Table 61: CEC Outreach Chi-Squared Test Results Total CCEC Points Residential Only Points Town Utility Town Utility Achieved Town Expected Achieved Town Expected Outreach Outreach Points Count Points Points Count Points Quartile Quartile 2015 1 (highest) 7,206 41 6,239 1 (highest) 4,748 41 3,979 2 6,295 39 5,935 2 3,736 39 3,785 accumulated October, 3 3,364 20 3,043 3 2,248 20 1,941 points 4 (lowest) 8,852 69 10,500 4 (lowest) 5,668 69 6,696 All through Total 25,717 169 25,717 p < .001 Total 16,400 169 16,400 p < .001 χ2, χ2, Town Utility Town Utility Achieved Town Expected Achieved Town Expected Outreach Outreach Points Count Points Points Count Points 2012 Quartile Quartile 2015 1 (highest) 4,678 41 4,082 1 (highest) 2,816 41 2,481 2 4,199 39 3,883 2 2,416 39 2,360 October, 3 2,246 20 1,991 3 1,494 20 1,210 accumulated 4 (lowest) 5,704 69 6,870 4 (lowest) 3,500 69 4,175 through Points Total 16,827 169 16,827 p < .001 Total 10,226 169 10,226 p < .001 χ2, χ2, ANOVA Test This subsection reports additional findings of the relationship between utility outreach and CEC point accumulation. Table 62 shows the results of a series of analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests in which the annual normalized outreach quartile groups are tested for joint significance (F statistic) as predictors of total points accumulated in each year (left-hand table) and as predictors of the percent of households in a town that are new participants in the HES program (right-hand table). This test was selected in order to identify the years in which the utility outreach grouping is, jointly, associated with each outcome. Statistical significance in these tests is shown with p-values less than 0.1. These ANOVA tests indicate a statistically significant relationship at the 90% confidence level between
Table 61: CEC Outreach Chi-Squared Test Results Total CCEC Points Residential Only Points All points accumulated through October, 2015 Town Utility Outreach Quartile Achieved Points Town Count Expected Points Town Utility Outreach Quartile Achieved Points Town Count Expected Points 1 (highest) 7,206 41 6,239 1 (highest) 4,748 41 3,979 2 6,295 39 5,935 2 3,736 39 3,785 3 3,364 20 3,043 3 2,248 20 1,941 4 (lowest) 8,852 69 10,500 4 (lowest) 5,668 69 6,696 Total 25,717 169 25,717 χ2, p < .001 Total 16,400 169 16,400 χ2, p < .001 Points accumulated 2012 through October, 2015 Town Utility Outreach Quartile Achieved Points Town Count Expected Points Town Utility Outreach Quartile Achieved Points Town Count Expected Points 1 (highest) 4,678 41 4,082 1 (highest) 2,816 41 2,481 2 4,199 39 3,883 2 2,416 39 2,360 3 2,246 20 1,991 3 1,494 20 1,210 4 (lowest) 5,704 69 6,870 4 (lowest) 3,500 69 4,175 Total 16,827 169 16,827 χ2, p < .001 Total 10,226 169 10,226 χ2, p < .001 ANOVA Test This subsection reports additional findings of the relationship between utility outreach and CEC point accumulation. Table 62 shows the results of a series of analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests in which the annual normalized outreach quartile groups are tested for joint significance (F statistic) as predictors of total points accumulated in each year (left-hand table) and as predictors of the percent of households in a town that are new participants in the HES program (right-hand table). This test was selected in order to identify the years in which the utility outreach grouping is, jointly, associated with each outcome. Statistical significance in these tests is shown with p-values less than 0.1. These ANOVA tests indicate a statistically significant relationship at the 90% confidence level between
HES%20and%20HES-IE%20Process%20Evaluation%20(R4)%20and%20Real-Time%20Research%20(R31)%20-%20Review%20Draft.docx