What is New Hampshire

What is
New Hampshire?
An overview of issues shaping
the Granite State’s future
September 2015

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
Dennis Delay
Economist
Tyler Stoff
Intern
About this paper
The New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies compiled the information and analysis in
this report for the use of Leadership New Hampshire, a program intended to introduce rising
leaders to the people, strengths, and challenges of the Granite State. The Center is grateful for the
opportunity to present this material to the Leadership New Hampshire participants and to all
others seeking an overview of information about the state. The Center has produced this report
with funds donated by individuals, foundations, and businesses from across New Hampshire. The
Center’s supporters do not necessarily endorse, nor has the Center asked them to endorse, any of
the materials included in this report. The Center, not Leadership New Hampshire, determined
what to include in this report.
This paper, like all of our published work, is in the public domain and may be reproduced without
permission. Indeed, the Center welcomes individuals’ and groups’ efforts to expand the paper’s
circulation.
Copies are available at no charge on the Center’s web site: www.nhpolicy.org. Many of the pages
that follow are excerpts from other Center reports, all of which are available at the same site. We
have also prepared a selection of interactive maps and data sets that display much of the
information detailed in this report. Those can be found on our website as well.
Contact the Center at info@nhpolicy.org; or call 603-226-2500.
Write to: NHCPPS, 1 Eagle Square, Suite 510, Concord, NH 03301

WHAT IS NEW HAMPSHIRE?
2015 Edition
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION: WHAT IS NEW HAMPSHIRE?..............................................................................................1
DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE............................................................................................2
NEW HAMPSHIRE’S ECONOMY ..........................................................................................................................7
EDUCATION IN NEW HAMPSHIRE ...................................................................................................................19
HEALTH CARE IN NEW HAMPSHIRE ..............................................................................................................32
NEW HAMPSHIRE’S STATE BUDGET...............................................................................................................38
NEW HAMPSHIRE’S INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................................................................48
ENERGY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE...........................................................................................................................56
CRIME AND CORRECTIONS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE......................................................................................62
NEW HAMPSHIRE’S REGIONS ...........................................................................................................................68

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: New Hampshire Employment and Wages by County Type, 2010 to 2013.................... 11
Table 2: New Hampshire Economic Dashboard 2013.................................................................. 16
Table 3: Administrative Costs for New Hampshire Districts by Enrollment ............................... 29
Table 4: Total state spending, 2001 and 2015 .............................................................................. 42
Table 5: General Fund Spending, 2001 and 2015......................................................................... 42
Table 6: 2023 New Hampshire Tax Revenue by Type................................................................. 46
Table 7: Alternative - Deficit Assuming Historical Growth......................................................... 47
Table 8: Infrastructure state indicators ......................................................................................... 49
Table 9: Estimated investment needs of water systems in selected states, including New
Hampshire, over the next two decades. ........................................................................................ 53
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Ten Year Percent Change in New Hampshire Population by Decade End..................... 3
Figure 2: Net Migration in New Hampshire................................................................................... 4
Figure 3: New Hampshire Population Age 65 and Over................................................................ 4
Figure 4: Children in Poverty Growing ......................................................................................... 5
Figure 5: Average Annual Growth in Employment, 1970 to 2014................................................. 7
Figure 6: Change in New Hampshire Jobs from 2011 to 2013 by Average Wage......................... 8
Figure 7: National, Regional, and State Unemployment Rates, 2005-2015................................... 8
Figure 8: United States and New Hampshire Real GDP Growth by Decade ................................. 9
Figure 9: Percent Change in Real GDP in BEA Regions............................................................. 10
Figure 10: Percent Change of Labor Force in Regional Labor Market Areas, 2010 to 2014....... 10
Figure 11: Change in Employment by County Type, 2010 to 2013............................................. 11
Figure 12: Percent Change of Labor Force in National, Regional, and State Labor Markets, 2010
to 2014 .......................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 13: New Hampshire Total Compensation Paid by Selected Industries (Thousands of
Dollars) ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 14: Projections of a Declining Workforce, Growth by Age Cohort.................................. 14
Figure 15: Regional Price Parities by State, 2013 (US = 100) ..................................................... 17
Figure 16: Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Higher on State Reading Tests ................. 20
Figure 17: Third Grade Reading Scores by School District, 2013 ............................................... 20
Figure 18: Percent of High School Graduates Entering Post-Secondary Education, Class of 2014
....................................................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 19: New Hampshire School District Revenue by Category, 2013-14............................... 21
Figure 20: Per-Pupil Education Spending by State, 2013-14 ....................................................... 22
Figure 21: State Support for Higher Education by System, FY2005 to FY2015 ......................... 23
Figure 22: State Support for Higher Education per $1,000 in Personal Income, FY2015 ........... 24
Figure 23: Average In-State Tuition and Fees at Public Four-Year Institutions by State, 2014-
2015............................................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 24: Average Undergraduate Debt Load for In-State Students by Institution, 2007-2012. 25
Figure 25: Three-Year Official Cohort Default Rates for New Hampshire Institutions .............. 26
Figure 26: New Hampshire Public Grade School Enrollment...................................................... 27
Figure 27: Percent of Population Employed in Science and Engineering Fields, 2010 ............... 30
Figure 28: Growth in Medicaid Enrollment Associated with the Health Protection Act............. 33

Figure 29: Share of New Hampshire GDP: Energy, Health Care, and the State Budget ........... 34
Figure 30: Annual Growth in Health Insurance Premiums .......................................................... 35
Figure 31: Average Family Health Insurance as a........................................................................ 35
Figure 32: Per Capital Public Spending in 2013.......................................................................... 38
Figure 33: Per Capita Spending in NH ........................................................................................ 39
Figure 34: Total Appropriations by Fund Source, FY2014-15..................................................... 40
Figure 35: General Fund Expenditures (Million USD), FY1990 to FY2015............................... 41
Figure 36: General Fund Revenues by Major Component 1988 Through 2013 .......................... 43
Figure 37: FY2013 General Fund Revenue Sources .................................................................... 44
Figure 38: General Fund Revenue as a Percentage of Gross State Product ................................. 44
Figure 39: State Appropriations by Category, 2014-15 (all fund sources)................................... 45
Figure 40: State Spending by Category, 1982 (all fund sources) ................................................. 46
Figure 41: Per Pupil Primary and Secondary School Infrastructure Outlay for FY2013............. 50
Figure 42: Percent of Population without Household Broadband Internet Access by Region, 2010
....................................................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 43: Percent of Population with Broadband Household Internet Access by County, 2015 51
Figure 44: Total Water Use Per Capita in Gallons/Day by State, 2010 ....................................... 52
Figure 45: Percent of Deficient Bridges by State, 2014 ............................................................... 54
Figure 46: Percent of Roads in Poor or Mediocre Condition, 2013 ............................................. 55
Figure 47: New Hampshire's Energy Use by Sector, 2013........................................................... 56
Figure 48: New Hampshire's Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, 1960 to 2013 (Millions of
BTU) ............................................................................................................................................. 57
Figure 49: Energy Indicators ........................................................................................................ 58
Figure 50: Energy Indicator Rankings.......................................................................................... 59
Figure 51: Crime Rates per Hundred Thousand People by State, 2013 ....................................... 62
Figure 52: All Crime Rate, Crimes per 100,000 People, FBI Uniform Crime Reports................ 63
Figure 53: New Hampshire Offenses Known to Law Enforcement............................................. 64
Figure 54: New Hampshire State Prison Population by Major Offense....................................... 65
Figure 55: New Hampshire State Prison Inmate Population under Justice Reinvestment ........... 66
Figure 56: NH's Regions.............................................................................................................. 68
Figure 57: People per Square Mile, 2010 ..................................................................................... 69
Figure 58: Property Value per Acre, 2013.................................................................................... 70
Figure 59: Percent of Persons in Poverty, 2008-2012 .................................................................. 71
Figure 60: Percent of Adult Population with a Bachelor's Degree or Higher, 2008-2012 ........... 72

What is New Hampshire? 2015 Edition 1
Introduction: What is New Hampshire?
Throughout its history, New Hampshire has worn many identities: agricultural outpost on the
edge of New England; bustling engine of the Industrial Revolution; oasis for nature-seeking
tourists; haven for tax-fleeing transplants. In the early years of the 21st
Century, New Hampshire
is still evolving amid shifting economic, demographic, social and political forces. Among the
trends shaping the “new” New Hampshire: an aging population; increasing racial and ethnic
diversity; a shift away from the high-growth economic model of the past; and continued demand
on the state budget for public services.
While the implications of these and other changes are still unclear, they do raise critical policy
questions, including:
 Economy: New Hampshire suffered the effects of the Great Recession less severely than
many other states, but slow job growth continues to gnaw at the state’s economy. As of
the summer of 2014, New Hampshire lagged behind the nation and the rest of New
England in recovering jobs lost during the recession. What is the state’s economic
development plan, especially in relation to demographic trends that show New
Hampshire’s working age population actually declining in coming years? What specific
industries or regions of New Hampshire will help shape the state’s economy in coming
years? What regional approaches to economic development will find greatest success?
 Demographic change: While New Hampshire is consistently rated one of the best places
in the country to raise children, our population as a whole continues to age. Meanwhile,
our school enrollment continues on a decade-long decline, and several measures of youth
well-being in the state show worrisome trends, including rising levels of childhood
poverty. What are the implications of these developments on education policy, housing,
public services and transportation?
 Health care: New Hampshire’s health policy landscape faces great uncertainty amid
recent reforms at the national level, as well as continued rises in cost and the continued
aging of the state’s population. What impact will the shifting health marketplace have on
New Hampshire’s economy and the well-being of its residents?
 Long-term planning: State policymakers face a long list of critical issues in coming
years: public infrastructure investment, education finance, corrections spending, health
care, and energy policy, among others. Many of these require a long-term perspective and
an understanding of multi-year trends. How will the state – which has a two-year budget
cycle and a two-year term for all major state offices – manage to plan decades into the
future?
This report is our annual survey of the major policy issues and critical questions shaping our
future. The data explain where New Hampshire has been, forecast where it is heading, and
explore how current trends and policy choices facing the state will affect the well-being of its
citizens.

Demographic change in New Hampshire
New Hampshire had been the fastest growing state in the Northeast for years, fueled by high
rates of domestic in-migration, largely from Massachusetts. With the arrival of these newcomers,
the average educational attainment and income levels in New Hampshire increased over that
period. Those trends, in turn, helped fuel the state’s strong economic growth of recent decades.
But these migration patterns have changed over the course of the Great Recession, a fact that will
have real implications for New Hampshire’s future. As we will see below, migration into New
Hampshire has slowed considerably over the past decade, and the state is not expected to return
to the past pattern of high growth for the foreseeable future.
New Hampshire’s people: By the numbers1
Compared to the rest of the country, New Hampshire’s population is older, less racially diverse,
better educated, wealthier, and more likely to have moved here from another state.
 Average age:
o New Hampshire: 41.5 years
o United States: 37.3 years
 Percent of the population that is white:
o New Hampshire: 96 percent
o United States: 76 percent
 Percent of the population with a high school diploma or higher:
 Percent of housing units that are owner-occupied:
 Median household income:
o New Hampshire: $64,900
o United States: $53,000
 Poverty rate:
o New Hampshire: 8.4 percent
o United States: 14.9 percent
 Percent of state residents born in another state:
New Hampshire’s high growth years are in the past
Through the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, New Hampshire saw high rates of population growth, with
three consecutive decades of growth of 20 percent or more. That pace of growth came in the
middle of a period of economic expansion and rising wages.
1
Source: 2010 Census of Population and the American Community Survey 2009-2013

Since then, the state’s population growth rates have fallen steadily. For the decade between 2000
and 2010, New Hampshire’s growth rate fell to 6.5 percent, still the highest rate in the Northeast
but the state’s slowest decade of growth since before World War II. The national percent change
in population from 2000 to 2010 was 9.7 percent.
What is the source of this decline? Put simply, fewer people have been moving into the state in
recent years, and New Hampshire has even seen net out-migration in several of the past few
years. Domestic migration has remained about the same from 2009 to 2011, with annual losses
of roughly 2,000 people per year.
Figure 1: Ten Year Percent Change in New Hampshire Population by Decade End
For the forecast years beyond 2010, New Hampshire population growth rates are expected to
continue to decline – with 3.3 percent growth from 2010 to 2020 and 3.8 percent growth from
2020 to 2030 according to the New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning’s 2012 population
projections.2
Growth in the decade beyond that (2030 to 2040) is forecast to be essentially flat, at
just over 1 percent for the period.
From Massachusetts to Florida: New Hampshire Migration
At the end of July, 2015 the IRS released new data for the 2012 Filing Year, which show
migration based on address changes for tax filers from the tax year 2011 filings to tax year 2012
2
Population data are from the Census Bureau’s annual census and from the Office of Energy and Planning’s 2012
population projections unless otherwise noted. Those projections can be found here: https://www.nh.gov/oep/data-
center/documents/2013-projections-state-counties.pdf
8.5%
13.8%
21.5%
24.8%
20.5%
11.4%
6.5%
3.3% 3.8%
1.1%
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
Actual
Forecast

filings. With this release the IRS is also reporting aggregate migration flows at the state level, by
the size of adjusted gross income (AGI) and age of the primary taxpayer.
As shown in the following chart, after five successive years of New Hampshire experiencing net
out migration, the 2011 to 2012 data shows that New Hampshire migration has turned positive
again, but not by much. According to the IRS data NH gained a net 83 people (based on number
of claimed exemptions) from the 2011 Filing Year to the 2012 Filing Year.
A look at state to state net
migration flows shows that over
the period 2001 to 2012 New
Hampshire had a net gain of
almost 70,000 former
Massachusetts residents.
However the migration from
Massachusetts slowed
considerably over the time
period, from over 10,000 per
year in the early part of the last decade, to about 1,500 a year more recently. New Hampshire
also gained residents from Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island from 2001
through 2012.
The State of Florida had the largest increase from net New Hampshire outmigration, gaining
over 23,000 former New Hampshire residents from 2001 to 2012. Former New Hampshire
residents also moved to Maine, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas.
New Hampshire will grow older with fewer young people
Population projections for New Hampshire shown in Figure 3 show that the year 2020 will see
the beginning of a shift in New Hampshire’s population towards the over-65 population. By then,
residents 65 years and older will
account for nearly 20 percent of
the state population, up from
13.5 percent in 2010. This will
be due in large part to the aging
of the “Baby Boom” generation
– generally speaking, those
people born between 1946 and
1964.
The growth rate from 2030 to
2040 in the above-65 population
(9.7 percent) is predicted to be
the lowest growth rate since the
decade preceding 1920. The likely
causes of this lower growth are the last of
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
500,000
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
65+ Pop 65+ Pop as a % of Total Pop
Figure 3: New Hampshire Population Age 65 and Over
10,681
7,851
5,852
3,187
2,646
2,236
-298 -884
-2,320 -2,329 -1,926
83
-4,000
-2,000
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12
TotalExemptions
Total Net Migration Of NH (State to State and Foreign)
Figure 2: Net Migration in New Hampshire

the “Baby Boomer” generation having entered into the 65+ cohort during the preceding decade
and the already significant amount of people age 65 and over.
Looking ahead
Measures of child well-being show troublesome trends
Child poverty in New Hampshire has been growing over the past decade, and at a rate faster than
the nation as a whole. According to data from the U.S. Census’s annual American Community
Survey, the New Hampshire child poverty
rate in 2013 was almost 11 percent, up from
approximately 8% in 2003. This
suggests that the child poverty rate is
growing more quickly in New
Hampshire. Other measures of
childhood poverty, including the share
of New Hampshire students eligible
for free or reduced school lunches,
also show steady increases in recent
years.
This trend is troubling for obvious
reasons. Research indicates that
growing up in poverty can impede a
child’s cognitive development, and
children from low-income households
typically fare worse on measures of
academic success, such as test scores and high school graduation rates.
An aging population will reshape the state’s healthcare system
The aging of the population in New Hampshire will put pressure on virtually every dimension of
the state’s health care system. If we assume that the elderly population in New Hampshire
eligible for the state’s Medicaid program in 2020 will use services at the same rate as the elderly
do today, the number of individuals participating in the program will increase rapidly, increasing
slightly more than 30 percent over the next 10 years. These trends will put pressure on the state
to rethink how it finances long term care services, including institutional and home and
community-based services.
Additional resources from the Center on aging in New Hampshire can be found here:
 “New Hampshire's Silver Tsunami: Aging and the Healthcare System,” NHCPPS, Sept.
2011. http://www.nhpolicy.org/UploadedFiles/Reports/aging_and_the_healthcare_system_final.pdf
 “Aging and the Public Long Term Care System,” NHCPPS, Sept. 2012.
http://www.nhpolicy.org/UploadedFiles/Reports/Aging_and_the_LTC_Systemv5test.pdf
7.8
10.9
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
New Hampshire - Poverty Rate
Those Under 18
Figure 4: Children in Poverty Growing

New Hampshire’s housing stock is not well matched to demographic
change and NH’s future needs3
In the decades before the Great Recession, New Hampshire’s housing market was a major driver
of the state’s expanding economy. But with recent shifts in the state’s demographic and
economic trends, New Hampshire’s current housing infrastructure could end up becoming a drag
on future economic growth and stability.
The reasons are multiple: an aging population, shifts in housing preferences among younger
generations, a misalignment between housing supply and future demand, and changes in
traditional financing paths for homeownership. In the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, housing demand
was driven by Baby Boomers moving to New Hampshire. But as we have seen in many policy
areas, much of New Hampshire’s housing industry (builders, planners, public officials, etc.) has
yet to fully transition away from the mindset of the past, in which consistent rates of high
population growth was the norm. Instead, they need to prepare for a housing model defined by
less growth overall, more senior households, fewer young households, financially strained first-
time buyers, and changing lending standards.
Public policy initiatives can do more than respond to such demographic changes: They can help
shape them. Local zoning ordinances that seek to limit the number of new housing units, increase
mandatory lot sizes, or dictate the type of units that can be built, for example, may drive up the
cost of housing. Higher housing prices, in turn, can create difficulties for new arrivals and
current residents seeking affordable homes, which may deter young people and working families
from moving to the state.
Additional resources from the Center on housing and demographic change in New Hampshire
can be found here:
 “Big Houses, Small Households” NHCPPS, March 2014.
http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/housing-in-nh-pt-1-big-houses-small-households
 “Housing in New Hampshire: Senior Perspectives,” NHCPPS, March 2014.
http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/housing-in-nh-pt-2-senior-perspectives
 “Housing in New Hampshire: The Evolving Environment,” NHCPPS, March 2014.
http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/housing-in-nh-pt-3-the-evolving-environment
3
Excerpted from “Big Houses, Small Households” NHCPPS, March 2014.
http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/housing-in-nh-pt-1-big-houses-small-households

New Hampshire’s Economy
The state’s economic model is changing significantly
By many measures, New Hampshire’s economy rests on strong foundations. With high levels of
educational attainment, a competitive tax structure, relatively low poverty rates, proximity to the
Greater Boston economic market, and an overall high quality of life, the state has many enviable
assets that boosted economic growth and prosperity over the past several decades.
But New Hampshire faces considerable disadvantages in other areas, especially when compared
to areas of the country that are seeing more robust economic growth. These challenges go
beyond the economic disruption caused by the Great
Recession. Recent developments such as declining
rates of in-migration and an aging workforce are
upending the model that defined the state’s economy
since the 1980s – consistent population growth,
increased productivity, and a more resilient economy
than our competitors. The shift away from long-held
assumptions of consistent growth will reshape the
state’s policies on job creation, tax policy, land use,
social services, and other areas.
Job growth has slowed
New Hampshire’s job growth has declined considerably over the past decade. For instance, while
the number of jobs in the state increased annually on average by 4.1 percent during the 1970s,
the state actually saw small annual decreases in jobs from 2000 to 2010.
That decrease was less than for New England and the nation as a whole (0.3 percent and 0.1
percent, respectively, in average annual job loss). However, over the past three years, New
Hampshire has been regaining lost jobs at a slower pace than both the New England region and
the nation. Since 2010,
annual job growth has
averaged just under 1
percent in New
Hampshire, compared to
1.6 percent nationally and
1.2 for all of New
England.
The period since 2010 is
the first in more than 40
years in which annual job
growth in New
Hampshire lagged behind
the national and
Economic Research
Division regional rates.
The United States and
The years since 2010 are the
first period in more than 40
years in which annual job
growth in New Hampshire
has lagged behind the
national and regional rates.
2.5%
1.9% 1.9%
-0.1%
1.6%
1.9%
1.5%
1.0%
-0.3%
1.2%
4.1%
2.8%
2.0%
0.0%
0.9%
-1.0%
-0.5%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
1970-80 1980-90 1990-00 2000-10 2010-14
United States New England New Hampshire
Figure 5: Average Annual Growth in Employment, 1970 to 2014

New England have recovered all of the jobs lost in the recession, while New Hampshire still lags
in returning to pre-recession job levels.
Most of the recent growth in employment, especially in the service sector, has been in industries
that do not require highly skilled workers. Accommodation and food services industries added
the most jobs from 2011 to 2013, and most of the positions in this industry require a high school
diploma or less for employment. Low skill industries tend to pay wages that are below average.
The quality of the jobs created has been mediocre, because two thirds of the jobs created pay
below average wages.
Figure 6: Change in New Hampshire Jobs from 2011 to 2013 by Average Wage
Source: Quarterly Census of Wages and Employment
Over 7,000 of the jobs created in New Hampshire from 2011 to 2013 were below the average
wage of jobs in the state, with only 5,803 jobs created at an above average wage.
Figure 7: National, Regional, and State Unemployment Rates, 2005-2015
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
5,803
7,089
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Above Average Wage Below Average Wage
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
10%
11%
April2005
August2005
December2005
April2006
August2006
December2006
April2007
August2007
December2007
April2008
August2008
December2008
April2009
August2009
December2009
April2010
August2010
December2010
April2011
August2011
December2011
April2012
August2012
December2012
April2013
August2013
December2013
April2014
August2014
December2014
April2015

Despite job growth lagging behind national and regional rates, New Hampshire continues to
enjoy a lower unemployment rate than the nation or New England as a whole. The past ten years
have seen fluctuations largely in line with national and regional trends, but with a narrowing
over-performance compared to the rest of the nation.
Economic growth is slackening
Tied closely to the decline in the rate of job creation is a
slowing rate of growth in the overall state economy.
Between 2010 and 2014, New Hampshire saw a slower rate
of growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) than in any
period in the past 45 years, continuing a decline seen in the
rate of state GDP growth since 1990.
Figure 8: United States and New Hampshire Real GDP Growth by Decade
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis
This is due, in large part, to the impact of the Great Recession. But even as the recession slowed
economic growth across the country, many regions outperformed New Hampshire, seeing more
buoyant job growth, higher productivity gains, and higher growth in the capital stock in those
regions. New Hampshire also saw a greater drop-off in GDP growth between the 1990s and the
2000s than almost every region of the country.
36.6%
38.8% 40.3%
17.7%
8.8%
54.4%
75.2%
47.0%
16.6%
6.2%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
1970-80 1980-90 1990-00 2000-10 2010-14
United States New Hampshire
GDP growth continues, but
the boom times are long
over.

Figure 9: Percent Change in Real GDP in BEA Regions4
Some New Hampshire metropolitan areas growing faster than others
Employment growth in New Hampshire’s labor market areas is varied, though not quite as varied
as a sampling of similarly-sized regions across New England. Though much is said about
economic growth in Portsmouth on the
seacoast, Manchester continues to
have the fastest-growing employment
among New Hampshire’s largest labor
market areas, with 6.9% growth over
the past four years versus
Portsmouth’s 5.0% growth. This
represents an increase of 7,800 jobs
for Manchester from 2010 to 2014 and
4,300 jobs for Portsmouth. Nashua’s
employment levels have grown by
3.8% in the same period.
The state-leading growth in
Manchester is driven primarily by
increases in professional, education,
and health services. Portsmouth’s
growth, by contrast, has come from
the manufacturing, finance, and
4
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis
47.0%
33.0%
30.0%
40.2% 41.1%
48.5%
62.4%
73.5%
39.5% 40.3%
16.6%
13.0%
15.9%
3.1%
16.5% 16.8%
25.6%
22.9%
19.7%
17.7%
6.2% 4.8% 5.7% 6.6% 7.3%
4.9%
18.0%
8.8% 8.4% 8.8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
1990 to 2000 2000 to 2010 2010 to 2014
0.5%
2.0%
3.1%3.3%
3.7%3.8%
4.7%4.8%5.0%
6.9%6.9%7.2%7.3%
7.7%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
9.0%
Figure 10: Percent Change of Labor Force in Regional Labor Market
Areas, 2010 to 2014

insurance industries. Manchester’s increases in educational and health employment may be a less
visible growth in contrast to Portsmouth’s booming manufacturing trade.
While New Hampshire’s metropolitan areas have seen employment growth across the board, it is
necessary to note large declines in the numbers of federal, state, and local government employees
statewide. Additionally, Nashua in particular has seen a large decline in its manufacturing sector,
depressing that city’s economic recovery.
The following table compares employment and wages for 2010 and 2013 in New Hampshire
with a summary for metro counties and non-metro counties. Metro counties in New Hampshire
are Hillsborough, Rockingham and Strafford, while the remaining seven counties are considered
non-metro counties.5
Table 1: New Hampshire Employment and Wages by County Type, 2010 to 2013
2010 2010 2010 2013 2013 2013
Total, Private plus
Government Units
Average
Annual
Employment
Average
Weekly
Wage Units
Average
Annual
Employment
Average
Weekly
Wage
Change in
Employment,
2010 to 2013
Percent
Change
Jobs
Percent
Change
Wages
Metro Counties 23,478 360,664 $920.73 23,777 373,452 $977.46 12,788 3.5% 6.2%
Non-Metro
Counties
15,507 225,326 $779.77 15,385 229,382 $826.55 4,056 1.8% 6.0%
State 38,985 585,990 $866.53 39,162 602,834 $920.04 16,844 2.9% 6.2%
Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
As can be seen in the above table, the metro counties in New Hampshire not only contain the
majority of the jobs in the state, but employment growth has been faster in the metro counties
than in the non-metro counties.
Figure 11: Change in Employment by County Type, 2010 to 2013
Source: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
5
Metro, non-metro and rural definition from the United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service.
3.5%
1.8%
2.9%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
Metro Counties Non-Metro Counties State

When examining New Hampshire’s employment growth since 2010 in comparison to New
England and the nation as a whole, it is clear that the economic recovery has been somewhat
weaker in the Granite State than the region or the country with 3.7% statewide employment
growth compared to 4.7% and 6.7% for New England and the United States respectively. This
does not mean that New Hampshire is in a worse off state economically than the region or the
nation. Rather, New Hampshire entered the recession from a place of much greater economic
strength and lower unemployment, so lower job growth is to be expected with fewer people out
of work and looking for jobs to begin with.
Figure 12: Percent Change of Labor Force in National, Regional, and State Labor Markets, 2010 to 2014
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Though New Hampshire’s economic growth no
longer evokes memories of the boom times decades
past, its post-recession recovery continues its
respectability both within New England and the
nation. Furthermore, cities like Manchester and
Portsmouth are witnessing growth that outstrips both
the New Hampshire and New England averages and
circles the national employment growth average.
New Hampshire added over 20,000 jobs in the past
four years, with nearly half of that growth coming from the Manchester labor market area alone.
As they push the state forward, New Hampshire’s cities continue to be centers of the state’s
economic recovery.
Government and health care join manufacturing as NH’s largest sectors
The dominant industry in New Hampshire for many years has been the manufacturing sector. Of
particular importance for New Hampshire’s economic activity is the smart manufacturing/high
6.7%
4.7%
3.7%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
United States Average New England Average New Hampshire Average
The state’s cities are still
hubs of growth, though
New Hampshire’s best is
just keeping in line with the
national recovery.

technology (SMHT) industry, which includes manufacturers engaged in the transformation of
materials into new products using advanced technology and skilled labor.
But while smart manufacturing remains the single largest sector by this measure of economic
activity (18 percent of total compensation in 2014), both public sector (i.e. government)
employment and health care have risen sharply over the past decade as a percent of overall
economic activity. Though these two sectors are quickly approaching manufacturing as the
largest slice of the state’s economy, persistent increases in the manufacturing sector as the
economic recovery continues mean that this industry will maintain its unmatched importance
into the future.
Figure 13: New Hampshire Total Compensation Paid by Selected Industries (Thousands of Dollars)
The “creative economy” is a significant piece of NH’s economic output
The “creative economy” – which is generally defined as industries involved in the creation and
dissemination of knowledge and information – is considered an important force in driving
economic growth. The term can be used to cover industries as varied as architecture, design,
marketing, film, music and entertainment, publishing, digital industries, education and more.
Arts, entertainment, and recreation (including accommodation and food services) make up about
4 percent of New Hampshire’s economic activity.
We can measure more precisely the impact of creative occupations by noting those areas where
New Hampshire has a higher share of those occupations among its workforce than the national
and regional averages. New Hampshire has a higher concentration of those occupations most
associated with the creative economy than the national average, but less than New England as a
whole, a region buoyed by outlying states like Massachusetts. New Hampshire has a relatively
higher share of computer and mathematical occupations, architecture and engineering
occupations, education, training, and library occupations than the United States at large.
$-
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
Manufacturing + High Tech
Health Care
Retail Trade
Finance
Construction
Education
Real Estate
Government

By contrast, agriculture and related industries that rely on natural resources make up a relatively
small part of the New Hampshire economy. New Hampshire ranks 44th
among the states in the
portion of economic activity associated with agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting.
Though New Hampshire lags behind New England as a whole in its creative economy, it has
become even more creative than the national average over the past decade. Though such a trend
may seem like an increase for New Hampshire, here it indicates that the nation has been
suffering a stagnation in the relative size of its creative class to a greater extent than the state and
region at large. From 2004 to 2014, New Hampshire’s creative class increased from 15% to 16%
of the population, a negligible change while the nation saw its creative class remain at 13% of
the population.
Attracting the “creative class”
With declining rates of in-migration, lower birth rates,
and the resultant decline in young residents, New
Hampshire must grapple with the challenge of
attracting and developing a skilled workforce. The
share of the state’s population between the ages of 35
and 44, arguably those in their period of highest
productivity, declined by slightly more than 4 percent
between 2000 and 2010. Only two states saw a bigger
decline over the same period.
This ongoing demographic shift must shape how policymakers think about coming workforce
needs. As shown below, the traditional workforce cohort (those aged 20 to 64 years) in New
Hampshire is projected to decline between 2010 and 2040. These same projections suggest a
doubling in the population over 65 over the same time span.
Figure 14: Projections of a Declining Workforce, Growth by Age Cohort
Source: Office of Energy and Planning
0
100,00
200,00
300,00
400,00
500,00
600,00
700,00
800,00
900,00
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
19 and under
New Hampshire appears
strong as it develops a
creative economy in a
stagnant nation, but
underlying problems
remain.
20 to 64
65+

These trends raise important questions for New Hampshire. First, what are the factors that will
best attract a workforce to New Hampshire, and what does that mean for public policy? In
addition, how can the state take advantage of the human capital associated with the aging of the
Baby Boomers and incorporate that in the state’s economic growth?
Looking ahead
New Hampshire faces challenges in developing a future workforce
While many of New Hampshire’s economic indicators reflect the decades-long period of growth
and prosperity that began in the 1970s, some measures of future prospects are less promising.
This can be seen in an analysis the Center developed to assist the Business and Industry
Association of New Hampshire in its development of a strategic economic plan for the state.
Each “indicator,” or measure of some aspect of the state’s economy, is placed into a broader
category: healthcare, education and workforce, energy, infrastructure, etc.6
The table below ranks these measures according to New Hampshire’s position among the other
49 states, from best to worst. Viewed this way, we can divide many of the indicators into two
broad categories: those that point to past or current conditions, and those that relate more to
future growth. Many of the indicators where New Hampshire fares well, including high
education levels and a robust science and engineering workforce, reflect the impact of past trends
or current conditions.
On the other hand, the table shows that in more “future-oriented” measurements – the change in
the 35-to-44-year-old share of the population, average student debt, housing costs, and capital
investment –New Hampshire fares quite poorly. These measures are directly linked to a state’s
ability to attract and retain young people and arm them with the skills needed to compete for
good jobs in coming years.
Other areas in which the state ranks near the bottom of the country include many measures of
business costs: industrial electric prices, corporate tax rate, health care costs, and land use
restrictions. These, too, may constrain future economic growth, as other regions of the country
can offer low-cost alternatives to organizations seeking a favorable businesses climate.
6
This is excerpted from “New Hampshire’s Economic Climate: Key Indicators,” NHCPPS, October 2013.
http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/new-hampshireamp39s-economic-climate-key-indicators

Table 2: New Hampshire Economic Dashboard 2013
Indicator New Hampshire Rank
Homeownership Rates 2
Pollution Abatement / Dollar Value Added 3
Percent of Tree Cover Urban Areas 3
High School Graduation Rate 4
Voter Turnout Rate 4
Percent of Population in Science & Engineering workforce 5
Percent of Population with Associated Degree or Higher 6
Percent of Children Aged 3-4 in Preschool 6
Public Health and Welfare Spending Per Person in Poverty 7
Manufacturing Supercluster LQ 7
State Business Tax Climate Index 8
Consumption per Capita, Million BTU 8
Transportation Energy Expenditures as Percent of Personal Income 8
VC Investment Dollars per Capita 2011 8
Percent Uninsured 2011 9
R&D Performed per $GDP (Percent) 10
Business Churn 12
Domestic Tourism Spending per Capita 13
Manufacturing Contribution to Total Compensation 13
Creative Economy Jobs Concentration 14
2011 Age Adjusted Mortality Rates 15
Index of State Liability Systems 16
Volunteering Rate 19
State Energy Efficiency Rank 19
Percent of Mandated Health Benefits 20
Percent of State with Access to Broadband Speeds of 3mbps for Downloads, 768 kbps for 20
Water Infrastructure Needs per Capita 21
CEO Grades for State Taxation and Regulation 22
Percent of Jobs in Firms with 20 to 99 Employees 23
Public Government & Administration per $ Personal Income 24
Rate of HS Graduates Going to Degree-Granting Institution 24
Total Employment Percent Change 2007 to 2012 25
Expenditures per Capita, Dollars 26
Rent more than 30% of income 28
Total Health Care Expenditures as a Percent of Gross State Product (GSP), 2010 32
Ratio Median Housing Price to Median Income 34
Natural Gas Prices in Dollars per MMBTU 34
Portion of Unacceptable Rough Roads 35
State-Specific Standardized Infection Ratios (SIRs): 36
State Spending on Natural Resources per Capita 37
Top Marginal Corporate Tax Rate 38
Percent of Bridges Deficient or Obsolete 39
Owner Costs More than 30% of Income 43
State Debt per $ Personal Income 45
Industrial Electric Prices 46
Capital Investment Projects per 100,000 Population 46
Land Use Restriction 47
Change in 35-44 Year Old Share of Population, 2000 to 2010 48
Average Family Premium per Enrolled Employee For Employer-Based Health Insurance 49
Average Student Debt 50
These costs can be compared in detail across states through the use of Regional Price Parities
(RPPs), the price levels of goods and services stated as a percentage of the national price level.
Based on the costs of various items from the Consumer Price Index including food,
transportation, and education, RPPs can be interpreted as the buying power of a dollar in
different parts of the country. Using the United States as a baseline with 100, New Hampshire is

one of a handful of states with a greater RPP (105.9) than the national average. This means that
costs in New Hampshire are 5.9% higher than the mean of the United States.
Figure 15: Regional Price Parities by State, 2013 (US = 100)
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis
Though New Hampshire frequently perceives itself as having an unusually business-friendly
climate, this is mostly true in regards to costs only when compared to the rest of New England.
Competition with states from other regions of the nation is significantly fiercer.
Policymakers need to prioritize economic development investments
In the past, when considering economic development options, New Hampshire policymakers
have focused on those areas where the state ranks high in state-by-state surveys: the creation of a
low-tax environment, with a focus on high quality of life measures, such as a clean environment,
low poverty and low crime.
But in order to maintain a competitive advantage against other states, should policymakers here
redirect their focus on areas where New Hampshire has typically fallen short, including
healthcare and energy costs, infrastructure and public higher education spending?
New Hampshire, 105.9
86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 104 106 108 110 112 114 116 118
Mississippi
Arkansas
South Dakota
Alabama
West Virginia
Kentucky
Missouri
Ohio
Oklahoma
Iowa
Nebraska
South Carolina
Tennessee
Kansas
Louisiana
Indiana
North Dakota
North Carolina
Georgia
Idaho
Wisconsin
Michigan
Montana
New Mexico
Wyoming
Texas
Arizona
Utah
Minnesota
Maine
Rhode Island
Nevada
Pennsylvania
Oregon
Florida
Vermont
Illinois
Delaware
Colorado
Virginia
Washington
New Hampshire
Alaska
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Maryland
California
New Jersey
New York
Hawaii

Will investments in these or other areas yield better returns on economic growth? The answer,
for now, is unclear. But what is clear is that New Hampshire can no longer rely on the
demographic trends that have propelled it to economic prosperity over the past three decades.
Should the state focus on certain regions of the state? For example, a pro-growth model might
focus on the five communities with the highest level of economic productivity, which includes
Nashua, Manchester, Concord, Portsmouth, and Rochester. Together, these cities accounted for
more than 60 percent of the state’s wages in 2012. Encouraging continued growth in the existing
manufacturing sector may provide additional returns to other parts of the state.
There is no single, simple response to this new set of circumstances; policymakers will have to
weigh various options. These include investing in human capital (an area where we rank
relatively high, as measured by educational attainment), redesigning the state’s tax structure
(where New Hampshire enjoys one of the lowest per-capita tax collection rates in the country but
maintains high corporate taxes), or investing in improved infrastructure and transportation (an
area in which the state ranks relatively poorly). The likely return-on-investment of these and
other options should be part of that decision-making process, as well.
Additional resources
 “From Tailwind to Headwind: New Hampshire’s Shifting Economic Trends,” NHCPPS,
September 2012. http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/from-tailwind-to-headwind-new-
hampshireamp39s-shifting-economic-trends
 “New Hampshire’s Economic Climate: Key Indicators,” NHCPPS, October 2013.
 “Real Personal Incomes for States and Metropolitan Areas, 2013,” Bureau of Economic
Analysis, July 2015.
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/rpp/rpp_newsrelease.htm
 “New Hampshire’s Economy at a Glance,” Bureau of Labor Statistics.
http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.nh.htm

Education in New Hampshire
New Hampshire’s education system remains strong, though shifting
student demographics pose future challenges
For many years, New Hampshire has had among the highest-performing public education
systems in the country. On math and reading scores as reported by the National Assessment of
Educational Progress, high school graduation rates, and high school dropout rates, New
Hampshire ranks higher than the national figures and is among the top states in the country for
overall education quality.
However, as in every other state, New Hampshire sees gaps in
student performance based on socio-economic status and
race/ethnicity, with students from low-income households, black
students, and Hispanic students generally faring worse than the
statewide student population. There are also significant disparities
in student achievement from school district to school district.
Those disparities, too, often fall along socio-economic lines.
Demographic changes in the state are also fueling the policy
debate. Over the past decade, New Hampshire has seen a steady
decline in its school-age population and student enrollments. This
decline will likely prompt further discussions about education
spending – including spending on school infrastructure – staffing
levels, changes in curriculum, and regionalization of educational
services across communities.
Student outcomes are high, but disparities in achievement persist
New Hampshire has long enjoyed high rates of student success on a range of measures.7
But
these statewide figures mask disparities across school districts and student subgroups, including
racial/ethnic groups and those based on economic status, student disability and English-language
learner status.
7
Unless otherwise noted, the data used in this section on student activity can be found on the NH Department of
Education’s website: http://education.nh.gov/data/
As in every
other state, New
Hampshire sees
gaps in student
performance
based on
economic
status, race and
ethnicity.

Figure 16: Percent of Students Scoring Proficient or Higher on State Reading Tests
Scores on the annual NECAP exams, the state’s standardized tests of student achievement,
vary greatly across districts. For instance, the percent of 3rd
grade students scoring
“proficient” or higher for reading last year ranged from 50 percent in one district to 100
percent for several others, as shown in Figure 17.
Figure 17: Third Grade Reading Scores by School District, 2013
(Percent of Students Scoring "Proficient" or Higher)
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
75%
80%
85%
90%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
All students Asian
Black Hispanic
Low-income White
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%

Graduation rates also vary considerably across the state. While the overall state graduation rate is
comparatively high, with the majority of New Hampshire high schools graduating between 77
percent and 95 percent of their students in 2011, a handful of schools show stubbornly low
graduation rates – with nearly one-third of students in some high schools failing to graduate on
time in 2011.
College enrollment rates among high school graduates in 2014 ranged from less than 50 percent
at some schools to 100 percent at one school.
Figure 18: Percent of High School Graduates Entering Post-Secondary Education, Class of 2014
(Each bar represents a school district in New Hampshire.)
Source: New Hampshire Department of Education
Education funding is largely a local affair
School district revenue is raised through a number of different sources. The major source of
district revenue is generated through property taxes.
Figure 19: New Hampshire School District Revenue by Category, 2013-148
8
Source: New Hampshire Department of Education, New Hampshire Department of Administrative Services
State Average,…
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Local
Property…
Statewide
Property…
State
Foundation
/ Adequacy
Aid, 19%
Federal Aid,
6%
Other State
Aid, 3% Tuition, Food,…

State education aid (not counting the statewide property tax) represents roughly 31 percent of
total school district revenue. The share of state aid varies considerably from community to
community across New Hampshire. This revenue model reflects the growing efforts to “target”
state education aid to communities with less ability to generate school district revenue through
local taxation. However, the extent to which targeting is allowed to drive state education
spending remains a topic of considerable debate.
Compared to the rest of the nation, New Hampshire ranks in the bottom third in terms of state
contributions to education. In 2011-12 (the most recent year for which comparable national data
is available), the state contributed 36 percent of total school district revenue (including the
statewide property tax), compared to the national average of 45.5 percent.
In terms of total spending, however, New Hampshire school districts spent more per pupil than
the national average. Though as a percent of the overall economy, New Hampshire’s education
spending has been below the national rate. During the 2013-14 school year, New Hampshire
school districts spent an average of $13,721 per pupil, well above the national average of
$10,700 per pupil.
Figure 20: Per-Pupil Education Spending by State, 2013-149
New Hampshire’s funding for higher education is the lowest in the country
The past decade has witnessed significant changes in state fiscal support for higher education,
much of it driven by financial pressures from the Great Recession. State funding for the
University System of New Hampshire (USNH) fell by nearly 50 percent in FY2012, but has been
9
Annual Survey of School System Finances 2013
New Hampshire,
$13,721
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
$18,000
$20,000

rising steadily since then, though total state support remains below the pre-cut level. State
support for the Community College System of New Hampshire (CCSNH) was relatively smaller.
And while state support for public higher education remains comparatively low in New
Hampshire, tuition levels are among the highest in the country.
Figure 21: State Support for Higher Education by System, FY2005 to FY201510
For much of the past decade, New Hampshire has ranked 50th
in national tables comparing state
fiscal support for higher education.
The U.S. average state support per $1,000 in personal income was over three times greater than
New Hampshire’s state support – $1.75 for New Hampshire, compared to a national rate of $5.55
per $1,000 in personal income.
10
Data on spending come from state budget documents, which can be found here:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/LBA/Budget/OperatingBudget.aspx
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
$60,000,000
$70,000,000
$80,000,000
$90,000,000
$100,000,000
$110,000,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
USNH
CCSNH

Figure 22: State Support for Higher Education per $1,000 in Personal Income, FY201511
In national tables comparing average in-state tuition at public four-year institutions, New
Hampshire also ranks at the bottom of the national list. In 2014-15, New Hampshire public four-
year institutions had the highest average in-state tuition and fees in the country. Tuition and fees
averaged more than $14,700 per academic year. This is in stark contrast to the national average
of just $9,139 per academic year.
Figure 23: Average In-State Tuition and Fees at Public Four-Year Institutions by State, 2014-201512
11
Source: Illinois State University, College of Education, Grapevine Data (FY14 and FY15)
12
Source: The College Board, Trends in College Pricing 2014
New Hampshire,
$1.75
$0
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
$8
$9
$10
$11
$12
NewHampshire
Pennsylvania
Colorado
Vermont
RhodeIsland
Arizona
Massachusetts
Missouri
NewJersey
Oregon
Ohio
Nevada
Virginia
Michigan
Washington
Wisconsin
Maine
NewYork
Connecticut
Florida
Delaware
SouthCarolina
SouthDakota
Minnesota
Maryland
Texas
Louisiana
Montana
Tennessee
Iowa
California
Kansas
Oklahoma
Indiana
Idaho
Kentucky
Georgia
WestVirginia
Illinoise
Utah
Nebraska
Alabama
Hawaii
Arkansas
NorthCarolina
Mississippi
Alaska
NorthDakota
NewMexico
Wyoming
New Hampshire,
$14,712
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
$11,000
$12,000
$13,000
$14,000
$15,000
$16,000
Wyoming
Alaska
Utah
NewMexico
Montana
Florida
Nevada
Idaho
WestVirginia
NorthCarolina
Mississippi
Oklahoma
NewYork
Louisiana
Nebraska
NorthDakota
Arkansas
SouthDakota
Iowa
Kansas
Georgia
Missouri
Tennessee
Maryland
Wisconsin
Texas
Oregon
Indiana
California
UnitedStates
Kentucky
Maine
Alabama
Colorado
Hawaii
Ohio
Arizona
Minnesota
Connecticut
Washington
Virginia
RhodeIsland
Massachusetts
Delaware
SouthCarolina
Michigan
Illinois
NewJersey
Pennsylvania
Vermont
NewHampshire

Student debt continues to climb
Mounting student debt has become a critical policy issue on both the national and the state level.
The total amount of student debt held by U.S. graduates is more than $1 trillion – with almost 40
million Americans carrying student debt.13
According to current estimates, the average New Hampshire college student graduates with more
than $32,000 in student loan debt – the highest in the nation.14
If the cost of higher education
continues to climb and loans remain one of the primary sources of self-funding, student debt will
likely continue to climb. Average student debt is increasing at all USNH institutions.15
Figure 24: Average Undergraduate Debt Load for In-State Students by Institution, 2007-2012
Source: UNH, Keene, and Plymouth Office of Institutional Research
Despite increasing debt loads among in-state students attending New Hampshire institutions,
students enjoy lower default rates on their student loans when compared to the national average.
When examining the default rate on student loans of students cohorts three years after leaving
their schools (a reasonable measure for a student’s ability to pay off their loans), New
Hampshire’s private universities both eclipse and trail its public schools, highlighting the
difficult decision students face in choosing between public and private post-secondary education.
13
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, “Student Loan Affordability: Analysis of Public Input on Impact and
Solutions”, May 8, 2013.
14
Institute for College Access & Success, The Project on Student Debt: http://projectonstudentdebt.org. The Project
on Student Debt collects data from both private and public colleges and does not distinguish between resident and
non-resident students.
15
Data may not include all private loans that students or their parents take out. This only includes loan information
received or reported to the institution.
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
UNH
KSC
PSU

Figure 25: Three-Year Official Cohort Default Rates for New Hampshire Institutions16
The last three years of cohort data show student loan default rates generally remaining consistent
within institutions, with the greatest variation occurring between institutions. The University of
New Hampshire enjoys the lowest student loan default rate of New Hampshire’s public schools,
just 2.9% in 2014, while Granite State College experiences among the worst student loan default
rate in New Hampshire at 10.3% the same year. Business Administration and Management is the
most popular major at both of these schools, so differing returns on investment from the selection
of a major is not enough to account for this discrepancy in the student loan default rate.
The amount in-state students pay for bachelor’s degrees at public schools in New Hampshire is
similar between schools, averaging near $100,000, while private schools may be nearly twice
that price. Even with higher costs, however, graduates of certain private universities may see a
greater return on their investment depending on which institution they attend.
Looking ahead
New Hampshire should expect continued declines in student population
Over the past decade, New Hampshire has seen several changes in its student population,
including a steady decline in public school enrollment, growth in the charter school and home
school population17
, and growing racial and ethnic diversity among school children, as well as
increases in measures of economic hardship among young people.
16
Source: U.S. Department of Education
17
New Hampshire legalized the operation of charter schools, which are funded by tax dollars but have more leeway
in administration and curricula than traditional schools, beginning with the 2004-05 school year.
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
2009 2010 2011

These trends will help shape future education policy discussions at the state and local level,
including conversations about staffing levels, funding formulas, investment in school facilities,
curriculum offerings, and the achievement gap.
Figure 26: New Hampshire Public Grade School Enrollment
In 2002-03, total public school enrollment peaked at about 207,000 students. By the 2014-15
school year, total public school enrollment had decreased to 183,604 – a decline of 11.6 percent
from the 2002-03 high. This decline raises questions for school districts about the possible need
to consolidate functions across schools, including combining school districts and SAUs.
Considering cost reduction through school consolidation18
With demographic pressure, declining state aid, and increased pressure for reporting assessment,
and accountability on districts from state and federal governments, arguments have been made
for school consolidation. These arguments usually rest on a handful of assumptions. Most
common is the basic concept of economies of scale, whereby adding students to a district will
reduce per pupil costs if the additional students do not result in an increase in fixed costs. In
addition, it is often argued that larger districts will be able to support more specialized teaching
staff, thereby providing a wider, more diverse education to students.
There are often, however, other factors which can undercut any potential savings or advantages
assumed in the above arguments. For one, average transportation costs may increase through
consolidation, as a district or SAU must transport more students over a larger geographic area.
Consolidation may also result in higher personnel costs, especially if new salary agreements
result in lower-paid staff from one district becoming newly eligible for higher wages and benefits
once they are employed by a larger district.
18
Excerpted from: “School Consolidation in NH: Some Points for Consideration” NHCPPS, April 2015.
http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/school-consolidation-in-nh-some-points-for-consideration
63,142 64,458 66,828 67,347 67,384 66,413 64,961 64,392 62,882 61,494 60,114 58,733 58,158
42,077 41,672 40,514 39,747 38,646 38,022 36,880 36,726 35,923 34,714 34,696 34,187 33,743
90,772 89,077 87,034 85,788 84,636 83,234 82,313 81,086 80,200 79,528 78,065 77,397 76,576
9,757 9,989 10,116 10,360 10,375 10,489 10,968 11,969 11,922 11,904 11,888 11,602 11,570
0
25,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
125,000
150,000
175,000
200,000
225,000
High School Middle School Elementary Kindergarten

Still, it must be said: Research offers few firm conclusions about the impact of consolidation. In
most instances, the impacts (whether financial, educational or community) of school/district
consolidation vary widely according to the particular circumstances of each case.
One important note: A distinction must be drawn between the consolidation of school districts,
and consolidation of SAUs. A school district is a distinct political subdivision, with a single
controlling school board. An SAU, on the other hand, can cover just a single school district or
include multiple districts. School district costs include the usual things associated with education
expenses: instruction, transportation, facilities maintenance, teacher salaries and benefits, etc.
The costs associated with an SAU office are largely administrative, usually limited to the
personnel costs associated with the superintendent office staff.
In terms of cost savings from consolidation, this means that combining existing SAUs will likely
result in lesser savings unless that shift is accompanied by a parallel consolidation, to some
degree, among the member school districts. In addition, the fact that superintendents in multi-
district SAUs must report to multiple school boards has been raised numerous times in past
discussions as a barrier to streamlining administrative responsibilities in the state’s public
schools.
Attempts to quantify costs savings associated with consolidation typically cover the following
areas:
 Financial savings from consolidation are most likely when dealing with relatively small
educational units. There is, however, wide disagreement about what constitutes a “small”
school or district.19
 Transition costs are often associated with consolidation, though they may decline over
time. These transition costs may include new construction costs to accommodate the shift
in student population that results from consolidation.
 Research indicates that increasing school size initially brings positive returns both on cost
savings and student outcomes, but these trends are reversed as size continues to increase
beyond a certain point. Defining that point with precision, however, is subject to
disagreement within the research literature.20
 Consolidation plans often overlook impacts beyond education costs, including residents’
connections with existing schools, housing prices and economic activity in the wider
community associated with a local school.
19
Craig Howley, Jerry Johnson & Jennifer Petrie, “Consolidation of Schools and Districts: What the Literature Says
and What it Means,” National Education Policy Center, February 2011, and Ulrich Boser, “Size Matters: A Look at
School-District Consolidation,” Center for American Progress, 2013.
20
John Slate & Craig H. Jones, “Effects of School Size: A Review of the Literature with Recommendations,” Essays
in Education, vol. 13, 2005. Joshua Barnett, Gary Ritter & Christopher Lucas, “Does Size Matter? School
Consolidation Policy Issues in Arkansas,” University of Arkansas, Office for Education Policy,” 2004.

Table 3: Administrative Costs for New Hampshire Districts by Enrollment
We see in New Hampshire that, as enrollment increases, general administrative expenses (those
associated with district or SAU-wide functions) steadily decrease. In fact, general administration
consumes more than twice as much of a district budget for districts with 100 students or fewer
than it does for those districts with 3,000 students or more. However, school-level administration
costs remain relatively similar regardless of district-wide enrollment, varying between 4.7
percent and 5.6 percent of each enrollment category. This seems to indicate that cost savings are
most evident, not through combining individual schools, but by combining smaller districts into
larger districts.
The Common Core is bringing big changes in curriculum and assessments
The 2014-15 academic year marked the first year of full implementation of the Common Core
State Standards (CCSS) in New Hampshire schools. These standards (often referred to simply as
the “Common Core”) are a set of expectations about what students should know and be able to
demonstrate at each grade level. The standards set goals for student learning and benchmarks
against which to measure that learning.
The CCSS were developed by education leaders across the country to provide a uniform set of
standards from state to state. The goal is to have the same set of expectations for students, no
matter where they go to school. The CCSS emphasize “higher-order” skills, such as critical
thinking and problem-solving, that are supposed to better equip students for success in higher
education and the workplace.
The CCSS focus on two areas: mathematics and language arts. While New Hampshire has
adopted its own state standards for other subject areas, those for math and language arts mirror
those of the CCSS.
Among the changes ushered in by the Common Core is a new set of standardized tests. New
Hampshire is one of 24 states administering the SMARTER Balanced exams as part of the
Common Core implementation. These new standardized tests, which replace the NECAP exams
District
Enrollment
# of
districts*
Gen. Admin
expenses as
% of total
expenses
School Admin
expenses as %
of total
expenses
Gen
Admin
per pupil
School
Admin
per pupil
<100 students 26 6.3% 5.6% $2,155 $1,923
100‐300 28 4.6% 4.7% $1,116 $1,141
300‐500 25 4.2% 4.7% $865 $979
500‐1,000 27 4.2% 5.3% $768 $971
1,000‐3,000 41 4.2% 5.4% $666 $862
3,000‐5,000 12 3.1% 5.2% $443 $751
5,000+ 2 2.7% 5.1% $325 $608
Statewide 161 3.8% 5.2% $605 $829
*14 New Hampshire districts that do not operate schools are not included here.

that have been in place since 2005, were first administered to New Hampshire students in spring
2015. Students take these new exams online, with computers, and, because of quicker result
turnaround times, are designed to provide more useful information to teachers to tailor
instruction to meet the needs of each student. Dependent on approval of federal regulators, some
New Hampshire schools may opt to replace administration of the SMARTER Balanced
assessment with the SAT or ACT exams to satisfy testing requirements following recent changes
to state law.
The most visible issues in this first year of CCSS implementation has been the participation rates
of students at higher grade levels. In Nashua, for instance, 99% of students in grades three
through seven participated in this year’s SMARTER Balanced exams, but a mere 55% of
eleventh graders took the exam, resulting in a district-wide participation level of 92%. This falls
below the federal government’s required participation level by three percent. New Hampshire’s
largest school district, Manchester, also did not meet federal requirements for participation
levels. It is thought that beyond parental resistance to the new standards, students at higher grade
levels may wish to avoid these stringent, additional tests. Beyond ensuring that new curricula and
teaching methods align with these new exams, meeting desired participation levels among
students will be among the challenges facing educators in the 2015-16 school year.
How can public education help address the needs of the future economy?
New Hampshire has a higher share of its population employed in science and engineering fields
than much of the rest of the country (3.9 percent compared to 2.5 percent nationwide), ranking
the fifth-highest state in the country (and behind the District of Columbia).
Figure 27: Percent of Population Employed in Science and Engineering Fields, 2010
Source: Population Reference Bureau, Trends in Science and Engineering Labor Force Project
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
Mississippi
Arkansas
Nevada
Kentucky
Louisiana
WestVirginia
Oklahoma
Wyoming
Florida
Tennessee
SouthCarolina
Alabama
Montana
SouthDakota
Indiana
NorthDakota
NewYork
Hawaii
Missouri
Georgia
Ohio
Maine
Iowa
NorthCarolina
Nebraska
Arizona
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Kansas
Michigan
Texas
UnitedStates
Idaho
Wisconsin
NewMexico
Alaska
Oregon
Delaware
Vermont
RhodeIsland
Utah
California
Connecticut
NewJersey
Minnesota
Washington
NewHampshire
Colorado
Massachusetts
Virginia
Maryland
Districtof
New Hampshire
U.S.

But our science and engineering labor force is also older, on average, than the rest of the country.
Among that sector of the labor force, 21.8 percent of workers are over the age of 55, compared to
18.1 percent nationally. This raises questions about the state’s ability to replace that older cohort
of science and engineering field workers as they retire over the coming decade.
Additional Resources
 “School Consolidation in NH: Some Points for Consideration” NHCPPS, April 2015.
http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/school-consolidation-in-nh-some-points-for-
consideration
 “Manchester’s Education Benchmarks” NHCPPS, September 2014.
http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/manchesteramp39s-education-benchmarks
 “Public Colleges, Public Dollars: Higher Education in New Hampshire” NHCPPS, March
2014. http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/public-colleges-public-dollars-higher-education-in-
nh
 “Student-Centered Learning in New Hampshire: An Overview and Analysis” NHCPPS,
February 2013. http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/student-centered-learning-in-nh-an-
overview-and-analysis

Health care in New Hampshire
New Hampshire’s health care system is in the midst of great change
New Hampshire’s health care policy landscape faces great change – and great uncertainty – as
the state grapples with several intertwining trends in health care financing, demographic change
and national policy. The most critical issues in health care in New Hampshire today include:
 The implementation of the sweeping federal health care reform effort known as the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is transforming many elements of
New Hampshire’s health care system, and has resulted in significant increases in health
insurance coverage.
 Recent state reforms, including changes to the state’s disproportionate share program,
assessments of the state’s certificate of need process, implementation of Medicaid
managed care program, and the expansion of the Medicaid program through the New
Hampshire Health Protection Act have introduced a new level of uncertainty into the
health care marketplace.
 New Hampshire’s aging population is increasing pressure on policymakers to consider
reforms to the health delivery and financing system.
The following questions are likely to dominate the policy debate in the immediate future:
 Has the implementation of the Affordable Care Act – including the subsidization of
private insurance and the state’s expansion of Medicaid to low income adults - helped
reduce the number of uninsured residents, or lowered uncompensated care costs to New
Hampshire hospitals?
 Have incentives designed to encourage the development of accountable care
organizations resulted in consolidation within the health care industry and have any of
those changes lowered health care costs?
 Have the enormous changes in the health care marketplace had a positive or negative
impact on the health and productivity of New Hampshire residents?
Health care reform is reshaping New Hampshire’s health care marketplace
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 is being phased in gradually over several years, but the
legislation promises to fundamentally change health care delivery in New Hampshire.21
The major components of the Act are:
 the enactment of a number of health insurance reforms;
 providing insurance premium subsidies for some individuals not eligible for Medicaid
with incomes between 138 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level;
 providing the states with an option to expand the state’s Medicaid program to adults with
incomes less than 138 percent of the federal poverty level;
21
A full implementation timeline can be found here: http://kff.org/interactive/implementation-timeline/

 requiring that all individuals secure health insurance or else pay a fine.
The Act mandates a series of structural changes in the market as well – including the
development of health insurance exchanges and the introduction of pilot programs encouraging
the development of integrated health systems called Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) to
improve the cost-effectiveness of care through the Medicare program.
Some of the major components of the Act have already been implemented. As of September
2010, health insurance plans in New Hampshire are now required to provide dependent coverage
for anyone under age 26. Insurance companies are now also required to insure children younger
than 19 who have pre-existing conditions. In 2014, the state created the Health Protection Plan,
which expands the state’s Medicaid program through a series of public, and eventually all
private, insurance options.22
With the introduction of federal insurance subsidies for people with incomes above 138 percent
of the federal poverty level, and the expansion of Medicaid for those with incomes below 138
percent of the federal poverty level, it is anticipated that a significant number of individuals will
have coverage who did not have any in the past. An anticipated increase in coverage – as many
as 100,000 New Hampshire residents – has already transformed the New Hampshire health
insurance market, with two new insurance providers scheduled to offer insurance in New
Hampshire in 2015.
One of the goals of the ACA was to decrease the number of people lacking health insurance. At
the end of the most recent enrollment period (March of 2015), 45,000 people in New Hampshire
had sought coverage through the federal health insurance exchange. During that same time
period (from March of 2014 through March of 2015), the total number of individuals enrolled in
the Medicaid program increased by almost 40,000 individuals (See Figure 28 below).
Figure 28: Growth in Medicaid Enrollment Associated with the Health Protection Act23
22
For a description of the program see: http://www.dhhs.state.nh.us/ombp/nhhpp/index.htm
23
Data was provided by the NH Department of Health and Human Services in its monthly caseload report.
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
Mar-14
Apr-14
May-14
Jun-14
Jul-14
Aug-14
Sep-14
Oct-14
Nov-14
Dec-14
Jan-15
Feb-15
Mar-15
Apr-15
May-15
Jun-15
Medicaid (Excluding NH HPP) NH HPP (Part of Medicaid)

Many analysts argued that the primary impact of the Affordable Care Act and the expansion in
the state’s Medicaid program would be to increase the share of the population that has insurance
coverage, improve the financial condition of those individuals, lower uncompensated care costs
to those providers which served the uninsured in the past, and improve the financial status of
those providers that are now receiving payment for services that have historically gone
unreimbursed.
We will have to wait to understand the impact of these changes. Because of lags in survey data,
we will not have a good measure of the impact of these changes on health insurance coverage
until the fall of 2015, when data becomes available that allows states to analyze changes in
insurance coverage through 2014. Understanding the impact of these changes on health care
providers will be similarly delayed until audited financial statements which cover the period of
change can be reviewed and analyzed.
Health care continues to be a growth industry in New Hampshire
Growth in health care spending in New Hampshire is outpacing growth in other consumer
expenses, including energy costs and taxation levels. Since 1970, locally raised taxes (slightly
more than 2 percent of gross domestic product) and energy spending (now approximately 9
percent of gross domestic product) have remained relatively constant as a share of personal
income. Health care, on the other hand, has taken up an increasing share of personal income – up
from 8 percent of gross domestic product in 1970 to approximately 17 percent today. As
mentioned previously, health care is
one of the most important parts of
our economy and the primary
source of job growth in New
Hampshire.
However, the rapid growth in
health care has paused. After
growing rapidly through the
2000s, health care as a share of
the state’s output as measured by
gross domestic product has
remained relatively constant at
17% since the great recession.
New Hampshire’s Health
Care System is High Cost
In the Center’s analysis of various
aspects of New Hampshire’s
business environment in a national context – which included an assessment of health care,
energy, workforce, housing, and natural and cultural resources among others – the New
Hampshire health care system fared poorly, ranking 37th
lowest in the country based on various
measures of cost, access, health and quality. Only one other Northern New England state -
Maine – ranked worse.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Healthcare Energy GF +ETF Revenue as % of GSP
Figure 29: Share of New Hampshire GDP: Energy, Health Care,
and the State Budget

New Hampshire resides in a high cost part of the country, which explains in part the relatively
low ranking nationally. In 2013, the average annual premium for single person coverage in New
Hampshire (including the portion paid by the employer) was $6,249 – 12.1 percent higher than
the national average.
 The average premium for family coverage in New Hampshire was $17,024 – 6.2 percent
above the national average.
 The average premium for two-person coverage in New Hampshire was $12,651 – 15.1
percent above the national average.
For both single coverage and family coverage paid by the employee, the average annual rate of
increase in premiums in New Hampshire between 2000 and 2013 was about 9 percent, well
above the rate of inflation in the same period.
Figure 30: Annual Growth in Health Insurance Premiums
New Hampshire United States
2000 2013 Annual Increase 2000 2013 Annual Increase
Single Coverage $470 $1,415 8.85% $450 $1,170 7.63%
Family Coverage $1,752 $4,592 7.69% $1,614 $4,421 8.06%
2-Person Coverage n/a $3,177 - n/a $2,940 -
Source: The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS)
Rising health insurance costs mean that health insurance consumes a larger portion of the family
budget. Since 2000, health insurance premiums as a share of family income have grown from 10
percent to approximately 17 percent. (See Figure 31 below.) And the role of health care spending
in the overall economy has grown at a similar pace. Moreover, New Hampshire businesses
perennially identify health care as one of the most important policy questions.
Figure 31: Average Family Health Insurance as a
Percentage of Mean Family Income in New Hampshire
Source: The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) and American Community Survey (ACS)
18.2%
14.0%
10.2%
15.4%
16.9%
17.4%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year

For additional information on the New Hampshire health care sector, look here:
 “Measuring the Health of the Healthcare System, “NHCPPS, NH’s Healthcare Dashboard
2012. http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/measuring-the-health-of-the-healthcare-system-
nhamp39s-healthcare-dashboard-2012
 “Getting What We Pay For? Healthcare Spending in New Hampshire,” NHCPPS,
January 2013. http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/getting-what-we-pay-for-healthcare-
spending-in-nh
 “Health and Equity in New Hampshire,” NHCPPS, February 2013.
http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/health-and-equity-in-new-hampshire-2013-report-card
 “New Hampshire’s Economic Climate: Key Indicators,” NHCPPS, October, 2013.
http://www.nhpolicy.org/UploadedFiles/Reports/dashboard.pdf
An aging population is putting pressure on the health care system24
Among the impacts of an aging population will be a change in the demand for health care
services, as older residents tend to spend a significantly higher share of their income on health
care. 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, impacts 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.
With the aging of the population, some number of people will shift private market
insurance to Medicare. This will put pressure on the health system to provide more with less.
The reason: Medicare reimbursement rates are lower than average patient expenses, which
means health care providers will receive less money for providing services. Medicare’s
increasing market share will likely lead to future reimbursement reductions.
Medicaid will increasingly become an insurer of the elderly. Currently, Medicaid provides
health insurance for a wide range of individuals, including the poor, those with disabilities, and
the elderly. That balance will shift considerably towards the over-65 population in coming years.
Roughly 25 percent of total direct medical expenditures made by Medicaid today are accounted
for by those over the age of 65. By 2020, that number will rise to more than 50 percent.
These trends will put pressure on the state to reevaluate the existing moratorium on the
construction of nursing homes, as well as budgetary limits on home-and-community-based care
services. Planning for these changes has hardly begun.
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
24
Excerpted from: “New Hampshire’s Silver Tsunami: Aging and the Healthcare System,” NHCPPS, September
2011. http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/nhamp39s-silver-tsunami-aging-and-the-healthcare-system

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.
For additional information on aging and the health care system in New Hampshire, look here:
 “New Hampshire’s Silver Tsunami: Aging and the Healthcare System,” NHCPPS,
September 2011. http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/nhamp39s-silver-tsunami-aging-and-
the-healthcare-system
State action
The focus of health care policy making in the past 5 years has been dominated by the state’s
Medicaid program, which accounts for over $1 billion in spending. Beginning in 2011, state
policymakers started implementing a managed care system for New Hampshire’s Medicaid
program, which could ultimately impact 170,000 individuals. The first phase – which shifted
medical care services into the managed care program – has been completed. Much remains to be
done, however, as the final phases – which would shift services provided to the elderly and the
disabled into managed care – have not yet started.
From a fiscal perspective, the single largest policy concern was the state’s $200 million Hospital
Disproportionate Share program, served to provide federal funds to the state and to specific
hospitals. The program – often called ‘Medi-Scam’ – has brought in billions of dollars into New
Hampshire since the 1990s. A 2012-13 budget change to the program resulted in significant
losses to many hospitals in the Southern part of the state, which resulted in litigation. The
litigants argued that the Medicaid Enhancement Tax was unconstitutional.
A court finding that the Medicaid Enhancement Tax was unconstitutional put at risk both
existing payments made to hospitals and approximately $90 million in funds currently being
used to fund existing state services. The potential loss of these dollars resulted in a long period of
negotiations between New Hampshire hospitals and the legislature and executive branch. In the
resulting settlement, 25 of the state’s 26 hospitals agreed to drop the lawsuit in exchange for
additional resources being directed to hospitals. This $90 million dollar change was agreed upon
and funded by the Governor’s Office, the House and the Senate, in each of the budgets that they
individually introduced.
Finally, significant energy has been, and will continue to be devoted to, the implementation of
the state’s Medicaid expansion program, the New Hampshire Health Protection Act. After
months of negotiations between the Republican Senate, the Democrat House and the Governor’s
Office, the legislature passed SB 413, a bill which expanded Medicaid to individuals with
incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level. This program – which is currently providing
coverage to an estimated 40,000 individuals – will end effective December 31, 2015 absent
additional legislative action. As part of the budget process, the House and Senate indicated that
further information was needed to understand the impact of the Medicaid program on individuals
and the health care system before additional action could be taken.

New Hampshire’s State Budget
Every two years, the New Hampshire Legislature draws up a budget to fund state activities. This
spending plan covers a wide range of services, including public education, highway
maintenance, prisons, environmental protection, health care for tens of thousands of people, and
many more. Behind the dollar amounts in the budget document are thousands of policy
decisions: which programs to fund, where to invest resources or scale back investments. Thus, in
a sense, analyzing the state budget is one of the best ways to understand the state’s public policy
priorities.
In aggregate New Hampshire is a low spending state, but this may be
driven by demand for services as opposed to a stingy state government 25
Each year, the Census Bureau reports information on total spending across the states. Figure 32
below shows variation in per-capita spending across the United States. The map shows clear
geographic differences in per capita spending, with the South largely spending less per capita,
and the Northeast, Northern parts of the Midwest, and the Pacific Northwest as being particularly
high spending. New Hampshire stands out as spending relatively less among its neighbors in
the North East.
Figure 32: Per Capital Public Spending in 201326
25
Excerpted from: “Looking Down the Fiscal Road: NH’s Long Term Finances, January 2015
http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/looking-down-the-fiscal-road-nhamp39s-long-term-finances
26
US Census Bureau, Population Estimates and Annual Survey of State Spending

What explains these differences? To tease out these different explanations for New Hampshire’s
spending patterns, we created a budget dashboard (based on the Census data on spending in
2013) that provides policymakers with a snapshot of how much New Hampshire is spending
normalized to reflect the underlying demand for those services. Where appropriate or available,
we normalized aggregate spending data by measures of the underlying demand. For example, we
normalized state corrections spending with the number of inmates in state prisons. We also
controlled for underlying cost of living differences in the states using a standard cost of living
adjustor created by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
This type of display provides a clear, simple picture of the trade-offs that come from the various
spending decisions made by state policymakers. Figure 33 below shows that per-capita spending
is lower in New Hampshire than in the country as a whole (more than 20 percent below the
national average) and that it grew much more slowly between 2002 and 2012 than in the rest of
the country (more than 40 percent lower than the growth rate in the rest of the country). Total
spending as a share of GDP, government administration per capita, education spending per child,
and spending on natural resources and parks per capita were all below the national average.
Figure 33: Per Capita Spending in NH
But not all spending areas were below the national average. There are some expenditure areas
where, when normalized for the underlying demand for services, spending is equal to or higher
than the national average. Spending on police protection per crime, public welfare spending per
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 200%
Natural Resources and Parks Per Capita
Change in Total Spending 2002‐2012
Total Spending Per Capita
Education Spending Per Child
Governmental Administration Per Capita
Total Spending as a Percent of Income
Highway Spending Per Mile of Road
Correction Spending Per Prisoner
Public Welfare Spending Per Person in Poverty
Police Protection Spending Per Crime
Per Capita Interest on General Debt
NH State Spending Dashboard ‐ NH Value as Percent of National Average
National
Average

person in poverty, and per capita debt were all at least 40 percent higher in New Hampshire than
in the country as whole.
The Recession saw a major shift from past budgeting trends
Like all New Hampshire budgets, the FY2014-15 budget relies on a blend of revenue sources to
pay for state spending, many of which (including the Fish and Game Fund, the Highway Fund,
and the Turnpike Fund) can only be used for specific spending purposes. The largest slice,
labeled “General & Education Funds,” represents most of what we mean when we think of
monies raised by state taxes and fees.
Figure 34: Total Appropriations by Fund Source, FY2014-15
The state’s General Fund is the pool of money most directly within the control of lawmakers,
and it is what legislators, the media, and others usually mean when they refer to “the state
budget.” The General Fund pays for at least half of state services, other than highways and aid to
schools. A closer analysis of this fund can tell us much about recent trends in New Hampshire
state budgeting.
In many ways, the past five years (starting with the Great Recession) represent a sharp deviation
from New Hampshire’s budgeting pattern of the recent decades. By 2010, spending from state
revenue sources (General Funds) was at the same level as in 2005. Further reductions in the
2012-13 budget reduced the level of state spending even more. Such reductions in spending mark
a significant shift from the decades-long practice of annual increases in state spending.
Turnpike Fund
2.1%
Fish and Game
Fund
0.3%
Sweepstakes Fund-
Lottery
0.1%
Liquor Commission
0.9%
Highway Fund
5.1%
Other Funds
16.6%
General & Education
Funds
43.7%
Federal Funds
31.1%

Figure 35: General Fund Expenditures (Million USD), FY1990 to FY2015
(Figures for FY2014-15 are appropriated budget amounts)
The cuts in this period were made in response to a sharp drop in state revenue collections, caused
mostly by the Great Recession. How sharp a drop? If the historic trend in revenue growth had
continued through the years of the recession, New Hampshire would have about 18 percent more
revenue during 2012 than it actually did – nearly $400 million more in real dollars.
The FY2014-15 budget was the first since before the recession in which spending levels were
higher than in the previous two-year period – though General Fund spending is still below
FY2008. In other words, state government is still grappling with the economic impacts of the
recession.
When accounting for inflation and population trends, spending in New
Hampshire has fallen over the past 7 budget biennia (14 years)
New Hampshire budget writers often use as a baseline the prior biennium’s spending level,
which provides a consistent basis for understanding how spending is changing. But looking over
a much broader time period allows long-term trends to come into view, revealing patterns in the
way state spending has changed over time.
We analyzed 14 years of data on budgeted appropriations, from 2001 through 2015. These
“appropriated” or budgeted amounts best reflect the state’s intent to spend money on specific
programs. We used New Hampshire’s standard budgetary classifications to break down the
major functions of government: General Government; Justice and Public Protection; Resource
Protection and Development; Transportation; Health and Social Services; and Education.
Table 4 looks specifically at the beginning and end points of this period: state Fiscal Years 2001
and 2015. In addition to the aggregate spending amounts, across all funds, we also include a per-
capita spending measure, which generally controls for changes in the underlying demand for
services, as measured by the size of the state’s population. The 2001 per-capita measures are
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

inflated to 2015 dollars. Finally we include annualized rates of change in both aggregate
spending and per-capita spending.
Table 4: Total state spending, 2001 and 2015
Across this time period, total state spending grew at approximately 2.9 percent per year, with the
highest rate of growth in the categories of Justice and Public Protection (i.e. corrections and
prison spending) and General Administration of state government. Education and Transportation
stand out as two areas where aggregate spending grew less quickly (at 1.3 percent and 1.0
percent respectively).
But while total spending increased over this period, on a per-capita, inflation-adjusted basis, state
spending actually fell slightly between 2001 and 2015 – from $4,134 per-capita in 2001 to
$4,107 per-capita in 2015.
Table 5: General Fund Spending, 2001 and 2015

The same analysis of General Fund spending tells a slightly different story. As shown in Table 5,
aggregate General Fund spending fell in Resource Protection and Development, and
Transportation, while total fund spending in those categories increased. On average, spending
from General Funds increased more slowly than for total funds (2.2 percent annual increase vs.
Total Funds
Per Capita
in 2015
Dollars Total Funds
Per Capita
(in 2015
Dollars)
Annual
Change in
Aggregate
Spending
Annual Change
in Per Capita
Spending (Infl.
Adj.)
General Government $290,266,891 $311 $496,813,557 $377 4.6% 1.6%
Admin of Justice and Public Prtn $310,024,229 $333 $589,415,730 $448 5.5% 2.5%
Resource Protection and Development $178,979,974 $192 $270,638,138 $206 3.5% 0.6%
Transportation $489,454,322 $525 $548,529,445 $417 1.0% ‐1.9%
Health and Human Services $1,355,941,373 $1,454 $2,070,088,151 $1,572 3.6% 0.7%
Education $1,230,006,209 $1,319 $1,431,345,606 $1,087 1.3% ‐1.6%
Total $3,854,672,998 $4,134 $5,406,830,627 $4,107 2.9% ‐0.1%
Source: Total Fund Appropriations from HB1
20152001 Change 2001‐2015
Total Funds
Per Capita
in 2015
Dollars Total Funds
Per Capita
(in 2015
Dollars)
Annual
Change in
Aggregate
Spending
Annual
Change in
Per Capita
Spending
(Infl. Adj.)
General Government $226,401,343 $243 $267,399,052 $203 1.4% ‐1.5%
Admin of Justice and Public Prtn $174,330,881 $187 $225,403,305 $171 2.2% ‐0.7%
Resource Protection and Development $38,867,823 $42 $33,444,407 $25 ‐1.2% ‐4.0%
Transportation $2,886,323 $3 $946,709 $1 ‐8.9% ‐11.5%
Health and Human Services $474,234,782 $509 $667,291,437 $507 2.9% 0.0%
Education $176,743,564 $190 $218,296,042 $166 1.8% ‐1.1%
Total $1,093,464,716 $1,173 $1,412,780,952 $1,073 2.2% ‐0.7%
Source: Total Fund Appropriations from HB1
2001 2015 Change 2001‐2015

2.9 percent), suggesting that spending increases were disproportionately borne by the federal
government, the largest source of budget dollars outside of the General Fund.
The search for new revenue sources is a constant pressure
Over the last two and a half decades, New Hampshire has relied on fresh sources of revenue to
meet growing state budget expenditures. The state General Fund collected just under $600
million in 1988. If taxes and rates that year had remained unchanged, those same sources would
have generated $995 million in the year 2013.
However, in reality, General Fund revenues were $1.4 billion in 2013. The more than $400
million difference ($1.4 billion minus $995 million) came from new taxes (like the Business
Enterprise Tax), increases in tax rates for existing taxes (including increases in the meals and
rooms tax and tobacco tax), and non-tax sources such as the tobacco settlement and the Medicaid
Enhancement Tax. Almost one third of new revenue growth between 1998 and 2013 came from
new taxes, increased tax rates, and/or non-tax sources.
Figure 36: General Fund Revenues by Major Component 1988 Through 2013
The large number of relatively small contributors to total General Fund revenue, with eight
individual tax sources each contributing less than 5 percent to the fund, is rather unique to New
Hampshire. In many states, the two largest revenue sources (most often a sales tax and an income
tax) make up 75 percent to 80 percent of the total.
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
State Fiscal Year
MillionsofDollars
Taxes and rates
in place in 1988
Medicaid Enhancement New taxes
Increased rates
$995m
$1,414m

Figure 37: FY2013 General Fund Revenue Sources
The largest contributors to New Hampshire’s General Fund are:
 Business profits tax (18.9 percent)
 Meals and rooms taxes (16.9 percent)
 Profits from state liquor sales (9.3 percent)
When we take a long-term view of changes in the General Fund relative to overall economic
growth in New Hampshire, we see a multi-year decline over the course of the Recession in the
portion of the state’s economy that is tapped as revenue for public spending through the General
Fund – from nearly 2.5 percent in 2008 to slightly less than 2 percent in 2013.
Figure 38: General Fund Revenue as a Percentage of Gross State Product
Business Profits Tax
18.9%
Communications Tax
4.0%
Beer Tax
0.9%
Meals and Rooms Tax
16.9%
Liquor Sales
9.3%
Tobacco Tax
8.7%
Interest & Dividends
Tax
6.5%
Business Enterprise
Tax
5.5%
"Medicaid
Enhancement"
Revenue
5.4%
Other Revenues
5.2%
Real Estate Transfer
Tax
4.4%
Securities Revenue
2.7%
Board and Care
Revenue
1.9%
Tobacco Settlemen
1.6%
Utilities Tax
0.4%
Court Fines & Fees
0.9%
Insurance Tax
6.7%
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012

Social services spending remains the primary driver of state spending
By dividing spending into the major categories (as defined by state budget writers), we get a big-
picture view of how New Hampshire spends public dollars.
Figure 39: State Appropriations by Category, 2014-15 (all fund sources)
The diagram makes clear that most state spending is in the role of provider of social services to
the public. We also see the large role that education plays in the expenditure of public dollars;
this covers both the K-12 system, as well as the university and community college systems.
By analyzing this division of state spending across categories of government over a longer time
span, we can see broader trends and patterns in the way spending has changed27
. For instance,
the Figure below shows the distribution of state spending along the same broad categories of
government in 1982, more than 30 years ago.28
While direct comparisons of spending are
difficult, you can see that spending on Health & Social Services, Education, and Justice and
Public Protection have grown as a share of total state spending, while Transportation saw the
biggest decline, falling from 19 percent of total state spending in 1982 to 10 percent in the
current budget. Spending on Health and Human Services, by contrast, grew from 31 percent to
39 percent of total state spending since 1982.
27
A completely apples-to-apples comparison of 1982 to 2012 is difficult because programs and responsibilities shift
between the major functions of state government. The classifications of funds often change over time as well,
making a true apples-to-apples comparison difficult. But in general, the data provide a broad picture of shifts in state
spending by major function over this span and illustrate the larger role that health and other social programs play in
New Hampshire’s budget compared to 30 years ago.
28
Data for 1982 comes from ‘1982 Operating Budget N.H. Laws of 1981, Chapter 568’. Director of Legislative
Services, Concord, NH, 1981. Data for 2014 comes from HB1 for 2014-2015 as published by the Legislative Budget
Office. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2013/HB0001.pdf
Justice & Public
Protection
11%
Education
26%
Health & Social
Services
39% Resource Protection
& Development
5%
General Government
9%
Transportation
10%

Figure 40: State Spending by Category, 1982 (all fund sources)
State revenues unlikely to meet future demand given existing service levels
and historic growth
The Center developed a forecast for state revenue through 2023 (Table 6), assuming that per-unit
taxes keep their rates unchanged, while other tax revenues increase at the assumed future rate of
growth of the economy (4.2 percent per year).29
Our simulation suggests that the state will see
natural revenue growth of 2.8 percent per year.
Table 6: 2023 New Hampshire Tax Revenue by Type30
29
This is equal to the most recent economic growth forecast from the Congressional Budget Office: “The Budget
and Economic Outlook: 2014 to 2024,” Congressional Budget Office, February 2014
30
Per unit revenues come from taxes on quantity, like the beer tax, whose rate has remained unchanged for decades.
Other per unit taxes, like the cigarette tax, have seen ever higher rates, and are included in the “Per unit changed”
revenue type. Ad Valorem revenues come from taxes on value. Stable Ad Valorem revenues keep pace with overall
economic growth, and include the meals and rooms tax. Unstable Ad Valorem revenues include the Interest and
Dividend tax, the Real Estate Transfer Tax and Business Taxes, which can vary significantly relative to prevailing
economic conditions.
Resource
Protection &
Development
3%
General
Government
15%
Transportation
19%
Justice & Public
Protection
8%
Education
24%
Health and Social
Services
31%
Potential Revenue in
10 years
4.2% Annual
NH Revenue Type 2013 Share 2023 Growth
Per Unit Unchanged $853.402 38.9% $853.4 0.0%
Per Unit Changed $205.900 9.4% $310.7 4.2%
Ad Valorem Stable $464.348 21.2% $700.7 4.2%
Ad Valorem Unstable $738.174 33.7% $1,113.9 4.2%
$2,261.824 $2,978.7 2.8%

What does this mean? Without either changes to the state’s revenue structure, a return to historic
economic growth, or a significant decrease in spending growth, state budget writers will likely
face unbalanced budgets in coming budget cycles.
As an example, Table 7 shows what would happen if total expenditures grew at their historic rate
(4.2 percent per year) and revenues grew “naturally” – that is, without any adjustments in rates or
new taxes. Under these assumptions, over the next ten years, one could expect a significant
budget deficit, as much as $450 million, by 2023.
Table 7: Alternative - Deficit Assuming Historical Growth
Of course, future predictions like this require assumptions and come with great uncertainty. State
policymakers have made adjustments to both spending and revenue in order to solve budget
issues in the past. Policymakers will likely have to rely on a mix of approaches – changes in
taxation and spending – in order to maintain services demanded by the public.
Looking ahead
Balancing a budget is relatively straightforward at the state level, as state spending is required to
equal revenues. The challenges (and, occasionally, opportunities) come when there is an
imbalance – that is, when revenues grow more slowly than spending, or vice versa. State
revenues are unlikely to grow at levels sufficient to meet existing demands, creating a continuing
conversation about the level of state spending.
 Understanding Changes in the House’s FY16/17 budget” April, 2015.
http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/policy-note-understanding-changes-in-the-houseamp39s-
fy1617-budget
 “Looking Down the Fiscal Road: NH’s Long Term Finances, January 2015
http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/looking-down-the-fiscal-road-nhamp39s-long-term-
finances.
 “State Revenue Forecast, 2014-15” January 2013. http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/policy-
note-state-revenue-forecast-2014-2015
 “Turbulent Times: New Hampshire’s State Budget, 2008 to 2013,” NHCPPS, May 2013.
http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/turbulent-times-nhamp39s-state-budget-2008-to-2013
 “Counting on the Future: New Hampshire’s State Revenue Estimates,” NHCPPS, May
2011. http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/counting-on-the-future-new-hampshireamp39s-
state-revenue-estimates
2013 2023
NH Revenue $2,261.824 $2,895.3 2.5%
NH Expenditures $2,216.159 $3,344.1 4.2%
2023 Surplus/(Deficit) ($448.77)

New Hampshire’s Infrastructure
Infrastructure is key to the well-being of any society, allowing smooth transit, healthy living, and
a quality of life where the economy grows, so it is no small surprise that infrastructure
investment continues to be a primary public policy conversation. And the state has many
different tools at its disposal to support infrastructure development. The gas tax is used to fund
the road infrastructure, the state has a revolving loan fund to support water infrastructure, and the
state’s school building aid program has been used to upgrade, and construct new, schools.
How should state and local policy makers prioritize capital investment in water versus other
infrastructure needs? The first step would be to get a better understanding of how the capital
needs vary. Yet there is no source of information on the ‘age of plant’ of each of NH’s major
infrastructures.
To begin to develop a set of tools to help policy makers understand the relative health of the
state’s varied infrastructure, the Center developed national rankings on a series of indicators,
including transportation infrastructure, drinking water and wastewater facilities, and
communications infrastructure. Indicators used to rank New Hampshire relative to the nation
and to certain economic competitor states were developed as part of work the Center conducted
with the Business and Industry Association.31
The indicators are:
Transportation energy expenditures as percent of personal income, 2011 – A measure of all
transportation sector primary energy expenditures, divided by total state personal income.32
States are ranked from lower to higher values.
Percent of bridges rated “deficient” or “obsolete,” 2010 – Percent of state bridges classified
as “structurally deficient” (i.e. bridge’s condition contains at least one significant defect) or
“functionally obsolete” (i.e. bridge was built to standards no longer in effect or its design is not
suitable for its current use).33
Portion of unacceptable rough roads, 2009 – Percent of state road miles classified as
unacceptably rough according to grading by International Roughness Index. Road miles include
interstates, other principal arterials, rural minor arterials, and roads in the National Highway
System.34
Percent of state with access to broadband – Percent of state residents with access to broadband
speeds of 3mbps for downloads and 768 kbps for uploads.35
31
The following is excerpted in part from: “New Hampshire’s Economic Climate: Key Indicators,” NHCPPS,
October 2013. http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/new-hampshireamp39s-economic-climate-key-indicators
32
U.S. Energy Information Administration; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.cfm?incfile=/state/seds/sep_sum/html/sum_ex_tra.html&sid=US
33
American Society of Civil Engineers; Federal Highway Administration, National Bridge Inventory
34
Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 2009:
http://www.bts.gov/publications/state_transportation_statistics/state_transportation_statistics_2011/index.html
35
U.S. Census Bureau; Federal Communications Commission

Water infrastructure needs per capita – 20-year capital investment needs for public and
community drinking water, wastewater and storm water systems, on a per capita basis.36
States
are ranked from lower to higher values.
Table 8 below shows the values for each of the indicators for the four Northern New England
States as well as some of the key competitors for what has been a cornerstone of NH’s economy,
advanced high tech manufacturing industry.
Table 8: Infrastructure state indicators
In what follows, we take a more in depth look at New Hampshire’s school, Internet, water,
bridge, and road infrastructures to highlight key areas of difficulty and opportunity as New
Hampshire grows to meet 21st
century needs.
Aging school buildings require refurbishment
Though student enrollment has declined in recent years, New Hampshire’s 487 public primary
and secondary schools still require ongoing maintenance and refurbishment. According to the
American Society of Civil Engineers 2011 Report Card for New Hampshire’s Infrastructure,
78% of these schools have at least one unsatisfactory environmental condition (e.g. heating and
ventilation) and 59% have at least one inadequate building feature (e.g. roof, floor, windows,
doors, plumbing, heating). Replacement or extensive repair is required in 39% of school
buildings. State reports from the American Society of Civil Engineers are not universally
conducted in the same year, so perfect comparisons to these metrics in other states are not
possible.
36
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2013 Report Card for America's Infrastructure; Environmental Protection
Agency, 2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment, and 2008 Clean Watershed Needs
Survey
State Indicator
Transportation
energy
expenditures
as percent of
personal
income
Percent of
bridges
deficient or
obsolete
Portion of
unacceptable
rough roads
Percent of state
with access to
broadband
speeds of
3mbps for
downloads and
768 kbps for
uploads.
Water
infrastructure
needs per
capita
New Hampshire 4.7% 31.0 21.7 98.1% $1,554.92
Maine 6.6% 32.2 25.4 98.1% $1,159.32
Massachusetts 3.5% 49.8 13.7 99.9% $2,260.36
Vermont 5.6% 31.7 35.8 93.1% $1,072.33
North Carolina 5.6% 27.5 7.1 97.8% $1,740.87
South Carolina 7.5% 21.6 13.2 97.3% $468.29
Texas 6.8% 17.8 7.4 98.4% $1,491.32
Virginia 5.2% 25.4 4.7 96.0% $1,624.79

Figure 41: Per Pupil Primary and Secondary School Infrastructure Outlay for FY2013
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (Construction, Land and Existing Structures, and Equipment Spending)
New Hampshire is ranked low among the fifty states in terms of per pupil infrastructure
spending. Infrastructure spending for FY2013 was calculated as the sum of new construction,
building and grounds maintenance, and equipment purchases for public schools in each state.
Despite having the nation’s fourth lowest amount, $390 spent on school infrastructure per-pupil
in FY2013, New Hampshire still has the fourth highest level of school infrastructure funding per
pupil in New England. Maine and Rhode Island have the third and second lowest levels of
school infrastructure outlay respectively.
This variation is likely driven by a number of different factors. School building consolidation,
varying material and labor costs for construction, varying maintenance costs, and increased or
decreased past infrastructure spending may all be reasons for variation in current spending levels
beyond the ideological ranking of school infrastructure spending within fiscal constraints.
Household internet access is widespread yet incomplete for some rural
areas
New Hampshire trails the New England average for broadband, or high-speed (25 Mbps+),
household Internet access, though it stays in line with national trends. Household Internet access
is defined as current usage of the Internet at home and not the availability to households of
Internet access to purchase. New Hampshire has the twenty-fifth highest level of broadband
household Internet access in the nation.
New Hampshire, $390
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
$2,200
$2,400
$2,600
Idaho
RhodeIsland
Maine
NewHampshire
NorthCarolina
Nevada
Arizona
Florida
Tennessee
Mississippi
Oregon
Wisconsin
Michigan
Vermont
NewJersey
Montana
Hawaii
Oklahoma
Indiana
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Alabama
Colorado
Connecticut
Louisiana
Missouri
Illinois
Georgia
Nebraska
California
WestVirginia
Kentucky
Arkansas
Maryland
Utah
SouthCarolina
Ohio
Minnesota
Delaware
Kansas
Massachusetts
Washington
SouthDakota
Texas
NewYork
NewMexico
Iowa
Alaska
NorthDakota
Wyoming

Figure 42: Percent of Population without Household Broadband Internet Access by Region, 2010
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Broadband household Internet access is highest in New Hampshire’s more urbanized and
suburban counties near the Massachusetts border and declines as one moves north. Belknap
County proves an exception to this trend, however, with fully 77% of households in the 2010
U.S. Census lacking access to broadband Internet at their residences.
Figure 43: Percent of Population with Broadband Household Internet Access by County, 2015
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
24%
17%
24%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%

Though high-speed household Internet access is far from universal, this is not equivalent to
either a lack of available broadband Internet service at home or a lack of access to high-speed
Internet service for residents outside their homes in public places such as libraries and schools.
New Hampshire is a relatively “low-use” state for water
On a per capita basis, use of water in New Hampshire is relatively low. New Hampshire’s
relatively limited water use is a function of the fact that our economy does not rely extensively
on water-intensive industry, nor do we have significant levels of agricultural use, which drive
demand in much of the rest of the country.
Figure 44: Total Water Use Per Capita in Gallons/Day by State, 2010
Source: USGS, Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2010
And demand pressure on New Hampshire’s public and private drinking water systems has
declined on an average per capita basis over the past 30 years. In addition, peak use has remained
relatively stable, though in the most recent 10 year period (2002 –2012) total pumpage has
declined slightly in the major public water supply systems.
Estimating future demand by state residents is complicated by the uncertainty regarding
industrial use trends, state population projections, and the utilization of new efficiency
technologies. Between 1970 and 2000, the population in New Hampshire nearly doubled. But
during that same period (and since) residential water use per capita has declined. At the same
time, the decline of water-intensive industry in New Hampshire has meant even lower use of
available resources.
While domestic pressure on the state’s water system is likely to increase only slightly, and few
water systems have been forced to implement water control initiatives, peak monthly demand has
New Hampshire, 917 Gallons/Day
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
Maine
RhodeIsland
Massachusetts
Georgia
NewYork
Pennsylvania
NewJersey
Vermont
Minnesota
Washington
SouthDakota
Florida
Delaware
Ohio
Oklahoma
NewHampshire
Connecticut
Hawaii
Arizona
Virginia
Nevada
Texas
Kentucky
Iowa
California
Illinois
Wisconsin
Michigan
Tennessee
Maryland
NorthCarolina
Mississippi
Indiana
Kansas
Missouri
SouthCarolina
NewMexico
Alaska
Utah
Oregon
Louisiana
NorthDakota
WestVirginia
Alabama
Colorado
Arkansas
Nebraska
Montana
Wyoming
Idaho

seen an increase during the summer months. While on average the peak demand has remained
relatively constant, the three highest demand months since 2000 have occurred in the past four
years.
Future investment needs for public water systems are significant
The American Society of Civil Engineers, in its 2013 “Report Card for America’s
Infrastructure,” estimated the investment needed in drinking water and wastewater systems in
each state over the next two decades. The table below takes those estimates and calculates the
needed investment on a per-capita basis for New Hampshire, other Northern New England states,
and a handful of other states identified as economic competitor states by the New Hampshire
Business and Industry Association. As it shows, New Hampshire is in the middle of the pack
when it comes to per-capita water system needs in the next two decades.
Table 9: Estimated investment needs of water systems in selected states,
including New Hampshire, over the next two decades.
There is significant variation in what consumers in New Hampshire pay for water, as well as
significant investment requirements for water infrastructure due to age of facilities. If consumer
use continues to decline, and fixed costs remain the same, the price of water to consumers and
local tax payers will increase. Future costs of the water infrastructure are not built into rates in
most communities, as currently structured. With declining state aid to municipalities and
increasing demand for other services, the implications for rate payers and local property tax
payers could be significant.
Nearly one-third of New Hampshire’s bridges are deficient
New Hampshire’s deficient bridges, meaning those classified as structurally deficient or
functionally obsolete, account for 31% of bridges in the state, a number seven points higher than
20 year water infrastructure needs (in millions of $)
State
Drinking water
(in millions)
Waste water
(in millions)
Total water
infrastructure
needs (in millions)
2010
population
Water
infrastructure
needs per
capita
NH $847 $1,200 $2,047 1,316,470 $1,555
Mass $6,800 $8,000 $14,800 6,547,629 $2,260
VT $453 $218 $671 625,741 $1,072
Maine $540 $1,000 $1,540 1,328,361 $1,159
Texas $26,000 $11,500 $37,500 25,145,561 $1,491
NC $10,000 $6,600 $16,600 9,535,483 $1,741
SC $1,600 $566 $2,166 4,625,364 $468
Virginia $6,100 $6,900 $13,000 8,001,024 $1,625
Colo $6,400 $1,500 $7,900 5,029,196 $1,571
Source: ASCE 2013 Report Card for America's Infrastructure

Figure 45: Percent of Deficient Bridges by State, 2014
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
the national average. While structural deficiency means that a bridge may require specific
monitoring, inspection, and maintenance to remain safe, functionally obsolete bridges are bridges
not built to current standards, meaning they may have inadequate lane and shoulder widths,
insufficient vertical clearances, and be subject to occasional flooding. Over 50% of New
Hampshire’s bridges are over 50 years old, and 23% of these 50-plus year old bridges are
structurally deficient and 23% are functionally obsolete. 78% of structurally deficient bridges
and 65% of functionally obsolete bridges are over 50 years old.
The U.S. Department of Transportation estimates the cost to rehabilitate New Hampshire’s
structurally deficient bridges at approximately $174 million and the cost to replace New
Hampshire’s structurally deficient bridges at approximately $256 million, or $131 and $193 per
capita respectively.
A majority of New Hampshire’s roads are in poor or mediocre condition
Compared to a national average of 32%, 54% of New Hampshire’s roads are in poor or mediocre
condition, costing New Hampshire motorists approximately $259 each per year in additional
repairs and operating costs, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers. Road
condition ratings are derived from the International Roughness Index and Present Serviceability
rating. The International Roughness Index measures the vertical movement of a vehicle on a
road, or the road’s “bumpiness,” and the Present Serviceability Index is based on observations of
ride quality from tests conducted over the road in question.
New Hampshire,…
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%

Figure 46: Percent of Roads in Poor or Mediocre Condition, 2013
Source: American Society of Civil Engineers
Under current appropriations from SB 367, the state highway fund is expected to receive and
allocate $33.54 million in funds to rehabilitate and resurface highways and funds for FY2016.
Uncertainty in the budget-making process makes further appropriations uncertain.
 “New Hampshire’s Economic Climate: Key Indicators,” NHCPPS, October 2013.
 “2011 Report Card for New Hampshire’s Infrastructure” ASCE, 2011.
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2011-ASCE-
Report-Card_web.pdf
 “Computer and Internet Use in the United States: 2010” U.S. Census Bureau, July 2012.
https://www.census.gov/hhes/computer/publications/2010.html
 “Public Education Finances: 2010” U.S. Census Bureau, 2013.
http://www2.census.gov/govs/school/13f33pub.pdf
 “Deficient Bridges by State and Highway System 2014” U.S. Department of
Transportation, December 2014.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi/no10/defbr14.cfm#a
 “Bridges by Year Built” U.S. Department of Transportation, 2013.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/structyr.cfm
New Hampshire, 54%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Indiana
Georgia
Nevada
Alabama
Utah
Florida
Missouri
Kentucky
Delaware
Michigan
Tennessee
Texas
Arkansas
SouthCarolina
Massachusetts
Ohio
NewMexico
NorthDakota
Idaho
NorthCarolina
Vermont
Iowa
Virginia
WestVirginia
Wyoming
Alaska
Hawaii
Mississippi
Arizona
Minnesota
Montana
Maine
NewHampshire
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Nebraska
NewYork
SouthDakota
Kansas
Louisiana
Oregon
NewJersey
Washington
California
Colorado
Oklahoma
RhodeIsland
Wisconsin
Connecticut
Illinois

Energy in New Hampshire
New Hampshire is a high-cost, low-use state when it comes to energy
New Hampshire has among the highest retail electricity rates in the nation. States with high
energy costs, like New Hampshire and the other Northeastern states, tend to also have low
energy consumption (as measured by energy consumption per dollar of state gross domestic
product) as shown on the following charts. States with lower energy prices, including net energy
exporting states like North Dakota and Wyoming, tend to consume more energy per dollar of
economic activity.
New Hampshire was the ninth lowest per capita consumer of energy among the states in 2011.
This is due in part to the state’s relatively low proportion of energy-intensive heavy industry. In
2013, the industrial sector represented only 13 percent of energy use in the state as shown in the
following chart.
Figure 47: New Hampshire's Energy Use by Sector, 2013
Source: U.S. Department of Energy Information Administration
Unlike some other parts of the country, New Hampshire has no in-state sources of fossil fuels or
uranium. Thus, to meet the energy needs of state businesses and residents, most energy must be
imported. In 2012, New Hampshire had to import 90 percent of energy used. With such a large
percentage of the state’s energy resources met through imported sources, the state’s energy
supply is vulnerable to disruptions from weather, price volatility, changing dynamics in the
commodities market, political unrest, and other factors beyond our control.
An emphasis on “clean” energy is shifting New Hampshire’s energy mix
New Hampshire is second only to Maine in the percentage of forested land. Forest products,
including wood pellets for space heating, are an important part of the state economy and the
Residential, 31%
Commercial, 23%Industrial, 13%
Transportation, 33%

mainstay of New Hampshire's biomass energy industry. Nearly 1 in 12 households depends on
wood products as the primary heat source.37
Over five decades, the energy consumption mix in New Hampshire has changed in response to
policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Most recently, New Hampshire has decreased its
dependence on coal and distillate fuel oil, and is relying more on natural gas and nuclear electric
power.
Figure 48: New Hampshire's Energy Consumption by Fuel Type, 1960 to 2013 (Millions of BTU)
Source: U.S. Department of Energy Information Administration
Energy costs remain a drag on New Hampshire’s economy
Numerous rankings that stack New Hampshire against other states have noted our relatively high
prices for industrial electricity and natural gas. This is an especially critical issue for businesses
and the state economy, as low state energy costs can offer a significant competitive edge against
other locations.
The following table compares New Hampshire with our New England neighbor states across
several measures of different prices of energy within New Hampshire, the level of consumption
of energy, total expenditures associated with energy use, and energy efficiency efforts in the
state.
37
U.S. Energy Information Administration, May 2015, http://www.eia.gov/state/analysis.cfm?sid=NH
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
450000
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
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
Biomass Hydroelectric Power Nuclear Electric Power Other Petroleum
Residual Fuel Oil Motor Gasoline LPG Jet Fuel
Distillate Fuel Oil Natural Gas Coal

Figure 49: Energy Indicators
State Indicator
Industrial
Electric
Prices
Natural Gas
Prices in
Dollars per
mmbtu
Consumption
per Capita,
Million BTU
Expenditures
per Capita,
Dollars
State
Energy
Efficiency
Rank
New Hampshire $12.27 $7.95 224.0 $3,971 19
Maine $8.88 $7.81 307.0 $4,746 25
Massachusetts $13.38 $9.05 213.0 $3,739 1
Vermont $9.83 $11.46 236.0 $4,344 5
Industrial Electric Prices, 2011 - Average industrial retail price of electricity per kilowatt hour
produced by the U.S. energy information administration.38
Indicators for consumption,
expenditures and prices are from the State Energy Data System (SEDS) produced by the Energy
Information Administration.39
States are ranked from higher to lower values.
Natural Gas Prices in Dollars per Million BTUs, 2011 – Annual natural gas prices in 2011
from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.40
States are ranked from higher to lower
values.
Energy Consumption, 2010 – Per capita energy consumption in millions of BTUs from the U.S.
Energy Information Administration.41
Expenditures Per Capita, 2010 – Per capita energy expenditures from the U.S. Energy
Information Administration.42
States are ranked from higher to lower values.
Energy Efficiency Rank, 2012. This ranking is developed by the American Council for an
Energy Efficient Economy. The state rankings are based on a review of six areas in which states
often attempt to assess efficiency: utility programs, transportation policies, building energy
codes, combined heat and power policies, state government-led initiatives around efficiency, and
appliance and equipment standards.43
States are ranked from higher to lower values of energy
efficiency.
38
U.S. Energy Information Administration, “Electric Sales, Revenue, and Average Price” Table 5c.
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/sales_revenue_price/
39
While some SEDS data series come directly from surveys conducted by EIA, many are estimated using other
available information. These estimations are necessary for the compilation of "total energy" estimates. The data
sources and estimation procedures are described in the Technical Notes.
40
Data can be downloaded here:
http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.cfm?incfile=/state/seds/sep_sum/html/rank_pr_pa_ng.html&sid=US
41
U.S., Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Review. Table 1.6 State level Energy consumption,
expenditure, and price estimates, 2010. http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/index.cfm#summary
42
U.S., Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Review. Table 1.6 State level Energy consumption,
expenditure, and price estimates, 2010. http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/showtext.cfm?t=ptb0106
43
The report including the rankings and methodology can be found here: http://aceee.org/research-report/e12c

As can be seen on the following table, which shows the national rank for each of the above
indicators, energy in New Hampshire is very costly, but energy consumption in New Hampshire
is among the lowest among the states.
Figure 50: Energy Indicator Rankings
State and U.S. Rank
Industrial
Electric
Prices
Natural Gas
Prices in
Dollars per
mmbtu
Consumption
per Capita,
Million BTU
Expenditures
per Capita,
Dollars
State
Energy
Efficiency
Rank Overall
New Hampshire 46 34 8 26 19 28
Maine 40 30 22 44 25 35
Massachusetts 48 44 6 18 1 20
Vermont 42 49 10 36 5 24
State Action
The state has attempted to address policy goals through several different policies.
 Residents are already encouraged to invest in renewable energy sources through a series
of tax incentives on the local, state, and federal levels.
 The Renewable Energy Act in 2007 established renewable portfolio standards that
require electricity suppliers to increase their percentage of power generated by different
renewable energy sources until 2025. This will require at least two major changes:
o reduce overall energy use; and
o increase the total amount of renewable energy in the gross energy use mix.
In 2012, New Hampshire became the first state to offer Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS)
credit for renewable thermal projects, including new or expanded biomass, solar thermal, and
geothermal resources, which deliver energy as heat instead of electricity. New Hampshire’s
Renewable Portfolio Standard requires one quarter (25 percent) of electricity sold to come from
renewable energy resources by 2025. In 2013, that figure stood at 16 percent.
In early 2013, the state began to lay the groundwork for the development of a ten-year energy
strategy.44
The new energy strategy is intended to include sections on renewable energy, fuel
diversity and energy efficiency. But while the state has focused on obtaining more energy from
renewable sources, there has been some controversy over two issues relating to renewable
energy.
In addition, New Hampshire is a participant in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI),
which authorizes a mandatory cap-and-trade program for CO2 emissions from fossil-fueled
power plants among ten northeastern states. RGGI was the United States’ first market-based
regulatory program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
44
Source: SB 191-FN-A http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2013/SB0191_HA.html

New Hampshire had been receiving between $3 million and $4 million per quarter from the
RGGI auctions, an amount determined by the auction price of carbon in the RGGI market. As of
June 2015 New Hampshire received a total of over $80 million. The auction proceeds are
funneled towards projects aimed at improving energy efficiency or reducing demand. These
projects can engage non-profits, utilities, businesses, residents, municipalities, universities, and
schools to reduce emissions and increase energy education efforts.
Critics of the RGGI point to New Jersey dropping out of the agreement in 2011 as a sign that the
RGGI compact would soon dissolve. However, the RGGI price to emit carbon dioxide in the
Northeast rose by a third after the region’s cap-and-trade program revised its rules to cut the
supply of permits in early 2014, breathing new life into the program.
Looking ahead
New Sources: Northern Pass and a new pipeline?
The Northern Pass, a proposed project to build power lines transmitting energy from
hydroelectric plants in Canada to a converter terminal and substation in Central New Hampshire,
has encountered heavy opposition from groups who see the lines as harmful to New Hampshire’s
environment and natural beauty. Others worry that private land could be seized under eminent
domain.
In July of 2015, the U.S. Department of Energy issued its draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) on the Northern Pass project. The EIS noted that the proposed project of mostly overhead
transmission lines would be the cheapest alternative at roughly $1 billion, but would also have
the greatest environmental and visual impact. Burying the transmission lines would double the
cost of the project to $2 billion, but would reduce the potential negative impacts on the
environment and tourism. The public has 90 days to comment on the draft report before the
DOE issues its final report.
Efforts at expanding the natural gas capacity in New Hampshire have been met with serious local
concern. Kinder Morgan has proposed a multi-billion natural gas pipeline that would enter
western Massachusetts and traverse through 13 New Hampshire communities, but has seen local
opposition to their proposal in both states.
Addressing the supply and demand of energy remains a challenge
But what are the state’s goals in energy policy? If we want lower costs, New Hampshire clearly
has a long way to go. Every current public policy effort is steering markets away from oil and
coal, and focusing on energy independence and a green(er) economy rather than on the cost of
energy. This policy focus is exemplified in the Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires
electricity providers to meet customer load through renewable energy sources.
The Independent System Operator for New England (ISO-NE) has noted that the existing natural
gas pipeline system in New England is reaching maximum capacity more often, especially in

winter.45
ISO-NE believes that new gas pipeline infrastructure is needed, but new construction is
not guaranteed.
First, the natural gas pipeline companies are reluctant to build unless they have some assurance
that new customers will commit to buying up the increased gas supply (most existing gas
customers in New England purchase on the spot market).
Second, getting more natural gas to New England will mean gas pipelines that traverse through
other New England states, which will likely be met with local resistance. As mentioned, Kinder
Morgan has proposed a multi-billion natural gas pipeline that would enter western Massachusetts
from the heart of Pennsylvania gas country. Already a dozen Massachusetts and New Hampshire
towns along the proposed route have passed non-binding resolutions against the project over
concerns about declining property values, the potential for explosions, and damage to forests,
wetlands, and watersheds. Given the national opposition to the Keystone Pipeline, and the local
opposition to the proposed Northern Pass electric transmission line project, this local resistance
is not surprising.
45
2015 Regional Electricity Outlook (REO) http://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2015/02/2015_reo.pdf

Crime and Corrections in New Hampshire
New Hampshire enjoys a relatively low crime rate
As measured by crime rate, New Hampshire has consistently been ranked one of the safest states
in the nation. The state enjoyed the eleventh lowest crime rate out of the 50 states in 2013,
according to the annual Uniform Crime Report published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI). However, the state’s property crime rate ranked higher than its violent crime rate. While
New Hampshire’s violent crime rate was sixth-lowest in the country, the property crime rate was
13th
-lowest.
Figure 51: Crime Rates per Hundred Thousand People by State, 2013
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report
Crime overall in New Hampshire is low, though property crime rose in the
last decade
In 2013, New Hampshire’s crime rate was 2,394 per 100,000 residents – 23 percent lower than
the national average of 3,099 per 100,000 residents.
In general, the crime rate, both in New Hampshire and nationally, has declined since the early
1990s. New Hampshire once boasted to having the lowest crime rate among the states a decade
ago.
But while the New Hampshire crime rate increased slightly over the past nine years, the U.S.
crime rate has continued to fall steadily. This increase in the New Hampshire overall crime rate
New Hampshire, 2,393.9
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
N.M.
S.C.
La.
Ark.
Wash.
Ariz.
Ala.
Tenn.
Ga.
Okla.
Tex.
Fla.
Mo.
Del.
Alaska
N.C.
Nev.
Ore.
Hawaii
Kans.
Ind.
Ohio
Utah
Md.
Calif.
Miss.
Colo.
Nebr.
Mont.
Mich.
R.I.
Ill.
Minn.
Ky.
Wis.
Mass.
Iowa
Maine
Wyo.
N.H.
W.Va.
Pa.
Vt.
N.D.
Va.
Conn.
N.Y.
S.D.
N.J.
Idaho

was driven mainly by a 20 percent increase in the state property crime rate from 2005 to 2013,
specifically increases in the rate for larceny-theft.
Figure 52: All Crime Rate, Crimes per 100,000 People, FBI Uniform Crime Reports
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report
In the 1980’s the New Hampshire crime rate was 50% lower than the national crime rate. Many
reasons could exist as to why New Hampshire’s crime rate rose much faster than the national
average crime rate, and as many reasons could exist for the decline. Some factors that are known
to impact the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place are: 46
 Population density and degree of urbanization
 Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration
 Stability of the population with respect to residents’ mobility, commuting patterns, and
transient factors
 Modes of transportation and highway system
 Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability
 Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics
 Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
 Climate
 Effective strength of law enforcement agencies
 Administrative and investigative emphases of law enforcement
 Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial,
correctional, and probational)
 Citizens’ attitudes toward crime
46
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/ucrstat.htm
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
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
New Hampshire United States-Total

 Crime reporting practices of the citizenry
Drug Offenses Are Increasing
Offenses known to law enforcement do not always result in an arrest. The following table shows
a summary of all New Hampshire offenses for selected years, which include a number of minor
offenses not part of the FBI crime data.47
The table shows a decrease in the period in violent offenses (due to declines in simple assault
and intimidation), and in property offenses (due to declines in burglary and vandalism).
However drug and narcotics violations, which include drug equipment violations, rose from
about 5,600 in 2008 to over 8,600 in the year 2014.
Figure 53: New Hampshire Offenses Known to Law Enforcement
New Hampshire Offense Summary - State
Totals 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Violent Offenses 19,276 19,372 20,026 18,786 18,154 17,407 17,268
Property Offenses 46,776 47,087 47,643 47,142 47,349 44,655 41,603
Drug Offenses 5,609 6,254 6,566 6,304 6,322 6,689 8,665
Public Order Offenses (not incl DUI, liquor law, etc.) 638 675 656 642 683 750 775
All Offenses Total 72,299 73,388 74,891 72,874 72,508 69,501 68,311
Source: State Offense Reports, New Hampshire Department of Safety
There has been no definitive study that explains why drug offenses are increasing. Data is not
reported in sufficient detail to ascertain what type of drug offenses are increasing, nor to explain
the data in the context of drug use. The increase in drug offenses known to law enforcement
may also represent a shift in how alleged drug users are being charged.
Recent corrections reforms have had an impact on inmate populations
In 1980, fewer than 300 inmates were housed in state prisons. By 1989, that number had risen to
over 1,000 inmates, and doubled to 2,000 by 1994. Today, the New Hampshire prison system
houses about 2,800 inmates, at an average annual cost of $36,000 per inmate. Nearly as many
inmates are housed in the 10 county jails, at about the same cost per inmate.
While approximately half of the inmates in state prisons are being held for non-violent offenses,
older inmates 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.
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.
47
Crime data per capita by state is published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s annual “Crime in the United
States” uniform crime report publications, for the major “index” crimes of murder and non-negligent manslaughter,
forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft.

Figure 54: New Hampshire State Prison Population by Major Offense
Source: New Hampshire Department of Corrections
In 2010, the New Hampshire Legislature adopted a slate of reforms aimed at reducing recidivism
among state inmates. The reforms, referred to as Senate Bill 500 (or the Justice Reinvestment
Act), included
 greater investment in treatment for high-risk offenders,
 ensured that everyone leaving prison receive at least nine months of supervision,
 required the release of nonviolent offenders after they have served no more than 120
percent of their minimum sentence, and
 limited the length of time a person could spend re-incarcerated on a parole violation.
Partially due to these provisions, the state prison inmate population dropped by 300 inmates from
November 2010 to November 2011.
However, in the following year legislators passed a new parole reform bill that made several
changes to the Justice Reinvestment Act. These included giving the parole board discretion to
exclude a prisoner convicted of a violent crime or a sexually violent offense who is nearing his
or her maximum sentence from mandatory supervised release. The parole board also has the
discretion to extend or reduce the 90-day period of re-incarceration for a parole violation, under
specified circumstances.
This second round of reforms had an immediate impact on the state prison inmate population,
which started to rise again, increasing by 200 inmates from December 2011 to July 2014.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Oct-09
Dec-09
Feb-10
Apr-10
Jun-10
Aug-10
Oct-10
Dec-10
Feb-11
Apr-11
Jun-11
Aug-11
Oct-11
Dec-11
Feb-12
Apr-12
Jun-12
Aug-12
Oct-12
Dec-12
Feb-13
Apr-13
Jun-13
Aug-13
Oct-13
Dec-13
Feb-14
Apr-14
Jun-14
Aug-14
Oct-14
Dec-14
Feb-15
Apr-15
Jun-15
Property Violent Public Order Drugs Alcohol Other Jurisdictions

Figure 55: New Hampshire State Prison Inmate Population under Justice Reinvestment
Source: New Hampshire Department of Corrections
The Justice Reinvestment Act can be considered a success, as the evidence suggests that the state
was able to reduce the state prison population in 2011, as well as hold state prison expenditures
constant for two years.48
The Department of Corrections plans to build a new prison for women, replacing the existing
facility in Goffstown, New Hampshire. The official ground breaking for that new facility
designed to hold 224 inmates occurred in August 2014, on land behind the existing men’s prison
in Concord, New Hampshire.
Looking ahead
A number of additional corrections reforms have been introduced in New Hampshire in recent
years, with the dual goals of improving public safety while lowering overall corrections costs.
Community corrections programs are expanding across the state
Community corrections programs are an alternative to costly incarceration for non-violent
offenders. These programs:
 Allow offenders to live in the community under strict supervision.
48
More information available in the Center’s report on “New Hampshire’s Prison Population, Post SB-500”,
available at http://www.nhpolicy.org/report/new-hampshireamp39s-prison-population-post-sb-500
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Jul-10
Aug-10
Sep-10
Oct-10
Nov-10
Dec-10
Jan-11
Feb-11
Mar-11
Apr-11
May-11
Jun-11
Jul-11
Aug-11
Sep-11
Oct-11
Nov-11
Dec-11
Jan-12
Feb-12
Mar-12
Apr-12
May-12
Jun-12
Jul-12
Aug-12
Sep-12
Oct-12
Nov-12
Dec-12
Jan-13
Feb-13
Mar-13
Apr-13
May-13
Jun-13
Jul-13
Aug-13
Sep-13
Oct-13
Nov-13
Dec-13
Jan-14
Feb-14
Mar-14
Apr-14
May-14
Jun-14
SB52 EraSB 500 Era

 Ensure that offenders are accountable for their actions and repay the victims and the
community for damages while the public’s safety is protected.
 Attempt to address the social factors that fuel criminal behavior, such as drug addiction,
homelessness, and unemployment, among others.
Under the 2010 Justice Reinvestment Act, the New Hampshire Department of Corrections
established a Division of Community Corrections (DCC), which completed its first year of
existence in 2011. The DCC has engaged in developing a completely new and science-based
approach to assessment, case management and re-entry planning for offenders, including
developing and operating the Parole Violator services at the Berlin prison.
Community corrections programs also exist outside of the state prison system. Strafford County
operates several community-based corrections programs, including a bail supervision program,
home confinement/electronic monitoring, community work programs, jail-based residential drug
abuse treatment, and a step-down program for current jail inmates.49
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.50
Across the state, the New Hampshire Juvenile Court Diversion Network51
focuses to divert first-
time juvenile offenders out of the juvenile court system and into appropriate social services that
support the juveniles and their families to prevent further delinquent behavior. Restorative
justice, the idea that the juvenile will be held accountable for repairing the damage caused by
his/her crime, is a central component to these programs. Various non-profit, social service,
municipal, and court-sponsored organizations operate juvenile diversion programs in all New
Hampshire counties.
Problem-solving courts and alternative sentencing
Problem-solving courts52
are designed to address social issues, such as drug abuse and mental
illness, which are often the underlying problems of criminal behavior. They aim to link
participants to treatment services 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
49
Strafford County Community Corrections. http://co.strafford.nh.us/jail/community_corrections.html.
50
Merrimack County Diversion Program. http://www.merrimackcounty.net/html/county_attorney.html.
51
New Hampshire Juvenile Court Diversion Program. www.nhcourtdiversion.org.
52
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.

mandated for the offender. This shared decision-making differs significantly from the traditional,
more adversarial, approach of criminal courts.
New Hampshire’s Regions
The people of New Hampshire have long valued the concepts of strong local identity and
governance. Annual town and school district meetings still shape the political life in many
communities. The New Hampshire Legislature, with 424 members, gives even the state’s
smallest towns a voice in the lawmaking process. And with a relatively weak system of county
government, the vast majority of towns and cities provide their own services – police and fire
departments, public schools, administrators and boards of selectmen – further strengthening the
sense of local identity and oversight.
But in the realm of policy work, relatively little attention has focused on the state as a network of
distinct regions. Aside from the North Country, which in recent years has faced challenges in
economic development, New Hampshire’s regions generally play a small role in public policy
conversations about the state’s future.
This oversight is unfortunate. New Hampshire, despite its size, is clearly a collage of diverse and
distinct regions. Geography offers an easy template to carve up the state, but an analysis of more
quantitative data – economic trends, education levels, and migratory patterns – underscores a
simple reality: New Hampshire’s residents face different challenges and enjoy different
opportunities depending on what part of the state they call home. An approach to policymaking
that accounts for this fact will likely
lead to more deliberate decision-
making.
Of course, this approach is not without its
flaws. A regional analysis masks many town-
by-town variations, obscuring stark
disparities within a region. For instance,
statistics for the “Greater Manchester” region
alone do not illuminate the differences in
wealth, and education demographics between
Manchester and Bedford, two neighboring
communities with very different sets of
challenges and opportunities. But, for many
public policy questions, a regional analysis
offers a useful lens for understanding New
Hampshire’s major issues.
Figure 56: NH's Regions

Mapping New Hampshire
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. We then examine each of those regions in
greater detail.
Figure 57: People per Square Mile, 2010
Source: 2010 Census of Population
One defining difference among New Hampshire’s regions is population density. While it is no
shock that the state’s population is distributed unevenly, the disparity among regions is stark.
Generally speaking, New Hampshire’s population density increases the further south you travel.
Population density ranges from 20 people per square mile in the Great North Woods to almost
775 people per square mile in the Greater Nashua region – or nearly 40 times more people per
square mile than in far northern New Hampshire. The statewide population density is 147 people
per square mile.

Property values correlate with population density in New Hampshire. Generally speaking, the
more densely populated a region of the state is, the higher its property values are. The one
exception is the Lakes Region, which is the state’s sixth most densely-populated region, but has
the fifth highest property values per acre. This is largely due to the many waterfront and seasonal
homes throughout the region.
Figure 58: Property Value per Acre, 2013
Source: New Hampshire Department of Revenue
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.

The variation in the poverty rate across New Hampshire is another illustration of the economic
strength of each region. For the most part, poverty rates increase as you travel further north in the
state, while levels of educational attainment are generally higher in Southern New Hampshire.
Figure 59: Percent of Persons in Poverty, 2008-2012
Source: American Community Survey 2008-2012
Poverty rates are higher in northern New Hampshire, and levels of educational attainment are
generally higher in southern New Hampshire.
Another regional indicator tied to average income and poverty rates is education level. The
following figure illustrates the percentage of the population in each region of the state that holds

a bachelor’s degree or higher. Generally speaking, the higher the rate of educational attainment,
the higher the average income and the lower the poverty rate in a region.
Figure 60: Percent of Adult Population with a Bachelor's Degree or Higher, 2008-2012
Source: American Community Survey 2008-2012

New Hampshire’s regions in depth
In the following section, we offer more detail about each of New Hampshire’s nine regions.
What industries help power their economies? How old, educated, and well-paid are their
residents? How far do they travel to work every day, and how likely are they to have come to
New Hampshire from elsewhere? The answers to these and other questions help give texture to
the daily life and economy in each of these regions and provide a starting point to understanding
their futures.
Great North Woods
At the state’s far northern tip, the Great North Woods is New Hampshire’s oldest, poorest and
least-densely populated region. Over the most recent decade measured by the U.S. Census (2000
to 2010), the region’s population total dropped slightly – the only
region in the state to lose population. The median age of residents
of the Great North Woods is 50.3 years, nearly six years higher
than the statewide median. And 20 percent of its population is
over the age of 65 – the highest percentage in the state. If, as
projected, the share of residents aged 65 and older in the Great
North Woods continues to increase at a steady pace, 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 (including forest and
wood products) though there have been several efforts in recent
years to diversify the economy. Other important industries here
include government (due in part to the state and federal prisons in
Berlin), accommodation and food services (because of tourism),
and health care and social assistance (because of the large portion
of senior citizens and the relatively high poverty rate). The
average weekly wage of $626 is the lowest in the state and roughly one-third lower than the
statewide average wage.
The region’s remoteness, as well as the scarcity of economic infrastructure like high-speed
wireless internet, poses challenges for revitalization and growth. The portion of the adult
population with a bachelor’s degree, at 14 percent, is the lowest of any region in New Hampshire
and less than half the statewide rate of 34 percent. Compared to the rest of New Hampshire,
residents in the Great North Woods are also the least likely to be born out of state.

White Mountains
The White Mountains are a center of tourism and outdoor recreation, both of which power this
region’s economy. Conway, Haverhill and Littleton are the major labor market areas, but it is the
800,000-acre White Mountain National Forest that defines the area, both geographically and
economically.
The White Mountain-area economy is disproportionately weighed toward accommodation and
food service, recreation, entertainment and retail trade – all sectors driven by tourism. 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 among the highest in New Hampshire, and average weekly
wages are among the lowest in the state. Many workers in the White Mountain region hold
multiple jobs at once or balance several seasonal jobs throughout the year – partly because of the
tourism-centered economy. A more diversified economy would be one way to address the
economic imbalance in the region. Efforts to do so include the development of the TechVillage
in Conway, which seeks to attract smaller, full-time employers to the region.
In addition, the prevalence of seasonal homes
has put pressure on the need for workforce
housing in the region. The buying power of
wealthy vacationers and second-home owners
can inflate prices across the real estate market,
making it difficult for younger workers
earning lower wages to buy homes. A
coordinated, regional approach to housing
development – with a focus on smaller units in
denser developments – is one way to address
this problem, and such efforts are currently
underway.
Still, the past few years have seen substantial growth in the White Mountain region. Between
2000 and 2010, the area had the highest rate of population increase of any region in New
Hampshire, with an increase of 11.2 percent. However, the region still has the second smallest
overall population in the state. The White Mountain region also has the second-highest median
age of any area of the state and one of the lowest percentages of school-age children. With an
aging population, driven in large part by transplanted retirees, the White Mountain region will
need to ensure it has the sufficient workforce to keep its tourism and service industries thriving.
This challenge also relates to the region’s housing needs, as discussed above: Will the region
have sufficient and the right mix of housing stock to provide homes for those workers in years to
come?

Lakes Region
Like its neighbor to the north, the Lakes Region is a hub for tourism, most of it centering on the
dozens of lakes and ponds that dot the area. The biggest body of water in the region – and in the
state – is Lake Winnipesaukee, where the offerings range from the quiet, resort village of
Wolfeboro to the more raucous entertainments of Weirs Beach, home to a lively boardwalk and
the annual Laconia Motorcycle Week.
The Lakes Region has a large share of seasonal homes (31 percent of all housing) and the
second-lowest average property tax in the state. The average wage is about 25 percent below the
statewide average, with construction, health care and tourism-based services accounting for a
large share of economic activity.
The median age here is 46 and the region has the third-highest percentage of residents over the
age of 65 in the state (17 percent). With the
anticipated health needs of that older population
in coming years, attracting and maintaining a
younger workforce to serve them remains a
challenge for the Lakes Region. The region’s
lakes and mountains remain a lure for many
retirees. But there is also concern among some
employers that the Lakes Region needs to develop
more cultural and entertainment options to attract
younger workers and families. Diversifying the
economy to include those “quality of life”
offerings remains a challenge in the coming years.
In addition, as in the White Mountains region, the
prevalence of seasonal homes in the real estate
market can drive up prices for working-class families, forcing many of them to live far from their
place of employment. Still, the Lakes Region has the smallest percentage of workers commuting
to out-of-state jobs of any of New Hampshire’s regions.

Dartmouth/Lake Sunapee
The Dartmouth/Lake Sunapee Region derives its name from the college and medical center on its
western edge and the body of water at its center. Dartmouth College, in Hanover, and the
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, in Lebanon, provide much of the intellectual and
economic energy for the region.
The predominance of education and health care in the region’s economy has helped make it more
resilient to economic ups and downs. Much of the Dartmouth/Lake Sunapee region is
economically quite strong, especially in the Hartford-Lebanon-Hanover Labor Market Area. It is
one of just two regions in New Hampshire with more jobs than employed residents. Thus, it sees
net in-commuting for work, with many of those commuting workers coming from neighboring
Vermont. The educational attainment in the region, as measured by the percentage of adults with
a bachelor’s degree, is the highest in the state.
Not surprisingly, given the presence of the medical center, health care and social assistance
dominate the region’s economy, with about 27 percent of all wages coming from those
industries. Hospital payroll per employee is the highest of
any region in New Hampshire. The medical center has
also attracted allied businesses such as medical device
companies and research and design firms, in Lebanon and
elsewhere. These firms have also driven commercial real
estate development in the region.
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 two decades. In fact, the name
“Claremont,” a reference to the landmark state Supreme
Court case that overturned the state’s old method of
paying for public schools, remains shorthand for the still-
controversial topic. However, Claremont has seen
successes in recent years. The population of the city has
started to increase over the past decade, and coordinated redevelopment in the mill district has
led to new businesses in the downtown core.
Still, the region retains something of a bifurcated structure. Incomes, home values and education
levels are among the highest in the state for the towns closest to the college, the medical center
and the lake itself. Yet many of the region’s outlying communities struggle with economic
development issues.

Monadnock Region
With its small villages, old town greens and absence of interstate highways, the Monadnock
Region offers a version of classic New England.
Economically, this region closely mirrors New
Hampshire as a whole, with its average gross
income, unemployment and poverty rates, and
balance of industries closely matching the
statewide figures. The median age in the
Monadnock Region is 44, about a year below the
state median. The percentage of the population
over the age of 65 is close to the statewide
percentage (14.9 percent in Monadnock vs. 13.7
percent for all of New Hampshire).
The Monadnock Region’s population grew by 6 percent between 2000 and 2010, close 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, as
well as Antioch University New England, Franklin Pierce University, and River Valley
Community College’s Keene campus.
Construction and manufacturing are highly concentrated in the Monadnock Region, with the
latter supplying the highest share of total wages. Property tax rates in the Monadnock Region are
the third-highest in the state.
As a community, the citizens of the Monadnock Region rank quality-of-life issues as high
priorities. Residents and community leaders here often speak of their unique view of civic
engagement and community involvement. For example, the Healthy Monadnock 2020 initiative
strives to make the area the healthiest community in the country by the year 2020. In addition to
this effort, there are several other examples of collaborative spirit in the Region such as Arts
Alive!, Monadnock Farm and Community Connection, and Monadnock Buy Local.

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 region includes the
inland coastal communities of Great Bay and the coastal rivers. There are several hundreds of
miles of inland coast both in Rockingham and Strafford Counties.
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. People in
general are attracted to the high quality of life – natural
beauty, access to recreation, proximity to Boston,
among other factors.
Wedged between Maine and Massachusetts, the
Seacoast region has the second-highest portion of
residents born out of state, at just over 60 percent, and
the second-highest portion of workers commuting to
out of state jobs as any region in New Hampshire. Average household income is the second
highest of the state’s regions, and property values rank third highest. 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. This includes housing for young workers and families,
and also elderly residents.
The region’s population increased 8.6 percent between 2000 and 2010, higher than the statewide
growth rate over that period. And the Seacoast is home to the largest share of New Hampshire’s
population of any of the state’s regions, with 22 percent of people calling it home.
With this growth has come increased traffic 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. Still, unique to New Hampshire, Seacoast has a fairly diverse transportation system,
including intercity buses, Amtrak and multimodal transit center in Portsmouth. The expansion of
the Little Bay Bridge is expected to be completed by 2020, which regional planners hope will
have a positive impact on economic development at Pease, Portsmouth, Dover, Rochester, and
Durham.
Managing the transportation network will have considerable impacts on economic development,
the environment and the quality of life for Seacoast residents. It will also require collaboration

across town lines, forcing communities to think beyond the needs of their individual
municipalities.
Merrimack Valley Region
The Merrimack Valley is the most densely settled area in New Hampshire. The state's three
largest cities – Concord, Manchester, and Nashua – can be found here, representing the centers
of government, finance, and manufacturing for the state. Interstate 93 slices through this region,
offering access to the Boston economy and out-of-state jobs, especially for those living in the
southern portion of the region. While the Merrimack Valley’s population is the youngest in the
state, the region – like the rest of New Hampshire – is aging and must consider steps to retain
and attract young and middle-aged workers if it wishes to remain economically competitive.
More than 45 percent of New Hampshire’s total population calls the Merrimack Valley home,
and the region’s economy is diverse. Because of that, we have divided the Merrimack Valley
into three sub-regions for this report, with one sub-region for each of the area’s major urban
hubs.
Greater Concord
With the state capital at its center, the Greater Concord region counts government as its major
industry. Government employment provides 26 percent of the region’s wages, twice the state
average for that sector. Health care and social assistance is the second largest sector, accounting
for 18 percent of the region’s salaries.
Concord, located at the juncture of three highways, is the region’s employment and commercial
hub. State government and Concord Hospital are the city’s major employers.
Greater Concord had a higher rate of
population growth in the 2000s than the rest
of the Merrimack Valley Region, increasing
6.3 percent over that decade. Yet, compared
to the state’s other major cities, Greater
Concord is still relatively underdeveloped.
Population density here is less than a third
that of Greater Nashua, for instance. Concord
itself, beyond the compact downtown,
includes large swathes of protected woods
and open space, as do many neighboring
towns. This landscape illustrates a
fundamental tension for the region as it contemplates its future: how to encourage and
accommodate growth without undermining the desire to maintain a rural character. Recent
development projects in Concord have refocused attention on the city’s downtown core, though
other communities – Suncook and Penacook, for instance – are also looking for ways to
reinvigorate their commercial districts.

The poverty rate of 8.3 percent is slightly lower than the statewide rate, as is average household
income. Residents of Greater Concord are among the least likely to work out of state, with just 4
percent crossing the border for a job compared to 16 percent statewide.
Greater Concord’s median age, 42 years, is lower than the statewide median age of 45 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 years, nearly five
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 – 32 percent of the
adult population has a bachelor’s degree or better.
Radiating from the city of Manchester, this
region includes a ring of smaller towns that
range from working-class communities like
Goffstown to upscale bedroom communities
like Bedford. About 13 percent of Greater
Manchester residents work out of state,
slightly lower than the statewide rate.
Manchester has witnessed an economic
revival in recent years, with the conversion of
many former mill buildings into office space,
the construction of a minor league ballpark
along the Merrimack River and a gradual
increase in the downtown dining and
entertainment establishments. However, while the Greater Manchester region has the youngest
population in the state, it also saw a drop in its school-age population from 2000 to 2010 that
exceeded the statewide figure, though only slightly.
Economically, Manchester has several significant and unique assets: the Manchester/Boston
Regional airport within short driving distance to the downtown; several colleges and universities
(Southern New Hampshire University, St. Anselm College, UNH’s Manchester campus and
Manchester Community College) and proximity to the interstate highway system.

But like many regions, Greater Manchester is still trying to attract and retain young, educated
workers. Potential hurdles to that task include the lack of a major public transit system (including
passenger rail).
The region has the second-highest percentage of foreign-born residents in the state – 7.3 percent.
Greater Manchester is also home to a large share of New Hampshire’s Hispanic population – 4.5
percent of the region’s population. Over the past decade, the Hispanic population in Greater
Manchester increased more than 75 percent.
Greater Nashua
Greater Nashua is the most densely populated region in the state, with about 775 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 one of the highest percentage of residents with bachelor’s degrees – about 38
percent – and the highest percentage of Hispanic residents – roughly 5 percent.
Economically, Greater Nashua is one of New Hampshire’s most vibrant regions. Establishments
in Greater Nashua are concentrated in finance and insurance, professional and technical services,
and trade. But one industry dominates them all – manufacturing. Manufacturing accounts for
25 percent of the region’s wages, by far the largest proportion in New Hampshire and nearly
twice the statewide figure. The state’s top four defense contract companies are located here.
The concentration of high-tech manufacturing
jobs helps boost the region’s incomes.
Average weekly wages here are the highest in
the state at $1,100. Property value per acre of
$132,000 is the highest of any region and
nearly five times the state average.
Health care plays a smaller role in the
economy in Greater Nashua than in any other
region.
Despite the region’s varied economy, more than 30 percent of Greater Nashua’s residents
commute to out-of-state jobs. This underscores the region’s close economic ties to the Boston
market. It also illustrates the focus here on improving and expanding transportation networks,
including the expansion of Interstate 93 and the extension of commuter rail lines from Lowell to
Nashua, and beyond.

What is New Hampshire

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to What is New Hampshire

More from Rockefeller Center for Public Policy at Dartmouth College

Recently uploaded

What is New Hampshire