What is
New Hampshire?
A collection of data
for those seeking answers
September 2013
If you found this report useful, consider supporting the Center today.
Any contribution works to help keep these reports coming!
The Center’s continued independent and objective voice is only possible because of the
generosity of donors like you.
Authors
Daniel Barrick
Deputy Director
Dennis Delay
Economist
Daniel Lautenschlager
Consultant
Kerry A. McHugh
Intern
Stephen Norton
Executive Director
About this paper
The New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies compiled this collection of graphs and
tables for the use of Leadership New Hampshire, a program intended to introduce rising leaders
to the people, strengths, and challenges of the Granite State. The Center is grateful for the
opportunity to present this material to the Leadership New Hampshire participants and to all
others seeking an overview of information about the state. The Center has produced this report
with funds donated by individuals, foundations, and businesses from across New Hampshire. The
Center’s supporters do not necessarily endorse, nor has the Center asked them to endorse, any of
the materials included in this report. The Center, not Leadership New Hampshire, determined
what to include in this report.
This paper, like all of our published work, is in the public domain and may be reproduced without
permission. Indeed, the Center welcomes individuals’ and groups’ efforts to expand the paper’s
circulation.
Copies are available at no charge on the Center’s web site: www.nhpolicy.org. Many of the pages
that follow are excerpts from other Center reports, all of which are available at the same site. We
have also prepared a selection of interactive maps that display much of the information detailed in
this report. Those can be found on our website as well.
Contact the Center at [email protected]; or call 603-226-2500.
Write to: NHCPPS, 1 Eagle Square, Suite 510, Concord, NH 03301
WHAT IS NEW HAMPSHIRE?
2013 Edition
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS NEW HAMPSHIRE?............................................................................... 1
NEW HAMPSHIRE’S REGIONS .............................................................................................................. 3
THE PEOPLE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE .................................................................................................. 17
PREDICTING THE FUTURE: THE AGING OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ..................................................................... 23
NEW HAMPSHIRE’S SHIFTING ECONOMIC TRENDS .................................................................. 27
FORECASTING ECONOMIC GROWTH .......................................................................................................... 28
RESPONDING TO THE NEW ECONOMIC FORCES .......................................................................................... 32
WHAT CAN POLICYMAKERS DO?............................................................................................................... 36
THE COMMON BURDEN: PUBLIC SERVICES ACROSS GOVERNMENT AND THE
CHARITABLE SECTORS........................................................................................................................ 38
FINANCIAL GIVING: COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ...................................................................................... 38
SPENDING TRENDS ACROSS THE LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT ....................................................................... 39
SERVICES AT THE SUB-STATE LEVEL......................................................................................................... 41
MANAGING THE RECESSION: CITIES AND TOWNS ...................................................................................... 48
THE STATE BUDGET: AN OVERVIEW .............................................................................................. 51
THE GENERAL FUND ................................................................................................................................ 54
THE NEW BUDGET: 2014-2015.................................................................................................................. 58
PUBLIC EDUCATION.............................................................................................................................. 61
RECENT TRENDS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE’S STUDENT POPULATION................................................................ 61
EDUCATION POLICY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE: RECENT REFORMS ................................................................... 66
LOCAL EDUCATION SPENDING .................................................................................................................. 71
FINANCING LOCAL EDUCATION ................................................................................................................ 73
PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION IN NEW HAMPSHIRE ..................................................................................... 78
HEALTH CARE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE: A SYSTEM IN FLUX........................................................ 86
FEDERAL AND STATE POLICY: THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE ...................................................................... 86
HEALTH CARE AND THE ECONOMY ........................................................................................................... 94
PERSONAL HEALTH CARE SPENDING ......................................................................................................... 95
AGING AND THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.................................................................................................... 97
AGING AND THE PUBLIC LONG-TERM-CARE SYSTEM .............................................................................. 98
ENERGY USE .......................................................................................................................................... 100
NEW HAMPSHIRE’S ENVIRONMENT.............................................................................................. 104
AIR POLLUTION ...................................................................................................................................... 104
DRINKING WATER ................................................................................................................................... 107
POLITICS AND PLACE......................................................................................................................... 111
VOTING PATTERNS HAVE CHANGED........................................................................................................ 111
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN THE “FIRST IN THE NATION” STATE .......................................................... 112
NEW HAMPSHIRE: THE MOST REPRESENTED STATE IN THE COUNTRY ..................................................... 113
LOCAL GOVERNANCE ........................................................................................................................ 115
THE TOWN MEETING ............................................................................................................................... 115
CRIME AND CORRECTIONS .............................................................................................................. 118
CRIME IN NEW HAMPSHIRE .................................................................................................................... 118
JUVENILE JUSTICE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE .................................................................................................. 122
THE STATE PRISON SYSTEM .................................................................................................................... 124
JUSTICE REINVESTMENT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE ........................................................................................ 128
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS ................................................................................................. 129
PROBLEM-SOLVING COURTS AND ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING ................................................................ 130
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
1
Introduction: What is New Hampshire?
With the most severe impacts of the Great Recession receding into the past, New
Hampshire – like every other state – is now grappling with the question: What next? And
while New Hampshire emerged from the recent economic downturn in better shape than
much of the rest of the country, the state also faces significant challenges in coming
years. These include not just short-term responses to the recession, but also shifting
trends in our long-term demographic and economic model. New Hampshire is a state in
flux, and describing it remains a complicated task. While the implications of the changes
now underway are still unclear, they do raise critical policy questions, including:
Jobs and the economy: New Hampshire suffered the effects of the recession less
severely than many other states, and the unemployment rate here has fallen from a
high of 7.3 percent at the peak of the recession to 5.1 percent in July 2013. But
slow job growth continues to gnaw at the state’s economy, and unemployment in
the summer of 2013 still stood nearly 2 percentage points higher than the prerecession low. What is the state’s economic development plan, especially in
relation to demographic trends that show the state’s population growth slowing in
coming years? What specific industries or regions of New Hampshire will help
shape the state’s economy into the 21st Century?
Demographics: While New Hampshire is consistently rated one of the best
places in the country to raise children, our population as a whole continues to age.
Meanwhile, our school-age population continues on a decade-long decline. What
are the implications of these demographic trends on health care, school funding,
housing, and transportation?
Long-term planning: The Legislature continues to face major questions about
education finance, corrections, health care, energy and several other policy topics
critical to the state’s future. Many of these require a long-term perspective. How
will the state – which has a two-year budget cycle and a two-year term for all
major state offices – manage to think and plan decades into the future? What other
organizations can help inform long-term strategic planning for New Hampshire?
Politics: Political preferences in New Hampshire have shifted significantly over
the past 30 years, and swings between party dominance in state government now
appear almost routine. What are the implications of politics and place on the
policy issues shaping New Hampshire’s future?
In what follows, we present data on New Hampshire’s people, economy, public services,
and local governance in the context of critical questions shaping our future. The data
explain where New Hampshire has been, forecast where it is heading, and explore how
current trends and policy choices facing the state will affect the well-being of its citizens.
New Hampshire is changing, and this information is one way to measure that change.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
2
While this package does not presume to fully answer the question “What is New
Hampshire?” it offers a starting point for those looking for answers. This report also
highlights the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies’ recent research, with
additional demographic and economic data from a variety of sources to provide context.
Many of the graphs are from the state’s Economic and Labor Market Information Bureau,
the New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning, and the U.S. Census.
One thing is certain: There is no single New Hampshire. This year’s edition updates
many of the sections included in past editions, including an overview of the state’s
regions. This selection of data on demographic, economic and environmental differences
across New Hampshire will hopefully ground readers in some of the geographic variation
underlying the policy challenges facing the Granite State as a whole.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
3
New Hampshire’s Regions
The people of New Hampshire have long valued the concepts of strong local identity and
governance. Annual town and school district meetings still shape the political life in
many communities. The New Hampshire Legislature, with 424 members, gives even the
state’s smallest towns a voice in the lawmaking process. And with a relatively weak
system of county government, the vast majority of towns and cities provide their own
services – police and fire departments, administrators and boards of selectmen – further
strengthening the sense of local identity and oversight.
In addition, New Hampshire has a well-defined statewide image, though one often loaded
with contradiction and cliché. Depending on whom you ask, the state either is populated
by flinty, folksy Yankees, or is a haven for high-tech entrepreneurial exiles from
Massachusetts. It is a pristine playground of mountains and lakes, or just another
extension of Boston’s suburban sprawl. Accurate or not, these images help define how
the state is viewed by outsiders and shape much internal public discourse.
But in the realm of policy work, very little attention has been focused on the state as a
network of distinct regions. Aside from the North Country, which in recent decades has
faced challenges in economic development, New Hampshire’s regions generally play a
small role in public policy conversations about the state’s future.
This oversight is unfortunate. New Hampshire, despite its small size, is clearly a collage
of diverse and distinct regions. Geography offers an easy template to carve up the state,
but an analysis of more quantitative data – economic trends, education levels, and
migratory patterns – underscores a simple reality: New Hampshire’s residents face
different challenges and enjoy different opportunities depending on what part of the state
they call home. An approach to policymaking that accounts for this fact will likely lead to
more deliberate decision-making.
Of course, this approach is not without its flaws. A regional analysis masks many townby-town variations, obscuring stark disparities between different populations within a
region. For instance, statistics for the “Greater Manchester” region alone do not
illuminate the differences in wealth, education and minority populations between
Manchester and Bedford, two neighboring communities with very different sets of
challenges and opportunities. But, for many public policy questions, a regional analysis
offers a useful lens for understanding New Hampshire’s major issues.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
4
Figure 1: New Hampshire's regions
New Hampshire’s regions: some indicators
What types of data should we consider when trying to define New Hampshire’s regions?
What are the best indicators of a community’s current and future challenges? What
measurements help us compare one region to another?
In the following, we highlight a handful of major statistical indicators that, taken
together, offer a high-level view of the state’s regional variation.1 We then examine each
of those regions in greater detail.
1
Charts compiling this data, and more, can be found at the end of this report. You can also find a set of
interactive maps illustrating this data at nhpolicy.org/visual-aids/maps.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
5
Figure 2: Population density varies greatly across New Hampshire
2011 People per Square Mile
856.0
647.0
399.3
as
hu
a
N
re
at
er
G
an
ch
es
te
r
d
rM
G
re
at
e
re
at
er
C
on
co
r
G
eg
io
n
Se
ac
oa
st
R
Re
gi
on
on
ad
no
ck
R
eg
io
n
M
Su
na
pe
e
R
eg
io
n
D
ar
tm
ou
th
/L
ak
e
ou
nt
ai
ns
M
La
ke
s
R
eg
io
n
oo
ds
W
or
th
W
hi
te
re
at
N
G
70.9
28.1
20.1
149.3
116.0
87.8
One defining difference among New Hampshire’s regions is population density (see
Figure 2). While it is no shock that the state’s population is distributed unevenly, the
disparity among regions is stark.
Generally speaking, New Hampshire’s population density increases the further south you
travel. Population density ranges from fewer than 21 people per square mile in the Great
North Woods to more than 855 people per square mile in the Greater Nashua region – or
40 times more people per square mile than in far northern New Hampshire. The statewide
population density is 142 people per square mile – roughly equal to that of the Greater
Concord region.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
6
Figure 3: Property values are strongly aligned with population density
2012 Property Value per Acre
$146,526
$79,985
$72,494
$32,731
$28,412
$16,458
R
eg
io
n
Se
ac
oa
st
R
eg
io
n
G
re
at
er
C
on
co
G
rd
re
at
er
M
an
ch
es
te
r
G
re
at
er
N
as
hu
a
M
on
ad
no
ck
Su
na
p
ee
R
eg
io
n
R
eg
io
n
D
ar
tm
ou
th
/L
ak
e
M
ou
nt
ai
ns
La
ke
s
R
eg
io
n
W
oo
ds
N
or
th
W
hi
te
G
re
at
$14,161
$7,816
$2,639
Property values correlate with population density in New Hampshire (see Figure 3).
Generally speaking, the more densely populated a region of the state is, the higher its
property values are. The one exception is the Lakes Region, which is the state’s sixth
most densely-populated region, but has the fifth highest property values per acre. This is
largely due to the many waterfront and seasonal homes throughout the region.
These variations help shape real estate markets, new housing construction, planning and
zoning regulations, and business development in each region – all key topics for the
state’s economic future.
Figure 4: In many regions of NH, more than half of residents were born elsewhere
Population Born Outside New Hampshire (%)
Foreign Born Population
Population Born in Another State
80.0%
70.0%
8.3%
60.0%
3.2%
50.0%
3.0%
5.3%
2.7%
3.9%
7.5%
3.4%
40.0%
3.1%
30.0%
50.0%
20.0%
53.2%
50.0%
47.6%
60.2%
57.2%
42.2%
34.6%
45.6%
10.0%
on
G
re
at
er
C
on
co
G
rd
re
at
er
M
an
ch
es
te
r
G
re
at
er
N
as
hu
a
as
tR
eg
i
Se
ac
o
R
eg
io
n
M
on
ad
no
ck
R
eg
io
n
Su
na
p
ee
R
eg
io
n
La
ke
s
D
ar
tm
ou
th
/L
ak
e
R
eg
io
n
M
ou
nt
ai
ns
te
W
hi
G
re
at
N
or
th
W
oo
ds
0.0%
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
7
New Hampshire’s regions also show significant variation in the percent of the population
that moved to the state from elsewhere (see Figure 4). In many parts of the state, the
number of “non-natives” rises above 50 percent. And in the Greater Nashua area, for
instance, nearly 70 percent of residents were born outside New Hampshire. These
variations can help shape many important policy discussions, as well as voting trends.
Figure 5: Average wages vary across the state
Average Weekly Wage (2011)
$1,089.00
$981.02
$884.54
$918.46
$845.89
$779.66
$698.50
R
eg
io
n
Se
ac
oa
st
Re
gi
on
G
re
at
er
C
on
co
G
rd
re
at
er
M
an
ch
es
te
r
G
re
at
er
Na
sh
ua
on
ad
no
ck
Re
gi
on
M
Su
na
pe
e
La
ke
s
D
ar
tm
ou
th
/L
ak
e
M
ou
nt
ai
ns
Re
gi
on
W
oo
ds
No
rth
W
hi
te
G
re
at
Re
gi
on
$620.31
$606.38
The preceding chart (Figure 5) – showing average weekly wages by region – illustrates
the economic variation across New Hampshire. Average weekly wages range from about
$600 a week in the Great North Woods to nearly $1,100 per week in Greater Nashua.
These figures bear a complex relation to regional education levels, poverty rate, mix of
industries, and employment opportunities.
Figure 6 on the following page shows the poverty rate by region, another illustration of
the economic strength of each region. For the most part, poverty rates increase as you
travel further north in the state.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
8
Figure 6: Poverty rates are higher in the northern part of the state
Percent of persons in Poverty (2007-2011)
13.7%
10.7%
10.6%
8.9%
8.7%
7.7%
8.1%
7.5%
hu
a
st
er
rd
rN
as
ch
e
M
an
G
re
at
e
G
re
te
r
as
t
at
er
C
R
on
co
eg
io
n
on
ac
o
Se
G
re
a
La
k
e
M
on
a
Su
na
dn
oc
pe
e
k
Re
Re
gi
gi
on
io
n
eg
R
ke
s
La
D
ar
tm
ou
th
/
W
hi
te
G
re
a
M
ou
tN
nt
ai
ns
or
th
R
W
oo
eg
io
n
ds
5.1%
Figure 7: Levels of educational attainment are generally higher in Southern NH
Percent of adult population with a B.A. or higher
37.6%
36.5%
35.1%
35.0%
31.4%
31.1%
28.4%
26.9%
as
hu
a
N
re
at
er
G
rM
an
ch
es
te
r
d
G
re
at
e
re
at
er
C
on
co
r
G
eg
io
n
Se
ac
oa
st
R
Re
gi
on
on
ad
no
ck
R
eg
io
n
M
La
ke
s
D
ar
tm
ou
th
/L
ak
e
Su
na
pe
e
R
eg
io
n
eg
io
n
ou
nt
ai
ns
M
W
hi
te
G
re
at
N
or
th
R
W
oo
ds
14.7%
Another regional indicator tied to average income and poverty rates is education level.
Figure 7 above illustrates the percentage of the population in each region of the state that
holds a bachelor’s degree or higher. Generally speaking, the higher the rate of
educational attainment, the higher the average income and the lower the poverty rate in a
region.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
9
New Hampshire’s regions in depth
In the following section, we offer more detail about each of New Hampshire’s nine
regions. What industries help power their economies? How old, educated, and well-paid
are their residents? How far do they travel to work every day, and how likely are they to
have come to New Hampshire from elsewhere? The answers to these and other questions
help give texture to the daily life and economy in each of these regions and provide a
starting point to understanding their futures.
Great North Woods
At the state’s far northern tip, the Great North Woods is New Hampshire’s
oldest, poorest and least-densely populated region. Over the most recent decade
measured by the U.S. Census (2000 to 2010), the region’s population total
dropped slightly – the only region in the state to lose population. The median
age of residents of the Great North Woods is 48.3 years, nearly seven years
higher than the statewide median. And 19.7 percent of its population is over
the age of 65 – the highest percentage in the state. If, as projected, the share
of 65-plus residents in the Great North Woods continues to increase, the
region’s health-care, housing and transportation infrastructure will face
new pressures that should be addressed.
The Great North Woods is also the region whose economy is most
dependent upon natural resources (forest and wood products) though there
have been several efforts in recent years to diversify the economy.
Other important industries here include government (due in part to
the state and federal prisons in Berlin), accommodation and food
services (because of tourism), and health care and social assistance
(because of the large portion of senior citizens and the relatively high poverty rate).
Average income per taxpayer in the Great North Woods is half of the state average, and
the average weekly wage of $606 is the lowest in the state.
The region’s remoteness, as well as the scarcity of economic infrastructure like highspeed wireless Internet, poses challenges for revitalization and growth. The portion of the
adult population with a bachelor’s degree, at 15 percent, is the lowest of any region in
New Hampshire and less than half the statewide rate of 33 percent. Compared to the rest
of New Hampshire, residents in the Great North Woods are also the least likely to be
born out of state.
White Mountains
The White Mountains are a center of tourism and outdoor recreation, both of which
power this region’s economy. Conway, Haverhill and Littleton are the major labor market
areas, but it is the 800,000-acre White Mountain National Forest that defines the area,
both geographically and economically.
The White Mountain-area economy is disproportionately weighed toward
accommodation and food service, recreation, entertainment and retail trade – all sectors
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
10
driven by tourism. The region also has the highest portion of seasonal homes in the state
(37 percent of the housing stock).
However, the poverty rate here is the second-highest in New Hampshire, and both
average weekly wages and gross income per taxpayer are among the lowest in the state.
Many workers in the White Mountain region hold multiple jobs at once or balance
several seasonal jobs throughout the year – partly because of the tourism-centered
economy. A more diversified economy would be one way to address the economic
imbalance in the region. Recent efforts to do so include the development of the
TechVillage in Conway, which seeks to attract smaller, full-time employers to the region.
In addition, the prevalence of seasonal homes has put
pressure on the need for workforce housing in the
region. The buying power of wealthy
vacationers and second-home owners can inflate
prices across the real estate market, making it
difficult for younger workers earning lower
wages to buy homes. A coordinated, regional
approach to housing development – with a
focus on smaller units in denser developments
– is one way to address this problem, and such
efforts are currently underway.
Still, the past few years have seen substantial growth in the White Mountain region.
Between 2000 and 2010, the area had the highest rate of population increase of any
region in New Hampshire, with an increase of 11.2 percent. Although, the region still has
the second smallest overall population in the state. The White Mountain region also has
the second-highest median age of any area of the state and one of the lowest percentages
of school-age children. With an aging population, driven in large part by transplanted
retirees, the White Mountain region will need to ensure it has the sufficient workforce to
keep its tourism and service industries thriving. This challenge also relates to the region’s
housing needs, as discussed above: Will the region have sufficient and the right mix of
housing stock to provide homes for those workers in years to come?
Lakes Region
Like its neighbor to the north, the Lakes Region is a hub for tourism, most of it centering
on the dozens of lakes and ponds that dot the area. The biggest body of water in the
region – and in the state – is Lake Winnipesaukee, where the offerings range from the
quiet, resort village of Wolfeboro to the more raucous entertainments of Weirs Beach,
home to a lively boardwalk and the annual Laconia Motorcycle Week.
The Lakes Region has a large share of seasonal homes (31 percent of all housing) and the
second-lowest average property tax in the state. The average wage is about 23 percent
below the statewide average, with construction, health care and tourism-based services
accounting for a large share of economic activity.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
11
The median age here is 45.5 and the region has the third-highest percentage of residents
over the age of 65 in the state (16.4 percent). With the
anticipated health needs of that older population in
coming years, attracting and maintaining a
younger workforce to serve them remains a
challenge for the Lakes Region. The region’s lakes
and mountains remain a lure for many retirees.
But there is also concern among some employers
that the Lakes Region needs to develop more
cultural and entertainment options to attract
younger workers and families. Diversifying the
economy to include those “quality of life” offerings
remains a challenge in the coming years.
In addition, as in the White Mountains region, the prevalence of
seasonal homes in the real estate market can drive up prices for workingclass families, forcing many of them to live far from their place of employment. Still, the
Lakes Region has the smallest percentage of workers commuting to out-of-state jobs of
any of New Hampshire’s regions.
Dartmouth/Lake Sunapee
The Dartmouth/Lake Sunapee Region derives its name from the college and medical
center on its western edge and the body of water at its center. Dartmouth College, in
Hanover, and the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, in Lebanon,
provide much of the intellectual and economic energy for the region –
the state’s wealthiest and one of its best educated.
In many ways, the Dartmouth/Lake Sunapee region is thriving
economically, even with the impact of the recession. It is one of
just two regions in New Hampshire with more jobs than
employed residents. Thus, it sees net in-commuting for work,
with many of those commuting workers coming from
neighboring Vermont.
Adjusted gross income per taxpayer is among the highest
in the state. In addition, charitable giving per taxpayer
(based on an analysis of IRS tax returns) is the highest in
New Hampshire and twice the state average.
Not surprisingly, given the presence of the medical center,
health care and social assistance dominate the region’s economy, with
about 28 percent of all wages coming from those industries. Hospital payroll per
employee is the highest of any region in New Hampshire. The educational attainment in
the region, as measured by the percentage of adults with a bachelor’s degree, is higher
than the state average.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
12
Although the economy is dominated by the medical and education services in Hanover
and Lebanon, the region’s largest city is Claremont. The city is also among the state’s socalled “property poor” communities, where disparities in education spending have fueled
legislative and court debates for two decades. In fact, the name “Claremont,” a reference
to the landmark state Supreme Court case that overturned the state’s old method of
paying for public schools, remains shorthand for the still-controversial topic. The stigma
associated with the school funding debate still serves as something of a hurdle to
investment and development in the city, though there have been concerted efforts at
urban revitalization in recent years.
This last point underscores the somewhat bifurcated nature of this region. Incomes, home
values and education levels are among the highest in the state for the towns closest to the
college and the medical center. Yet many of the region’s outlying communities struggle
with economic development issues.
Monadnock Region
With its small villages, old town greens and absence of interstate highways, the
Monadnock Region offers a version of classic New
England.
Economically, this region closely mirrors New
Hampshire as a whole, with its average gross income,
unemployment and poverty rates, and balance of
industries closely matching the statewide figures.
The median age in the Monadnock Region is 43,
about a year below the state median. The percentage
of the population over the age of 65 is close to the
statewide percentage (14.5 percent in Monadnock vs.
13.3 percent for all of New Hampshire).
The Monadnock Region’s population grew by 6.3 percent between 2000 and 2010, nearly
identical to the statewide population increase of 6.5 percent. Keene is the largest city and
economic hub of the region. It is home to Keene State College, part of the University
System of New Hampshire.
Construction and manufacturing are highly concentrated in the Monadnock Region, with
the latter supplying the highest share of total wages. Property tax rates in the Monadnock
Region are the third-highest in the state.
As a community, the citizens of the Monadnock Region rank quality-of-life issues as high
priorities. Residents and community leaders here often speak of their unique view of civic
engagement and community involvement. For example, the Vision 2020 initiative strives
to make the area the healthiest community in the country by the year 2020.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
13
Seacoast
Officially, New Hampshire's Seacoast is the 18-mile strip of oceanfront linking the state
to the Atlantic. But the economic ripples from this vital region reach far inland.
The Seacoast has a diverse economy that includes more than a quarter of New
Hampshire’s labor force – the highest share in the state. Among the major employers
shaping this region are the Pease Tradeport in Portsmouth and the Naval Shipyard in
Kittery, Maine, which employ hundreds of people. Rochester-Dover is a major labor
market area, and Durham is home to the main campus of the University of New
Hampshire. Portsmouth is a center for tourism and the arts, and the Seacoast’s shore
towns host hordes of out-of-state tourists throughout the summer months.
Wedged between Maine and Massachusetts, the Seacoast region has the
second-highest portion of residents born out of state, at just over 60
percent, and the second-highest portion of workers commuting to out of
state jobs as any region in New Hampshire. Gross income per taxpayer
and property values both rank third highest of any region in New
Hampshire. But like other regions of the state where tourism and
second-home ownership help fuel the economy, the Seacoast
faces challenges related to affordable workforce housing.
The region’s population increased 8.1 percent between 2000 and
2010, slightly higher than the statewide growth rate over that
period. And the Seacoast is home to the largest share of New
Hampshire’s population of any of the state’s regions, with 22.4
percent of people calling it home.
With this growth has come increased congestion on the region’s
road networks, and this issue has received much attention from
local planners. Several major throughways cross the region,
including Interstate 95, and Routes 101, 4 and 16. Those roads draw
visitors and workers to the region. But the failure to manage the transportation network
will have considerable impacts on economic development, the environment and the
quality of life for Seacoast residents. It will also require collaboration across town lines,
forcing communities to think beyond the needs of their individual municipalities.
Merrimack Valley Region
The Merrimack Valley is the most densely settled area in New Hampshire. The state's
three largest cities – Concord, Manchester, and Nashua – can be found here, representing
the centers of government, finance, and manufacturing for the state. Interstate 93 slices
through this region, offering access to the Boston economy and out-of-state jobs,
especially for those living in the southern portion of the region. While the Merrimack
Valley’s population is the youngest in the state, the region – like the rest of New
Hampshire – is aging and must consider steps to retain and attract young and middle-aged
workers if it wishes to remain economically competitive.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
14
Nearly 45 percent of New Hampshire’s total population calls the Merrimack Valley
home, and the region’s economy is diverse. Because of that, we have divided the
Merrimack Valley into three sub-regions for this report, with one sub-region for each of
the area’s major urban hubs.
Greater Concord
With the state capital at its center, the Greater Concord region counts government as its
major industry. Government employment provides 27 percent of the region’s wages,
twice the state average for that sector. Health care and social assistance is the second
largest sector, accounting for 18 percent of the region’s salaries.
Concord, located at the juncture of three highways, is the region’s employment and
commercial hub. State government and Concord Hospital are the city’s major employers.
Greater Concord had a higher rate of population growth in the 2000s than the rest of the
Merrimack Valley Region, increasing 7.6 percent over that decade. Yet,
compared to the state’s other major cities, Greater Concord is still
relatively underdeveloped. Population density here is less than a
quarter that of Greater Nashua, for instance. Concord itself, beyond
the compact downtown, includes large swathes of protected
woodlands and open space, as do many neighboring towns.
This landscape illustrates a fundamental tension for
the region as it contemplates its future: how to
encourage and accommodate growth without
undermining the desire to maintain a rural character.
Recent development projects in Concord have
refocused attention on the city’s downtown core, though other
communities – Suncook and Penacook, for instance – are also looking
for ways to reinvigorate their commercial districts.
The poverty rate of 7.5 percent is lower than the statewide rate, and gross income per
taxpayer here is slightly below the statewide figure. Residents of Greater Concord are
among the least likely to work out of state, with just 4.4 percent crossing the border for a
job compared to 16 percent statewide.
Greater Concord’s median age, 42 years, is lower than the statewide median age of 43.9
years, though the percentage of residents older than 65 here is nearly even with the
statewide percentage.
Property tax rates in the Greater Concord region are the highest in the Merrimack Valley,
while property value per acre is the lowest in the region. With a large share of
government-owned property, the portion of land exempt from the property tax is nearly
twice the state average.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
15
Greater Manchester
Greater Manchester, with the state’s largest city at its heart, has a diverse economy based
on finance and insurance services, information services, manufacturing and health care.
This region’s population is the youngest in the state. The median age here is 39.7 years,
four years younger than the statewide median. Only 11 percent of the population is over
the age of 65, also the lowest percentage of any region in New Hampshire.
Within the Merrimack Valley region, Greater Manchester has the lowest level of
educational attainment – 31.4 percent of the adult population has a bachelor’s degree or
better. The region also has the highest property and crime rates, and the highest poverty
rate, of any area in the Merrimack Valley.
Radiating from the city of Manchester, this region includes a ring of smaller towns that
range from working-class communities like Goffstown to upscale bedroom communities
like Bedford. About 13 percent of Greater Manchester residents work out of state,
slightly lower than the statewide rate.
Manchester has witnessed an economic revival in
recent years, with the conversion of many
former mill buildings into office space, the
construction of a minor league ballpark along the
Merrimack and a gradual increase in the
downtown dining and entertainment
establishments. However, while the Greater
Manchester region has the youngest population in
the state, it also saw a drop in its school-age
population from 2000 to 2010 that exceeded the statewide figure,
though only slightly.
Economically, Manchester has several significant and unique assets: the
Manchester/Boston Regional airport within short driving distance to the downtown;
several colleges and universities (Southern New Hampshire University, St. Anselm
College, UNH’s Manchester campus, Hesser College and Manchester Community
College) and proximity to the interstate highway system.
But like many regions, Greater Manchester is still trying to attract and retain young,
educated workers. Potential hurdles to that task include the lack of a major public transit
system (including passenger rail).
The region has the second-highest percentage of foreign-born residents in the state – 7.5
percent. Greater Manchester is also home to a large share of New Hampshire’s Hispanic
population – 4.5 percent of the region’s population. Over the past decade, the Hispanic
population in Great Manchester increased 75 percent.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
16
Greater Nashua
Greater Nashua is the most densely populated region in the state, with more than 850
people per square mile (twice the Merrimack Valley average and more than six times the
New Hampshire average.) Straddling two major north-south highway networks, this
region’s residents are the most likely to be born outside of New Hampshire and the most
likely to work out of state. The region also has the highest percentage of residents with
bachelor’s degrees – about 38 percent – and the highest percentage of Hispanic residents
– roughly 6 percent.
Economically, Greater Nashua is one of New Hampshire’s most vibrant regions.
Establishments in Greater Nashua are concentrated in finance and insurance, professional
and technical services, and trade. But one industry dominates them all – manufacturing.
Manufacturing accounts for nearly 28 percent of the region’s wages, by far the largest
proportion in New Hampshire and twice the statewide figure. The state’s top four defense
contract companies are located here.
The concentration of high-tech manufacturing jobs helps boost the region’s
incomes. Average weekly wages here are the highest in the state
at almost $1,100. Property value per acre of $146,000 is the
highest of any region and nearly five times
the state average.
Health care plays a smaller role in the
economy in Greater Nashua than in any
other region. While hospital payroll per
employee here is above the state average, health
care wages as a percent of total wages paid in the Greater Nashua area are the lowest in
any region.
Despite the region’s varied economy, more than 30 percent of Greater Nashua’s residents
commute to out-of-state jobs. This underscores the region’s close economic ties to the
Boston market. It also illustrates the focus here on improving and expanding
transportation networks, including the expansion of Interstate 93 and the extension of
commuter rail lines from Lowell to Nashua, and beyond.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
17
The People of New Hampshire
New Hampshire has been the fastest growing state in the Northeast for years. This growth
has been fueled by domestic in-migration, largely from Massachusetts. At the same time,
the educational attainment and income levels of New Hampshire residents have, on
average, increased. In recent decades, these trends have helped fuel the state’s relative
economic strength.
But these migration patterns have changed over the course of the Great Recession, a fact
that will have real implications for New Hampshire’s future. The following section takes
a detailed look at the state’s underlying demographics and how they have changed in
recent years. In addition, we explore some of the implications of the state’s aging
population.
Public policy initiatives can do more than respond to such demographic changes: They
can help shape them. Local zoning ordinances that seek to limit the number of new
housing units, increase mandatory lot sizes, or dictate the type of units that can be built,
for example, may drive up the cost of housing. Higher housing prices, in turn, can create
difficulties for new arrivals and current residents seeking affordable homes, which may
deter young people and working families from moving to the state.
Virtually all policies, local and state, are in some way touched by the demographic trends
discussed below. The people who live here are the foundation upon which New
Hampshire life is built. And, the demographics of New Hampshire are changing, with
potentially large implications for the future.
New Hampshire…older, wealthier, and born somewhere else
Table 1 provides the most recent population counts for New Hampshire and the nation
from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 Census of Population and the American Community
Survey (ACS). The average New Hampshire resident is older than the average American
– 41.5 years of age compared to 37.3. A relatively high proportion of the state’s residents
are in their most economically productive years, between the ages 35 and 64.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
18
Table 1: New Hampshire Demographics (2010 Census and 2011 American Community Survey)
Age and Sex
New Hampshire
Income and Benefits (in 2011 inflation-adjusted dollars)
NH Percent
US Percent
New Hampshire
NH Percent
US Percent
1,318,194
100%
100%
Total households
516,454
100%
100%
Male
651,060
49.4%
49.2%
Less than $10,000
25,493
4.9%
7.8%
Female
667,134
50.6%
50.8%
$10,000 to $14,999
23,092
4.5%
5.8%
Under 5 years
67,606
5.1%
6.4%
$15,000 to $24,999
45,002
8.7%
11.4%
5 to 9 years
77,439
5.9%
6.5%
$25,000 to $34,999
49,274
9.5%
10.6%
10 to 14 years
82,207
6.2%
6.7%
$35,000 to $49,999
65,360
12.7%
13.9%
15 to 19 years
91,042
6.9%
7.0%
$50,000 to $74,999
94,184
18.2%
18.0%
20 to 24 years
85,693
6.5%
7.1%
$75,000 to $99,999
73,434
14.2%
11.7%
25 to 34 years
146,192
11.1%
13.3%
$100,000 to $149,999
84,924
16.4%
12.1%
35 to 44 years
174,290
13.2%
13.1%
$150,000 to $199,999
30,591
5.9%
4.4%
45 to 54 years
223,201
16.9%
14.3%
$200,000 or more
25,100
4.9%
4.3%
55 to 59 years
6.5%
Median household income (dollars)
97,073
7.4%
60 to 64 years
88,861
6.7%
$62,647
$50,502
5.7%
Mean household income (dollars)
$79,706
65 to 74 years
101,746
7.7%
7.2%
$69,821
75 to 84 years
58,249
4.4%
4.2%
85 years and over
24,595
1.9%
1.8%
Percentage of Families and People Whose Income in the Past 12 Months is Below the
Poverty Level
NH Percent
Median age (years)
41.5
37.3
US Percent
All Families
5.60%
11.7%
All People
8.8%
15.9%
Race alone or in combination with one or more other races
New Hampshire
White
NH Percent
US Percent
Place of Birth
1,262,843
95.8%
76.4%
Black or African American
American Indian and Alaska
Native
20,099
1.5%
13.7%
9,344
0.7%
1.6%
Native
1,244,351
94.4%
87.0%
Asian
Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islander
38,043
2.9%
5.7%
Born in United States
1,228,473
93.2%
85.7%
1,028
0.1%
0.4%
State of residence
560,808
42.5%
58.9%
Some other race
10,739
0.8%
5.3%
Different state
667,665
50.6%
26.8%
Two or More Races
Hispanic or Latino (of any
race)
22,642
1.7%
2.8%
Foreign born
73,843
5.6%
13.0%
38,497
2.9%
16.7%
New Hampshire
Total population
Educational Attainment
New Hampshire
Population 25 years and over
1,318,194
NH Percent
100%
US Percent
100%
Housing Occupancy/Tenure
NH Percent
US Percent
New Hampshire
NH Percent
US Percent
914,207
100%
100%
Total housing units
617,702
100%
100%
Less than 9th grade
26,031
2.8%
6.0%
Occupied housing units
516,454
83.6%
86.9%
9th to 12th grade, no diploma
High school graduate (includes
equivalency)
52,952
5.8%
8.1%
Owner-occupied
369,070
71.5%
64.6%
267,726
29.3%
28.4%
Renter-occupied
147,384
28.5%
35.4%
Some college, no degree
175,455
19.2%
21.2%
Vacant housing units
101,248
16.4%
13.1%
Associate's degree
86,730
9.5%
7.8%
Bachelor's degree
191,748
21.0%
17.9%
113,565
12.4%
10.6%
91.4%
85.9%
33.4%
28.5%
Graduate or professional
degree
Percent high school graduate
or higher
Percent bachelor's degree or
higher
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
19
As a state, New Hampshire is better educated than the country as a whole, with 91
percent of the population having at least graduated from high school compared to 86
percent in the U.S. The state is also much less diverse than the rest of the country – 96
percent of the population is white, compared to 76 percent in the U.S. The state’s median
income is 24 percent higher than the national average, and the poverty rate is about half
of the U.S. average.
Interestingly, we are a state heavily populated by non-natives – more than half of the
state’s population (about 51 percent) was born in a different state. The national figure is
about 27 percent. The homeownership rate in New Hampshire is also higher than the
national average – 72 percent of New Hampshire housing units are owner-occupied,
compared to a national average of 65 percent.
Our high growth years are behind us
Figure 8 shows New Hampshire’s percent change in population since 1950. The years
shown on the chart signify each decade’s end. For example, from 1970 to 1980, New
Hampshire’s population increased by 24.8 percent, the fastest growing ten years of any
decade in the state’s history. That pace of growth came in the middle of a period of
economic expansion for the state, with New Hampshire’s average wages rising rapidly
and eventually eclipsing the nationwide average.
In the decades since that peak, the state’s population growth rates have fallen steadily. In
the past decade, 2000 to 2010, New Hampshire’s growth rate fell to 6.5 percent, still the
highest rate in the Northeast but the state’s slowest decade of growth since before World
War II. The national percent change in population from 2000 to 2010 was 9.7 percent.
Figure 8: New Hampshire’s Decadal Change in Population
Percent Change in New Hampshire Population
24.8%
21.5%
20.5%
13.8%
11.4%
8.5%
6.5%
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
20
For the forecast years beyond 2010, New Hampshire population growth rates are
expected to be even lower – 3.3 percent from 2010 to 2020 and 3.8 percent from 2020 to
2030. These are much slower growth rates than were predicted in the New Hampshire
Office of Energy and Planning’s 2006 population projections, which were 6 percent and
7.1 percent respectively for those same time periods. We will discuss these two different
projections later.
In-migration contributed to New Hampshire’s population growth
During the first half of the previous decade, more than half of the population change in
New Hampshire came from net in-migration. However, more recently, net-migration has
slowed considerably and New Hampshire has even seen net out-migration in several of
the past few years (see Figure 9). The natural increase (the number of births minus the
number of deaths) has fallen gradually since 2007. The natural increase in the population
has been the sole source of population growth in New Hampshire recently, but there was
a small amount of net in-migration in 2012, for the first time since 2008.
Figure 9: New Hampshire's population change since 2001
New Hampshire Population Components of Change
14,000
12,000
10,000
Natural Increase
Migration
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
-2,000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Ending Year
U.S. Census Bureau estimates show that all New England states had domestic outmigration for the past three years except Maine, in 2011. Although demographic experts
disagree as to the root cause, New Hampshire did experience net out-migration when real
estate markets declined in the early 1990’s, and recent migration trends may also be
related to current turbulence in the housing markets. With the small resurgence of the
housing market in New Hampshire during the past year or so, this theory would suggest a
decline in domestic out-migration, which has been the case. Domestic migration has
remained about the same from 2009 to 2011, with annual losses of roughly 2,700 people
per year. However, in 2012, domestic migration loss declined to -956, a 65 percent
decrease from the previous year. Combined with a 57 percent increase in international
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
21
migration in 2012 (international migration had been decreasing every year since 2006),
New Hampshire saw a net in-migration in 2012. However, it remains uncertain if these
trends will continue during the next few years.
As shown in Table 2, most of New Hampshire’s in-migrant population gain has come
from Massachusetts. However, this net change is a result of thousands of people moving
between the two states. Over the period 2000 to 2010, 143,019 people left Massachusetts
for New Hampshire, while 78,459 people left New Hampshire to live in Massachusetts,
for a net-migrant gain to New Hampshire of 66,100 residents. Connecticut, New York
and New Jersey are also states with domestic net in-migration into New Hampshire.
The two states with the biggest net gain of residents from New Hampshire are Florida
and Maine. New Hampshire lost 6,435 residents to Maine between 2000 and 2010, and
about 17,100 residents to Florida. New Hampshire also experienced net domestic
migration losses to North Carolina, South Carolina and Arizona (among other states) in
that same period.
Table 2: Migration in and out of New Hampshire, 2000 to 20102
Selected States
NEW HAMPSHIRE NET MIGRATION (STATE TO STATE + FOREIGN) TREND 2000 TO 2010
00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07
07-08
08-09
09-10 TOTAL
----------------------------STATE
MA 8,956 10,035 10,361 10,359 9,675 7,348
4,377
2,682
767
1,540 66,100
CT
487
295
288
423
246
537
477
343
231
190
2,753
NY
897
384
86
140
299
289
189
150
117
182
2,284
NJ
550
255
345
235
335
327
172
160
124
95
2,219
Foreign
469
414
187
82
161
226
211
296
246
-130
1,750
RI
125
16
137
70
139
258
121
108
140
101
866
VT
140
-14
-68
2
7
72
110
99
-9
-155
249
CA
73
214
14
-77
-133
-74
-190
-99
-164
-154
-173
PA
192
4
-100
-139
1
-54
-89
1
-70
-80
-185
CO
42
-11
43
-91
-69
-148
-73
-163
-99
-117
-307
GA
3
-101
-209
-298
-192
-275
-196
-124
-172
-148 -1,268
TX
51
21
-141
-390
-329
-336
-375
-401
-353
-400 -1,499
VA
-112
-14
-270
-306
-324
-274
-324
-98
-314
-313 -1,624
AZ
-169
-148
-155
-344
-458
-272
-334
-258
-165
-175 -1,880
SC
8
-167
-233
-326
-386
-514
-366
-361
-325
-228 -1,984
NC
-13
-273
-338
-657
-805 -1,035 -1,059
-945
-488
-261 -4,180
ME
-423 -1,273 -1,450
-941
-696
-246
-539
-542
-184
-141 -6,435
FL -1,574 -2,199 -1,934 -3,703 -3,495 -2,452 -1,740 -1,004
-836 -1,506 -17,097
TOT**
10,681 7,851 5,852 3,187 2,646 2,236
-298
-884 -2,320 -2,329 26,622
How we are changing: growing older and more diverse
Table 3 compares estimates of 1990, 2000 and 2010 Census data to illustrate trends in
New Hampshire’s population. The overall aging of the population is evident. The median
2
Total includes in- and out-migration from all locations, not just states shown. Source: U.S. Bureau of the
Census, Estimates Branch, from the NH Office of Energy and Planning website,
www.nh.gov/oep/programs/DataCenter.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
22
age increased by more than four years from 1990 to 2000, then increased another four
years from 2000 to 2010. The percent of the population aged 35 to 64 rose over the same
period, while the percent aged 20 to 34 fell slightly.
Table 3: New Hampshire’s population 1990, 2000, and 2010
1990
Total population
Demographics
Male
Female
Median age
Under 5 years
5 to 19 years
20 to 34 years
35 to 64 years
65 years and older
White
Black or African American
Am. Indian or Alaska Native
Asian or Pac. Islander
Other race
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
Social Characteristics
Population 25 years and over
High school grad or higher
Bachelors deg. or higher
Disabled (5 years and over)
Foreign born
Non-English at home
Economic Characteristics
In labor force (16 and over)
Median household income
Per capita income
Families below poverty level
Housing Characteristics
Total housing units
Occupied housing units
Owner-occupied
Renter-occupied
Vacant housing units
Median value (dollars)
2000
2010
1,109,252 1,235,786 1,316,470
49.0%
51.0%
32.8
7.6%
20.6%
25.9%
34.5%
11.3%
98.0%
0.6%
0.2%
0.8%
0.3%
1.0%
49.2%
50.8%
37.1
6.1%
21.7%
18.6%
41.7%
12.0%
96.0%
0.7%
0.2%
1.3%
0.6%
1.7%
49.3%
50.7%
41.1
5.3%
19.4%
17.4%
44.3%
13.5%
93.9%
1.1%
0.2%
2.2%
0.9%
2.8%
64.3%
82.3%
66.7%
87.5%
68.8%
84.5%
24.4%
(X)
3.7%
8.0%
28.7%
(X)
4.4%
8.3%
27.4%
(X)
5.1%
(X)
72.0%
$36,329
$15,959
4.4%
70.5%
$49,467
$23,844
4.3%
(X)
63,989
(X)
4.9%
81.6%
68.2%
31.8%
18.4%
(X)
86.8%
69.7%
30.3%
13.2%
(X)
84.4%
71.0%
29.0%
15.6%
(X)
At the same time, the share of the population that is black, Hispanic and Asian rose,
while the white population fell slightly. Still, the state is overwhelmingly white, at 94
percent of the population in 2010.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
23
Predicting the future: the aging of New Hampshire
In the 2011 edition of “What Is New Hampshire,” population projections from the New
Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning (OEP) were used to show what the state’s
population may look like over the next twenty years. These projections were done in
November of 2006. In May 2013, the Regional Planning Commissions (RPC) in New
Hampshire produced new population forecasts for the next thirty years. In this section,
we will examine these projections and compare them to the OEP’s earlier forecasts.
New Hampshire will grow older with fewer young people
As we saw before in Table 1, New Hampshire’s median age, 41.5, is higher than the U.S.
average of 37.3 years old. Figure 10 puts the forecast of New Hampshire residents age 65
and over into a longer historical context by showing this population in total numbers and
as a percentage of the total population since 1900. The year 2020 will see the beginning
of a shift to the over-65 population, increasing from 13.5 percent of the population in
2010 to 19.5 percent in 2020. These large increases that are predicted to occur during the
next twenty years are likely due to the aging of the “Baby Boomer” generation. However,
the large increases in the 65+ population that are predicted to occur during the decades
preceding 2020 and 2030 (49 and 41 percent respectively) will not continue during the
decade preceding 2040. In fact, the growth rate from 2030 to 2040 in the above-65
population (9.7 percent) is predicted to be the lowest growth rate since the decade
preceding 1920. The likely causes of this lower growth are the last of the “Baby Boomer”
generation having entered into the 65+ cohort during the preceding decade and the
already significant amount of people age 65 and over.
Figure 10: New Hampshire will have a higher proportion of elderly residents in the future
NH Population Age 65 and Over:
Number (left scale) and Percent of Total (right scale)
500,000
100%
450,000
90%
400,000
80%
350,000
70%
300,000
60%
250,000
50%
200,000
40%
150,000
30%
100,000
20%
50,000
10%
0%
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
65+ Pop
65+ Pop as a % of Total Pop
The preceding graph, which illustrates the new RPC projections, differs from the 2006
OEP forecast. Table 4 compares different projections from the OEP and the RPC. The
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
24
OEP overestimated the 2010 population, while the RPC has the actual Census counts.
Both the percentages of the school age population and the 65 and older population in
2020 and 2030 are lower in the RPC projections than in OEP’s forecasts.
Table 4: The RPC forecast predicts much lower population estimates
Comparing the OEP and the RPC Projections
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
Total Population
OEP11/06
1,109,252 1,235,786 1,365,178 1,470,012 1,564,925
RPC05/13
1,109,252 1,235,786 1,316,470 1,359,837 1,412,041 1,427,098
Percent Change in Total Population
OEP11/06
20.5%
11.4%
10.5%
7.7%
6.5%
RPC05/13
20.5%
11.4%
6.5%
3.3%
3.8%
1.1%
Population 0 to 19 (School Age)
OEP11/06
314,833 344,165 338,745 328,304 343,817
RPC05/13
314,833 344,165 325,802 294,639 284,666 277,833
School Age as a Percent of Total Population
OEP11/06
28.4%
27.8%
24.8%
22.3%
22.0%
RPC05/13
28.4%
27.8%
24.7%
21.7%
20.2%
19.5%
Population Age 65 Plus (Seniors)
OEP11/06
124,524 147,970 191,403 311,144 437,194
RPC05/13
124,524 147,970 178,268 265,725 374,664 410,999
Age 65 and Older as a Percent of Total Population
OEP11/06
11.2%
12.0%
14.0%
21.2%
27.9%
RPC05/13
11.2%
12.0%
13.5%
19.5%
26.5%
28.8%
Specifically, looking at age cohorts among the 65 and older population, the fastest
growing age cohort over the next twenty years is the 70-74 group, but there is also
growth in the 65-69 group, as shown by Figure 11. Those over the age of 80 are much
more likely to live in poverty and have significant medical and social service needs.
Figure 11: RPC projections follow a similar trend among the cohorts as the OEP forecast
Change in the Number of Individuals by Age Group (2010-2030)
90,000
78,415
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
61,173
58,646
55,911
46,572
43,012
40,000
34,277
29,437
30,000
21,464
20,000
13,280
10,000
0
65-69
70-74
75-79
2006 OEP Projections
80-84
2013 RPC Projections
85+
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
25
Figure 11 also shows the difference between the 2006 projections and the 2013 forecasts.
The change in the number of residents in all cohorts was decreased from the OEP
projections, except for the 85+ cohort. However, the same general trend remained – the
70-74 group saw the highest increase and the increases in the next three cohorts gradually
declined.
Not all communities will age at the same rate
The map at right shows the state by median
age, community by community. The darker
the shade of the community, the older the
median age of its residents. (The statewide
median age was 41.5 years in 2010, up from
37.1 in 2000.)
Figure 12: New Hampshire’s median age rises
the further north and west you travel.
As the map shows, New Hampshire can be
divided into two regions when it comes to
age – an older northern half, and a younger
southern half. However, even in the younger
half, there is a further subdivision, with the
eastern region – between Interstate 93 and the
Seacoast – significantly younger than the
western portion.
These patterns also suggest that the aging
process will affect New Hampshire
communities in different ways. As noted
previously, the year 2020 will see the
beginning of the great population shift to the
over-65 population. An aging population will
require a different mix of social, health care,
housing, and other services than are currently
demanded. The full impact of this change
remains to be seen.
However, not all communities will see the
same changes in populations. Figure 13 on
the following page shows that some counties
will have greater increases in the 65 and older
population than others from 2010 to 2030.3
Carroll and Coos counties are predicted to
have the highest percentages of over-65 residents. The northern part of the Granite State
will likely experience the largest increase in its 65+ population. The variation raises
3
The projections for 2030 are based on the Regional Planning Commission forecast
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
important questions about how different municipalities and counties will handle the
changes in their populations over the next few decades.
Figure 13: The aging of New Hampshire varies across counties
26
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
27
New Hampshire’s Shifting Economic Trends4
For several decades, New Hampshire has stood out as an economic anomaly in the
Northeast. With a highly-educated workforce, high rates of in-migration and a high
median per-capita income, New Hampshire boasted a strong, vibrant economy that gave
it distinct advantages over its neighbors.
Here, as elsewhere in the country, the Great Recession has disrupted much of the state
economy. But it is a mistake to assume that the recession is the sole reason for the recent
slowdown in New Hampshire’s economic engine, or that, once the impacts of the
recession are behind us, New Hampshire will return to the pattern of steady, reliable
growth of years past.
A more expansive analysis of the state’s economic and demographic trends – with a time
frame of decades, not months or years – shows that the forces that helped create New
Hampshire’s advantage have largely run their course. As a result, the model that defined
the state’s economy since the 1980s – consistent population growth, rising rates of
educational attainment, increased productivity, and a more resilient economy than our
competitors – no longer holds. After benefiting from nearly three decades of economic
tailwinds, New Hampshire now faces a strong headwind: net out-migration (or much
slower rates of in-migration), an aging population and decreased labor productivity.
The outcomes of these changes may not necessarily all be negative. Slower population
growth will likely mean less congestion and less pressure on natural resources. And some
of the core advantages upon which New Hampshire’s economy is founded – proximity to
Boston and a beautiful natural environment, for example – are not disappearing any time
soon. But, at the least, the shift outlined in this paper demands a recalibration of the
assumptions upon which much state and local policy is based. In short, we can no longer
assume that New Hampshire will continue along the economic trajectory it has for many
years.
While the impacts of the recession will eventually abate, New Hampshire is emerging
from the downturn into a very different economic reality. The shift away from long-held
assumptions of consistent growth will reshape the state’s policies on job creation, land
use, social services and other areas. This new economic reality will also impact state
revenues and how they grow in a period in which demand for state services is likely to
increase.
There is no single, simple response to this new set of circumstances; policymakers will
have to weigh various options. These include investing in human capital (an area where
we rank relatively high, as measured by educational attainment), redesigning the state’s
tax structure (where New Hampshire enjoys one of the lowest per-capita tax collection
rates in the country but maintains high corporate taxes), or investing in improved
4
Much of this section comes from the Center’s Sept. 2012 paper “From Tailwind to Headwind: New
Hampshire’s Shifting Economic Trends,” available at nhpolicy.org/report/from-tailwind-to-headwind-newhampshireamp39s-shifting-economic-trends
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
28
infrastructure and transportation (an area in which the state ranks relatively poorly). The
likely return-on-investment of these and other options should be part of that decisionmaking process, as well.
Forecasting economic growth
In the long term, economic growth depends on a small handful of factors: the change in
the size of the labor force, the skills possessed by those workers, and the amount of
capital invested in the local economy.5 How has New Hampshire been faring on these
factors of production, and what can we infer about the future?
Population growth and aging
Labor force growth is clearly dependent on population growth. Population growth in New
Hampshire in the recent past came mostly from in-migration (people moving into New
Hampshire from other states). While migration into New Hampshire did slow in the
recession years of 1975 and 1991, in-migration always returned to pre-recession levels,
and sometimes exceeded those pre-recession levels in the recovery.
As discussed in detail earlier, and as Figure 14 shows, migration into New Hampshire
was already slowing considerably over the course of the last decade (2000 to 2010.) The
Great Recession seems to have caused a sustained period of out-migration from New
Hampshire, but the state’s level of net in-migration was already declining well before the
recession took hold.
Figure 14: Migration into New Hampshire has slowed over the past decade
Net Migration Into and Out of New Hampshire
19
71
19
73
19
75
19
77
19
79
19
81
19
83
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
93
19
95
19
97
19
99
20
01
20
03
20
05
20
07
20
09
20
11
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
-5,000
-10,000
-15,000
-20,000
That decline, combined with the state’s overall aging population (discussed earlier in this
report), is reason for concern. An older population translates to an older workforce, and
therefore a greater portion of residents approaching the traditional retirement age.
5
A model for thinking about long term economic growth is often called the Solow model, named after
economist Robert Solow. Economic growth can thus be modeled as a production function, which ascribes a
relationship between inputs (capital and labor) and outputs (goods and services).
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
29
And, in fact, the number of state residents participating in the workforce has actually
declined, as shown in Figure 15. The New Hampshire labor force participation rate
topped off at 73 percent in the early-2000’s, and declined to less than 70 percent by 2011.
Some of the decline in labor force participation is a result of the Great Recession, but this
decline was underway before the downturn in the economy. Most of the decline can be
attributed to the aging of the New Hampshire workforce.6
Figure 15: Labor Force Participation has declined since the early 2000s
New Hampshire Labor Force Participation Rate
74
72
70
68
66
64
20
09
20
11
20
07
20
03
20
05
19
97
19
99
20
01
19
93
19
95
19
85
19
87
19
89
19
91
19
81
19
83
19
79
19
77
62
It is likely that the labor force to population ratio will decline in the future, as the
population ages and a greater portion of New Hampshire residents enter their retirement
years. Without increases in capital investment and technology to offset these declines,
they will likely be associated with a drop in economic output.
Job growth
Figure 16 shows job growth in New Hampshire over the past four decades. While the
number of jobs in New Hampshire increased by almost 50 percent from 1970 to 1980,
New Hampshire saw a small decrease in jobs from 2000 to 2010.
6
In 2011, the labor force participation rate for the New Hampshire population aged 25 to 54 was about 86
percent, while the rate for those aged 55 to 64 was 72 percent.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
30
Figure 16: Employment growth has declined sharply in New Hampshire
New Hampshire Employment Growth by Decade
60.0%
49.4%
50.0%
40.0%
34.1%
27.3%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
-0.6%
-10.0%
1970 to 1980
1980 to 1990
1990 to 2000
2000 to 2010
New Hampshire is not alone in this decline over that decade. As shown in Figure 6, job
growth slowed everywhere in the United States between 2000 and 2010 compared to the
previous decade, and New Hampshire’s shrinkage was less than the national average. But
some areas of the country – the Southwest and the Rocky Mountain region – managed to
grow faster than New Hampshire.
Figure 17: Some regions saw job growth over the past decade; NH did not. 7
Percent Change in Jobs in BEA Regions
50.0%
43.3%
34.3%
40.0%
30.0%
27.3%
20.0%
10.0%
22.2%
17.2%
10.4%
25.6%
19.6%
8.0%
8.3%
20.1%
1990 to 2000
5.3%
2000 to 2010
-0.6%
0.0%
-3.6%
-10.0%
-0.8%
-0.8%
-1.6%
-1.4%
So
ut
he
as
t
So
ut
hw
Ro
es
t
ck
y
M
ou
nt
ai
n
Fa
rW
es
t
US
To
ta
l
ai
ns
Pl
G
re
at
La
ke
s
M
id
ea
st
En
gl
an
d
Ne
w
Ha
m
ps
hi
re
-20.0%
Ne
w
-0.7%
-9.7%
Skill of the workforce
One of the benefits of high levels of migration into New Hampshire was the increase in
human capital, or the knowledge and skills of the workforce. Many of the people moving
into the state were highly educated, allowing New Hampshire to make big gains in
education attainment and race ahead much of the rest of the United States. Starting in
1970, New Hampshire began to diverge from the national average in educational
attainment. In that year, New Hampshire stood at the national average in the percent of
7
Regions of the United States as defined by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
31
residents with a bachelor’s degree: about 11 percent. By 2010, that figure had risen to 32
percent in New Hampshire, compared to about 28 percent for the country as a whole.
Although New Hampshire’s educational attainment is still higher than most areas of the
country, the rate of improvement in educational attainment here is slowing, and slowing
at a faster rate than many other parts of the country (Figure 18).
Figure 18: New Hampshire’s rate of growth in educational attainment has slowed
Gain in the % of Adults with a BA
6.0
5.2
5.0
4.7
4.3
4.2
4.7
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.0
3.8
3.3
3.4
4.1
3.7
3.4
3.3
3.2
2.9
3.0
2.5
3.5
1990 to 2000
2000 to 2009
2.1
2.0
1.0
ew
N
Pl
ai
n
s
So
ut
he
as
t
So
ut
hw
R
oc
es
ky
t
M
ou
nt
ai
n
Fa
rW
es
U
ni
t
te
d
St
at
es
N
ew
H
am
ps
hi
re
En
gl
an
d
M
id
ea
st
G
re
at
La
ke
s
0.0
Between 1990 and 2000, New Hampshire saw its percent of residents with a bachelor’s
degree or higher grow slightly faster than the national rate – 4.3 percent compared to 4.1
percent. But between 2000 and 2009, New Hampshire’s rate of increase in educational
attainment slipped below the national rate – 3.3 percent in New Hampshire compared to
3.5 percent nationally.
The result: Slower economic growth
Taken together, the trends outlined above have helped result in a slowing rate of growth
in the New Hampshire economy. As shown in Figure 19, between 2000 and 2010 New
Hampshire saw a slower rate of growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) than in any
period in the past 40 years.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
32
Figure 19: New Hampshire's Economy - Slowing Growth
New Hampshire Real GDP Growth by Decade
75.2%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
54.4%
50.9%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
11.8%
10.0%
0.0%
1970 to 1980
1980 to 1990
1990 to 2000
2000 to 2010
This is due, in large part, to the impact of the Great Recession. But even as the recession
slowed economic growth across the country, many areas outperformed New Hampshire,
seeing more buoyant job growth, higher productivity gains, and higher growth in the
capital stock in those regions. New Hampshire also saw a greater drop-off in GDP growth
between the 1990s and the 2000s than almost every region of the country (See Figure 20).
Figure 20: Growth in GDP has been higher across much of the U.S.
Percent Change in Real GDP in BEA Regions
80.0%
70.0%
70.9%
57.8%
60.0% 50.9%
50.0%
11.8%
17.0%
10.4%
19.9%
1990 to 2000
2000 to 2010
26.5%
17.1%
16.6%
To
ta
l
US
ai
ns
So
ut
he
as
t
So
ut
hw
Ro
es
t
ck
y
M
ou
nt
ai
n
Fa
rW
es
t
M
id
ea
st
G
re
at
La
ke
s
Ne
w
En
gl
an
d
1.7%
ps
hi
re
Ha
m
16.5%
42.4%
41.6%
31.2%
30.1%
10.0%
0.0%
Ne
w
41.9%
40.3%
36.2%
Pl
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
48.0%
Responding to the new economic forces
The trends outlined above – net out-migration or very slow population growth, a leveling
off and potential decline in labor force participation, and lower growth in educational
attainment – all point to a fundamental change in New Hampshire’s economic model
over the past 30 years. If New Hampshire can no longer depend on in-migration to
increase the strength of its workforce, how can it retain the economic momentum that has
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
33
yielded the prosperity of recent decades? According to simple economic theory, there are
three options:
First, policymakers and business leaders can look for ways to increase the size of the
workforce. Second, policymakers can seek ways of increasing labor productivity, or the
output per worker. Thirdly, policies which encourage capital investment could help
increase overall economic productivity.
Labor: Attracting a workforce
New Hampshire businesses and policymakers will have to think carefully about what set
of individual and joint actions will attract and support an increased pool of educated
workers – a factor which has long been central to New Hampshire’s economic dynamism.
Such efforts might include attempts to lower the costs of living – including housing,
energy and healthcare costs – which is typically higher in New Hampshire than the
national average and/or increase the quality of life (which can offset a higher cost of
living).
In addition to increasing the size of the workforce, efforts could be devoted to increasing
the educational attainment of the existing workforce, or investing in efforts to increase
creativity and entrepreneurial activity.
Capital investment
Net capital stock is a measure of the level of investment in the economy. Capital stock
refers to industrial plant, equipment and machinery used to assist labor in the production
process. In this respect, one can think of capital investment as expenditures to replace
worn out machines and equipment. Capital investment, however, includes not only
building structures and machines and other infrastructure like broadband, but also
intellectual capital like computer software.
An examination of the change in capital stock in New Hampshire since the 1970s (Figure
21) suggests that the pace of private business investment has slowed over several
decades.8 Moreover, much of the United States has been investing at a faster rate,
growing capital stock more quickly than has New Hampshire (Figure 22).
8
The Center has estimated Net Capital Stock in the states by apportioning the Bureau of Economic
Analysis national estimates of private nonresidential fixed assets to each state based on the wage and salary
component of personal income.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
34
Figure 21: Capital stock growth in New Hampshire has declined
New Hampshire Real Capital Stock Growth by Decade
100.0%
89.9%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
55.6%
60.0%
50.0%
39.6%
40.0%
24.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1970 to 1980
1980 to 1990
1990 to 2000
2000 to 2010
Figure 22: Several other regions are seeing faster growth in capital stock
Percent Change in Real Capital Stock in BEA Regions
70%
60%
50%
39.7%
40%
30%
29.9%
24.0%
30.0%
37.4%
31.8%
27.2%
24.2%
22.1%
20%
2000 to 2010
11.6%
10%
To
ta
l
US
So
ut
he
as
t
So
ut
hw
Ro
es
t
ck
y
M
ou
nt
ai
n
Fa
rW
es
t
ai
ns
Pl
G
re
at
La
ke
s
M
id
ea
st
En
gl
an
d
Ne
w
Ne
w
Ha
m
ps
hi
re
0%
There are several policies that might be pursued to address this decline in capital
investment. Those include reconsidering the way the state taxes businesses, including tax
credits for research and development activities, as well as the level of corporate taxation
where New Hampshire is higher than much of the rest of the country.
Productivity and technology
Finally, how does New Hampshire stack up in terms of worker productivity and
technological development compared to the rest of the country?
To analyze worker productivity, which is a combination of technology and human
capital, we look at Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per worker. GDP is the monetary
value of all goods and services produced in a year. It is also a measure of production or
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
35
the output of the economy and depends on the inputs previously discussed – capital and
labor.
New Hampshire’s productivity growth, as measured by GDP per worker is still positive,
but the rate of growth has also slowed since the 1980s (See
Figure 23).
Figure 23: Productivity growth has declined in New Hampshire
New Hampshire Productivity Growth by Decade
35.0%
30.6%
30.0%
25.0%
18.5%
20.0%
15.0%
12.5%
10.0%
3.4%
5.0%
0.0%
1970 to 1980
1980 to 1990
1990 to 2000
2000 to 2010
And perhaps more telling, New Hampshire’s rate of productivity growth lags behind
every region of the country (Figure 24).
Figure 24: Productivity growth is higher across much of the United States
Percent Change in Real GDP per Job in BEA Regions
25.0%
20.9%
17.9%
20.0%
15.0%
14.5%
17.3%
21.1%
20.1%
19.0%
18.2%
12.6%
12.5%
2000 to 2010
10.0%
5.0%
To
ta
l
US
So
ut
he
as
t
So
ut
hw
Ro
es
t
ck
y
M
ou
nt
ai
n
Fa
rW
es
t
Pl
ai
ns
G
re
at
La
ke
s
id
ea
st
M
En
gl
an
d
N
ew
N
ew
Ha
m
ps
hi
re
0.0%
States with high levels of capital investment also tend to have high levels of productivity
in their workforce.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
36
What can policymakers do?
Understanding and promoting economic growth is one of the most important public
policy responsibilities of state and local government. Policies that encourage economic
growth are thought to also improve the standard of living of all citizens. States and
regions other than New Hampshire are undertaking public policy initiatives to pursue
more economic growth. These range from investing in post-secondary education and
training9 and research and development,10 to targeting specific industries in recruitment
strategies.11
While it would be helpful to know the relative magnitude of the return on investment for
various approaches – between, say, the development of human capital through
educational initiatives, and new technologies through tax credits – the literature provides
little guide in distinguishing the weight of the impacts on economic activity. But research
suggests some specific, effective approaches to boost economic development. These
studies suggest that a palette of economic policy that focuses on developing the skills and
education levels of the workforce, improves physical infrastructure like schools and
transportation networks, and makes communities attractive places for families and
businesses to relocate represents an effective use of state resources.12
Perhaps most important is the recognition that a multi-pronged effort is likely the most
useful approach. As part of the 2011-2012 Chair’s Initiative on Growing State
Economies, the National Governors Association (NGA) hosted four regional summits
across the country. As a result of those summits the NGA issued the “Growing State
Economies Initiative, 12 Actions” report in 2012. The NGA’s 12 recommended actions
fit into five themes:
Strategic and foundational
1. Create a competitive tax and regulatory environment.
2. Put entrepreneurial activity at the top of the state’s economic agenda.
3. Distinguish among different kinds of entrepreneurs and businesses—and target
policies and resources accordingly.
Focused on start-up companies
4. Cast a wide net to find entrepreneurs.
9
“Southern States Must Invest in Postsecondary Education and Training” (or be stuck in a “low-wage, lowskill” equilibrium) http://cew.georgetown.edu/south/
10
In 2012 a handful of states increased spending or introduced new initiatives to support economic
development efforts. Colorado lawmakers provided additional funds to attract new companies, Connecticut
lawmakers expanded programs from last year's Jobs Bill, and in Virginia lawmakers accepted the
governor's amendments to add funds for research and commercialization.
http://www.ssti.org/Digest/digest.php?page=2012/062012#story1
11
In 2012 Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick announced the creation of the Massachusetts Big Data
Initiative, a number of steps and initiatives that is intended to help turn the state into a world leader in big
data. http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2012/2012530-governor-announces-bigdata-initiative.html
12
“Prioritizing Approaches To Economic Development In New England: Skills, Infrastructure, And Tax
Incentives,” Jeffrey Thompson, Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, August 2010
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
37
5. Teach entrepreneurship skills and attitudes at all education levels.
6. Build a startup environment and culture.
Focused on high-growth companies
7. Find the potential high-growth companies and help them grow.
8. Get your entrepreneurs to give back.
Focused on all companies
9. Help companies open doors to new customers—globally and locally.
10. Reward strong ties among universities, companies, and entrepreneurs.
11. Encourage entrepreneurs and companies, small and large, to build innovation
clusters.
12. Build ecosystems, not programs.
This is an important conversation, and it may lead to a reorganization of the state’s policy
priorities. In the past, New Hampshire has focused on those areas where we typically
rank high in state-by-state surveys: the creation of a low-tax environment, with high
quality of life measures, such as a clean environment, low poverty and low crime.
But in order to maintain a competitive advantage against other states, should
policymakers here redirect their focus on areas where New Hampshire has typically
fallen short – healthcare and energy costs, spending on infrastructure such as roads,
bridges and rail, and spending on public higher education?
Will investments in these or other areas yield better returns on economic growth? The
answer, for now, is unclear. But what is clear is that New Hampshire can no longer rely
on the demographic trends that have propelled it to economic prosperity over the past
three decades.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
38
The Common Burden: Public Services Across
Government and the Charitable Sectors13
New Hampshire’s public sector – including state, county, school and municipal
governments – provides a wide array of services. While the funding of services provided
at each level of government is often analyzed separately, the way those services are
financed and delivered are intertwined. Each level of government, for example, plays a
significant role in providing health and social services to residents, providing education,
and ensuring public safety through a combination of enforcement, justice and corrections
activities. And the private philanthropic community plays an important, albeit much
smaller, role in supporting public activities and services.
Financing these services is also intricately intertwined among different levels of
government. The state, cities, and towns, for example, share financial responsibility for
funding K-12 public education. The state and counties share financial responsibility for
operating the state’s Medicaid long-term care system. Schools in New Hampshire play a
role in providing mental health services to children through the Medicaid program.
County expenditures are partially funded through the local property tax, which is
collected by towns and cities.
The Great Recession put intense financial pressure on governments and communities at
all levels. In the following section, we provide information on how various services are
provided at different levels of government, as well as demonstrate how those levels
responded to the strains of the recession.
Financial giving: community involvement
The majority of New Hampshire residents give money and time to their home
communities, though the collective level of giving has fallen with the recession. In 2011,
New Hampshire tax filers claimed $530.4 million in charitable gifts, an increase of $14
million from tax year 2010. But that is down sharply from the pre-recession figure of
$655 million in 2007. The average reported gift for New Hampshire taxpayers in 2011
was $2,970.14
Almost all high-income households in New Hampshire give to charity. Among New
Hampshire households with incomes over $200,000, 86 percent of those who itemized
their federal tax returns reported gifts and those accounted for about 42 percent of total
donations in New Hampshire. At the same time, giving is by no means limited to highincome households. In 2011, 58 percent of total reported donations in New Hampshire
13
A more in-depth analysis of this issue can be found in the Center’s earlier report “Sharing the Common
Burden: New Hampshire and Public Services,” available here:
http://www.nhpolicy.org/UploadedFiles/Reports/new_hampshire_public_services_v5.pdf
14
Information provided by the Internal Revenue Service from 2011 tax filings of filers itemizing
deductions.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
39
came from households with incomes below $200,000, and about 29 percent came from
households with incomes below $100,000.15
A look at average giving by income bracket among itemizing households16 reveals that
financial capacity is a significant factor in determining household giving levels (see Table
5).
Table 5: New Hampshire Charitable Contributions by Income Bracket in 2011
Under
$50,000
Number of Households
Total Charitable Contribution
Average Gift
35,748
$46,575,000
$1,303
$50,000
under
$75,000
Size of adjusted gross income
$75,000
$100,000
to
to
$100,000
$200,000
31,764
31,201
$50,895,000
$57,322,000
$1,602
$1,837
Source: IRS SOI Tax Stats.
59,855
$150,679,000
$2,517
$200,000
under
$500,000
$500,000
or
more
16,743
$93,381,000
$5,577
3,268
$131,520,000
$40,245
A look at foundation giving in New Hampshire underscores how important individual
giving is to the state’s nonprofit sector. In 2011, a total of 368 independent, corporate,
community and operating foundations in New Hampshire collectively made grants
totaling $121.3 million – that is, slightly more than 30 percent of total reported individual
giving in the state for that same year.17
Spending trends across the levels of government
In 2012, state, municipal, and county governments and school districts in New
Hampshire appropriated almost $9.1 billion to fund their services.18 Figure 25 shows how
that appropriation was distributed across all levels of government. About 47 percent of
the publicly funded activities originated that year at the sub-state level – that is, at the
town, city, county or school district level. State appropriations accounted for the
remaining 53 percent of those appropriations. School district appropriations were 24
percent of the total, while municipal appropriations made up 18 percent. Counties
accounted for only 5 percent of total appropriations.
15
Information provided by the Internal Revenue Service from 2011 tax filings of filers itemizing
deductions.
16
Note that itemizing rates vary greatly by income bracket. In 2011, only 28% of those in NH with incomes
under $50,000 itemized, versus 86% of those with incomes over $200,000.
17
Information provided by Deborah Schachter of the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation, August 2012.
18
This $9.7 billion figure nets out intergovernmental transfers between levels of government. For example,
the statewide education property tax – which is used to fund public education at the local level – is included
in school district appropriations (as towns raise those resources through a statewide education property tax)
but excluded from state appropriations. State revenues which are distributed to counties are excluded from
the county appropriation (based on the MS-42 form). Finally, the Legislative Budget Office includes a list
of state revenues that are distributed to towns. This list was used to subtract out appropriations made by the
state which funded municipal activities.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
40
Figure 25: More than half of government appropriations are at state level
Distribution of Pubilc Service Appropriations by Level of Government
(2012)
County
5%
Schools
24%
State
53%
Municipal
18%
Between 2007 and 2012, appropriations across all levels of government grew 2.4 percent
annually (see Table 6). Appropriations at the municipal level exhibited the highest rate of
growth (2.7 percent), followed by the school district level (2.5 percent). Meanwhile,
appropriations at the county level exhibited minimal growth (0.4 percent).
Table 6: Appropriations by level of government19
Appropriations Net of Intergovernmental Transfers for Public Services
Aggregate Growth
State
Municipal
Schools
County
2007
2012
$4,335,552,842
$4,881,941,581
$1,439,287,086
$1,642,256,254
$1,894,451,716 $ 2,148,468,524
$452,190,056
$461,391,075
All Appropriations
$8,121,481,700
$9,134,057,434
Annual Compound
Growth 2007-2012
2.4%
2.7%
2.5%
0.4%
2.4%
Per Capita Inflation Adjusted Growth
Annual Compound
Growth 2007-2012
2007
2012
$3,680 $3,705
$24
0.1%
$1,222 $1,246
$24
0.4%
$1,608 $1,630
$22
0.3%
$384
$350
($34)
-1.8%
$6,894
$6,931
$37
Table 6 also includes the appropriations data on a per-capita, inflation-adjusted basis.
Appropriations adjusted for population growth and inflation across all levels of
government grew 0.1 percent per year, increasing from $6,894 per person to $6,931 – a
per-person increase of $37 over the five-year period. The largest share of this increase
($24 per person adjusted for inflation each) came from state and municipal
appropriations. Per capita, inflation adjusted expenditures grew at 0.4 percent at the
municipal level, 0.1 percent at the state level and 0.3 percent at the school district level.
Only county appropriations showed no growth over that period, declining by 1.8 percent.
19
Because the data is net of government transfers the appropriations shown for each level of government
may not agree with tables in the subsequent sections of this report.
0.1%
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
41
Services at the sub-state level
In the sections that follow, we provide information on the resources devoted to public
services at each level of government, the functions that each level of government
provides, and how these have changed over time.
Municipal services
Cities and towns carry out a variety of functions for their residents, including
maintenance of streets, water treatment, and health and welfare services for those in need.
Many of these services – arguably all, as town spending is ultimately authorized by the
state – are mandated by state laws.20 According to New Hampshire RSA 165, for
example, towns are required to assist residents who are unable to help themselves. This
law results in expenditures associated with health and welfare. While many of these
services are mandated by the state, the manner in which these functions are carried out
and the level of funding are matters left to the discretion of town administrators.
In 2012, towns and municipalities appropriated approximately $2 billion for the full set of
services for which they are responsible. As Figure 26 shows, roughly 42 percent of these
appropriations were targeted at public safety and general government operating expenses.
Sanitation, water distribution and treatment, and maintenance and construction of roads
and highways accounted for much of the remainder (21 percent).
Figure 26: Distribution of New Hampshire municipal appropriations
Distribution of Municipal Appropriations by Type of Service (2012)
Operating Transfers
Out
14%
Other
6%
General Government
18%
Capital Outlays
9%
Public Safety
24%
Debt Service
6%
Health and Welfare
2%
Highways and
Streets
Water Distribution
11%
and Treatment
2%
20
Sanitation
8%
New Hampshire’s Constitution does not grant any power directly to municipalities. A municipality only
has authority to act if the Legislature grants it through a statute. “Towns only have such powers as are
expressly granted to them by the legislature and such as are necessarily implied or incidental thereto.”
Girard v. Allenstown, 121 N.H. 268 (1981). Source:
http://www.nhlgc.org/LGCWebSite/InfoForOfficials/townandcityarticles.asp?TCArticleID=139.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
42
Table 7: Municipal spending in NH varies by region
Muncipal Spending by Region (2012)
Region
Great No. Woods
White Mtns
Lakes Region
Dartmouth/Sunapee
Monadnock
Seacoast
Concord area
Manchester area
Nashua area
Total
General
Gov't
18.0%
20.2%
15.9%
17.0%
15.6%
17.3%
15.4%
20.4%
19.7%
$361.8m
Public
Safety
Operating
Highways Transfers
Sanitation & Streets
Out
Other
24.4%
7.3%
17.1%
16.8%
16.4%
21.1%
6.2%
16.3%
8.3%
28.0%
21.7%
6.2%
14.0%
19.5%
22.8%
19.4%
9.7%
14.1%
5.9%
33.8%
18.8%
7.8%
14.2%
15.3%
28.4%
25.6%
8.2%
9.6%
12.7%
26.7%
27.4%
10.9%
11.2%
5.7%
29.3%
26.3%
3.6%
9.9%
23.4%
16.4%
32.0%
13.1%
8.7%
5.5%
21.0%
$505.1m $161.3m $229.5m $272.4m $486.8m
Total
$37,988,725
$81,351,016
$233,415,810
$178,550,388
$187,045,463
$440,492,220
$141,481,963
$399,239,197
$317,318,873
$2,016.9m
Per Capita
Spending
$1,312
$1,590
$1,869
$1,800
$1,386
$1,492
$1,505
$1,528
$1,402
$1,533
Table 7 above breaks down total state municipal spending in 2012 by region, illustrating
some variation across the state. New Hampshire’s more populated areas (the Concord,
Manchester and Nashua regions, as well as the Seacoast) spend a larger portion of their
budgets on public safety (25 percent and higher) than less urbanized areas. Spending on
roads is highest, as a percentage of total municipal spending, in less-densely populated
areas in the northern reaches of the state. There are also considerable differences in per
capita municipal spending across the state, from about $1,310 per person in the Great
North Woods to about $1,870 per person in the Lakes Region. Per capita municipal
spending for the entire state was $1,533 in 2012.21
We discuss spending on local public education later in this report.
Local aid
As noted before, the financing of services is split among all levels of government. A
significant portion of revenue that municipalities, counties, and school districts receive
comes from the state in various forms of local aid. Local aid is usually distributed with a
specific purpose or associated with a specific program, such as for the maintenance of
roads or for reimbursements for new school construction at local districts across the
state.22
Education aid
Most local aid is dedicated to school districts for education, comprising about 91 percent
of total local aid appropriated in the FY2012-2013 budget, with the vast majority of that
coming in the form of Adequate Education Aid. However, there are several distinct
education programs funded in part by state dollars.
21
The Center’s report, “Financing New Hampshire’s Cities and Towns: Update 2012” provides more
information on city and town financing and expenditures. The report can be found here:
http://www.nhpolicy.org/UploadedFiles/Reports/Town_Finance_Project_V14a.pdf.
22
A more in depth look at local aid can be found in the Center’s earlier report, “An Uneven Playing Field:
The Disparate Impacts of Local Aid Cuts,” available here:
http://www.nhpolicy.org/reports/local_aid_in_20122013.pdf
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
43
The School Building Aid program provides state subsidies to local school districts for
construction and renovation costs. Reimbursement rates vary depending on several
factors, including whether the district has multiple towns and the districts’ property
values and median family income. School districts also receive funds from the state in the
form of Catastrophic Aid, which is intended to help cover the most expensive special
education cases. Districts receive a certain amount of aid per special education student.
Along with Adequate Education Grants, these are the largest aid programs for school
districts. Other aid programs for school districts include Kindergarten Aid, which is given
to school districts for the first three years of starting a new public kindergarten program,
and Tuition and Transportation Aid, which reimburses tuition and transportation costs for
students attending programs at vocational centers or taking vocational education courses
in other school districts.23
Local Education Improvement Aid is devoted to assisting lower-performing schools,
providing school districts with technical support, and identifying best practices. The
Dropout Prevention and Dropout Recovery program disburses funds to school districts in
order to assist students in graduating from high school. Funds can be used to pay for
tutoring services, support services, mentoring, and other programs that help students
obtain their high school diploma.24 The Reading Recovery Training Program funds the
training of teachers so they can provide Reading Recovery services, a short-term
intervention program for struggling first-graders that is designed to improve their reading
skills. However, the program has not been funded in recent years.25
School districts receive aid for Court-Ordered Placements for the remaining costs of
students who are placed in foster or group homes or a different school district. This
funding is given after the district has paid three times the state average tuition for the
students.26 School Lunch and School Breakfast aid comes from the federally funded
National School Lunch Program and the School Breakfast Program, both of which
provide free or reduced-cost meals for eligible students and even full-price meals for
students that do not qualify for free or reduced-cost meals. Children from families whose
income is below 130 percent of the federal poverty line can obtain free breakfasts or
lunches, while those coming from families with incomes between 130 and 185 percent of
the federal poverty level are eligible for reduced-cost meals. The federal government
gives cash reimbursements for each meal served.27
Environmental protection and sanitation aid
Municipal aid for environmental protection and sanitation represents a relatively small
portion of overall total aid payments, but it covers a range of programs. The state
reimburses cities and towns a portion of the costs for various Public Water System Grant
program initiatives. These include the costs of regionalization of public water systems,
improvements on water systems to comply with federal requirements, and investigating
23
NH Department of Education
New Hampshire Statutes 189:59
25
NH Department of Education
26
NH Department of Education
27
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service
24
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
44
wells with “detectable levels of man-made contaminants.”28 Landfill Closure Grants are
reimbursements to municipalities from the state for the purpose of closing landfill and
incinerator sites. The state usually covers 20 percent of the eligible capital costs.29
In addition, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Vermont and Connecticut, as part of a
regional flood control compact, collectively compensate municipalities where flood
control measures, which include dams and reservoirs, were built for their lost property
tax revenue. Such towns in New Hampshire are along the Connecticut and Merrimack
Rivers. However, during the past twenty years, Massachusetts has not been paying its full
share. New Hampshire has had to cover Massachusetts’ share to fully compensate the
affected cities and towns. In addition to federal funds for water pollution control projects,
New Hampshire also awards grants to municipalities for the construction of or for
improving sewage disposal facilities and treatment plants. The state pays 20 percent of
the annual amortization costs for such projects.30
Other general fund aid
There are other different purposes for which municipalities receive aid from the state.
Fixed Revenue Sharing is a program that shares Business Profits Tax revenues with
municipalities according to a formula set in statute. It originated in 1970, when the New
Hampshire Legislature repealed several local taxes, including the tax on machinery and
the stock-in-trade tax, and replaced them with the state-level Business Profits Tax.
However, Fixed Revenue Sharing was suspended beginning in the FY2010-11 budget,
resulting in a loss to the cities and towns of $50 million over two years. Cuts to this local
aid program disproportionately affect New Hampshire’s former industrial centers, such as
Berlin, Claremont, and Franklin.
A portion of the revenue from the Meals and Rooms Tax, a 9 percent tax on hotel rooms
and the rental of vacation homes, prepared meals from restaurants, and motor vehicle
rentals, is distributed to cities and towns based on their population. During this past
legislative session, a bill was proposed to change this distribution formula; 56 percent of
the funds would still be distributed based on population, but the remaining 44 percent
would be given to municipalities based on where the revenues came from.31 This would
lead to larger revenues in cities and towns where tourism is greater. However, the bill
was killed.
The Railroad Tax is levied on railroad companies and other companies owning cars
operated on railroads in the state. Cities and towns receive their proportional share of
Railroad Tax revenue from the state.32
28
NH DES
NH DES
30
New Hampshire RSA index; 486:1 State Contributions
31
Ben Leubsdorf, “Senate bill would send more meals-and-rooms tax revenue to towns and cities with
hotels, restaurants.” Concord Monitor. 13 Feb 2013. http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/440571295/tax-bill-revenue-sen
32
New Hampshire Statutes: Chapter 82:33
29
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
45
Municipalities also receive Highway Block Grants from the state for the construction and
maintenance of their Class IV and V highways. The grants come from the state’s
highway revenues. The amount received by municipalities is largely determined by their
population and their proportion of Class IV and V road mileage relative to the state.
Another set of funds is disbursed to municipalities that have a high amount of road
mileage to maintain and have low overall property valuations relative to other cities and
towns.33
Local aid funding levels
The dynamics behind local aid have shifted considerably in recent years, both in terms of
total annual amounts and the manner in which that money is distributed.
Figure 27: State aid as a percentage of local appropriations has declined
Percent of School, Municipal and County Appropriations
New Hampshire State Aid to Cities, Towns, Counties and School Districts
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
29.3%
28.3%
27.1%
25.8%
22.8% 22.4%
21.6%
22.7% 22.4% 22.2%
21.4%
20.3%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Figure 27 shows that, as a percentage of county, municipal, and school district
appropriations, state aid has declined over the past 12 years from 29.3 percent of total
local appropriations in 2001 to about 20.3 percent in 2012. However, a closer
examination shows that the decline has not been consistent across the various categories
of local aid. For instance, the appropriations for total aid for education have increased by
16.9 percent since the FY2000-2001 budget, while all other aid has declined by 7.5
percent during the same time period (see Figure 28). Specifically, state aid pertaining to
33
NHDOT
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
46
Figure 28: State aid schedule34
2000-2001
AID BY CATEGORY
Actual
EDUCATION
1 Building Aid
$38,450,000
2 Adequate Education Aid
$1,649,315,078
3 Court Ordered Placements
$6,891,005
4 Driver Education
$2,896,950
5 Dropout Prevention
$0
6 Foundation Aid
$0
7 Kindergarten
$1,651,114
8 Kindergarten Construction Aid
$9,109,250
9 Local Education Improvement
$3,203,412
10 Reading Recovery
$617,998
11 Retirement Normal Contribution Teachers(1)
$0
12 School Breakfast
$0
13 School Lunch
$1,664,006
14 Special Education
$34,133,274
15 State Revenue Sharing - District Allocation
$0
16 Tuition & Transportation
$7,397,974
Education Total
$1,755,330,061
ENVIRONMENTAL
17 Flood Control
$1,170,992
18 Landfill Closure Grants
$3,728,276
19 Public Water System Grants
$3,497,276
20 State Aid Grants - Pollution Control
$25,825,731
21 Water Supply Land Protection Grants
$0
Environmental Total
$34,222,275
OTHER GEN FUNDS
22 Meals & Rooms Distribution
$49,854,366
23 Railroad Tax
$354,766
24 State Revenue Sharing
$50,432,114
less District Allocation
Net State Revenue Sharing
$50,432,114
25 Retirement Normal Contribution
$29,642,547
less Teacher Normal Contribution
$0
Net Retirement Normal Contribution
$29,642,547
Other General Funds Total
$130,283,793
HIGHWAY FUNDS
26 Block Grants
$48,445,220
GRAND TOTAL
$1,968,281,349
Municipal Aid Only
$212,951,288
34
New Hampshire Legislative Budget Office
Percent
Percent Change
2008-2009
2012-2013
2014-2015
from 2000 to
Actual
Budget
Budget Change from
2008 to 2013
2013
$89,401,462
$95,967,938
$87,981,264
7.3%
149.6%
$1,781,440,132 $1,883,188,605 $1,872,128,396
5.7%
14.2%
$4,669,352
$3,693,744
$5,000,000
-20.9%
-46.4%
$3,170,375
$0
$0
-100.0%
-100.0%
$2,686,942
$1,086,860
$1,200,000
-59.6%
$0
$0
$0
$1,808,400
$3,660,060
102.4%
121.7%
$1,535,623
$3,038,661
97.9%
-66.6%
$993,345
$23,950
-97.6%
-99.3%
$777,504
$0
-100.0%
-100.0%
$61,008,249
$2,198,706
-96.4%
$186,327
$301,845
$368,000
62.0%
$1,664,006
$1,664,006
$1,664,006
0.0%
0.0%
$64,540,503
$43,150,438
$45,274,616
-33.1%
26.4%
$0
$0
$0
$13,780,893
$13,800,000
$14,822,619
0.1%
86.5%
$2,027,663,113 $2,051,774,813 $2,029,279,901
1.2%
16.9%
$1,825,768
$3,231,826
$2,776,572
$19,823,767
$1,970,597
$29,628,530
$431,905
$1,827,470
$2,323,305
$8,526,389
$0
$13,109,069
$1,570,046
$2,091,422
$2,463,701
$14,530,636
$0
$20,655,805
-76.3%
-43.5%
-16.3%
-57.0%
-100.0%
-55.8%
-63.1%
-51.0%
-33.6%
-67.0%
-61.7%
$114,318,077
$247,363
$50,432,108
$117,610,114
$134,677
$0
$122,610,114
$73,342
$0
$50,432,108
$101,794,444
$61,008,249
$40,786,195
$205,783,743
$0
$3,500,000
$2,198,706
$1,301,294
$119,046,085
$0
$122,683,456
2.9%
-45.6%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-96.6%
-96.4%
-96.8%
-42.1%
135.9%
-62.0%
-100.0%
-100.0%
-88.2%
-95.6%
-8.6%
$60,112,000
$64,788,280
$60,000,000
$2,323,187,386 $2,248,718,247 $2,232,619,162
$295,524,273
$196,943,434
$203,339,261
7.8%
-3.2%
-33.4%
33.7%
14.2%
-7.5%
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
47
environmental protection and sanitation has declined 61.7 percent since the FY2000-2001
budget, and other general revenue funds have decreased by 8.6 percent since 2000.
The bulk of the increase in local aid over the years has come from Highway Block
Grants, Meals and Rooms Tax Distribution, and various education aid programs.
Highway Block Grants have increased 33.7 percent since the FY2000-2001 budget, and
the distribution of Meals and Rooms Tax revenue has increased 135.9 percent since then.
With regard to education, the most significant factor in the increase of local aid over the
years has been the Adequate Education Grants. Adequate Education aid accounted for
about 84 percent of total local aid in the FY2012-2013 budget.
Figure 29: New Hampshire is in line with most New England states35
Revenue from State Government as a Percentage of Total Local
Government General Revenue (2011)
70%
63.8%
60%
50%
40%
33.0%
30.0%
30%
29.2%
28.7%
27.6%
25.4%
20%
10%
0%
VT
US
ME
MA
NH
CT
RI
Figure 29 shows that New Hampshire remains near the middle of the pack (28.7 percent)
among New England states but below the U.S. average in terms of the revenue from the
state as a percentage of local government revenue. Vermont’s percentage is very high
because of a Vermont Supreme Court ruling in 1997 that made the state solely
responsible for education funding, resulting in a reform in their school aid formula that
reallocated previously local property tax revenue to equalizing state education aid.36
County appropriations
In 2012, all counties in New Hampshire appropriated $461 million for their services.
About forty percent of that spending was related to caring for seniors in county nursing
35
U.S. Census Bureau: State and Local Government Finances; there are discrepancies between the
Census’s percentages and those reported by state revenue agencies. However, using the Census data allows
for a uniform data methodology.
36
Richard Dye, “The Dynamic Between Municipal Revenue Sources and the State-Local Relationship in
New England.” New England Public Policy Center at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
48
homes. As shown in Figure 30, human services, nursing home services, and corrections
accounted for almost three-quarters of county expenditures.
Figure 30: Distribution of county appropriations
Distribution of County Appropriations (2012)
Intergovernmental
Transfers
1%
Debt Service
5%
Capital Outlay
1%
Interfund
Operating
Transfers
0%
General
Government
13%
Public Safety
5%
Cooperative
Extension
1%
Human Services
22%
Corrections
13%
County Nursing
Home
39%
Gross appropriations at the county level increased by approximately 0.4 percent per year
between 2007 and 2012. Appropriations for corrections and county nursing homes made
the biggest contribution to overall county expenditure growth.
Managing the recession: cities and towns
When faced with the profound economic strains brought on by the Great Recession, cities
and towns had two basic choices in order to balance their budgets – either cut spending
and reduce services, or increase revenues through higher property taxes. The following
charts illustrate some of the ways of gauging the impact of the recession on municipal
budgets.
Figure 31 shows that per capita municipal spending has begun to decline from 2007
levels. (Annual percent spending increased 1.9 percent between 2001 and 2007, and
decreased by 0.2 percent from 2007 to 2012.)
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
49
Figure 31: Total per capita municipal expenditures, 2001, 2007, 2012
Total of all categories (incl operating transfers)
$4,000
$3,929
$3,904
Per Capita, Adjusted for Inflation
$3,900
$3,800
$3,700
$3,600
$3,512
$3,500
$3,400
$3,300
2001 (in 2012$)
2007 (in 2012$)
2012
Meanwhile, non-property tax sources of revenue to municipalities did not rise over the
years of the recession. The per capita state contribution to local school costs declined
from 2007 to 2012 (see Figure 32).
Figure 32: Per capita state contribution to school costs, 2001, 2007, 2012
State contribution to Schools
$1,000
$930
Per Capita, Adjusted for Inflation
$900
$800
$751
$712
$700
$600
$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
$0
2001 (in 2012$)
2007 (in 2012$)
2012
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
50
In addition, state aid to municipalities has fallen off sharply since the recession began,
from $108 per person in 2007 to $89 per person in 2012 – a 4.8 percent annual decrease
over that period (see Figure 33).
Figure 33: Per capita state contribution to municipal costs, 2001, 2007, 2012
State contribution to Municipals
Per Capita, Adjusted for Inflation
$110
$108
$105
$100
$96
$95
$90
$89
$85
$80
2001 (in 2012$)
2007 (in 2012$)
2012
These trends – slow rise in local expenditures over the past years but a decline in 2012
from 2007 levels, combined with declines in state aid to schools and municipalities – put
increased pressure on the property tax as a source of revenue for cities, towns and school
districts. The annual rate of increase, however, has slowed during the years of the
recession (see Figure 34).
Figure 34: Average per capita New Hampshire property tax, 2001-2012
Average Property Taxes Per Person in New Hampshire
2001-2012
$3,000
$2,500
$2,252 $2,261
$2,033
$2,000
$1,500
$1,488
$1,573
$1,688
$1,801
$2,329
$2,395 $2,447
$2,108
$1,902
$1,000
$500
$0
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
51
The State Budget: An Overview37
Every two years, the New Hampshire Legislature draws up a budget to fund state
activities and services. The spending plan covers a wide range of services, including
public education, highway maintenance, prisons, health care for tens of thousands of
people, and many more. Behind the dollar amounts in the budget document are thousands
of policy decisions: which programs to fund, where to invest resources or scale back
investments. Thus, in a sense, analyzing the state budget is one of the best ways to
understand the state’s public policy priorities.
In Figure 35 below, we divide spending in the current two-year budget into six broad
categories of government: Health and Social Services, Education, Justice and Public
Protection, Transportation, Resource Protection and Development, and General
Government. Even at this broad level of categorization, we can draw several basic
conclusions about New Hampshire state government.
Figure 35: State spending in NH is divided among a range of broad categories,
with the majority in Health & Social Services and Education
State spending by category, 2014-15 (all fund sources)
Education
26%
Justice & Public
Protection
11%
Transportation
10%
Health & Social
Services
39%
General Government
9%
Resource Protection
& Development
5%
First, the diagram makes clear that the state’s biggest source of spending is as a provider
of social services to the public. We also see the large role that public education plays in
the expenditure of public dollars; this covers both the K-12 system, as well as the
university and community college systems.
37
Some of the material in this section first appeared in the Center’s May 2013 report “Turbulent Times:
New Hampshire’s state budget, 2008 to 2013”. The report can be found here:
http://www.nhpolicy.org/UploadedFiles/Reports/State_Budget_Analysis_2008-2013_With_Appendices.pdf
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
52
By analyzing this division of state spending across categories of government over a
longer time span, we can see broader trends and patterns in the way state spending has
changed throughout the years.
For instance, Figure 36 below shows the distribution of state spending along the same
broad categories of government in 1982, more than 30 years ago.38 The diagram shows
that spending on Health & Social Services, Education, and Justice and Public Protection
have grown – as a share of total state spending – over that period, while spending on
General Government, Resource Protection and Transportation have shrunk.
Transportation saw the biggest decline, falling from 19 percent of total state spending in
1992 to 10 percent in the current budget. Spending on Health and Human Services, by
contrast, grew from 31 percent to 39 percent of total state spending since 1982.
Figure 36: State spending 30 years ago was more heavily weighted toward
Transportation and General Government than today
State spending by category, 1982 (all fund sources)
Education
24%
Justice & Public
Protection
8%
Transportation
19%
Health and Social
Services
31%
General
Government
15%
Resource
Protection &
Development
3%
In comparing these two periods (1982 and the present) it is important to note that
programs and responsibilities frequently shift between the major functions of state
government. The classifications of funds often change over time as well, making a true
apples-to-apples comparison difficult. But in general, the data provide a broad picture of
shifts in state spending by major function over this span and illustrate the larger role that
health and other social programs play in New Hampshire’s budget compared to 30 years
ago.
38
Data for 1982 comes from ‘1982 Operating Budget N.H. Laws of 1981, Chapter 568. Director of
Legislative Services, Concord, NH, 1981. Data for 2014 comes from HB1 for 2014-2015 as published by
the Legislative Budget Office. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2013/HB0001.pdf
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
53
Table 8 provides another way of analyzing this shift – by calculating the annualized
growth in spending by category over this time period. The table shows both general and
total fund appropriations by these major functions of state government, along with
calculated annualized rate of changes in each. (Total fund amounts include federal funds,
as well as specialized fund sources, such as revenue from state liquor sales, lottery sales,
Fish and Game revenues, and other sources.)
Both total fund and general fund appropriations grew the most quickly in the
Administration of Justice and Public Protection and Health and Social Services. In
aggregate, the single largest source of growth in General Fund appropriations was Health
and Social Services. Both of these growth rates exceeded population growth (1.2 percent
annualized) and inflation (2.9 percent based on the Consumer Price Index) over this
period.
Table 8: Spending growth since 1982 has been highest
in the areas of Justice/Public Protection and Health/Social Services
General Government
Justice/Public Protection
Resource Prot. & Devel.
Transportation
Health & Social Services
Education
Fiscal Year 1982
General Funds
Total Funds
$ 80,756,983
$ 115,906,615
$ 29,827,378
$ 60,692,695
$ 17,377,974
$ 25,562,267
$
868,681
$ 152,238,886
$ 106,655,146
$ 245,740,743
$ 58,827,449
$ 191,335,075
Fiscal Year 2014
General Funds
Total Funds
$ 254,615,289 $ 482,623,456
$ 218,911,208 $ 580,672,724
$
33,805,402 $ 269,117,404
$
914,354 $ 539,778,012
$ 677,927,603 $ 2,109,285,560
$ 203,724,681 $ 1,409,270,702
Total
$ 294,313,611
$ 1,389,898,537
$ 791,476,281
$ 5,390,747,858
Annualized Change
General
Total
3.7%
4.6%
6.4%
7.3%
2.1%
7.6%
0.2%
4.0%
5.9%
6.9%
4.0%
6.4%
5.0%
Identifying the impact of different factors behind this growth in health-related spending is
difficult, especially over such a long time span. However, the growth appears to be driven
primarily by increases in the number of people covered by state health services, rather
than on expenditures per individual. As shown in Figure 37, appropriations per Medicaid
case (inflation adjusted) declined considerably between 1982 and 2012. What has
increased is the number of individuals covered – that number has grown at approximately
6.8 percent per year over this 30-year period.
6.2%
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
54
Figure 37: Medicaid spending has declined considerably on a per-case basis since 1982
Medicaid Appropriation per Medicaid Case (Inflation Adjusted)
$70,000
$65,974
$60,000
$50,000
$40,190
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0.00
1982
2012
The General Fund
The state’s General Fund, into which most taxes and other state revenues are deposited,
supports the largest share of state spending. It is the pool of money most directly within
the control of lawmakers, and it is what legislators, the media, and others usually mean
when they refer to “the state budget”. The General Fund pays for at least half of state
services, other than highways and aid to schools. A closer analysis of this fund can tell us
much about recent trends in New Hampshire state budgeting.
In many ways, the past five years (starting with the Great Recession in 2008) represent a
sharp deviation from New Hampshire’s budgeting pattern of the recent decades. In short,
an historic budget period began in New Hampshire in 2008, as spending trends shifted
significantly from their historic patterns. By 2010, spending from state revenue sources
(General Funds) was at the same level as in 2005. Further reductions in the 2012-13
budget reduced the level of state spending even more (see Figure 38).
A comparison of actual General Fund spending in 2010-2011 to authorized General Fund
spending in 2012-2013 shows a cut of 6 percent. Including footnote reductions in the
2012-2013 budget, the cut doubles to 12 percent.39
39
Precise apples-to-apples comparisons are difficult because of changes made in both the last and the
current budget period. In the last biennium, for example, the Legislature shifted funds for the Liquor
Commission from the general fund to other accounts, thus artificially lowering the general fund bottom
line. The most recent budget includes similar accounting changes, for instance, shifting drug rebate monies
from the general fund to other funds.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
55
Figure 38: The Great Recession upended long-term trends in state spending
General Fund Expenditures (Millions $), FY1990-2015
(Figures for FY2014-15 are appropriated budget amounts)
$1,600
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
The cuts in this period were made in response to a sharp drop in state revenue collections,
caused mostly by the Great Recession. How sharp a drop? If the historic trend in revenue
growth had continued through the years of the recession, New Hampshire would have
about 18 percent more revenue during 2012 than it actually did – nearly $400 million
more in real dollars.
The FY2014-15 budget was the first since before the recession in which spending levels
were higher than in the previous two-year period. Though, as Figure 38 illustrates,
General Fund spending is still below FY2008. In other words, state government is still
grappling with the economic impacts of the recession.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
56
Figure 39: Where the money comes from -- general fund revenues, FY 2013
FY2013 General Fund Revenue Sources
Business Profits Tax
18.9%
Utilities Tax Court Fines & Fees Beer Tax
0.9%
0.4%
0.9%
Meals and Rooms Tax
16.9%
Tobacco Settlement
1.6%
Board and Care
Revenue
1.9%
Securities Revenue
2.7%
Communications Tax
4.0%
Real Estate Transfer
Tax
4.4%
Liquor Sales
9.3%
Tobacco Tax
8.7%
Insurance Tax
6.7%
Interest & Dividends
Tax
6.5%
Business Enterprise
Tax
5.5%
Other Revenues
5.2%
"Medicaid
Enhancement"
Revenue
5.4%
Figure 39 above breaks down the General Fund by the specific tax or other revenue
source for FY2013, the most recently completed budget year. It shows that the single
largest contributor to the General Fund is the business profits tax, followed by meals and
rooms taxes and profits from state liquor sales.
The large number of relatively small contributors to total General Fund revenue, with
eight individual tax sources each contributing less than 5 percent to the fund, is rather
unique to New Hampshire. In many states, the two largest revenue sources (most often a
sales tax and an income tax) make up 75 percent to 80 percent of the total.
Figure 40 below takes a long-term view of changes in the General Fund relative to
overall economic growth in New Hampshire. It shows the multi-year decline in the
portion of the state’s economy that is tapped as revenue for public spending through the
General Fund.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
57
Figure 40: State taxes as a percent of the overall state economy
have declined steadily since the early 1970s
NH General Fund Taxes as a Share of Gross State Product, 1971-2012
3.25%
3.00%
2.75%
2.50%
2.25%
2.00%
1.75%
Includes all regular state GF taxes but
does not include Medicaid enhancement,
tobacco settlement, rebates, etc.
2011
2009
2007
2005
2003
2001
1999
1997
1995
1993
1991
1989
1987
1985
1983
1981
1979
1977
1975
1973
1971
1.50%
Year
In 1971, General Fund taxes were equal to about 2.9 percent of the state’s Gross
Domestic Product. By 2012, that had fallen to 2 percent.
Figure 41 below illustrates the sources of the increase in the General Fund over the past
35 years, from roughly $550 million in 1988 to $1.377 billion in FY2012. How did this
increase come about? By differentiating between natural growth in the tax base (either
more people paying taxes, or people paying the same tax rate on a larger base), new tax
sources, and increased rates on existing taxes, we can understand the sources behind the
growth in General Fund revenue as a whole.
Contrary to the perception of many, New Hampshire has both increased tax rates and
developed new taxes over this time period. Natural growth in the tax base in effect in
1988 accounted for only $936 million of the state’s General Fund revenues by 2012. The
remaining $441 million (the difference between the base of $936 million and the $1.377
billion that was raised in 2012) came from new taxes, increased tax rates, and a handful
of other monies, including federal Medicaid revenues.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
58
Figure 41: New revenue sources and increased tax rates have supported the growth in the state
budget
NH General Fund Revenues 1988 to 2012
(Current $)
$1,600
$1,377m
$1,353
$1,400
Millions of Dollars
$1,200
$1,000
Increased rates
New taxes
Medicaid Enhancement
$936m
$800
$600
Taxes and rates
in place in 1988
$400
$200
12
20
10
20
08
20
06
20
04
20
02
20
00
20
98
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
19
19
88
$0
State Fiscal Year
The new budget: 2014-2015
A new two-year spending plan for the state of New Hampshire took effect on July 1,
2013. That budget, passed by both chambers of the Legislature with bipartisan support
and signed by Governor Maggie Hassan, appropriates $10.8 billion in total funds, and
$2.8 billion in General Funds.
The FY2014-15 budget increases spending over the last two-year budget by about 7.3
percent in total funds and General Funds. If one includes roughly $158 million in
spending cuts mandated in various “footnotes” to the budget, the increase in General
Funds over the last biennium is about 6.1 percent.
The new budget rests on several assumptions. Among them:
•
State General Fund tax receipts will increase only slightly over the next two years,
with most revenue sources remaining essentially flat between last year and this
year.
•
Demand for social services, including programs that provide aid to the disabled,
low-income families, and other populations, will level off as the rest of the
economy slowly improves.
•
Significant savings can be found through state personnel cuts, including salary
and benefit reductions. The budget calls for $5 million in General Funds ($12.5
million in total funds) to be cut in salary and benefit costs in each year of the
biennium.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
59
Table 9 below details spending levels at the state agency level.
Table 9: Biennial total fund spending, FY2008 to FY2015
Agency
ADJUTANT GENERAL
ADMINISTRATIVE SERV, DEPT OF
AGRICULTURE, DEPT OF
BANK COMMISSION
COMM COLLEGE SYSTEM OF NH
CORRECTIONS DEPT OF
CULTURAL RESOURCES, DEPT OF
EDUCATION, DEPT OF
EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DEPT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL SERV, DEPT OF
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
FISH AND GAME COMMISSION
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, DEPT OF
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, DEPT OF
INSURANCE, DEPT OF
JUDICIAL BRANCH
JUDICIAL COUNCIL
JUSTICE, DEPT OF
LABOR, DEPT OF
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
LIQUOR COMMISSION
NH LOTTERY COMMISSION
NH OFFICE OF VETERANS SERVICES
NH RETIREMENT SYSTEM
NH VETERANS HOME
PEASE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
POLICE STDS & TRAINING COUNCIL
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM
RACING CHARITABLE GAMING COMM
RESOURCES & ECON DEVEL, DEPT OF
REVENUE ADMINISTRATION, DEPT OF
SAFETY, DEPT OF
SECRETARY OF STATE
TRANSPORTATION, DEPT OF
TREASURY, DEPT OF
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Various Boards, Commissions & Agencies
TOTAL
FY08-09
FY10-11
FY12-13
FY14-15
Change Change
12-13 to 08-09 to
14-15
14-15
$36,702,821
$44,891,928
$47,031,365
$53,434,653
$218,447,724
$254,212,541
$239,644,026
$244,283,638
$7,931,327
$9,516,135
$9,146,417
$10,881,633
$9,019,333
$10,445,255
$11,197,952
$12,295,725
$203,047,951
$225,522,235
$63,330,960
$82,500,000
$211,964,149
$207,766,268
$206,477,895
$211,351,613
$14,917,896
$14,138,456
$12,331,033
$13,256,079
$2,408,530,001 $2,459,577,516 $2,533,899,182 $2,582,190,774
$59,374,300
$84,660,047
$76,588,560
$75,709,794
$275,707,618
$352,904,132
$316,869,469
$354,053,352
$56,392,663
$95,307,534
$73,503,268
$79,952,893
$419,720
$449,484
$453,724
$455,978
$53,573,096
$58,738,526
$58,309,716
$58,190,159
$3,716,599,081 $4,083,231,805 $3,738,761,018 $4,115,201,603
$119,080,828
$116,333,217
$120,324,529
$134,843,785
$16,073,616
$18,331,286
$17,749,106
$21,847,309
$142,031,368
$148,694,149
$146,553,678
$164,622,918
$49,767,284
$53,951,075
$47,835,367
$50,271,924
$44,161,405
$49,206,255
$42,323,098
$54,176,838
$37,271,675
$17,927,273
$16,705,619
$18,572,098
$30,907,859
$32,418,953
$31,314,188
$33,375,440
$71,575,779
$84,515,266
$91,484,397
$102,191,360
$17,522,878
$16,217,395
$14,429,137
$15,573,156
$809,008
$854,408
$831,812
$1,011,661
$120,130,593
$113,209,536
$25,900,612
$17,119,341
$51,191,252
$55,126,583
$56,826,959
$63,120,447
$12,729,284
$15,599,180
$3,110,662
$1,418,158
$7,469,892
$7,609,157
$6,912,759
$7,352,378
$28,854,195
$93,218,375
$40,978,203
$53,680,922
$5,958,207
$3,956,666
$3,052,326
$3,124,304
$68,749,335
$105,733,048
$106,200,288
$125,734,773
$35,419,126
$34,824,752
$28,826,975
$34,084,960
$270,587,782
$346,889,618
$296,288,154
$321,999,127
$18,690,288
$16,486,540
$16,469,485
$16,371,341
$1,048,939,223 $1,072,192,915 $1,081,741,430 $1,088,307,457
$378,142,277
$357,862,004
$352,899,187
$397,563,290
$196,000,000
$200,000,000
$105,600,098
$153,000,000
$29,126,166
$33,620,508
$19,179,444
$24,417,604
$10,073,817,000 $10,896,140,021 $10,061,082,098 $10,797,538,485
Note: Figures for FY08 through FY13 are actual or adjusted authorized amounts FY14-15 figures are budgeted amounts.
The figures for years prior to FY2014 and FY2015 are actual expenditures, whereas the
FY14-15 figures are budgeted amounts. But the table illustrates some of the high-level
shifts in spending priorities over the past few years.
Looking just between the current FY14-15 budget and the FY12-13 budget, we see some
of the biggest areas of increase are in higher education (30 percent increase at the
Community College System and a 45 percent increase for the University System), the
Department of Justice, and the Department of Resources and Economic Development.
13.6%
1.9%
19.0%
9.8%
30.3%
2.4%
7.5%
1.9%
-1.1%
11.7%
8.8%
0.5%
-0.2%
10.1%
12.1%
23.1%
12.3%
5.1%
28.0%
11.2%
6.6%
11.7%
7.9%
21.6%
-33.9%
11.1%
-54.4%
6.4%
31.0%
2.4%
18.4%
18.2%
8.7%
-0.6%
0.6%
12.7%
44.9%
27.3%
7.3%
45.6%
11.8%
37.2%
36.3%
-59.4%
-0.3%
-11.1%
7.2%
27.5%
28.4%
41.8%
8.6%
8.6%
10.7%
13.2%
35.9%
15.9%
1.0%
22.7%
-50.2%
8.0%
42.8%
-11.1%
25.0%
-85.7%
23.3%
-88.9%
-1.6%
86.0%
-47.6%
82.9%
-3.8%
19.0%
-12.4%
3.8%
5.1%
-21.9%
-16.2%
7.2%
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
60
Some of those changes, particularly at the Community College and University Systems,
represent efforts to reverse deep cuts in the previous (FY2012-13) two-year budget. (The
much steeper cut in the Community College System’s budget between 08-09 and 14-15 is
largely due to a change in how tuition was counted in the budget document, not to such a
steep reduction in state funding.)
Like all New Hampshire budgets, the FY2014-15 budget relies on a blend of revenue
sources to pay for state spending. While Table 9 counts Total Funds, Figure 42 below
breaks that amount into the separate funds, many of which (including the Fish and Game
Fund, the Highway Fund, and the Turnpike Fund) can only be used for specific spending
purposes. The largest slice labeled “General & Education Funds” represents most of what
we mean when we think of monies raised by state taxes and fees.
Figure 42: New Hampshire's budget is funded by a variety of revenue sources
Total Appropriations by Fund Source, FY2014-15
Sweepstakes Fund- Fish and Game
Lottery
Fund
0.1%
0.3%
Liquor Commission
0.9%
General & Education
Funds
43.7%
Turnpike Fund
2.1%
Highway Fund
5.1%
Other Funds
16.6%
Federal Funds
31.1%
The FY2014-15 budget also decreases slightly the amount of money distributed to cities,
towns and school districts for multiple programs, a sum of money referred to collectively
as “local aid.” Among the cuts in local aid are decreases in the amount of money to help
school districts pay for new buildings and in adequate education aid, caused mostly by
declines in student populations. There were increases, however, in state grants to help
cities and towns pay for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure projects.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
61
Public Education
In the past two decades, the state has grappled with the issue of funding public education.
For many years, public education in the state was funded primarily on the local level. But
some questioned whether this model provided all New Hampshire students with an
adequate education. Since the 1990s, several court interventions and subsequent reform
efforts have attempted to solve the funding issue and define adequate education. The
most recent reforms have satisfied the courts for now but many questions remain.
Demographic changes in the state are also fueling the policy debate. Over the past
decade, New Hampshire has seen a steady decline in its school-age population. As the
youth population has declined, so has public school enrollment. This decline will likely
prompt further discussions about education spending – including spending on school
infrastructure – staffing levels, changes in curriculum, and regionalization of educational
services across communities.
Below we offer a discussion on the recent trends in the student population and the history
of education spending in New Hampshire, provide some context for education spending
at both the state and local level, and look ahead to possible changes on the horizon.
Recent trends in New Hampshire’s student population
Over the past decade, New Hampshire has seen several changes in its student population.
Total public school enrollment has gradually declined from the highs in the early 2000s.
While total public school enrollment has decreased in recent years, the number of
students in charter schools or being educated at home has increased, although the total
numbers remain small.40 Both trends will help shape future education policy discussions
at the state and local level, including conversations about staffing levels, funding
formulas, investment in school facilities, curriculum offerings and other topics.
Figure 43 on the following page highlights the drop in public school enrollment since the
2001-02 school year. In 2002-03, total public school enrollment peaked at about 207,000
students. By the 2012-13 school year, total public school enrollment had decreased to
187,963 – a decline of 9.2 percent from the 2002-03 high. When charter school students
are removed from enrollment figures the decrease becomes even sharper – with
enrollment decreasing 10 percent between 2002 and 2013.
Private school enrollment in New Hampshire has fallen at an even steeper rate than
public school enrollment. During the 2002-03 school year, 23,828 New Hampshire
students were enrolled in private school. By the 2012-13 school year, that figure had
dropped to 18,473 – a decline of 23 percent.
40
New Hampshire legalized the operation of charter schools, which are funded by tax dollars but have
more leeway in administration and curricula than traditional schools, beginning with the 2004-05 school
year.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
62
Figure 43: New Hampshire public school enrollment
New Ham pshire Total Public School Enrollm ent, 2001-02 to 2012-13
210,000
Public School Enrollment
205,000
Number of Students
Wit hout Charter Student s
200,000
195,000
190,000
185,000
180,000
175,000
01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13
Source: New Hampshire Department of Education.
The decrease in both public and private school enrollment matches a similar decline in
the overall statewide population of young people over the past decade. The number of
New Hampshire residents under the age of 20 fell from roughly 343,500 in 2000 to
325,200 in 2010 – a decline of 5 percent.
Although total public school enrollment has declined in recent years, enrollment in
charter schools has increased. During the 2004-05 school year, the first in which New
Hampshire allowed charter schools to operate, 81 students were enrolled in three charter
schools. By the 2012–13 school year, the number of charter school students increased to
1,740 students enrolled in seventeen charter schools. While this increase is significant,
charter school students represent less than 1 percent of total public school enrollment in
the state.
Other trends emerge when public school enrollment is examined by grade level. Figure
44 on the following page breaks down annual enrollment figures into three categories:
elementary school level (pre-school through grade 5), middle school level (grade 6
through grade 8), and high school level (grade 9 through grade 12). The chart shows that
while public high school enrollment rose in the middle of the past decade, by the 2012-13
school year it had fallen below the 2001-02 level. In 2012-13, only 60,107 students were
enrolled in a New Hampshire public high school, compared to 64,001 a decade earlier.
Elementary and middle school enrollment, however, saw consistent declines throughout
the decade. Elementary enrollment fell 7.4 percent between the 2002-03 and 2012–13
school years, while middle school enrollment fell more than twice as fast at 16.2 percent.
As these student populations continue through their schooling, the state is likely to see
even greater drops in public school enrollment.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
63
Figure 44: NH public school enrollment by grade level
Change in Public School Enrollm ent, by Grade Level, 2001-02 to 2012-13
100,000
90,000
Number of Students
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
Elementary Scho o l
20,000
M iddle Scho o l
10,000
High Schoo l
0
01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12
Source: New Hampshire Department of Education
Teacher numbers declining at slower pace
Although student enrollment has declined at a considerable rate, the number of teachers
at the state’s public schools has not decreased at the same rate (see Table 10). While
public school enrollment fell 12.6 percent between 2002-03 and 2012–13, the number of
public school teachers rose and fell, ending the decade at a level only slightly lower than
the beginning – going from 14,493 to 14,064, a decline of less than 3 percent over that
period.
Table 10: NH public school student-teacher ratio41
School Year
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
Public School
Enrollment
195,418
195,991
195,207
194,376
192,882
190,666
187,669
183,581
181,399
178,034
174,605
171,187
Total Teachers
14,216
14,493
14,612
14,774
14,991
14,947
14,905
14,979
14,761
14,605
14,245
14,064
Student/
Teacher Ratio
13.7
13.5
13.4
13.2
12.9
12.8
12.6
12.3
12.3
12.2
12.3
12.2
Percentage
Change
(Enrollment)
0.3%
-0.4%
-0.4%
-0.8%
-1.1%
-1.6%
-2.2%
-1.2%
-1.9%
-1.9%
-2.0%
Percentage
Change
(Teachers)
1.9%
0.8%
1.1%
1.5%
-0.3%
-0.3%
0.5%
-1.5%
-1.1%
-2.5%
-1.3%
Source: Author’s Calculations based on New Hampshire Department of Education data.
41
Enrollment figures include students in public school districts, public academies, and joint maintenance
agreement schools. Charter school figures are not included, nor are enrollment figures for preschool and
kindergarten. “Total Teachers” is the full-time equivalent of teachers for grades 1-12. This includes
subject-specific teachers at all grade levels, as well as special education and regular classroom teachers.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
64
Between the 2002-03 and the 2005-06 school years, the number of public school teachers
in New Hampshire increased each year – even as student enrollment began to decrease. It
has only been in the past four years that the number of teachers has decreased at a rate
close to the rate of student enrollment declines.
But gradually decreasing enrollment figures will not necessarily be met with an
immediate and comparable decrease in teachers. Enrollment trends vary by district. A
small decrease in enrollment within one district will not necessarily trigger the need to
lay off a teacher. A school would likely need to see enrollment declines of at least 20
students (the size of a typical classroom) before a teaching position could be eliminated.
Although, if current enrollment trends persist, school districts will likely have to make
important decisions about staffing needs – including the number of teachers required in
each school.
The spending context
Although public school enrollment has declined in the past decade, education spending
has increased. Figure 45 and the accompanying data table compare the basic trend in
enrollment and the number of teacher with statewide spending figures. In the decade
between 2002-03 and 2012-13, while the statewide population in New Hampshire
increased roughly 6.5 percent, the average daily pupil count in state public schools fell
12.8 percent. At the same time, total spending on elementary and secondary education
increased 7.2 percent (in inflation adjusted dollars). When broken down on a per pupil
level, spending increased 22.7 percent between fall 2002 and fall 2012.
Figure 45: Trends in NH public education spending & enrollment 42
New Hampshire Education Spending Trends, 2002-03 to 2012-13
25.0%
22.7%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
7.2%
6.5%
0.0%
0.6%
-3.0%
-5.0%
-10.0%
-12.8%
-15.0%
State
Population
42
Student
Population
Total Teachers Total Spending
Per Pupil
Spending
Per Capita
Spending
Student population figures are a count of Average Daily Membership for districts, not total enrollment
counts. It does not include preschool, kindergarten, or charter school students. Spending figures are
adjusted for inflation and include all spending for elementary and secondary education expenses. Spending
figures for the 2012-13 school year are NH Department of Education estimates.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
65
Table 11: Education spending trends
State Population
Student Population
Total Teachers
Total Spending
Per Pupil Spending
Per Capita Spending
2002-2003
1,235,786
200,065
14,493
$ 1,987,205,178
$9,981
$1,608
2002 (Infl. Adj)
$ 2,523,559,822
$12,675
$2,042
2012-2013
1,316,470
174,439
14,064
$ 2,704,738,225
$15,548
$2,055
Change (with Infl.)
6.5%
-12.8%
-3.0%
7.2%
22.7%
0.6%
Source: Author’s Calculations based on New Hampshire Department of Education and U.S. Census Bureau data.
The data from Table 11 and Figure 45 tells us that student enrollment has not driven the
increases in education spending over the past decade. Other factors appear to be driving
the spending increases. An analysis of school district expenditures by category offers
some insight into where the major increases in spending have come from (see Table 12).
Table 12: NH public school expenditures, selected categories
Regular instruction
Special programs
Student support services
Instructional Staff Support
General Admin & Business
Total expensitures
2001-02
$734,855,767
$279,080,873
$109,027,396
$54,060,866
$59,436,520
$1,998,854,718
2001 (Infl. Adj)
$933,196,285
$354,405,919
$138,454,327
$68,652,110
$75,478,675
$2,538,353,620
2011-2012
$1,116,049,448
$518,250,396
$197,396,778
$87,654,962
$103,822,503
$3,066,654,395
Percent change
19.6%
46.2%
42.6%
27.7%
37.6%
20.8%
Source: Author’s calculations based on New Hampshire Department of Education.
Between the 2001-02 and the 2011-12 school years (the latest year in which data is
available), total public school expenditures increased by more than 53 percent. Other
expenditure categories witnessed even faster growth. During the 2001-02 school year,
expenditures for special education programs totaled slightly less than $280 million. By
the 2011-12 school year, expenditures for special education programs increased to more
than $518 million – an 85 percent increase.
Student support services, which include support programs for English language learners
and guidance counseling, have also exhibited strong growth. In 2001-02, expenditures for
student support services totaled about $109 million. By 2011-12, expenditures for student
support increased to more than $197 million – an 81 percent increase. Expenditures for
general administration and business operations and instructional staff support have also
witnessed strong growth.
It is unclear from the data currently available whether the increases in spending for
special education programs and student support services are due to a significant change in
the number of students receiving these services, the costs associated with staff, or special
placements for students with particularly complicated educational needs. Further analysis
is needed to fully determine the impact special education and student support services are
having on school district budgets.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
66
Education policy in New Hampshire: Recent reforms43
New Hampshire’s public schools have seen numerous policy reforms in recent years.
These reform efforts go by several names: next-generation learning, personalized
learning, inquiry-based education, real-world learning, and student-centered learning,
among others. The most commonly expressed goal of these various efforts is to boost
student outcomes, especially students’ preparedness for college and careers, by placing
them at the center of the learning process.
In New Hampshire, several recent state-level policy changes have fostered shifts in
classroom practice along these lines, by encouraging districts to measure a student’s
progress by his or her ability to show mastery of certain skills and concepts, rather than
by how much time he or she has spent in a classroom. Changes are also being spurred by
a handful of pilot programs in the state, most funded by private grants or federal awards
and with a wide array of methods and goals.
The New Hampshire Department of Education’s strategic plan for reform emphasizes
“student-centered learning” as the heart of its efforts to reshape secondary education in
the state.44 The approach outlined by the DOE builds on recent research and efforts in
other states. Advocates of these efforts share a belief that, despite the standards-based
accountability reforms of No Child Left Behind, America’s existing education system
still fails on several fronts. Specifically, they argue that:
America’s system of public education does not prepare students to compete in the
global economy. Among the pieces of evidence offered is that U.S. students rank behind
much of the rest of the industrialized world in international achievement tests. According
to the most recent Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) rankings, the
United States scored 17th in reading, 31st in math, and 23rd in science, compared to other
developed nations in the survey. While interpretations of the reasons behind those
rankings vary,45 reform advocates say they indicate that America’s education system falls
far short of international standards.
Focusing on standardized tests diverts attention from students’ ability to acquire
key skills. While standardized tests are the foundation of the accountability model of No
Child Left Behind, those tests fail to measure many of the skills students need to be
successful in the 21st century: the ability to analyze, critique and apply knowledge in
different setting. Research by Frank Levy and Richard J. Murnane has shown that the
demand for jobs requiring routine, manual skills has dropped sharply in recent decades,
as those jobs have been outsourced or eliminated through greater labor efficiencies.46 The
43
Parts of this section are taken from the Center’s 2013 report “Student Centered Learning in New
Hampshire” (http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/student-centered-learning-in-nh-an-overview-and-analysis)
44
This agenda is outlined in the DOE’s “Comprehensive Strategic Plan” of 2011
(education.nh.gov/strategic_plan) and in its request earlier this year for a waiver from the requirements of
the No Child Left Behind law (available at education.nh.gov under “ESEA Flexibility/waiver.”)
45
See, most recently, “What Do International Tests Really Show About U.S. Student Performance,”
Carnoy & Rothstein, Economic Policy Institute, Jan. 2013.
46
“The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An Empirical Exploration,” David Autor, Frank
Levy & Richard Murnane, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), (2003).
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
67
jobs most in demand in the coming decades are those that require non-routine skills and
prize analytic ability, collaboration and problem-solving. But it is precisely those types of
skills that the current education system does a poor job developing in students, according
to reform advocates.
The current system leaves the majority of students disengaged, bored or
unchallenged. A semi-annual survey by the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy
at Indiana University consistently finds a majority of American high school students
report being bored every day in school.47 This lack of engagement may lead to higher
drop-out rates. Other research suggests that higher levels of engagement in college
students result in higher performance on tests of critical thinking skills.48
The New Hampshire context
Why has this reform effort found traction among education officials in New Hampshire?
The state typically rates well compared to other states in rankings of student performance,
such as test scores and graduation rates. A 2011 study by the American Physical Society
put New Hampshire fourth in the nation (behind Massachusetts, Minnesota and New
Jersey) for how well it prepares students for careers in math and science.49
Despite high statewide rankings in test scores, graduation rates and other measures of
success, stark differences in student outcomes exist across New Hampshire. College
enrollment rates among high school graduates in 2010 ranged from 40 percent to close to
90 percent (Figure 46.) And scores on the annual NECAP exams, the state’s standardized
tests of student achievement, vary greatly across districts (Figure 47.)
47
Survey results available at www.indiana.edu/~ceep/hssse.
“Student Engagement and Student Learning: Testing the Linkages,” Carini, Kuh & Klein, Research in
Higher Education (2004)
49
“Grading States on their K-12 Preparation of Future Scientists and Engineers,” White & Cottle;
American Physical Society (2011).
48
P
W itts
in b
G
ni ur
ov
sq g
er
no N ua
r W ew m
en po
tw rt
or
t
E
M
pp h
a s F in
co ra g
m nk
a lin
M
er R Val
L i r i a le
nc m ym y
ol ac o
n- k nd
W Va
o o lle
ds y
H toc
in k
sd
L i a le
Ti ttle
m to
be n
W
r
h
C ite L lane
on M i
to o sbo
oc un n
oo ta
k in s
Va
N
or
l
th M ley
u m ilf
o
Po ber rd
r ts la n
d
So mo
uh uth
eg
a
M Sal n
er em
r
H W im a
ol
i
lis nd ck
-B h
ro am
ok
li
Pr ne
o
D fil
re e
sd
en
Percent scoring proficient and above
N
ew
H po
av rt
e
La rhi
l
R con l
ay ia
m
Ja
o
ffr Ep nd
ey p
- in
M C Rin g
as la d
co re ge
m mo
C
a
on
Va nt
to
lle
oc
oo Do y
v
Pe k V er
m alle
i
W
Pe -Ba y
ilt
m ker
on
br
-L
yn K oke
d
N eb een
as or e
N hu oug
as a
hu No h
a rth
So
H uth
N Ne ud
or w s
th m on
C
oe
u a
-B W mb rke
ro in er t
w na lan
n c d
N un
or n
th et
w
o
G od
ilf
o
In Pel rd
te ha
r
m
M -La
er ke
rim s
Pi ac
tts k
b
Be urg
d
H
an for
ov d
er
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
90%
80%
68
Figure 46: There is great disparity across New Hampshire school districts
in the percent of graduates who go on to college within 16 months of leaving high school.
College enrollment rate by NH high school,
class of 2010
100%
Statewide rate
66%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Figure 47: Standardized test scores in math show great variation across districts.
Grade 11 NECAP math scores, Fall 2011, by district
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
69
Graduation rates also vary considerably across the state. While the overall state
graduation rate is comparatively high, with the majority of New Hampshire high schools
graduating between 77 percent and 95 percent of their students in 2011, a handful of
schools show stubbornly low graduation rates – with nearly one-third of students failing
to graduate in 2011 in some high schools.
Governor Lynch’s call to eliminate high school drop outs in New Hampshire, a response
to these sorts of disparities, has also helped fuel this movement towards more
personalized instructional approaches in New Hampshire. Many schools have been
looking for alternate forms of instruction as a way to engage students who might
otherwise leave school before graduation.
One of the challenges that student-centered learning is intended to address is: how can the
education system better engage those students – in any district – who are uninspired by
the traditional classroom structure? Will a more personalized approach lead to better
outcomes for students who have struggled in the existing system?
Though the concept of student-centered learning has grown increasingly popular in
education reform circles in recent years, there is no single, commonly accepted definition
of the term. Though advocates may share a common diagnosis of what ails the American
education system, student-centered learning encompasses numerous teaching practices
and theories. And it may look very different when practiced by different educators in
different schools. Later in this paper, we will examine some of the examples of studentcentered learning now being implemented or piloted in New Hampshire. In general,
however, student-centered learning may be said to include the following concepts:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Student choice is given priority in the learning process, with students encouraged
to direct the form that their learning takes.
Teachers act as guides or facilitators in the learning process, not solely as
conveyors of information.
Students often work in teams to solve a problem or explore a concept, rather than
answer prescribed questions or memorize material.
Students are promoted when they prove they have mastered certain concepts, not
simply because they have spent a certain amount of time in a class.
Learning prioritizes creativity and the application of transferable skills and
knowledge to real problems, rather than the rote absorption of information. The
emphasis is on what students can do, rather than on the content that teachers will
present.
Learning often takes place in non-traditional settings, often outside of the
classroom or even the school building – including internships, after-school
programs, or through online courses, thus making the learning process more
“portable.”
Assessments often take the form of portfolios, performances of tasks, projectbased research, and experiments – anything other than standardized, multiplechoice tests. These assessments are seen as complex and more authentic
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
70
reflections of the kinds of tasks students will be asked to perform once they leave
school.
Many of these concepts have been employed, under different names, by educators for
decades. But the current student-centered learning movement sees the approach as a
system-wide reform, one that will transform the way learning takes place, and not just a
grab bag of strategies that teachers can dip into on occasion.50 Advocates say a studentcentered system accommodates different learning styles, as it makes it easier for learners
to progress at their own pace – addressing concerns about lack of student engagement in
the nation’s high schools.
The goal: College and career readiness
As mentioned earlier, the student-centered reform movement is closely linked to broader
efforts to improve the “college and career readiness” of American students. Among the
most prominent of these is the new set of Common Core State Standards adopted by 46
states, including New Hampshire. The Common Core refers to new benchmarks in
mathematics and language arts designed to more clearly define the set of skills students
are expected to master and better align curricula across states. The emphasis is on
“higher-order” skills, such as critical thinking and problem-solving, that will better equip
students for success in higher education and the workplace.
Districts in New Hampshire have already been transitioning to these new standards,
which are to be in full effect for the 2014-15 school year. Among the changes ushered in
by the Common Core is a new set of standardized tests. New Hampshire is one of several
states administering the SMARTER Balanced exams as part of the Common Core
implementation.
Competency-based education
Perhaps the most far-reaching of New Hampshire’s policy reforms is the replacement of
seat-time requirements with what is known as a competency-based system. This means
that high school students in the state can earn credit by showing “mastery” of a set of
skills and content (know as “competencies”) for a certain course, regardless of how much
time they need to achieve that. In other words, students do not automatically receive
credit for a course simply by spending a certain amount of time in class or working their
way through a textbook. They are held accountable to a list of skills they are expected to
master in order to complete a given course.
Progress towards a competency-based model of instruction and assessment has been
uneven, according to state education officials. A handful of specific learning initiatives,
spearheaded by the state Department of Education, have aimed to expand the options
available to districts in putting the competency policies into place.
50
“Performance Counts: Assessment Systems that Support High-Quality Learning,” Linda DarlingHammond, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010)
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
71
That shift in flexibility in how credits are awarded, which took effect in 2005 and was
required of state high schools beginning in the 2008-09 school year, opened the door for a
further slate of reforms that embody the goals of a competency-based system. In order to
allow students to earn credits outside the classroom – in school-approved settings – the
state has introduced Extended Learning Opportunities (ELOs). These offerings allow
students to design a program of study around a topic of their choosing. ELOs can take
several forms: internships, apprenticeships, job shadows, community service, performing
groups, membership on an athletic team. Students are expected to produce some kind of
summative project – a report, presentation, or portfolio, for example – displaying what
they learned from the ELO. School districts can decide whether to offer ELOs and define
the types of courses for which they will award credit.
While New Hampshire is ahead of many states in adopting state-level policies designed
to enable student-center innovations, not all districts have fully embraced these changes.
And advocates of student-centered reform acknowledge that few schools have ventured
fully into student-centered learning.
Local education spending
Figure 48 below illustrates how education expenditures were distributed in the 2011-12
school year. Of the more than $3 billion spent on public education during the 2011-2012
school year, the majority covered general student instruction and special education. The
remainder funded school administration, pupil transportation, food service, education
support activities, and facilities costs.
Figure 48: School district expenditures
School District Expenditures by Spending Category, 2011-12
Support Services
9%
Administration
9%
Plant Operations
7%
Special
Education
17%
Other
5%
Interest &
Principal on Debt
5%
Facility
Construction
4%
Transportation
4%
Food Service
1%
Instruction
39%
Source: New Hampshire Department of Education.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
72
In the past few decades, significant changes have occurred in terms of both local and state
spending on public education. Figure 49 on the following page highlights the long-term
changes in state spending on public schools since 1915.
Between 1942 and 1989, school spending increased at a compounded annual rate of
nearly 11 percent. The high rate of increase during this time is due in part to the Baby
Boom adding an influx of young people to the student population. A number of new
phenomena also emerged during this period – graduating from high school became the
societal norm, cooperative schools were established, vocational centers were created,
special education became widespread and mandatory, computers became commonplace
in most schools, and there was a period of high inflation. The spending increases during
that time reflect all those changes.
Figure 49: Historic spending of NH school districts51
New Hampshire Historic School District Spending, 1915-2012
$10,000,000,000
Spending of NH School Districts
(Logarithmic Plot)
From 1999 to 2012, the compound
growth rate has been 5.19% per annum.
$1,000,000,000
This straight line represents a
10.95% per annum compound
growth rate for 1942-1989.
$100,000,000
For 1989-1999, the compound
growth averaged 4.45% per annum.
$10,000,000
Data is incomplete for years in which
no points are plotted.
2010-11
2005-06
2000-01
1995-96
1990-91
1985-86
1980-81
1975-76
1970-71
1965-66
1960-61
1955-56
1950-51
1945-46
1940-41
1935-36
1930-31
1925-26
1920-21
1915-16
$1,000,000
Historically, New Hampshire frequently ranked below the national average in terms of
education spending as a percent of the overall economy. Between the early 1970s and the
early 2000s, state spending on elementary and secondary education as a percentage of the
gross state product consistently ranked below the national average (see Figure 50). In
recent years, the state rate has tracked closer to the national rate, but the state spending
rate remains below the national rate.
51
The Y-axis is logarithmic. On a logarithmic chart, a constant rate of increase results in a straight line.
Such charts are often used for stock market and other financial reports.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
73
Figure 50: Public school spending as percentage of the gross state domestic product
Public School Spending as a Percentage of the Overall Econom y 1971-2012
5.5%
Percentage of Economy
5.0%
US spending on elementary and secondary schools
as a percentage of US Gross Domestic Product
4.5%
4.0%
3.5%
NH spending on elementary and secondary
schools as a percentage of Gross State Product
3.0%
2011-12
2009-10
2007-08
2005-06
2003-04
2001-02
1999-00
1997-98
1995-96
1993-94
1991-92
1989-90
1987-88
1985-86
1983-84
1981-82
1979-80
1977-78
1975-76
1973-74
1971-72
2.5%
Financing local education
Total public school district revenue has increased from about $1.5 billion in 1998-99 to
more than $2.8 billion for the 2011-12 school year (see Table 13). Over this time period,
school district revenues grew at a compound rate of 4.9 percent per year. Between the
2010-11 school year and the 2011-12 school year, revenues decreased for the first time in
more than a decade. In 2010-11, total school district revenue amounted to more than $2.9
billion. In 2011-12, total school district revenue amounted to about $2.8 billion – a
decrease of 2.7 percent over the prior year.
Table 13: School district revenue
Total School
School Year
District Revenue
1998-1999
$1,525,924,563
1999-2000
$1,756,807,151
2000-2001
$1,837,546,569
2001-2002
$2,012,594,811
2002-2003
$2,036,305,245
2003-2004
$2,308,600,347
2004-2005
$2,326,415,521
2005-2006
$2,424,158,245
2006-2007
$2,518,192,808
2007-2008
$2,568,835,335
2008-2009
$2,696,787,351
2009-2010
$2,830,779,434
2010-2011
$2,938,557,934
2011-2012
$2,858,779,409
Compound Annual Rate of Increase
Increase Over
Prior Year
15.1%
4.6%
9.5%
1.2%
13.4%
0.8%
4.2%
3.9%
2.0%
5.0%
5.0%
3.8%
-2.7%
4.9%
Source: Author’s calculations based on New Hampshire Department of Education data.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
74
School district revenue is raised through a number of different sources. The major source
of district revenue is generated through local property taxes (see Figure 51). In 2011-12,
local property taxes represented about 55 percent of school district revenue. Meanwhile,
state property taxes made up only 13 percent of school district revenues.
Figure 51: School district revenue
School District Revenue by Revenue Category, 2011-2012
Statewide
Property Tax
13%
State
Foundation/
Adequacy Aid
20%
Federal Aid
7%
Other State Aid
3%
Tuition, Food,
and Other
1%
Sale of Bonds &
Notes
1%
Local Property
Tax
55%
Source: New Hampshire Department of Education.
On the regional level, the sources of school district revenue vary (see Figure 52). In many
of the wealthier regions of the state, local property taxes represent the largest portion of
school district revenue. For example, in the Greater Nashua area local taxation represents
about 60 percent of school district revenue. The regions of the state that have higher
poverty rates and lower property values tend to rely primarily on state and federal
revenue sources. For example, in the Great North Woods local taxation represents only
about 30 percent of school district revenue. State education aid represents nearly 50
percent of school district revenue. This revenue model reflects the growing efforts to
“target” state education aid to communities that lack the ability to generate school district
revenue through local taxation. However, the extent to which targeting is allowed to drive
state education spending remains a topic of considerable debate.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
75
Figure 52: School district revenue by region
School District Revenue Sources 2011-2012
100%
80%
60%
40%
Other
Federal So urces
20%
Equitable Educatio n A id
Lo cal Taxatio n
Greater
Nashua
Greater
Manchester
Greater
Concord
Seacoast
Monadnock
DartmouthSunapee
Lakes Region
White Mts
Great No.
Woods
0%
Source: New Hampshire Department of Education.
Compared to the rest of the nation, New Hampshire ranks in the bottom third in terms of
state contributions to education. In 2010-11, the year in which the latest data is available,
the state contributed 36.6 percent of total school district revenue (see Figure 53). The
national average was 44 percent.
Figure 53: State share of education funding
State Share of Public Elem entary and Secondary Education Funding, 2010-11
90%
80%
70%
U.S Average
60%
50%
New Hampshire
40%
30%
20%
10%
SD
MO
NE
IL
NV
CT
FL
PA
RI
NH
VA
NJ
MA
CO
NY
TX
AZ
ME
MD
GA
LA
IA
OH
SC
MO
US
TN
OR
WI
MS
OK
ND
UT
AR
KY
AL
KS
WY
MI
IN
WV
CA
WA
NC
MN
DE
AK
ID
NM
VT
HI
0%
Source: National Center for Education Statistics.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
76
In terms of total spending, however, New Hampshire school districts spent more per
pupil than the national average. During the 2010-11 school year, New Hampshire school
districts spent an average of $13,244 per pupil, well above the national average of
$10,560 per pupil (see Figure 54). This highlights the fact that public education in New
Hampshire is funded primarily on the local level, since state support is below the national
average.
Figure 54: Public elementary-secondary school per pupil expenditures52
Per Pupil Public School Spending by State, 2010-11
$20,000
$18,000
$16,000
New Hampshire
U.S. Average
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
UT
ID
OK
AZ
MS
TN
NC
NV
TX
CO
SD
AL
FL
SC
NM
CA
GA
KY
AR
IN
MO
WA
KS
OR
IA
VA
US
MT
MN
LA
IL
MI
NE
OH
ND
ME
WI
WV
HI
DE
NH
PA
RI
MD
MA
CT
WY
VT
NJ
AK
DC
NY
$0
Source: Annual Survey of School System Finances 2011.
Again, taking a regional perspective, per-pupil spending levels vary considerably across
the state: from a low of about $11,300 per pupil in the Greater Manchester area, to more
than $16,300 per pupil in the White Mountains (see Figure 55).
52
Source: 2011 Annual Survey of School System Finances and the U.S. Census Bureau.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
77
Figure 55: Elementary-Secondary per pupil cost by region
Cost Per Pupil by Region, 2011-2012
$18,000
$16,304
$16,000
$15,197
$14,848
$14,366
$15,045
$13,499
$14,000
$13,301
$11,344
$12,000
$11,807
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
Seacoast
Lakes Region
Monadnock
Greater Nashua
Greater
Manchester
Greater Concord
White Mountains
Great North
Woods
DartmouthSunapee
$0
Source: New Hampshire Department of Education.
Some of this variation can be explained by considering the extra expenses associated with
the difference in school populations and geography from region to region. Operating a
school with a small student body in a relatively sparsely-populated area (such as the
White Mountains) will require greater spending on transportation and will not yield as
many economies of scale – in administration, utilities and other expenses – as a school
with a larger student population in a more urbanized area (such as the Greater Manchester
and Nashua regions).
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
78
Public higher education in New Hampshire
In New Hampshire, public higher education is divided into two systems: the University
System (USNH) and the Community College System (CCSNH). The University System
is comprised of four institutions: the University of New Hampshire, Keene State College,
Plymouth State University and Granite State College. The Community College System is
comprised of seven institutions: NHTI Concord, Manchester Community College,
Nashua Community College, Great Bay Community College, Lakes Region Community
College, White Mountains Community College and River Valley Community College.
The two systems receive separate appropriations from the Legislature, which sets each
system’s state budget every two years during the budget cycle.
The past decade has witnessed significant changes in state fiscal support for higher
education, much of it driven by financial pressures from the Great Recession. Between
FY2005 and FY2009, total state support for higher education increased each year (see
Table 14). In FY2010, total state support for higher education remained essentially flat.
In FY2012, the Legislature cut total state fiscal support to higher education by almost 40
percent. Since the FY2012 appropriations cut, state support for public higher education
has increased – with total appropriations for FY2014 increasing more than 25 percent
over the prior year. Yet, total state appropriations for both FY2014 and FY2015 remain
below the level set in FY2008, prior to the recession.
Table 14: State support for higher education53
Fiscal Year
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
FY2009
FY2010
FY2011
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
FY2015
USNH
$85,583,000
$87,450,000
$92,250,000
$96,000,000
$100,000,000
$97,000,000
$100,000,000
$51,650,000
$54,650,000
$69,000,000
$84,000,000
CCSNH
$25,944,000
$25,257,000
$25,205,000
$33,038,000
$34,011,000
$36,360,000
$37,555,000
$31,650,000
$31,973,000
$40,000,000
$42,500,000
Total State
Appropriation
$111,527,000
$112,707,000
$117,455,000
$129,038,000
$134,011,000
$133,360,000
$137,555,000
$83,300,000
$86,623,000
$109,000,000
$126,500,000
Increase Over
Prior Year
1.1%
4.2%
9.9%
3.9%
-0.5%
3.1%
-39.4%
4.0%
25.8%
16.1%
Source: Author’s calculations based on Office of Legislative Budget Assistant data.
When total state appropriations are broken down by system, the recent data shows a
variation in state funding for the USNH and the CCSNH (see Figure 56). In FY2011,
total state appropriations to higher education were approximately $137.5 million. Of that
sum, USNH received $100 million and CCSNH received $37.5 million. For FY2012 and
FY2013, total state appropriations were reduced to approximately $83 million and $87
53
Total for each system refers to General Fund appropriation totals for all years except FY2012 and
FY2013. For those years Other Funds (funds from UNIQUE) were also included. Figures rounded to the
nearest thousand.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
79
million. The reduced level of support represented a loss of slightly more than 40 percent
from the previous biennial’s total appropriation.
Of the total appropriation in FY2012, the USNH received about $51.6 million – a loss of
more than 48 percent from the previous year’s appropriation. The appropriation to the
CCSNH was reduced to $31.6 million – a loss of about 16 percent from the previous
year’s appropriation.
Figure 56: State appropriations to the USNH and the CCSNH54
State Support for Higher Education by System , FY2004-FY2015
$110,000,000
$100,000,000
$90,000,000
$80,000,000
$70,000,000
$60,000,000
USNH
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2005
2006
CCSNH
$50,000,000
$40,000,000
$30,000,000
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
$0
Source: Office of Legislative Budget Assistant.
As Figure 56 shows, during the most recent budget cycle the Legislature increased
appropriations to both the University System and the Community College System. The
state appropriation to CCSNH increased from about $31.9 million to $40 million for
FY2014 – a 25 percent increase over the prior year. Meanwhile, the state appropriation to
USNH increased from $54.6 million to $69 million for FY2014 – a 26 percent increase
over the prior year. Although state fiscal support for the University System has increased
for FY2014 and FY2015, appropriations remain below the level set in FY2005.
How does New Hampshire compare?
During the past decade, New Hampshire frequently ranked 50th in national tables
comparing state fiscal support for higher education. In FY2013, New Hampshire again
ranked 50th in state support for higher education – $1.38 per $1,000 in personal income
(see Figure 57). In contrast, the U.S. average state support per $1,000 in personal income
was nearly four times greater than New Hampshire’s state support – $5.42 per $1,000 in
personal income.
54
Data reflects trends in current dollars. Not adjusted for inflation.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
80
Figure 57: NH ranks 50th in state support per $1,000 in personal income
State Support for Higher Education per $1,000 in Personal Income, FY2013
US Average
New Hampshire
NH
CO
MA
PA
VT
RI
AZ
OR
MO
NJ
FL
MI
WA
VA
OH
CT
NV
NY
ME
WI
SD
CA
MN
MD
MT
US
DE
SC
TN
TX
IA
IL
KS
IN
LA
OK
ID
GA
UT
KY
AL
NE
HI
WV
AR
MS
ND
AK
NM
NC
WY
$14
$13
$12
$11
$10
$9
$8
$7
$6
$5
$4
$3
$2
$1
$0
Source: NCHEMS Information Center (2003-2011) and Illinois State University, Grapevine Data (2012-2013).
In national tables comparing average in-state tuition at public four-year institutions, New
Hampshire also ranks at the bottom of the national list. In 2012-13, New Hampshire
public four-year institutions had the highest average in-state tuition and fees in the
country (see Figure 58). Tuition and fees averaged more than $14,500 per academic year.
Figure 58: Average in-state tuition and fees at four-year institutions
Average In-State Tuition and Fees at Public Four-Year Institutions by State, 2012-2013
$16,000
$15,000
$14,000
New Hampshire
$13,000
$12,000
$11,000
$10,000
$9,000
$8,000
$7,000
$6,000
$5,000
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
WY
UT
NM
LA
AK
WV
ID
MT
MS
NC
FL
OK
NV
NY
AR
ND
SD
NE
KS
GA
TN
IA
MO
MD
OR
TX
CO
KY
HI
WI
IN
AL
OH
CA
ME
CT
AZ
VA
MN
MA
SC
WA
RI
DE
MI
IL
PA
NJ
VT
NH
$0
Source: The College Board, Trends in College Pricing 2012, Figure 7.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
81
The changing cost of higher education in New Hampshire
In the past decade, in-state tuition has increased at all USNH institutions (see Figure 59).
Until 2011, the rate of increase followed a consistent pattern, with year to year tuition and
fee increases averaging about 7 percent55 at the University of New Hampshire, Plymouth
State University and Keene State College. Between the 2010-11 and 2012-13 school
years, year to year tuition increases averaged more than 10 percent at the University of
New Hampshire, Plymouth State University and Keene State College. Tuition and fees
have increased at a slower rate for Granite State College. Between 2006 and 2013, tuition
and fees at Granite State College increased at a rate of about 5 percent each year.
Figure 59: University System of New Hampshire tuition trends
USNH Undergraduate Tuition and Fees, 2002-2013
$18,000
$16,000
UNH
$14,000
PSU
UNH-M
KSC
$12,000
GSC
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
2012-13
2011-12
2010-11
2009-10
2008-09
2007-08
2006-07
2005-06
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
$0
Source: USNH Fact Books FY2006 - FY2013.
In-state tuition costs have also increased within the Community College System (see
Figure 60). Between academic years 2000-01 and 2011-12, per credit costs within the
Community College System nearly doubled. In 2000-01, the cost per credit was $110. By
2011-12, the cost per credit increased to $210. Since 2011-12, the cost per credit within
the CCSNH has remained level.
55
Average between 2002-03 school year and 2010-11 school year.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
82
Figure 60: Community College System of New Hampshire credit cost trends
CCSNH Per Credit Costs, 2000-2014
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
2010-11
2009-10
2008-09
2007-08
2006-07
2005-06
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
2000-01
$0
Source: Community College System of New Hampshire.
Admissions and enrollment
In the fall of 2003, USNH institutions received about 7,000 in-state, first-time freshman
applications (see Figure 61). Of those 7,000 applicants, about 5,200 were admitted and
2,400 enrolled in a USNH institution. By the fall of 2012, the number of in-state firsttime freshman applicants had increased to more than 8,700. Of the roughly 8,700 in-state
applicants in 2012, about 7,000 were admitted and 2,200 enrolled in a USNH institution.
Although the number of applicants increased by more than 25 percent from 2003 to 2012,
the number of applicants who enrolled in a University System institution decreased by
about 3 percent.
Figure 61: University System of New Hampshire freshman admission rates56
Total USNH Resident First-Tim e,
Freshm an Adm issions, 2003-2012
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
A pplied
5,000
4,000
A dmitted
Enro lled
3,000
2,000
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
1,000
0
Source: USNH Fact Book FY11-FY13.
56
Figure 37 does not include data from Granite State College, as GSC typically does not attract new high
school graduates.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
83
The graph on the previous page also shows a significant spike in applications from fall
2009 to fall 2010. The exact cause of the application spike is unclear but could be the
result of better recruitment efforts by the colleges or student utilization of the Common
Application, a standardized application used by almost 500 institutions.
In the past decade, total enrollment within the University System has fluctuated (see
Figure 62). In 2003, total USNH enrollment was about 27,000. By 2012, total enrollment
increased to about 29,000 students – an increase of 5.9 percent over ten years. While total
enrollment within the USNH increased from 2003 to 2012, enrollment is down nearly 3
percent from the peak in 2009. It is unclear if the more recent declines are a product of
the economic recovery (fewer people leaving the workforce to pursue higher education,
for instance), high tuition costs, or some other factor. The USNH enrollment trend does
match broader national trends that show declines in higher education enrollment in recent
years.
Figure 62: USNH total enrollment57
UNH-M
GSC
KSC
PSU
UNH
Total USNH Institutional Enrollm ent, 2003-2012
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Source: USNH Fact Book FY11- FY13.
In the past decade, the Community College System has also witnessed a number of
changes in enrollment (see Figure 63). In 2007-08, the institutions within the Community
College System served more than 24,000 students. By 2012-13, that number increased to
about 26,700 students – an increase of more than 11 percent. But much like the
University System, total enrollment is down from its peak. In 2011-12, the number of
students served by the Community College System peaked at 27,700 students. In 201213, about 26,700 students were served by the Community College System – a decrease of
3.7 percent over the prior year.
57
Total enrollment includes degree-seeking and non-degree seeking students, full and part-time students,
graduate and undergraduate students. Does not include non-credit students.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
84
Figure 63: CCSNH total number of students served58
WM CC
RVCC
CCSNH Total Students Served, 2007-2013
LRCC
35,000
NCC
30,000
M CC
GBCC
NHTI
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
2012-13
2011-12
2010-11
2009-10
2008-09
2007-08
0
Source: Community College System of New Hampshire.
Student debt continues to climb
Mounting student debt has become a critical policy issue on both the national and the
state level. The total amount of student debt held by U.S. graduates is more than
$1 trillion – with almost 40 million Americans carrying student debt.59 According to
current estimates, the average New Hampshire college student graduates with more than
$32,000 in student loan debt – the highest in the nation.60 If the cost of higher education
continues to climb and loans remain one of the primary sources of self-funding, student
debt will likely continue to climb.
The following chart shows average student debt for in-state graduates at Keene,
Plymouth and the University of New Hampshire. Between 2008 and 2012, average
student debt for in-state students at all USNH institutions increased (see Figure 64). In
2007, the average in-state student graduated with about $22,500 in student debt. By 2012,
the average in-state student graduated with more than $30,000 in student debt.
58
Enrollment/Students served include credit and non-credit students, full and part-time students, Running
Start students. Does not include students who take part in company training programs. Figures for 2012-13
are not finalized.
59
Source: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Student Loan Affordability: Analysis of Public Input on
Impact and Solutions”, May 8, 2013.
60
Source: Institute for College Access & Success, The Project on Student Debt:
http://projectonstudentdebt.org. The Project on Student Debt collects data from both private and public
colleges and does not distinguish between resident and non-resident students.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
85
Figure 64: Average student debt increasing at all USNH institutions61
Average Undergraduate Debt Load for In-State Students by Institution, 2007-2012
$35,000
UNH
$30,000
KSC
PSU
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Source: UNH, Keene, and Plymouth Office of Institutional Research.
61
Data may not include all private loans that students or their parents take out. Only includes loan
information received or reported to the institution.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
86
Health Care in New Hampshire: A System in Flux
As a public policy topic, health care remains at the top of the list across the country and
in New Hampshire. Three factors are likely to drive health policy conversations in the
near future. The first is the implementation of the sweeping federal health care reform
effort: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Second, efforts to control
the cost of health care have largely been unsuccessful, as the share of health care
spending as a portion of the overall economy has far exceeded growth in inflation,
guaranteeing that health care costs will remain an important topic. Finally, the aging of
the population of New Hampshire will create additional energy and policy debate around
health care.
The Center has produced reports touching on all these issues. They include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
“Expanding Medicaid: A Bottom Line Assessment” - An analysis of the potential
implications of an expansion of the state’s Medicaid program through the ACA;62
“New Hampshire’s Silver Tsunami” - An analysis of the changing demographics in
New Hampshire and its impact on the state’s health care system; 63
“Aging and the Public Long Term Care System” - An analysis of the impact of New
Hampshire’s aging population on the state’s nursing and home-and-communitybased care system; 64
“Hospital Prices, Cost Shifting and Market Forces” - An analysis of variation in
hospital pricing (including the role of hospital cost-shifting);65
“Getting What We Pay For?” - An analysis of cost-drivers in the New Hampshire
health care system;66
An analysis of regional variation in our “Health Care Dashboard.”67
A review of chief executive officer compensation at the state’s non-profit
hospitals;68
Below, we offer an overview of trends in health care spending in New Hampshire and
regional variation within that system, and a brief discussion of the Affordable Care Act as
it relates to health insurance coverage.
Federal and state policy: the changing landscape
A number of forces are reshaping the way health care will be delivered in New
Hampshire in coming years. These changes include:
•
62
The implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010;
http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/expanding-medicaid-a-bottom-line-assessment
http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/nhamp39s-silver-tsunami-aging-and-the-healthcare-system
64
http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/aging-and-the-public-long-term-care-system
65
http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/hospital-prices-market-structure-and-cost-shifting
66
http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/getting-what-we-pay-for-healthcare-spending-in-nh
67
http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/measuring-the-health-of-the-healthcare-system-nhamp39s-healthcaredashboard-2012
68
http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/executive-compensation-at-nhamp39s-non-profit-hospitals
63
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
•
•
•
•
87
Significant budgetary changes in the state’s disproportionate share program
affecting Medicaid hospital reimbursements;
Legislated changes in Medicaid reimbursements for acute medical care services;
A legislative review and assessment of the state’s certificate of need process;
Ongoing review of the rate setting process associated with the passage of SB505.
National health care reform and New Hampshire
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, enacted in March 2010, set forth two
ambitious goals for the nation’s health system: extend health coverage to the uninsured,
and slow the growth in health care costs. The Act will be phased in gradually over the
next 10 years, but the legislation promises to fundamentally change health care delivery
in New Hampshire.
The major components of the Act were:
•
•
•
providing insurance premium subsidies for some individuals not eligible for
Medicaid the enactment of a number of health insurance reforms,
providing the states with an option to expand the state’s Medicaid program to
adults with incomes less than 138 percent of the federal poverty level,
requiring that all individuals secure health insurance or else pay a fine.
The Act mandates a series of structural changes in the market as well – including the
development of health insurance exchanges and the introduction of pilot programs to
improve the cost-effectiveness of care through the Medicare program. The Kaiser Family
Foundation has developed an interactive tool which allows the user to review the various
components of the reform bill (available at healthreform.kff.org/timeline.aspx).
Some of the major components of the Act have already been implemented. As of
September 2010, health insurance plans in New Hampshire are now required to provide
dependent coverage for anyone under age 26. Previous state law mandated coverage only
for those who are unmarried, living in New Hampshire, and either enrolled as a student or
ineligible for employer-based coverage. Insurance companies are now also required to
insure children younger than 19 who have pre-existing conditions. Until this Act was
implemented, insurance companies in New Hampshire could refuse to insure anyone with
a pre-existing condition.
However, there is no small share of uncertainty regarding this program. Many states have
decided to avoid implementing components of the reform effort and leadership in New
Hampshire has joined in. Although the health care reform bill calls for each state to set up
an “exchange,” or marketplace, where people not covered through their employers can
shop for health insurance at competitive rates, New Hampshire has chosen not to develop
a state-based health insurance exchange, but rather will rely on federal efforts at
developing an exchange.
The Lewin Group, a group hired by the New Hampshire Department of Health and
Human Services to analyze impacts of the ACA on the state’s health system, estimated
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
88
the impact of providing insurance subsidies for those individuals with incomes greater
than 100 percent of the federal poverty level and less than 400 percent of the poverty
level. The Lewin report, “An Evaluation of the Impact of Medicaid Expansion in New
Hampshire,”69 estimated that this expansion in private insurance coverage would
dramatically lower the rolls of the uninsured, with an estimated 87,000 uninsured adults
purchasing health insurance coverage through the health insurance exchanges, essentially
reducing the number of uninsured by half.
Additional reductions in the number of uninsured could occur if the state decides to
expand its Medicaid program. This question is one of the major policy choices facing
New Hampshire lawmakers in the 2013-2014 legislative period. The issue has been
forced on policymakers, in a sense, by the 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision that the
Affordable Care Act could not mandate that states expand their Medicaid programs to
include new populations. How this question is resolved – expand, don’t expand, or
expand in different ways than originally imagined by the ACA – could result in a major
redesign for the largest program in state government and affect the healthcare of tens of
thousands of New Hampshire residents.70
At the heart of this decision is a set of goals that policymakers must balance as they try to
resolve this debate. Those goals could include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Expanding health insurance to cover more of the state’s population;
Calculating the long-term state budget implications of expanding Medicaid;
Maximizing the flow of federal money into the state to support Medicaid;
Reducing insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs for vulnerable populations;
Supporting healthcare providers, including hospitals, mental health centers, and
federally-qualified health clinics;
Spurring economic development.
As part of the final negotiations of the 2014-2015 budget, a commission was established
to analyze and assess whether or not, and if so how, to expand the Medicaid program.
Estimates of the impact of Medicaid expansion on health insurance coverage and other
factors were produced by the Lewin Group, at the request of the New Hampshire
Department of Health and Human Services.
Should the state move forward with an expansion, every New Hampshire resident with
incomes of up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level – roughly $14,400 for an
individual and $29,300 for a family of four – would be eligible for Medicaid. This would
cover an additional 24,000 individuals who would otherwise lack insurance based on
other provisions of the ACA.
69
http://www.dhhs.state.nh.us/sme/documents/lewin-nh-med-expansion-phase-i-report.pdf
New Hampshire is one of six states that have yet to decide whether to expand Medicaid coverage. To
date, 21 states have chosen to pursue expansion, while 23 have chosen not to, according to the Pew Center
on the States (pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/medicaid-expansion-by-the-numbers85899477236)
70
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
89
Over the next two state budget biennia, this form of an expansion would increase state
expenditures only slightly, since the federal government would pay 100 percent of the
costs of those new Medicaid recipients and as a result of increases in federal financial
reimbursement of the Children’s Health Insurance program. Health systems would see
significant financial benefit, in the form of anticipated reductions in demand for
charitable care they are currently providing to uninsured people.
State Medicaid expenditures would increase more significantly in future years, however,
when federal financial support declines. Beginning in 2017, the federal financial
reimbursement begins to decline, leveling at 90 percent federal reimbursement by 2020.
In addition, in 2020 the federal reimbursement rate for the Children’s Health Insurance
program declines as well. As a result, the Lewin report estimated that New Hampshire’s
new expenditures would total $47 million per year in 2020. While other cost savings
might offset these new expenditures, estimating the amount and timing of these offsets
with precision is difficult.
Medicaid Managed Care
State policymakers began the process of developing a managed care system for its
Medicaid program in 2011. This change would affect the 130,000 people who receive
health care coverage through this program. Since that time, the state has chosen
contractors to implement the program, but progress in implementing the new program has
been limited. The delay is primarily the result of lengthy negotiations between insurers
and providers in the development of provider networks. The program is slated to begin in
December 2013.
Medicaid Hospital Disproportionate Share payment changes71
A second policy change in 2011 – this one involving the Disproportionate Share Program
– continues to impact the state’s health care system. In past years, this program levied a
tax on the state’s hospitals and used that money to draw a matching amount of money
from the federal government. The state then used that federal money for two purposes:
First, it distributed part of it as Medicaid payments to hospitals that provide a
disproportionate share of care to Medicaid clients or the uninsured. Second, the state
diverted the remainder to the General Fund for other spending needs. While individual
hospitals may have lost or gained under this system, the hospital industry as a whole
received in return about what it was taxed.
That system was overhauled in 2011 with the writing of the 2012-13 state budget. The tax
levied on hospitals remains the same as in the prior budget biennium, but only 26 cents of
every dollar is returned to hospitals. The remaining money will now be used to pay for a
variety of Medicaid services or be put into the General Fund.
The impact of this change was an effective reduction in Medicaid reimbursement for
much of the state’s hospital sector. (Excluded from that reduction are New Hampshire’s
71
Excerpted from “Understanding the Impact of Recent Changes to NH’s DSH program.” NH Center for
Public Policy Studies. July 2011. http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/understanding-the-impact-of-recentchanges-to-nhamp39s-dsh-program
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
90
critical access hospitals, mostly smaller, rural facilities.) The cut for non-critical access
hospitals amounts to approximately 5.6 percent of total revenues, though – as shown in
Figure 65 below - some hospitals see a bigger decrease (Frisbee Memorial Hospital in
Rochester, for example) and some a smaller decrease (Portsmouth Regional Hospital). As
a percentage of Medicaid revenues, the reduction for non-critical access hospitals is much
larger, at 27 percent.
Figure 65: Impact of DSH Changes on Medicaid Payments
2010 DSH Payments as a Share of 2009 Patient Services Revenue
(Total and Medicaid)
Effective Reimbursement Rate
Reduction to Medicaid Patient Service
Revenues
Effective Net Patient Services
Reimbursement Rate Reduction
40.0%
37%
34%
35.0%
32%
32%
30.0%
30%
28%
28%
29%
27%
25%
25.0%
19%
20.0%
18%
15%
15.0%
9%
10.0%
6%
7%
6%
5%
5%
7%
6%
5%
5%
5.0%
5%
4%
2%
0.0%
Catholic
Medical
Center
Concord
Hospital
Elliot
Hospital
Exeter
Hospital
Frisbie
Memorial
Hospital
Lakes
Region
General
Hospital
Mary
Hitchcock
Memorial
Hospital
Parkland
Medical
Center
Portsmouth Southern St. Joseph
Regional
New
Hospital
Hospital
Hampshire
Medical Ctr
The
Cheshire
Medical
Center
WentworthDouglass
Hospital
Health spending growth exceeds growth in energy, taxes
Although political debates often focus on energy costs and taxation levels as factors
affecting personal income, growth in health care spending far exceeds both. Since 1970
locally raised taxes (slightly more than 2 percent of gross domestic product) and energy
spending (now approximately 9 percent of gross domestic product) have remained
relatively constant as a share of personal income – that is, personal income has grown at
roughly the same rate as these other factors. Health care, on the other hand, has taken up
an increasing share of personal income – up from 8 percent of gross domestic product in
1970 to approximately 17 percent today.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
91
Figure 66: Health Care’s Consumption of State Product Increases
at a Rate Greater than Energy and Taxes
Share of New Hampshire GDP
Energy, Healthcare and the State Budget
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
Healthcare
Energy
10
20
06
08
20
20
02
04
20
20
98
00
20
19
94
96
19
19
90
92
19
19
86
88
19
19
82
84
19
19
78
80
19
19
74
76
19
19
19
19
70
72
0%
GF +ETF Revenue as % of GSP
Source: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and U.S. Department of Energy
New Hampshire remains a high-cost, high-quality system
For several years, the Center has published an annual “Healthcare Dashboard,”
measuring the state’s health system against several areas (access, cost, public health,
infrastructure and quality) and comparing that score to peer states, as well other New
England states. New Hampshire’s overall average healthcare dashboard score is 82.5
percent, which places the Granite State at 17.5 percent below the best ranked states in the
country.72 The figure below presents the value for New Hampshire’s scores as a
percentage of the scores of the best states in the country: The lower the percentage, the
worse the performance relative to this benchmark.
The performance of the New Hampshire system varies significantly depending on the
measured characteristic. The state’s overall score is hindered by poorer scores on access
(77.0 percent), public health (77.1 percent), and cost (76.4 percent), but helped by
infrastructure (83.8 percent) and quality (98.2 percent).
72
This represents the arithmetic average of the major content area scores. The authors acknowledge that for
some factors, like hospital beds per 1,000 persons, a high value could be considered a positive measure,
rather than a negative measure, of the Health Care metric.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
92
Figure 67: New Hampshire Dashboard Major Sector Summary
New Hampshire's Healthcare Dashboard 2012
New Hampshire Compared to the Top Five States in the US
98.2%
83.8%
Cost
82.5%
77.0%
76.4%
Infrastructure
Access
77.1%
Quality
Public Health
Overall
As mentioned earlier, New Hampshire’s quality indicators demonstrate a high level of
care. However, New Hampshire’s health care is expensive, resulting in a less favorable
score on that indicator. New Hampshire’s health care expenses and insurance costs are 20
percent to 30 percent higher than similar cost measures in the least expensive states.
Hospitals: primary drivers of spending
Total health care expenditures in New Hampshire were more than $11 billion in 2010. Of
that, personal health care spending was about $10.6 billion, double the amount in 2001
($5.3 billion). More than half of New Hampshire health care expenditures go to hospitals
and physicians73. Figure 68 displays the trends in different services that comprise
personal health care spending in New Hampshire. Hospital services constitute about 39
percent of the total, while physician and clinic services make up about 23 percent.
The health care expenditure data in Figure 68 are shown in inflation adjusted (2011)
dollars. As can be seen from the graph, all of the sectors show an upward trend, meaning
that all types of health care expenditures grew faster than the rate of inflation from 1990
to 2011.
73
The modern hospital has changed from just a single building to an array of sites and centers with
virtually every health care service available. Most services that were traditionally done within the main
hospital can now be done at another location. Therefore, the hospital of yesteryear has become the more
comprehensive health care provider of today.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
93
Figure 68: Personal Health Care Spending by Provider
NH Personal Health Care Spending in 2011 Dollars, 1990-2011
$4,500
Hospital Care
Physician Services
Other Professional Services
Dental Services
Home Health Care
Prescription Drugs
Other Non-Durable Medical Products
Durable Medical Products
Nursing Home Care
Other Personal Health Care
$4,000
Expenditure ($ millions)
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
$0
Year
Source: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
Health care spending in New Hampshire has been increasing at an annual rate of about 7
percent per year. Spending on hospital care, the largest single category of personal health
care spending, has also been increasing and at the fastest rate: almost 9 percent annually.
Price changes are driving health spending
Our analysis of health spending in the hospital sector suggests that population increase
and changes in the underlying patient demographics accounted for less than 10 percent of
the growth in health care spending from 2003 to 2009 in New Hampshire. Changes in
prices accounted for the single largest share of the change (39 percent over that time
period) followed by our measure for technological change (32 percent). Increases in
utilization came in next, accounting for approximately 22 percent of the total change over
that period.74
Not all health systems are the same
Across virtually all measures, New Hampshire’s rural health systems – largely the state’s
critical access hospitals – fare more poorly than those in more urbanized areas. This
raises important questions about the state’s policy directives over the past 10 years. By
providing the rural critical access hospitals with cost-based reimbursement, the federal
Medicare program has provided additional financial support. Moreover, state policy
makers have consistently protected the rural hospitals from budgetary reductions – both
through outpatient reimbursement levels, and in the most recent reform of the state’s
Disproportionate Share Program. That these hospitals remain in financial difficulty, with
74
See “Getting What We Pay For” for additional information (http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/gettingwhat-we-pay-for-healthcare-spending-in-nh)
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
94
below average quality measures, raises important questions about whether these efforts
have been or can be effective in ensuring access to high-quality, low-cost health care.
Figure 69: Variation in Cost and Quality in Hospital Service Areas , 2012
Regional Dashboard Scores for Cost vs. Quality
High Quality, High Cost
High Quality, Low Cost
Dover
Plymouth
Derry
Portsmouth
Exeter
Rochester
Manchester
Peterborough
Keene
Nashua
Colebrook
Woodsville
New London
Concord
Quality
Berlin
Franklin
Laconia
Claremont
Low Quality, High Cost
North Conway
Wolfeboro
Lancaster
Lebanon
Low Quality, Low Cost
Littleton
Cost
At the same time, there is significant variation in the financial status, cost and quality of
care within these categories of hospitals. As shown in Figure 69 above, there are a
number of systems that show high quality and low cost within the state. These include the
Plymouth, Derry, Peterborough, Keene, Manchester and Nashua systems. These systems
provide an opportunity for policy makers to understand the set of policies that result in
high quality and low costs services, arguably the best outcome in the health care system.
Health care and the economy
Rising health insurance costs mean that health insurance consumes a larger portion of
family income and therefore the family budget, as illustrated in Figure 70. Since 2000,
health insurance premiums as a share of family income have grown to approximately 18
percent. And the role of health care spending in the overall economy has grown at a
similar pace. Moreover, New Hampshire businesses perennially identify health care as
one of the most important policy questions.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
95
Figure 70: Private Health Insurance Compared to Family Income
Average Family Health Insurance Premium
as % of Mean Family Income in New Hampshire
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
12.4%13.0%
14.8%
14.0%
15.0%
15.4%
18.2%
16.9%
14.8%
10%
10.2%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2008
2009
2010
2011
Year
Source: The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) and American Community Survey (ACS)
Personal health care spending75
Figure 71 displays the different services that personal health care spending in New
Hampshire goes towards. Hospital services constitute about 39 percent of the total, while
physician and clinic services make up about 23 percent.
Figure 71: Health Care Expenditures by Type
Projected Personal Health Care Expenditures in NH 2012 (in $ million)
Nursing Home Care,
$769
Other Personal
Health Care, $515
Durable Medical
Products, $151
Other Non-Durable
Medical Products,
$210
Prescription Drugs,
$1,231
Hospital Care,
$3,906
Home Health Care,
$334
Dental Services,
$686
Physician Services,
$2,555
Other Professional
Services, $333
75
New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies. “Health Care 101”
Total:
$10,688 million
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
96
Annual health insurance premiums
In 2011, the average annual premium for single person coverage in New Hampshire was
$5,818 – 11.4 percent higher than the national average. The average premium for family
coverage in New Hampshire was $16,902 – 12.5 percent above the national average. The
average premium for two-person coverage in New Hampshire was $11,700 – 13.3
percent above the national average. As shown in Table 15Table 15: Annual Growth in
Health Insurance Premiums, for both single coverage and family coverage, the compound
average rate of increase in premiums in New Hampshire between 2000 and 2011 was
about 9 percent, well above the rate of inflation in the same period.
Table 15: Annual Growth in Health Insurance Premiums
Average Annual Employee Contribution to Health Insurance
New Hampshire
United States
Annual
Annual
2000
2011 increase
2000
2011 increase
Single coverage
$470
$1,237
9.20%
$450
$1,090
8.38%
Family coverage
$1,752
$4,205
8.28%
$1,614
$3,962
8.51%
2-person coverage
n/a
$2,719
n/a
$2,736
-
While the average health insurance premium accounts for about 18 percent of mean
family income, Figure 72 below shows that ratio varies across the state. In general, health
insurance is more expensive, as a share of mean family income, in New Hampshire’s
rural areas. In Coos County, the average health insurance family premium is about 27
percent of the mean family income. In Rockingham County, the cost of a health insurance
premium is less than 16 percent of mean family income.
Figure 72: Average Insurance Premium Compared to County Family Income (ACS)
Average Family Health Insurance Premium as % of Mean Family
Income in New Hampshire 2011
30.0%
27.1%
25.0%
23.2% 22.4%
21.3% 20.9%
20.0%
19.2% 19.8%
18.3%
17.4%
15.6%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
ac
k
Hi
lls
bo
ro
ug
h
R
oc
ki
ng
ha
m
er
rim
M
G
ra
fto
n
St
ra
ffo
rd
he
sh
ire
C
Be
lk
na
p
Ca
rro
ll
an
Su
lliv
C
oo
s
0.0%
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
97
Aging and the health care system76
Among the impacts of the aging of the population will be a change in the demand for
health care services, as older residents tend to spend a significantly higher share of their
income on health care goods. This change in demand will vary considerably across
sectors of the health care system, with Medicaid, Medicare, and private pay insurance
companies experiencing the impact of an aging population in different ways. In addition,
impact will vary considerably across the state, as certain regions of New Hampshire age
quicker than others. Some will see an increase in the elderly population because of inmigration, while others will age in place, with current residents growing older. Each
situation will present different sets of challenges to the health care system. The major
finds from our simulation of the aging process are summarized below.
Medicare’s role in the health care system will grow significantly. Our simulations of
health care spending show Medicare taking on an increasingly larger share of the total
health care expenditures. One of the counter-intuitive findings from this analysis is that
the aging of the population may require the provision of not more, but fewer, services by
the health care system. As has been noted in other work, Medicare payment levels are
lower than average patient expenses within the 26 health systems in New Hampshire.
One of the implications of the aging of the population is that significant pools of
currently privately insured individuals will shift from the relatively more lucrative private
market to the Medicare market. This will put pressure on the health system to provide
more with less, given both current levels of Medicare reimbursement and the potential for
future Medicare reimbursement reductions, which increasing Medicare market share will
likely allow.
The shifting financial focus of Medicaid. Our simulations of health care spending show
that a substantial shift in the financial focus of the state’s Medicaid program will occur as
the population ages. Currently, approximately 25 percent of total direct medical
expenditures made by the Medicaid program are accounted for by those over the age of
65. Assuming only changes in the underlying demographics, 52 percent of the medical
expenditures in Medicaid will be attributable to those over 65. As the population ages,
and without significant changes in the underlying mix of services, the share of Medicaid
program expenditures associated with long-term care will increase very quickly.
Pressure on private insurance premiums will grow. As noted earlier, health care
premiums have been growing quickly in New Hampshire. An aging population will
accelerate that growth for two reasons. First, older individuals use more – and more
expensive – health care. Second, as the market share of Medicare increases, hospitals and
other providers will try to shift the cost of losses associated with Medicare to the private
premium.
76
Excerpted from “New Hampshire’s Silver Tsunami: Aging and the Health care System.” New Hampshire
Center for Public Policy Studies, Sept. 2011.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
98
Aging and the Public Long-Term-Care System77
The Center also simulated the impact of aging on service use and spending in the public
long-term-care system. We simulated an effort to control long-term-care costs with an
increasing emphasis on community based care. And we also reviewed other public
supports – financial support, housing, and information and care-management initiatives –
which likely would have an impact on the state’s ability to meet its goals of ensuring that
seniors can live in their communities.
Our major findings include the following:
Demand for long-term-care services will increase. New Hampshire is aging and aging
more quickly than the rest of the country. If we assume that elderly New Hampshire
residents eligible for the state’s Medicaid program in 2020 will use services at the same
rate as the elderly did in 2011, the number of individuals participating in the program will
increase rapidly, increasing slightly more than 30 percent over the next 10 years. These
trends will put pressure on the state to reevaluate the existing moratorium on the
construction of nursing homes, as well as budgetary limits on home-and-communitybased care services.
Long-term-care spending will rise steadily. Our simulations clearly demonstrated that
the impact of aging alone – assuming no change in the underlying service mix being
provided – would result in 4 percent annual increases in spending over the next 10 years,
and slightly more than 7 percent including an inflation factor for cost of business
increases. This far exceeds historic growth in revenues and raises questions about the
financial sustainability of the long-term-care system. While New Hampshire’s counties
now have financial responsibility for the long-term-care system, county financial
exposure is capped, leaving the state at risk for significant increases in spending.
Planning for an aging New Hampshire is far from finished. Many agencies have
responsibility for serving the elderly in one form or another – the Bureau of Elderly and
Adult Services, Division of Family Assistance, the Housing Finance Authority, Legal
Services, among others. With varying levels of sophistication and detail, each of these
has data and, occasionally, strategic plans which identify priorities given an aging
population.
However, there does not appear to be a comprehensive assessment of how the various
public sector services are, or should be, integrated. One example: There is little doubt that
the goals established by the Department of Health and Human Services with respect to
balancing community-based and nursing-home care are fundamentally affected by the
decisions made on elderly housing by the Housing Finance Authority, by local
communities providing tax exemptions to the elderly, and other organizations responsible
for housing decisions in the state. But the level of coordination among these efforts is not
as high as it could be.
77
Excerpted from “Aging and the Public Long Term Care System.” NH Center for Public Policy Studies.
October, 2012. http://www.nhpolicy.org/UploadedFiles/Reports/Aging_and_the_LTC_Systemv5test.pdf
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
99
In summary, our simulations of aging in New Hampshire indicate a potential for
significant increase in long-term-care expenditures. Over the last 10 years, the primary
policy response in the long-term-care arena has been an increase in home-andcommunity-based-care services. A continued emphasis on the substitution of home-andcommunity-based care for nursing home demand may help slow the growth in long-termcare spending associated with the aging of the population. However, the increases in the
aging population and potential demand for long-term-care services are likely to
overwhelm any existing policy changes. This possibility suggests that a broader approach
may be required, bringing together resources and services from multiple levels of
government – including welfare expenditures at the county and local levels – and across
various state activities – including housing, financial grants for low income elderly as
well as health and human services nursing and home and community based care.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
100
Energy Use
In recent years, concerns over climate change and price volatility within the energy
market have raised policy concerns about national and state energy consumption. In New
Hampshire, as elsewhere, these concerns have brought the issues of renewable energy
and energy independence to the policy agenda. Given the high per-unit costs of energy in
New Hampshire, and the implications for both residents and businesses, the policy focus
on energy in New Hampshire will only intensify in the future.
Even though New Hampshire businesses and residents pay more per unit of energy than
almost all other states, the state has one of the lowest per-capita energy consumption rates
in the country – ranked 43 out of 51. This is due in part to the state’s relatively low
proportion of energy-intensive heavy industry (see Figure 73). In 2011, the industrial
sector represented only 12 percent of energy use in the state. The figure also illustrates
that the transportation and residential sectors account for the lion’s share of state energy
use – almost two-thirds of total usage.
Figure 73: Transportation accounts for a third of energy use in New Hampshire78
New Hampshire's Energy Use by Sector (2011)
Transportation,
103.4, 35%
Industrial, 35.3,
12%
Residential,
86.8, 30%
Commercial,
66.6, 23%
Unlike other parts of the country, New Hampshire has no in-state sources of fossil fuels
or uranium. 79 Thus, to meet the energy needs of state businesses and residents, most
energy must be imported. Imported energy provided slightly more than 90 percent of the
state’s gross energy inputs in 2009. New Hampshire is well known for its abundant
natural resources – including forest resources and water resources. Yet, wood-related
energy and hydroelectric energy account for only a small portion of the state’s overall
78
79
Source: U.S. Department of Energy in Trillions of British Thermal Units (BTUs).
Fossil fuels refer to coal, natural gas and petroleum.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
101
energy consumption – about 7 percent when combined. With such a large percentage of
New Hampshire’s energy resources met through imported source, the state’s energy
supply is vulnerable to disruptions from weather, price volatility, changing dynamics in
the commodities market, political unrest, and other factors beyond our control.
The figure below helps illustrate New Hampshire’s energy consumption by fuel type and
the state’s reliance on imported energy sources (see Figure 74). Imported fossil fuels
account for more than 50 percent of the state’s energy consumption. However, the state
has seen an increase in the amount of nuclear electric power produced by the Seabrook
Nuclear Power Plant since it became operational in 1990. In 2011, consumption of
locally generated nuclear electric power accounted for almost 25 percent of the state’s
energy consumption.
Figure 74: Petroleum & nuclear energy account for almost two-thirds of consumption80
New Hampshire's Energy Consumption by Fuel Type (2011)
Other, 0.8, 0%
Biomass, 30.7,
8%
Coal, 24.5, 6%
Hydroelectric
Power, 15.6, 4%
Natural Gas, 72,
19%
Nuclear Electric
Power, 87.5, 23%
Other Petroleum,
4.3, 1%
Residual Fuel Oil,
Motor Gasoline,
3, 1%
82.3, 22%
Distillate Fuel Oil,
41.5, 11%
Jet Fuel, 3.5, 1%
LPG, 13.9, 4%
The state has attempted to address its energy needs through several policies. Residents
are already encouraged to invest in renewable energy sources through a series of tax
incentives on the local, state, and federal levels. More recently, the state has committed to
obtaining 25 percent of New Hampshire’s energy needs from renewable sources by the
year 2025. The Renewable Energy Act in 2007 established renewable portfolio standards
that require electricity suppliers to increase their percentage of power generated by
different renewable energy sources until 2025. This will require at least two major
changes: 1) reduce overall energy use; and 2) increase the total amount of renewable
energy in the gross energy use mix.
80
Source: U.S. Department of Energy in Trillions of British Thermal Units (BTUs)
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
102
In early 2013, the state began to lay the groundwork for the development of a ten-year
energy strategy.81 The new energy strategy is intended to include sections on renewable
energy, fuel diversity and energy efficiency.
Figure 75 shows total renewable energy consumption as a percent of total energy
consumption for New Hampshire, the other New England States, and the U.S.
Figure 75: NH ranks third among New England states in renewable energy use.82
Renewable Energy Consumption in New England States as a Percentage
of Total Consumption
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Vermont
Connecticut
Maine
Rhode Island
U.S.
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
08
05
11
20
20
20
02
20
96
93
90
87
84
81
78
75
72
99
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
69
19
63
66
19
19
19
60
0%
Although the state has been focused on obtaining more energy from renewable sources,
there has been some controversy over two issues relating to renewable energy. One
controversy surrounds the transmission of renewable energy sources. The Northern Pass
is a proposed project to build power lines that will transmit energy from hydroelectric
power plants in Canada to a converter terminal in Franklin and then to a substation in
Deerfield. The proposed project has encountered heavy opposition from groups who see
the lines as harmful to the environment and natural beauty of the state. Others worried
that private land could be seized under eminent domain. Both of these concerns were
addressed in the 2012 legislative session. Senate Bill 361, signed into law in June 2012,
established a commission to study the feasibility of running transmission lines
underground. HB 648, signed into law in March 2012, updated existing eminent domain
law to prevent private project developers from using eminent domain to take private land.
In June 2013, the developers of the Northern Pass project announced a new proposed
route. The new proposed route will limit the number of private properties affected by the
transmission line and also includes plans to bury a section of the transmission line.
81
82
Source: SB 191-FN-A http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2013/SB0191_HA.html
In Trillions of British Thermal Units (BTUs).
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
103
In addition, New Hampshire is a participant in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
(RGGI), which authorizes a mandatory cap-and-trade program for CO2 emissions from
fossil-fueled power plants among ten northeastern states. Quarterly auctions on emissions
credits give power companies the opportunity to bid for emissions credits.
New Hampshire had been receiving between $3 million and $4 million per quarter from
the RGGI auctions, an amount determined by the auction price of carbon in the RGGI
market. More recently, with the increase in demand for emissions credits, New
Hampshire has received more than $5 million per auction. The auction proceeds are
funneled towards projects aimed at improving energy efficiency or reducing demand.
These projects can engage non-profits, utilities, businesses, residents, municipalities,
universities, and schools to reduce emissions and increase energy education efforts.
In July 2013, Governor Maggie Hassan signed into law two bills relating to RGGI. House
Bill 306 made a number of revisions to the current rules regarding the regional
greenhouse gas initiative. The bill altered the process for retiring RGGI allowances and
added consumer protection measures. House Bill 630 relates to the allocation of auction
proceeds from the RGGI program. The bill states that, “in allocating the proceeds, the
commission shall first allocate at least 15 percent of the amount of the proceeds to the
low-income core energy efficiency program.”
Figure 76 illustrates the increasing demand for CO2 emissions credits. Between the 3rd
quarter in 2010 and the 4th quarter in 2012, demand for CO2 emissions credits began to
drop in relation to how many credits were offered for sale. The drop in demand during
that time period was probably due to reductions in the demand for electricity associated
with the recession. As the economy has recovered, demand for CO2 emissions credits has
increased.
Figure 76: Demand for CO2 has caught up to the quantity offered
RGGI Auction Results 2008-2013
Tons of CO2 Offered and Sold
50,000,000
45,000,000
Quantity Offered
Quantity Sold
40,000,000
35,000,000
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
9/
2
12 5/2
/1 00
7 8
3/ /20
18 08
6/ /20
17 09
/2
9/ 00
9/ 9
12 20
/2 09
3/ /20
10 09
/2
6/ 01
9/ 0
9/ 20
10 10
12 /20
/1 10
/2
3/ 01
9/ 0
2
6/ 01
8/ 1
20
9/ 1
7 1
12 /20
/7 11
3/ /20
14 11
/2
6/ 01
6/ 2
2
9/ 01
5/ 2
2
12 0
/5 12
3/ /20
13 12
/2
6/ 01
5/ 3
20
13
0
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
104
New Hampshire’s Environment
New Hampshire’s coastline, lakes, mountains, and other natural resources both enhance
the quality of life for residents and help attract visitors. The state’s natural landscape is
another element of the “New Hampshire Advantage” and may help drive the location
decisions of one of New Hampshire’s most important resources – human capital. The
quality of the environment clearly drives the state’s tourism industry, a critical revenue
source. Thus, discussions about the state’s environmental policy are, ultimately, also
discussions about economic policy.
Air pollution
The major contributor to air pollution in New England is the burning of fossil fuels. The
burning of fossil fuels causes a number of different air pollutants to be released into the
environment – including mono-nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and
mercury. High levels of air pollution cause smog, which can lead to asthma and other
respiratory problems. Air pollution can also impact ozone levels, resulting in wheezing,
lung damage, and inflammation83.
The EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory estimated that the PSNH Merrimack Station in Bow
released about 2.25 million lbs of emissions in 2009, the most of any power plant in the
state by far.84 To reduce dangerous emissions, the PSNH Merrimack Station installed a
system designed to ‘scrub’ out sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions which are produced
through the burning of coal. The scrubber system has successfully reduced the amount of
dangerous emissions the PSNH Merrimack Station releases into the air.85
Although the measures taken by the PSNH Merrimack Station to reduce emissions are a
step in the right direction, a large share of the state’s air pollution actually originates in
other parts of the country. A 2004 analysis by the NHDES and EPA estimated that at
least 92 percent of New Hampshire’s ozone and small particle air pollution is a direct
result of air pollution transported via wind patterns.86
Ground-level ozone is emitted when nitrous oxides (NOx) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) combine with oxygen in the air. Man-made sources of these two
pollutants include automobiles, power plants, solvents, and industrial boilers. Like other
pollutants, nitrous oxides and volatile organic compounds can be emitted in areas upwind
of New Hampshire and travel to the state, greatly increasing the state’s ozone pollution
count as measured by monitoring sites within the state. High levels of air pollution can be
dangerous to certain vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly and those with
chronic illnesses. High ground-level ozone and other air pollutants can also lead to
83
Source: Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa.gov/glo/health.htm.
Source: EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory, 2009
85
Source: http://www.psnhnews.com/press-releases/environmental-award-presented-psnh%E2%80%99smerrimack-station
86
Source: Air Pollution Transport and How it Affects New Hampshire, New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services (NHDES), May 2004.
84
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
105
wheezing, shortness of breath, increasing asthma rates, and higher chance of respiratory
illnesses like pneumonia.87
The American Lung Association tracks the number of days each state fails federal
standards for ground-level ozone and particle pollution standards.88 According to the
tracking data from the American Lung Association, there is some variation in air quality
across the state (see Figure 77). In the most recent data, Hillsborough and Rockingham
Counties had the highest number of orange high ozone days.89 Grafton and Cheshire
Counties had no orange high ozone days. Meanwhile, Cheshire County had the highest
number of orange particle pollution days. Grafton and Belknap Counties had no orange
particle pollution days.
Figure 77 shows the number of orange days for all counties included in the American
Lung Association data. Although some counties in the state ranked poorly in the past,
every county saw a reduction in ozone from 2005-2007 to 2009-2011. The reduction may
have been caused by the recession, as a large percentage of the emissions that create
ground-level ozone and particle pollution come from man-made sources.
Figure 77: The number of unhealthy ozone days has decreased90
Number of Orange Days by County
30
2001-2003
2005-2007
25
2009-2011
20
15
10
5
87
R
oc
ki
ng
ha
m
M
er
rim
ac
k
H
ills
bo
ro
ug
h
G
ra
fto
n
C
oo
s
C
he
sh
ire
Be
lk
na
p
0
Source: New Hampshire Environmental Public Health Tracking Program.
Source: American Lung Association State of the Air report card, 2012.
89
Orange days are defined as days in which the 8-hour concentration of ground-level ozone is .076-.095
parts per million.
90
Sullivan, Carroll, and Strafford counties are not listed due to incomplete data
88
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
106
Water Quality
New Hampshire has an abundance of water resources. The state boasts more than 16,900
miles of rivers and streams and 164,615 acres of lakes and ponds, including almost 1,000
lakes greater than ten acres in size. Despite having the shortest coastline of any coastal
state – just an 18-mile stretch – New Hampshire has a rich seacoast environment, both for
the state’s tourism industry and for ecological balance.
To capture the full impact of the coast on New Hampshire’s wildlife, it is important to
note that the state’s tidal waters extend much farther inland; tidal wetlands are common,
occupying nearly 600,000 acres – almost 10 percent of the state’s land area. The state’s
major estuary, Great Bay, creates 144 additional miles of tidal coastline. These areas are
home to thousands of species of birds, fish, fungi, crustaceans, mollusks, and plants.
The map below (Figure 78) illustrates the state’s five major drainage basins: Connecticut,
Merrimack, Androscoggin, Saco, and Coastal.
Figure 78: Drainage Basins of New Hampshire
91
91
A drainage basin is an extent of land where water from rain or snow melt drains downhill into a body of
water, such as a river, lake, or ocean.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
107
The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) maintain a catalog of surface waters and periodically issue
assessment reports. Surface waters are assessed as supporting or not supporting five
designated uses: aquatic life, primary contact recreation (swimming), secondary contact
recreation (boating), drinking water supply, and fish and shellfish consumption.
In 2010, as in past years, the EPA classified all New Hampshire surface waters as
impaired for fish consumption due to mercury in fish tissue from atmospheric
deposition.92 This has led to the statewide freshwater fish consumption advisory in New
Hampshire. Exposure to high levels of mercury can cause severe health issues in humans,
including neurological, kidney, genetic, cardiovascular, and developmental disorders. 93
Additionally, New Hampshire currently has 21 sites on the national superfund list for
long-term clean up of hazardous waste. These sites pose a potential danger to local water
quality. A majority of the 21 sites on the national superfund list are located in
Hillsborough and Rockingham Counties.94
Drinking water
The quality of drinking water is also a concern for New Hampshire citizens. According to
the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, all states must release an annual compliance report
that includes data on all public water system violations. In New Hampshire, the
Department of Environmental Services is responsible for compiling the annual report.
The 2012 compliance report shows that there were a number of violations involving
improper monitoring of systems, water contaminants, and failure to notify consumers
among other measures. The majority of violations were due to improper monitoring of
systems or lack of monitoring. But, a number of violations involved water systems
exceeding the maximum contaminant levels – contaminants found include uranium,
radium and arsenic. Health impacts of poor drinking water quality may range from short
term illness to reproductive disorders, neurological disorders, and cancer.95
New Hampshire’s aging water infrastructure may pose a problem for future water quality
and result in additional costs for communities. New Hampshire currently has 2,427 active
public water systems, and the infrastructure in many communities dates back 50 to 100
years, making it difficult to maintain and replace. Although the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund established by Congress makes loans of approximately $8 million per
year to aid New Hampshire public water systems in improving their infrastructure, the
demand for this program far exceeds the funds.
92
Atmospheric deposition is the process where gases, precipitation, and other substances move from the
atmosphere to the surface of the Earth. Mercury is found both naturally and as a man-made by-product.
Mercury present in water can be absorbed by fish through their tissue and through ingestion.
93
Source: Mercury: Sources, Transport, Deposition, and Impacts, New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services, 2003
94
Superfund is the Federal government's program to clean up the nation's uncontrolled hazardous waste
sites. http://www.epa.gov/region01/superfund/.
95
Source: New Hampshire Environmental Public Health Tracking Program.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
108
In recent years, a number of committees have been established to review the water
infrastructure issue. In 2011, Governor Lynch established the Water Sustainability
Commission to develop a report on water infrastructure and sustainability in New
Hampshire. In December 2012, the Commission published their findings and
recommendations in a final report. The Commission found that water resources play a
vital role in the state’s economic advantage and infrastructure improvements will be
needed to ensure New Hampshire does not lose this advantage.96 According to the
Commission, the necessary infrastructure upgrades and repairs could cost more than $3
billion.
A major question is where funding to improve the water infrastructure in New Hampshire
could come from. Municipalities are under increasing stress from other areas of their
budgets, making it difficult for them to fully fund such projects. In testimony before the
U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Water and
Power, DES Water Division Director Harry Stewart explained that towns could finance
infrastructure projects by charging residents the full price for water rates.97 Towns
currently charge residents well below the cost of delivering water. But, affordable water
services are part of the state’s competitive advantage. Burdening residents and businesses
with higher costs could potentially damage this advantage. For now, the future of funding
for water infrastructure improvements remains uncertain.
Another important policy issue is water use. Water use by households is known as
domestic water use and can either be self-supplied (i.e. through a private well) or
supplied publicly through local utility or municipal services. Domestic water use
accounts for only about 7 percent of New Hampshire’s total water withdrawals. The
primary water withdrawers are agriculture, industry, and thermoelectric power plants.98
In 2005, the latest year in which data is available, about 42 percent of the state’s
population used private wells. The remaining 58 percent used water from public water
systems. Figure 79 shows the breakdown in how the population in each county obtains
water.
96
Source: New Hampshire Water Sustainability Commission Final Report, “New Hampshire Lives on
Water”, December 2012. http://www.nh.gov/water-sustainability/publications/documents/wsc-finalreport.pdf
97
Source: Testimony of Harry Stewart, Hearing for U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Subcommittee on Water and Power, December 2011
98
Source: USGS, Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2005
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
109
Figure 79: Private wells account for a large portion of the population in each county99
Population Served by Water Source (2005)
Domestic Self-Supplied
450
Public Supply-Surface
Water
Public SupplyGroundwater
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
n
bo
ro
ug
h
M
er
r im
ac
k
R
oc
ki
ng
ha
m
St
ra
ffo
rd
Su
lliv
an
H
ills
G
ra
fto
C
oo
s
C
ar
ro
ll
C
he
sh
ire
Be
lk
na
p
0
On the national level, only about 14 percent of the U.S. population used water from a
private well in 2005 – down from 17 percent in 1985. 100 In contrast, the percentage of the
New Hampshire population relying on private wells has increased – up from 36 percent
in 1985 (see Figure 80). New Hampshire’s higher percentage of people with private wells
may be due to its lower level of urbanization compared to the rest of the country.
99
Latest data put out by the U.S. Geological Survey; population in 1,000s.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey.
100
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
110
Figure 80: The population served by private wells has been increasing101
New Hampshire's Population Served by Water Source
800
700
Population Served
by Public Supply
Self-Supplied
Population
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
The amount of water used by people served by public wells has been increasing along
with the number of people using private wells. Between 1985 and 2005, the amount of
water withdrawn from private wells nearly doubled, from 21.65 million gallons a day
(mg/d) to 41.65 mg/d. However, between 2000 and 2005, the amount of water withdrawn
from private wells increased only 1.5 percent. This may have been due to more diligent
conservation methods or more water-efficient appliances. New Hampshire’s domestic
water use per capita was 75 gallons per day, well below the U.S. average of 98 gallons
per day.
101
Population in 1,000s.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
111
Politics and Place
The New Hampshire political landscape has changed significantly over the past two
decades. Perhaps most notably, there has been a large increase in the percentage of socalled “independent” voters since changes in state law made it easier for voters to retain
the “undeclared” status. Undeclared voters can choose to participate in either party’s
primary election, while also remaining unaffiliated with a specific political party. Voters
whose views line up with one political party may choose to be undeclared so that they are
able to vote in either primary, so all undeclared voters are not truly moderate or nonpartisan. But the growing share of independent voters among the state’s electorate has
given them an increasingly powerful sway in New Hampshire’s elections over the past
two decades.
Figure 81 shows the percentage of voters registered by Republican, Democrat and
undeclared affiliation, according to data from the New Hampshire Secretary of State. The
percentage of registered Republicans has been declining since the early 1990s, although
there was a slight increase from 2010 to 2012. The percentage of Democrats had been
relatively stable since the mid-1990s, with an increase in 2008.
Figure 81: Voter registration has moved toward non-affiliation102
Party Registration in New Hampshire
50%
Undeclared
45%
Republican
40%
35%
30%
25%
Democrat
20%
15%
10%
1980
1984
1988
1992
Republican
1996
2000
Democrat
2004
2008
2012
Undeclared
Voting patterns have changed
One of the implications of New Hampshire’s changing demographics has been a
significant change in the voting behavior of the state’s residents. New Hampshire was
once a state that voted predominantly Republican in presidential elections, with
Democrats winning the state’s popular vote in just six elections between the Civil War
102
Source: NH Secretary of State’s Office
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
112
and 1992. On the state level, Republicans have traditionally enjoyed reliable majorities
within the Legislature.
But the two parties have won and lost equally in the past decade’s elections. Democrats
won historic majorities in both chambers of the state Legislature in 2006 and 2008. By
the 2010 elections, Republicans had won back even wider majorities in the House, Senate
and the Executive Council, as well as both congressional seats. More recently, the tables
turned again in 2012, with Democrats taking back the House by a 42 seat majority and
winning back seats in the Senate to reduce the Republican majority to only 2 seats. In
addition, Democrats have a 3-2 majority in the Executive Council and took both
congressional seats in 2012. A breakdown of the majorities in the Governor’s Office, the
Senate, and the House since 1992 are shown in Figure 82.
Figure 82: A breakdown of majorities in the New Hampshire government103
New Hampshire State Government
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Governor
Senate
House
Republican majority
Democratic majority
Presidential elections in the “First in the Nation” state
While New Hampshire’s importance in presidential general elections has waxed and
waned over the years, the state has long been regarded as a bellwether in the presidential
primary process. New Hampshire has held the first presidential primary in the nation
since 1920. In order to preserve this unique status, state lawmakers have continually
made sure that other state’s primaries are not held before New Hampshire’s. In 1996, a
state statute was further amended so that the primary would be held “on the Tuesday at
least seven days immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a
similar election,” since other states sometimes changed the dates of their primaries.
Although only a few delegates are determined in New Hampshire, a win for a candidate
in the New Hampshire primary is a large boost in the eyes of the rest of the country – in
particular the national media, campaign donors and supporters in other states.
Given the state’s history of a Republican-leaning electorate, presidential candidates had
typically abandoned the state once the last primary votes had been tallied. But in recent
years, New Hampshire’s status as a “swing state” has made it a key battleground in the
general election season as well. This has held true, even though the state has just four
electoral votes at stake. Still, New Hampshire is generally more conservative than the
other New England states.
Participation among the voting age population has been at or above the U.S. average
throughout the past thirty years. Figure 83 tracks the voter turnout of the voting age
population in presidential general election years since 1980. Two possible explanations
for this level of political participation among New Hampshire citizens is the high level of
103
Source: Ballotpedia’s “Who Runs the States, New Hampshire”
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
113
involvement demanded at the local level and New Hampshire’s status as a “swing state,”
especially in the past two decades.
Figure 83: New Hampshire voter turnout follows a similar trend to the U.S. average104
Voter Turnout of Voting Age Population in Presidential Elections
80%
New Hampshire
70%
60%
50%
United States
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
New Hampshire: the most represented state in the country
New Hampshire was one of the original thirteen colonies to declare independence from
Great Britain. However, before their independence, the people of New Hampshire ratified
a constitution – the first state constitution in the country – on January 5, 1776, six months
before the signing of the Declaration of Independence. A day later, the New Hampshire
House of Representatives was created.
When New Hampshire’s House of Representatives was created in January 1776, its size
was fixed as a direct ratio to the state’s population in order to ensure adequate
representation. The first House had 87 members, each member representing 100 families.
The number of members in the House grew with the state’s population, until close to 450
Representatives filled the Legislature. A constitutional amendment in 1942 capped the
House at 400 members, the number still elected today. Including the 24-member Senate,
the New Hampshire Legislature is the largest state legislative body in the United States,
and the third-largest legislative body in the Western world, after the U.S. Congress and
the British Parliament.
New Hampshire is the most-represented state in the country – that is, it has the lowest
ratio of people per state representative and senator of any of the fifty states. Figure 84
104
Source: George Mason University’s United States Elections Project
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
114
shows number of residents per state lawmaker, including both the House and Senate.
Each member of the New Hampshire General Court represents about 3,105 people. The
least represented state in the country is California; each of the 120 members of the
California legislature represents about 310,450 citizens – almost a hundred times New
Hampshire’s ratio.
Figure 84: Number of residents per state lawmaker
Although New Hampshire has the most state legislators of any state in the country, the
Granite State pays its lawmakers the second lowest salary in the nation at $100 per year,
as they are considered to be a “citizen” legislature. New Hampshire legislators do not
receive pensions nor do they get paid per diem. The only state whose legislators have
lower salaries is New Mexico, where lawmakers do not make a salary (although they
receive per diem pay). The highest salary for lawmakers among the states is in California,
where they earn $95,291 per year plus per diem pay.105
105
National Conference of State Legislatures; compiled by the Empire Center for Public Policy
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
115
Local Governance
New Hampshire maintains a strong emphasis on local control in the funding and
management of government. At the same time, cities, towns and counties are being
forced to adapt in the face of growing fiscal pressures, a sluggish economy and
demographic shifts across the state.
The town meeting106
Perhaps nothing exemplifies New Hampshire so much as the local town meeting. This
annual gathering of residents – in which local budgets are set, neighborly ties solidified,
and all residents given an opportunity to weigh in – occupies a central place in the state’s
sense of itself. Yet the nature of the town meeting has changed in recent years, affecting
an increasing number of New Hampshire residents.
The Legislature in 1995 passed Senate Bill 2 (SB2) that transformed the process of local
governance for many communities. Under SB2, towns can choose to conduct the business
of the traditional town meeting through the ballot, allowing residents to vote on town
budgets and other issues through a quick trip to the polls, rather than an hours-long
meeting. The goal of SB2 was to bring more residents into the decision-making process.
Voters can elect to adopt SB2 for either the town or the school district, or both. A threefifths majority vote is needed to adopt SB2 or to rescind it and return to the traditional
meeting format.
Under SB2, towns and school districts are required to:
•
•
•
Hold a public hearing convened by the board of selectmen or school board to
discuss the proposed budget and warrant articles (with the exception of zoning
amendments) for placement on the preliminary warrant;
Hold a deliberative session (one for town, one for school) at which residents are
afforded the opportunity to discuss and amend the articles as presented on the
preliminary warrant;
Hold the official ballot vote on the second Tuesday in March, at which eligible
voters will approve or disapprove the operating budget and warrant articles as
written on the ballot.
As of 2012, one-third of the state’s residents live in a town with a “traditional” town
meeting, one-third live in municipalities where a city council has governing authority,
and one-third live in communities that have adopted SB2 or another type of the “official
ballot” form of governance, which replaces the town meeting with a ballot process. (See
Figure 85)
106
Source: New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies: SB2 at 5: Bonds, Ballots, and the
‘Deliberative Session,’ Richard Minard and Melissa Gagnon, March 2002, and SB2 Adoption and
Rescission Votes: 1996-2006.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
116
Figure 85: Towns by type of governance in 2012
SB2 has similarly transformed New Hampshire’s school districts. As of 2012, the SB2 or
“official ballot” form of government was used in 40 percent of the state’s school districts,
and those school districts contained 56 percent of New Hampshire’s student population
(see Figure 86).
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
Figure 86: School districts by type of governance in 2012
117
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
118
Crime and Corrections
As in corrections systems across the United States, New Hampshire’s prisons have been
locking up more people for longer terms than ever before. However, even as the prison
population has increased, crime rates have fallen in New Hampshire and across the
country. Due to the increasing inmate population and the increasing costs associated with
the system, significant policy efforts have been devoted to controlling the growth in the
number of prison inmates. In the early 2000s, the state moved aggressively into
alternative sentencing models (including the now defunct Academy program). Most
recent efforts under the Justice Reinvestment Act of 2010 have focused on reducing
recidivism, or the re-arrest of former prisoners, while protecting the safety of New
Hampshire residents. The state has also seriously considered privatizing at least part of its
corrections system in an effort to save costs.
Crime in New Hampshire
In 2011, New Hampshire had one of the lowest crime rates in the country. The states of
New Jersey, Virginia, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, Idaho, North Dakota and South
Dakota all had crime rates below New Hampshire’s (see Figure 87). While New
Hampshire violent crime rate per person ranked 48th lowest in the country (ahead of
Vermont and Maine), New Hampshire’s property crime rank was 39th lowest in the
country, causing New Hampshire’s overall crime rate to be 42nd lowest among the
states.107
Figure 87: Crime Rates per hundred thousand people by State
Crime Rates per hundred thousand people in 2011 by State
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
New Hampshire
3,000
2,000
1,000
S.
D.
on
n.
Id
ah
o
C
.
.H
Va
.
Pa
.
N
e
M
on
t.
M
ai
n
.I.
M
as
s.
Ky
.
R
Ill
.
eb
r.
N
ta
h
U
M
is
s.
In
d.
O
re
.
O
hi
o
.
.C
N
O
kl
a.
G
a.
Ar
iz
.
Fl
a.
Te
nn
.
C
D
107
La
.
0
Typically in any jurisdiction property crimes outnumber violent crimes by a factor of ten to one.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
119
The District of Columbia had the highest crime rate, at 5,998 crimes per 100,000
residents. South Carolina, at 4,476 per 100,000, had the highest crime rate of any state,
followed by Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, New Mexico and Florida.
The following chart (Figure 88) compares the New Hampshire crime rate, or the number
of crimes per 100,000 residents, to the United States crime rate, from 1960 to 2011.108
Historically, New Hampshire had fewer crimes per person than the nation as a whole. In
2011, New Hampshire’s crime rate was 2,472 per 100,000 residents – 25 percent lower
than the national average of 3,295 per 100,000 residents.
Figure 88: All Crimes Rate
All Crimes Rate
Crimes per hundred thousand people, FBI Uniform Crime Reports
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
19
60
19
63
19
66
19
69
19
72
19
75
19
78
19
81
19
84
19
87
19
90
19
93
19
96
19
99
20
02
20
05
20
08
20
11
0
New Hampshire
United States-Total
Although New Hampshire’s crime rate is lower than the national average, the state’s
crime rate follows the same pattern of increase and decrease. In general, the crime rate,
both in New Hampshire and nationally, has been declining since the early 1990s109.
108
The rate per 100,000 people is shown to control for changes and differences in populations across years
and groups.
109
The increase in the New Hampshire crime rate in the last three years (2008 through 2011) is due to an
increase in property crime – specifically larceny-theft. The New Hampshire larceny-theft rate, per 100,000,
was 1,414.4 in 2007, and then increased to 1,688.2 in 2008 and 1,774 in 2011. Shoplifting and theft from a
motor vehicle, crimes included in larceny-theft, increased in New Hampshire in those years.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
120
Many reasons could explain the rise in the crime rate in the 1960s and 1970s – and many
reasons could explain the decline in the rates after 1980. Some factors that are known to
impact the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place include:110
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Population density and degree of urbanization;
Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration;
Stability of the population with respect to residents’ mobility, commuting patterns,
and transient factors;
Modes of transportation and highway system;
Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability;
Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics;
Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness;
Climate;
Effective strength of law enforcement agencies;
Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement;
Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial,
judicial, correctional, and probational);
Citizens’ attitudes toward crime;
Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.
Table 16 on the following page displays a further breakdown of the crime rate and
summarizes rates by the type of offense, for the years 1985 to 2011.
110
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/ucrstat.htm
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
121
Table 16: New Hampshire Crime Summary 1985-2011
Population
Violent crime
total
Murder and
nonnegligent
Manslaughter
Forcible
rape
Robbery
1985
998,000
1,405
21
191
266
927
31,049
7,608
21,459
1,982
1986
1987
1,027,000
1,057,000
1,433
1,581
23
32
221
281
242
280
947
988
32,767
34,058
7,754
7,344
22,675
24,426
2,338
2,288
1988
1,097,000
1,622
25
276
231
1,090
34,951
7,489
24,964
2,498
1989
1990
1,107,000
1,109,252
1,865
1,459
36
21
327
386
264
302
1,238
750
37,945
38,976
8,157
8,158
27,087
28,111
2,701
2,707
1991
1,105,000
1,318
40
330
365
583
36,780
8,126
26,220
2,434
1992
1993
1,111,000
1,125,000
1,397
1,550
18
23
424
499
367
307
588
721
32,828
31,131
6,909
5,795
23,754
23,153
2,165
2,183
1994
1995
1,137,000
1,148,000
1,328
1,314
16
21
407
333
308
314
597
646
29,837
29,170
5,275
4,806
22,260
22,698
2,302
1,666
1996
1,162,000
1,373
20
404
317
632
31,436
5,063
24,611
1,762
1997
1998
1,173,000
1,185,000
1,328
1,270
16
18
395
400
274
255
643
597
29,635
27,405
4,612
3,852
23,430
22,079
1,593
1,474
1999
1,201,000
1,159
18
345
257
539
26,247
3,698
21,195
1,354
2000
2001
1,235,786
1,259,359
2,167
2,144
22
17
522
458
453
445
1,170
1,224
27,901
27,089
4,992
4,889
20,761
20,060
2,148
2,140
2002
2003
1,274,405
1,288,705
2,056
1,937
12
17
446
438
413
480
1,185
1,002
26,250
26,456
4,838
4,589
19,468
19,934
1,944
1,933
2004
1,299,169
2,202
17
466
500
1,219
26,658
4,979
19,723
1,956
2005
2006
1,306,819
1,314,895
1,761
2,282
19
13
406
578
365
456
971
1,235
24,031
27,111
4,192
4,821
18,493
20,770
1,346
1,520
2007
1,315,828
1,902
12
360
440
1,090
25,903
5,121
19,399
1,383
2008
2009
1,321,872
1,324,575
2,127
2,125
14
11
400
399
424
454
1,289
1,261
28,054
28,790
4,332
4,915
22,316
22,748
1,406
1,127
2010
2011
1,316,807
1,318,194
2,204
2,478
13
17
411
429
450
474
1,330
1,558
29,230
30,106
5,444
5,749
22,789
23,383
997
974
Forcible
rape rate
Robbery
rate
Aggravated
assault rate
Property
crime rate
Burglary
rate
Aggravated
Property
assault crime total
Burglary
Motor
Larcenytheft vehicle theft
Rates are the number of reported offenses per 100,000 population
Murder and
Violent Crime
nonnegligent
Population
rate manslaughter rate
Motor
Larceny- vehicle theft
theft rate
rate
1985
1986
998,000
1,027,000
140.8
139.5
2.1
2.2
19.1
21.5
26.7
23.6
92.9
92.2
3,111.1
3,190.6
762.3
755.0
2,150.2
2,207.9
198.6
227.7
1987
1,057,000
149.6
3.0
26.6
26.5
93.5
3,222.1
694.8
2,310.9
216.5
1988
1989
1,097,000
1,107,000
147.9
168.5
2.3
3.3
25.2
29.5
21.1
23.8
99.4
111.8
3,186.1
3,427.7
682.7
736.9
2,275.7
2,446.9
227.7
244.0
1990
1,109,252
131.5
1.9
34.8
27.2
67.6
3,513.7
735.5
2,534.2
244.0
1991
1992
1,105,000
1,111,000
119.3
125.7
3.6
1.6
29.9
38.2
33.0
33.0
52.8
52.9
3,328.5
2,954.8
735.4
621.9
2,372.9
2,138.1
220.3
194.9
1993
1994
1,125,000
1,137,000
137.8
116.8
2.0
1.4
44.4
35.8
27.3
27.1
64.1
52.5
2,767.2
2,624.2
515.1
463.9
2,058.0
1,957.8
194.0
202.5
1995
1,148,000
114.5
1.8
29.0
27.4
56.3
2,540.9
418.6
1,977.2
145.1
1996
1997
1,162,000
1,173,000
118.2
113.2
1.7
1.4
34.8
33.7
27.3
23.4
54.4
54.8
2,705.3
2,526.4
435.7
393.2
2,118.0
1,997.4
151.6
135.8
1998
1,185,000
107.2
1.5
33.8
21.5
50.4
2,312.7
325.1
1,863.2
124.4
1999
2000
1,201,000
1,235,786
96.5
175.4
1.5
1.8
28.7
42.2
21.4
36.7
44.9
94.7
2,185.4
2,257.8
307.9
404.0
1,764.8
1,680.0
112.7
173.8
2001
2002
1,259,359
1,274,405
170.2
161.3
1.3
0.9
36.4
35.0
35.3
32.4
97.2
93.0
2,151.0
2,059.8
388.2
379.6
1,592.9
1,527.6
169.9
152.5
2003
1,288,705
150.3
1.3
34.0
37.2
77.8
2,052.9
356.1
1,546.8
150.0
2004
2005
1,299,169
1,306,819
169.5
135.0
1.3
1.5
35.9
31.1
38.5
27.9
93.8
74.3
2,051.9
1,839.0
383.2
320.8
1,518.1
1,415.0
150.6
103.0
2006
1,314,895
173.5
1.0
44.0
34.7
93.9
2,061.8
366.6
1,579.6
115.6
2007
2008
1,315,828
1,321,872
144.5
160.9
0.9
1.1
27.4
30.3
33.4
32.1
82.8
97.5
1,968.6
2,122.3
389.2
327.7
1,474.3
1,688.2
105.1
106.4
2009
2010
1,324,575
1,316,807
160.4
167.4
0.8
1.0
30.1
31.2
34.3
34.2
95.2
101.0
2,173.5
2,219.8
371.1
413.4
1,717.4
1,730.6
85.1
75.7
2011
1,318,194
188.0
1.3
32.5
36.0
118.2
2,283.9
436.1
1,773.9
73.9
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
122
Arrest rates are generally twice as high for men as for women in the same age group.
Arrest rates are also generally four times higher for residents in their early twenties,
compared to residents in their forties, a pattern that is consistent across all crime types
and by gender.
The New Hampshire Superior Court system handles about 16,000 criminal cases each
year.111 The top 15 criminal case types represent about two thirds of the Superior Court
criminal caseload in any year. Drug-related cases alone account for one sixth of the
Superior Court’s annual criminal caseload. Close to half of all criminal cases result in a
plea of guilty, while about one third are dismissed.
While New Hampshire’s crime ranking is among the lowest of the states, crime and
criminal justice still represent a significant social and economic cost to its citizens.
Placing crimes in a “clock” measurement, one property crime offense is committed every
18 minutes, and one violent crime offense is committed every 4 hours in New Hampshire.
However, very few criminal offenses result in an arrest. Of the reported criminal offenses
in 2011, less than one-third of violent crimes and less than 15 percent of property crimes
in New Hampshire resulted in an arrest.
Public safety is an important, and expensive, part of government activity. The state,
county and municipal governments spend about $1 billion per year on programs related
to public safety and justice. This includes activity at all levels of government in New
Hampshire - municipal police, county sheriffs and jails, the state police, the state court
system and the state prison system.
Juvenile Justice in New Hampshire
Juvenile crime is declining. Contrary to the popular impression that juvenile crime is on
the rise, our analysis suggests that both juvenile crime and the provision of juvenile
justice services is on the decline in New Hampshire. Since 2008, juvenile crimes per
10,000 youth have declined from a rate of approximately 437 to below 327 in 2012. As
shown in Figure 89, juvenile male crime rates dropped from about 586 arrests (per 10,000
juveniles 11 to 17 years old) in 2007 to 432 in 2012, while female crime rates declined
from 281 in 2007 to 217 in 2012.112 Males are nearly twice as likely to be arrested for an
offense compared to females.
111
New Hampshire Judicial Branch 2009-2011 Financial and Statistical Report, page 13,
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/annualreports/financial-statistical-report-09-11.pdf
112
Persons age 17 and older are prosecuted as adults, but Department of Safety crime statistics are only
reported for the 11-17 age group.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
123
Figure 89: Recent Juvenile Crime Rates in New Hampshire
All Crime Rate per 10,000 - NH Age 11 to 17
700
600
586.1
Males
Females
581.5
548.3
531.5
500
463.6
432.2
400
300
281.5
274.8
277.4
249.7
249.2
216.7
200
100
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Source: State Arrest Reports, New Hampshire Department of Safety
The number of juveniles in the DJJS system is declining. The number of youth in the
DJJS system has also been on the decline since 2008. Thus, the demand for services
within the juvenile justice system – at least measured by the number of youth involved in
the system – has decreased. This reduction in the number of clients could continue into
the future because of a decline in the number of children in the state, and as a result of
changes in the requirement for filing a CHINS (“children in need of services”) petition.113
But understanding the relative role of program interventions versus demographic factors
on these trends is not possible, given the lack of public data available on critical
characteristics of the DJJS system.
The following Table shows the New Hampshire juvenile justice system case load by type
of service.
113
The definition of Children in Need of Services (CHINS) and the requirements for filing a CHINS
Petition changed on September 30, 2011, when changes to RSA 169-D went into effect. A Child in Need of
Services is now defined as, "a child under the age of 18 with a diagnosis of severe emotional, cognitive, or
other mental health issues who engages in aggressive, fire setting, or sexualized behaviors that pose a
danger to the child or others and who is otherwise unable or ineligible to receive services under 1 RSA 169B or RSA 169-C". The chronically truant, runaways and other less severe cases were no longer funded
under the program. However CHINS was partially restored at the end of the FY2013 legislative session.
http://www.courts.state.nh.us/fdpp/chins.htm
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
124
Table 17: Juvenile Justice Case Statistics
Youth Involved in New Hampshire Juvenile Justice Services, 2008-2012
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Deilinquency
3,378
3,309
3,313
3,003
2,880
CHINS
883
873
891
798
325
303
212
139
102
106
Diversion
Other
80
71
52
75
76
Total Number
of Cases Open
4,644
4,465
4,395
3,978
3,387
Source: Bridges Information System provided by Anastasiya Vanyukevych, Senior Data Manager, Division for Children, Youth and
Families
Cases involving minors are handled in New Hampshire’s Family Division and District
Courts. Two types of court cases involve minors in the juvenile justice system114:
•
•
Delinquency: A juvenile delinquent is a person under age 17 who has done
something that would be a crime if committed by an adult. Delinquent youth enter
as the result of a juvenile petition filed by a law enforcement officer, because the
youth has allegedly committed a crime. When a juvenile faces a delinquency
charge the juvenile taken into custody by police has the right to remain silent and
to be represented by a lawyer; the court must appoint an attorney if the juvenile
cannot afford one. Detained juveniles are never housed with adult offenders. A
juvenile is entitled to a hearing before a judge within 24 hours of arrest; there is
no right to trial by jury in juvenile court.
Children in Need of Services (CHINS): Children under age 18 who repeatedly
refuse to attend school, run away from home, or are found uncontrollable. This
definition was narrowed considerably in September of 2011. Juvenile cases may
also be filed as a CHINS petition by a parent/guardian/custodian, school official
or law enforcement officer.
The state prison system
The New Hampshire prison system houses about 2,800 inmates, at an average annual cost
of $35,000 per inmate. Nearly as many inmates are housed in the 10 county jails, at about
the same cost per inmate. However, the admissions and releases in the county system are
collectively 10 times higher than the number of admissions and releases in the state
prison system, even though the number of beds in each system is about the same.
The state prison system holds ten times as many men as women. The older inmates in the
state prison are more likely to be held for violent crimes, such as murder and sexual
assault, which tend to have longer sentences than property and drug crimes.
Approximately half of the inmates in state prison are being held for non-violent offenses.
Violent offenders – those convicted of manslaughter, aggravated assault and other
physical threats to society – make up only half of the inmate population within the walls
of the prison system, as shown in the following graph.
114
Source: “Your Guide to New Hampshire Courts”, New Hampshire Bar Association
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
125
Figure 90: New Hampshire State Prison Population by Major Offense
NH State Prison Population by Major Offense
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
Property
Violent
Public Order
Drugs Alcohol
Other Jurisdictions
500
O
ct
-0
D 9
ec
-0
Fe 9
b10
Ap
r-1
0
Ju
n10
Au
g10
O
ct
-1
D 0
ec
-1
Fe 0
b11
Ap
r-1
1
Ju
n1
Au 1
g11
O
ct
-1
D 1
ec
-1
Fe 1
b12
Ap
r-1
2
Ju
n12
Au
g12
O
ct
-1
D 2
ec
-1
Fe 2
b13
Ap
r-1
3
Ju
n13
0
According to the Department of Corrections annual report the inmates in the state prison
system are less educated than the general population. Approximately 30% of the inmates
entering a NH state prison facility have neither a GED nor high school diploma. Thirty
percent come in with a high school diploma, while about 40 % have a GED.
Approximately 275 inmates were enrolled in the Corrections Special School District on a
daily basis during the recent school year. The average student functions at the 8th grade
level (reading ability is at the 9th grade level; math at 8th grade; and language skills at
8th grade).115
The next Figure shows the state prison population grouped according to age.
Approximately 40 percent of the inmates in the state prison are over the age of 40.
115
New Hampshire Department of Corrections Annual report for FY2012
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
126
Figure 91: New Hampshire State Prison Population by Age
NH State Prison Population by Age
3500
3000
Over 60
51-60
41-50
31-40
26-30
22-25
17-21
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
3
Ju
n13
Ap
r-1
Fe
b13
ct
-1
2
D
ec
-1
2
O
Au
g12
2
Ju
n12
Ap
r-1
Fe
b12
ct
-1
1
O
D
ec
-1
1
Au
g11
1
Ju
n11
Ap
r-1
Fe
b11
ct
-1
0
O
D
ec
-1
0
Au
g10
0
Ap
r-1
Ju
n10
Fe
b10
ct
-0
9
O
D
ec
-0
9
0
Admissions to the prisons had been driven primarily by offenders known to the system –
parole violators – and not by new criminals. One of the reasons so many offenders are
considered to be violating their parole or probation orders is the use of or dependence on
alcohol or other drugs.
However, recidivism rates are improving. According to recidivism studies produced by
the New Hampshire Department of Corrections, recidivism rates among New
Hampshire’s prison population have fallen over the past three cohort years to a
recidivism rate of 43.6 percent. This is the lowest rate in five years, as shown in Figure
92.116
116
The New Hampshire Department of Corrections conducts studies of recidivism, which track offenders
released from prison each fiscal year to see how many return to prison within three years of their release. In
the above analysis, the values for FY2008 show the number of inmates returning by FY2011.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
127
Figure 92: Recidivism Has Been Declining
Recidivism at NH State Prison
700
60%
49.6%
600
48.8%
47.0%
44.2%
500
43.6%
50%
39.6%
40%
400
30%
300
20%
200
10%
100
0
0%
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
Year of Release from Prison
Inmates Returning After 3 Years
Recidivism Rate
By comparison, the national average recidivism rate is 43.3 percent, according to the
latest research from the Pew Center on the States.117
Further research into the 2007 cohort released from state prison shows that approximately
45 percent of offenders who returned to prison came back on a new sentence or for
having been arrested on new charges. Approximately 30 percent of recidivists returned to
prison for violating the conditions of their parole, referred to as “technical violations,”
and 10 percent returned for absconding from supervision. Approximately 70 percent of
the technical violations were for illegal drug use.
Figure 93: Detail on 2007 Cohort Return to State Prison
Primary Reason for Return to State Prison, FY2007 Cohort
No Data
Available, 77,
15%
New Sentence,
32, 6%
Absconded, 52,
10%
New Charges,
197, 39%
Technical
Violations, 157,
30%
117
“State of Recidivism, The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons”, Pew Center on the States, Public
Safety Performance Project, April 2011.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
128
Justice Reinvestment in New Hampshire118
In June 2009, New Hampshire requested technical assistance from the Council of State
Government’s Justice Center to help develop a statewide policy framework to increase
public safety and reduce recidivism.
In January 2010 the Justice Center released its analysis and policy recommendations to
address the growth in New Hampshire’s prison population, which had been driven by
rising recidivism rates, lack of community supervision resources, and inefficiencies in the
parole process. Those recommendations included investing in treatment for high-risk
offenders, ensuring that everyone leaving prison receive at least nine months of
supervision, and requiring the release of nonviolent offenders after they have served no
more than 120 percent of their minimum sentence.
State policymakers submitted the recommendations as Senate Bill 500 in early February
2010. The new legislation prompted considerable debate over the succeeding months as it
made its way through committees in both houses. In the end, the landmark legislation
passed both houses in early June and was signed into law by Governor Lynch on June 30,
2010.
The majority of SB 500 (Justice Reinvestment Initiative) provisions became effective by
October 1, 2010. Although the full impact of SB500 may not be known for some time,
there has been a notable short-term impact on the state prison inmate population.
Two key elements of SB 500 were (a) to release non-violent offenders after they have
served no more than 120 percent of their minimum sentences, and (b) to place a 90-day
limit on the length of time a person will spend re-incarcerated on a parole violation.
Partially due to these provisions, the state prison inmate population dropped by 300
inmates from November 2010 to November 2011. This has allowed the Department of
Corrections to close the Gym Dorm at the Northern Corrections Facility (Berlin prison)
that had to be created when the Lakes Region Facility was closed in 2009.
In 2011, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB 52, which made several
changes to the Justice Reinvestment Act. The bill has three major provisions:
1. Gives the parole board discretion to exclude a prisoner convicted of a violent
crime or a sexually violent offense who is nearing his or her maximum sentence
from mandatory supervised release.
2. Provides the parole board with discretion to extend or reduce the 90-day period of
re-incarceration for a parole violation, under specified circumstances.
3. Requires that an offender placed on probation or parole for conviction of a felony
offense that would require registration as a sexual offender or an offender against
children shall not be placed on administrative supervision--the least restrictive
level of parole supervision.
118
Full report available at: http://www.justicereinvestment.org/states/new_hampshire.
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
129
The provisions contained in SB52 have had an immediate impact on the state prison
inmate population. As shown on the following chart, the state prison population started to
rise again, increasing by 200 inmates from December 2011 to July 2013.
Figure 94 : State Prison Inmate Population Under Justice Reinvestment
New Hampshire State Prison Population
2,800
SB 500 Era
SB52 Era
2,700
2,600
2,500
2,400
2,300
2,200
Ju
l-1
Au 0
g1
Se 0
p1
O 0
ct
-1
N 0
ov
-1
D 0
ec
-1
Ja 0
n1
Fe 1
b1
M 1
ar
-1
Ap 1
rM 11
ay
-1
Ju 1
n1
Ju 1
l-1
Au 1
g1
Se 1
p1
O 1
ct
-1
N 1
ov
-1
D 1
ec
-1
Ja 1
n1
Fe 2
b1
M 2
ar
-1
Ap 2
rM 12
ay
-1
Ju 2
n1
Ju 2
l-1
Au 2
g1
Se 2
p1
O 2
ct
-1
N 2
ov
-1
D 2
ec
-1
Ja 2
n1
Fe 3
b1
M 3
ar
-1
Ap 3
rM 13
ay
-1
Ju 3
n1
Ju 3
l-1
3
2,100
Community corrections programs
Community corrections programs are an alternative to costly incarceration for nonviolent offenders. By allowing offenders to live in the community under strict
supervision, offenders can be held accountable for their actions and repay the victims and
the community for damages while the public’s safety is protected. Furthermore, the social
qualities that fuel criminal behavior, such as drug addiction, homelessness, and
unemployment, among others, can be addressed to prevent future crime.
Under the Justice Reinvestment Act, the New Hampshire Department of Corrections
established a Division of Community Corrections (DCC), which completed its first year
of existence in 2011. The DCC has engaged in developing a completely new and sciencebased approach to assessment, case management and re-entry planning for offenders,
including developing and operating the Parole Violator services at the Berlin prison. The
DCC now oversees transitional housing units, community based services for parolees at
the department district offices, assisting inmates to maintain as close a relationship as
possible to their children and families, substance use and prevention education for
offenders, counseling and educational attainment services. On the need for educational
improvement within the inmate population, it is important to note that approximately 29
percent of the inmate population enters the facilities without either a GED or high school
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
130
diploma; 42 percent of those who enter have a GED, and 29 percent have high school
diplomas.
Community corrections programs also exist outside of the state prison system. For
example, Strafford County operates several community-based corrections programs.
These programs include a bail supervision program, home confinement/electronic
monitoring, community work programs, jail-based residential drug abuse treatment, and a
step-down program for current jail inmates.119
Diversion programs
Diversion programs intervene before a non-violent, first-time offender goes to trial with
an opportunity instead to participate in a program of community service and psychoeducational classes. Merrimack County currently operates an adult diversion program for
first time felony, misdemeanor, and drug offenders.120
Across the state, the New Hampshire Juvenile Court Diversion Network121 focuses to
divert first-time juvenile offenders out of the juvenile court system and into appropriate
social services that support the juveniles and their families to prevent further delinquent
behavior. Restorative justice, the idea that the juvenile will be held accountable for
repairing the damage caused by his/her crime, is a central component to these programs.
Various non-profit, social service, municipal, and court-sponsored organizations operate
juvenile diversion programs in all New Hampshire counties.
Problem-solving courts and alternative sentencing
Problem-solving courts122 are designed to address social issues, such as drug abuse and
mental illness that are often the underlying problems of criminal behavior. By linking
participants to treatment services, these programs aim to address offenders’ substance
abuse and mental health issues that led to criminal behavior, thereby reducing recidivism
and protecting public safety. The goal, and challenge, of these courts is to balance
punishment for a crime with successful and cost-effective rehabilitation while protecting
the public’s safety.
One of the key factors distinguishing problem-solving courts from traditional courts is a
team approach. The judge, defense attorney, prosecutor, treatment provider, probation
officer, and case manager, among others, come to consensus about what sanctions and
treatment will be mandated for the offender. This shared decision-making differs
significantly from the traditional, more adversarial, approach of criminal courts.
Drug courts in New Hampshire
Three counties, Grafton, Rockingham and Strafford, have several years experience in
operating adult drug court programs for felony level offenders with substance abuse
119
Strafford County Community Corrections. http://co.strafford.nh.us/jail/community_corrections.html.
Merrimack County Diversion Program. http://www.merrimackcounty.net/html/county_attorney.html.
121
New Hampshire Juvenile Court Diversion Program. www.nhcourtdiversion.org.
122
Further discussion of drug courts and other problem-solving courts can be found at the Bureau of Justice
Assistance. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/ or the National Drug Court Institute. www.ndci.org.
120
What is New Hampshire? 2013 Edition
131
issues under the supervision of the county’s Superior Court. Sullivan County has a started
a research-based program focused on rehabilitation and offender reintegration. TRAILS
(Transitional Reentry and Inmate Life Skills) is a 90-day rehabilitation program made up
of gender-specific courses in drug and alcohol education, criminal and addictive thinking,
life skills, job development, parenting, and general education.123 Cheshire County was
recently awarded a federal grant for nearly $1 million to expand its drug court program,
which opened in June 2013 and aims to put felony drug offenders into treatment instead
of prison.124
Drug court programs connect non-violent, substance-abusing offenders to an integrated
system of alcohol and drug treatment in the community combined with strict court
supervision and sanctions. All drug court clients receive a unique treatment plan and a
program plan to address life skills, education, medical and psychological needs.
Participants receive frequent drug testing and are closely monitored by drug court case
managers and a probation officer to ensure compliance with the program requirements.
Clients testing positive for drugs or alcohol and/or who otherwise fail to comply with the
program requirements are subject to court-ordered sanctions, like additional community
service or short jail sentences. Similarly, participants are rewarded for their progress and
compliant behavior. Upon successful completion of the program and probation, offenders
may have their convictions vacated.
123
“Innovation in Tough Times: Rethinking Jail: The ‘Community Corrections’ Approach in Sullivan
County”, NH Bar Association news, http://www.nhbar.org/publications/display-news-issue.asp?id=6519
124
Our thanks to Donna Sytek, chair of the Adult Parole Board, for details on the new programs in Sullivan
and Cheshire counties.
Appendix
What is NH? 2013 Edition
Great North
Woods
White
Mountains
Region
Population 2011
34,008
50,744
125,256
Population 2000
33,991
45,961
117,514
Percent change
0.1%
10.4%
Population Under Age 18 2011
5,355
10,338
Population Under Age 18 2000
Lakes Dartmouth/Lake
Region Sunapee Region
Page 1 of 5
Monadnock
Region
Seacoast
Region
Greater
Concord
Greater
Manchester
Greater
Nashua
Total New
Hampshire
100,055
119,870
290,084
93,645
261,892
242,253
1,317,807
92,955
113,371
265,863
88,012
248,838
229,281
1,235,786
6.6%
7.6%
5.7%
9.1%
6.4%
5.2%
5.7%
6.6%
25,757
19,991
25,664
62,766
20,569
61,595
58,865
290,900
309,562
6,405
10,541
29,214
21,653
30,966
61,727
27,786
67,213
54,057
-16.4%
-1.9%
-11.8%
-7.7%
-17.1%
1.7%
-26.0%
-8.4%
8.9%
-6.0%
percent of region's population
15.7%
20.4%
20.6%
20.0%
21.4%
21.6%
22.0%
23.5%
24.3%
22.1%
Housing Units 2011
17,624
38,031
79,321
48,276
60,992
131,458
39,691
106,433
90,090
611,916
Housing Units 2000
15,890
33,086
69,063
43,253
54,752
117,299
34,912
96,510
81,759
546,524
Percent change
10.9%
14.9%
14.9%
11.6%
11.4%
12.1%
13.7%
10.3%
10.2%
12.0%
Hispanic/ Latino any race 2011
341
519
1,481
1,579
1,623
4,565
1,726
11,913
12,705
36,452
Hispanic/ Latino any race 2000
179
270
953
902
959
2,536
1,063
6,852
6,773
20,487
1,440
1,821
1,422
1,399
1,164
739
629
404
264
9,282
Percent change
Square Miles
Change from 2000 to 2011 in:
Population
Population Under Age 18
Housing Units
Hispanic
17
4,783
7,742
7,100
6,499
24,221
5,633
13,054
12,972
82,021
-1,050
-203
-3,457
-1,662
-5,302
1,039
-7,217
-5,618
4,808
-18,662
1,734
4,945
10,258
5,023
6,240
14,159
4,779
9,923
8,331
65,392
162
249
528
677
664
2,029
663
5,061
5,932
15,965
In 2011 Percent of NH's:
Population
2.6%
3.9%
9.5%
7.6%
9.1%
22.0%
7.1%
19.9%
18.4%
100.0%
Population Under Age 18
1.8%
3.6%
8.9%
6.9%
8.8%
21.6%
7.1%
21.2%
20.2%
100.0%
Housing Units
2.9%
6.2%
13.0%
7.9%
10.0%
21.5%
6.5%
17.4%
14.7%
100.0%
Hispanic
0.9%
1.4%
4.1%
4.3%
4.5%
12.5%
4.7%
32.7%
34.9%
100.0%
15.5%
19.6%
15.3%
15.1%
12.5%
8.0%
6.8%
4.4%
2.8%
100.0%
23.6
27.9
88.1
71.5
103.0
392.3
148.8
648.6
916.4
142.0
22.9%
36.8%
30.9%
11.9%
9.0%
6.0%
1.6%
0.8%
1.2%
10.4%
Land Area
2011 People per Square Mile
Seasonal Homes as % of Total
New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies
Appendix
What is NH? 2013 Edition
Great North
Woods
White
Mountains
Region
34.6%
50.0%
47.6%
3.1%
3.2%
2.7%
Non-native NH Pop
37.7%
53.1%
Population age 65 and over
19.7%
48.3
15.7%
Population Born in another state (%)
Population Foreign born (%)
Median age
Population under age 18
Lakes Dartmouth/Lake
Region Sunapee Region
Page 2 of 5
Monadnock
Region
Seacoast
Region
Greater
Concord
Greater
Manchester
Greater
Nashua
Total New
Hampshire
50.0%
53.2%
57.2%
42.2%
45.6%
60.2%
51.8%
5.3%
3.0%
3.9%
3.4%
7.5%
8.3%
5.3%
50.3%
55.3%
56.2%
61.1%
45.6%
53.0%
68.5%
57.0%
17.0%
16.4%
16.1%
14.5%
13.3%
13.2%
10.7%
11.4%
13.3%
46.8
45.5
44.3
43.0
41.9
42.0
39.7
40.7
43.9
20.4%
20.6%
20.0%
21.4%
21.6%
22.0%
23.5%
24.3%
22.1%
Economic Data for 2012
Labor Force
9,800
31,640
51,960
48,390
55,110
186,670
71,500
107,600
166,100
742,450
Employment in Households
8,950
29,910
49,260
46,360
52,200
175,430
67,870
101,700
156,600
701,320
Unemployment
850
1,730
2,700
2,030
2,910
11,240
3,630
5,900
9,500
41,130
Rate
8.7
5.5
5.2
4.2
5.3
6.0
5.1
5.5
5.7
5.5
Establishments (2011)
Employment in Establishments (2011)
Average Weekly Wage (2011)
646
2,130
3,320
2,724
2,648
10,575
3,632
7,137
5,621
38,433
7,965
25,659
40,720
46,768
39,921
151,527
58,262
119,405
91,775
582,002
$606.38
$620.31
$698.50
$981.02
$779.66
$884.54
$845.89
$918.46
$1,089.00
$909.31
In 2012 Percent of NH's:
Labor Force
1.3%
4.3%
7.0%
6.5%
7.4%
25.1%
9.6%
14.5%
22.4%
100.0%
Employment in Households
1.3%
4.3%
7.0%
6.6%
7.4%
25.0%
9.7%
14.5%
22.3%
100.0%
Unemployment
2.1%
4.2%
6.6%
4.9%
7.1%
27.3%
8.8%
14.3%
23.1%
100.0%
Establishments (2011)
1.7%
5.5%
8.6%
7.1%
6.9%
27.5%
9.5%
18.6%
14.6%
100.0%
Employment in Establishments (2011)
1.4%
4.4%
7.0%
8.0%
6.9%
26.0%
10.0%
20.5%
15.8%
100.0%
LQ BASED ON NH
Total, Private plus Government
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Construction
1.3
1.1
1.3
0.7
1.4
0.8
0.9
1.2
0.8
1.0
Manufacturing
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.1
1.3
0.8
0.6
0.9
1.7
1.0
Wholesale Trade
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
Retail Trade
1.0
1.3
1.1
0.9
1.0
1.2
0.8
0.8
1.1
1.0
Transportation and Warehousing
1.1
0.8
0.7
0.4
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.7
0.9
1.0
Information
0.2
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.9
1.1
0.4
1.6
1.1
1.0
Finance and Insurance
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.9
1.2
0.9
1.0
1.3
1.0
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
0.5
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.0
0.9
0.9
1.5
0.9
1.0
Professional and Technical Service
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.4
1.0
0.8
1.1
1.2
1.0
New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies
Appendix
What is NH? 2013 Edition
Great North
Woods
White
Mountains
Region
Management of Companies/Enterprises
0.8
0.3
0.8
Administrative and Waste Services
0.3
0.3
0.8
Educational Services
0.1
0.4
Health Care and Social Assistance
1.4
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Lakes Dartmouth/Lake
Region Sunapee Region
Page 3 of 5
Monadnock
Region
Seacoast
Region
Greater
Concord
Greater
Manchester
Greater
Nashua
Total New
Hampshire
0.0
2.1
0.8
0.4
1.5
0.7
1.0
0.5
0.6
1.2
0.5
1.3
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.0
0.9
0.6
0.8
1.1
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.6
1.1
0.9
1.2
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.5
2.3
1.4
1.0
0.7
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.7
1.0
Accommodation and Food Services
1.5
2.0
1.4
0.8
0.8
1.1
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.0
Other Services Except Public Admin
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.7
1.2
0.9
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
Total Government
1.7
1.1
1.2
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
100.0%
PERCENT OF TOTAL WAGES
Total, Private plus Government
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Construction
6.5%
4.9%
6.8%
2.0%
5.9%
3.4%
3.6%
4.8%
2.8%
3.9%
Manufacturing
9.0%
9.7%
14.3%
13.3%
18.3%
12.8%
8.5%
12.3%
27.5%
14.7%
Wholesale Trade
2.2%
2.6%
3.1%
3.2%
4.8%
5.9%
6.2%
6.3%
6.4%
7.1%
12.2%
17.0%
11.7%
6.8%
9.4%
10.2%
7.9%
8.5%
8.4%
8.9%
Transportation and Warehousing
2.1%
1.6%
1.2%
0.6%
1.8%
1.3%
1.4%
3.0%
1.2%
1.6%
Information
0.6%
1.8%
1.1%
1.9%
2.0%
3.4%
0.9%
4.5%
3.3%
2.9%
Finance and Insurance
2.1%
2.7%
2.9%
3.3%
6.3%
9.6%
6.2%
7.0%
11.8%
7.6%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
0.5%
1.1%
0.9%
0.5%
0.0%
1.1%
1.0%
1.5%
1.4%
1.1%
Professional and Technical Service
1.2%
2.6%
4.9%
6.9%
4.1%
7.8%
6.6%
8.8%
9.3%
8.0%
Management of Companies/Enterprises
1.2%
0.7%
1.9%
0.0%
5.7%
3.6%
1.2%
2.7%
1.4%
2.5%
Administrative and Waste Services
1.3%
1.5%
3.2%
1.6%
2.7%
5.6%
1.8%
4.2%
2.3%
4.0%
Educational Services
0.5%
1.0%
2.4%
0.0%
2.3%
1.4%
2.0%
2.5%
0.8%
2.9%
22.1%
17.7%
15.9%
28.2%
14.6%
12.2%
17.5%
15.1%
9.0%
14.1%
Retail Trade
Health Care and Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
0.3%
2.6%
1.5%
0.6%
0.7%
0.9%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
0.7%
Accommodation and Food Services
6.4%
10.1%
5.9%
2.6%
2.8%
3.5%
2.3%
2.6%
2.2%
3.1%
Other Services Except Public Admin
Total Government
1.5%
2.0%
2.4%
1.3%
2.5%
1.9%
3.2%
2.7%
1.7%
2.1%
27.4%
17.3%
18.3%
8.9%
14.5%
13.7%
27.4%
12.1%
9.6%
13.5%
6.5%
7.0%
3.3%
9.5%
13.3%
19.1%
4.2%
13.1%
30.7%
15.7%
$50,818
$61,736
$68,845
$75,199
$73,166
$86,362
$80,813
$84,879
$94,960
$81,537
13.7%
10.7%
10.6%
8.9%
8.7%
7.7%
7.5%
8.1%
5.1%
8.0%
Journey to Work
% of workers commuting to out of state jobs
Income
Average Household Income (2007-2011)
Percent of persons in Poverty (2007-2011)
New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies
Appendix
What is NH? 2013 Edition
Great North
Woods
White
Mountains
Region
Lakes Dartmouth/Lake
Region Sunapee Region
Page 4 of 5
Monadnock
Region
Seacoast
Region
Greater
Concord
Greater
Manchester
Greater
Nashua
Total New
Hampshire
Education
% of the adult population with a BA or better
14.7%
26.9%
28.4%
36.5%
31.1%
35.1%
35.0%
31.4%
37.6%
33.1%
Per capita spending on K-12 Education
$2,159
$2,627
$2,257
$2,305
$2,216
$2,159
$2,257
$2,033
$2,202
$2,193
2012 Property Tax Rate (average)
$19.61
$15.85
$17.22
$21.12
$22.92
$21.29
$24.23
$22.55
$23.22
$20.38
2012 Property Value per Acre
$2,639
$7,816
$28,412
$16,458
$14,161
$72,494
$32,731
$79,985
$146,526
$27,471
$71,971
$164,556
$182,650
$131,691
$92,467
$126,414
$92,365
$92,598
$111,021
$117,244
250,358
2012 Property Value per Person
Government & Politics
Democrats 2012; 250,358
Percent
Republicans 2012; 273,675
Percent
Undeclared 2012; 381,924
Percent
4,717
8,325
20,694
20,902
24,138
63,110
19,663
46,693
42,116
29.6%
24.0%
22.8%
29.9%
28.8%
29.5%
30.1%
27.5%
26.1%
27.6%
4,209
10,706
30,956
17,446
22,305
61,116
19,643
57,381
49,913
273,675
26.5%
30.9%
34.1%
24.9%
26.6%
28.5%
30.1%
33.8%
30.9%
30.2%
6,984
15,637
39,223
31,596
37,369
90,013
26,017
65,675
69,410
381,924
43.9%
45.1%
43.2%
45.2%
44.6%
42.0%
39.8%
38.7%
43.0%
42.2%
Berlin
Conway
Laconia
Claremont
Keene
Rochester
Concord
Manchester
Nashua
0
10,064
10,128
15,972
13,372
23,440
29,791
42,751
109,708
86,607
0
Criminal Justice and Families
Largest city/town in area
2011 population of largest city/town
Violent Crime Rate in Largest Town/City
Property Crime Rate in Largest Town/City
Town Spending on Police/Fire (per person)
109.3
276.5
400.7
291.7
226.1
339.0
280.7
563.3
244.8
170.8
1,629.6
4,127.2
4,683.2
3,380.2
3,459.9
3,350.0
3,012.8
3,822.9
2,459.4
2,067.5
$489
$330
$523
$311
$458
$343
$518
$371
$375
$348
Health Care
Town Spending on Health/Welfare (per person)
Hospital admissions per 1,000 persons (2008)
Number of beds in area hospitals (per 100K persons)
$34
$27
$37
$25
$28
$23
$21
$26
$18
$25
103.4
113.6
61.8
230.2
57.8
92.3
112.7
92.2
98.9
100.6
239
196
141
452
148
214
250
236
233
229
$56,380
$56,802
$54,105
$72,494
$49,938
$66,933
$64,386
$60,065
$64,603
$64,566
22.1%
17.7%
15.9%
28.2%
14.6%
12.2%
17.5%
15.1%
9.0%
14.1%
Percent of land acres held in current use
72.9%
27.9%
52.5%
68.3%
67.5%
42.1%
51.4%
34.9%
23.2%
51.8%
Percent of land in current use that is forest
22.2%
64.6%
64.1%
57.8%
62.5%
57.8%
63.5%
69.7%
61.4%
53.2%
Hospital payroll per employee
Healthcare wages as Percent of Total Wages
Environment and sustainability
Defining geography
New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies
Appendix
What is NH? 2013 Edition
Great North
Woods
White
Mountains
Region
Lakes Dartmouth/Lake
Region Sunapee Region
Page 5 of 5
Monadnock
Region
Seacoast
Region
Greater
Concord
Greater
Manchester
Greater
Nashua
Total New
Hampshire
Non-profits
Percent of town property exempt from property tax
23.5%
58.3%
12.8%
8.9%
11.8%
8.6%
11.1%
10.1%
7.8%
22.4%
Charitable giving per taxpayer (IRS zipcode)
$1,855
$2,473
$2,936
$5,618
$3,208
$2,568
$2,853
$2,128
$2,315
$2,711
0.3%
2.6%
1.5%
0.6%
0.7%
0.9%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
0.7%
35
343
388
675
648
3,191
405
3,409
1,776
11,137
Arts and media
Arts, recreation wages as % of total
Information employment
Information wages as % of total
0.6%
1.8%
1.1%
1.9%
2.0%
3.4%
0.9%
4.5%
3.3%
2.9%
Accommodation employment
1,035
4,972
5,058
3,311
2,899
14,106
3,586
8,893
6,785
52,068
Accommodation wages as % of total
6.4%
10.1%
5.9%
2.6%
2.8%
3.5%
6.2%
7.4%
7.4%
3.1%
New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies
Want to know more?
-- Become a subscriber.
The NH Center for Public Policy Studies needs you.
Since 1996 the Center has delivered to New Hampshire’s policy makers, news organizations,
and citizens objective analysis that has become the foundation for better public policy. The
Center gets no state or federal appropriation. We have survived and flourished because of the
extraordinary generosity of the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation and a growing list of
private donors. To maintain our independence, we need to broaden our base of contributors.
Our goal: 100 new contributors, each donating $1,000 for an annual subscription to our research
reports and an invitation to our policy forums.
Our guarantee: Even if you don’t subscribe, you can get our reports for free. You can download
them from our website or call and we’ll mail you copies. For free. That’s our mission: “to raise
new ideas and improve policy debates through quality information and analysis on issues
shaping New Hampshire’s future,” and to do so in ways that make the information available to
everyone: legislators, school boards, small-business owners, voters. As long as we can raise
enough unrestricted money to support our inquiry into problems that matter to New Hampshire,
we will keep making that information available at no cost to people who will use it.
Our independence: The Center is a private, nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization. Our board
of directors sets our research agenda. Unrestricted donations allow the Center to pursue topics
that grant-makers typically won’t support: local governance, school funding, and corrections.
The Center exists only because of the generosity of our donors.
To subscribe: Send a check to:
New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies
One Eagle Square, Suite 510
Concord, NH 03301
Please include your mailing address and your name as you would like it to appear in our list of
donors. Your donation is 100% tax deductible. For more information about the Center and its
work, call Steve Norton, Executive Director at (603) 226-2500 or email [email protected].
Our Supporters
The Center’s continued service to New Hampshire is possible because the following individuals, organizations, and
corporations have made generous unrestricted donations to the Center. The Center’s supporters do not necessarily
endorse, nor has the Center asked them to endorse, any of the findings or recommendations in our reports.
Corporate Donors
BAE Systems
Bellavance Beverage Company
Citizens Bank – NH
Grubb & Ellis|Northern New England
Hitchiner Manufacturing Co.
Ledyard National Bank
Merrimack County Savings Bank
Northeast Delta Dental
Public Service of NH
Sheehan Phinney Bass + Green, P.A.
Unitil
Bank of New Hampshire
Claremont Savings Bank
Fidelity Investments
Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare
Lavallee/Brensinger Architects Fund*
Manchester Community College
NH Distributors, Inc.
People’s United Bank
Regency Mortgage Corporation
Southern New Hampshire University
University of NH
Sustaining Benefactors
Endowment for Health
Lovett-Woodsum Foundation
New Hampshire Charitable Foundation
Harold Janeway
The McIninch Foundation
Putnam Foundation
Subscribers
James & Ellen Adams Bassett
John Garvey & Cotton Cleveland
Harte Crow
Steve Duprey
Doug Hall
David W. Hess
Leadership New Hampshire
NH Association of Insurance Agents
Mike Smith
Kimon and Anne Zachos*
Geoffrey E. & Martha Fuller Clark Fund*
Woolsey & Bea Conover*
Bill & Sue Dunlap
Martin Gross
Eric Herr
Hoffman Family Foundation
Andy Lietz
James & Judy Putnam
Jack and Pat Weeks
Friends
Alexander Eastman Foundation
John B. & Sharon B. Andrews
Peter Bergh & Janet Prince
Michael Buckley
Business & Industry Association of NH
Whit & Closey Dickey*
Jane Difley
Lewis M. Feldstein
Greater Manchester/Nashua Board of Realtors
William & Erika Johnson
Chuck Morse
NH Bankers Association
Richard & Elizabethanne Ober
Plymouth Area Democrats
Rick & Linda Roesch
Todd Selig
John and Donna Sytek
Paul & Paula Trombi
Vermont Bankers Association
Wellness Education for Monadnock Seniors
Scott Workman
* An Advised Fund within the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation
David Alukonis
Sherwood Bain
John Blackford
Thomas & Emilie Burack
Community Support Network, Inc.
Werner E. Dietrich
John & Patricia Dunn
Sheila T. Francoeur
Alphonse Haettenschwiller
Meredith & Center Harbor Democratic Committee
Arthur Mudge
NH School Administrators Association
John B & Alice Pepper
Charlotte Houde & William Quimby
David & Mary Ruedig
Donald Shumway
Maynard & Laura Thomson
Fred Upton
Brian Walsh & Linda Patchett
Daniel & Beverly Wolf
New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies
Become a supporter!
Unrestricted donations from supporters like you make it possible for the Center to conduct analyses on a
broad range of issues such as health care, education, corrections, and state budget trends.
Your tax-deductable contribution in any amount will allow the Center to continue its work to inform and
improve public policy in New Hampshire.
►Make a donation:
 $20,000 Sustaining Benefactor  $10,000 Major Donor
 $ 1,000 Subscriber  $ _____ Other
 $ 5,000 Donor
Multi-year commitments allow us to plan for longer term projects that yield information with the potential
for great impact.
Today’s Date:__________________
►Make a pledge:
My pledge total: $_____________________ will be fulfilled as follows:
Year 1: $ _____________
Your signature:
Year 2: $ _____________ Year 3: $ ______________
_______________________________________________
►Name___________________________________________________________________
Address_________________________________________________________________
Town, State, ZIP__________________________________________________________
Telephone_______________________ E-mail_________________________________
In the Center’s listing of supporters, please acknowledge this donation as follows:
Name___________________________________________________________________
____I wish to remain anonymous.
►As a sponsor of the Center’s work, I would like:




E-mail notices (via our newsletter) on the Center’s work
E-mail notification when the Center releases a new report
Mailed copy of each report when published
Invitations to Center- sponsored presentations & events
Please make checks payable to New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies and mail them to:
One Eagle Square, Suite 510, Concord NH 03301.
Online Donations: Now you have a safe and convenient way to lend your support to the Center's work.
We invite you to visit our website at www.nhpolicy.org and click on the gold "Donate" button.
All contributions are 100 percent tax deductible. Contact us if you have any questions, special
requests, or suggestions.
How did you hear about us? Let us know by emailing us at [email protected]
Sheila T. Francoeur, Chair
David J. Alukonis
William H. Dunlap
Martin L. Gross
Eric Herr
Dianne Mercier
Richard Ober
James Putnam
Stephen J. Reno
Stuart V. Smith, Jr.
Donna Sytek
Brian F. Walsh
Michael C. Whitney
Todd I. Selig, Emeritus
Kimon S. Zachos, Emeritus