1. health and fitness

“...to raise new
ideas and improve
policy debates
through quality
information and
analysis on issues
shaping New
Board of Directors
Todd I. Selig, Chair
David J. Alukonis
Michael L. Buckley
William H. Dunlap
Sheila T. Francoeur
Stephen J. Reno
Stuart V. Smith, Jr.
Brian F. Walsh
Kimon S. Zachos
Donna Sytek,
Immediate Past Chair
Martin L. Gross,
Chair Emeritus
John D. Crosier, Sr.
Emeritus
Executive Director
Stephen A. Norton
[email protected]
Deputy Director
Daniel R. Barrick
[email protected]
One Eagle Square
Suite 510
Concord, NH 033014903
(603) 226-2500
Fax: (603) 226-3676
What Is
New Hampshire?
A collection of data for those seeking answers
Economist
Dennis C. Delay
[email protected]
Office Manager
Cathleen K. Arredondo
[email protected]
September 2011
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
Stephen Norton
Executive Director
Daniel Barrick
Deputy Director
Dennis Delay
Economist
Betsy Bilharz
Intern
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 to it 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 also 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?
2011 Edition
Contents
What is New Hampshire? ............................................................................................................... 1
The Granite State: A regional approach.......................................................................................... 2
New Hampshire’s regions: some indicators ......................................................................................... 4
New Hampshire’s regions in depth ...................................................................................................... 7
The People of New Hampshire ..................................................................................................... 17
New Hampshire…older, wealthier, and born somewhere else ............................................................ 17
In-migration contributed to New Hampshire’s population growth ...................................................... 20
Predicting the future: the aging of New Hampshire ..................................................................... 23
New Hampshire will grow older with fewer young people................................................................. 24
Not all communities will age at the same rate .................................................................................... 26
Financial giving: community involvement ......................................................................................... 27
New Hampshire’s economy – beyond the “Great Recession”...................................................... 30
New Hampshire unemployment......................................................................................................... 32
Important industries .......................................................................................................................... 33
State policy activities in economic development ................................................................................ 34
New Hampshire real estate markets continue to languish ................................................................... 36
Energy use in New Hampshire .......................................................................................................... 39
The environment ............................................................................................................................... 42
Air pollution...................................................................................................................................... 42
Water quality .................................................................................................................................... 44
Politics and place .......................................................................................................................... 48
Voting patterns have changed............................................................................................................ 49
New Hampshire: the most represented state in the country................................................................. 50
Local governance .......................................................................................................................... 52
The town meeting.............................................................................................................................. 52
The common burden: New Hampshire public finance and services............................................. 55
What level of government provides public services in New Hampshire? .................................... 55
Services at the sub-state level ....................................................................................................... 57
Municipal services ............................................................................................................................ 57
Local public education ...................................................................................................................... 58
County appropriations ....................................................................................................................... 58
The State Budget........................................................................................................................... 59
Funding the State Budget .................................................................................................................. 60
The General Fund.............................................................................................................................. 61
The new budget: 2012-2013 ......................................................................................................... 62
Looking forward: things to watch................................................................................................. 64
Medicaid Managed Care.................................................................................................................... 64
Retirement system............................................................................................................................. 64
Hospital disproportionate share payments.......................................................................................... 64
Higher education............................................................................................................................... 65
Corrections........................................................................................................................................ 65
Revenue ............................................................................................................................................ 66
State personnel.................................................................................................................................. 66
Public education in New Hampshire............................................................................................. 71
Local education spending in 2010...................................................................................................... 72
Financing local education in 2010 ..................................................................................................... 75
History of education funding legislation ............................................................................................ 78
A new plan: defining adequacy and its cost ....................................................................................... 81
Recent changes in education funding ................................................................................................. 82
On the horizon: a constitutional amendment?..................................................................................... 83
High school dropouts ........................................................................................................................ 83
Health care in New Hampshire: A system in flux ........................................................................ 84
National health care reform and New Hampshire............................................................................... 85
New Hampshire state policy changes................................................................................................. 86
Public and private health care spending........................................................................................ 88
New Hampshire businesses play a critical role in health care ............................................................. 88
Total health expenditures as part of New Hampshire’s economy........................................................ 88
Health care as an economic engine .................................................................................................... 89
Hospital expansions and certificate of need ....................................................................................... 90
Personal health care spending in 2010 ............................................................................................... 91
Annual health insurance premiums .................................................................................................... 92
Cost-shifting by health care systems .................................................................................................. 93
Aging and the health care system ................................................................................................. 96
New Hampshire’s corrections system........................................................................................... 98
Crime in New Hampshire .................................................................................................................. 98
The state prison system ..................................................................................................................... 99
Reducing recidivism: justice reinvestment in New Hampshire ......................................................... 102
Legislative changes affecting corrections in 2011 ............................................................................ 104
Problem-solving courts and alternative sentencing........................................................................... 105
Community corrections programs.................................................................................................... 106
Appendix 1: Education Tax Rates and Spending by Town ........................................................ 107
Appendix 2: Data Describing New Hampshire’s Regions ......................................................... 113
Tables
Table 1: New Hampshire Demographics (2010 Census and American Community Survey 20052009) ............................................................................................................................................. 18
Table 2: Migration in and out of New Hampshire, 2000 to 2009................................................. 21
Table 3: New Hampshire’s Population 1990, 2000, and 2010 ..................................................... 22
Table 4: New Hampshire Charitable Contributions by Income Bracket in 2009 ......................... 28
Table 5: Contributions to Air Pollution by Source ....................................................................... 43
Table 6: Appropriations by Level of Government........................................................................ 56
Table 7: School District Revenue ................................................................................................. 75
Table 8: Annual Growth in Health Insurance Premiums.............................................................. 92
Table 9: Premiums as a Share of Income...................................................................................... 93
Table 11: New Hampshire’s Crime Rank Compared to All 50 States and the District of Columbia
....................................................................................................................................................... 98
Table 12: Trends in New Hampshire State Prison Inmates, and Social Factors......................... 100
Table 13: New Hampshire State Prison Population.................................................................... 100
Table 14: Minimum and Maximum Sentence Summary............................................................ 101
Table 15: Detail on 2005 Cohort Released from New Hampshire State Prison......................... 102
Figures
Figure 1: New Hampshire's Regions .............................................................................................. 3
Figure 2: NH Regions - Population density.................................................................................... 4
Figure 3: NH Regions - Property Values ........................................................................................ 5
Figure 4: NH Regions - Average Weekly Wage ............................................................................ 5
Figure 5: NH Regions - Adjusted Gross Income per Taxpayer...................................................... 6
Figure 6: NH Regions - Poverty Rate ............................................................................................. 6
Figure 7: NH Regions - Educational Attainment............................................................................ 7
Figure 8: New Hampshire’s Decadal Change in Population ........................................................ 19
Figure 9: New Hampshire’s net migration since 2001 ................................................................. 20
Figure 10: The Precision of Population Projections ..................................................................... 23
Figure 11: New Hampshire is growing older................................................................................ 24
Figure 12: New Hampshire will have a higher proportion of elderly residents in the future ....... 25
Figure 13: The 70-74 age cohort is projected to see the greatest increase in population ............. 25
Figure 15: The aging of New Hampshire varies across counties.................................................. 27
Figure 16: New England donors give more to secular causes and less to religious causes .......... 29
Figure 17: Comparing United States Job Losses in Post World War II Recessions..................... 31
Figure 18: Index of Employment for NH, New England, and nationally..................................... 32
Figure 19: New Hampshire's unemployment rate averaged 4.4% since 1969.............................. 33
Figure 20: Trends in Total Compensation Paid by Selected Industries in New Hampshire 1990 to
2010............................................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 21: New Hampshire real estate markets declined starting in 2004 ................................... 37
Figure 22: Foreclosure Deeds in NH ............................................................................................ 38
Figure 23: Voter registration has moved toward non-affliation ................................................... 48
Figure 24: NH Regions – Registered Voters ................................................................................ 49
Figure 25: Number of Residents per State Lawmaker.................................................................. 51
Figure 26: Towns by Type of Governance in 2010 ...................................................................... 53
Figure 27: School Districts by Type of Governance in 2010 ....................................................... 54
Figure 28: Appropriations by Level of Government in New Hampshire ..................................... 56
Figure 29: Distribution of Municipal Appropriations................................................................... 57
Figure 30: Distribution of Local School Spending, 2010 ............................................................. 58
Figure 31: Distribution of County Appropriations ....................................................................... 59
Figure 32: State Appropriations, FY2012-2013 ........................................................................... 60
Figure 33: Distribution of Appropriations by Fund Source.......................................................... 61
Figure 34: Where the Money Comes From – General Fund Revenues FY 2011......................... 62
Figure 35: General Fund Expenditures Began Declining in 2008................................................ 63
Figure 36: New revenue sources have supported the growth of the state budget......................... 67
Figure 37: State taxes as a percent of gross state product have declined ..................................... 68
Figure 38: Change in per Capita Expenditures by Major Budget Line Item ................................ 69
Figure 39: FY2010 Spending by School Districts ........................................................................ 72
Figure 40: Historic Spending of NH School Districts .................................................................. 73
Figure 41: Public School Spending as % of Measures of the Economy....................................... 74
Figure 42: School District Revenue.............................................................................................. 76
Figure 43: State Share of Education Spending ............................................................................. 77
Figure 44: Elementary-Secondary per Pupil Expenditure Amounts by State............................... 78
Figure 45: Education Funding 1998/99 and 1999/2000 ............................................................... 79
Figure 46: Percent of NH School District Revenue Provided by State Aid ................................. 80
Figure 47: Property Taxes by Function ........................................................................................ 81
Figure 48: Dropout Rate 2001-2008 ............................................................................................. 84
Figure 49: Businesses are the primary source of health insurance for NH citizens ..................... 88
Figure 50: Health expenditures as a percent GDP increased from 7 to 19 percent ...................... 89
Figure 51: Percent of Wages Earned in health care Jobs by County ............................................ 90
Figure 52: Approved New Hampshire CON Applications 1990 to 2011..................................... 91
Figure 53: Health Care Expenditures by Type ............................................................................. 92
Figure 54: Average Health Insurance Premium Compared to County Family Income (ACS) .... 93
Figure 55: Hospital Cost-Shifting, 2009....................................................................................... 94
Figure 56: Health Care Purchasing Behavior by Age................................................................... 96
Figure 57: Monthly State Prison Admissions; Total and From Parole ....................................... 101
Figure 58: Recidivism Has Been Increasing............................................................................... 102
Figure 59: Property tax rates and per pupil spending ................................................................. 112
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
1
What is New Hampshire?
As New Hampshire grapples with the lingering impacts of the Great Recession, major changes in
health care and education policy, and shifting population patterns, describing the state remains a
complicated task. New Hampshire is a state in flux. And while the implications of the changes
now underway are still unclear, they do raise critical policy questions, including:
Jobs: New Hampshire lost almost 30,000 jobs in the Great Recession. Health care and
education are the only two sectors adding positions. What is the state’s economic
development plan, especially in relation to demographic trends?
State budget: The most recent state budget made significant changes in many state
programs, including in health care, education and the corrections system. What sorts of
challenges will implementing those changes pose, both for state officials and for the
people they serve?
Demographics: New Hampshire’s population, as a whole, continues to age, and our
recent record of high growth has slowed considerably over the past decade. What are the
implications of these developments on health care, school funding, housing, and
transportation?
Politics: Political preferences in New Hampshire have shifted significantly over the last
30 years. What are the implications of politics and place on the policy issues shaping
New Hampshire’s future?
Long-term planning: The Legislature continues to face major questions about education
finance, corrections, health care, energy and many 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 governor – manage to think and plan
decades into the future on these topics?
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 and where it is going, and explore how current trends and policy
choices facing the state will shape that story and affect the well-being of its citizens. New
Hampshire is changing, and this information is one way to measure that change.
This report highlights the New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies’ 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.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
2
While this package does not presume to fully answer the question “What is New Hampshire?” it
provides a starting point for those looking for answers. There are many other sources of
information describing the New Hampshire experience.1
One thing is certain: There is no single New Hampshire. That is why we have introduced in this
year’s edition a section on the state’s regions, as a way to initiate a conversation about the
various policy challenges that will shape the future of its residents.
The Granite State: A regional approach
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 of many
communities. The New Hampshire Legislature, with 424 members, gives even the state’s
smallest communities 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 an 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 debate.
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 has faced challenges in economic
development in recent decades, 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 less tangible data – employment rates, education levels, migratory patterns,
demographic trends – 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 acknowledges and accounts for this fact will likely lead to
more deliberate decision-making.
This is not to argue against large-scale programs. Statewide economic development,
environmental or education programs can all be valuable policy tools. But a more fine-tuned
regional approach should complement broader visions for the state’s future. Compare, for
example, the economic needs of Greater Nashua, with its strong interest in strengthening
transportation networks to the Boston market, to those of the Great North Woods, whose aging
population is shaping that region’s economy in very different ways.
1
Among those that are the most useful include Vital Signs, an annual publication of New Hampshire Employment
Security that reviews the New Hampshire economy.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
3
In what follows, the Center offers a series of data-based analyses to illustrate the diversity of
New Hampshire. In defining this regional approach, we have adopted (with some modifications)
New Hampshire’s major tourism regions as a starting point. Among the changes we introduce is
dividing the Merrimack Valley Region into three sub-regions, defined by the area’s major urban
hubs: “Greater Concord,” “Greater Manchester,” and “Greater Nashua.” While there are other
models for regional categorization, such as by counties or planning regions, identifying New
Hampshire by its predominant geographic characteristics reflects the state as it is viewed and
experienced by many of its residents and visitors.
Of course, this approach is not without its flaws. A regional analysis masks many town-by-town
variations, obscuring stark disparities between different populations within a region. For
instance, statistics for the “Greater Manchester” region alone don’t illuminate the differences in
wealth, education and minority populations between Manchester and Bedford, two neighboring
communities with very different sets of challenges and opportuntiies. But, for many public
policy questions, a regional analysis offers a unique lens for understanding New Hampshire’s
major issues.
Figure 1: New Hampshire's Regions
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
4
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.2 We then examine each of those regions in
greater detail.
Figure 2: NH Regions - Population density
2010 People per Square Mile
783.7
655.9
378.6
187.6
93.0
ua
te
r
G
re
a
rM
an
G
re
at
e
N
ch
es
on
c
C
te
r
as
h
te
r
or
d
io
n
G
re
a
Se
ac
no
c
ad
D
ar
tm
ou
M
on
oa
k
st
R
eg
R
eg
eg
io
R
ee
na
p
Su
ke
th
/L
a
hi
te
W
io
n
n
n
s
ke
La
M
ou
nt
ai
ns
R
R
eg
eg
io
io
n
ds
oo
W
tN
or
th
re
a
74.5
28.1
19.2
G
112.7
One defining difference among New Hampshire’s regions is population density (Figure 2).
While it is no shock to learn that the state’s population is distributed unevenly, the disparity is
stark as you move across the state.
Generally speaking, New Hampshire’s population grows denser the further south you travel.
Population density ranges from fewer than 20 people per square mile in the Great North Woods,
to more than 780 people per square mile in the Greater Nashua region – or nearly 40 times more
people per square mile than far northern New Hampshire. The statewide population density is
142 people per square mile.
The differences in population density shape each region’s views towards land-use policy, the
environment and consolidation of public services. Not surprisingly, the three densest regions –
Greater Nashua, Greater Manchester and the Seacoast – are those closest to Metropolitan Boston.
2
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 on our website, nhpolicy.org.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
5
Figure 3: NH Regions - Property Values
2010 Property Value per Acre
$113,264
$86,909
$82,219
$28,886
$23,624
$17,918
$15,598
hu
a
N
as
re
at
er
an
c
he
st
er
rd
D
ar
tm
G
G
G
re
at
er
M
re
at
er
C
on
co
R
eg
io
n
R
eg
io
n
Se
ac
oa
st
k
R
eg
io
n
ou
th
/L
ak
M
e
on
ad
no
c
Su
na
pe
e
La
ke
s
R
eg
io
n
M
W
hi
te
G
re
at
ou
nt
ai
ns
N
or
th
W
oo
ds
$2,628
R
eg
io
n
$7,833
Property values correlate with population density in New Hampshire (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 fourth highest property values per acre. This is largely due to the many waterfront
and seasonal homes found 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: NH Regions - Average Weekly Wage
Average Weekly Wage
$1,004.59
$927.21
$900.05
$830.58
$820.92
$744.72
$681.47
hu
a
te
r
G
re
at
er
N
as
ch
es
co
rd
G
re
at
er
M
an
C
on
G
re
at
er
R
eg
io
n
Se
ac
o
as
t
R
eg
io
n
ad
no
c
on
M
La
ke
Su
na
pe
e
k
R
eg
io
n
R
eg
io
La
ke
s
ou
th
/
D
ar
tm
hi
te
M
ou
nt
ai
ns
R
eg
io
n
s
oo
d
W
W
G
re
at
N
or
th
n
$607.48
$593.66
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
6
Figure 5: NH Regions - Adjusted Gross Income per Taxpayer
Adjusted Gross Income per taxpayer (2007)
$68,370
$66,789
$65,231
$55,237
$54,781
$52,897
$56,329
$43,106
at
er
M
an
ch
es
te
r
G
re
at
er
Na
sh
ua
on
co
rd
G
re
G
re
at
er
C
Re
gi
on
R
eg
io
n
D
Se
ac
oa
st
Su
na
p
ee
La
ke
s
ar
tm
ou
th
/L
ak
e
hi
te
W
M
on
ad
no
ck
R
eg
io
n
eg
io
n
R
eg
io
n
ou
nt
ai
ns
M
G
re
at
No
r
th
R
W
oo
ds
$31,358
The two preceding charts – showing average weekly wages (Figure 4) and gross income (Figure
5) by region –illustrate the economic disparities across New Hampshire. Gross annual income
varies from about $31,000 per taxpayer in the Great North Woods to more than twice that
amount – roughly $68,000 – in the Dartmouth/Lake Sunapee region. These figures bear a
complex relation to a region’s education level, poverty rate, and mix of industries, and
employment opportunities.
The following chart (Figure 6) illustrates the poverty rate by region, another lens through which
to view the economic strength of each region. (Data is from 2009 and may have changed over the
course of the recent recession, but the relative positions of each region have remained stable.)
Figure 6: NH Regions - Poverty Rate
Percent of persons in poverty
12.7%
11.2%
10.0%
8.5%
8.0%
7.7%
7.7%
8.1%
at
er
M
an
ch
es
te
r
G
re
at
er
Na
sh
ua
on
co
rd
G
re
G
re
at
er
C
Re
gi
on
R
eg
io
n
Se
ac
oa
st
ee
Su
na
p
La
ke
s
ar
tm
ou
th
/L
ak
e
D
M
on
ad
no
ck
R
eg
io
n
eg
io
n
R
eg
io
n
ou
nt
ai
ns
M
hi
te
W
G
re
at
No
r
th
R
W
oo
ds
5.0%
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
7
Figure 7: NH Regions - Educational Attainment
Percent of adult population with a B.A. or higher
38.0%
35.4%
35.1%
33.2%
30.5%
30.4%
26.0%
25.6%
hu
a
G
re
at
er
ch
e
N
as
st
er
rd
M
an
re
at
er
G
G
re
at
er
C
on
co
R
eg
io
n
Se
ac
o
as
t
R
eg
io
n
M
on
ee
ad
no
ck
R
eg
io
n
R
eg
io
n
Su
na
p
La
ke
s
D
ar
tm
ou
th
/L
ak
e
ta
in
s
ou
n
M
hi
te
W
G
re
at
N
or
th
W
R
eg
io
n
oo
ds
14.4%
Another regional indicator tied to average income and poverty rates is education level. The
above chart (Figure 7) illustrates the percentage of the population in each state region that holds
a bachelor’s degree or higher. Generally speaking, the higher the rate of college education in a
region, the higher the average income and the lower the poverty rate.
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 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 past decade,
the region’s population total remained stagnant, with a slight drop in
residents – the only region in the state to lose population. The median
age of residents of the Great North Woods is 48.1 years, nearly four
years higher than the statewide median. And 19.5 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 here 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 job base. Other important industries here
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
8
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 $594 is the
lowest in the state.
The region’s remoteness, as well as the scarcity of economic infrastructure like high-speed
wireless Internet, poses challenges for revitalization and growth. In 2009, the Great North Woods
had the highest unemployment rate in New Hampshire: 7.8 percent. Berlin and Colebrook are the
major labor market areas.
The portion of the adult population with a bachelor’s degree, at 14.1 percent, is the lowest of any
region in New Hampshire and less than half the statewide rate of 32 percent. Residents in the
Great North Woods are the least likely to be born out of state compared to the rest of New
Hampshire: Nearly two-thirds of residents here were born in the state.
Property value per acre is the lowest of any New Hampshire region, and town property is three
times more likely to be exempt from property taxes, compared to the state average. The violent
crime rate in the area’s largest city (Berlin) is above the state average, while the property crime
rate is below the state average.3
White Mountains
The state’s 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 region’s economy is
disproportionately weighed toward
accommodation and food service, recreation,
entertainment and retail trade – all sectors
driven by the tourism industry. The region also
has the highest portion of seasonal homes in
the state (36 percent of the housing stock.)
However, the poverty rate here is the secondhighest in the state, and both average weekly wages and gross income per taxpayer are among
the lowest in New Hampshire. Partly because of the tourism-centered economy, many workers
here hold multiple jobs at once or balance several seasonal jobs throughout the year. A more
diversified economy would be one way to address this economic imbalance. Recent efforts to do
so include the development of the TechVillage in Conway, which seeks to attract smaller, fulltime employers to the region.
3
Property crime is a category of crime that includes theft, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, arson, shoplifting,
and vandalism, among other crimes.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
9
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 decade saw substantial growth in the White Mountain region. In that period, it had
the highest rate of population increase of any region in New Hampshire, with an increase of 11.2
percent. But the region still has the second smallest overall population in the state. It also has the
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 White Mountain region have sufficient and the right mix of housing stock to
provide homes for those workers in years to come?
The White Mountains has the highest portion of undeclared voters (so-called “independents”) of
any region of New Hampshire – roughly 48 percent of all voters.
Conway, the largest town in the White Mountain region, grew to more than 10,000 residents in
2010. This could mean that Conway is no longer eligible for some types of Federal assistance.
For example, the US Department of Agriculture Water and Environmental Programs (WEP)
provides loans, grants and loan guarantees for drinking water, sanitary sewer, solid waste and
storm drainage facilities in rural areas and cities and towns of 10,000 or less.
Lakes Region
Like its neighbor to the north, the Lakes Region is
a hub for outdoor 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 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 (29 percent of all housing) and the lowest average
property tax in the state. The average wage is about 20 percent below
the statewide average, while the unemployment rate was 6.5 percent in 2009, slightly higher than
the statewide rate of 6.3 percent. Construction, health care and tourism-based services account
for a large share of the region’s economic activity.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
10
The median age here is 45.6, one year older than the statewide median, and the region has the
third-highest percentage of residents over the age of 65 in the state (16.6 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. 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 working-class families, forcing many of them to live far from their
place of employment.
The Lakes Region saw a 15.5 percent increase in the number of housing units over the past
decade, the second highest number in the state. In the same period, the region’s population grew
7.2 percent, slightly higher than the statewide increase
The Lakes Region has the smallest percentage of workers commuting to out-of-state jobs of any
of New Hampshire’s regions. It also has a higher share of Republican voters than the state
average. Crime rates in Laconia, the largest city in the region, are above the state average.
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 the
only region in New Hampshire with more jobs than employed
residents. In other words, this is the only region with net incommuting for work. Many of those commuting workers
come from neighboring Vermont.
The region had the lowest unemployment in the state in
2009, at 4.9 percent. Adjusted gross income per taxpayer
and average weekly wages are 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 nearly 30 percent of all wages coming from those
industries. Hospital payroll per employee is the highest of any region in New Hampshire as well.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
11
The educational attainment in the region, as measured by the percentage of adults with a
bachelor’s degree, is higher than the state average.
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 so-called
“property poor” communities, where disparities in education spending have fueled legislative
and court debates for more than 15 years. 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 a shorthand term for the still-controversial topic. The stigma associated with the
topic 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. The lack of many affordable housing options close to the region’s major
employers underscores the importance of long-range planning. What conversations – about
public transportation, infrastructure, housing and growth – will help identify and address this
region’s needs, especially beyond the Hanover-Lebanon core?
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 for
Monadnock Region residents is 43.6, less than a
year below the state median. And the percentage of the population over
the age of 65 is likewise close to the statewide percentage (14.1 percent in Monadnock vs. 13.5
percent for all of New Hampshire.)
The Monadnock Region’s population grew by 6.3 percent over the past decade, 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 second 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
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
12
make the area the healthiest community in the country by the year 2020. Also, over the past
decade, the city of Keene has worked to address sustainability through climate protection
measures to lower greenhouse gas emissions and increase community resiliency to the expected
impacts associated with a changing climate.
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 62.1
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 housing and workforce
housing.
The region’s population increased 8.1 percent between 2000 and 2010, slightly higher than the
statewide growth rate. And the Seacoast is home to the largest share of New Hampshire’s
population of any of the state’s regions, with 21.3 percent 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 that transportation network would have considerable impacts
on economic development, the environment and the quality of life of Seacoast residents. It will
also require collaboration across town lines, forcing communities to think beyond the needs of
their individual municipalities.
The Rockingham Planning Commission has invested time and energy into this topic, including
the development of a Congestion Management Process (CMP). The purpose of a CMP is to
gather data about a region’s travel patterns and capacity with the goal of improving planning and
decision-making.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
13
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.
Nearly half 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 29 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 17
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 past decade than the rest of the Merrimack Valley
Region, increasing 7.6 percent since 2000.
Yet, especially compared to the state’s other major cities, Greater Concord is still relatively
underdeveloped. Population density here is roughly one-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 of the neighboring towns. This landscape illustrates a
fundamental tension for the region as it contemplates its future: how to accommodate growth
without undermining the desire to maintain a rural character. The ability of Greater Concord’s
residents to meet this challenge will depend on regional decisions around land use, housing,
transportation and economic development.
Recent development projects in Concord have refocused attention on the city’s downtown core,
though other communities, Suncook and Penacook are also looking for ways to reinvigorate their
commercial districts.
The region’s unemployment rate for 2009 was 5.7 percent, the second lowest in the state. The
poverty rate of 7.7 percent is identical to the statewide rate, and gross income per taxpayer here
is slightly below the statewide figure ($55,200 in Greater Concord vs. $59,800 for the state.)
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
14
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, 42.7 years, is below the statewide median of 44.5 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.
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 40.4 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 – 30.4 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 14
percent of Greater Manchester residents work out of state, slightly lower than
the statewide rate. Gross income in the region is $56,300, about 5 percent below the statewide
average.
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 options. However,
while the Greater Manchester region has the youngest population in the state, it also saw a drop
in its school-age population in the past decade 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.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
15
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.)
Voters in the Greater Manchester area are more likely to be registered Republicans, compared to
the state average. The region also has the second-highest percentage of foreign-born residents in
the state: 7.5 percent. Greater Manchester is also home to the largest share of New Hampshire’s
Hispanic population: Hispanic residents here increased 80 percent over the past decade, and
Hispanics now make up 5 percent of the region’s population.
Greater Nashua
Greater Nashua is the most densely populated region in the state, with 780 people per square
mile (twice the Merrimack Valley average and more than five 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 – 38 percent – and
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 accounts for nearly 30 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 single largest
recipient of defense contracts in the state during the last decade was BAE Systems, whose
contracts totaled $5.2 billion over the past decade.
The concentration of high-tech manufacturing jobs helps boost the
region’s incomes. Average weekly wages here are the highest in the
state at just over $1,000. And the region’s adjusted
gross income per taxpayer is the second highest,
behind the Dartmouth/Lake Sunapee region.
Property value per acre of $113,000 is the highest
of any region and nearly four 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.
The region’s growth in economic activity this has translated into increases in demand for
resources – buildable land, water, transportation and other infrastructure. The Nashua Regional
Planning Commission has met with six communities in the Nashua region and identified three
critical areas – quality of life, natural resources and transportation – which are now the focus of
the NRPC planning efforts.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
16
To help focus their activities, the NRPC held a series of focus groups in November of 2007.
Among the participants were chambers of commerce, state representatives, municipalities,
watershed councils, transit providers, state agencies, and NRPC Commissioners. Among the
forums’ findings concern about the quality of our surface water and the future of groundwater
supplies in the region. Water has long been an important policy issue in Nashua. In the 1990s,
Nashua created the Water Supply Protection District Ordinance and purchased almost 300 acres
of land to protect critical land resources from development. In 2010, the city of Nashua
purchased the Pennichuck Water Works, a private water management operation that has been
providing the majority of drinking water to the city.
Despite the region’s varied economy, more than a quarter 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? 2011 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. These trends have helped fuel the state’s relative economic strength of recent decades.
But there are reasons to think that these migration patterns are changing, which will have real
implications for New Hampshire’s future. In-migration from other parts of the country has likely
stalled as a result of the recession, with unknown consequences. New Hampshire saw a smaller
rate of population growth over the past decade than in any period since World War II. Policy
makers need to be aware that, without this engine of demographic change, New Hampshire’s
population may actually shrink in coming decades. Indeed, the underlying characteristics of the
state could change quite drastically under such a scenario.
One example: Like most states across the country, New Hampshire’s population as a whole is
getting older, while the number of school-aged children is stagnating or declining. What are the
implications of this change? Should it inspire more efforts at consolidation and regionalization of
schools and other youth services?
In fact, the general aging of the population will present both an opportunity and a challenge. The
Baby Boomer generation, having recently begun to retire, provided a strong workforce and
source of entrepreneurial energy for New Hampshire. Yet this generation’s aging will strain
social service and medical service networks across the state.
Public policy initiatives can do more than respond to these 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: 41.1 years of age
compared to 36.5. 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? 2011 Edition
18
Table 1: New Hampshire Demographics (2010 Census and American Community Survey 2005-2009)
Age and Sex
New Hampshire NH Percent US Percent
Income (in 2009 inflation-adjusted dollars)
New Hampshire NH Percent
Total households
US Percent
1,316,470
100.0%
100.0%
503,994
100%
Male
649,394
49.3%
49.3%
Less than $10,000
22,131
4.4%
100.0%
7.4%
Female
667,076
50.7%
50.7%
$10,000 to $14,999
20,253
4.0%
5.6%
Under 5 years
69,806
5.3%
6.9%
$15,000 to $24,999
40,949
8.1%
10.8%
5 to 9 years
77,756
5.9%
6.6%
$25,000 to $34,999
44,608
8.9%
10.6%
10 to 14 years
84,620
6.4%
6.8%
$35,000 to $49,999
65,606
13.0%
14.3%
15 to 19 years
93,620
7.1%
7.1%
$50,000 to $74,999
100,353
19.9%
18.7%
20 to 24 years
84,546
6.4%
7.0%
$75,000 to $99,999
76,901
15.3%
12.3%
25 to 34 years
144,472
11.0%
13.4%
$100,000 to $149,999
81,449
16.2%
12.1%
35 to 44 years
179,178
13.6%
14.2%
$150,000 to $199,999
29,027
5.8%
4.2%
45 to 54 years
225,961
17.2%
14.5%
$200,000 or more
22,717
4.5%
55 to 59 years
96,289
7.3%
6.0%
Median household income (dollars)
$63,033
$51,425
60 to 64 years
81,954
6.2%
4.8%
Mean household income (dollars)
$78,208
$70,096
65 to 74 years
96,762
7.4%
6.5%
75 to 84 years
56,745
4.3%
4.4%
85 years and over
24,761
1.9%
1.7%
Percent of families and feople with income below the poverty level (past 12
months)
NH Percent
Median age (years)
41.1
36.5
4.0%
US Percent
All Families in Poverty
5.1%
11.0%
All People in Poverty
7.7%
14.3%
Race alone or in combination with one or more other races
New Hampshire NH Percent US Percent
White
Black or African
American
American Indian and
Alaska Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific Islander
Some other race
Hispanic or Latino (of
any race)
1,236,050
93.9%
72.4%
15,035
1.1%
12.6%
3,150
0.2%
28,407
384
Place of Birth
New Hampshire
US Percent
1,312,298
100%
100.0%
0.9%
Native
1,244,842
94.9%
87.6%
2.2%
4.8%
Born in United States
1,230,805
93.8%
86.3%
0.0%
0.2%
State of residence
548,206
41.8%
59.0%
12,062
0.9%
2.9%
Different state
682,599
52.0%
27.3%
36,704
2.8%
16.3%
Foreign born
67,456
5.1%
12.4%
Educational Attainment
Housing Occupancy/Tenure
New Hampshire NH Percent US Percent
Population 25 years and
over
Less than 9th grade
NH Percent
Total population
895,988
100%
100.0%
New Hampshire
NH Percent
US Percent
Total housing units
614,754
100.0%
100.0%
Occupied housing units
27,593
3.1%
6.4%
518,973
84.4%
88.2%
57,933
6.5%
9.1%
Owner-occupied
368,316
71.0%
66.9%
271,119
30.3%
29.3%
Renter-occupied
150,657
29.0%
33.1%
Some college, no
degree
Associate's degree
164,852
18.4%
20.3%
Vacant housing units
95,781
15.6%
11.8%
82,745
9.2%
7.4%
For Seasonal, Recreational Use
63,910
10.4%
3.4%
Bachelor's degree
187,696
20.9%
17.4%
Graduate or professional
degree
Percent high school
graduate or higher
Percent bachelor's
degree or higher
104,050
11.6%
10.1%
90.5%
84.6%
32.6%
27.5%
9th to 12th grade, no
diploma
High school graduate
(includes equivalency)
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
19
As a state, we are better educated than the country as a whole, with 90 percent of the population
having at least graduated from high school compared to 85 percent in the U.S. We are also much
less diverse than the rest of the country – 94 percent of the population is white, compared to 74
percent in the U.S. The state’s median income is 23 percent higher than the national average, and
the poverty rate is about half of the U.S. average.
Interestingly, we are a state populated largely by non-natives – more than half of the state’s
population (52 percent) was born in a different state. The national figure is 27 percent. The
homeownership rate in New Hampshire is also higher than the national average – 71 percent of
New Hampshire housing units are owner-occupied, compared to a national average of 67
percent. And, a relatively large share of our housing stock is for recreational and seasonal use, at
10 percent in New Hampshire compared to 3 percent nationwide.
Our high growth years are behind us
The following chart (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 the 1930s.
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
For the forecast years beyond 2010, New Hampshire population growth rates are expected to be
moderate: 6 percent from 2010 to 2020 and 7.1 percent from 2020 to 2030. However, even at
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
20
these slower future rates, New Hampshire will still likely remain the fastest-growing state in
New England.
In-migration contributed to New Hampshire’s population growth
We see that New Hampshire has been growing in recent years at a more moderate pace than it
did in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Between 2000 and 2009, New Hampshire’s population grew by 7.2
percent, slower than the national average of 9.1 percent, placing it 24th among all states in rate of
growth for this period.4 More than half of New Hampshire’s population change during that time
came from net in-migration. However, net-migration into the Granite State has slowed since the
beginning of the decade, and there were more out-migrants than in-migrants in 2009, as shown
below in Figure 9. Natural increases – from births – have stayed relatively constant since 2001.
Figure 9: New Hampshire’s net migration since 20015
New Hampshire Population Components of Change
14,000
12,000
Natural Increase
Migration
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
-2,000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Ending Year
The U.S. Census Bureau estimates for 2009 shows domestic out-migration from every state in
the Northeast. 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.
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
4
U.S. Census estimates of Average Annual Rates of the Components of Population Change for the United States
and States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2009, accessed at uscensus.gov.
5
Estimates of components of New Hampshire population change from the U.S. Census.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
21
two states. Over the period 2000 to 2009, 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 64,560 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 6,300 residents to Maine between 2000 and 2009, and nearly 19,000
residents to Florida. New Hampshire also experienced net domestic migration losses to North
Carolina, South Carolina and Arizona in that same period.
Table 2: Migration in and out of New Hampshire, 2000 to 20096
Selected States
NEW HAMPSHIRE NET MIGRATION (STATE TO STATE +
00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06
STATE
------------------------MA 8,956 10,035 10,361 10,359 9,675 7,348
CT
487
295
288
423
246
537
NY
897
384
86
140
299
289
550
255
345
235
335
327
NJ
Foreign
469
414
187
82
161
226
125
16
137
70
139
258
RI
140
-14
-68
2
7
72
VT
PA
192
4
-100
-139
1
-54
73
214
14
-77
-133
-74
CA
CO
42
-11
43
-91
-69
-148
GA
3
-101
-209
-298
-192
-275
-112
-14
-270
-306
-324
-274
VA
TX
51
21
-141
-390
-329
-336
-169
-148
-155
-344
-458
-272
AZ
8
-167
-233
-326
-386
-514
SC
NC
-13
-273
-338
-657
-805 -1,035
-423 -1,273 -1,450
-941
-696
-246
ME
FL -1,574 -2,199 -1,934 -3,703 -3,495 -2,452
TOT**
10,681 7,851 5,852
3,187 2,646 2,236
FOREIGN) TREND 2000 TO 2009
06-07 07-08
08-09
TOTAL
----------------4,377 2,682
767
64,560
477
343
231
3,327
189
150
117
2,551
172
160
124
2,503
211
296
246
2,292
121
108
140
1,114
110
99
-9
339
-89
1
-70
-254
-190
-99
-164
-436
-73
-163
-99
-569
-196
-124
-172
-1,564
-324
-98
-314
-2,036
-375
-401
-353
-2,253
-334
-258
-165
-2,303
-366
-361
-325
-2,670
-1,059
-945
-488
-5,613
-539
-542
-184
-6,294
-1,740 -1,004
-836
-18,937
-298
-884 -2,320
28,951
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 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.
6
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? 2011 Edition
22
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.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
23
Predicting the future: the aging of New Hampshire
The annual Census provides a rich source of information on the changes in population that have
occurred across the country over the years. In addition to data that allows us to look
retrospectively at how things have changed, the U.S. Census Bureau and the New Hampshire
Office of Energy and Planning produce population projections that allow analysts and policy
makers to discuss possible future outcomes. The Census Bureau works with the Office of Energy
and Planning to compile data on tax records, Medicare records and some vital statistics
information. The Office of Energy and Planning also supplies vital statistics and information
about group living quarters, such as college dorms and prisons, that would affect population
projections. The U. S. Census Bureau and the Office of Energy and Planning combine census
and administrative record information to produce current population estimates consistent with
the last decennial Census counts.
Although much of our analysis of the changing demographics in New Hampshire are based on
these population projections, we do so to spark conversation about the potential impacts of aging,
not to suggest that the estimates are precise. No forecast of population change will be absolutely
correct. However, most of the difference in actual and forecast population change can be
attributed to assumptions about migration. This is illustrated in the chart below (Figure 10),
which compares the forecast for 2010 population by age in New Hampshire, as projected by the
US Census Bureau in April 2005, with actual population.
Figure 10: The Precision of Population Projections
Comparison of Estimate and Actual New Hampshire Population for 2010
120,000
Census April 2005
Actual
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
<5 05 - 10 - 15 - 20 - 25 - 30 - 35 - 40 - 45 - 50 - 55 - 60 - 65 - 70 - 75+
yrs 09 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 '59 64 69 74
As seen in the above chart the US Census Bureau overestimated the number of New Hampshire
residents age 25 to 39. These are the age groups most likely to migrate. In addition the
overestimate of children under the age of five is probably tied to assumptions about fertility and
numbers of residents aged 25 to 39.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
24
When ‘natural’ growth in the state population stagnates, we would expect the population on
average to age very quickly. However, such natural aging in New Hampshire has been offset by
in-migration of younger cohorts. The state has historically experienced net in-migration of those
in the 30-40-year-old cohort (and their children). Some demographers now believe that the recent
recession has fundamentally altered migration patterns across the country. So should this
migratory pattern change, New Hampshire will likely face an accelerated aging process.
In what follows, we provide information on population projections.
New Hampshire will grow older with fewer young people
As New Hampshire grows, its population is aging at a somewhat faster pace than the rest of the
country. Figure 11 projects New Hampshire’s population by age group through 2020, showing
the “baby boom bubble” moving forward and expanding as it ages.
Somewhat harder to see in this graph is the projected decline in New Hampshire’s young adult
population. Recent studies of demographic change have concluded that the declining number of
young adults in the state is not due to out-migration, but to the differential size of the birth
cohorts born decades ago. Simply put, there are fewer young adults in New Hampshire today
because potential mothers had fewer children 20 to 30 years ago compared to women of 60 years
ago.7
Figure 11: New Hampshire is growing older
The most interesting part of the above graph is the large increase in the population over the age
of 65 in forecast years. Figure 12 puts that forecast into a longer historical context by showing
7
Ibid.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
25
New Hampshire’s population aged 65 and over, both in terms of absolute numbers and as a
percent of the total resident population. The year 2020 will see the beginning of a great shift to
the over-65 population. The shift will not start for a few more years, but will be clearly underway
by 2020. By the year 2030, nearly half a million New Hampshire residents will be 65 years and
older, representing almost one third of the 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.
Figure 12: 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)
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
19
00
19
10
19
20
19
30
19
40
19
50
19
60
19
70
19
80
19
90
20
00
20
10
20
20
20
30
500,000
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
Pop 65+ years
65+ as pct of pop
Perhaps most relevant to the topic of aging in New Hampshire is the growth of the elderly
population. This is portrayed in Figure 13 below. The fastest growing age cohort over the next 20
years is the 70-74 group, but there is also significant growth in the number of individuals over
the age of 75. This group – and particularly those over the age of 80 – is much more likely to live
in poverty and have significant medical and social services needs.
Figure 13: The 70-74 age cohort is projected to see the greatest increase in population
Change in the Number of Individuals 2010-2030 by Age Group
(NH EOP Projections)
90,000
78,415
80,000
70,000
60,000
61,173
58,646
50,000
34,277
40,000
30,000
13,280
20,000
10,000
0
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
26
Not all communities will age at the same rate
The most recent U.S. Census numbers
Figure 14: Median Age in New Hampshire by town, 2010
provide a detailed portrait of New
Hampshire’s demographic patterns. The map
at right (Figure 14) 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
41.1 years in 2010, up from 37.1 in 2000.)
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 of aging, which are a result
of a complex set of factors – including
migration patterns of younger families
and older retirees – also suggest that the
aging process will differentially affect
New Hampshire communities. As was
noted above, the year 2020 will see the
beginning of the great population shift
to the over-65 population.
However, not all communities are expected
to experience the same changes in population. In
Figure 15 it is clear that some communities will
experience significantly larger increases in the
population over the age of 65. Carroll County, because of the potential for significant increases
in retirees, is projected to have the highest share of the population over the age of 65 of any
county. This variation raises important questions about how different communities will handle
the population changes that will be occurring.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
27
Figure 15: The aging of New Hampshire varies across counties
Financial giving: community involvement
The majority of New Hampshire residents give money and time to their home communities, but
the collective level of giving has fallen with the recession. In 2009, New Hampshire tax filers
claimed $479.4 million in charitable gifts; a decrease of $25 million from tax year 2008 and a
$175 million drop from 2007. The average reported gift for New Hampshire taxpayers in 2009
was $2,727.8
Almost all high-income households in New Hampshire give to charity. Among New Hampshire
households with incomes over $200,000, 93 percent of those who itemized their federal tax
returns reported gifts. At the same time, giving is by no means limited to high-income
households. In 2009, 63 percent of total reported donations in New Hampshire came from
households with incomes less than $200,000, and about 34 percent came from households with
incomes less than $100,000.9
8
9
Information provided by the Internal Revenue Service from 2009 tax filings of filers itemizing deductions.
Ibid.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
28
A look at average giving by income bracket among itemizing households10 reveals that financial
capacity is a significant factor in determining household giving levels (see Table 4 below).
Table 4: New Hampshire Charitable Contributions by Income Bracket in 2009
Contributions: Source IRS Statistics of Income
Income Bracket New Hampshire in 2009
Households
Total Giving (000)
Average Gift
Under $50,000
38,298
$50,128
$1,308.89
$50K - 75K $75K - $100K $100K - $200K
33,360
31,953
56,097
$52,480
$58,580
$140,695
$1,573.14
$1,833.32
$2,508.07
$200K +
16,105
$177,501
$11,021.48
A look at foundation giving in New Hampshire underscores how important individual giving is
to our state’s nonprofit sector. In 2007, a total of 299 independent, corporate, community and
operating foundations in New Hampshire collectively made grants totaling $72.4 million – that
is, an amount equivalent to roughly 11 percent of total reported individual giving in the state for
this same year.11
A 2005 survey of New Hampshire households indicated broad participation in giving, with an
estimated 80 percent of households donating to a charitable or religious organization, compared
to roughly 66 percent of households nationally.12 However, charitable giving among New
Hampshire residents and New Englanders in general has ranked among the lowest in the nation
when rankings are based on tax itemizations. This is notable given the region’s high average
income. Tax filings alone, however, may undercount New Hampshire’s gifts because over 16
percent of the wealthiest households here do not itemize deductions, compared to seven percent
nationally.
New England stands apart as giving significantly more to secular causes than to religious causes.
Figure 16 illustrates how New England patterns of giving differ from those in other regions.13
Religious donations are shown along the bottom and secular gifts on the left.
10
Note that itemizing rates vary greatly by income bracket. In 2009, only 17% of those in NH with incomes under
$50,000 itemized, versus 89% of those with incomes over $200,000.
11
Information provided by Deborah Schachter of the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation.
12
Unpublished survey results provided by the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation; survey conducted by the
University of New Hampshire Survey Center.
13
From A Closer Look at New England Giving, Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, November 2005.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
29
Secular Giving: Average/household (inc. non-donors)
Figure 16: New England donors give more to secular causes and less to religious causes
Religious and secular giving, by U.S. Census Region, 2002
1000
(Center on Philanthropy Panel Study Data)
900
New England
800
700
Pacific
600
Mountain: SW
500
SE: Atlantic
Mid-Atlantic
Plains states
400
Oil States
Great Lakes
300
SE: Gulf States
200
100
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Religious giving: average/household (inc. non-donors)
New Hampshire follows the New England pattern. Among New Hampshire donors, 97 percent
gave to secular causes, while 55 percent gave to religious causes. Religious organizations were
still the biggest recipient of charity in the state however, receiving 34 percent of all dollars
donated. This is compared to 60 percent, on average, nationally.
Survey findings indicate that 70 percent of charitable dollars donated in New Hampshire go to
local and in-state charities, with the remainder going to national and international charitable
groups. In addition to giving money, New Hampshire residents give their time. Fifty-five percent
of the state’s adults volunteered in 2004, compared to 33 percent nationally.14
Overall, in 2007, revenues from nonprofits made up 14.5 percent of the gross state product,15 a
total of $8,334,504,786. More than 98,000 (13 percent) of New Hampshire’s workers are
employed in the nonprofit sector.16
14
Unpublished survey results provided by the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation; survey conducted by the
University of New Hampshire Survey Center.
15
A primary indicator of economic health is the gross state product (GSP), which measures the value added to goods
and services produced in the state. A closer look at the GSP can be found in later sections of this report.
16
Essential, a portrait of the nonprofit sector in New Hampshire, New Hampshire Center for Nonprofits, 2009.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
30
New Hampshire’s economy – beyond the “Great Recession”
As across the rest of the country, the most recent recession battered New Hampshire’s economy.
During that period,17 home prices in the state fell sharply, and foreclosures reached historic
levels. Unemployment increased to the highest rate in nearly two decades. State tax revenue
stagnated, forcing deep cuts in many public services.
But New Hampshire fared better than many other states and the country as a whole. Job losses
here were less severe than the rest of the nation and New England. New Hampshire’s housing
market did not bottom out as deeply as it did elsewhere, mostly because the state was spared the
worst of the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
The state’s unemployment rate has fallen steadily since the peak of 6.7 percent in late 2009/early
2010. As of June 2011, that figure stood at 4.7 percent – well below the national unemployment
level of 9.1 percent, but still higher than the state’s pre-recession level of 3.4 percent. Housing
prices and sales, while still far from a total rebound, appear to have stabilized and have at least
retreated from the steep plunges of 2008 and 2009.
By many measures, the broader U.S. economy appears to be gaining traction, though much
uncertainty still lingers. Corporate profits are growing strongly. Households are trimming their
debt levels. Delinquency rates on credit cards, auto loans and mortgages are falling. And
financial institutions appear increasingly willing to lend.
But a path to sustained economic recovery still remains elusive, both for New Hampshire and for
the rest of the nation. Many questions add uncertainty to that discussion. What impact will the
2012-2013 state budget play in the ongoing recovery? Will reduced spending help boost private
sector economic growth, leading to renewed job creation, or will cuts to education, hospitals and
public employees drag out the state’s post-recession malaise?
The still-sluggish housing market continues to be a drag on the economy as well. Foreclosure
figures hover at historic highs, tamping down prices in the broader real estate market. Most
analysts anticipate that more distress sales and price drops may be coming.
Finally, rising energy prices are a significant threat to the economic recovery. At current gasoline
prices, close to $4.00 per gallon in most of New Hampshire, the added cost of oil compared to a
year ago has all but consumed the 2 percent reduction in the payroll tax put in place at the
beginning of 2011. However, Mark Zandi, Moody’s Analytics chief economist, predicts that the
world oil prices would have to hit $150 per barrel, and stay at that level for six months, before
the economy would be derailed back into recession. World oil prices now stand at just under
$100 per barrel.18
17
Recessions in the United States are formally identified by the National Bureau of Economic Research in
Washington, which defined the span of the most recent recession as December 2007 to June 2009.
18
Testimony of Mark Zandi Chief Economist, Moody’s Analytics Before the Senate Budget Committee,
"Challenges for the U.S. Economic Recovery", February 3, 2011.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
31
Figure 17 illustrates the toll the recession has taken on the United States job base – a decline of
more than 6 percent. By this measure of United States job losses alone, this period has earned the
nickname of the “Great Recession.”
Figure 17: Comparing United States Job Losses in Post World War II Recessions
That national decline in job numbers was not mirrored in New Hampshire. The state’s job base
declined by about 4 percent in the recession (Figure 18), while New England’s declined by 5
percent. Since 2010, New Hampshire has been regaining some of those lost jobs, while the New
England region and national averages are recovering at a slower pace.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
32
Figure 18: Index of Employment for NH, New England, and nationally
Index of Total NonFarm Employment
101.0
100.0
Dec 2007 =100
99.0
New Hampshire
98.0
New England
97.0
96.0
95.0
94.0
United States
93.0
Ja
n0
Ap 7
r-0
Ju 7
l-0
O 7
ct
-0
Ja 7
n0
Ap 8
r-0
Ju 8
l-0
O 8
ct
-0
Ja 8
n0
Ap 9
r-0
Ju 9
l-0
O 9
ct
-0
Ja 9
n1
Ap 0
r-1
Ju 0
l-1
O 0
ct
-1
Ja 0
n1
Ap 1
r-1
Ju 1
l-1
1
92.0
US
NE
NH
New Hampshire unemployment
Compared to the late 1990s, unemployment in the state has been rising.19 Figure 19 shows the
variation over the past thirty plus years, the increase associated with the Great Recession, and the
recent decline. The shaded areas on the graph represent national recession periods.
19
New Hampshire Employment Security, Economic and Labor Information Bureau.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
33
Figure 19: New Hampshire's unemployment rate averaged 4.4% since 196920
Grey boxes represent
recessionary periods
Monthly NH Unemployment Rate, January 1969 - June 2011
9%
8%
% of Labor Force Unemployed
7%
Long-term average - 4.4%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
01/11
01/10
01/09
01/08
01/07
01/06
01/05
01/04
01/03
01/02
01/01
01/00
01/99
01/98
01/97
01/96
01/95
01/94
01/93
01/92
01/91
01/90
01/89
01/88
01/87
01/86
01/85
01/84
01/83
01/82
01/81
01/80
01/79
01/78
01/77
01/76
01/75
01/74
01/73
01/72
01/71
01/70
01/69
0%
As noted earlier, though the statewide unemployment rate is relatively low when compared
nationally, the rate varies significantly across communities.
Important industries
Figure 20 breaks down New Hampshire’s economy by major industry, as measured by total
wages. The dominant state industry for many years has been the manufacturing sector. Of
particular importance for New Hampshire’s economic activity is the smart manufacturing/high
technology (SMHT) industry, which includes manufacturers engaged in the transformation of
materials into new products using advanced technology and skilled labor.
SMHT has long been the leading industrial sector in the New Hampshire economy, as measured
by the total compensation paid compared to other industries. Health care and social assistance
has risen as a percent of overall economic activity, increasing from 9 percent of total
compensation in 1990 to 14 percent in 2010. However, SMHT remains the single largest sector
by this measure of economic activity, at 19 percent in the year 2010.
20
Data from New Hampshire Employment Security’s 2010 Local Area Unemployment Statistics Report, June 2010.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
34
Figure 20: Trends in Total Compensation Paid by Selected Industries in New Hampshire 1990 to 2010
New Hampshire Total Compensation Paid by Selected Industries
(Thousands of Dollars)
$7,000,000
Manufacturing + High Tech
$6,000,000
$5,000,000
Healthcare
$4,000,000
Retail Trade
$3,000,000
Finance
$2,000,000
Construction
$1,000,000
Education
20
10
20
08
20
04
20
02
20
00
19
98
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
20
06
Real Estate
$-
There is a significant economic impact associated with the creation of SMHT jobs. Economic
impact models suggest that the creation of 100 new manufacturing jobs in New Hampshire will
create as many as 138 additional jobs in the rest of the state economy, add $11 million in
earnings, $18 million in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and generate $1.2 million in state and
local tax revenue. Creating 100 new health care or tourism jobs has a much smaller return on
investment.21
State policy activities in economic development
There are many ways policymakers can foster economic development in New Hampshire. These
policies would include health care policy, encouraging workforce development and education,
investing in infrastructure, and tax policy.
Regarding health care policy, in June 2011 the New Hampshire Business and Industry
Association (BIA) conducted 10 business roundtable discussions throughout the state to gauge
the challenges and concerns among New Hampshire’s business community. Among the top
concerns were high health care and insurance costs, economic uncertainty and lack of a state
strategic economic development plan.22 The BIA survey suggests that New Hampshire
companies count health care costs among the most significant competitive pressures facing them,
especially when they consider continuing or increasing production at a New Hampshire-based
21
For more on this industry, please refer to the Center’s report, Smart Manufacturing and High Technology, New
Hampshire’s Leading Economic Sector, March 2011.
22
http://bianhassoc.weblinkconnect.com/cwt/External/WCPages/legislative/roundtables.aspx.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
35
facility. These same companies rank “lowering health care costs” as the most important policy
initiative that would influence their decisions to expand their operations in New Hampshire.
The available evidence suggests that one effective approach to boosting economic development
is improving certain public services, including schools and infrastructure. The latter includes
transportation networks like roads, highways and rail, as well as water systems, broadband
internet, and other systems. These studies suggest that an approach to economic development
that builds the skills of the current and future workforce, improves the physical infrastructure of
regions, and makes communities more attractive places for families and firms represents the
most effective use of a state’s resources.23
Another recent study showed that human capital is a key determinant of urban prosperity and
that per-capita incomes are strongly correlated with levels of educational attainment. Increasing
the four-year college attainment rate in each of the nation’s 51 largest metropolitan areas by one
percentage point would be associated with a $124 billion increase in aggregate annual personal
income, according to the study.24
The New Hampshire Advanced Manufacturing Education Advisory Council25 recently examined
issues associated with manufacturing and workforce skills. The Council released a report in late
2010 recommending that the New Hampshire Department of Education:
•
•
•
•
Develop and implement strategies for the advanced manufacturing sector to educate the
parents, educators, and students about career opportunities.
Increase communication between manufacturing and education to assure alignment with
current realities of the advanced manufacturing industry.
Strengthen math education to assure student success in areas relevant to their goals.
Increase accessibility to advanced pre-engineering/manufacturing education to all
students.
Tax policy also plays a significant role in shaping a state’s economic development. In this
regard, maintaining New Hampshire’s competitive advantage in personal taxes is clearly
important; a recent study found that local income and property tax rates do influence the
migration of people across state and county lines.26 In addition, companies who answered the
BIA’s online survey for New Hampshire manufacturing/high technology companies cited low
23
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.
24
“City Dividends; Gains From Improving Metropolitan Performance”, CEOs for Cities, 2010.
25
The New Hampshire General Court passed legislation in 2008 creating the New Hampshire Advanced
Manufacturing Education Advisory Council. Members include lawmakers, manufacturers and educators who
focused their work on the charge of the council: “to advise the Department of Education in the implementation,
evaluation, and expansion of the advanced manufacturing curriculum, to assist the Department of Education in
pursuing public and private funds in order to ensure statewide access for all public high school students to advanced
manufacturing curriculum coursework.”
26
http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/publication/Tax_Rates_and_Migration_Davies_Pulito_WP1131.pdf.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
36
overall taxes most often when asked to name the most attractive features of New Hampshire’s
business climate.27
A recent analysis of business tax incentives in New England showed that tax credits do foster
their targeted activities, and that the economic activity produced indirectly by business tax
credits is not trivial and may sometimes be sizable.28 The former Congressional Office of
Technology Assessment concluded that “for every dollar lost in tax revenue, the R&D tax credit
produces a dollar increase in reported R&D spending, on the margin.” Other studies have found
even greater benefits, with the research investment to tax-cost ratio ranging from 1.3 and 2.9.29
There is disagreement in the literature as to which of the above policy levers (health care,
education, infrastructure or tax policy) are most successful in increasing regional quality of life
and improving regional economic development. The questions for New Hampshire policymakers
are twofold: Which of these policies can the Legislature actually help shape? And which would
go the furthest in achieving stated legislative goals?
New Hampshire real estate markets continue to languish
The median home price in the state rose by 75 percent between 2000 and 2005, with
considerable variation across regions.30 Home sales started to decline in 2005, and home prices
flattened in 2006. Sales in New Hampshire declined 40 percent from the peak in 2004, and prices
declined by 21 percent from the peak of 2005. Home sales began to increase again in 2009, and
prices were up in 2010, but both measures remain relatively flat over the past three years, and a
full recovery of the state housing market has yet to materialize.
27
Smart Manufacturing and High Technology, March 2011,
http://www.nhpolicy.org/report.php?report=269&text=es.
28
New England Public Policy Center DP No. 09-3: State Business Tax Incentives: Examining Evidence of their
Effectiveness (December 2009) by Jennifer Weiner.
29
Robert D. Atkinson, “Expanding the R&E tax credit to drive innovation, competitiveness and prosperity”,
Published online: 24 July 2007, http://www.itif.org/files/AtkinsonRETaxCreditJTT.pdf.
30
NH Housing Finance Authority,
http://www.nhhfa.org/programdocs/housingdata/PurchPriceTrendsCurrentVer.xls.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
37
Figure 21: New Hampshire real estate markets declined starting in 2004
NH Single-Family Residential Home Sales and Price (MLS)
Source: NH Association of REALTORS
25,000
20,000
Decline from the Peak:
Sales -40% from 2004
Price -21% from 2005
$300,000
Median Home Price
$250,000
$200,000
15,000
Number of Units Sold
$150,000
10,000
$100,000
5,000
$50,000
0
$0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Units sold
Median Price
2011 YTD thru June
The number of home foreclosures in New Hampshire increased sharply in the early days of the
recession, and – with periodic spikes and falls – has remained at elevated levels since 2009.
The state recorded 343 foreclosure deeds in June 2011, a decrease of 9 percent from a year
earlier, and essentially the same number as the prior month. The cumulative total for the first six
months of 2011 remains only slightly behind last year's record pace of foreclosures. Despite
slowly improving economic conditions, it now seems unlikely that we will see a significant
decline in the total number of foreclosures in 2011, as there continue to be significant numbers of
New Hampshire households that are delinquent on their mortgages. In addition, lenders have
allowed the period of delinquency prior to foreclosure to extend, in part due to delays in
document processing and in part in hopes that the market will improve, mitigating their losses.
These conditions set the stage for a protracted period where significant numbers of foreclosed
and distressed properties will negatively influence the housing market, slowing its overall
recovery.31 Foreclosure deeds by month in New Hampshire are shown in Figure 22.
31
New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority, Foreclosure Update as of June 2011.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
38
Figure 22: Foreclosure Deeds in NH
NH Monthly Foreclosure Deeds
600
500
Actual
Trend
400
300
200
100
Sep-11
May-11
Jan-11
Sep-10
May-10
Jan-10
Sep-09
May-09
Jan-09
Sep-08
May-08
Jan-08
Sep-07
May-07
Jan-07
Sep-06
May-06
Jan-06
Sep-05
May-05
Jan-05
0
Source: NH Housing Finance Authority
The sharp decline in monthly foreclosures in late 2010, followed by the rise in early 2011, can be
ascribed to the “robo-signers” scandal. Robo-signers refer to bank officials robotically signing
foreclosure documents, without human verification. In the third and fourth quarters of 2010, a
robo-signing scandal emerged involving GMAC Mortgage and a number of major U.S. banks.
Banks had to halt thousands of foreclosures across the country when it became known that the
paperwork was illegitimate because the “signers” had not actually reviewed the cases. While
some robo-signers were middle managers, others were temporary workers with virtually no
understanding of the work they were doing.32
Foreclosure auction notices provide an up-to-date indication of the number of households who
have fallen seriously behind in their mortgage payments. Foreclosure auction notices declined by
less than 4 percent in June 2011 to 621 from 641 in the prior month. This is a decline of 28
percent when compared with June of last year. This decline in foreclosure notice activity may
suggest some future improvement in the number of foreclosure deeds; but it is just as likely to be
the result of delays in document processing.33
32
33
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/robo-signer.asp#ixzz1Ujah0uWQ.
New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority, Foreclosure Update as of June 2011.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
39
Energy use in New Hampshire
Significant variability in oil prices and concerns about global warming have raised policy
concerns about national and state energy consumption patterns. In recent New Hampshire
legislative sessions, there were heated policy debates about power generation, power
transmission, and efforts to expand the state’s use of renewable energy sources. Given the high
per-unit costs of energy in New Hampshire, and its implications for both residents and
businesses, the policy focus on energy in New Hampshire will only intensify in the future.
Only five states pay more per unit of energy than New Hampshire does. Yet New Hampshire
ranks near the middle (29th out of 50 states) in terms of how much the average resident spends
for energy. This is due to our low per-capita energy consumption (45th out of 50), caused in part
by the state’s relatively low proportion of heavy industry. Not having a great deal of energyintensive heavy industries helps to reduce overall per-capita energy consumption. Figure 21
shows how we use energy in New Hampshire by sector, as measured in trillions of BTUs. As it
illustrates, more than a third of our energy is used for transportation.
Figure 21: New Hampshire’s Energy use by Sector34
Transportation,
105.8, 35%
Industrial, 39.4,
13%
Residential, 88.1,
29%
Commercial, 69.7,
23%
New Hampshire has no in-state sources of fossil fuels (petroleum, propane, coal, natural gas) or
uranium. Imported energy provided slightly more than 90 percent of the state’s gross energy
34
Source: U.S. Department of Energy in Trillions of British Thermal Units (BTUs).
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
40
inputs35 in 2009, and 100 percent of the fossil fuel energy used for transportation was imported.
While the state is known for its abundant forest resources, wood-related energy accounts for a
small portion of the state’s overall energy consumption (about 4 percent). Since most of New
Hampshire’s energy is imported, the state’s energy supply is vulnerable to disruptions from
weather, price volatility, commodities market dynamics, political unrest, and other factors
beyond our control. New Hampshire is really a small player in a complex global energy network.
Figure 22 describes New Hampshire’s energy consumption by type.
Figure 22: New Hampshire’s Energy Consumption by Fuel Type36
Other, 0.7, 0%
Biomass, 27.3,
7%
Coal, 32.8, 8%
Hydro Electric
Power, 16.4, 4%
Natural Gas, 62,
16%
Nuclear Electric
Power, 92.2, 24%
Distillate Fuel Oil,
44.7, 11%
Other Petroleum,
7.5, 2%
Residual Fuel Oil,
6.1, 2%
Jet Fuel, 1.9, 0%
Motor Gasoline,
85.5, 22%
Kerosene, 2.8,
1%
LPG, 12.9, 3%
New Hampshire has recently undertaken several policies to address its energy needs. The
Governor has committed to obtaining 25 percent of New Hampshire’s energy needs from
renewable sources by the year 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.
Taking the second approach, renewable energy generation technologies can provide fuel
diversity to the state and New England generation supply through use of local renewable fuels
and resources that serve to displace and thereby lower regional dependence on fossil fuels. This
has the potential to lower and stabilize future energy costs by reducing exposure to rising and
volatile fossil fuel prices. The most available renewable energy sources in New Hampshire are
35
Gross energy inputs means the raw materials that produce useful energy. For example, electricity is consumed by
households and businesses, but electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels, converting nuclear fission into steam
to power an electric turbine, or harnessing wind or solar power.
36
Ibid.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
41
hydroelectric power (which accounts for 52 percent of New Hampshire’s renewable energy use),
wood-fired power plants (37 percent) and gas-fired power (5 percent)37. Residents themselves
are encouraged to invest in renewable energy sources through a series of tax incentives on the
local, state, and federal levels. In addition, the state established minimum electric renewable
portfolio standards in 2004 and updated these standards in 2007. A study conducted by the
University of New Hampshire outlined the intended effects of such minimum standards, which
include economic development spurred by increasing renewable energy sectors, declining natural
gas consumption, and growing demand for renewable energy in the New England region.38
While more time is needed to assess impacts on economic development, natural gas consumption
levels remain steady. New Hampshire’s natural gas consumption per capita currently ranks 46th
in the nation.39
Despite the state’s push for expanded energy options, some renewable energy policies have
sparked heated controversy in recent legislative sessions, focusing on not only renewable energy
generation but also its transmission. The Northern Pass hydroelectric power line, intended to
carry power from Canada through Northern New Hampshire to a converter terminal in Franklin
and then to a substation in Deerfield, met with heavy opposition from some groups who saw the
lines as harmful to the environment and to the aesthetic of the landscape. While current
construction of the transmission lines has been delayed, according to an August 3rd
announcement on the project’s official website40, leaders expect construction to begin in 2013,
meaning this energy controversy will remain a relevant issue for policy makers.
Finally, the state 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. The money comes from the quarterly auctions on emissions
credits, and will ultimately be borne by ratepayers throughout the Northeast. New Hampshire has
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. The auction proceeds are
then 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.
The state had expected about $18 million per year from the quarterly auctions on emissions
credits. The recession lowered the demand for electric power, and, as a result, the demand for
carbon emissions credits dipped.
The future status of RGGI in New Hampshire is unclear. In 2011, lawmakers approved a bill
repealing New Hampshire’s participation in the program, yet this bill was vetoed by Governor
Lynch. The uncertainty of this program has caused demand for credits to further plummet. Figure
23 illustrates the declining demand for CO2 emissions credits.
37
Source: New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning.
Economic Impact of a New Hampshire Renewable Portfolio Standard, University of New Hampshire, February
2007.
39
Source: US Department of Energy.
40
http://www.northernpass.us/.
38
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
42
The drop in the demand for CO2 emission credits is probably due to reductions in the demand
for electricity associated with the recession. Demand for CO2 emission credits could increase as
the economy recovers, assuming that the RGGI program remains in place.
Figure 23: RGGI Demand for CO2
RGGI Auction Results 2009-2011
Tons of CO2 Offered and Sold
50,000,000
Quantity Offered
Quantity Sold
45,000,000
40,000,000
35,000,000
30,000,000
25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
1
20
1
9/
7/
20
1
1
1
6/
8/
20
1
01
0
3/
9/
/1
/2
01
0
12
0
10
/2
20
1
9/
01
0
6/
9/
10
/2
00
9
3/
9
/2
/2
20
0
12
00
9
9/
9/
00
9
17
/2
6/
08
18
/2
3/
/2
0
/1
7
12
9/
25
/2
00
8
0
The environment
New Hampshire’s beautiful lakes and other natural areas enhance the quality of life for both
residents and help attract visitors. These areas are one critical component of the New Hampshire
advantage and may help drive the location decisions of one of New Hampshire’s most important
resources – human capital. It also 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 biggest source of air pollution in New England is the burning of fossil fuels for electricity,
heating and cooling, and transportation. Table 5 shows how each of these energy uses contribute
different proportions of major air pollutants – mono-nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon
dioxide, and mercury. Air pollution causes smog, which can lead to asthma and other respiratory
problems. It can also impact ozone levels, resulting in wheezing, lung damage, and
inflammation41.
41
Source: Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa.gov/glo/health.htm.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
43
Table 5: Contributions to Air Pollution by Source42
Sources
NOx SO2
CO2
Mercury
Mobile Sources
(Transportation)
Power Plants (Electricity)
57%
7%
37%
Unknown
20%
81%
30%
40%
Other Industrial Sources
8%
9%
10%
38%
Area Sources
(Commercial/Residential)
15%
3%
23%
22%
A study that relied on air quality modeling from the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services43 estimated that increased air emission standards controlling nitrogen
oxide and sulfur dioxide could have a total benefit of $530 million to $2.6 billion, and avoid up
to 400 premature deaths by 2018 in the Northeast.
While reducing pollution sources within the state would benefit air quality, the majority of New
Hampshire’s pollution levels actually originate in other parts of the country; an analysis used 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 transport via wind patterns44. Figure 17
illustrates some of the sources of air pollution.
Figure 17: Wind patterns carry pollution over the Northeast
Typical Wind Patterns on Bad Air Days in the
Northeast, Along with Pollution Source Locations
Arrows show winds blowing from the Ohio Valley towards New Hampshire
Nitrogen oxides are key pollutants that cause smog
Tons Per Year of
Nitrogen Oxides
Emissions
150,000
75,000
42
Air Pollution Transport and How it Affects New Hampshire, New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services (NHDES), May 2004.
43
Public Health Benefits of Reducing Ground-level Ozone and Fine Particle Matter in the Northeast U.S., Northeast
States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM), January 15, 2008.
44
Air Pollution Transport and How it Affects New Hampshire, New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services (NHDES), May 2004.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
44
The American Lung Association tracks the number of days each state fails federal standards for
ozone and particle pollution standards45. New Hampshire performed poorly in ozone levels,
particularly for Coos, Hillsborough, and Rockingham counties (exceeding twelve “unhealthy”
ozone days for all three counties), and met national averages for particle pollution. Inadequate
ozone protection can lead to the negative health effects of wheezing, shortness of breath,
increasing asthma rates, and higher chance of respiratory illness like pneumonia46.
Water quality47
Although New Hampshire is a small state, it is home to a varied network of water systems. New
Hampshire has 9,658 miles of rivers and streams and 164,615 acres of lakes and ponds, including
almost 1,000 lakes greater than ten acres.
Despite having the shortest coastline of any coastal state, with a stretch of eighteen miles along
the Atlantic Ocean, New Hampshire’s coast creates a rich environment – both for the state’s
tourism industry and for ecological balance. Coastal tourism generates an estimated $484 million
in revenue for the state annually.
To capture the full impact of the coast on New Hampshire wildlife, one must acknowledge 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,
is fed by the Piscataqua River and creates 144 additional miles of tidal coastline. These areas are
home to thousands of different species of birds, fish, fungi, crustaceans, mollusks, and plants.
As the map below (Figure 18) illustrates, there are five major drainage basins: Connecticut,
Merrimack, Androscoggin, Saco, and Coastal.
45
Source: American Lung Association State of the Air report card, 2011.
Source: New Hampshire Environmental Public Health Tracking Program.
47
Source: New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services.
46
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
45
48
Figure 18: Drainage Basins of New Hampshire
The Department of Environmental Services maintains a catalog of surface waters and
periodically issues an assessment report. Surface waters are assessed as supporting or not
supporting five designated uses: aquatic life, recreation (i.e., swimming and boating), drinking
water supply, fish and shellfish consumption, and wildlife.
48
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? 2011 Edition
46
In 2008, all New Hampshire surface waters were rated as impaired for fish consumption due to
mercury in fish tissue from atmospheric deposition. More than half of the state’s lakes are
impaired for aquatic life due to low pH from acid rain. The charts below (Figure 19 and Figure
20) summarize 2008 aquatic life assessments for rivers and swimming assessments for lakes.
The leading pollutants of rivers, streams, creeks, bays, and coasts are pathogens —waterborne
bacteria and viruses – while the main stressor for lakes and ponds is an imbalance in the water’s
acidity (i.e. the pH level). In rivers and streams, sewer overflows account for 10 percent of
contaminants. In lakes and ponds, 63 percent of impairment is caused by atmospheric deposition,
air pollution that settles in water49.
Additionally, New Hampshire currently has 21 sites on the national superfund list for long-term
clean up of hazardous waste that poses a potential danger to local water quality, most of which
are in Hillsborough and Rockingham counties.50
Figure 19: Rivers – 2008 Assessment for Aquatic Life
New Hampshire - All Basins
Androscoggin
Saco
Merrimack
Coastal
Connecticut
Good Quality
Poor Quality
Quality Unknown
49
From the Pollution Information Site http://scorecard.goodguide.com/env-releases/water/cwastate.tcl?fips_state_code=33#cause.
50
Superfund is the Federal government's program to clean up the nation's uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
http://www.epa.gov/region01/superfund/.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
47
Figure 20: Lakes – 2008 Assessment for Swimming
New Hampshire - All Basins
Androscoggin
Saco
Merrimack
Coastal
Connecticut
Good Quality
Poor Quality
Quality Unknown
One major concern for New Hampshire residents is the quality of drinking water. The most
common contaminants in the state’s public drinking water are arsenic, disinfection byproducts,
lead, and nitrates.
The Water Division of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services must release an
annual compliance report including data on all public water system violations. In 2009, most
violations involved improper monitoring of systems. Among the violations involving exceeding
a maximum contaminant level, the most common was arsenic contamination, with 63
occurrences in 31 systems. There were 25 violations for disinfection byproducts. Health impacts
of poor drinking water quality may range from short term illness to reproductive disorders,
neurological disorders, and cancer51.
New Hampshire’s aging water infrastructure may pose a problem for future water quality and
costs to communities. The current infrastructure dates back 50 to 100 years, and its age makes it
difficult to maintain and replace. Although a 1996 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; in 2005, the twenty year
estimate for demand for the project reached $595.6 million52.
51
Source: New Hampshire Environmental Public Health Tracking Program.
New Hampshire Water Resources Primer, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, December
2008.
52
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
48
Politics and place
The New Hampshire political landscape has been changing over the last three decades. One
measure of this change is the significant increase in the percentage of undeclared voters (also
known as “independent” voters) since changes in state law made it easier for voters to retain
“undeclared” status. Figure 23 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, while
the percentage of Democrats has been stable since the mid-1990s, with a recent increase in 20072009.
As the chart makes clear, the most striking phenomenon has been the increase in undeclared
voters since the 1992 elections. Undeclared voters can participate in either party’s primary
elections, while retaining their independent status between elections. That provision – and the
group’s growing numbers – has given undeclared voters an increasingly powerful sway in New
Hampshire’s elections in the past two decades.
Figure 23: Voter registration has moved toward non-affliation53
Party Registration in New Hampshire
Source: NH Secretary of State
50%
Undeclared
45%
Republican
40%
35%
30%
25%
Democrat
20%
15%
Republican
53
Democrat
20
10
20
08
20
06
20
04
20
02
20
00
19
98
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
19
88
19
86
19
84
19
82
19
80
10%
Undeclared
Source: UNH Survey Center, from data reported by the NH Secretary of State’s Office (http://www.sos.nh.gov/).
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
49
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. In 1980, in only one town did more
than half of the voters vote Democrat. In 2006, 26 years later, in only two towns did half of the
voters not vote Democrat. The pendulum has swung back in the most recent election, with
Republicans in 2010 winning big majorities in both chambers of the state Legislature and the
Executive Council and both congressional seats. Recent research by Ken Johnson, Dante Scala
and Andrew Smith ascribe this change, in part, to new voters in New Hampshire.54
Figure 24 describes the variation in voting numbers by county, based on the voters on town and
ward checklists.55 As the chart makes clear, the voting population and party affiliation vary
considerably across the state. The voting power in New Hampshire clearly centers on the south
and east, with the largest block of voters by far residing in the Seacoast and Manchester and
Nashua regions.56
Figure 24: NH Regions – Registered Voters
Where the Voters Are, 2010
250,000
Undeclared 2010; 388,220
Republicans 2010; 266,077
Democrats 2010; 267,725
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
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
ad
no
ck
M
on
ee
Su
na
p
/L
ak
e
eg
io
n
Merrimack Valley Region
D
ar
tm
ou
th
R
R
eg
io
n
eg
io
n
R
La
ke
s
M
hi
te
W
G
re
a
ou
n
tN
ta
in
s
or
th
R
W
oo
d
eg
io
n
s
0
54
Johnson, Scala and Smith. “Many New Voters Make the Granite State One to Watch in November.” Carsey
Institute Issue Brief No. 9, Fall 2008.
55
NH Secretary of State, Voters on the Checklists by City/Town|Ward|Party As of May 10, 2010.
56
Towns often fail to remove people who die or move away from their checklists, so the count of registered voters is
only a rough approximation.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
50
New Hampshire: the most represented state in the country
As one of the original 13 colonies to declare independence from Great Britain, New Hampshire’s
experiment in self-government stretches back to the nation’s founding. 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.
Those early founders wanted to keep government responsive to the people, so the size of the
House of Representatives was fixed as a direct ratio to the state’s population. The first House had
87 members, each member representing 100 families. As New Hampshire’s population grew, so
did the size of the House, until close to 450 Representatives filled the Legislature. A
constitutional amendment in 1942 capped the House at 400 members, the number still elected
today. That makes the New Hampshire House the largest state legislative body in the United
States, and the third-largest legislative body in the English-speaking world, after the U.S.
Congress and the British Parliament. Along with the 24-member Senate, there are a total of 424
members of the New Hampshire General Court.
Those numbers make New Hampshire the most-represented state in the country – that is, it has
the lowest ratio of people per state representative of any of the fifty states (See Figure 25 below.)
Each member of the New Hampshire General Court represents about 3,000 people. The next best
represented state is Vermont, at about 3,500 people per representative. The least represented state
in the country is California; each of the 120 members of the California legislature represents
about 300,000 citizens – ten times New Hampshire’s ratio.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
51
Figure 25: Number of Residents per State Lawmaker
Interestingly, the Founding Fathers also intended to keep a strict ratio between the number of
representatives in Congress and the resident population. In Federalist Paper No. 56, James
Madison says, “it seems to give the fullest assurance, that a representative for every 30,000
inhabitants will render the [House of Representatives] both a safe and competent guardian of the
interests which will be confided to it.”57
In 1929 Congress passed a bill fixing the number of representatives at 435. Prior to that, the
number of congressional districts was increased every 10 years after a population census was
taken. At present, each member of the U.S. Congress represents about 700,000 U.S. residents.
In addition, Madison argued that larger legislative bodies are “less subject to venality and
corruption.” Perhaps, then, New Hampshire’s high level of representation is another aspect of the
“New Hampshire Advantage.”
57
http://www.gradesaver.com/the-federalist-papers/e-text/section12/, and
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
52
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. In what follows, we provide general information on governance,
taxation and services in New Hampshire’s local governments.
The town meeting58
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) which 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 three-fifths
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 2010, 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 town meeting with a ballot process. (See Figure 26.)
58
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? 2011 Edition
53
Figure 26: Towns by Type of Governance in 2010
SB2 has similarly transformed New Hampshire’s school district. As of 2010, 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 27.)
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
Figure 27: School Districts by Type of Governance in 2010
54
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
55
The common burden: New Hampshire public finance and
services59
New Hampshire’s public sector – including state, county, school and municipal governments –
provides a wide array of public services. While the funding of services provided at each level of
government is often analyzed separately, both the financing of services and the services
themselves 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.
Financing these services is also intricately intertwined among the levels of government. State
government and cities and towns, for example, share financial responsibility for funding K-12
public education, as well as the retirement system for public workers, including teachers,
firefighters and police officers. 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 the state’s children through the Medicaid program. County
expenditures are partially funded through the local property tax, which is collected by towns.
What level of government provides public services in New
Hampshire?
In this section, we provide a snapshot of public services as measured by the appropriation
statements at each level of government in New Hampshire. In 2010, state, municipal, and county
governments and school districts appropriated almost $9.6 billion to fund their services.60
Figure 21 shows that almost half of the publicly funded activities in New Hampshire originate at
the sub-state level – that is, at the town, city, county or school district level. State appropriations
accounted for 56 percent of those appropriations. School district appropriations were 23 percent
of the total, while municipal appropriations made up 16 percent. Counties accounted for only 5
percent of total appropriations.
59
Excerpted from our report: “Sharing the Common Burden: New Hampshire and Public Services” which can be
found here: http://www.nhpolicy.org/report.php?report=229.
60
This $9.6 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? 2011 Edition
56
Figure 28: Appropriations by Level of Government in New Hampshire
Distribution of Public Service Appropriations
by Level of Government (2010)
County
5%
Schools
23%
State
56%
Municipal
16%
Across the past five-year period – 2005 through 2010 – appropriations across all levels of
government have grown at 5 percent annually (Table 6). Appropriations grew quickest at the
state level (5.6 percent), followed by the school level (5.3 percent). Municipal appropriations
grew slowest over that period, at 2.7 percent.
In addition to providing information on aggregate growth in appropriations, Table 6 also includes
the data on a per capita, inflation-adjusted basis. Appropriations adjusted for population growth
and inflation across all levels of government grew at 2.2 percent per year, increasing from $6,478
per person to $7,233 – a per-person increase of $744. The largest share of this increase ($520 per
person adjusted for inflation) came from state appropriations. Per capita, inflation adjusted
expenditures grew at 2.2 percent at the county level, 2.8 percent at the state level and at 2.5
percent at the school district level. Only municipal appropriations showed no growth over that
period.
Table 6: Appropriations by Level of Government61
Appropriations Net of Intergovernmental Transfers for Public Services
Aggregate Growth
State
Municipal
Schools
County
2005
$4,084,126,303
$1,345,074,576
$1,681,497,132
$367,570,702
2010
$5,371,312,178
$1,538,548,133
$2,179,917,030
$469,777,731
All Appropriations
$7,478,268,713
$9,559,555,072
61
Annual Compound
Growth 2005-2010
5.6%
2.7%
5.3%
5.0%
5.0%
Per Capita Inflation Adjusted Growth
Annual Compound
Growth 2005-2010
2005
2010
$3,538 $4,058 $520
2.8%
$1,165 $1,162
($3)
0.0%
$1,457 $1,647 $190
2.5%
$318
$355
$37
2.2%
$6,478
$7,223
$744
2.2%
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.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
57
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, 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.62
According to RSA 165, for example, towns are required to provide assistance to 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 state law, the manner in which these
functions are carried out and the level of funding are matters left to the discretion of town
administrators.
In 2010, towns and municipalities appropriated approximately $1.7 billion for the full set of
services for which they are responsible. As Figure 29 shows, just more than half 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 (26 percent).
Figure 29: Distribution of Municipal Appropriations
Distribution of Municipal Appropriations
by Type of Service (2010)
Capital Outlays
8%
Other
7%
Debt Service
6%
General
Government
21%
Health and
Welfare
2%
Highways and
Streets
14%
Public Safety
30%
Water Distribution
and Treatment
Sanitation
2%
10%
62
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? 2011 Edition
58
The Center’s report, “Financing New Hampshire’s Cities and Towns: Update 2011” provides
more information on city and town financing and expenditures. The report can be found at
http://www.nhpolicy.org/report.php?report=264.
Local public education
Local school districts spent $2.9 billion to educate New Hampshire’s elementary and secondary
students in 2010 (Figure 30). Roughly 40 percent of that went to regular instruction, but school
districts also funded special education programs (17 percent), plant operations, support services,
facility construction, and school administration.
Figure 30: Distribution of Local School Spending, 2010
2010 Spending by School Districts: $2.94 billion
Facility Construction
3%
Food Service
1%
All Other
5%
Interest & Principal
on Debt
5%
Transportation
4%
Plant Operations
7%
Instruction
40%
Administration
9%
Support Services
9%
Special Education
17%
Expenditures and employment in New Hampshire’s public schools have continued to rise even
as enrollment levels fall. According to the Department of Education, total enrollment in New
Hampshire’s public elementary and secondary schools dropped from 192,882 students in 2005 to
178,034 students in 2010. At the same time the number of public school teachers decreased from
14,991 in 2005 to 14,605 in 2010 – a nearly 8 percent decrease. Because the number of students
fell faster than the number of teachers, the student-teacher ratio decreased from 12.9 studentsper-teacher in 2005 to 12.2 in 2010.
County appropriations
In 2010, all counties in New Hampshire appropriated $469 million for their services. Almost 40
percent of that spending was related to caring for seniors in county nursing homes. As shown in
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
59
Figure 31, human services, nursing home services, and corrections accounted for three-quarters
of county expenditures.
Figure 31: Distribution of County Appropriations
Distribution of County Appropriations (2010)
Intergovernmental
Transfer
Capital Outlay
0.7%
1%
Debt Service
4%
General Government
13%
Cooperative
Extension
1%
Human Services
21%
Public Safety
5%
Corrections
15%
County Nursing
Home
39%
Gross appropriations at the county level increased by approximately 4.4 percent per year
between 2005 and 2010. Appropriations for corrections and county nursing homes made the
biggest contribution to overall county expenditure growth.
The State Budget
Every two years, the Legislature draws up a budget to fund state activities and services. The
types of services funded are diverse: road plowing, health services for tens of thousands of
people, public education from kindergarten to the post-collegiate level, prisons and nursing
homes, to name just a handful.
Figure 32 portrays the distribution of state spending across the various executive agencies for the
2012-13 budget. Health and social services, education, and the justice system account for 75
percent of total state appropriations. Appropriations for resource protection (6 percent),
transportation (11 percent), and the general operation of state government (9 percent) accounted
for the remainder.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
60
Figure 32: State Appropriations, FY2012-2013
State spending by category, 2012-13 (includes all fund sources)
General Government
9%
Education
26%
Justice
& Public Protection
11%
Resource Protection
& Development
6%
Transportation
11%
Health
& Social Services
37%
Figure 25 also provides a clear picture of the state’s roles as a service provider. It is primarily a
provider of human services to vulnerable populations and a funder of education services
(including both K-12 and the college and university systems). This is similar to the picture in
most states across the country, though direct comparisons of state budgets are difficult.
Funding the State Budget
The state budget is funded by a variety of different revenue sources and distinct “funds.” Among
those funds are the Fish and Game Fund, the Highway Fund, the Education Trust Fund and the
General Fund. Figure 33 shows the various fund sources for state spending in the 2012-2013
budget.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
61
Figure 33: Distribution of Appropriations by Fund Source
Total Appropriations by Fund Source, 2012-2013
Turnpike Fund
2.3%
Fish & Game Fund
0.3%
Liquor Fund
0.9%
Sweepstakes Fund
0.2%
Highway Fund
5.8%
Other Funds
34.7%
General Funds
25.6%
Includes Statewide Property Tax,
Fees and Assessments,
Liquor Commission, Etc.
Federal Funds
30.2%
The chart shows the single largest source of funds as labeled “other.” Money for this fund comes
from a variety of different sources, but the main one is the statewide education property tax, as
well as various business taxes. This group of revenues pays for the state’s obligation for K-12
education. Federal funds are the second largest source of funding. The general fund is the third
largest fund and is the primary focus of the Legislature. So what goes into this fund, the source
of so much debate?
The General Fund
The state’s General Fund, into which most taxes and other revenues are deposited, supports most
state activities. It is the pool of money most directly under the control of lawmakers, and it is
what legislators, reporters, and others mean when they refer to the state budget. The General
Fund pays for at least half of the state services, other than highways and state aid to schools.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
62
Figure 34: Where the Money Comes From – General Fund Revenues FY 201163
2011 General Fund Revenue Sources
Board and Care Beer Tax
Utility Tax
Fees
Court Fines & Fees
1%
0%
2%
1%
Dog & Horse Racing
Securities Revenue
0%
3%
Business Profits Tax
Tobacco Tax
18%
9%
Real Estate Transfer
Tax
Business Enterprise
4%
Tax
5%
Other
8%
Meals & Rooms Tax
17%
Communications
Tax
6%
Insurance Tax
6%
Liquor Sales
9%
"Medicaid
Enhancement"
7%
Interest & Dividends
Tax
6%
Total:
$1,379.8
million
The above figure displays the sources of revenue for the General Fund in FY2011. The largest
contributor was the business profits tax, followed by the meals and rooms tax, liquor sales, and
the tobacco tax.64
The five largest sources together constitute 60 percent of the total revenue for the General Fund.
Overall, the large number of relatively small contributors to total revenue is rather unique to New
Hampshire. In many states, the two largest revenue sources (most often a sales tax and income
tax) make up 75 percent to 80 percent of the total.
The new budget: 2012-201365
On July 1, 2011, the 2012-2013 budget passed by the House and Senate became law without the
Governor’s signature. As with every budget conversation, the debate over the new budget
highlighted innumerable details of how New Hampshire raises and spends money. But to get a
firm grasp of this budget, it may help to focus on two overarching questions: How different is
63
New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies analysis of data from the Division of Revenue Administration
and other sources.
64
Ibid.
65
Excerpted from ‘Looking forward, Looking Back: The New State Budget” New Hampshire Center for Public
Policy Studies. July 2011. Concord. NH http://www.nhpolicy.org/report.php?report=285.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
63
this budget from past spending plans? And what impact will its largest policy changes have on
the state and its residents over the next two years?
As approved by the Legislature, the main budget document, House Bill 1, calls for $10.5 billion in
spending across state government. That includes expenditures drawn from state tax receipts,
federal funding, highway funds, and other accounts. Compared to the actual amount of money
spent in the 2010-11 budget, that figure represents a 3.7 percent reduction in spending. A series of
budgetary footnotes tacked on the end of the budget call for further reductions in spending, outside
of the main line-by-line plan. The single largest source of such unspecified savings came in
salaries and benefits for state workers.
Focusing on the general fund portion of the budget – or spending derived solely from state taxes –
yields a new set of comparisons. Comparing actual general fund spending in 2010-11 to the
amount authorized in the next budget, shows a 6 percent cut. But if one assumes that all the
footnote reductions in the 2012-13 budget are realized, the biennium-to-biennium cut jumps to 12
percent. Finally, if all general fund spending authorized in the original 2010-11 budget is counted,
which totals $3.2 billion, the new budget appears to cut spending by a whopping 15 percent. But
that comparison ignores the savings achieved over the past two years – in essence, it counts money
that was never spent in the baseline for the new budget. 66 (See Figure 35.) That lower spending
was the result of mid-year spending cuts, as tax receipts fell short of projections, leaving the state
with less money available to fund services.
Figure 35: General Fund Expenditures Began Declining in 2008
Actual General Fund Expenditures (Millions $)
$1,600
Actual General Funds Spent
acccording to the states
consolidated financial reports
Committee of Conference
$1,400
$1,200
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$200
20
12
20
10
20
08
20
06
20
04
20
02
20
00
19
98
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
$0
66
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? 2011 Edition
64
Looking forward: things to watch
Focusing on just the bottom-line number obscures the fact that the vast bulk of the changes in the
new budget are concentrated in about six categories of spending. Each area poses its own sets of
implementation challenges. We have also included a discussion about how trends in state tax
revenues might shape the long-term budget impact.
Medicaid Managed Care
Although not specifically authorized within the budget itself, the Legislature required that the
Department of Health and Human Services implement a managed care program for the New
Hampshire’s Medicaid clients. The 2012-13 budget reflects the savings anticipated from such a
program. The legislation authorizing a managed care program – SB 147 – required no specific
approach, but rather suggested that the models could include a traditional capitated managed
product, a primary care case management model or another model as deemed appropriate by the
commissioner of Health and Human Services.
Significant policy decisions are yet to be made which will affect the potential savings in each of
these programs. The speed with which these questions are answered, and the speed with which
the Department of Health and Human Services finishes negotiations with the Federal Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (which must approve such a program) will have a significant
impact on when those budgeted savings are realized.
Retirement system
The new budget incorporates many changes to the state retirement system in an effort to reduce
costs to the state and to restructure the pension system for greater long-term stability. Among other
changes, the budget increases by 2 percent the amount public employees must contribute to their
pensions and changes the terms for calculating future pensions. (This last change is applicable only
to non-vested employees.)
These changes are intended to offset the elimination of the state’s long-standing practice of
contributing a share of the municipalities’ retirement costs. The revisions to the system have
already been met with opposition. A coalition of public employee unions has asked a judge to halt
the imposition of the retirement-related portions of the budget. And the New Hampshire
Retirement System, which administers the pension fund, is also challenging the recent legislative
changes.
More in depth analysis of the state’s retirement system changes and the budgetary and other
implications can be found on the Center’s website. “New Hampshire’s Pension Reform: Tallying
the Bottom Line” can be found here: http://www.nhpolicy.org/report.php?report=288.
Hospital disproportionate share payments
Changes to the hospital disproportionate share program account for one of the largest fiscal
changes in the 2012-2013 budget. In past years, the disproportionate share program levied a tax on
hospitals and used that money to draw down federal revenues. With that federal money, the state
achieved two goals. It distributed Medicaid payments to hospitals that provide a disproportionate
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
65
share of care to Medicaid clients or uninsured patients. And the state also gained a revenue stream
for the general fund to support other programs.
Under this new scenario, 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 directed to the general fund.
The change is an effective reduction in Medicaid reimbursement for much of the state’s hospital
sector. (Excluded from that reduction are New Hampshire’s critical access hospitals, mostly
smaller, rural facilities.) The reduction for non-critical access hospitals amounts to approximately
5.6 percent of total revenues, though some hospitals will see a bigger decrease (Frisbee Memorial
Hospital in Rochester) and some will see 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.
More analysis of the changes to hospital disproportionate share payments can be found here:
http://nhpolicy.org/reports/hospital_dsh_program_v6.pdf.
Higher education
Some of the deepest spending reductions in the new budget come in government support for New
Hampshire’s higher education system, which includes the state University System and community
colleges. The bulk of that reduction ($84 million) was at the University System, which includes the
University of New Hampshire, Keene State College, Plymouth State University and Granite State
College. The cut to the University System represents a roughly 45 percent reduction in state
funding. The community colleges saw a reduction of roughly 20 percent in state funding in the
2012-13 budget.
The schools will absorb that cut through a combination of tuition increases, faculty and staff
reductions and other cost-saving measures. Those changes may impact many different aspects of
school life, including class size, average student loan debt, the ratio of tenured faculty to adjunct
faculty, and the average time students take to complete their degrees. The changes may also
encourage schools to accelerate efforts towards new efficiencies, fundraising campaigns, and
administrative reorganization to compensate for the reduction in state support.
Corrections
Though the Department of Corrections saw a slight increase in its overall funding compared to the
last budget, there are several policy changes that could have significant impacts on the
department’s operations.
Among other changes, the budget establishes a committee to study the possibility of privatizing the
Department of Corrections, with a report due by December 2011. The budget also authorizes the
Corrections commissioner to transfer up to 600 inmates to an out-of-state facility and forbids the
closure of the Berlin prison. In addition, the budget requires the commissioner to invest any excess
funds in the development of probation and parole programs, consistent with efforts last year to
reduce costs through allowing certain inmates to be released early. Finally, a footnote in the budget
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
66
requires the commissioner to find an additional $13 million in unspecified savings over the next
two years.
These policy changes pose several questions, among them: How far will proposals for privatization
of the state prison operations go? Will any of the above potential changes have an impact on prison
costs or public safety?
Revenue
State revenue projections adopted by lawmakers in the new budget forecast conservative growth
over the next two years – a 1 percent increase in state tax revenue in 2012, and a 2 percent increase
in 2013.
The Center, in its own revenue forecasts, anticipates higher revenue growth over that same period,
with increases of 3.8 percent and 2.6 percent in the two years of the biennium.
New Hampshire’s revenue streams depend greatly on the strength of the overall economy.
Predicting the behavior of that economy two years into the future is a difficult task, especially at a
moment of such uncertainty. From that perspective, conservative revenue estimates make sense.
But if state tax revenues return to previous levels over the course of the biennium – exceeding
those targets outlined in the budget – the question remains: What will policymakers do with that
excess revenue? The House has indicated that it would prefer to use any excess revenue to lower
tax rates. The Senate had expressed a desire to use excess revenue to offset spending reductions to
the state’s hospitals. There are, of course, other options as well, including infrastructural
investments and restoring other spending reductions in social services or education.
Budget writers set a goal of not raising taxes in the 2012-13 budget and the final budget does not
include any direct tax increases. What impact will that have on improving New Hampshire’s
broader business climate and its ability to recover from the recent recession? While identifying the
impact of state budgetary decisions on the private economy is difficult, policymakers should pay
attention to this in the coming months, as it was a stated intent of the new budget.
More detailed analysis of the revenue situation in New Hampshire can be found in our publication
“Counting on the Future: New Hampshire’s State Revenue Estimates” which can be found on our
website: http://www.nhpolicy.org/report.php?report=280 .
State personnel
Changes to the state’s workforce will be a big part of implementing this budget, though the actual
impacts are hard to measure at this point. The budget calls for an across-the-board cut of $50
million in salaries and benefits for state workers, with $20 million coming from the general fund.
Among the questions this process raises: What impact will a shrunken workforce have on state
operations? Will agencies manage to find efficiencies to offset the reduction in manpower? What
impact will it have on the public’s ability to receive government services? Will it foster more longterm efficiencies in the delivery of state services?
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
67
The impact of these major policy changes will be felt across the state. At the same time, the new
budget suspends or eliminates a handful of smaller programs that will have a deeper impact on a
smaller group of people.
Those include the elimination of funding for a program that provides cash assistance for
unemployed parents; the suspension of state support for two programs offering volunteer
opportunities for senior citizens; and the Alzheimer’s Disease Caregiver Program, which supports
family members who care for sick relatives. The budget also eliminates money for the state
Tobacco Quit Line and the state Farmer’s Market Program.
Collectively, these reductions will save the state about $7.3 million over the next two years. It is a
tiny amount in the context of the budget as a whole. Still, the impact on the individuals served by
those programs will be significant. Those, too, will inevitably be part of the debate about this
budget’s long-term impacts.
Growth in taxes: filling the General Fund, 1988 to 2011
Figure 36 shows the state’s General Fund revenue for 1988 through 2011. In 1988, General Fund
revenue totaled $543 million. By 2008, it had surpassed $1.4 billion, before dropping slightly to
$1.38 today. How did this increase of approximately $840 million occur?
Figure 36: New revenue sources have supported the growth of the state budget
NH General Fund Revenues 1988 to 2011
(Current $)
$1,600
$1,385
$1,353
$1,400
$1,000
Increased rates
New taxes
Medicaid Enhancement
$919
$800
$600
$543
Taxes and rates
in place in 1988
$400
$200
State Fiscal Year
20
10
20
08
20
06
20
04
20
02
20
00
19
98
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
$0
19
88
Millions of Dollars
$1,200
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
68
Figure 36 displays growth in General Fund taxation, 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 taxes, and increased tax rates. Contrary to the perceptions of many, the state has both
increased tax rates and developed new taxes over this time period. Natural growth in the tax base
established in 1988 accounted for only $919 million of the state’s General Fund revenues by
2011. The remaining $466 million – the difference between the base of $919 and the $1,385 that
was raised – was new taxes, increased tax rates, and a variety of other monies including federal
Medicaid disproportionate share monies.
Long-term growth in the General Fund
While the general fund has grown inexorably, Figure 37 takes a long-term view of changes in the
General Fund relative to economic growth in the state. It shows the long-term decline in the
portion of the state’s economy that is tapped as revenue for public spending by the General Fund.
Figure 37: State taxes as a percent of gross state product have declined
NH General Fund Taxes as % of Gross State Product, 1971-2010
3.25%
3.00%
2.75%
2.50%
2.25%
2.00%
Includes all regular state GF taxes but
does not include Medicaid enhancement,
tobacco settlement, rebates, etc.
1.75%
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 2.9 percent of the Gross State Product. By 2010, General Fund
taxes were about 2.2 percent of Gross State Product. If 2.9 percent of the Gross State Product had
been raised as tax revenue by the General Fund in 2010 (i.e., at the 1971 percentage), the total
would have been $370 million more than was actually raised.
The main drivers of General Fund spending growth67
For the period 1999 to 2009, the Center aggregated all state General Fund appropriations into
categories and measured the growth of each against overall economic growth over that same
period. Figure 38 illustrates the measure of this growth in constant dollar spending per capita and
displays each of the major growth areas in the state and those that saw declines in spending.
67
New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies. Dealing with New Hampshire’s Budget Budget-Busters.
November, 2006.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
69
Figure 38: Change in per Capita Expenditures by Major Budget Line Item
Change in Per Capita, Inflation Adjusted Expenditures by Major Budget Line Items
1999-2009
$70.00
Medicaid Provider Payments
$60.00
$50.00
$40.00
Retirement System
Retirement Health Subsidy
$30.00
Corrections
HHS: Developmental Services
$20.00
Catastrophic Aid
$10.00
School Building Aid
$0.00
($10.00)
($20.00)
Municipal Revenue Sharing
HHS State Hosp
Debt Service
In 2009, General Fund appropriations were $1,210 per capita, compared to $1,074 in 1999 (in
Consumer Price Index-adjusted dollars), for an increase of $136 for every New Hampshire
resident. The primary drivers of that increase included increased spending for Medicaid provider
payments, the state corrections system, and education spending, such as catastrophic aid (for
certain special education students) and school building construction. The retirement system also
played a large role in driving state expenditures.
Government efficiency in New Hampshire
In 2008, the PEW Center on the States conducted an independent analysis of government
performance for individual states. New Hampshire scored the worst rating in the nation,
receiving a “D+.” This was not the first time attention had been called to efficiency problems in
New Hampshire’s government. Periodically, New Hampshire governors have aimed to improve
the efficiency of government operations, creating commissions to review the structure, actions,
and performance of state agencies. These reviews date to as early as 1932 and have taken place
roughly once a decade since 1950, with the most recent one in 2003. These commissions have
suggested numerous opportunities for improvement in government operations, cutting costs and
improving results for residents who interact with the state. Certainly, many changes have
occurred during the years as state operations have evolved. Some findings of past commissions
remain unchanged, the recommendations for improvement echoed year to year. Although the
commission reports go back decades, many of their findings remain relevant in the policy arena.
Several reports have focused on the underlying relationship between the governor’s office and
the various agencies and departments of the state, and those agencies’ interactions with each
other. The governor, serving a two-year term, oversees state agencies and nominates agency
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
70
heads, but it is the elected Executive Council that has the final say on those nominations. In
addition, new governors “inherit” agency heads from their predecessors.
Past commissions have cited several problems with this structure, which can distance the
governor from managing agencies, thus limiting communication and accountability between the
independent entities of the state. From the perspective of efficiency, a two-year term may prevent
the governor from following through with goals and projects, and the inability to easily hire and
fire agency heads and cabinet members breeds a lack of accountability and a barrier to
communication. Each successive committee has recommended a four-year term for governor.
Additionally, independently operating agencies face no requirements to communicate with one
another, possibly resulting in a failure to coordinate and properly align goals – necessary steps if
the state wants to form a long-term comprehensive plan. The PEW report cites a lack of largescale planning as potentially dangerous for infrastructure needs, including transportation and
building maintenance. While these cited inefficiencies have been raised as concerns for upwards
of seventy years, this structure remains ingrained in the state’s culture and is unlikely to change.
In fact, proposals to extend the governor’s term have been brought before the Legislature ten
times since 1990, and none have received the three-fifths majority necessary to go before voters
on the ballot. (Changing the length of the governor would require amending the state
constitution, a more complicated process than simply changing a state statute.)
One of the most commonly repeated suggestions for promoting efficiency involves the
consolidation and centralization of various administrative services. Centralization helps to
provide an overseeing authority, minimizes wasteful spending, and takes advantage of
economies of scale. Failures in centralization often lead to monetary losses because they pass
over opportunities for specialization. For example, according to a 2009 memo released by
Administrative Services Commissioner Linda Hodgdon, purchasing in the state remains
decentralized; this means that the staffs of individual agencies draw up contracts or requests for
proposals that could perhaps be better negotiated by a trained specialist.
Contract procurement for operating and maintenance services accounts for 14 percent of the
2012-2013 state budget ($437.3 million), and new equipment purchases account for 1.1 percent.
Since these areas consume such a sizable portion of the state budget, cost-saving efforts such as a
centralized bidding process and specialized employees could result in significant savings.
A centralized authority would also prove beneficial in areas that require oversight of
maintenance or use, such as facilities and fleet management. If buildings or state vehicles are
underused or fall into disrepair, the state is responsible for picking up the bill.
The state has acknowledged the many benefits of centralizing administrative functions, and
efforts have been made to encourage this trend towards consolidation. The Department of
Administrative Services houses the mechanisms for centralized oversight, and Governor Lynch
encouraged agencies to use these centralized services as one of his initiatives. However, agencies
remain slow to meet these efforts. Each report of the various efficiency commissions, the PEW
Center assessment, and recent state audits all cite decentralization and fragmentation as
continuing barriers to efficiency maximization.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
71
The need for centralization is not limited to administrative functions. Personnel-related expenses
account for approximately 20 percent of New Hampshire’s budget. The 1991 report of the Task
Force on NH State Government summarized the findings of multiple previous and subsequent
commissions well when it cited “a lack of centralized authority to create standardized processes
for recruitment, training, planning, and performance” as a major efficiency downfall. In 1989,
the Division of Personnel was established under the umbrella of the Department of
Administrative Services. Reports in the years following the creation of this centralized authority,
however, continued to cite a lack of consistency in management techniques, employee
performance, and training of personnel.
Although employee performance evaluations are mandatory, commissions criticized the lack of
consequences for evaluations that are not tracked or linked to adjustments in compensation. The
reports promoted performance-based compensation as an incentive for employees to produce
high quality work and to potentially enroll in additional training courses. Personnel departments
will only face more pressure in the future, given the high turnover of younger workers and
approaching retirement of the older workforce.
While the demographic trends of the aging state workforce have been acknowledged, the
planning efforts to replace these aging employees are somewhat behind. Since 1991, the
committee reports have criticized a lack of long-term planning for personnel and recommended
mandatory comprehensive workforce planning and succession planning, on both the agency and
statewide level. A 2008 survey by the Workforce Development Committee by the Division of
Personnel revealed that only 12 percent of agencies had any written plan for personnel strategies
for the future.
While most of these recommendations involve a strengthening of centralized administrative
authority, some structural characteristics of authority can lead to inefficiencies. Particularly, the
levels of approval required for agencies to spend funds or acquire contracts and purchases can
prove quite time consuming, and the agencies may not function at maximum efficiency while
awaiting approval. Senior managers cannot reallocate funds within their budget without
undergoing review, and staff cannot spend in excess of $500 without approval. Each report since
the 1970s suggests that, in the interest of time and efficiency, these layers of review be
streamlined.
Public education in New Hampshire
New Hampshire has a long history of funding public education at the local level. However, with
court interventions over the past 15 years, the state has grappled with the issue of funding public
education with several reform efforts. The most recent reforms have satisfied the courts, for now.
Many questions remain about funding education into the future, especially with the current
economic climate in New Hampshire and the rest of the nation. In addition, perennial debates
about amending the state constitution to undo the court mandates regarding education funding
have been revived in the last legislative session. Below we offer a discussion about the history of
education spending, provide some context for education spending at both the state and local
level, and look ahead to possible changes on the horizon.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
72
Local education spending in 2010
New Hampshire school districts spent $2.94 billion dollars on public education in the 2009-2010
school year. The majority of that spending (roughly 57 percent) covered general student
instruction and special education services. The remainder funded education support activities,
school administration, pupil transportation, food service, and facilities costs. Figure 39 illustrates
how education expenditures were distributed in the 2009-2010 school year (2010 fiscal year).
Figure 39: FY2010 Spending by School Districts
2010 Spending by School Districts: $2.94 billion
Facility Construction
3%
Food Service
1%
All Other
5%
Interest & Principal
on Debt
5%
Transportation
4%
Plant Operations
7%
Instruction
40%
Administration
9%
Support Services
9%
Special Education
17%
Local and state spending on public education in New Hampshire has changed significantly over
time. The figure below (Figure 40) shows the long term changes in state spending on public
schools from 1915 through 2010.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
73
Figure 40: Historic Spending of NH School Districts68
Spending of NH School Districts 1915-2010
$10,000,000,000
Spending of NH School Districts
(Logarithmic Plot)
From 1999 to 2010, the compound
growth rate has been 5.8% 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.
2005-2006
2000-2001
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
School Year
For much of the last century – from 1942 to 1989 – school spending increased at a compounded
annual rate of nearly 11 percent. The pattern started when many of those who are now of
retirement age were in school and continued for the following two generations. This period of
spending growth was shaped by a number of phenomena: high school graduation became a
societal norm, cooperative schools were established, vocational centers were created, special
education became widespread and mandatory, student populations increased greatly, computers
became commonplace in most schools, and there was a period of high inflation. The spending
increases reflect all those changes.
Growth during the 1990s averaged only 4.5 percent per year. For the most recent decade,
however, growth seems to have increased slightly, to a roughly 6 percent annual rate.
For much of the past few decades, New Hampshire has fallen just below the national average in
terms of education spending as a percent of the overall economy. Figure 41 shows that, for most
of the past 40 years, the percent of gross state product spent on public education has been lower
than the rest of the nation.
68
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? 2011 Edition
74
Figure 41: Public School Spending as % of Measures of the Economy
Public School Spending as
Percent of the Overall Economy 1972-2010
5.5%
US spending on elementary and
secondary schools as a percentage
of US Gross Domestic Product
5.0%
4.5%
4.0%
3.5%
3.0%
NH spending on elementary and
secondary schools as a percentage
of Gross State Product
2.5%
School Year
2007-2008
2005-2006
2003-2004
2001-2002
1999-2000
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
2.0%
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
75
Financing local education in 2010
Total revenue by public school districts has increased from about $1.5 billion in 1998, to more
than $2.8 billion in the 2009/2010 school year. Over this time period, school district revenues
grew at a compound rate of 5.8 percent per year (see Table 7).
Table 7: School District Revenue
Total School
District Revenue
$1,525,924,563
$1,756,807,151
$1,837,546,569
$2,012,594,811
$2,036,305,245
$2,308,600,347
$2,326,415,521
$2,424,158,245
$2,518,192,808
$2,568,835,335
$2,696,787,351
$2,830,779,434
Increase Over
Prior Year
Compound Annual Rate of Increase
5.8%
School Year
1998-1999
1999-2000
2000-2001
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2006
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2010
15.1%
4.6%
9.5%
1.2%
13.4%
0.8%
4.2%
3.9%
2.0%
5.0%
5.0%
More than half of school district revenues for the 2009-2010 academic year were raised through
local property taxes (Figure 42). The statewide property tax for education contributed 13 percent
of school revenues and has remained level (roughly $363 million per year) in recent years. The
2009-2010 school year saw a large increase in the share of federal money as a percentage of
district revenue. That money was part of the federal stimulus grants intended to offset decreases
in state tax revenues from with the recession.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
76
Figure 42: School District Revenue
2010 School District Revenue: $2.83 billion
Federal Aid
(includes all
Stimulus funds)
12%
Tuition, Food, and
Other
1%
Sale of Bonds &
Notes
3%
Other State Aid
3%
State Cash
Adequacy Aid
15%
Local Property Tax
53%
Statewide
Property Tax
13%
Whereas federal aid, including stimulus funds, accounted for 12 percent of school district
revenue in New Hampshire in 2009-2010, it made up just 5 percent of district revenue the
previous year.
Comparing New Hampshire’s state contributions to education to the rest of the nation, the state
ranks in the bottom third. If you count both the locally retained statewide property tax and the
other revenues paid directly by the state in grants, New Hampshire’s state aid was 39 percent of
total revenue in 2008 (see Figure 43), which has declined in recent years, below the national
average of 48 percent.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
77
Figure 43: State Share of Education Spending
State share of public education spending
(elementary and secondary), 2007-2008
100%
90%
80%
70%
New Hampshire
U.S. Average
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Hawaii
Vermont
Idaho
New Mexico
Alaska
Minnesota
North Carolina
Delaware
Washington
Alabama
California
West Virginia
Kansas
Michigan
Utah
Kentucky
Arkansas
Mississippi
Indiana
Oklahoma
Oregon
Wyoming
Arizona
South Carolina
Montana
Wisconsin
Iowa
United States
Ohio
Tennessee
Maine
Georgia
Texas
New York
Colorado
Louisiana
Maryland
New Jersey
Virginia
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Florida
Connecticut
New Hampshire
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
Missouri
South Dakota
Illinois
Nebraska
Nevada
0%
In terms of total spending, however, New Hampshire spends more per pupil than the national
average: $13,725 per pupil in New Hampshire vs. $12,250 nationally (see Figure 44). This
highlights the fact that financial support for education in this state is largely locally based, since
state support is below the national average.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
78
Figure 44: Elementary-Secondary per Pupil Expenditure Amounts by State
2008-2009 (US Census data)
Per Pupil Public School Spending by State, 2008-2009
$25,000
$20,000
New Hampshire
U.S. Average
$15,000
$10,000
$5,000
NY
WY
NJ
DC
CT
VT
AK
MA
MD
RI
PA
HI
DE
NH
ME
OH
MN
IL
WI
IN
US
VA
MI
LA
KS
NE
ND
CA
WA
IA
NM
MT
WV
GA
OR
SC
NC
MO
TX
NV
CO
FL
KY
AR
SD
AL
OK
MS
AZ
TN
ID
UT
$0
History of education funding legislation
Education funding has long been a contentious issue in New Hampshire. The ongoing debate
centers on one question: Should the state be the primary source of funding for public education,
or should towns remain responsible for raising revenue for schools at the local level? What
follows is a brief discussion of how this debate has unfolded in recent history and ends with a
review of the latest legislative efforts to overhaul the school finance system in the context of the
current economic crisis.
Education funding reforms nearing the millennia
Throughout the history of school funding in New Hampshire, several costing formulas have been
proposed, implemented, and then replaced as the state Supreme Court ruled on the
constitutionality of each new plan. In its 1997 Claremont II decision,69 the court held that it was
the state’s constitutional duty to assure adequate education to public school students. Four
mandates were laid out for the legislature to act upon: 1) to define an adequate education; 2) to
determine the cost of providing that adequate education; 3) to fund an adequate education
through revenues that were raised proportionally and at a uniform rate throughout the state, and;
4) to ensure the delivery of an adequate education through accountability efforts.
69
Claremont Sch. Dist. v. Governor (Claremont II), 142 N.H. 462 (1997).
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
79
In response to the Claremont decisions, the education funding system in New Hampshire was
completely overhauled. Beginning with the 1999-2000 school year, a new plan was put into
effect that introduced the statewide property tax, which greatly increased state aid. This formula
was based on total school population, the number of low-income students, and the value of a
town’s taxable property. It dramatically increased the state’s participation in the funding of local
education, as the following charts (Figure 45) illustrate.
Figure 45: Education Funding 1998/99 and 1999/2000
1999/2000
1998/99
Sale of Bonds
& Notes
2%
Other
0%
Tuition, Food,
and Other
8%
Federal Aid
4%
Other State
Aid
4%
Other
0%
Local
Property Tax
77%
Sale of Bonds &
Notes
10%
Statewide
Property Tax
24%
Tuition, Food,
and Other
5%
Federal Aid
4%
State
Foundation
Aid
5%
Local Property
Tax
31%
State Cash
Adequacy Aid
23%
Other State Aid
3%
However, in 2005, the funding formula was again replaced, this time with a funding formula that
targeted the communities that needed funding the most, based on their ability to raise revenue
from property tax. At the same time, the new plan eliminated calculations based on a per pupil
amount needed for an adequate education.70
State aid to schools in the early 2000s
Regardless of the judicial perspective of the state’s education finance systems, the reform of the
late 1990s had a significant impact on school funding. Since that time, however, the state’s
contribution to local education costs has declined. While cash state aid was 29 percent of total
school district revenue in 1999-2000, it had fallen to 18 percent by 2009-2010, as shown in
Figure 46. (Part of the drop in state aid as a share of total education spending from 2008-2009 to
2009-2010 was due to federal stimulus funds being used to offset declines in state revenues.)
70
HB616, the legislation that outlined the reform effort, also capped the total amount that can be raised by the
statewide education property tax to $363 million. While this law renamed “adequate education” as “equitable
education” and the statewide property tax as the “statewide enhanced education tax,” it shared many of the
characteristics of the 1999 plan, by providing targeted funding for low-income students or English language
learners.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
80
Figure 46: Percent of NH School District Revenue Provided by State Aid
With the introduction of a statewide education tax in 1999, the amount raised by the local school
tax was cut by about $125 million – more than 50 percent. However, by 2004 the local school tax
had returned to raising the same level of funding as it did in 1998, and the total local school tax
raised has exceeded the 1998 level since 2005, as illustrated in Figure 47. As the figure
illustrates, the state’s share of support for education funding had been eroding, particularly with
the cap placed on the statewide property tax. This trend shows how school funding was returning
to a funding structure similar to the one of the late 1990’s – the structure the Supreme Court
ruled unconstitutional in Claremont II.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
81
Figure 47: Property Taxes by Function
(Tax rates for these calculations were rounded to the nearest hundredth.)
Source: New Hampshire Department of Revenue
As discussed above, the plan of the early 2000’s was short lived. The Londonderry decision of
2006 ruled that the funding formula established the prior year did not meet the criteria put forth
in the Claremont decisions. Moreover, the court established a deadline to meet the court’s
mandate of defining an adequate education.71
A new plan: defining adequacy and its cost
In 2007 and 2008, lawmakers approved legislation defining “the opportunity for an adequate
education” and developed estimates of the cost of that education. The resulting funding formula
established a “base cost” for every pupil of $3,450 and also included the option of something
called “differentiated” aid. This aid was meant to provide additional funding to students of
populations that research suggests need financial support – special education students, Englishlanguage learners, and economically disadvantaged students (as measured by the number of
students eligible for Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Programs.) These funds were to be allocated
directly to schools for implementing programs that enhance the educational opportunity of these
students. Schools would receive a fixed amount of extra money for every special education
student and English-language learners. However, a different approach was taken to deal with the
extra costs of teaching students from poor families. The higher the concentration of these
students, the more additional money schools would receive.
71
Londonderry School District v. the State of New Hampshire, 154 N.H 153 (2006).
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
82
Finally, the plan also included an extra form of financial aid – so-called “Fiscal Capacity
Disparity Aid” – to help towns with poor property tax bases and low overall wealth.
That plan took effect for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. Generally speaking, it spent
more per pupil in the state’s poorer communities, including Claremont and the North Country.
Wealthier communities, including towns on the Seacoast and in the Lakes Region, received
smaller per pupil grants, or none at all, relying solely on locally raised property taxes to pay for
education. The plan also provided the biggest boost in year-over-year per-pupil grants to the
state’s largest cities and towns, as well as some of its poorest.
Recent changes in education funding
As budget writers set out in early 2011 to draw up the new two-year spending plan, the issue of
education spending loomed as a certain fiscal challenge. The funding formula in place was
scheduled to increase education spending by roughly $70 million a year, because grant caps that
limited funding increases in 2010-2011 were set to expire in FY2012. In addition, the previous
year’s education budget relied on one-time federal stimulus funds that would not be available in
the 2012-2013 budget, thus creating a substantial gap.
In response to those pressures, lawmakers made some changes to the existing funding plan but
left much of the plan’s broad structure in place. Under the plan that took effect in July 2011,
communities are expected to see little change in their school aid for the 2011-2012 school year.
The new formula limits increases in a district’s state aid to no more than 5.5 percent of the
previous year’s aid. The new plan also eliminates donor communities by allowing those
property-rich communities to retain excess property tax money, rather than requiring them to
send it to the state for distribution to poorer towns.
Like the previous plan, the new formula links the amount of money each district receives to its
pupil enrollment and also accounts for the number of poor or special needs students, including
those receiving special education or learning English. Unlike the previous plan, the current
formula allocates extra money for poor students on a flat per-student basis, eliminating the tiered
increases that gave higher per-student grants to schools with higher concentrations of poor
students.
The new plan does include two other significant changes. For the first time, it bases state aid on
student performance, sending an extra $675 to schools for every third-grade student who is
testing below the “proficient” level in state reading tests. This new grant is intended to provide
more resources to schools with students who are struggling academically and to provide those
resources at a level when intervention can have a meaningful impact. In addition, the plan
eliminates the additional aid allocated to communities with low property values or low median
family incomes. While this change will have little impact in the 2012-2013 biennium, it may
change aid distributions in future years, as districts’ property values or median incomes fluctuate.
In addition, the Legislature kept in place an existing moratorium on the state School Building
Aid program, which has traditionally reimbursed school districts for part of the cost of new
construction or major renovations. Efforts to overhaul the program have been stalled in recent
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
83
years, and while districts continue to receive payments to cover bond payments on past projects,
the state is not offering reimbursements on new construction.
On the horizon: a constitutional amendment?
For years, New Hampshire lawmakers have sought to override the mandates of the state Supreme
Court’s education funding rulings by rewriting the state Constitution. Numerous amendments to
the Constitution have been proposed in the past decade, with none passing the threshold of threefifths support in both legislative chambers.
Republicans have typically led the effort for constitutional reform on education funding. With
the strong Republican majorities in both chambers of the Legislature after the 2010 elections, the
conversation returned to the possibility of an amendment.
Lawmakers proposed two such amendments in the 2011 session: one in the House, one in the
Senate. Both proposals would give the Legislature the full discretion to determine the amount of
state money used for public education, and the methods for raising and allocating that money. In
fact, the amendments differed in just a single word: One would grant lawmakers “authority,
responsibility, and discretion” in matters of education standards and accountability, whereas the
other would not give lawmakers “responsibility” for those matters. Neither amendment managed
to pass both legislative chambers, though both could be resurrected in the 2012 session, an
outcome legislative leaders have suggested may occur.
High school dropouts
Dropout rates are another way to assess the quality of New Hampshire’s educational system. The
Center has published several reports on the problem of dropouts from the public high schools.
Those reports indicated that the true dropout rate was about 25 percent at a time when official
figures stated that it was between 15 percent and 20 percent. Significant steps have been taken to
improve the tracking of dropouts, including the Department of Education’s new database of all
public school students and identifying students who later enroll in a college course or complete a
GED program.
The Center’s analysis shows the high school dropout rate in the state has declined from 23
percent in 2001 to 9 percent in 2010, as shown in Figure 48. These results are promising, but
reporting issues continue to plague the state’s understanding of the true dropout rate. The rate
reported by the state Department of Education undercounts students, and is also shown.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
84
Figure 48: Dropout Rate 2001-2008
Public High School Dropout Rate Decline, 2001-2010
Percent of Students who Do Not Graduate
25%
As calculated by NH Center for
Public Policy Studies based on
count of non-graduates by school
districts.
20%
15%
10%
As measured by NH Department of
Education based on "Dropout Report"
submissions of school districts that began
in 2001.
9.1%
5%
Estimates of dropouts after
students with reported GED are
removed
0%
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
Beginning with 2009-2010 the New Hampshire Department of Education will produce a cohort
dropout rate along with the yearly dropout rate. The cohort rate is based on the New England
Secondary School Consortium (NESSC) definition. Students are assigned to cohorts based on
when they first enter grade 9. Once a student is assigned to a cohort year the student's cohort
never changes. The cohort is adjusted by students transferring in and transferring out. The annual
dropout rate measures the percentage of students who drop out of school in a single school year.
The particular cohort dropout rate measures the percentage of students who dropped out over a
four year period. Students that dropped out of school and are enrolled in college are included in
the Dropped Out count and NESSC Dropouts only rate. This new cohort rate is essentially equal
to the non-graduate count calculated by the Center for the last decade.
Health care in New Hampshire: A system in flux
A slew of recent changes to the health care landscape will significantly reshape the way health
care is delivered in New Hampshire over the next five years. Those changes include:
•
•
•
•
The passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010;
The lingering economic impacts of the Great Recession;
Significant budgetary changes affecting Medicaid hospital reimbursements;
Legislated changes in Medicaid reimbursements for acute medical care services.
In the following section, we examine the impact of each of these in detail.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
85
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 few years, but the
legislation promises to fundamentally change health care delivery in New Hampshire. There is
no small share of uncertainty regarding this program. Many states have, by refusing to engage in
the development of Health Insurance Exchanges, indicated a lack of interest in participating in
the health care reform act. Moreover, there are judicial challenges to fundamental aspects of the
law which, if overruled, could put the reform in jeopardy.
In short, the major components of the act were an expansion in coverage through the expansion
of Medicaid program, the provision of insurance premium subsidies for some individuals not
eligible for Medicaid, the enactment of a number of health insurance reforms, and a requirement
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 additional costs of the plan would be primarily paid for by
expanding the Medicare payroll tax, implementing an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans,
and Medicare savings through reimbursement reductions as well care improvements. A more
complete description of the various components of the reform act can be found in a recent report
from the Kaiser Foundation72.
Some of the major components of the act have already been implemented. As of September 23,
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 employerbased 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.
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 take advantage of federal planning grants to implement
an exchange. Legislative leadership and the Executive Council have indicated that they are not
interested in implementing a health insurance exchange. This decision will result in the federal
government establishing an exchange on the state’s behalf. If New Hampshire does not
demonstrate by January 1, 2013 that it will have an exchange operational by January 1, 2014, the
federal option – whatever that is – will be mandated for New Hampshire.
The reform act also significantly expands New Hampshire’s Medicaid program. Currently, the
state’s Medicaid program provides health coverage and long-term care to the most vulnerable
residents, with the federal government picking up 50 percent of the tab. New Hampshire has kept
its Medicaid coverage low in comparison to some states. But under the health reform law,
Medicaid will cover almost everyone with incomes of up to 133 percent of the federal poverty
72
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
86
level – roughly $14,400 for an individual and $29,300 for a family of four. Estimates vary, but
somewhere between 39,500 and 62,000 adults now without insurance will be able to get
coverage through Medicaid. Expanding New Hampshire’s Medicaid program implies that
hospitals and physician offices will be paid for visits that went uncompensated in the past.
Finally, the federal health reform law establishes a number of pilot programs designed to reduce
costs by encouraging physicians and hospitals to provide more coordinated care. The idea is that
when a patient’s various care providers know what each are doing and share information about
the patient’s condition, it will lead to smarter choices, fewer medical interventions, better overall
health, and – eventually – lower costs. Such efforts as Patient Centered Medical Homes (PCMH)
and Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) may require major changes in the way physicians
practice, particularly primary care providers. Most of these pilot programs are focused on
containing Medicare costs, but could also effect cost containment in other areas.
The implications of these programs will not be fully understood for many years. Health systems
have already begun to respond to new incentives created by the recent reform, in an effort to
further consolidate systems of care in Accountable Care Organizations. States have also begun to
prepare for the addition of a significant number of previously ineligible individuals to the
insurance market. States are also anticipating requirements that they engage in (and potentially
manage) a new system of subsidizing private health insurance coverage. Moreover, businesses,
individuals and associations are all attempting to prepare for changes resulting from the
implementation of state and federal based health insurance exchanges.
New Hampshire state policy changes
Two major changes to state health policy occurred in 2011. First, the state stated an interest in
changing the way the Department of Health and Human Services manages the care of 120,000
clients. Legislation authorizing a managed care program – SB 147 – required no specific
approach, but rather suggested that the models could include a traditional capitated managed
product, a primary care case management model or another model as deemed appropriate by the
commissioner of Health and Human Services.
Significant policy decisions will have to be made very quickly to implement such a generically
defined program, especially if it is to generate the savings anticipated in the current state budget.
The two most critical questions about the design of the program are:
•
•
What populations will be included in the managed care program (children, pregnant
women, the mentally ill, the disabled or the elderly)?
What services will be included in the program (acute care medical services only or
more long term, often community based care services such as those provided to the
mentally ill, the disabled and the elderly)?
The speed with which these questions are answered, and the speed with which the Department of
Health and Human Services finish negotiations with the Federal Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (which must approve such a program) will have a significant impact on when
those budgeted savings are realized. Health insurance companies, health care management
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
87
companies, and health systems will all have to think about how this new budgetary requirement
changes their approach to providing and managing the care in their communities.
The second major state-level policy change this year was the reform of New Hampshire’s
hospital disproportionate share program. In past years, this program levied a tax on the state’s
hospitals and used that money to draw down a matching amount of money from the federal
government. With that federal money, the state achieved two goals: First, it received funds it
could distribute as Medicaid payments to hospitals that provide a disproportionate share of care
to Medicaid clients or the uninsured. Second, the state gained a revenue stream for its General
Fund to support other spending needs. While individual hospitals may have lost or gained under
this system, the industry as a whole received in return about what was invested.
That system was overhauled in the most recent legislative session. Beginning in the 2012-2013
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 change is an effective reduction in Medicaid reimbursement for much of the state’s hospital
sector. (Excluded from that reduction are New Hampshire’s critical access hospitals, mostly
smaller, rural facilities.) The cut for non-critical access hospitals amounts to approximately 5.6
percent of total revenues, though some hospitals will see a bigger decrease (Frisbee Memorial
Hospital in Rochester, for example) and some will see 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.
The hospitals will absorb the impact of these changes in several ways. Historically, hospitals
have been able to shift the costs of low reimbursements from Medicaid and Medicare to the
private insurance sector, a practice known as “cost shifting.” Such a shift will likely result in
increased private insurance costs. Hospitals may also seek to cut internal costs thorough layoffs
and other steps, or eliminate support for community clinics or other community services that go
beyond the traditional roles and responsibilities of the hospital industry.
While unlikely in the short term, given the effort and time required to change a business model,
hospitals could also respond to these changes by lowering the costs of the services they currently
provide. In any event, the hospital industry’s response to these changes will fundamentally shape
the impact of the 2012-2013 budget and should be watched closely.
There are other significant efforts to reform the health care system. The Citizen’s Health
Initiative (CHI), for example, has developed a series of efforts designed to improve the quality of
health care and lower its costs in New Hampshire.73 Among the major initiatives is an effort to
implement a medical home pilot to improve health care quality in collaboration with the four
major health insurance carriers: Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield NH, Cigna Health care, Harvard
Pilgrim Health care and MVP Health care. The pilot sites include nine primary care practices
73
More information on these initiatives can be found at:
http://citizenshealthinitiative.org/sites/citizenshealthinitiative.org/files/media/2010/2010YearEndSummaryWithLink
s.pdf.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
88
with nearly 100 clinicians, 39,000 commercially insured members and more than 130,000 unique
patient visits per year. In addition, the CHI and its partners launched an Accountable Care
Organization project in 2010 with five integrated health care systems that are focused on slowing
the rate of increase in health care costs while concurrently improving patient outcomes.
Public and private health care spending
Health care in New Hampshire is a complicated network of private insurance and multiple public
programs. In addition, roughly 10 percent of the state’s population lacks health insurance, adding
another level of complexity to the issue.
New Hampshire businesses play a critical role in health care74
Businesses are the primary source of insurance coverage for an estimated 824,000 New
Hampshire residents, or 63 percent of the state’s citizens, as shown in Figure 49.75 New
Hampshire businesses contributed almost 79 percent of the health care premium costs, with
employees picking up the remaining 21 percent.76
Figure 49: Businesses are the primary source of health insurance for NH citizens
Number of NH Residents by Health Coverage 2009
Uninsured,
135,400, 10%
Other Public,
9,800, 1%
Medicare,
176,500, 14%
Medicaid,
101,800, 8%
Employer,
824,600, 63%
Individual, 57,000,
4%
Total health expenditures as part of New Hampshire’s economy77
In 2009, New Hampshire’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was $59 billion and total health
expenditure was $11.3 billion. That put health spending in the state at 19 percent of GDP – the
highest percentage in recent history.78 As shown in Figure 50, health care accounts for an ever74
New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies. 16 Cents of Every Dollar. March, 2007.
StateHealthFacts.Org: Health Insurance Coverage of states (2008-2009), U.S. (2009).
76
StateHealthFacts.Org: Average Single Premium per Enrolled Employee For Employer-Based Health Insurance,
2010.
77
New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies. 16 Cents of Every Dollar. March, 2007.
78
Most figures are taken from or based on 2004 national and state Health Expenditure Accounts prepared by the
Office of the Actuary, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/nationalhealthexpenddata/01_overview.asp.
We have projected NH expenditures for years 2005-2018 using the CMS national projections through 2018. In the
2004 Health Expenditure Accounts, CMS replaced “Construction” with “Structures and Equipment.” This has
75
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
89
increasing share of the state’s economic activity, a trend that is projected to continue. By 2018,
health spending is predicted to total 24 percent of state GDP. This trend is mirrored nationally, as
well.
Figure 50: Health expenditures as a percent GDP increased from 7 to 19 percent
NH Total Health Expenditure as % of NH Gross Domestic Product
25%
Projected
20%
During recessions, the expansion of the
economy slows but health care spending
continues to increase, so it consumes
more of the GDP. The "ratcheting" effect
is visible in this chart.
15%
Actual
Baseline = 4.0% GDP growth
10%
1999-07 = 4.5% GDP growth
1990-99 = 6.0% GDP growth
5%
1981-90 = 9.4% GDP growth
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
0%
Year
Source: Calculations by New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies, based on national projections made by Office of the Actuary,
Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Washington DC.
Health care as an economic engine
The share of total wages attributable to health care and social services has been increasing in
New Hampshire over the past decade. Moreover, approximately 42 percent of job growth in the
state over the next decade is anticipated to be in health care and social service industries.79 This
will create an even higher concentration of health care wage activity in an economy that already
relies so heavily on it.
Health care and social service employment as a share of economic activity is more concentrated
in New Hampshire’s North Country than the rest of the state. Figure 51 below shows the
concentration of health care and social service industry wages as a percent of all wages paid in
each county of New Hampshire in 2008. Health care and social services account for the highest
percentage of all wages in Grafton County – 25 percent – due in part to the role DartmouthHitchcock Medical Center plays in that region’s economy. But the health care industry accounts
for more than 20 percent of the salaries paid in Coos County, well above the state average of
resulted in higher measures of expenditure. Our data in this report, therefore, is not exactly equivalent to that in our
prior reports.
79
Department of Labor analysis.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
90
12.7 percent. Rockingham County, by contrast, is half as dependent on the health care industry
as is Coos County.
Figure 51: Percent of Wages Earned in health care Jobs by County
Hospital expansions and certificate of need
Several New Hampshire’s hospitals have embarked on multi-million dollar addition and
renovation projects in recent years. The state’s Health Services Planning and Review Board is
responsible for approving any hospital construction that exceeds $2.7 million by approving a
certificate of need (CON) for the project. Most recent data on state CON applications confirms
the acceleration in construction projects undertaken by New Hampshire’s hospitals. Since 2000,
New Hampshire hospitals have launched more than $1.3 billion in planned construction projects.
Projects approved in 2007 and 2008 are double the dollar value of all of the hospital projects
approved in 2004 through 2006, as shown in Figure 52.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
91
Figure 52: Approved New Hampshire CON Applications 1990 to 2011
Grand Total Approved CON Applications
~ $49 million per year 1980-1999
~$113 million per year 2000-2011
$300,000,000
~$1.36 Billion since 2000
$250,000,000
$200,000,000
$150,000,000
$100,000,000
$50,000,000
20
10
20
08
20
06
20
04
20
02
20
00
19
98
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
19
88
19
86
19
84
19
82
19
80
$0
Source: NH Division of Public Health Services,
Health Services Planning and Review Reports
In the 1980s and 1990s, New Hampshire hospitals announced construction projects averaging
about $49 million per year in expansions. Over the last 12 years, the average annual expansion
among all New Hampshire hospitals is almost triple that amount, at $113 million per year. While
this recent trend implies large increases in health care jobs and economic impact, accelerated
hospital expansions and construction projects in this decade represent significant financial
commitments that will have to be recovered by hospitals through charges and fees to their
patients. As a result, hospital costs will certainly rise, but there is little evidence that these
expansions necessarily produce better health outcomes.
Personal health care spending in 201080
Total health care expenditures in New Hampshire were more than $10 billion in 2008. Of that,
personal health care spending was about $9 billion, more than double the amount from ten years
earlier ($4 billion). For the past decade, personal health care spending has increased at an
average compound annual rate of 7 percent.
Figure 53 displays the different services that personal health care spending in New Hampshire go
towards. Hospital services constitute about 36 percent of the total, while physician and clinic
services make up about one quarter.
80
New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies. “Health Care 101”
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
92
Figure 53: Health Care Expenditures by Type
Projected Personal Health Care Expenditure in NH 2010 (in $ million)
Other Personal Health
Care
$430
Durable Medical Nursing Home Care
$701
Products
$142
Total:
$9,666 million
Other Non-Durable
Medical Products
$196
Prescription Drugs
$1,113
Hospital Care
$3,518
Home Health Care
$289
Dental Services
$626
Physician Services
$2,351
Other Professional
Services
$300
Annual health insurance premiums
In 2009, the average annual premium for single person coverage in New Hampshire was $5,227
– 12 percent higher than the national average. The average premium for family coverage in New
Hampshire was $13,822 – 6 percent above the national average. The average premium for twoperson coverage in New Hampshire was $10,236 – 13 percent above the national average. As
shown in Table 8, for both single coverage and family coverage, the compound average rate of
increase in premiums in New Hampshire between 2000 and 2009 was about 9 percent, well
above the rate of inflation in the same period.
Table 8: Annual Growth in Health Insurance Premiums
Average Annual Employee Contribution to Health Insurance
New Hampshire
United States
Annual
Annual
2000
2009 increase
2000
2009 increase
Single coverage
$470
$1,087
9.77%
$450
$957
8.75%
Family coverage
$1,752
$3,527
8.08%
$1,614
$3,474
8.89%
2-person coverage
n/a
$2,446
n/a
$2,363
-
The average premium for a family coverage health insurance policy can be compared to the
state’s mean family income to ascertain, on average, what percent of income would have to be
paid to purchase such a policy.81 As shown in Table 9, the cost of a family policy in New
Hampshire has grown from 10 percent of mean family income in 2000 to 15 percent in 2008.
81
Mean family income from the American Community Survey, U.S. Bureau of the Census,
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/index.htm, accessed August 2010.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
93
Table 9: Premiums as a Share of Income
Annual Health Insurance Premium for Family Coverage as Percent of Mean Family Income
2000
Family Coverage
Premium
2001
2002
$9,672
$9,776
$11,156
$72,655
$77,874
$75,229
$79,840
12.4%
13.0%
14.0%
14.8%
$7,525
Mean Family Income
% of Family Income
$73,465
10.2%
2003
2004
2005
2006
2008
$11,835
$12,686
$13,592
$80,187
$84,795
$92,043
15.0%
14.8%
While the average health insurance premium accounts for about 15 percent of mean family
income, Figure 54 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 22 percent of the mean family
income. In Rockingham County, the cost of a health insurance premium is less than 13 percent of
mean family income.
Figure 54: Average Health Insurance Premium Compared to County Family Income (ACS)
Average Family Health Insurance
Premium as % of Mean Family Income in
New Hampshire 2008
25.0%
22.0%
20.0%
18.9%
17.8% 17.5%
16.5% 16.3% 16.1%
15.0%
15.2%
14.0%
12.8%
10.0%
5.0%
G
ra
fto
n
M
er
rim
ac
k
H
ills
bo
ro
ug
h
R
oc
ki
ng
ha
m
rd
St
ra
ffo
re
C
he
sh
i
kn
ap
Be
l
ar
ro
ll
C
Su
lliv
an
C
oo
s
0.0%
Cost-shifting by health care systems82
For a long time, the health care industry has faced a financing problem. Reimbursements for
Medicare and Medicaid patients fall far short of the actual expense of providing care for those
patients. At the same time, many uninsured patients receive treatment through hospital-based
charitable care. Those two phenomena leave care providers with deficits. One way of covering
these deficits has been by charging other patient populations – largely the privately insured –
82
For more information, see “Health System Cost Shifting in New Hampshire,” New Hampshire Center for Public
Policy Studies, March 2011.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
94
more than the actual cost of their care. This phenomenon, known as ‘cost-shifting,’ also allows
many hospitals to generate positive operating margins.
In the past, the Center has focused its analysis on the hospital as the financial unit. The hospitals
in the state have been engaged with the Center in attempting to improve the analytic methods,
acknowledging that although the hospital exists as a financial unit, thinking of hospitals as standalone inpatient providers does not necessarily reflect reality. Vertical and horizontal integration
have created “health systems,” which provide a broad group of services not traditionally
associated with a stand-alone hospital, including physician groups, nursing homes, and
ambulatory care centers among others.
Working with the New Hampshire Hospital Association, the Center has updated its analyses to
reflect the role played by these health systems. Using the health system did impact one important
measure of the financial well-being of the health care market: net operating margins. Stand-alone
hospital margins were almost 6 percent in 2008, while health system margins were half of that.
This change was largely the result of the inclusion of physician group practices in the
consolidated heath system financial reporting.
However, the fundamental dynamics and implications of cost shifting remain. In 2009, private
insurance payments were $800 million above expenses, which more than offset losses in
Medicare ($290 million), Medicaid ($165 million) and uncompensated care ($209 million). (See
Figure 55)
Figure 55: Hospital Cost-Shifting, 2009
Health System Cost-Shifting in 2009
(Aggregate of 26 NH Health Care Systems)
250%
other
3%
bad debt
& charity
4%
+ $800 million
100%
50%
+ $48m
150%
- $291 million
3rd Party Payers (insurance)
46%
Medicare
38%
- $165
million
Medicaid
9%
- $208 million
Payment as Percent of Cost
200%
Total amount cost-shifted: $683m
Net operating gain: $128 million (Post-Tax)
Operating margin: 2.8%
0%
Percent of Gross Charges
Expanding our analysis to the entire health system did not fundamentally change our findings
about cost-shifting. Given current market dynamics, health systems continue to be able to shift
losses to private sector payers. During the period of analysis – 2008 through 2009, when the state
experienced higher unemployment rates and higher Medicaid caseloads – the health care system
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
95
continued to generate positive operating margins. In 2009, the overall system saw a net operating
margin of 2.8 percent.
Not all health systems in New Hampshire, however, have the same ability to cost shift, as
demonstrated by the different operating margins. As shown in Table 10, six health systems –
Mary Hitchcock, Portsmouth Regional, Parkland Medical, Concord Hospital, Exeter Hospital
and Wentworth Douglas Hospital – accounted for over 70 percent of the operating gains in the
state. Seven hospitals – New London, Speare Memorial, Cottage, Alice Peck Day, Huggins, St.
Joseph, and Upper Connecticut Valley Hospitals – experienced negative operating margins
ranging from a small loss to one of almost 6 percent.
The policy implications of this analysis are relatively straightforward: Health systems cost-shift
at different levels and are experiencing different levels of financial health. Any policy that
affects the health system needs to account for the fact that different health systems have different
constraints and opportunities.
Table 10: OperatingTable
Margins
at NH Hospitals
1
For policy makers interested in
limiting cost-shifting, there are three
possible policy responses. First, policy
makers can find ways to encourage the
health care system to lower the cost of
services so that existing
reimbursement levels are adequate.
Second, the state can expand health
insurance coverage so that charitable
care is financed by a source other than
cost-shifting. Third, the state and/or
federal government can focus on
reimbursement levels in the public
system, encouraging both the state
Medicaid program and the federal
Medicare program to increase
reimbursements for those programs.
Any of these changes could
significantly reduce the cost-shifting
phenomenon – and theoretically
reduce premiums for private payers.
However, the costs of these policy
options – specifically expansions in
coverage and increases in
reimbursement levels – would have to
be borne by either the state or federal
government via increases in taxes or
spending cuts in other services.
NH Post-Tax Health System Operating Margins (2009)
Hospital
Alice Peck Day
Androscoggin
Catholic Med Ctr
Cheshire
Concord
Cottage
Elliot
Exeter
Franklin Regional
Frisbie Memorial
Huggins
Lakes Region
Littleton
Mary Hitchcock
Memorial
Monadnock
New London
Parkland Medical
Portsmouth Regional
So. NH Regional
Speare Memorial
St. Joseph
Upper Conn Valley
Valley Regional
Weeks Memorial
Wentworth-Douglass
Total
Operating Margin
After Tax
-1.0%
1.7%
1.6%
1.7%
3.3%
-1.5%
1.9%
4.7%
0.9%
1.1%
-1.4%
0.5%
5.0%
2.9%
0.4%
0.5%
-0.2%
11.8%
9.3%
2.1%
-0.6%
-0.4%
-5.9%
0.1%
1.6%
4.5%
2.8%
Aggregate
Operating
Margins
($411,503)
$872,229
$4,314,762
$2,540,387
$12,929,000
($409,488)
$7,268,514
$12,746,734
$327,419
$1,423,461
($764,565)
$934,361
$3,161,775
$33,170,000
$271,805
$310,742
($113,719)
$13,277,285
$20,711,404
$5,538,424
($256,472)
($924,000)
($927,047)
$56,409
$649,021
$11,113,459
$127,810,397
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
96
Aging and the health care system83
Among the impacts of the aging of the population will be a change in the demand for health care
services. 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 in-migration, while others will age in place, with current residents
growing older. Each situation will present different sets of challenges to the health care system.
Older residents tend to spend a significantly higher share on health care than other goods (Figure
56). This is due to both changing levels of income as well as changes in the demand for health
care.
Figure 56: Health Care Purchasing Behavior by Age
Shares (%) of Total Expenditures for Healthcare, by Age Group, Consumer
Expenditure Survey, 1998 and 2008
14
1998
2008
12
12.5
11.9
10
8
7
5.8
6
4.8 4.8
3.4 3.6
4
4
4.2
2.3 2.3
2
0
Under 25 years
25-34 Years
35-44 years
45-54 Years
54-64 Years
65 years and
older
Aggregate health care costs increase for a variety of reasons. Determinants of aggregate health
care costs include the following: changes in technology, input costs for services, mix of services
provided for a condition, the number of people with access to health care, and the type of care
received. In our analysis, however, we attempted to understand the impact of an aging population
on the health care system by aging existing health care expenditures, holding constant the level
of technology (the mix of services) and the price of services. For each of the major payers –
Medicaid, commercial insurers, and Medicare – we simulated the impact on the level of
expenditures and the mix of expenditures solely resulting from a change in the underlying
demographics of the population.
The major findings of this analysis include:
83
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? 2011 Edition
97
Aging will reshape the system, but will do so slowly. Current population projections from the
New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning anticipate the ‘silver tsunami’ quite clearly – a
coming wave of elderly residents making up an increasingly larger share of the state’s
population. And there is little question that the retirement of the Baby Boom generation will
reshape the health care system. However, the rate at which the population ages will not reach its
highest levels-- and the intensity of health care resource use will not begin to peak-- until as late
as 2020. This gives the system time to respond thoughtfully and carefully to changes.
Aging will shape the state’s regions differently. Demographic trends across the state vary
considerably, and therefore the impact of aging on the health care system needs to be understood
on a regional level. Current population projections indicate that the share of the population over
the age of 65 in Coos County will grow significantly by 2030. While common sense suggests
this will strain the existing health care system, this increase may actually stabilize the system’s
financing. As the population ages in Coos, an increasing share of the population will be eligible
for Medicare, which provides cost-based reimbursement to Androscoggin Valley Hospital due to
their critical access hospital designation.
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 is 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 longterm 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.
Aging, the state budget and other policy. The aging of the population will have a profound
impact on New Hampshire’s state budget across many dimensions. While we did not do a
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
98
comprehensive review of all services, the aging of the population will impact state purchasing of
health insurance for its employees, its retirees, as well as for wards of the state in the corrections
system. As an example, in 2010, there were 105 individuals in the corrections system over the
age of 65. By 2030, our forecasts of the population in prison suggest that number might increase
to more than 250. The prison system has developed an inpatient psychiatric capacity within its
walls. The aging of the population raises questions about the need to develop long-term care
capacity – a nursing home behind the prison walls. The state needs to begin reviewing and
assessing the indirect and direct impacts of this aging on its health care purchasing activities.
New Hampshire’s corrections system
Like prison 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 United States. Due to the
increasing prisoner population and the increasing costs associated with the system, significant
policy efforts have been implemented to control the growth. In the early 2000s, the state moved
aggressively into alternative sentencing models (including the now defunct Academy program).
Most recent efforts have focused on reducing recidivism, or the re-arrest of former prisoners.
Crime in New Hampshire
The table below provides the rank of New Hampshire’s reported rate of crime as compared to all
50 states and the District of Columbia. (No. 1 indicates the highest reported crime rate, and 51
the lowest rate.) Going from one year to the next, a higher number means that compared to other
states, the relative crime rate is decreasing. A lower number means the relative level of crime is
increasing. The “index” category represents the total number of crimes. Since most crimes
involve property crime, the index is weighted towards these types of crime.
Table 11: New Hampshire’s Crime Rank Compared to All 50 States and the District of Columbia
Index
Violent
Property
Murder
Forcible
Rape
Robbery
Aggravated
assault
Burglary
LarcenyTheft
Vehicle
Theft
2008
49
49
48
50
30
44
50
50
45
48
2007
2006
50
50
49
48
49
50
51
51
40
40
44
44
50
50
47
50
49
50
49
48
2005
49
48
50
48
29
44
49
51
50
50
Year
New Hampshire has consistently had among the lowest overall crime rates in the U.S. In general,
New Hampshire’s property crime rates are very low compared to other states. The state’s violent
crime rates for robbery and forcible rape rank slightly higher, but still among the lowest in the
country.
New Hampshire’s crime rate increased much faster than the national average in the 1960’s and
1970’s, but then fell faster than the national average over the past three decades. Among the
factors contributing to these trends are differences on the state and national levels in population
density, degree of urbanization, demographic makeup of the resident population and economic
trends. A comparison of the three Northern New England states (Maine, New Hampshire and
Vermont) shows that crime rates increased in all three states from 1960 through 1980, and then
declined at approximately the same rate after 1980, which suggests similarities in the underlying
causes of crime trends.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
99
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, we calculate that one property crime offense is committed every 18
minutes, and one violent crime offense is committed every 4 hours 8 minutes in New Hampshire.
However, very few criminal offenses result in an arrest. Of the reported criminal offenses in
2009, less than one third of violent crimes and less than 15 percent of property crimes in New
Hampshire resulted in an arrest.
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 14,000 criminal cases each year. 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 of
criminal cases are dismissed.
The state prison system
The New Hampshire prison system houses about 3,000 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.
Keeping New Hampshire residents safe from crime comes at significant cost. The state, county
and municipal governments spend about $1 billion per year on programs related to public safety
and justice. This includes municipal police, county sheriffs and jails, the state police, the state
court system and the state prison system.
The number of inmates in the New Hampshire state prison system increased 560 percent in 28
years, from 394 inmates in 1982 to 2,788 in 2010.84 Factors commonly associated with increases
in a state’s prison population fail to explain this extraordinary rise in the number of inmates. As
shown in Table 12 below, New Hampshire’s resident population, the number of people living in
poverty, and the number of violent crimes have not increased as quickly as the number of
inmates held in New Hampshire’s state prisons. In fact, while the number of state prison inmates
increased almost six times from 1982 to 2007, the number of property crimes and the number of
arrests for all crimes in New Hampshire actually declined 20 percent.
84
Prisoner Population since 1812, http://www.nh.gov/nhdoc/population.html.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
100
Table 12: Trends in New Hampshire State Prison Inmates, and Social Factors
NH
Prison
Inmates
NH
Resident
Population
NH
Residents
in
Poverty
NH
Total
Arrests
NH
Drug
Arrests
NH
Violent
Crimes
NH
Property
Crimes
1982
394
951,001
53,256
47,780*
2,682*
1,187
35,229
2007
2,615
1,315,828
76,318
38,396
2,570
1,807
24,896
Percent
Change
563.7%
38.4%
43.3%
-19.6%
-4.2%
52.2%
-29.3%
* New Hampshire arrest data is from 1987
Since the increase in state prison inmates cannot be attributed to increases in population,
residents in poverty, violent crimes, or drug arrests, growth in the prison population has been
caused primarily by policy changes within the criminal justice system. These policies include
more severe penalties for violent and non-violent criminal offenses, including longer sentences,
and increasingly harsh penalties for recidivism. In addition, there is no consistent, statewide use
of alternative sentencing or release support programs, and the state operated mental health
treatment infrastructure has been reduced.
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. About 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 table.
Table 13: New Hampshire State Prison Population
Reporting Crime Type Summary for 6/1/2011
Total
Total
Total
Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
# Type Description Total Count Males Females Under 17 17-21 22-25 26-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Over 60
1 Unk nown
100
91
5
0
0
7
10
17
32
18
12
2 Drugs/Alcohol
338
303
35
0
5
37
88 122
51
26
9
3 Other
222
209
13
0
3
23
33
67
67
21
8
4 Violent
1,384 1,330
54
0
40 124 168 320 363 221
148
5 Property
593
536
57
0
27
98 113 186 115
46
8
TOTALS=
2,637 2,469
164
0
75 289 412 712 628 332
185
Table 14 shows the state prison population grouped according to age and by minimum or
maximum sentence. Approximately 45 percent of the state prison population has a minimum
sentence from one to three years, while 50 percent of the state prison population has a maximum
sentence between five and 20 years.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
101
Table 14: Minimum and Maximum Sentence Summary
Facility Reporting Crime Sentence Minimum-Maxi mum Summary for 6/ 1/2011
Total
Total Total Total Total Total Total Total
Description
Length Range
Total Count Under 17 17-21 22-25 26-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Over 60
MINIMUM
Less than 1 Year
74
0
2
10
14
20
13
12
3
MINIMUM
1- 3 Years
1,159
0
56 198 245 343 214
83
20
MINIMUM
3- 5 Years
442
0
8
45
74 122 108
61
24
MINIMUM
5- 10 Years
566
0
6
16
46 140 178
96
84
MINIMUM
10-20 Years
108
0
0
4
10
25
37
17
15
MINIMUM
Greater than 20 Years
192
0
3
9
13
45
48
47
27
MINIMUM
Unknown
96
0
0
7
10
17
32
18
12
TOTALS =
2,637
0
75 289 412 712 630 334
185
MAXIMUM Less than 1 Year
19
0
0
3
4
4
3
5
0
MAXIMUM 1- 3 Years
233
0
15
52
47
57
47
14
1
MAXIMUM 3- 5 Years
452
0
18
88
95 134
81
31
5
MAXIMUM 5- 10 Years
793
0
32
95 160 238 165
76
27
MAXIMUM 10-20 Years
646
0
6
30
65 170 181 113
81
MAXIMUM Greater than 20 Years
398
0
4
14
31
92 121
77
59
MAXIMUM Unknown
96
0
0
7
10
17
32
18
12
TOTALS =
2,637
0
75 289 412 712 630 334
185
Admissions to the prisons are being 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.
In 2010, 42 percent of the admissions to state prison were from offenders on parole who either
violated parole or had a new sentence imposed. Fifteen percent of admissions were probation
violators, and 17 percent were offenders in the state prison system previously who were
returning on a new charge or term. Parole releases accounted for over 75 percent of total
releases, 12 percent were released to probation, while 9 percent of releases were because the
inmate completed all sentences (maxed out).
Figure 57: Monthly State Prison Admissions; Total and From Parole
NH State Prison Admissions
200
180
160
140
Total
Admissions
Admissions
from Parole
120
100
80
60
40
20
Ja
n-
09
M
ar
-0
9
M
ay
-0
9
Ju
l -0
9
Se
p09
N
ov
-0
9
Ja
n10
M
ar
-1
0
M
ay
-1
0
Ju
l -1
0
Se
p10
N
ov
-1
0
Ja
n11
M
ar
-1
1
M
ay
-1
1
0
According to recidivism studies produced by the Department of Corrections, the percent of
people released from prison who were re-incarcerated within three years (for a new crime or
violating a condition of parole) increased from 40 percent for those released in 2003 to 50
percent for those released in 2005, shown on Figure 58.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
102
Figure 58: Recidivism Has Been Increasing
New Hampshire State Prison Recidivism Rate:
Percent of Releases Within That Year Returning in 3 Years
60%
50%
50%
44%
40%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2003
2004
2005
By comparison, the national average recidivism rate is 43.3 percent, according to the latest
research from the Pew Center on the States.85
Further research into the 2005 cohort released from state prison shows that inmates in the
younger age groups and those convicted of property crimes are more likely to return to state
prison.
Table 15: Detail on 2005 Cohort Released from New Hampshire State Prison
Recidivism by Age
Recidivism by Offense Type
2005 Cohort
2005 Cohort
17-19
50.0%
Violent
43.3%
20-25
58.2%
Property
56.1%
26-29
51.0%
Drug
49.7%
30-39
51.1%
Public Order
50.0%
40-49
44.2%
Total
49.6%
50-59
25.0%
Total
49.6%
Reducing recidivism: justice reinvestment in New Hampshire86
In 2009 Governor Lynch and key legislative, judicial, law enforcement, and agency leaders
requested technical assistance from the Council of State Governments Justice Center to help
develop a statewide policy to increase public safety, reduce recidivism, and slow the increase in
corrections spending. The Justice Center conducted intensive analysis of data on incarceration,
crime and arrests in New Hampshire, and convened roundtable discussions and interviews with
stakeholders throughout the state.
85
“State of Recidivism, The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons”, Pew Center on the States, Public Safety
Performance Project, April 2011.
86
Full report available at: http://www.justicereinvestment.org/states/new_hampshire.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
103
In late January 2010, the Justice Center presented its findings to state policymakers:
“Although New Hampshire’s crime rate has been low and stable for the past ten years,
the prison population has increased 31 percent and spending on corrections has nearly
doubled over the same time period.”
Three key factors were identified: rising recidivism rates, few community resources for people
on probation and parole, and inefficiencies in the parole process. State policymakers submitted
the recommendations as Senate Bill 500 in early February 2010. The new legislation spurred
considerable debate over the succeeding months as it made its way through committees in both
houses. The legislation passed both houses in early June and was signed into law by Governor
Lynch on June 30, 2010.
A key element of SB500 is to direct probation and parole supervision to the higher risk offenders
by moving low risk probationers and parolees from active to administrative supervision87.
Beginning on July 1, 2010, any person placed on probation for a misdemeanor will be subject to
active supervision for up to nine months; any person placed on probation for a felony will be
subject to active supervision for up to 12 months; and any person placed on parole for a felony
will be subject to active supervision for up to 18 months. Low risk offenders (i.e., those who
cooperate with and obey the requirements and expectations of active supervision) will thereafter
be placed on administrative supervision. Those offenders designated “high risk” (i.e., who have
not been cooperative or have been adjudicated by the court for a violation of the conditions of
probation or parole) will remain on active supervision. This approach seeks to adjust the
workload of Department of Corrections Probation/ Parole Officers (PPOs) away from cases in
the “shallow end of the pool” and focus their effort on the “deep end.”
The following are the broad policy options of SB500:
•
•
•
•
•
•
87
Focus community-based supervision resources on high-risk offenders.
Use short, swift and certain sanctions, including jail time, to reduce crime and revocation
rates among people sentenced to felony probation.
Establish an intermediate sanction program and a designated parole revocation facility to
respond more effectively to parole violations.
Ensure that high-risk probationers and parolees with serious addiction and/or mental
health disorders are monitored with rapid drug tests and have access to treatment
programs.
Ensure everyone leaving prison receives at least nine months of post-release, communitybased supervision.
Reinforce truth-in-sentencing by requiring nonviolent, property, and drug offenders to
serve 100 to 120 percent of their minimum sentence.
Administrative supervision consists of minimal reporting and monitoring requirements so long as restitution is
being paid and the offender remains crime- and drug-free.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
104
The majority of SB 500 (Justice Reinvestment Initiative) provisions became effective by October
1, 2010. In 2011, the Legislature passed SB52, which made a handful of significant changes to
the previous year’s justice reinvestment efforts. The bill has three major provisions:
1. Excludes a prisoner convicted of a violent crime or a sexually violent offense from
mandatory early supervised release if the parole board votes to do so.
2. Provides the parole board with greater discretion to recommit a person who reoffends
while on mandatory early supervised release.
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.
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. Moving state prison inmates from
incarceration to supervision caused the state prison inmate population to drop by 300 inmates
from July 2010 to June 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.
Legislative changes affecting corrections in 2011
HB2, the budget bill in the 2011 session, establishes a Legislative Committee to study
Privatizing the Department of Corrections. The Committee will be three members of the House
of Representatives, appointed by the House Speaker, and two members of the Senate, appointed
by the Senate President. The committee will have its first meeting on September 20, 2011. On or
before September 1, 2011, the commissioner of the Department of Administrative Services is
expected to issue a request for proposals by vendors for the provision of correctional services or
any other services provided by the Department of Corrections. The Committee will review these
proposals and issue a report on or before December 1, 2011.
HB2 allows the commissioner of the Department of Corrections to contract out pharmaceutical
and nursing functions immediately. HB2 also authorizes the commissioner of the Department of
Corrections to enter into one or more contracts for the transfer and reception of not more than
600 inmates currently incarcerated at the state correctional facility in Concord to another facility
outside the state.
HB2 also specifies that if as a result of the transfer of inmates, the commissioner is able to
reduce the department’s general fund appropriation, the commissioner shall expend any excess
funds on the development and implementation of programs and services for the probation,
parole, and sentencing of certain offenders required under 2010, 247 (SB 500-FN of the 2010
legislative session), with the approval of the fiscal committee of the general court.
Lastly, HB2 specifically forbids the department from closing the North Country facility located
in Berlin as a result of meeting the requirements to privatize corrections services.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
105
Problem-solving courts and alternative sentencing
Problem-solving courts88 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
Currently, two counties, Strafford and Grafton, operate adult drug court programs for felony
level offenders with substance abuse issues under the supervision of the county’s Superior Court.
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
close 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.
Juvenile drug courts
Similar to the adult drug court programs, the juvenile drug court program is designed to connect
delinquent youth with alcohol and drug treatment in the community while under strict court
supervision. The program also aims to address mental health, family, social, and school problems
to help the child succeed with a drug-free lifestyle.
New Hampshire opened its first juvenile drug court at Plymouth District Court in 2001. The
following year, three more drug court sites were added in Laconia, Concord and Nashua. Three
more drug courts have since begun operations in Claremont, Derry and Berlin. The district courts
are currently planning the expansion of juvenile drug courts along with the shift to the family
court model at the district courts.
88
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.
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
106
Mental health courts
Similar to drug courts in structure, these courts aim to connect offenders with persistent mental
illnesses with treatment and other support resources in order to integrate the offender back into
their community as a productive member. The first mental health court was started in Keene in
2003. Since then, mental health courts have begun operating in Nashua, Rochester and
Portsmouth.
Community corrections programs
Community corrections programs are an alternative to costly incarceration for non-violent
offenders. By allowing offenders to live in the community under strict supervision, an offender
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.
For example, beyond the drug court and mental health courts programs, Strafford County also
operates several other community-based corrections programs. These programs include a bail
supervision program, home confinement/electronic monitoring, community work programs, jailbased residential drug abuse treatment, and a step-down program for current jail inmates.89
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 psycho-educational
classes. Merrimack County currently operates an adult diversion program for first time felony,
misdemeanor, and drug offenders.90
Across the state, the New Hampshire Juvenile Court Diversion Network91 focuses to divert firsttime 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.
89
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.
91
New Hampshire Juvenile Court Diversion Program. www.nhcourtdiversion.org.
90
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
107
Appendix 1: Education Tax Rates and Spending by Town
The following presents the sum of each town’s local and state school tax rate, per-pupil elementary school
expenditures (unless the town has no elementary school), and rankings allowing comparisons among towns. The tax
data are from the NH Department of Revenue Administration (which differs from data published by the NH
Department of Education). Spending data are from the NH Department of Education.
Per Pupil Education Expense and School Tax Rates by Town
2010 School Tax Rate
2009-2010 Per Pupil
Expense
MUNICIPALITY
Rate
Rank
Elementary
Rank
ACWORTH
$9.80
176
$12,772.17
152
ALBANY
$7.10
212
$14,795.36
86
ALEXANDRIA
$11.46
143
$15,026.58
70
ALLENSTOWN
$17.12
21
$15,588.68
49
ALSTEAD
$14.46
65
$12,772.17
149
ALTON
$7.44
208
$13,029.25
138
AMHERST
$16.06
36
$14,229.96
98
ANDOVER
$11.63
137
$13,067.41
137
ANTRIM
$11.60
138
$15,231.47
66
ASHLAND
$10.68
161
$16,142.57
39
ATKINSON
$11.86
134
$11,962.55
185
AUBURN
$14.15
73
$10,734.44
218
BARNSTEAD
$15.98
40
$12,060.48
181
BARRINGTON
$13.74
83
$11,675.41
196
BARTLETT
$6.87
215
$15,084.08
68
BATH
$12.14
123
$14,083.24
111
BEDFORD
$14.39
67
$10,496.44
220
BELMONT
$12.12
125
$12,102.69
180
BENNINGTON
$13.02
101
$15,231.47
63
BENTON
$12.52
114
$12,569.80
161
BERLIN
$9.18
184
$12,264.49
175
BETHLEHEM
$15.93
42
$14,923.48
79
BOSCAWEN
$12.27
120
$11,821.83
192
BOW
$16.69
27
$13,360.32
131
BRADFORD
$11.28
146
$14,171.63
104
BRENTWOOD
$19.00
8
$11,765.46
195
BRIDGEWATER
$4.57
226
$15,026.58
74
BRISTOL
$9.35
181
$15,026.58
72
BROOKFIELD
$9.28
183
$14,488.05
92
BROOKLINE
$19.31
5
$11,295.16
210
CAMPTON
$11.98
130
$12,895.16
140
CANAAN
$12.73
109
$12,652.30
158
CANDIA
$14.80
58
$11,289.96
211
CANTERBURY
$12.48
115
$12,102.69
179
CARROLL
$6.90
214
$12,499.68
167
CENTER HARBOR
$5.86
223
$16,223.32
37
CHARLESTOWN
$16.61
29
$12,772.17
148
CHATHAM
$9.65
178
$14,795.36
85
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
108
2010 School Tax Rate
MUNICIPALITY
CHESTER
CHESTERFIELD
CHICHESTER
CLAREMONT
CLARKSVILLE
COLEBROOK
COLUMBIA
CONCORD
CONWAY
CORNISH
CROYDON
DALTON
DANBURY
DANVILLE
DEERFIELD
DEERING
DERRY
DORCHESTER
DOVER
DUBLIN
DUMMER
DUNBARTON
DURHAM
EAST KINGSTON
EASTON
EATON
EFFINGHAM
ELLSWORTH
ENFIELD
EPPING
EPSOM
ERROL
EXETER
FARMINGTON
FITZWILLIAM
FRANCESTOWN
FRANCONIA
FRANKLIN
FREEDOM
FREMONT
GILFORD
GILMANTON
GILSUM
GOFFSTOWN
GORHAM
GOSHEN
Rate
$13.78
$10.81
$13.58
$16.48
$9.04
$9.52
$10.97
$12.16
$11.82
$13.37
$10.40
$9.83
$12.30
$16.05
$17.96
$14.92
$17.99
$11.18
$12.12
$12.74
$10.21
$14.21
$17.62
$16.17
$6.38
$5.91
$10.04
$10.37
$13.09
$18.37
$13.81
$4.34
$16.01
$11.11
$17.04
$14.13
$8.58
$7.83
$6.51
$21.94
$11.28
$15.86
$17.35
$12.87
$11.28
$13.42
Rank
82
158
89
30
187
180
154
122
135
91
164
175
119
37
14
56
13
149
126
108
167
68
15
35
218
222
171
165
95
12
81
228
39
151
22
74
192
198
217
1
147
43
18
106
148
90
2009-2010 Per Pupil
Expense
Elementary
Rank
$10,446.98
224
$13,549.85
126
$13,109.92
136
$13,341.88
132
$11,338.46
209
$11,338.46
208
$11,338.46
207
$13,244.30
134
$14,795.36
84
$17,234.07
21
$11,632.41
198
$12,499.68
164
$15,026.58
69
$11,962.55
183
$14,971.15
78
$12,777.52
145
$12,347.99
171
$12,652.30
159
$10,052.00
228
$15,231.47
64
$13,904.97
113
$11,536.06
202
$15,566.14
51
$11,387.74
206
$20,825.82
9
$14,795.36
87
$14,488.05
91
$12,895.16
141
$12,652.30
156
$13,730.72
122
$11,875.93
188
$26,956.15
2
$13,553.60
125
$10,469.70
222
$16,408.05
30
$15,231.47
60
$20,825.82
8
$9,350.50
231
$16,420.44
26
$11,228.70
212
$18,282.50
16
$12,183.22
178
$16,408.05
28
$10,827.56
215
$13,904.97
112
$14,131.62
109
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
109
2010 School Tax Rate
MUNICIPALITY
GRAFTON
GRANTHAM
GREENFIELD
GREENLAND
GREENVILLE
GROTON
HAMPSTEAD
HAMPTON
HAMPTON FALLS
HANCOCK
HANOVER
HARRISVILLE
HAVERHILL
HEBRON
HENNIKER
HILL
HILLSBOROUGH
HINSDALE
HOLDERNESS
HOLLIS
HOOKSETT
HOPKINTON
HUDSON
JACKSON
JAFFREY
JEFFERSON
KEENE
KENSINGTON
KINGSTON
LACONIA
LANCASTER
LANDAFF
LANGDON
LEBANON
LEE
LEMPSTER
LINCOLN
LISBON
LITCHFIELD
LITTLETON
LONDONDERRY
LOUDON
LYMAN
LYME
LYNDEBOROUGH
MADBURY
Rate
$13.06
$12.79
$13.89
$10.41
$7.46
$7.41
$17.60
$8.73
$14.20
$11.99
$10.95
$7.77
$13.87
$2.97
$19.53
$10.90
$11.54
$14.83
$9.17
$14.77
$12.97
$18.95
$9.95
$4.89
$15.25
$9.94
$15.82
$14.80
$15.96
$10.69
$7.23
$12.63
$14.40
$13.04
$17.50
$10.23
$4.15
$15.59
$14.97
$13.69
$14.65
$11.92
$11.97
$13.00
$13.07
$18.58
Rank
98
107
79
163
206
209
16
191
71
129
155
201
80
232
4
157
140
57
185
60
104
9
172
225
52
173
44
59
41
160
211
112
66
99
17
166
229
48
55
86
63
133
131
103
97
10
2009-2010 Per Pupil
Expense
Elementary
Rank
$12,652.30
157
$12,820.91
144
$15,231.47
61
$12,423.66
168
$11,448.08
205
$15,026.58
73
$14,850.82
81
$13,816.66
116
$16,585.07
24
$15,231.47
65
$15,827.55
45
$27,387.21
1
$12,569.80
160
$15,026.58
75
$14,982.49
77
$11,072.56
213
$12,777.52
147
$13,471.58
128
$16,554.15
25
$14,878.91
80
$10,488.93
221
$14,662.04
88
$8,743.89
233
$18,047.11
17
$11,565.27
201
$12,499.68
163
$15,460.56
54
$12,419.60
169
$13,746.59
121
$11,935.13
186
$12,499.68
166
$13,444.19
129
$12,772.17
150
$19,530.63
13
$15,566.14
52
$14,131.62
110
$16,034.24
44
$14,155.22
107
$10,206.12
227
$15,506.94
53
$12,339.76
172
$11,821.83
193
$14,155.22
108
$14,834.15
82
$12,697.27
153
$15,566.14
50
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
110
2010 School Tax Rate
MUNICIPALITY
MADISON
MANCHESTER
MARLBOROUGH
MARLOW
MASON
MEREDITH
MERRIMACK
MIDDLETON
MILAN
MILFORD
MILTON
MONROE
MONT VERNON
MOULTONBOROUGH
NASHUA
NELSON
NEW BOSTON
NEW CASTLE
NEW DURHAM
NEW HAMPTON
NEW IPSWICH
NEW LONDON
NEWBURY
NEWFIELDS
NEWINGTON
NEWMARKET
NEWPORT
NEWTON
NORTH HAMPTON
NORTHFIELD
NORTHUMBERLAND
NORTHWOOD
NOTTINGHAM
ORANGE
OSSIPEE
PELHAM
PEMBROKE
PENACOOK
PETERBOROUGH
PIERMONT
PITTSBURG
PITTSFIELD
PLAINFIELD
PLAISTOW
PLYMOUTH
PORTSMOUTH
Rate
$9.89
$7.57
$16.19
$12.65
$14.05
$7.27
$14.17
$9.77
$9.09
$13.71
$13.17
$7.57
$20.06
$4.44
$11.41
$12.09
$12.14
$2.78
$11.69
$9.58
$13.94
$8.05
$7.58
$16.86
$3.00
$15.55
$12.40
$19.15
$10.05
$11.57
$13.92
$19.76
$15.23
$15.82
$8.14
$12.35
$17.34
$14.68
$16.04
$14.75
$7.67
$18.44
$16.74
$17.01
$11.53
$7.83
Rank
174
204
34
111
76
210
72
177
186
84
94
205
2
227
144
127
124
233
136
179
77
195
203
25
231
49
117
6
170
139
78
3
53
45
193
118
19
62
38
61
202
11
26
23
141
199
2009-2010 Per Pupil
Expense
Elementary
Rank
$16,173.30
38
$9,952.50
229
$14,648.37
89
$18,635.84
14
$11,448.08
203
$16,223.32
35
$12,200.94
177
$10,469.70
223
$12,670.72
154
$11,030.34
214
$13,780.23
119
$21,752.60
6
$12,388.53
170
$19,595.06
12
$10,767.13
217
$21,797.54
5
$9,720.58
230
$19,664.04
11
$14,488.05
90
$15,026.58
71
$11,448.08
204
$14,171.63
105
$14,171.63
106
$12,331.93
174
$25,524.82
4
$13,783.40
118
$11,863.89
189
$13,746.59
120
$15,299.48
57
$13,793.97
117
$13,717.49
124
$13,717.49
123
$10,223.68
226
$12,652.30
155
$14,488.05
93
$9,236.62
232
$13,240.52
135
$11,821.83
190
$15,231.47
58
$16,081.64
41
$16,037.37
42
$14,221.94
99
$15,666.60
48
$11,962.55
182
$15,442.19
55
$15,005.89
76
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
111
2010 School Tax Rate
MUNICIPALITY
RANDOLPH
RAYMOND
RICHMOND
RINDGE
ROCHESTER
ROLLINSFORD
ROXBURY
RUMNEY
RYE
SALEM
SALISBURY
SANBORNTON
SANDOWN
SANDWICH
SEABROOK
SHARON
SHELBURNE
SOMERSWORTH
SOUTH HAMPTON
SPRINGFIELD
STARK
STEWARTSTOWN
STODDARD
STRAFFORD
STRATFORD
STRATHAM
SUGAR HILL
SULLIVAN
SUNAPEE
SURRY
SUTTON
SWANZEY
TAMWORTH
TEMPLE
THORNTON
TILTON
TROY
TUFTONBORO
UNITY
WAKEFIELD
WALPOLE
WARNER
WARREN
WASHINGTON
WATERVILLE VALLEY
WEARE
Rate
$6.73
$12.92
$17.33
$16.20
$13.35
$15.46
$19.14
$12.70
$6.07
$8.85
$13.03
$11.31
$15.68
$6.20
$6.94
$13.71
$8.09
$15.63
$11.93
$12.08
$9.32
$10.74
$7.46
$15.31
$11.18
$14.21
$8.79
$14.60
$7.92
$11.10
$12.24
$16.66
$13.09
$14.99
$11.51
$10.13
$16.36
$5.05
$14.21
$7.83
$12.41
$13.24
$13.59
$10.08
$3.11
$13.64
Rank
216
105
20
33
92
50
7
110
221
188
100
145
46
219
213
85
194
47
132
128
182
159
207
51
150
69
189
64
197
152
121
28
96
54
142
168
31
224
70
200
116
93
88
169
230
87
2009-2010 Per Pupil
Expense
Elementary
Rank
$13,904.97
115
$11,896.07
187
$16,408.05
29
$11,565.27
200
$12,906.52
139
$15,333.69
56
$16,408.05
27
$17,496.08
19
$15,146.37
67
$10,789.68
216
$11,821.83
191
$12,882.16
142
$11,962.55
184
$16,223.32
36
$17,321.40
20
$15,231.47
62
$13,904.97
114
$12,339.65
173
$17,801.45
18
$14,171.63
103
$19,930.19
10
$14,285.27
96
$15,725.69
47
$12,561.82
162
$16,818.50
23
$13,509.15
127
$20,825.82
7
$16,408.05
33
$15,764.06
46
$16,408.05
34
$14,171.63
102
$16,408.05
31
$18,619.10
15
$15,231.47
59
$14,820.58
83
$12,882.16
143
$16,408.05
32
$14,488.05
95
$10,674.90
219
$12,208.16
176
$12,772.17
151
$14,171.63
100
$16,130.83
40
$13,412.86
130
$25,740.95
3
$10,328.99
225
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
112
2010 School Tax Rate
MUNICIPALITY
WEBSTER
WENTWORTH
WESTMORELAND
WHITEFIELD
WILMOT
WILTON
WINCHESTER
WINDHAM
WINDSOR
WOLFEBORO
WOODSTOCK
STATE AVERAGE
Rate
$10.63
$11.04
$10.92
$8.79
$13.01
$14.08
$16.29
$16.91
$12.59
$6.12
$8.05
$11.12
Rank
162
153
156
190
102
75
32
24
113
220
196
2009-2010 Per Pupil
Expense
Elementary
Rank
$11,821.83
194
$16,851.39
22
$11,639.74
197
$12,499.68
165
$14,171.63
101
$13,289.71
133
$14,233.60
97
$11,593.63
199
$12,777.52
146
$14,488.05
94
$16,034.24
43
$12,599.53
The following scatter plot shows the relationship between property tax rates for education and
elementary spending per pupil in each town in New Hampshire in the year 2010. A scatter plot
can suggest various kinds of correlations between variables with a certain confidence interval.
Correlations may be positive (rising), negative (falling), or null (uncorrelated).
As shown on Figure 59, the correlation between property tax rates and per pupil spending is
quite low (about ten percent). Said another way, the data indicates a weak relationship between
per pupil spending on education, and local education property tax rates.
Figure 59: Property tax rates and per pupil spending
2010 Education Property Tax Rate vs. Spending per Elementary School
Pupil in NH Towns
$25.00
School Property Tax Rate
y = -0.0004x + 18.245
2
R = 0.1052
$20.00
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
$$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
Spending per Elementary Pupil
$25,000
$30,000
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
113
Appendix 2: Data Describing New Hampshire’s Regions
New Hampshire Regions
Population 2010
Population 2000
Percent change
White
Great North Mountains
Woods
Region
27,642
27,825
-0.7%
Lakes Dartmouth/Lake Monadnock
Region Sunapee Region
Region
51,092 132,169
45,961 123,288
11.2%
7.2%
104,287
96,444
8.1%
131,181
123,417
6.3%
Seacoast Greater
Region Concord
279,978
258,914
8.1%
118,111
109,725
7.6%
Greater
Manchester
Greater
Nashua
Total New
Hampshire
264,833
251,964
5.1%
207,177
198,248
4.5%
1,316,470
1,235,786
6.5%
Population Under Age 18 2010
5,292
9,829
26,662
20,530
27,896
58,790
26,039
62,263
49,932
287,234
Population Under Age 18 2000
Percent change
6,405
-17.4%
10,541
-6.8%
29,214
-8.7%
21,653
-5.2%
30,966
-9.9%
61,727
-4.8%
27,786
-6.3%
67,213
-7.4%
54,057
-7.6%
309,562
-7.2%
percent of region's population
19.1%
19.2%
20.2%
19.7%
21.3%
21.0%
22.0%
23.5%
24.1%
21.8%
Housing Units 2010
Housing Units 2000
17,724
15,890
38,456
33,086
82,435
71,400
51,724
45,656
58,508
52,349
125,368
111,465
50,437
44,592
107,551
97,208
82,551
74,878
614,754
546,524
Percent change
Hispanic/ Latino any race 2010
11.5%
360
16.2%
560
15.5%
1,581
13.3%
1,740
11.8%
1,976
12.5%
4,822
13.1%
1,896
10.6%
12,348
10.2%
11,420
12.5%
36,704
Hispanic/ Latino any race 2000
Square Miles
179
270
953
902
959
2,536
1,063
6,852
6,773
20,487
1.3%
1,440
1.1%
1,821
1.2%
1,422
1.7%
1,399
1.5%
1,164
1.7%
739
1.6%
629
4.7%
404
5.5%
264
2.8%
9,282
Change from 2000 to 2010 in:
Population
Population Under Age 18
Housing Units
Hispanic
In 2010 Percent of NH's:
Population
Population Under Age 18
Housing Units
Hispanic
Land Area
2010 People per Square Mile
2010 Property Value per Acre
Seasonal Homes as % of Total
-183
5,131
8,881
7,843
7,764
21,064
8,385
12,869
8,929
80,684
-1,113
1,834
-712
5,370
-2,552
11,035
-1,123
6,068
-3,070
6,159
-2,937
13,903
-1,747
5,845
-4,950
10,343
-4,125
7,673
-22,328
68,230
181
290
628
838
1,017
2,286
833
5,497
4,647
16,217
100.0%
2.1%
3.9%
10.0%
7.9%
10.0%
21.3%
9.0%
20.1%
15.7%
1.8%
3.4%
9.3%
7.1%
9.7%
20.5%
8.9%
20.4%
16.0%
100.0%
2.9%
1.0%
15.5%
6.3%
1.5%
19.6%
13.4%
4.3%
15.3%
8.4%
4.7%
15.1%
9.5%
5.4%
12.5%
20.4%
13.1%
8.0%
9.1%
9.0%
8.2%
21.7%
21.7%
17.5%
17.4%
17.5%
13.4%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
19.2
$2,628
28.1
93.0
$7,833 $28,886
74.5
$15,598
112.7
$17,918
378.6
$82,219
187.6
$23,624
655.9
$86,909
783.7
$113,264
141.8
$28,409
$136.86
$279.18 $310.68
$209.29
$158.93
$217.14
$125.90
$132.51
$144.52
$200.30
13.0%
6.7%
6.1%
3.5%
1.0%
0.7%
10.3%
24.3%
36.5%
28.8%
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
New Hampshire Regions
114
White
Great North Mountains
Woods
Region
Lakes Dartmouth/Lake Monadnock
Region Sunapee Region
Region
Seacoast Greater
Region Concord
Greater
Manchester
Greater
Nashua
Total New
Hampshire
Population Born in another state (%)
33.2%
49.8%
47.8%
50.8%
52.8%
58.1%
43.1%
45.4%
55.7%
51.9%
Population Foreign born (%)
Non-native NH Pop
Population age 65 and over
3.0%
36.2%
19.5%
3.1%
52.9%
17.9%
2.5%
50.3%
16.6%
4.5%
55.3%
16.1%
3.2%
56.1%
14.1%
4.0%
62.1%
13.5%
3.2%
46.3%
13.2%
7.5%
52.8%
10.8%
8.3%
64.1%
11.6%
5.2%
57.0%
13.5%
48.1
48.7
45.6
44.8
43.6
42.6
42.7
40.4
41.6
44.5
19.1%
19.2%
20.2%
19.7%
21.3%
21.0%
22.0%
23.5%
24.1%
21.8%
11,644
10,735
34,607
32,412
61,007
57,063
49,138
46,733
54,916
51,667
194,824
182,001
63,307
59,682
152,180
142,332
120,524
112,576
742,147
695,201
908
7.8
2,196
6.3
3,944
6.5
2,405
4.9
3,249
5.9
12,823
6.6
3,625
5.7
9,848
6.5
7,948
6.6
46,946
6.3
2,579
3,424
32,263 41,026
$607.48 $681.47
2,782
47,127
$927.21
2,729
40,502
$744.72
10,586
149,325
$830.58
3,667
58,415
$820.92
7,211
5,605
119,232
92,845
$900.05 $1,004.59
43,972
604,915
$864.05
Median age
Population under age 18
Economic Data for 2009
Labor Force
Employment in Households
Unemployment
Rate
Establishments
Employment in Establishments
Average Weekly Wage
700
9,694
$593.66
In 2009 Percent of NH's:
Labor Force
Employment in Households
1.6%
1.5%
4.7%
4.7%
8.2%
8.2%
6.6%
6.7%
7.4%
7.4%
26.3%
26.2%
8.5%
8.6%
20.5%
20.5%
16.2%
16.2%
100.0%
100.0%
Unemployment
Establishments
1.9%
1.6%
4.7%
5.9%
8.4%
7.8%
5.1%
6.3%
6.9%
6.2%
27.3%
24.1%
7.7%
8.3%
21.0%
16.4%
16.9%
12.7%
100.0%
100.0%
Employment in Establishments
1.6%
5.3%
6.8%
7.8%
6.7%
24.7%
9.7%
19.7%
15.3%
100.0%
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.4
1.0
0.7
1.0
1.4
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
Wholesale Trade
0.9
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.9
0.5
1.1
0.5
1.4
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.6
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.7
0.9
1.0
1.0
Retail Trade
Transportation and Warehousing
1.0
1.1
1.4
0.8
1.1
0.7
0.9
0.4
0.9
0.9
1.2
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.9
1.8
1.1
0.9
1.0
1.0
Information
Finance and Insurance
0.3
0.6
0.5
1.1
0.9
1.1
0.4
1.4
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.4
1.1
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.4
1.0
0.4
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.1
1.4
1.3
0.9
1.0
1.0
LQ BASED ON NH
Total, Private plus Government
Construction
Manufacturing
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
New Hampshire Regions
Professional and Technical Service
Management of Companies/Enterprises
Administrative and Waste Services
Educational Services
Health Care and Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Accommodation and Food Services
Other Services Except Public Admin
Total Government
PERCENT OF TOTAL WAGES
Total, Private plus Government
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation and Warehousing
Information
Finance and Insurance
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing
Professional and Technical Service
Management of Companies/Enterprises
Administrative and Waste Services
Educational Services
Health Care and Social Assistance
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Accommodation and Food Services
Other Services Except Public Admin
Total Government
115
White
Great North Mountains
Woods
Region
Lakes Dartmouth/Lake Monadnock
Region Sunapee Region
Region
Seacoast Greater
Region Concord
Greater
Manchester
Greater
Nashua
Total New
Hampshire
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.4
1.9
1.1
1.0
0.8
0.5
1.2
1.3
1.3
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.8
0.4
0.0
0.6
1.0
1.3
0.6
0.5
0.8
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.6
1.1
0.9
1.2
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.4
1.6
2.3
2.0
1.5
1.4
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.6
1.6
0.7
1.1
1.0
1.2
0.7
0.8
1.2
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.3
1.8
1.2
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
5.8%
12.2%
5.3%
9.1%
7.2%
13.8%
2.4%
13.0%
6.1%
18.6%
3.6%
12.4%
3.2%
8.3%
4.8%
12.6%
3.2%
27.4%
4.1%
14.6%
2.0%
12.3%
2.7%
17.7%
3.2%
11.9%
3.3%
6.9%
4.9%
9.2%
5.8%
10.4%
6.3%
8.1%
6.4%
8.2%
5.8%
8.5%
6.9%
9.0%
2.0%
1.6%
1.2%
0.5%
1.6%
1.3%
1.1%
2.9%
1.3%
1.6%
0.2%
2.8%
1.6%
2.1%
1.1%
2.8%
3.1%
3.0%
2.2%
6.9%
3.5%
9.6%
0.8%
6.2%
4.5%
8.6%
4.4%
9.2%
3.2%
7.4%
0.5%
1.3%
1.2%
2.6%
0.8%
4.4%
0.4%
5.5%
0.5%
2.9%
1.1%
7.7%
0.9%
6.2%
2.0%
8.7%
0.9%
10.4%
1.1%
7.8%
0.5%
1.7%
0.3%
1.8%
1.9%
3.2%
1.1%
1.3%
5.5%
2.5%
3.0%
5.3%
1.5%
1.7%
2.3%
3.7%
1.5%
2.2%
2.3%
3.8%
0.5%
1.1%
2.4%
0.0%
2.5%
1.5%
2.1%
2.3%
0.9%
3.0%
20.9%
0.3%
17.1%
2.4%
15.7%
1.6%
27.8%
0.7%
15.1%
0.8%
12.2%
0.9%
17.1%
0.6%
14.3%
0.5%
9.2%
0.4%
14.1%
0.8%
6.2%
1.3%
9.8%
1.8%
5.7%
2.4%
2.4%
1.4%
2.9%
2.6%
3.5%
1.9%
2.3%
3.5%
2.6%
2.7%
2.3%
1.7%
3.2%
2.2%
26.5%
18.3%
18.8%
9.1%
14.2%
14.6%
28.8%
12.1%
10.4%
14.1%
6.5%
7.1%
4.3%
9.2%
13.6%
20.5%
4.4%
13.9%
26.1%
16.0%
Journey to Work
% of workers commuting to out of state jobs
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
New Hampshire Regions
Income
Adjusted Gross Income per taxpayer (2007)
Percent of persons in Poverty
116
White
Great North Mountains
Woods
Region
$31,358
12.7%
Lakes Dartmouth/Lake Monadnock
Region Sunapee Region
Region
$43,106 $52,897
11.2%
10.0%
Seacoast Greater
Region Concord
Greater
Manchester
Greater
Nashua
Total New
Hampshire
$68,370
$54,781
$65,231
$55,237
$56,329
$66,789
$59,789
8.5%
8.0%
7.7%
7.7%
8.1%
5.0%
7.7%
Education
% of the adult population with a BA or better
14.4%
25.6%
26.0%
35.1%
30.5%
35.4%
33.2%
30.4%
38.0%
32.4%
Per capita spending on K-12 Education
2010 Property Tax Rate (average)
2010 Property Value per Acre
$2,128
$19.39
$2,628
$2,740 $2,218
$15.18 $14.44
$7,833 $28,886
$2,481
$19.34
$15,598
$2,208
$22.22
$17,918
$2,085
$18.43
$82,219
$2,152
$22.87
$23,624
$2,001
$19.76
$86,909
$2,086
$19.53
$113,264
$2,181
$18.64
$28,409
267,725
Government & Politics
Democrats 2010; 267,725
5,293
8,926
23,225
23,427
27,385
63,170
25,680
51,731
38,888
30.9%
24.1%
24.0%
31.4%
28.9%
30.9%
30.0%
29.9%
28.1%
29.0%
Republicans 2010; 266,077
Percent
4,263
24.9%
10,532
28.4%
30,542
31.5%
18,244
24.4%
24,218
25.5%
55,135
27.0%
24,968
29.1%
57,903
33.5%
40,273
29.1%
266,077
28.9%
Undeclared 2010; 388,220
7,583
17,656
43,113
32,993
43,191
85,970
35,080
63,376
59,258
388,220
44.2%
47.6%
44.5%
44.2%
45.6%
42.1%
40.9%
36.6%
42.8%
42.1%
Claremont
13,355
Keene Rochester Concord
23,409
29,752
42,695
Manchester
109,565
Nashua
86,494
0
0
Percent
Percent
Criminal Justice and Families
Largest city/town in area
2010 population of largest city/town
Berlin
10,051
Conway Laconia
10,115 15,951
Violent Crime Rate in Largest Town/City
Property Crime Rate in Largest Town/City
200.0
1,400.0
357.0
4,866.4
302.3
4,079.2
246.9
2,965.0
222.0
2,971.4
223.7
3,098.2
191.2
2,634.2
367.7
3,188.5
204.7
2,696.9
154.7
2,030.5
$276
$268
$345
$253
$225
$346
$320
$365
$338
$331
$39
103.4
$27
113.6
$33
61.8
$34
230.2
$30
57.8
$24
92.3
$22
112.7
$22
92.2
$18
98.9
$25
100.6
196
141
$56,802 $54,105
452
$72,494
148
$49,938
214
$66,933
250
$64,386
236
$60,065
233
$64,603
229
$64,566
27.8%
15.1%
12.2%
17.1%
14.3%
9.2%
14.1%
Town Spending on Police/Fire (per person)
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)
239
Hospital payroll per employee
$56,380
Healthcare wages as Percent of Total Wages
20.9%
17.1%
15.7%
What is New Hampshire? 2011 Edition
New Hampshire Regions
117
White
Great North Mountains
Woods
Region
Lakes Dartmouth/Lake Monadnock
Region Sunapee Region
Region
Seacoast Greater
Region Concord
Greater
Manchester
Greater
Nashua
Total New
Hampshire
Environment and sustainability
Defining geography
Percent of land acres held in current use
Percent of land in current use that is forest
72.2%
22.4%
26.4%
62.4%
52.0%
63.1%
66.6%
59.3%
63.6%
59.4%
40.0%
57.8%
57.3%
68.1%
34.5%
71.7%
34.2%
60.5%
50.8%
52.7%
Percent of town property exempt from property tax
30.2%
11.7%
7.8%
16.2%
10.1%
9.4%
17.4%
10.1%
7.4%
10.5%
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%
2.4%
1.6%
0.7%
0.8%
0.9%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
0.8%
58
335
411
1,090
713
3,505
458
3,505
2,167
12,440
Information wages as % of total
Accommodation employment
0.2%
1,104
1.6%
4,686
1.1%
4,864
3.1%
3,191
2.2%
2,920
3.5%
13,720
0.8%
3,621
4.5%
8,850
4.4%
6,583
3.2%
50,965
Accommodation wages as % of total
6.2%
9.8%
5.7%
2.4%
2.9%
3.5%
6.2%
7.4%
7.1%
3.2%
Non-profits
Arts and media
Arts, recreation wages as % of total
Information employment