Kentucky's REACH Program Evaluation Summary

Abstract
The Kentucky Cabinet for Families and Children in partnership with the Kentucky Association for Community Action and the Community Action Council (CAC) implemented an enhanced energy conservation program to serve 150 households over a three-year period in Lexington-Fayette, Bourbon, Harrison and Nicholas counties.

Grant Amount
$370,181 (FY 2002 funding)

Duration
Three years: July 2003 - August 2006

Goals
Three outcomes were anticipated as a result of the installation of demand management devices and energy education:

• Every dollar invested in the program would return $1.32, a 32 percent return.
  
  
• Participants would achieve a 30 percent reduction in home energy costs and a 30 percent or better increase rating on a six-month follow-up energy audit.
  
  
• Participants would achieve a 20 percent increase in their energy education post-test results from their initial baseline score.

Client Eligibility Criteria
Low-income households in Lexington-Fayette, Bourbon, Harrison and Nicholas counties that are eligible for LIHEAP or Weatherization.

Client Services

• Home Assessment - all homes received an energy audit to facilitate recommendations for an individualized energy efficiency improvement plan. A follow-up assessment was conducted six months later to measure changes.
  
  
• Weatherization - provided as a result of the energy-improvement plan.
  
  
• Demand Management Devices - a variety were provided including refrigerators or replacement gaskets, water heater blanket, fluorescent light bulbs, clock thermostat, photosensitive light switches and low-flow showerheads and gaskets.
  
  
• Education - all participants were provided with individualized energy efficient education. Pre- and post-tests were given to all clients.
  
  
• Budgeting, Arrearages and Direct Assistance - individualized budget management plan and referrals to other services for additional energy assistance.

Outcomes
In February 2004, it was realized that the first two goals would not likely be achieved given the limited interventions of the project.

Electric and natural gas expenditures and usage decreased during the follow-up period for the average of participants during a period when both the price of natural gas and electricity increased. All interventions possibly contributed to the decrease, however, it was not possible to identify the contribution of each intervention.

A surprising 36 participants scored 100 percent on the pre-test for energy education therefore obviating the proposed outcome of achieving a 20 percent increase in their energy education port-test results.

More than half of the referrals were to other utility assistance programs indicating that clients were able to obtain additional benefits to help them meet their energy needs.

Contact the LIHEAP Clearinghouse for the full-text evaluation report.

Page Last Updated: June 18, 2007