approve of the democrats opposing this?

[LoZoccolo]

28. Right now, I'd say that they should spend the money just to pacify people.

That would completely sidestep the issue of waste, of course, but I don't expect the professional left to acknowledge that issue or any evidence for it. They, of course, are just going to move to something else - because it's their job - but this seems like an easy way to prevent a Pain presidency in 2012 compared to some of their other tricks with which we've had to deal.

[leftstreet]

23. NITPICK ALERT

Can we please not say "them?"

In 2008, LIHEAP spent $487 per household to help keep them_______ from freezing

People
Citizens
Victims of Capitalism
etc

/end PSA

[xchrom]

24. +1 -- you'd think it was a republican. nt

[Robb]

25. To be accurate, the corresponding pronoun for "household" is "it"...

Worse still, I suppose.

[leftstreet]

26. Actually....that could be interesting

Discussing the merits of keeping a 'household' from freezing, as opposed to discussing the 'deserved-ness' of the people living within it

Hmm...must ponder later when I've had a couple of beers

[PA Democrat]

29. "Lucky duckies"

This whole argument reminds me of the Republican talking points about those "lucky duckies" who didn't make enough money to pay income taxes. It's sad, isn't it?

[Robb]

30. What argument?

By asking this question, you assume I'm in favor of the cuts?

I'm not. This ain't my first rodeo. But my observation, and question, rose from examining the issue before deciding that.

For example, if the proposed funding level is enacted, and not a single additional person applies for LIHEAP (which we know is next to impossible), the per household funding level will be well below 2008 levels. My guess is, that's a bad thing.

However, absent any quantifiable reason why per household funding for home heating doesn't track with home heating costs, I'm still not certain.

[PA Democrat]

33. "Where did that money go?"

You do seem to want to make the argument that people are reaping more generous benefits because heating costs are lower and seem to want to ignore other factors such as more people living in poverty and areas of the country with more extreme weather.

People who were barely hanging on and qualified for perhaps the minimum assistance amount ($300 a year in PA) may now find themselves qualifying for more (up to $1000 in PA) because they have fallen further into poverty. The US Census Bureau confirms that poverty has increased.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/16/news/economy/Census_poverty_rate/index.htm

Hence, my comment about the "lucky duckies" who are now poor enough to get more funding, because that is exactly how it has played out in my state.