Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • View all journals
  • Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • Review Article
  • Published: 23 March 2020

Recognition of and response to energy poverty in the United States

  • Dominic J. Bednar   ORCID: 1 &
  • Tony G. Reames   ORCID: 1  

Nature Energy volume  5 ,  pages 432–439 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

20k Accesses

173 Citations

585 Altmetric

Metrics details

  • Energy access
  • Energy efficiency
  • Energy justice
  • Energy policy

A household is energy poor when they cannot meet energy needs. Despite its prevalence, the US has not formally recognized energy poverty as a problem distinct from general poverty at the federal level, which limits effective responses. In this Review, we examine the measurement and evaluative metrics used by the two federally-funded energy programs focused on reducing high energy bills to understand how program eligibility requirements and congressional funding appropriations have shaped the national understanding and implementation of energy poverty assistance. We find that current measurement and evaluative metrics hinge on the distribution of government resources and the number of vulnerable households assisted, rather than improving household well-being and reducing overall energy poverty. We suggest that comparisons to formal food insecurity and fuel poverty recognition and national responses in the US and UK, respectively, can help inform the development of more comprehensive US responses to energy poverty going forward.

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Similar content being viewed by others

applied public policy research institute for study and evaluation

A measurement strategy to address disparities across household energy burdens

Eric Scheier & Noah Kittner

applied public policy research institute for study and evaluation

Exploring the determinants of energy poverty in Indonesia’s households: empirical evidence from the 2015–2019 SUSENAS

Novani Karina Saputri, Lourentius Dimas Setyonugroho & Djoni Hartono

applied public policy research institute for study and evaluation

Burden of the global energy price crisis on households

Yuru Guan, Jin Yan, … Klaus Hubacek

Stark disparities exist in US energy burdens, the percentage of household income spent on energy bills. Urban and rural low-income households (defined as 80% of area median income or 150% federal poverty level) spend roughly three times as much of their income on energy cost as compared to non-low-income households (7.2% and 9% versus 2.3% and 3.1%, respectively) 1 , 2 . Moreover, low-income, African American, Latinx, multifamily and renter households are disproportionately impacted by high energy burdens 1 . Out of a total of 118.2 million US households, in 2015, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimated that 17 million households received an energy disconnect/delivery stop notice and 25 million households had to forgo food and medicine to pay energy bills 3 . These household experiences have been described as indicators of energy insecurity or energy poverty—the inability of a household to meet their energy needs 4 . Yet, for the United States Government, energy insecurity and energy poverty are nebulous terms that do not exist in any statutory capacity. In other words, the federal government has not formally recognized energy poverty as a distinct problem.

In the absence of federal energy poverty recognition, states have implemented low-income energy assistance programs. Consequently, 51% of all funding to address high energy burdens is from utility ratepayer funded bill and energy efficiency assistance 1 . Despite the absence of federal statutes to characterize, measure and evaluate the landscape of and responses to energy poverty, the essence of this phenomenon has generally been recognized in the US as evidenced by two federally-funded energy assistance programs: the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) and the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). LIHEAP and WAP are administered by two different federal agencies, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the Department of Energy (DOE), respectively. These programs were created to combat rising energy costs and promote household energy sufficiency in response to the 1973 oil crisis 5 . However, after nearly fifty years of federal energy assistance, one in three US households (37 million), still experience energy poverty 3 .

While the UK and US have had similar responses to energy poverty reduction, one key area of divergence lies in their formal recognition. Notably, the UK’s fuel poverty strategy formally recognizes households as fuel poor when incomes are lower than average and fuel costs are higher than average 6 . Despite a lack of data supporting precipitous reductions in fuel poverty, the UK is armed with pivotal information to aid a more rapid and adaptive response to fuel poverty exacerbated by the climate crisis 7 . Moreover, the requirements to systematically advance household energy efficiency by specific dates signals a united and national priority for overall household wellness and access achieved through the multiple benefits of energy efficiency 8 . Unlike the devolved UK nations 8 , the United States lacks federal energy poverty recognition and strategy that encompasses definitions, reduction targets/objectives and periodic evaluation.

In this Review, we suggest that the absence of formal energy poverty recognition at the federal level limits a more comprehensive understanding of and effective response to energy poverty as a distinct problem, and not simply a manifestation of more general problems of poverty. To this end, we describe energy poverty as the distinct notion of household energy deprivation that limits social and material necessities for participation in society 9 . We first review federal responses to energy poverty in the US as pseudo recognition. The energy poverty responses deployed by LIHEAP and WAP are used as case studies to describe how program eligibility requirements and congressional funding appropriations shape our understanding and targeting of which households require energy assistance. Then, we examine the performance measurements embedded within evaluative standards that indicate the program’s success to demonstrate the misunderstanding of each program’s effectiveness in reducing energy poverty. Next, we draw parallels to formal recognition and responses to food insecurity in the US, and to fuel poverty in England, as a way to promote a more expansive understanding of the current and future landscape of energy poverty and pathways to effectively responding in the US. We conclude with recommendations to advance national energy poverty reduction in the US, and in particular encourage the development and reassessment of an expansive energy poverty definition, reduction objectives, integrated strategies, and comprehensive measurement and evaluation.

US response to energy poverty as pseudo recognition

Notwithstanding recognition short of a formal energy poverty definition, LIHEAP and WAP, alongside state level affordability targets and energy efficiency objectives serve as national responses to the issue. Government action at the intersection of energy and equity has been driven by either geopolitical or economic crises that affect energy prices, rather than by a comprehensive, long-term approach to address disparities in energy affordability. Energy poverty response as pseudo recognition has a nearly fifty-year history in the US beginning with the state of Maine’s Office of Economic Opportunity initial recognition of the impact that the 1973 oil crisis had on low-income and elderly households’ ability to meet their energy needs. In response, they applied for federal funds to implement ‘Project Fuel’. Project Fuel’s main focus was to weatherize homes; however, funds were also used for crisis counselling and purchasing fuel in emergency situations. Project Fuel inspired weatherization at the national level with a focus on household weatherization and energy conservation; additionally, funds were allowed for fuel voucher programs. The oil crisis catalysed a series of US government reorganizations and the creation of new energy-related departments and programs, by which weatherization and household energy assistance became responses, or pseudo acknowledgements, of the issue of energy poverty. Figure 1 presents a timeline highlighting relevant policies associated with energy poverty responses, including the economic crisis of the late 2000s, which heightened government attention to low-income energy assistance programs and increased funding appropriations.

figure 1

Key developments in Public Law (P.L) and data aquistion between the years 1973 and 2015.

LIHEAP, authorized in 1981, provides home energy bill assistance to help subsidize high energy expenditures for low-income households. The WAP, authorized in 1976, is the largest and longest running federally-funded residential energy efficiency program. WAP provides eligible low-income families with the opportunity to permanently reduce onerous energy bills through cost-effective, energy efficiency upgrades. As a requirement, whole-house retrofit approaches are used to ensure the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency measures. The whole-house approach guides energy efficiency measures by looking at the synergy of the building’s envelope, appliances, and heating and cooling systems. Private contractors and in-house employees deliver weatherization services to WAP participating homes each year.

Program eligibility requirements, defined by statute and embedded within the purpose of both LIHEAP and WAP, identify which households are eligible for energy assistance and govern program targeting and implementation. Table 1 presents the LIHEAP and WAP program purpose, eligibility requirements and performance measures. Targeting approaches for WAP and LIHEAP are centred on income eligibility, a high energy burden, and demographic characteristics of a ‘vulnerable household’. The statutes define vulnerable households as those with young children below five and elderly members above 65 years old, and individuals with disabilities. Eligibility based on household income maintains energy burden as the dominant metric to understand the prevalence and severity of US energy poverty.

LIHEAP and WAP are administered as block-grants by DHHS and DOE, respectively. Combined, the federal government has spent over US$134.6 billion on low-income household energy assistance since the late 1970s. LIHEAP is a revenue support system provided to eligible households each year, whereas WAP is often a one-off, non-recurring capital investment in energy efficiency measures. LIHEAP benefits roughly 25 percent of eligible households each year and WAP has weatherized 7 million households; however, nearly 40 million households remain income-eligible for energy efficiency assistance 10 . Federal block-grants are provided to states, the District of Columbia, territories and Indian tribal organizations and are implemented at times, alongside utility ratepayer dollars at the household level by local governments or non-profit agencies, most often Community Action Agencies.

Program implementation is also shaped by annual congressional funding appropriations. For WAP, formula allocations for each state are based on three factors: low-income population as a share of the nation’s total low-income population expressed as a percentage; climatic conditions obtained through heating and cooling degree days for each state; and, residential energy expenditures by low-income households in each state 11 . For LIHEAP, the funding formula is a bit more complicated and was updated in 1984 12 , 13 . Appropriations are released each year contingent on the formula and congressional Continuing Appropriation Resolutions. The previous formula of 1981 determined allocation percentages based on antiquated data, political compromise and accommodation 12 . The 1984 ‘new’ formula represents a percentage of US low-income energy expenditure by state. To capture state level low-income energy expenditure, the following values are used for household-level calculations: total residential energy consumed as measured by total British Thermal Units (Btu); temperature variation as 30-year average heating and cooling degree days; heating and cooling consumption for total US and low-income households; and average fuel price per fuel source.

Appropriations for these two programs have fluctuated over time, each receiving large boosts during the recession-era American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It is important to note the historical disparity in their funding appropriations as shown in Fig. 2 . LIHEAP funding averages nearly US$3 billion annually since its inception. WAP funding pales in comparison to LIHEAP appropriations, averaging nearly US$0.4 billion annually 14 . Comparatively, LIHEAP allows states to transfer up to 25% of its funds to WAP, making LIHEAP one of the largest additional potential funding sources for WAP. Even with greater funding, a majority of income-eligible households (84%) do not receive LIHEAP assistance 10 . Naturally, the immediate need of bill-assistance is greater than the speed at which households can be weatherized, warranting greater funds to LIHEAP. Nevertheless, the persistence of greater appropriations to LIHEAP over WAP appears to reflect a policy approach based on a notion that energy poverty is a temporary misfortune to be remedied primarily by some form of debt recovery, despite evidence demonstrating WAP as an effective and sustainable solution towards household energy affordability with multiple benefits 15 , including those to public health.

figure 2

Values not adjusted for inflation. Shown in current US dollars. Figure data from LIHEAP Clearinghouse ( ).

States have regulatory authority over LIHEAP and WAP implementation, and there are trends toward recognizing energy affordability as a policy priority at the state level. For instance, certain states have specific target dates to achieve energy efficiency objectives, such as Connecticut which aims to weatherize 80% of homes by 2030 (Public Act No. 11–80). Other states and municipalities have energy affordability goals. For example, the Governor of New York created an energy affordability policy in 2016 with a six percent energy burden goal and Portland, Oregon has a 10-year plan to reduce energy burdens in Oregon affordable housing. Moreover, several state-level energy regulatory requirements ensure low-income energy assistance is provided in the form of energy efficiency and bill payment assistance to achieve energy affordability. State energy efficiency resource standards by law require utilities to pursue energy efficiency as a cost-effective energy resource 16 . Although eligibility requirements vary, utility ratepayer-funded programs often complement LIHEAP assistance and are funded through charges assessed on all or some commercial, industrial and residential customers. The assessed charges are often referred to as public goods surcharges, system benefits charges, public benefits, universal service fees, universal energy charges, or meter charges. State and local funds administered as supplements to LIHEAP funding garners eligibility for incentives from the federal government, thus increasing available resources to distribute. Additionally, on-bill financing programs are loans made to utility customers to pay for energy efficiency improvements.

Evaluation of US responses to energy poverty

Performance measures and program evaluations are the lynchpins of federally funded energy assistance. They inform both the executive branch’s and congressional committees’ decision making about the programs they oversee 17 . The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 emerged out of the ‘frustration’ that decision making was hindered by the shortage of good information on the results of federal program efforts 17 . Its update, the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, reinforced key elements for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of government. This Act emphasized the use of goals and measures to improve outcomes and requires quarterly review of progress achieved towards goals.

Performance goals/objectives are important because they guide performance measures that inform evaluations of program performance. Performance measures aim to provide quantifiable information on the effectiveness of meeting program performance goals/objectives. In other words, they help to evaluate the success of programs. Two organizations, APPRISE, Inc. (Applied Public Policy Research Institute for Study and Evaluation) and Oak Ridge National Lab, are commissioned to serve as performance review committees/workgroups to conduct program evaluations for both LIHEAP and WAP, respectively.

The DHHS annual performance goals/objective focus on targeting LIHEAP heating assistance to vulnerable, low-income households that have the highest energy burdens. However, individuals with disabilities are not included in this assessment of vulnerable households.

The recipiency targeting index is currently the only evaluative LIHEAP performance measure that quantifies the targeting performance objective and describes the national percentage of eligible households that receive services and have either a young child or senior citizen in the household 18 , 19 . In 2014, four new ‘developmental’ performance measures were approved to quantify LIHEAP’s impact on household energy burdens, prevention of energy loss, and restoration of energy services to allow State grantees building capacity for necessary data collection (Table 1 ).

Although the current LIHEAP performance measures satisfy the statutory requirements for monitoring and reporting, less is known about the program’s effectiveness in reducing the actual problem of energy poverty. The performance measures maintain and emphasize a ‘distributive’ goal that focuses on inputs—how government resources are distributed—and outputs—the number of vulnerable beneficiaries assisted—rather than impact or outcomes, such as how the program has influenced the lives of all households experiencing energy poverty. According to DHHS, performance measures were not met in some years 20 , formally signalling program failures to the federal government despite having assisted over 6.3 million households with heating 10 , and more recently cooling, costs. The approved performance measures provide useful information from an operational standpoint on whether LIHEAP assistance is working. However, each of these measures lack strategic and long-term understanding of the extent to which LIHEAP reduces negative consequences to the health and well-being of households living in energy poverty. Moreover, no comprehensive national program evaluations have been conducted for LIHEAP despite mandates 17 that call for evaluative information to understand whether and why a program is working well or not.

Conversely, WAP has undergone several comprehensive national and local program evaluations since 1993 that assess the operations, cost-effectiveness and non-energy benefits of the implementation and benefits of WAP 15 . The peer-reviewed and statistically robust national evaluations have demonstrated that weatherization provides cost-effective energy savings, health and safety benefits, support for job creation, and a stable platform for continued investment in energy efficiency 15 , 21 . Specifically, WAP saves households an estimated average US$283 annually alongside many other non-energy benefits 21 . Non-energy benefits garner US$2.78 for every US$1.00 invested into the program, providing more liveable homes, fewer missed days of work and decreased out-of-pocket medical expenses by an average of US$514 annually 21 . Although these evaluations expand our understanding of the benefits of WAP, the primary performance measure that was used to demonstrate program success, similar to LIHEAP, can be classified as distributive or production-based; specifically, the number of retrofits or low-income homes weatherized. Thus, performance measures have not appropriately assessed the effectiveness of energy efficiency improvements in solving the problem as outlined in the purpose of the established statute.

Although each program seeks to address the symptoms of energy poverty, the legislation creating each program did not formally recognize this problem. Consequently, reduction focused strategies or metrics embedded within a national energy poverty policy to understand the effectiveness of each program’s response were not established. Nonetheless, each program has a list of successes, namely, reducing energy costs 22 , 23 , improving children’s growth and health 24 , and reducing greenhouse gas emissions 15 , 25 . Despite measurable successes, without formal and comprehensive recognition of energy poverty, the effectiveness of current responses continues to be masked by poor performance measures not aligned with national energy poverty reduction.

This review of the LIHEAP and WAP program objectives and relevant policy documents juxtaposed to their fiscal imbalances reveals a dearth of definitions, measures and program evaluations that limit a more accurate characterization of the prevalence, severity and causes of energy poverty experienced in the United States.

US recognition of and response to food insecurity

In contrast to energy poverty, the prevalence and severity of other issues in the US have been recognized and understood more formally, namely, food insecurity. In 1990, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) formally established and endorsed a definition for food insecurity. The need for better monitoring and assessment of the nutritional state in the US led to the enactment of the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research (NNMRR) Act of 1990. Embedded within a 10-year comprehensive plan, the Act outlined a task to “recommend a standardized mechanism and instrument(s) for defining and obtaining data on the prevalence of ‘food insecurity’ or ‘food insufficiency’ in the United States and methodologies that can be used across the NNMRR program and at State and local levels” 26 .

To develop the needed measure, the federal interagency working group, the ‘Food Security Measurement Project’ was founded in 1992 and built on existing research, collaborating with the US Census Bureau and private-sector experts. The group ensured the final measure was appropriate and feasible for standard and consistent use across the country. Annual measurement began in 1995 by administering the food security questionnaire as a supplement to the current population survey. Initial analysis estimated the prevalence rates of food insecurity and produced a scale that measures the severity of deprivation in basic food needs as experienced across various household types. An assessment of the stability and robustness of the measurement model across years, major population groups and household types established the stability of the food security measure 27 . This type of federal recognition demonstrates the measurement capacity required to respond and reduce energy poverty in the US.

UK recognition of and response to fuel poverty

Rising energy costs during the 1973 oil crisis similarly affected UK households. This section highlights the ways in which the UK has recognized, responded to and evaluated fuel poverty as a way to encourage a more expansive understanding of the current and future landscape of energy poverty in the US.


The UK became the first country in the world to formally recognize and strategically respond to fuel poverty. The Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act of 2000 established a target for ending fuel poverty “as far as reasonably practicable” for all households within 15 years. This recognition prompted a legal commitment to produce a fuel poverty strategy; thus, elevating the urgency of the problem. Formal recognition provided an ambitious policy objective with outcomes that mattered at the household level. The strategy initially defined a fuel poor household as “…one which needs to spend more than 10% of its income on all fuel use and to heat its home to an adequate standard of warmth” 28 . Despite insufficient follow-through in practical policies, formal recognition embedded within the UK strategy provided the impetus for understanding the prevalence and severity of fuel poverty through measurement.

The established fuel poverty definition was complemented with an associated metric/measure that helped the UK nations to quantify household energy requirements against the strategy. The ‘ten-percent indicator’ catalysed national fuel poverty measurement. However, the fixed threshold made this definition hypersensitive to changes in domestic energy costs and made it more difficult to track the impact of implemented response measures that improved energy efficiency 29 , thus concealing the impact experienced at the household level, rendering the metric invalid.

The critiques of this definition and metric led to the English adoption of the Low Income High Cost (LIHC) metric in the updated 2015 fuel poverty strategy 6 . The LIHC measure identifies fuel-poor households as those where incomes are lower than average and fuel costs are higher than average. This updated metric enabled better targeting and prioritization of English households living in the most severe cases of fuel poverty. However, the devolved nations retain the ten percent indicator. Notwithstanding the capacity of the LIHC metric to identify fuel-poor households, its relative nature is critiqued because it allows households to move in and out of fuel poverty 30 and obscures the role energy markets play in creating fuel poverty 31 .

Subsequently, the proposed Low Income Low Energy Efficiency (LILEE) metric aims to broaden and update the current measure to an absolute measure—capturing all low-income households with high costs that live in inefficient homes 30 . The proposed measure identifies households as fuel poor if they live in property with an energy efficiency rating below band C per the Fuel Poverty Energy Efficiency Rating (FPEER) system and, if after housing costs and energy needs, their income would be below the poverty line 30 . Based on the government’s Standard Assessment Procedure, FPEER assesses the energy performance of domestic properties while accounting for the direct impact policy interventions have on household energy costs 32 . The current high cost threshold would change to an absolute one while the income threshold remains unchanged per existing LIHC methodology. This metric is better aligned with the statutory fuel poverty targets described in the next two sections, Response and Evaluation. The formal recognition of fuel poverty in the UK as a distinct problem, separate from general poverty, has allowed for an adaptive understanding of the problem’s manifestation over time.

Throughout the history of fuel poverty responses in the UK, household energy efficiency improvements were maintained as the primary and most cost-effective vehicle to address the negative impacts on health and well-being associated with living in a cold home. For example, from 2000 to 2013, England’s Warm Front Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (WF) lessened the prevalence of fuel poverty whilst cutting greenhouse gas emissions and increasing household annual income 33 .

Key fuel poverty policies centre on the implementation of energy efficiency for households. Expressively, this technical conception has been critiqued as potentially damaging, marginalizing other solutions towards income and living cost equality 31 . Even so, the 2014 statutory fuel poverty target for England echoes energy efficiency as the primary method and commits to ensuring that as many fuel poor households as reasonably practicable achieve a minimum FPEER rating by 2030 6 with interim targets by 2020 and 2025. The 2015 strategy 6 in England emphasized more effective policy-making and delivery to address the structural problems of fuel poverty and to meet decarbonization goals. To tackle the least energy-efficient private rental properties in England and Wales, the Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards established a baseline efficiency for new and renewal tenancies based on FPEER. Coordination efforts between relevant health and housing policies with other departments initially hampered the implementation of energy efficiency assistance (WF) to households suffering the most. Since the demise of WF, no government funding is provided for energy efficiency. However, similar to on-bill financing schemes, the Green Deal supports energy efficiency through a pay-as-you-save private loan scheme for household energy efficiency upgrades 33 . The Energy Company Obligation (ECO) is an energy efficiency scheme in the UK aimed to tackle fuel poverty. The ECO levies money from each customer as a proportion of their bill, so all income groups contribute payments. The fund is then spent on energy efficiency improvements in people’s homes. ECO is meant to be focused primarily on the fuel poor; however, the poor definition of eligibility limits effective targeting.

The annual fuel poverty statistics monitor progress against the 2015 statutory target and track (1) the proportion of households in fuel poverty using the LIHC indicator and (2) their fuel poverty gap, that is the reduction in fuel bill that the average fuel poor household needs in order to not be classified as fuel poor 34 . These headline statistics are based on data collected by the English Housing Survey, a continuous national survey commissioned by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and provides information about the housing circumstances, condition and energy efficiency of English homes. These data are vital elements that support England’s Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) to develop, monitor and evaluate the key fuel poverty policies 6 . To measure progress against the 2014 fuel poverty targets, BEIS is legally bound to use FPEER 32 . The Committee on Fuel Poverty (formally the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group) is a non-departmental public body sponsored by BEIS established to monitor the English Government’s progress on the 2015 fuel poverty strategy and to provide independent, expert guidance on meeting milestones and targets 6 , 35 . The UK’s fuel poverty evaluation approach provides the mechanisms to track policy goals with embedded public oversight to ensure the government is meeting those goals.

Moving Forward

There is an opportunity to explore the benefits demonstrated by UK fuel poverty and US food insecurity recognition, responses and evaluation. Notably, formal recognition of US energy poverty would catalyse rapid energy efficiency investments, develop universal metrics to understand the landscape of US energy poverty and align LIHEAP and WAP statutes with associated health outcome/impact performance measures.

To move towards a more nuanced understanding of and efficient response to energy poverty reduction, we suggest a more inclusive and efficient inquiry to energy poverty engagement that establishes the prevalence and severity of energy poverty experienced across the US, explores its drivers, determines reasonable energy poverty reduction objectives, investigates how existing policy and programs compliment and coordinate innovative solutions to achieve set objectives, evaluates the effectiveness of deployed solutions and assesses how such solutions may be optimized for climate adaptation. Ultimately, we hope that this leads to the establishment of a statutory amendment that tasks the development of an independent interagency working group and a national energy poverty strategy including a definition and comprehensive measurement and evaluation of local, state, and national progress towards set reduction objectives in the United States.

The development of an energy poverty strategy, including definition, metrics and solutions must be reflected in the principles of risk assessment. Failing to acknowledge the risk or potential harm that may occur with living in sub-standard housing, or lack of household energy, should be regarded as a threat to national well-being and potential to rival other nations and spur economic growth. In recognizing the risks to public health vis-à-vis household energy poverty 4 , 36 , risk characterization provides a lens that encourages energy poverty problem formulation. Risk characterization accurately describes hazardous situations in a way that reflects the significant concerns of the interested and affected parties 37 . This decision-relevant description should be understood and accessible to the parties and pubic officials 37 . The usefulness of risk characterization and subsequent risk analysis will fail if the perspectives and knowledge of the interested and affected parties are absent 37 , 38 . Applying the techniques of risk analysis and characterization are essential in making informed decisions on human health, welfare and the environment as linked to energy poverty.

Problem characterization and solution interventions should employ an energy vulnerability perspective. Energy vulnerability recognizes the multidimensionality of household energy poverty and offers a new lens to characterize the problem spatially and temporally whilst seeking understanding of the dynamics that influence a household’s energy poverty risk. Through this lens, energy poverty is recognized as a ‘state’ within a certain temporal frame and identifies vulnerability as a set of conditions leading to such circumstances in that state 39 . Thus, energy vulnerability thinking can be seen as probabilistic, highlighting the factors that influence the likelihood of becoming energy poor 39 . Correspondingly, a consistent, comprehensive definition of energy poverty centred on the notion of energy vulnerability is vital to formally recognize energy poverty and bridge the assessment gap between scholars, policymakers and program managers. Thus, we propose to define US energy poverty as a state where households are challenged by everyday situations in meeting basic energy needs because of an assemblage of socio-economic, technical and environmental–political factors 4 , 40 , 41 . Factors known to be associated with energy poverty include gender, age, housing age, tenure type, energy inefficiency, education, employment, geography, socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity 42 , 43 , 44 .

Given the multidimensionality and variation of energy poverty regionally 1 , 2 , 44 , the production of data that characterizes this problem for the US should be intentional in its exploration. Thus, the development of quality indicators and data sets would aid capturing the essence of this problem beyond existing energy affordability measures. A standardized national instrument developed in concert with an independent, interagency working group is critical to understand the landscapes of energy poverty temporally.

Equipped with the capability to measure different dimensions of energy poverty, reasonable reduction-based objectives surface as an opportunity for local development and national coordination. Objectives establish baseline goals through which energy poverty reduction can be assessed and achieved. Formal energy poverty recognition alongside reduction-based objectives and performance measures would better align LIHEAP and WAP as an official energy poverty strategy that encourages longitudinal data collection and innovative solutions.

The separate federal channels for LIHEAP and WAP limit opportunities for coordination, promote redundant administrative and reporting duties for states and local agencies, and maintain incompatible eligibility requirements. We envision a restructuring that collapses the processes and procedures of LIHEAP and WAP under the DOE given their demonstrated measurement and evaluative efforts and WAP’s more expansive statutory purpose. Such restructuring would require a good database 7 and would promote alignment of broader public health 4 and carbon mitigation goals with interim targets for energy poverty elimination by 2030 and 2050.

Energy efficiency evaluation, measurement and verification are vital in demonstrating the financial benefits of bill assistance and the multiple benefits of energy efficiency 45 . Reduction focused performance measures and program evaluations offer a means to incorporate existing WAP evaluation components aimed at minimizing environmental and health risks, whilst maximizing energy and cost savings. Periodic evaluation would maintain a record of the effectiveness of deployed responses. Energy poverty and its responses can then be reassessed to understand how the landscape has changed and how the problem of energy poverty has evolved.


We contend that the absence of formal energy poverty recognition at the federal level has limited a more precise response and more inclusive understanding of the prevalence, severity and causes of energy poverty in the US. Issues of energy poverty remain omnipresent across the US despite the presence of local, state and federally funded energy assistance programs for energy burden reduction. Historically, the US has entrenched its assessment and response to energy poverty through national programs based on low household incomes and relative energy burdens, which has constrained the understanding and targeting potential of energy poverty exclusively towards affordability and away from related health outcomes as a result of household inefficiencies.

Congressional funding appropriations showcase the primary response and disproportionate support that LIHEAP historically receives compared to WAP and elucidate the disparity in investments of federal resources aimed at responding to energy poverty, despite LIHEAP’s design as a short-term solution. We do not highlight the disparities in congressional funding as a means to bolster support for its discontinuation or disinvestment. Rather, these disparities magnify the need for purposeful performance measures and systematic program evaluations that underpin the process in funding federal energy assistance programs.

Current performance measures and program evaluations hinge on distributive targets—focusing on the number of households assisted. The consequences of distributive focused performance measures are a product of mis-characterizing US energy poverty and a quotient of its evaluation history, and suggest the inadequacies of LIHEAP to holistically ensure the reliability of adequate household energy services alone. Without appropriate performance measures to aid the evaluation of household energy poverty reduction and health improvement, near and far term understandings of energy poverty reduction and responses will remain insufficient.

Moving forward, a statutory amendment is needed that defines energy poverty, promotes its reduction and develops performance measures to more inclusively understand and evaluate the impact of all energy poverty responses. Energy vulnerability thinking can connect the analysis of inequities in vulnerability to household energy poverty. This perspective maintains the significant role data driven evaluation, measurement and verification of outcomes have on minimizing environmental and health risks whilst maximizing energy and cost savings. Energy vulnerability framing in concert with energy 46 , 47 and environmental justice 48 principles amplify the need for adequate access to affordable household energy and the need to recognize its importance as a national policy issue. This reframing prompts a research agenda and policy action to ameliorate US energy poverty.

To solve the multidimensional issues of energy poverty, the US must develop an expansive framework and respond with clarity. Fortunately, there is an opportunity to tackle energy poverty, which is being exacerbated by climate change and unjust energy transitions, by leveraging the history, shortfalls and innovation of formal fuel poverty recognition and responses in the UK. The preponderance of household energy inequities that plague low-income and households of colour will intensify if the realities of energy poverty in the US are not first acknowledged.

Drehobl, A. & Ross L. Lifting The High Energy Burden In America’s Largest Cities: How Energy Efficiency Can Improve Low Income And Underserved Communities (American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Energy Efficiency for All, 2016); This study estimates energy burden in the largest US cities and finds that low-income households have an energy burden twice the median household energy burden .

Ross, L., Drehobl, A. & Stickles, B. The High Cost of Energy in Rural America: Household Energy Burdens and Opportunities for Energy Efficiency (American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, 2018).

2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) (US Energy Information Administration, 2018).

Hernández, D. Understanding ‘energy insecurity’ and why it matters to health. Social Science &. Medicine 167 , 1–10 (2016). Defines energy insecurity as a three-dimensional construct marked by the interplay between economic, physical and behavioural factors .

Google Scholar  

Higgins, L. & Lutzenhiser, L. Ceremonial equity: low-income energy assistance and the failure of socio-environmental policy. Soc. Prob. 42 , 468–492 (1995). Identifies persistent inequalities in the distribution of energy assistance benefits .

Article   Google Scholar  

Cutting the Cost Of Keeping Warm: A Fuel Poverty Strategy For England URN 15D/062 (HM Government, 2015).

Dobbins, A., Nerini, F. F., Deane, P. & Pye, S. Strengthening the EU response to energy poverty. Nat. Energy 4 , (2019).

Thomson, H., Snell, C. J. & Liddell, C. Fuel poverty in the European Union: a concept in need of definition?. People Place & Policy 10 , 5–24 (2016).

Bouzarovski, S. in Energy Poverty 1–8 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2018).

LIHEAP Report to Congress (RTC) for Fiscal Year (2014) (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2014).

Sissine, F. J. DOE Weatherization Program: A Review of Funding, Performance, and Cost-Effectiveness Studies (Congressional Research Service, 2012). A report on the Weatherization Assistance Program’s funding, evolution, assessments and benefit–cost evaluations .

Kaiser, M. J. & Pulsipher, A. G. Science and politics: The 1981 and 1984 LIHEAP distribution formulas. Socioecon. Plann. Sci. 40 , 15–51 (2006).

Perl, L. The LIHEAP Formula (Congressional Research Service, 2015).

2018 Second Release of LIHEAP Block Grant Funds to States and Territories under the Consolidated Appropriations Act , 2018 (P.L. 115-141) (LIHEAP Clearing House, accessed 27 December 2019);

Tonn, B. et al. Weatherization Works II - Summary of Findings from the ARRA Period Evaluation of the US Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2015).

Reames, T. G., Stacey, M. B. & Zimmerman, M. A Multi-State Analysis of Equity in Utility- Sponsored Energy Efficiency Investments for Residential Electric Customers (Urban Energy Justice Lab and UM Poverty Solutions, 2019). A study that assessed distributional disparities in utility-funded residential energy efficiency program investments in the US .

Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definition and Relationships (US Government Accountability Office, 2011).

Report to Congress (RTC) for Fiscal Year (2015) (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2015).

LIHEAP Energy Burden Evaluation Study (Apprise, 2005).

Annual Performance Plan and Report. Fiscal Year 2017 (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2016).

Weatherization Assistance Program. National Evaluations: Summary of Results (US DOE, 2015); Data derived from the Retrospective Evaluation of Program Year 2008 that is reflective of a typical year in WAP operations .

LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook for FY 2014 (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2016).

Murray, A. G. & Mills, B. F. The impact of low‐income home energy assistance program participation on household energy insecurity. Contemp. Econ. Policy 32 , 811–825 (2014).

Frank, D. A. et al. Heat or eat: The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program and nutritional and health risks among children less than 3 years of age. Pediatrics 118 , e1293–e1302 (2006).

Eisenberg, J. Weatherization Assistance Program Technical Memorandum Background Data and Statistics on Low-Income Energy Use and Burdens. Oak Ridge National Laboratory ORNL/TM-2014/133 (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2014).

Ohls, J., Radbill, L. & Schirm, A. Household Food Security in The United States, 1995–1997: Technical Issues and Statistical Report (Mathematica Policy Research, 2001).

Bickel, G., Nord, M., Price, C., Hamilton, W. & Cook, J. Guide to measuring household food security (United States Department of Agriculture, 2000).

The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy (Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs and Department of Trade and Industry, 2001).

Hills, J. Getting the Measure of Fuel Poverty: Final Report of the Fuel Poverty Review CASE report 72 (Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, 2012).

Consultation on Fuel Poverty Strategy (Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, 2019).

Middlemiss, L. A critical analysis of the new politics of fuel poverty in England. Criti. Soc. Policy 37 , 425–443 (2017).

Fuel Poverty Energy Efficiency Rating Methodology URN 14D/273 (Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2014).

Sovacool, B. K. Fuel poverty, affordability, and energy justice in England: Policy insights from the Warm Front Program. Energy 93 , 361–371 (2015).

Annual Fuel Poverty Statistics Report (Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, 2019).

Committee on Fuel Poverty Third Annual Report (Committee on Fuel Poverty, 2018).

Liddell, C. & Morris, C. Fuel poverty and human health: a review of recent evidence. Energy Policy 38 , 2987–2997 (2010).

Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions In A Democratic Society (US National Research Council, 1996).

Reames, T. G. A community-based approach to low-income residential energy efficiency participation barriers. Local Environ. 21 , 1449–1466 (2016). A study exploring a community-based approach to implementing the Weatherization Assistance Program in a low-income, African American urban community .

Bouzarovski, S. & Petrova, S. A global perspective on domestic energy deprivation: Overcoming the energy poverty–fuel poverty binary. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 10 , 31–40 (2015). A study offering an integrated conceptual framework for the research and amelioration of energy deprivation .

Hall, S. M., Hards, S. & Bulkeley, H. New approaches to energy: Equity, justice and vulnerability: Introduction to the special issue. Local Environ. 18 , 413–421 (2013).

Harrison, C. & Popke, J. “Because you got to have heat”: the networked assemblage of energy poverty in Eastern North Carolina. Ann. Am. Assoc. Geogr. 101 , 949–961 (2011). Suggests energy poverty is best viewed as a geographical assemblage of networked materialities and socioeconomic relationships .

Bednar, D. J., Reames, T. G. & Keoleian, G. A. The intersection of energy and justice: Modeling the spatial, racial/ethnic and socioeconomic patterns of urban residential heating consumption and efficiency in Detroit, Michigan. Energy Build. 143 , 25–34 (2017). Provides evidence that supports energy efficiency assistance targeting that recognizes the significant role of race, ethnicity, place and class in energy poverty .

Reames, T. G. Targeting energy justice: Exploring spatial, racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in urban residential heating energy efficiency. Energy Policy 97 , 549–558 (2016).

Jessel, S. G. & Hernández, D. Energy, poverty, and health in a changing climate: A conceptual review of an emerging literature. Front. Public Health 7 , 357 (2019). A comprehensive review highlighting the relationship between energy, disproportionate burdens borne by vulnerable populations and health towards adequately meeting household energy needs .

Nowak, S., Molina, M., Kushler, M. Recent Developments in Energy Efficiency Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification Report U1712 (American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 2017).

Jenkins, K., McCauley, D., Heffron, R., Stephan, H. & Rehner, R. Energy justice: a conceptual review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 11 , 174–182 (2016).

Sovacool, B. K., Heffron, R. J., McCauley, D. & Goldthau, A. Energy decisions reframed as justice and ethical concerns. Nat. Ener. 1 , 16024 (2016).

Agyeman, J., Schlosberg, D., Craven, L. & Matthews, C. Trends and directions in environmental justice: from inequity to everyday life, community, and just sustainabilities. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41 , 321–340 (2016).

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

Dominic J. Bednar & Tony G. Reames

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dominic J. Bednar .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bednar, D.J., Reames, T.G. Recognition of and response to energy poverty in the United States. Nat Energy 5 , 432–439 (2020).

Download citation

Received : 12 September 2019

Accepted : 14 February 2020

Published : 23 March 2020

Issue Date : June 2020


Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Investigating the role of subsistence renewables in alleviating power poverty within nigeria’s energy-mix strategy.

  • David Oluseun Olayungbo
  • Ayodele Adekunle Faiyetole
  • Adenike Anike Olayungbo

Sustainable Energy Research (2024)

Power System Resilience: The Role of Electric Vehicles and Social Disparities in Mitigating the US Power Outages

  • Abdolah Loni
  • Somayeh Asadi

Smart Grids and Sustainable Energy (2024)

Examining energy inequality under the rapid residential energy transition in China through household surveys

Nature Energy (2023)

Beyond disasters: Long-run effect of earthquakes on energy poverty in China

  • Minggao Xue

Environmental Science and Pollution Research (2023)

Why is efficiency improvement ineffective in alleviating energy poverty? The nonnegligible rebound effect

  • Boqiang Lin

Annals of Operations Research (2023)

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

applied public policy research institute for study and evaluation

Applied Public Policy PhD/MPhil

Key information.

The Policy Institute works to solve society’s challenges with evidence and expertise, combining the rigour of an academic department with the agility of a consultancy and the connectedness of a think tank.

The institute has a reputation for conducting impactful research that shapes media and public debate and the policy environment. This PhD Programme in Applied Public Policy will train the next generation of researchers to conduct this kind of impact-focused public policy research. The programme offers you the opportunity to study public policy as it is happening in the real world. It will offer opportunities to explore how policy can be influenced, and whether interventions in public policy are effective.

The Policy Institute is based in the Faculty of Social Science and Public Policy (SSPP), which seeks to understand global, social, technological, and economic transformations changes and to inform these through education and research.

Applied Public Policy doctoral students are supervised by academic staff in the Policy Institute. We recommend that prospective students read through the PI webpages to find their preferred research area and potential supervisors .

Course detail

The PhD in Applied Public Policy focuses on training researchers to study public policy as it is happening in the real world. It offers opportunities to explore how policy can be influenced, and whether interventions in public policy are effective.

PhD students will learn the use of causal methods in statistics and econometrics, including randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental designs, to study social policy questions, including in education, child and adult safeguarding, health and social care, youth employment, criminology and justice, mental health and wellbeing, and behavioural economics.

Alongside this, doctoral students will receive comprehensive training and supervision in the underlying theories in public policy, economics, sociology, and other relevant fields to their domain(s) of study.

This kind of research has clear policy impacts, but is also increasingly valuable from an academic perspective, with randomised trials, quasi-experimental methods, multi-methods studies, and behavioural economics being increasingly utilised across a wide range of fields, and increasingly being published in high-impact journals in economics, psychology, public policy, social policy, health and care research, and political science. Doctoral students will be equipped to critically examine the use and appropriateness of these methods.

Alongside quantitative methods, doctoral students will also use qualitative methods including interviews, focus groups, and ethnography, and the use of deliberative methods (such as citizens’ assemblies) both as a method of research to study public policy and their use as a tool for designing and conducting it. 

Head of group/division

Professor Michael Sanders and Dr Kate Bancroft

Candidates can also email [email protected] .

  • How to apply
  • Fees or Funding

UK Tuition Fees 2023/24

Full time tuition fees: £6,540 per year

Part time tuition fees: £3,270 per year

International Tuition Fees 2023/24

Full time tuition fees: £24,360 per year

Part time tuition fees: £12,180 per year

UK Tuition Fees 2024/25

Full time tuition fees: £6,936 per year

Part time tuition fees: £3,468 per year

International Tuition Fees 2024/25

Full time tuition fees: £26,070 per year

Part time tuition fees: £13,035 per year

These tuition fees may be subject to additional increases in subsequent years of study, in line with King's terms and conditions

  • Study environment

Base campus


Strand Campus

Located on the north bank of the River Thames, the Strand Campus houses King's College London's arts and sciences faculties.

Study Environment

Each student has two supervisors and meets regularly with both, though typically more frequently with the primary supervisor. They are encouraged to attend relevant research seminars at King’s and elsewhere and to and to participate in the wide variety of conferences and events on offer at King’s.

The Policy Institute offers training opportunities for students, for example through the institute’s Methods Club, Evaluation seminars, training focused on analytical coding and a wide variety of research fora. They will also be able to participate in training from across the LISS Doctoral Training Partnership .

Impact will be at the centre of the students’ experience in the Policy Institute, and they be able to attend and be part of events featuring the Institute’s visiting faculty which include current and former ministers and senior officials including the current Cabinet Secretary.

Alongside this, students will benefit from the Institute’s close connections with other academic departments, being able to attend regular seminar series across King’s. 

Postgraduate training

Students graduating from this programme will be employable in a range of academic, research, and applied roles. Previous graduates of this programme’s predecessors have gone on to work in the civil service; to pursue academic careers including postdoctoral studies at the European University Institute and Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government; and to work in the government’s network of What Works Centres.

  • Entry requirements

applied public policy research institute for study and evaluation

Find a supervisor

Search through a list of available supervisors.

For more information regarding our courses please contact us using the details below

applied public policy research institute for study and evaluation

Chat to students and staff

Chat to current students and staff to find out about life at King's.

applied public policy research institute for study and evaluation


Discover your accommodation options and explore our residences.

applied public policy research institute for study and evaluation

Connect with a King’s Advisor

Want to know more about studying at King's? We're here to help.

Experience life in London

  • Skip to Content
  • Skip to Main Navigation
  • Skip to Search

applied public policy research institute for study and evaluation

Indiana University Indiana University IU

Open Search

  • News & Media
  • News & Publications
  • Our Expertise
  • Work With Us
  • CRISP Research & Evaluation Clinic
  • Center for Civic Literacy
  • Publications
  • Research Findings
  • Impact & Outcomes

Public Policy Institute

A close-up of a hand that uses a pen to write beside a chart

Insights & Analysis

Insights that cut through complexity.

The issues you deal with are complicated. We’re experts at examining them and turning what we learn into information you can use.

  • Our researchers are authorities in their fields, and they’re personally invested in the issues they study.
  • We drill down to the real causes. We see the big picture and the long view.
  • We have all the tools you need. Our research areas and skills are broad.
  • We’re focused on Indiana, and our findings help communities everywhere.
  • We tell it like it is. Our evidence-based, data-driven research is free of agenda and spin.
  • Most importantly, our work gets results .

Recent projects

Understanding the impact of Cook Medical's 38th & Sheridan project

Racial equity in school policing: A review of the IPS Police Department

Understanding and reducing probation revocations in Monroe County

Examining the economic impact of the Indy Parks system on the community

Analysis of United Way's Great Families 2020 initiative

Black homeownership in Marion County

Indiana traffic safety

These areas of focus are just the start of our expertise

Whatever your goals are, contact us to see how we can help.

Criminal justice

Through our Center for Health and Justice Research, we study the state’s corrections, courts, defense, and prosecution and sentencing systems.

Economic development

We’ll help you understand marketplace data, assess your options, and make decisions that work in the short and long terms.

Housing and community development

Using tools like our in-house geographic information system, we consider all the population issues that affect communities.

Land use and environment

We monitor urban planning initiatives and their impact on energy and the environment. We also offer perspectives on subjects like biofuels and carbon capture and storage.

Public safety

We work with emergency and public safety agencies and service providers to evaluate programs, collect survey and statistical data, and develop implementation plans.

Social policy

We study complex social issues and the effects of social policy through applied and translational research that informs and engages key community stakeholders and organizations.

Tax and finance

We analyze state and local taxes, budgeting, and spending to help leaders respond to changes in tax laws and public finance and improve their communities’ fiscal health.

The information PPI provides is critical to the deliberations of private and public sector leaders as they strive to improve the quality of life in Indiana communities. N. Clay Robbins, chairman, president, and CEO of Lilly Endowment Inc.

Services for every need

If you’re looking for services that aren’t listed here, ask us—we probably offer them, too.

Analysis and planning

  • Analytical studies
  • Crime analysis
  • Data analysis
  • Economic impact analysis
  • Policy analysis
  • Public safety analysis
  • Spatial analysis
  • Strategic planning
  • Economic valuation
  • Policy studies
  • Program evaluation

Facilitation and groups

  • Facilitated decision making
  • Facilitation and mediation
  • Focus groups


  • Benchmarking/indicators
  • Data management
  • Econometric modeling
  • Geographic information systems
  • Hedonic modeling
  • Simulation modeling
  • Survey analysis
  • Survey design

We help you improve lives

  • See our impact
  • Learn about working with us

Public Policy Institute resources and social media channels

Give Now

  • myPNW Login
  • Brightspace Login
  • PNW Calendar
  • Scholarships
  • Tuition and Fees

Institute for Social and Policy Research

Mission statement.

The Institute for Social and Policy Research (ISPR) will plan, support, and conduct applied social science and policy research related to the social, health, and educational challenges confronting the region Purdue University Northwest serves. The Institute will also disseminate knowledge using methods to shorten the temporal gap between research and practice. Such strategies include the publication of scholarly research, programs of training, design of interventions, program development, and evidence-based practice education.

The Institute for Social and Policy Research (ISPR) will assist those agencies, programs, and researchers whose goal is to address issues related to the social, health, and educational challenges confronting the area served by Purdue University Northwest. The Institute will also support disseminating knowledge using methods to shorten the temporal gap between research and practice. Such strategies include publishing documents that allow research findings to be better understood by the community at large and methodological training.

Institute Objectives

  • The Institute provides resources needed to generate knowledge related to the unique challenges of the Northwest Indiana and Southern Cook County (IL) region.
  • The Institute facilitates interdisciplinary collaborative scholarship across departments and schools in the Purdue University Northwest community.
  • The Institute stimulates the development of student research skills through various supported service learning and research activities.
  • The Institute assists in shortening the distance between science and application through various dissemination and training activities.

Policy Studies

  • The Institute supports the compilation of policy studies designed to inform various stakeholder groups at a regional and national level. Policy studies compiled by the Institute draw upon the interdisciplinary staff of the Institute to address the complex and interdependent nature of policy issues.

Program Evaluation

  • Program evaluation in the areas of education, health, and human services is closely tied to the area of policy studies. The Institute provides a regional capacity to assess the effectiveness of initiatives targeted throughout the Midwest region through its interdisciplinary community of scholars. Program evaluation activities will also provide a context in which graduate students in education, human service, and health disciplines may learn about the effectiveness of interventions.

Program Development

  • The Institute’s program development activities are closely connected to policy study, program evaluation, and consultation services. Institute scholars will provide expertise in designing and implementing interventions in health, human services, and education.

Service Learning

  • The Institute’s activities will also provide an environment for undergraduate and graduate students to engage in activities designed to prepare them for their professions. As part of ongoing evaluation and policy study activities, students can learn more about policy issues related to their chosen disciplines.

Public Education/Dissemination

  • The Institute provides an invaluable forum to support public education/dissemination activities. This capacity complements the Institute’s policy study activities by creating public awareness of research findings. It will also allow the Institute to ensure its relevance in policymaking. The Institute will also provide a neutral forum for discussions related to challenges facing counties and states in the Midwest region.

Centers at the Institute

Program development and evaluation (pd&e).

  • Development and analysis of assessment data and reports for accreditation
  • Surveys of majors
  • Exit surveys
  • Alum surveys
  • Construction of satisfaction surveys or evaluation surveys
  • Training on evaluation methodology

Social Science Training, Analysis & Research (S-STAR)

  • Consulting on grant proposals
  • Construction of surveys
  • Collection and analysis of evaluation data
  • Evaluation of survey data
  • Preparation of reports
  • Assistance in developing methodology or instruments, data collection plan, or data analysis plan.
  • Consultant: Serve as methodology or statistical expert on grants
  • SPSS: Multivariate statistics
  • EQS: Structural equation modeling
  • mPLUS: Multivariate statistics
  • Qualtrics: Advanced survey design
  • Can help translate technical language into lay language to communicate with grant agencies, foundations, governmental agencies, non-governmental agencies (NGOs), and community groups
  • Assistance in developing methodology or instruments, data collection plan, or data analysis plan
  • Critical feedback on any element of methodology or results

About the Institute

Through social science and policy analysis methods, the Institute for Social and Policy Research (ISPR) has dedicated its efforts to finding solutions to educational, social, and health-related challenges facing the citizens of the Calumet region.

The Institute for Social and Policy Research (ISPR) was created in 2006 to fill the need for an established interdisciplinary research entity at Purdue University Northwest. Through social science and policy analysis methods, the ISPR has dedicated its efforts to finding solutions to educational, social, and health-related challenges facing the citizens of the Calumet region. The Institute combined existing Purdue University Northwest resources within one organizational structure, which resulted in increased impact through the utilization of shared knowledge and resources.

Contact Information

David Nalbone

David P. Nalbone, Ph.D.

Professor of Psychology and Director, Institute for Social and Policy Research

[email protected]

applied public policy research institute for study and evaluation

Applied Research Methods in Public Policy

This course emphasizes the application of research methodology and statistical techniques for evaluating the performance of public policy decisions. Students should be able to understand and apply basic research design methodology and interpret results. The course provides both a theoretical foundation and practical applications of these methods, including variance, regression, cost-benefit analysis, survey sampling, and other tools of evaluation. Included is an introduction to the rich sources of data available on the internet.

Copyright  ©  2024  Pepperdine University

  • Privacy Policy
  • GDPR Privacy Notice
  • Clery Notice
  • Terms of Use
  • Title IX
  • Web Accessibility

Intensification of evaporation of uranium hexafluoride

  • Chemical Engineering Science and Chemical Cybernetics
  • Published: 14 August 2013
  • Volume 47 , pages 499–504, ( 2013 )

Cite this article

  • A. M. Belyntsev 1 ,
  • G. S. Sergeev 2 ,
  • O. B. Gromov 2 ,
  • A. A. Bychkov 1 ,
  • A. V. Ivanov 2 ,
  • S. I. Kamordin 3 ,
  • P. I. Mikheev 4 ,
  • V. I. Nikonov 2 ,
  • I. V. Petrov 1 ,
  • V. A. Seredenko 2 ,
  • S. P. Starovoitov 1 ,
  • S. A. Fomin 1 ,
  • V. G. Frolov 1 &
  • V. F. Kholin 2  

126 Accesses

4 Citations

Explore all metrics

The theoretical mechanism of the sublimation of uranium hexafluoride are considered. The most contribution to the rate of evaporation of UF 6 is introduced by the conductive mode of heat exchange. Various modes of the intensification of the evaporation of uranium hexafluoride during the nitrogen supply in pulse mode to the product mass are investigated. The nitrogen supply results in the turbulization of gas flow within a vessel (Re = 2500–4000) and significantly increases the rate of evaporation of uranium hexafluoride with the substantial decrease in a weight of the nonevaporable residue of 5.6–1.0 kg. The complex application of the pulse nitrogen supply in combination with heating the bottom of the vessel is the most effective method for evaporating uranium hexafluoride. The rate of evaporation of UF6 increases by a factor of almost four in comparison with the design mode. The developed methods are applied in industry and provide the stable operation of Saturn reactors during the conversion of uranium hexafluoride into its dioxide.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

applied public policy research institute for study and evaluation

Production of Uranium Hexafluoride with Low 234U Content in a Cascade with Intermediate Product

V. A. Palkin

Plasma-Chemical Treatment of Process Gases with Low-Concentration Fluorine-Containing Components

H. S. Park, S. P. Vaschenko, … D. Yu. Batomunkuev

Obtaining Hydrogen Fluoride During the Interaction of Uranium Hexafluioride with Hydrogen and Oxygen in a Combustion Regime. Experiment

D. S. Pashkevich, Yu. I. Alekseev, … V. V. Kapustin

Gromov, B.V., Vvedenie v khimicheskuyu tekhnologiyu urana (Introduction to Uranium Chemical Technology), Moscow: Atomizdat, 1978.

Google Scholar  

Sergeev G.S. Study of the evaporation of uranuym hexafluoride from solid and liquid phases and ways of intensifying this process, Cand. Sci. (Eng.) Dissertation , Moscow: All-Union Research Inst. of Chemical Technology, 1970.

Lykov, A.V., Teoriya sushki kapillyarno-poristykh kolloidnykh materialov pishchevoi promyshlennosti (Theory of Drying of Capillary-Porous Colloid Materials of the Food Industry), Moscow: Gostekhizdat, 1948.

Sushkin, I.N., TeplotekhnikaF (Heat Engineering), Moscow: Metallurgiya, 1973.

Morachevskii, A.G. and Sladkoe, I.B., Fizikokhimicheskie svoistva molekulyarnykh neorganicheskikh soedinenii. Spravochnik (Physical and Chemical Properties of Molecular Inorganic Compounds: A Handbook), Leningrad: Khimiya, 1987.

Katz, J. and Rabinovich, E., The Chemistry of Uranium , New Yorl: McGraw-Hill, 1951.

Kasatkin, A.G., Osnovnye protsessy i apparaty khimicheskoi tekhnologii , (Fundamentals of Chemical Engineering Science), Noscow: Khimiya, 1971.

Bychkov, A.A., Nikonov, V.I., Seredenko, V.A., et al., Industrial tests and commercialization of fluorohydrocarbon evaporation from 1 m3 cylinders using nitrogen pulsing into the cylinder, in Sb. rabot MSZ i OAO VNIIKhT , (Collected Papers of MSZ and VNIIKhT), Moscow, 2005.

Petrov, N.V., Bychkov, A.A., Sergeev, G.S., et al., RF Patent 2264987, 2005.

Petrov, N.V., Bychkov, A.A., Seredenko, V.A., et al., RF Patent 2326053, 2008.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Engineering Works, Elektrostal’, Moscow oblast, Russia

A. M. Belyntsev, A. A. Bychkov, I. V. Petrov, S. P. Starovoitov, S. A. Fomin & V. G. Frolov

Leading Research Institute of Chemical Technology, Moscow, Russia

G. S. Sergeev, O. B. Gromov, A. V. Ivanov, V. I. Nikonov, V. A. Seredenko & V. F. Kholin

Bochvar All-Russia Research Institute of Inorganic Materials, Moscow, Russia

S. I. Kamordin

Bauman Moscow State Technical University, Moscow, Russia

P. I. Mikheev

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. M. Belyntsev .

Additional information

Original Russian Text © A.M. Belyntsev, G.S. Sergeev, O.B. Gromov, A.A. Bychkov, A.V. Ivanov, S.I. Kamordin, P.I. Mikheev, V.I. Nikonov, I.V. Petrov, V.A. Seredenko, S.P. Starovoitov, S.A. Fomin, V.G. Frolov, V.F. Kholin, 2011, published in Khimicheskaya Tekhnologiya, 2011, Vol. 12, No. 11, pp. 675–681.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Belyntsev, A.M., Sergeev, G.S., Gromov, O.B. et al. Intensification of evaporation of uranium hexafluoride. Theor Found Chem Eng 47 , 499–504 (2013).

Download citation

Received : 25 January 2011

Published : 14 August 2013

Issue Date : July 2013


Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • uranium hexafluoride
  • sublimation
  • turbulization of gas flow
  • rate of evaporation of UF 6
  • conversion UF 6 within N 2
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research


  1. Public Policy Research Institute at Texas A&M University

    applied public policy research institute for study and evaluation

  2. AKedOLToPsV3fTqxyju_G_xBsnDKhtFqElJPM9Tja9OmOA=s900-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj

    applied public policy research institute for study and evaluation

  3. Public Policy Research: Methodology, Analysis & Evaluation

    applied public policy research institute for study and evaluation

  4. Institute for Public Policy Research

    applied public policy research institute for study and evaluation

  5. Foundations of public policy research and methods

    applied public policy research institute for study and evaluation

  6. Policy Research Institute

    applied public policy research institute for study and evaluation


  1. Overview of the Advanced Policy Analyst Program

  2. Public Policy Research and Analysis: Introduction

  3. Program and technical assistance staff talk about being nondirective in coaching

  4. 57- Chapter 3 PM /PI (Implementation) (Utilization Review)

  5. Large-Scale Agent Model

  6. Public Policy Research Institute of Zimbabwe(PPRIZ): Civil Society Organisation Part 2



    Who We Are APPRISE is a nonprofit research institute dedicated to collecting and analyzing data and information to assess and improve public programs. Our current research includes work for federal


    RESEARCH ACTIVITIES APPRISE conducts research and evaluation to provide program managers and policymakers with information to develop and improve public programs. The following links provide detailed information on individual research techniques and specific projects where we have applied those methodologies. Process Evaluation Research: This

  3. Understanding, measuring, and encouraging public policy research impact

    The first is research 'for' public policy, where researchers aim to recommend actions for tackling specific policy challenges. The second is research 'about or on' public policy, where researchers aim to recommend changes that improve policy making processes and structures (Lewis, 2005). The first occurs in many different disciplinary ...

  4. Recognition of and response to energy poverty in the United States

    Two organizations, APPRISE, Inc. (Applied Public Policy Research Institute for Study and Evaluation) and Oak Ridge National Lab, are commissioned to serve as performance review committees ...

  5. Evaluation and Policy Evaluation

    Policy evaluation is traditionally presented as the final step in a policy cycle. According to the sequential approach to public policy, evaluation allows to look back at the social problem that led to the development and implementation of a public intervention. The purpose of evaluation is to provide information on how public programs or ...

  6. PDF Low-Income Energy Efficiency

    The Low-Income Energy Efficiency Opportunities Study was produced by Applied Public Policy Research Institute for Study and Evaluation (APPRISE) on behalf of Environmental Defense ... Studies show that, nationwide, up to 15 percent of homes may be ... Evaluation methods using estimates or models, such as from technical

  7. Research Methods for Public Policy

    Abstract. This chapter examined the nature of public policy and role of policy analysis in the policy process. It examines a variety of research methods and their use in public policy engagements and analysis for evidence-informed policymaking. It explains qualitative methods, quantitative methods, multiple and mixed-method research.

  8. Applied Public Policy

    The institute has a reputation for conducting impactful research that shapes media and public debate and the policy environment. This PhD Programme in Applied Public Policy will train the next generation of researchers to conduct this kind of impact-focused public policy research. The programme offers you the opportunity to study public policy ...

  9. Services

    Our studies are cost-effective, evidence-based, focused, and designed to communicate effectively to target audiences. We work closely with clients to define the scope of research, the intended impact, and audience. Additionally, PPRI researchers draw upon our wide range of in-house expertise as well as the world-class faculty at Texas A&M ...

  10. Insights & Analysis: Public Policy Institute : Indiana University

    We study complex social issues and the effects of social policy through applied and translational research that informs and engages key community stakeholders and organizations. Tax and finance We analyze state and local taxes, budgeting, and spending to help leaders respond to changes in tax laws and public finance and improve their ...

  11. Institute for Social and Policy Research

    The Institute for Social and Policy Research supports applied social science and policy research related to social, health and educational challenges. ... As part of ongoing evaluation and policy study activities, students can learn more about policy issues related to their chosen disciplines. ... Public Education/Dissemination. The Institute ...

  12. Applied Research Methods in Public Policy

    MPP 603. (3 units) This course emphasizes the application of research methodology and statistical techniques for evaluating the performance of public policy decisions. Students should be able to understand and apply basic research design methodology and interpret results. The course provides both a theoretical foundation and practical ...

  13. Applied Policy Research

    Beginning with an orientation and overview of policy research, outlining the processes of policy analysis and evaluation from start to finish, Applied Policy Research, 2e walks students through an examination of case studies to demonstrate how these theories play out in real policy situations. New to this edition:

  14. Washington State Institute for Public Policy

    The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) is a nonpartisan public research group located in Olympia, the hub of Washington State government. WSIPP is a team of multidisciplinary researchers who conduct applied policy research for the state legislature in a creative and collaborative environment. WSIPP is strongly committed to the ...

  15. Victor Andreevich Mukhin

    The species composition of dendroflora was revealed as a result of floristic research conducted in 2015-2016 using the method of routing studies. A network of routes covered all major variants of ...

  16. Study of the behavior of vver and pwr fuel irradiated in the hbwr

    The methods, techniques, and results of comparative studies of VVER and PWR fuel tested in the HBWR reactor (Norway) are presented. Experimental VVER fuel elements with uranium dioxide fuel were fabricated at the Machine Building Plant (MSZ) (in Elektrostal) using standard technology; the experimental PWR fuel elements were fabricated according to the model specifications. The results obtained ...

  17. Organization Chart

    Organization Chart - APPRISE - Applied Public Policy Research Institute for Study and Evaluation.

  18. Durability and Stiffness Estimation for the Composite Overwrap

    The safety margin evaluation of the side insulators and the overwrap was carried out by classical criterion of maximum tensile stress. ... Preprint of Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics of ...

  19. Intensification of evaporation of uranium hexafluoride

    The theoretical mechanism of the sublimation of uranium hexafluoride are considered. The most contribution to the rate of evaporation of UF6 is introduced by the conductive mode of heat exchange. Various modes of the intensification of the evaporation of uranium hexafluoride during the nitrogen supply in pulse mode to the product mass are investigated. The nitrogen supply results in the ...