MEASURES OF GROWTH2016 Performance Measures and Benchmarks to Achieve a Vibrant and Sustainable Economy for Maine 22 ND VISION A HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL MAINE PEOPLE ECONOMY QUALITY OF LIFE COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT B Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 AT THE HEART OF IT ALL, IT’S ABOUT OUR PEOPLE. Achieving our vision requires a vibrant and sustainable economy supported by vital communities and a healthy environment. + + MOVING TOWARD A HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL MAINE PEOPLE T he Maine Economic Growth Council’s vision is a high quality of life for all Maine people. The Council believes that this vision can be achieved through a vibrant and sustainable economy, thriving communities, and a healthy environment. In practice, we need to grow Maine’s economy in a way that honors and builds upon what is special about our state. The indicators in this report, and other potential indicators, are carefully reviewed for their relevance and importance in achieving our vision. While the indicators focus on the state level, statewide data can mask what are sometimes considerable discrepancies within Maine. We need to be aware and mindful of the unique circumstances throughout Maine as we look to move forward. Several major themes emerge in this report. Human capital is a critical factor in economic growth and is central to the Council’s work. Addressing foundational issues such as poverty, food insecurity, and health and wellness can lay the groundwork for improved outcomes. Investing in education – from early childhood through adulthood – is essential to an educated, skilled, and entrepreneurial workforce that can meet the needs of businesses and create opportunities for themselves and others. Investment in our infrastructure, innovation, and connectivity is a key to success in the global economy. Finally, controlling costs makes it easier to live and do business in Maine and makes us a more attractive destination for others. In 2014, Maine ranked last among the 50 states and the District of Columbia in economic output per worker, which is both an indication of current circumstances and a key to economic growth and competitiveness. Compared to other areas, Maine’s economy is heavily reliant on relatively low productivity industries. Additionally, from 2009 to 2014, Maine saw minimal growth in gross domestic product from some of the industry sectors that showed significant gains in the rest of New England and the U.S. Utilizing our assets and resources and addressing our challenges in ways that maximize our growth potential will be vital in the years ahead. The indicators in this report represent the areas which, in the Council’s view, are most relevant to Maine’s long-term economic growth and quality of life. By determination of the Council, Maine may be compared to its own prior performance, or to averages for the U.S., New England, and/or Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) states. The EPSCoR program includes 28 mostly large and rural states, of which Maine is one, and offers a helpful comparison in assessing Maine’s performance. As in past reports, each indicator is assigned a benchmark that is both aspirational and potentially attainable and against which Maine’s progress is measured and grades are assigned. In the current report, three indicators were assigned a plus, eight were assigned a minus, nine were determined to be equal, and five were not assigned grades. According to the latest data, Maine and U.S. on-the-job injury and illness rates continued to decline, and Maine continued its trend of sustainable forest harvesting. While the Growth Council monitors these trends annually, they are no longer included as separate indicators in this year’s report. Gold Stars signifying exceptional performance were assigned to Cost of Doing Business, Air Quality, and Water Quality. Red Flags highlighting areas in need of particular attention were assigned to Research and Development Expenditures, Postsecondary Educational Attainment, Fourth Grade Reading Scores, Eighth Grade Math Scores, and Transportation Infrastructure. PDF available for download at mdf.org Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 1 Table of Contents NO GRADE pg 5 2. Per Capita Personal Income pg 6 3. Value Added per Worker pg 6 Maine’s personal income grew by approximately $1,350 from 2014 to 2015 and trailed the EPSCoR state average by approximately $2,400 in 2014 and by almost $2,150 in 2015 Maine’s output per worker grew by $1,085 from 2013 to 2014 and trailed the U.S. average by 26% in both years 4. Employment Maine’s nonfarm payroll jobs grew by 4,600 from 2014 to 2015, from 605,200 to 609,800 5. Poverty From 2013 to 2014, the three-year poverty rates for Maine (14.2% and 14.1%), New England (12.1% in both years), and the U.S. (15.9% and 15.7%) were essentially unchanged pg 7 pg 8 NO GRADE pg 12 9. Startup Activity pg 13 The percentage of households with a broadband internet connection increased from 72.9% to 74.9% in Maine and from 73.4% to 75.1% in the U.S. from 2013 to 2014 The 2015 startup activity index was -0.89 for New England, -0.54 for Maine, -0.37 for the U.S. as a whole, and -0.22 for the EPSCoR states Skilled and Educated Workers 10. Postsecondary Educational Attainment pg 14 11. Fourth Grade Reading Scores pg 15 12. Eighth Grade Math Scores pg 16 13. Workforce pg 17 From 2013 to 2014, attainment improved from 38% to 39% in Maine, from 45% to 46% in New England, and from 37% to 38% in the U.S. as a whole The percentage of Maine fourth graders scoring proficient and above was 37% in 2013 and 36% in 2015 From 2014 to 2015, Maine’s civilian workforce declined by almost 17,000, from 696,600 to 679,800 Business Innovation According to the latest available comprehensive and reliable data, Maine’s total R&D spending was approximately 1% of the state’s total GDP in 2011 8. Broadband Connectivity The percentage of Maine eighth graders scoring proficient and above was 40% in 2013 and 35% in 2015 ECONOMY 6. Research and Development Expenditures NO GRADE Maine’s gross domestic product was essentially unchanged (-0.1%) from 2013 to 2014, at $49,700 million and $49,655, respectively pg 11 From 2014 to 2015, Maine’s international exports grew by 0.5% while U.S. exports declined by -7.2% FUNDAMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 1. Gross Domestic Product 7. International Exports Business Climate pg 10 14. Cost of Doing Business Driven by declining energy costs, Maine’s overall cost of doing business declined to 109.5 in 2013 2 Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 pg 18 Indicators 15. Cost of Health Care pg 19 16. Cost of Energy pg 20 17. State and Local Tax Burden 18. Transportation Infrastructure 2014 industrial retail electricity prices were 11.8 cents/kWh for New England, 9 cents/kWh for Maine, and 7.1 cents/kWh for the U.S. as a whole Maine’s tax burden has been approximately 12%, and the New England average has been just under 11%, since 2010 The percentage of priority 1 and 2 roads meeting fair or better standards was 69% in 2013 and 66% in 2014; the percentage of priority 3 roads was 55% in both years Health and Wellness 21. Wellness and Prevention pg 26 pg 21 22. Health Insurance Coverage pg 27 pg 22 23. Food Insecurity pg 28 From 2012 to 2013, the combined overweight and obesity rate grew from 64.2% to 64.9% in Maine and from 63.4% to 64.8% in the U.S.; 2014 obesity rates were 28.2% in Maine and 28.9% in the U.S. Maine’s three-year moving average of health insurance coverage has been approximately 90% in recent years; the U.S. average was 85% in 2013 and 86% in 2014 From 2013 to 2014, the percentage of food insecure households rose from 15.1% to 16.2% in Maine, and was largely unchanged in the U.S. (14.6% and 14.3%) and New England (12.8% and 12.5%) COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Civic Assets Environmental Quality 19. Housing Affordability pg 24 Maine’s housing affordability was at 0.94 in 2013 and 0.98 in 2014, above the 2014 Northeast average of 0.82 and U.S. average of 0.88 20. Gender Income Disparity From 2013 to 2014, women’s earnings relative to men’s fell from 81% to 79% in Maine and improved from 79% to 80% in the U.S. 24. Air Quality pg 30 25. Water Quality pg 31 The number of days classified as moderate health risk grew from 17 in 2014 to 21 in 2015, and two days were classified as unhealthy for sensitive groups in 2015 pg 25 NO GRADE NO GRADE Health care spending as a percentage of total personal expenditures held steady from 2013 to 2014 in Maine (17.7%), New England (17.4%), and the U.S. (16.5%) Approximately 95% of Maine’s assessed rivers and streams and 91% of assessed lakes continued to meet Category 1 or 2 standards in 2012, the last year for which data is available Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 3 Key to Symbols GOLD STARS & RED FLAGS Gold Stars and Red Flags are determined by consensus of the Growth Council based on consideration of the data and the experienced perspective of Council members. The general criteria are: EXCEPTIONAL PERFORMANCE Very high national standing and/or established trend toward significant improvement. NEEDS ATTENTION Very low national standing and/or established trend toward significant decline. The indicator may show improvement but is still viewed as needing attention. PROGRESS SYMBOLS Progress Symbols reflect movement from year to year and/or recent trends toward or away from the benchmarks established by the Council. No grade may be assigned to new indicators, indicators with a new data set, or indicators for which updated data is not available. The general criteria for grades are: Movement toward the benchmark since the last available data. No significant movement relative to the benchmark since the last available data. Movement away from the benchmark since the last available data. 4 Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 FUNDAMENTAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS This report is about the status of Maine’s economy and how it impacts the lives and livelihood of Maine’s people. Each indicator represents a key area the Growth Council believes influences our economy, environment, and community. These are the leverage points which will help determine the direction of our economy and, ultimately, our quality of life in the years ahead. There are also a few fundamental performance indicators that speak to the overall health of Maine’s economy as seen from the 30,000 foot level. They are, in a sense, the culmination of what we collectively do in many areas and are often influenced by forces beyond our borders. These high-level indicators include: Gross Domestic Product, Per Capita Personal Income, Value Added per Worker, Employment, and Poverty. 1 - Gross Domestic Product Benchmark: The growth of Maine’s gross domestic product will outpace that of New England and the U.S. Our total economic output offers a good sense of how Maine’s economy is faring overall. Like the other fundamental performance indicators, our overall economic output is dependent upon the other indicators included in this report. Maine’s gross domestic product was essentially even from 2013 to 2014, at $49,700 and $49,655, respectively. The New England economy grew by 1.6%, and the U.S. economy by 2.2%, over the same time. From 2009 to 2014, the U.S. economy grew by 9.4% and the New England economy grew by almost 6%, while Maine’s economy declined by -1.2%. Real Estate, Government, Health Care and Social Assistance, Manufacturing, and Retail Trade accounted for almost 60% of Maine’s gross domestic product in 2014. Fig 1a: Maine’s Real Gross Domestic Product By Major Industry Sector 2014 Industry Sector GDP Millions of Dollars % of Total %Change 2013-14 Real Estate $7,510 15% -1.5% Government $6,948 14% 0.2% Health Care and Social Assistance $5,947 12% 0.2% Manufacturing $4,684 9% -2.4% Retail Trade $4,258 9% 0.2% Finance and Insurance $2,653 5% -5.3% Prof., Scientific & Technical Services $2,528 5% 1.6% Wholesale Trade $2,744 6% 2.7% Construction $2,044 4% -4.5% Accommodation & Food Services $1,833 4% 2.1% Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis Fig 1b: Real Gross Domestic Product Growth Rate 2005-2014 New England U.S. Maine 5% 2.5% 0 -2.5% -5% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 5 2 - Per Capita Personal Income Benchmark: Maine’s per capita personal income will exceed the EPSCoR state average by 2020 While Maine’s per capita personal income increased by over $1,300 from 2014 to 2015, we continued to trail the U.S., New England, and EPSCoR averages, by approximately $5,600, $16,800, and $2,150, respectively. From 2010 to 2015, per capita personal income grew by 13% in Maine, and by 18% in New England, the EPSCoR States, and the U.S. Per capita personal income speaks to Maine’s level of economic prosperity, productivity, and quality of life. Maine has historically derived a larger percentage of its total personal income from transfer payments, which are payments for which no current services are performed, such as Social Security, unemployment, welfare, and veteran’s benefits, which do not contribute as much to Maine’s economy. To learn more on this topic, see the October 2013 Economic Newsletter Personal Income in Maine at www.mdf.org. Fig 2a: Per Capita Personal Income 2009-2015 EPSCoR U.S. New England Maine $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis Fig 2b: 2015 Personal Income and National Rank, New England States Income Rank Change %Change 2014-15 2014-15 United States $47,669 N/A $1,620 3.5% 3.6% New England $58,863 N/A $2,065 EPSCoR $44,219 N/A $1,091 2.5% Connecticut $66,972 2 $2,108 3.2% Massachusetts $61,032 3 $2,295 3.9% New Hampshire $54,817 9 $2,044 3.9% Rhode Island $50,800 16 $1,721 3.6% Vermont $47,864 20 $1,436 3.1% Maine $42,077 36 $1,332 3.3% Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis 3 - Value Added per Worker Benchmark: Maine’s value added per worker will improve to within 15% of the U.S. average by 2020 This indicator speaks to the productivity of Maine workers. There is no single action we can take, no single lever we can pull, that will improve the value added of Maine workers; rather, this indicator depends on many factors, including the quality of our workforce, the costs of doing business, and the infrastructure that supports our economy. It also speaks to the makeup of our economy; comparatively low productivity industries make up a larger proportion of Maine’s economy than in some other areas, while high productivity sectors account for a relatively smaller percentage of our economy. Maine’s economic output per worker grew by 7.3%, from an average of $81,639 to $87,586, from 2009 to 2014. Over the same timeframe, the U.S. average increased by 13.7%, the New England average by 10.4%, and the EPSCoR state average by 14.3%. In 2014, Maine’s output per worker ranked last among the 50 states and the District of Columbia and trailed the U.S. average of $118,935 by 26%, the New England average of $124,125 by 29%, and the EPSCoR average of $106,475 by 18%. Fig 3: Value Added per Worker 2007-2014 MA ME RI U.S. CT VT NH $150,000 $125,000 $100,000 $75,000 $50,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce and Bureau of Economic Analysis 6 Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 4 - Employment Benchmark: The total number of jobs in Maine will increase each year Maine’s nonfarm payroll jobs grew from 605,200 in 2014 to 609,800 in 2015. Nonfarm jobs have grown by 16,800 jobs since a low of 593,000 in 2010, but are down by -7,900 from the high of 617,700 in 2007, due primarily to the decline in our working age population since the 2007 peak resulting from a lower birth rate after the 1980s. Maine added jobs while our workforce continues to decline, putting pressure on the labor market. If current trends continue, our gross domestic product and per capita income growth are also likely to be slower than the nation because a rising share of our population will not be working. Addressing this situation will need to be a high priority in the years ahead. Combined, the Government, Health Care and Social Assistance, Retail Trade, Leisure and Hospitality, and Manufacturing sectors continue to make up almost twothirds of Maine’s total employment. Within the aggregate numbers, Maine’s employment continues to shift, with the Health Care and Social Assistance sector continuing to add jobs and Manufacturing jobs continuing to decline. Despite job losses, Manufacturing continues to account for a substantial share of our economic output, due to gains in productivity and the changing nature of manufacturing in Maine. Maine policymakers, service providers, students, and workers need to understand the changes in Maine’s economy if we are to have an adequate supply of skilled workers. Fig 4: Employment in Maine By Selected Sectors 2015 2,000 +1,500 +1,100 +300 +300 Educational Services Transportation, Warehousing, & Utilities Manufacturing Other Services +300 Construction +200 Health Care and Social Assistance Professional and Business Services Leisure and Hospitality Retail Trade -400 Government -2,000 +200 Financial Activities -100 0 +100 Wholesale Trade +700 +400 Source: Maine Department of Labor, Center for Workforce Research and Information Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 7 5 - Poverty Benchmark: Maine’s poverty rate will decline and remain below the U.S. rate through 2020 Maine’s poverty rate has consistently been below the U.S. average and above the New England average. Poverty rates rose fairly steadily in all three areas from the early 2000s through 2011, have leveled out in recent years, and were essentially unchanged from 2013 to 2014. Poverty rates vary widely by region in Maine, with the rates being higher in the central and rim counties and lower in the southern and coastal counties. Overall, from 2013 to 2014, rates declined in seven counties (Cumberland, Sagadahoc, Lincoln, Waldo, Hancock, Androscoggin, and Kennebec), were essentially even in five counties (York, Knox, Franklin, Somerset, and Washington), and increased in four counties (Penobscot, Oxford, Piscataquis, and Aroostook). The poverty rates for Maine children under five and under 18 both rose from 2013 to 2014 (from 21.2% to 23% and from 18.2% to 19%, respectively), but remained below U.S. averages (23.9% for children under five and 21.7% for children under 18 in 2014). County poverty rates for children under 18 mirrored the trends seen in overall poverty rates, with the highest rates in the central and rim counties. For more information about childhood poverty in Maine, see the Maine Children’s Alliance’s Kids Count Project at www.mekids.org/kidscount. Poverty rates are both a reflection of Maine’s overall economic performance and a key to improving our economy and quality of life. Improving our economy should bring poverty rates down, which in turn can help create a solid foundation to improve other outcomes like educational performance and attainment, employment, food insecurity, and health status. As with the other fundamental performance indicators, reducing Maine’s poverty levels will require improvement in a number of other areas addressed in this report. Fig. 5b: Poverty Rate By Maine County 2014 Fig 5a: Poverty Rates 2006-2014 (3-year Moving Average) 10.1 3.9%% 12.5% 11.5 -2.2% 13.3% 15.7 0.9%% 12.1 0.9%% 14.1% Source: U.S. Census Small Area Income & Poverty Estimates Coastal Counties 15.2 -2.2% County 12-14 Central Counties 13.2 3.9%% 09-11 Rim Counties Maine New England U.S. 06-08 Poverty Rate York 11.2% Cumberland 10.8% Sagadahoc 10.5% Lincoln 11.7% Knox 13.9% Waldo 15.0% Hancock 12.9% Androscoggin 15.4% Kennebec 13.8% Penobscot 18.0% Oxford 16.1% Franklin 15.8% Somerset 17.3% Piscataquis 20.3% Aroostook 20.1% Washington 18.5% Source: U.S. Census Small Area Income & Poverty Estimates 8 Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 moczcz: _z s3: Em mam: 6 - Research and Development Expenditures Benchmark: Maine’s total spending on research and development will reach 3% of the state’s total GDP by 2020. Source: Camoin Associates More Support of Maine’s Innovation Economy Needed NO GRADE TOTAL PERCENTAGE OF GDP SPENT TOWARD R&D IN 2011 5% 4.4% Not-for-Profit University & College Industry 4% 3% BENCHMARK FOR 2020 2% 1% 0% 2.9% * Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 1.7% 1% Maine EPSCoR* U.S. Background: This indicator compares total R&D spending as a percentage of a region’s total gross domestic product (GDP), and compares the percentage of total spending from three primary sources—not-forprofit, university and college, and private industry. While an update is not available, the 2011 National Science Foundation data remains the most reliable and complete data available. What the Data Shows: • Maine’s 2011 total R&D investment from all three sources of $535 million represented approximately 1% of the state’s total GDP and was approximately $1 billion short of the 3% benchmark • M aine’s 2011 rate ranked 41st in the nation and was below the EPSCoR average (1.7%), approximately onethird of the U.S. average (2.9%), and less than a quarter of the New England average (4.4%) • I n 2011, Maine’s percentage of total R&D from the private sector (58%) trailed the U.S. (81%), New England (80%), and EPSCoR (68%) averages, while Maine’s percent from the non-profit sector (15%) was well above the New England (5%), U.S. (2%), and EPSCoR (2%) averages New England Why It Matters: The benchmark is consistent with the state’s Science and Technology Action Plan and is viewed by the Council as necessary to expand Maine’s innovation economy and improve competitiveness. Investment in R&D supports innovation, which has been shown to generate approximately 80% of all economic growth. Maine’s spending on R&D also yields a high return on investment. It is important that we find an appropriate mechanism to provide sufficient funds for research and development, and equally important that our R&D activities generate meaningful economic activity for the state. Concentrating on Maine business and industry and the growth and expansion of R&D and innovationoriented private sector companies is imperative. The 2014 Comprehensive Evaluation of Maine’s R&D Incentive Programs by Investment Consulting Associates examined Maine’s public incentive programs and is available at www.maine.gov/decd/reports-pubs/. Related Indicators: Gross Domestic Product, Per Capita Personal Income, Value Added per Worker, Startup Activity, Postsecondary Educational Attainment, Fourth Grade Reading Scores, Eighth Grade Math Scores • N ational Science Foundation data shows that R&D spending at the University of Maine was $77.6 million in 2013 and $101.2 million in 2014 10 Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 7 - International Exports Capitalizing on International Opportunities Important to Growing Maine’s Economy INTERNATIONAL EXPORTS 1996-2015 Benchmark:. Maine’s international exports will grow at a faster pace than U.S. international exports. 300 250 INDEX POINTS 200 Source: Maine International Trade Center 150 100 U.S. AVERAGE MAINE 50 0 1996 2000 2005 Background: In the previous two reports, the Growth Council had opted to exclude both Maine and U.S. semiconductor numbers due to concerns about the validity of the related data. The current chart compares the growth in total Maine and U.S. exports, including semiconductors, indexed to 1996. What the Data Shows: • From 2014 to 2015, Maine’s international sales improved by 0.5%, while the U.S. average declined by -7.2% • M aine’s growth was driven by continued strength in the lobster and seafood industry and a rebound in reported semiconductor exports • I n total, Maine sold $2.7 billion to 187 international markets in 2015 • C anada remained Maine’s largest trading partner, with the remaining top markets a mix of the major Asian destinations (China, Korea, Japan) and the European Union • S eafood, led by Maine’s lobster shippers and processors, continued to be the state’s largest export commodity at $444 million, down slightly from 2014’s record performance • F orest products remained Maine’s largest export industry, with sales of wood, pulp, paper, and lumber totaling an aggregated $740 million 2010 2015 Why It Matters: International trade supports approximately 180,500 Maine workers. In the global economy, new markets for Maine products can help us grow our economy. International markets offer opportunities for Maine businesses to add additional customers and revenue and enable us to expand and diversify our markets. Keeping our costs of doing business competitive, improving the quantity and quality of our workforce, and building the Maine brand can help Maine businesses succeed in international markets. Beyond the statewide numbers, Maine’s international engagement has increased significantly with the continued development of the International Marine Terminal in Portland. Trade in containerized freight through the Port of Portland has increased from just 6,672 metric tons in 2009 to 105,523 metric tons in 2015. Exports through the Port of Portland are coming from 45 states, up from just 12 in 2009. Improved infrastructure at the port, including on-site rail access and the planned cold storage facility, is expected to continue to increase the attractiveness of the port to both importers and exporters, opening new opportunities for the state’s manufacturers and shippers. Related Indicators: Gross Domestic Product, Per Capita Personal Income, Value Added per Worker, Employment, Broadband Connectivity, Startup Activity, Postsecondary Educational Attainment, Cost of Doing Business • W ith aircraft parts and defense articles leading the way, exports of technology-intensive manufactured items remained strong, though experiencing broad, but generally modest, declines Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 11 8 - Broadband Connectivity 78.5% U.S. NEW ENGLAND MAINE 74.9% 75.1% 75% 72.9% 100% 77.1% PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS WITH A BROADBAND INTERNET SUBSCRIPTION 2013-2014 73.4% Benchmark: Maine will meet or exceed the U.S. percentage of households with a broadband internet subscription by 2020. Improving Broadband Connectivity Important to Economic Growth and Quality of Life NO GRADE 50% 25% 0% Source: American Community Survey 2013 2014 Background: This new data set tracks the percentage Meaningful MAINE’S NATIONAL RANK improvement may require a significant of households with a broadband internet connection policy change or public sector investment. Some Maine in Maine and the2007 U.S. This data is both reflective of our 2010municipalities have developed their2013 own broadband current status and an important measure of progress in networks, and others are considering doing so. the years ahead and replaces the high speed internet Additionally, technology and speed requirements and subscribers per 1,000nd residents data used in past standards are changing rapidly. Maine policymakers will th nd reports. A broadband subscription is defined as a DSL, need to be mindful of these factors to address this issue cable, fiberoptic, mobile broadband, satellite, or fixed efficiently and effectively. broadband subscription. Related Indicators: Gross Domestic Product, Per Capita Personal Income, #1 rank denotes highest number of subscribers Value Added per Worker, Employment, Research and Development Expenditures, What the Data Shows: International Exports, Startup Activity, Cost of Doing Business, Cost of Health Care • Maine’s percentage is essentially on par with the U.S. average, and both trail the New England rate Broadband Access, New England States, 2014 • Maine is roughly on par with the U.S. average in the 42 34 percentage of homes and businesses with access to the lower tiers of upload and download speeds, but falls well short in the higher tiers Why It Matters: Adequate internet access is important to our state’s economic development and quality of life, connecting residents and businesses throughout the state to each other and the world beyond. Broadband access is becoming increasingly vital to participation in modern society. Access enables businesses to connect to customers worldwide and gives people access to a plethora of products and services. Broadband access also greatly expands access to educational opportunities and health care, which can help improve quality and control costs. 42 Percent National Rank New Hampshire 82.1% 1 Connecticut 80.5% 8 Massachussets 80.5% 8 Rhode Island 76.5% 15 Vermont 76.3% 17 Maine 74.9% 25 Source: American Community Survey Expanding access can be a challenge for large, rural states like Maine. Even Maine’s southern and coastal areas may have inadequate bandwidth or lack access altogether, and private providers may not find it cost effective to offer services in low density areas. Approximately 55% of Maine businesses do not have a website (the U.S. average is 53%). Educating Maine people and businesses about the benefits of broadband access and the options available to them is an important factor in improving Maine’s numbers. 12 Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 9 - Startup Activity NO GRADE Maine in Middle of the Pack on Entrepreneurial Ecosystem STARTUP ACTIVITY INDEX 2015 0 -.37 -.22 -.25 U.S. NEW ENGLAND MAINE EPSCOR* -.54 -.50 *Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research -.89 -.75 -1 NEW ENGLAND STATES 2015 Background: The Startup Activity Index was developed Why It Matters: The creation of new businesses is a VT Foundation in ME2014. The index isRIan MA CT NH vital activity in today’s economy. Entrepreneurship by the Kauffman provides new and expanded opportunities for Mainers equally weighted index of three component measures of startup activity: the opportunity share of new and is critical to creating jobs and growing the state’s economy.th Identifying and providing appropriate entrepreneurs, percentage of newth th rd thcalculated as the rd resources to small businesses with high potential for entrepreneurs driven primarily by opportunity versus growth is particularly important. It is important that necessity (those who may be inclined to start Maine continue to encourage and support potential businesses because they are unemployed); startup entrepreneurs and new businesses throughout the density, measured the number of employers by #1 rank denotes as highest startup activity state through programs such as the Maine Technology population; and, the rate of new entrepreneurs, Institute; the Maine International Trade Center; the calculated as the percentage of adults becoming University of Maine Innovation Engineering Program; entrepreneurs in a given month. This last component the University of Maine System’s Cooperative Extension; comprised the Index of Entrepreneurial Activity data that has previously been used in this report. The Startup New Ventures Maine; Maine Accelerates Growth; the Maine Center for Entrepreneurial Development; and Activity Index replaces the previous data set as it gives Maine Startup and Create Week. a more complete picture of entrepreneurial activity in the economy. A higher number on the scale represents Related Indicators: Gross Domestic Product, Per Capita Personal Income, better performance. Employment, Research and Development Expenditures, Postsecondary 23 5 30 34 35 43 Educational Attainment, STARTUP ACTIVITY INDEX 2015Fourth Grade Reading Scores, Eighth Grade Math What the Data Shows: Scores, Workforce • The 2015 composite index ranged from a high of 4.77 0 for Montana to a low of -3.92 for Wisconsin U.S. NEW ENGLAND MAINE EPSCOR* *Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research -.89 • In -.50 2015, Maine ranked 23rd nationally in the Startup Activity Index, 23rd on the rate of new entrepreneurs, -.75 24th on the opportunity share of new entrepreneurs, and 18th on startup density -.54 -.37 -.22 • Maine -.25 exceeded the New England average in 2015, while both were below the U.S. and EPSCoR averages -1 NEW ENGLAND STATES 2015 VT ME RI MA CT NH 5th 23rd 30th 34th 35th 43rd #1 rank denotes highest startup activity Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 13 Benchmark:. Maine will meet or exceed the U.S. startup activity rate by 2020. Source: Camoin Associates, Kauffman Foundation 10 - Postsecondary Educational Attainment POSTSECONDARY DEGREE ATTAINMENT AMONG RESIDENTS 25 AND OVER 2007-2014 100% 39.1% MAINE 38.3% 45.8% 37% 45.2% 37.8% 37% NEW ENGLAND 37.1% 44.6% 36.3% 44.12% 37.3% 35.8% 35.7% 43.4% 35.4% 43.2% 35.7% 34.4% 35.18% 42.86% 50% 35.7% U.S. 75% 34.89% 42.53% Benchmark: The percentage of Maine residents 25 and over with a postsecondary degree will improve to at least the New England average by 2020. Improving Postsecondary Educational Attainment Critical to Improving Maine’s Economy 25% 0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 POSTSECONDARY DEGREE ATTAINMENT AMONG RESIDENTS 25 AND OVER IN 2014 Background: While postsecondary educational Why It Matters: Improving our educational attainment NEW reliable ENGLAND MAINE attainmentU.S. comes in a variety of forms, time is vital to growing Maine’s economy and improving the NO DEGREE series data that allows comparisons across geographies lives of Maine people. An educated workforce helps 9.7% 8.1% 8.2% GRADUATE OR is currently only available for degrees. The indicator businesses thrive and helps attract other companies. PROFESSIONAL DEGREE compares the percentage of residents 25 and21.8% over who Jobs throughout the economy are requiring workers with 18.7% 19.4% 54.2% 60.9% have attained higher levels of skill and education, which Maine DEGREE workers 61.7% a postsecondary degree (associate’s, BACHELOR’S bachelor’s, or advanced)11.4% in Maine, the U.S., and 15.9% will need to meet the needs 10% of employers and create New England. opportunities for themselves and others. Higher levels of ASSOCIATE DEGREE education are associated with reduced unemployment What the Data Shows: and social spending, as well as increased productivity, • Maine has generally been on par with the U.S. average earnings, workforce participation, and state and local tax while both have trailed the New England rate revenue. According to the May 2014 Economic Newsletter • From 2013 to 2014, the percentage of Mainers with The Fiscal Return on Higher Education In Maine (available a bachelor’s degree improved from 18% to 19%, at www.mdf.org) , by conservative estimates, each increasing Maine’s overall degree attainment from bachelor’s degree in Maine creates a benefit to Maine 38% to 39% taxpayers of approximately $74,000 in present value over an average lifetime. • From 2009 to 2014, Maine’s associate’s degree attainment increased from 8.8% to 9.7% and With our aging population, fully engaging Maine adults, bachelor’s degree attainment from 17.3% to 19.4%; particularly the estimated 200,000-plus Mainers with graduate and professional degree attainment has some amount of postsecondary education who have not been approximately 10% over the same timeframe completed a degree, is essential. Another important piece is alternative educational options, such as professional • Maine outperforms the U.S. and New England in certifications, licensures, workplace competencies, and associate’s degree attainment but trails both in digital badging which demonstrate particular skills or bachelor’s degree and graduate and professional knowledge. Educate Maine estimates that approximately degree attainment 10% of Maine adults who do not have college degrees • On average, additional education translates to higher have a professional credential or certificate. earnings. In 2014, median earnings for Mainers with Apprenticeships are another means of providing graduate and professional degrees were $54,404; valuable training and skill development. Apprentices with bachelor’s degrees, $40,695; with some college are full-time employees engaged in a combination or associate’s degrees, $31,134; with high school of structured on-the-job and classroom learning diplomas, $26,240; and with less than high school developed specifically to meet the individual diplomas, $19,375 employer’s workforce development and training • According to Educate Maine’s Education Indicators for needs. While apprenticeships are most common in the Maine 2015, of 100 Maine students entering ninth grade, construction trades, Maine programs are evolving to 87 will graduate from high school, 54 will enroll in a include opportunities in high-growth industries such two or four-year college, and 30 will graduate from a as advanced manufacturing and health care. two or four-year college. Helping young students make Related Indicators: Per Capita Personal Income, Gross Domestic Product, successful transitions to each successive educational Value Added per Worker, Employment, Poverty, Research and Development level is a key to improving educational outcomes. Expenditures, Startup Activity, Fourth Grade Reading Scores, Eighth Grade Math Scores, Workforce, State and Local Tax Burden, Food Insecurity 14 Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 11 - Fourth Grade Reading Scores Investment in Early Childhood Key to Improving Individual Outcomes and Maine Economy 4th GRADERS READING PROFICIENT OR ABOVE 2007-2015 100% U.S. 75% 32% 40% 36% 32% 41% 35% 32% 41% 32% 34% 42% 37% 35% 43% 36% 50% NEW ENGLAND 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 MAINE 25% 0% 4 th GRADERS READING PROFICIENT OR ABOVE IN 2015 Why It Matters: As the time at which reading should be Background: The National Assessment of Educational established as a skill and students should Progress (NAEP) isU.S. the largest nationally representative NEW ENGLAND MAINE transition from “learning to read” to “reading to learn”, fourth grade is a and continuing assessment of America’s students in critical juncture in a child’s development. If students are various subjects, including reading. NAEP assessments struggling with reading in fourth grade, they are likely are administered uniformly nationwide, allowing for to struggle with learning and other challenges in the state-to-state comparisons and analysis of long-term years ahead. Fourth grade reading scores reflect early trends. The NAEP assesses students at critical periods childhood development and are an indicator of future of development and learning (grades 4, 8, and 12). outcomes, both positive and negative. The indicator compares the percentage of Maine, New England, and U.S. fourth graders scoring proficient Maine is consistently falling short of the benchmark or better. Proficient is defined as competency over despite declining K-12 enrollment and increased challenging subject matter, application to real-world expenditures in recent years. Education is a major part problems, and appropriate analytical skills. of state and municipal budgets, and it is important that 35% 43% 36% What the Data Shows: • Maine fourth graders have generally outperformed the U.S. as a whole, while both have consistently fallen short of the New England average 32% 40% 36% 32% 41% 35% 32% 41% 32% 34% 42% 37% 35% 43% 36% we maximize our return on this investment. Investment in early childhood education has been shown to have a comparatively high return on investment over the long term, leading to improved elementary and secondary performance, higher college attendance and completion, • With the exception of 2011, Maine’s scores have 4th GRADERS READING PROFICIENT OR ABOVE higher productivity and 2007-2015 incomes, and reduced social essentially been even since 2007 costs such as remediation, criminal justice, health • M100% aine’s percentage of students scoring proficient and care, and welfare. The importance of early childhood above ranked last among the New England states in U.S. education is explored more fully in Making Maine 2015, Work: Investment In Early Childhood = Real Economic 75% trailing Massachusetts at 49%, New Hampshire NEW ENGLAND at 46%, Connecticut and Vermont at 44%, and Rhode Development (available at www.mdf.org)MAINE and the Island Maine Children’s Alliance’s Kids Count Project at: 50% at 40% www.mekids.org/kidscount. • In general, girls have scored higher than boys, white 25% students have scored higher than non-white students, Related Indicators: Per Capita Personal Income, Gross Domestic Product, Value and students eligible for school lunches have scored Added per Worker, Employment, Postsecondary Educational Attainment, Eighth Grade Math Scores, Workforce, Wellness and Prevention, Food Insecurity 0% than other students lower 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 4 th GRADERS READING PROFICIENT OR ABOVE IN 2015 U.S. NEW ENGLAND MAINE 35% 43% 36% Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 15 Benchmark:. The percentage of Maine students scoring proficient and above on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) will reach 50% by 2020. Source: National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 12 - Eighth Grade Math Scores 100% U.S. NEW ENGLAND 32% 40% 35% 40% 34% 43% 42% 39% 34% 35% 33% 40% 50% 31% 38% 34% 75% MAINE 25% 0% 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 8th GRADERS SCORING PROFICIENT OR ABOVE IN 2015 • In general, average scores have varied little by gender, Background: The National Assessment of Educational but white students have scored higher Progress (NAEP) isU.S. the largest nationally representative NEW ENGLAND MAINEthan non-white students, students eligible for school lunches have and continuing assessment of America’s students in scored lower than other students, and students with various subjects, including math. NAEP assessments are higher levels of parental education have scored higher administered uniformly nationwide, allowing for statethan others to-state comparisons and analysis of long-term trends. The NAEP assesses students at grades 4, 8, and 12, Why It Matters: Math skills are vital in today’s society which are critical periods of development and learning. and work environment, particularly in STEM (science, The indicator compares the percentage of Maine, New technology, engineering, and math) industries, which are England, and U.S. eighth graders scoring proficient expected to continue to grow in the years ahead. Eighth or better. Proficient is defined as competency over grade math scores reflect skills in algebra, a foundational challenging subject matter, application to real-world skill. Students who are proficient in math tend to be problems, and appropriate analytical skills. better prepared for college and require fewer remedial 32% 40% 35% What the Data Shows: • The percentage of eighth graders scoring proficient and above declined in 2015 in Maine, the U.S., and New England after all had seen steady improvement in recent years th 32% 40% 35% 40% 34% 43% 39% 42% 34% 35% math classes. The Maine Comprehensive Research and Development Evaluation, Maine Innovation Index 2012, and Statewide Strategic Plan for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics cite eighth grade math scores as an indicator of Maine’s future success in these 8 GRADERS SCORING PROFICIENT OR ABOVE 2007-2015 areas. Alleviating foundational issues such as poverty • Maine has consistently exceeded the U.S. average and and food insecurity, and continued investment and trailed the New England average improvement in early childhood and K-12 education, 100% • Among the New England states in 2015, Massachusetts can help improve Maine’s performance andU.S. prepare our had the highest percentage of students scoring young people for success. NEW ENGLAND 75% proficient and above with 51%, followed by New MAINE Related Indicators: Per Capita Personal Income, Gross Domestic Product, Value Hampshire at 46%, Vermont at 42%, Connecticut at 50% Added per Worker, Employment, Poverty, Postsecondary Educational Attainment, 36%, Maine at 35%, and Rhode Island at 32% Fourth Grade Reading Scores, Wellness and Prevention, Food Insecurity 33% 40% Source: National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 8th GRADERS SCORING PROFICIENT OR ABOVE 2007-2015 31% 38% 34% Benchmark: The percentage of Maine students scoring proficient and above on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) will reach 50% by 2020. Maine, U.S., and New England Averages Fall After Seeing Steady Improvement 25% 0% 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 8th GRADERS SCORING PROFICIENT OR ABOVE IN 2015 U.S. NEW ENGLAND MAINE 32% 40% 35% 16 Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 13 - Workforce Growing Maine’s Workforce A Statewide Challenge MAINE’S WORKFORCE 1990-2015 Benchmark:. Maine’s workforce will grow to 771,000 by 2020. 800,000 2020 GOAL - 771,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 ‘90 ‘95 ‘00 ‘05 ‘10 ‘15 ‘20 Background: This indicator tracks Maine’s civilian workforce over time using the Maine Department of Labor’s labor force estimates. Employed workers and people who are actively looking for work are considered part of the workforce. disabled population, and those over 50, can help bolster our workforce. A number of organizations and programs are currently working in these areas; ensuring that these efforts continue, are properly coordinated, and are taken to scale is essential to improving our economy. What the Data Shows: • Maine’s civilian workforce reached a high of 707,600 in 2013 before declining to 679,800 in 2015 Improving our net migration, particularly among the working age population, is also critical to growing our workforce and economy. Improving retention is important, but is only part of the equation. We also need to attract considerably more people from beyond our borders to live and work here. Making Maine Work: Growing Maine’s Workforce, released in October 2013 by the Maine Development Foundation and Maine State Chamber of Commerce, explores these issues in greater detail and outlines a number of strategies to grow our workforce in the years ahead. The report is available at www.mdf.org. • Maine’s 2015 civilian workforce was the smallest since 2002 and represented a loss of -15,400 workers since 2010 Why It Matters: The impacts of Maine’s demographic challenges are being felt in a number of areas, including the quantity of our workforce. An adequate supply of skilled and educated workers is critical to meeting the needs of Maine employers and is an important factor in the relocation and expansion decisions of businesses. Although the challenges are more acute in certain regions and industries, employers across the state and throughout the economy are struggling to find qualified workers. Approximately 200,000 workers will reach traditional retirement age in the near future; replacing their numbers, talent, and experience will be a significant challenge. If current trends continue, Maine’s workforce has been projected to decline by approximately 20,000 by 2020. Related Indicators: Gross Domestic Product, Per Capita Personal Income, Value Added per Worker, Employment, Poverty, Postsecondary Educational Attainment, Fourth Grade Reading Scores, Eighth Grade Math Scores Engaging more Maine people in the workforce can help to grow our economy and improve the lives of more Mainers. Improving participation rates among current Mainers, particularly disengaged youth, veterans, the Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 17 Source: Maine Department of Labor, Center for Workforce Research and Information 14 - Cost of Doing Business Source: Moody’s Analytics COST OF DOING BUSINESS 2000-2013 130 MOODY’S ANALYTICS INDEX POINTS Benchmark: Maine’s cost of doing business will decline to the U.S. average by 2020. Maine Making Progress but Remains Above National Average U.S. CT MA RI NH ME VT 120 110 100 U.S. Average - 100 Index Points 90 2000 2006 Background: The Moody’s Analytics Cost of Doing Business index is a weighted scale of labor costs (wages, benefits, and productivity), industrial and commercial electricity costs, and state and local tax burden. Maine’s labor costs are weighted at 73%, energy costs at 17%, and taxes at 10%. What the Data Shows: • Maine’s cost of doing business declined to 109.5 in 2013, driven largely by Maine’s energy cost index declining from 145.9 in 2009 to 120.5 in 2013 2013 and encourage other businesses to locate or expand here. Other factors not directly measured in the index, such as a region’s regulatory environment, also come into play. A clear and consistent regulatory environment can make it easier for businesses, particularly small businesses, to get started and operate in the state. Related Indicators: Gross Domestic Product, Per Capita Personal Income, Value Added per Worker, Employment, Poverty, Cost of Energy, Cost of Health Care, State and Local Tax Burden New England Ranks by Indexes, 2013 (1 is highest cost) • M aine’s labor cost and tax burden indexes have been fairly stable in recent years and stood at 106.3 and 114.1, respectively, in 2013 • M aine’s overall cost of doing business has declined from 2nd highest nationally in 2000 to 9th in 2013 • M aine’s overall cost of doing business in 2013 was the second lowest among the New England states, above Rhode Island (104.6) but below Massachusetts (118.5), New Hampshire (115.3), Vermont (113.3), and Connecticut (110.8) Why It Matters: This indicator speaks to some of the key challenges in Maine’s economy. While Maine compares favorably to many of our New England neighbors, New England as a region remains a comparatively expensive place to do business. Managing our energy and labor costs and tax burden can help Maine businesses succeed Overall Rank Unit Labor Rank Cost of Energy Rank Tax Burden Rank MA 2 2 4 26 NH 3 1 5 50 VT 5 12 6 6 CT 8 28 3 11 ME 9 8 11 5 RI 13 29 10 14 18 Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 Source: Moody’s Analytics Health Care Costs a Major Concern for Maine People and Businesses 15 - Cost of Health Care HEALTH CARE EXPENDITURES AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PERSONAL EXPENDITURES 2006-2014 U.S. 20% NEW ENGLAND MAINE 15% 10% 2006 2007 2008 2009 U.S. AVERAGE 2010 2011 2012 NEW ENGLAND Background: The Bureau of Economic Analysis’ HEALTH CARE EXPENDITURES AS by State divides16.5% Personal Consumption total PERCENTAGE OF personal expenditures by region into a number of TOTAL PERSONAL major categories, including health83.5% care. The chart 82.6% EXPENDITURES 2014 shows the aggregate percentage of Maine’s total personal expenditures devoted to health care and the corresponding U.S. and New England averages. What the Data Shows: • Maine’s percentage of total personal expenditures devoted to health care has increased from just under 16% in 2006 to just under 18% in 2014 • Maine’s percentage has been approximately equal to the New England average, which rose from 15.6% in 2006 to 17.4% in 2014 2013 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis 2014 MAINE insurance on the Health Insurance Marketplace have 17.4% 17.7% important effects for Maine people.HEALTH CARE High costs for government-sponsored insurance OTHER EXPENDITURES 82.3% programs can also crowd out funding for other needed services and investments. Additionally, although high health care costs are a concern throughout the state, the cost of health services varies widely by region. Maine can help control the rising cost of health care by improving cost transparency; helping consumers make informed decisions about their care and associated costs; improving access to preventive care; improving the quality and delivery of services; and encouraging healthy behaviors to improve the overall health and wellness of Maine’s people, such as lowering overweight and obesity rates. HEALTH CAREhave EXPENDITURES AS PERCENTAGE OF • E xpenditures in Maine and New England been Related Indicators: Gross Domestic Product, Employment, Poverty, Cost of consistently higher than theTOTAL U.S. average, which EXPENDITURES PERSONAL 2006-2014 Doing Business, Wellness and Prevention, Health Insurance Coverage, Food increased from 15% in 2006 to 16.5% in 2014 U.S. 20% Insecurity Why It Matters: Maine businesses and Maine people have consistently identified the high cost of health care as a significant concern. Managing our health care costs is also a key factor in attracting individuals and businesses to the state. High health care costs may 15% discourage people from seeking needed preventive care, ultimately driving up health care spending and affecting the health and productivity of Mainers. The increasing number of high-deductible plans for employer-based insurance and new out-of-pocket costs for those 10% uninsured or covered by MaineCare gaining previously 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 U.S. AVERAGE HEALTH CARE EXPENDITURES AS PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PERSONAL EXPENDITURES 2014 MAINE NEW ENGLAND 16.5% 83.5% NEW ENGLAND 2012 2013 82.6% 2014 MAINE 17.4% 17.7% 82.3% Benchmark:. Maine’s health care spending as a percentage of total personal expenditures will decline to the New England average by 2020. HEALTH CARE OTHER EXPENDITURES Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 19 16 - Cost of Energy 20 Cents per Kilowatt Hour Source: Energy Information Administration Maine’s Electricity Prices Lowest in New England but Still Above National Averages INDUSTRIAL RETAIL ELECTRICITY PRICE 2006-2014 U.S. NEW ENGLAND MAINE 15 10 5 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 INDUSTRIAL RETAIL ELECTRICITY PRICE TREND 2006-2014 Maine, like the rest of New England, is heavily reliant Background: The chart compares Maine, U.S., and 2006 2010 2014 on natural gas for the production of electricity. Natural New England industrial retail electricity prices, which accounted for 49% of7.1all electricity in is the average of delivered 6.2 price 11.6 8.8 electricity, measured 6.8 13 gas 9.2 11.8 generation 9 New England in 2015 versus 15% in 2000. Continued in price per kilowatt hour. This replaces the previous diversification of our energy supply and efficiency measurement of retail and industrial price per BTU. U.S. NE ME U.S. NE improvements ME can makeU.S. us moreNE resilientME against What the Data Shows: price spikes and help reduce costs for businesses and • Maine’s electricity prices rose from 2012 to 2014 after individuals. Energy in Maine, the fifth Quarterly Economic having declined from 2007 to 2012 Report by the Maine Development Foundation and the • New England’s prices have fallen in recent years and University of Maine School of Economics, explores these are essentially on par with 2006 issues in greater detail and is available at www.mdf.org. • U.S. prices have risen since 2006 but remain well below Maine and New England rates Related Indicators: Gross Domestic Product, Per Capita Personal Income, Value Added per Worker, Cost of Doing Business Why It Matters: Electricity is one of the largest operating costs for businesses, especially RETAIL ELECTRICITY INDUSTRIAL manufacturing. High energy costs affect the cost of living and doing business in Maine. Businesses weigh the 20 cost of energy heavily in their location and expansion decisions. Although the indicator compares Maine to U.S. rates, some 15 Canadian provinces, particularly Quebec, have more competitive pricing than Maine. Cents per Kilowatt Hour Benchmark: The cost of electricity in Maine will decline to the U.S. average through 2020. NO GRADE PRICE 2006-2014 U.S. NEW ENGLAND MAINE 10 5 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 INDUSTRIAL RETAIL ELECTRICITY PRICE TREND 2006-2014 2006 2010 2014 6.2 11.6 8.8 6.8 13 9.2 7.1 11.8 9 U.S. NE ME U.S. NE ME U.S. NE ME 20 Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 17 - State and Local Tax Burden Maine’s Tax Burden Holds Steady, Remains Above New England Average STATE AND LOCAL TAXES AS A PERCENT OF INCOME 2007-2013 15% NEW ENGLAND MAINE 10% 5% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Economic Analysis 2013 STATE AND LOCAL TAXES AS A PERCENT OF INCOME IN 2013 supports needed investments, balances state and Background: The chart measures the percentage NEWpaid ENGLAND MAINE municipal contributions, and enables Maine to compete of every $100 of income in state and local taxes (property, income, sales, and other sources) by taxpayers economically is critical to moving Maine forward. The impact of the changes to Maine’s income, sales, and in Maine and New England. This data reflects both the estate taxes that took effect in January 2016 will be seen amount of taxes and the ability to pay. Per capita taxes in the years ahead. compare the actual dollar amount of taxes paid across geographies. 10.7% 12.2% What the Data Shows: • Maine’s tax burden declined from approximately 13% in the mid-2000s to around 12% in recent years Related Indicators: Gross Domestic Product, Per Capita Personal Income, Value Added per Worker, Postsecondary Educational Attainment, Fourth Grade Reading Scores, Eighth Grade Math Scores, Cost of Doing Business New England State and Local Taxes 2013 (1 is highest amount) • N ew England’s tax burden has generally been between 10.5% and 11% during this time • M aine performs better relative to the nation and New England on per capita taxes than on tax burden, which STATE AND LOCAL TAXES AS A measures the ability to pay taxes Why15% It Matters: Taxes impose costs on businesses and individuals and generate revenue for public services such as education, health care, and infrastructure that affect our quality of life and economy. Growing Maine’s economy and raising incomes, along with controlling government spending, can reduce our tax burden. Having 10%a tax structure which provides stable revenues, encourages economic growth and job creation, 5% 2007 2008 2009 2010 Tax Burden Tax Burden Rank Per Capita Per Capita Rank U.S. PERCENT OF INCOME 2007-2013 10.5% N/A $4,599 N/A CT 11.6% 9 $7,258 3 ME 12.2% 6 $4,819 MA 10.2% 24 $5,723 NH 8.3% 45 $4,197 RI 11.1% 14 $5,129 14 VT 12.3% 5 $5,423 11 15 NEW ENGLAND MAINE 7 26 Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Economic Analysis 2011 2012 2013 STATE AND LOCAL TAXES AS A PERCENT OF INCOME IN 2013 NEW ENGLAND 10.7% Benchmark:. Maine’s tax burden will decline and move toward the New England average each year through 2020. MAINE 12.2% Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 21 18 - Transportation Infrastructure Source: Maine Department of Transportation PRIORITY ROAD PERFORMANCE 2010-2027 100% PRIORITY 1 & 2 ROADS PRIORITY 3 ROADS 75% 2027 Goal 50% 2022 Goal Benchmarks PERCENTAGE OF ROAD MILES RATED FAIR OR BETTER Benchmark: 95% of priority one and two roads and 85% of priority three roads will meet a rating of fair or better by 2020. Significant Investment Needed to Meet Roadway Improvement Goals 25% 0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Background: Maine’s roadways are ranked as priorities 1 through 6 based on functional classification, regional economic significance, truck use, and relative traffic volumes. Priority 1, 2, and 3 roadways include the interstate, arterials, and major collector roads. These roadways make up 19% of Maine’s public roads but carry 70% of the state’s passenger and freight traffic. Roadways are also graded as excellent, good, fair, poor, or unacceptable based on road and bridge safety, condition, and service factors. The state’s statutory goals are for all priority 1 and 2 roadways to be rated fair or better by 2022 and for all priority 3 roads to be rated fair or better by 2027. The Council’s benchmarks for 2020 are consistent with these goals. In 2014, approximately 110 miles were reclassified from Highway Corridor Priority 3 to Highway Corridor Priority 4. Such changes are applied to all years’ data to allow for year-to-year comparisons. What the Data Shows: • The percentage of priority 1 and 2 roads rated fair or better dropped from 69% in 2013 to 66% in 2014 (the Growth Council’s target for 2014 was 78%) • In 2013 and 2014, 55% of priority 3 roads were rated fair or better (the Growth Council’s 2014 target was 72%) • Transportation spending accounted for 26% of total state revenues in the 1970s, and less than 10% currently Why It Matters: Maine’s infrastructure connects us to each other and the world beyond. The Growth Council tracks the condition of Maine’s roadways because they carry the vast majority of our passengers and freight. Poor roads can lead to unsafe conditions and personal injury and property damage. They also reduce productivity and cause more traffic delays and vehicle repairs. In 2013, the American Society of Civil Engineers reported that driving on roads in need of repair costs Maine motorists $454.6 million, or $450.86 per motorist, in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs. 2020 2022 2027 Funding for road maintenance and improvement is a challenge as costs have increased and revenues from fuel taxes, a major funding source, have declined with improved vehicle fuel efficiency. The Maine Department of Transportation reported an annual funding deficit of $68 million in core highway and bridge programs in its 2016-2018 work plan, down from $119 million in the 20152017 work plan, a calculation made possible largely by doubling assumed state bonding levels, and by modest increases in federal funding. Over the long term, Maine will have to identify new revenue streams to provide the funding needed to maintain an effective, efficient, and safe roadway network. Investment in alternate modes of transportation like ports and rail can open Maine’s economy to new regional and world markets and provide options to Maine’s highway system. For example, investments in the International Marine Terminal in Portland have allowed better connections to Europe and attracted regular cargo ship service to and from Iceland. With ridership exceeding 435,000 in 2015, the Amtrak Downeaster has transported 5.8 million passengers the equivalent of 474 million passenger miles since 2001. Related Indicators: Gross Domestic Product, Per Capita Personal Income, Value Added per Worker, Broadband Connectivity, Cost of Doing Business, Cost of Energy, State and Local Tax Burden Road Miles and Targets, 2010-2027 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2020 2022 2027 Priority 1 & 2 Actual 1601 1606 1577 1632 1563 N/A N/A Priority 1 & 2 Projected 1601 1665 1729 1794 1858 2243 2371 N/A Priority 3 Actual 1187 1116 1012 1027 1043 N/A Priority 3 Projected 1187 1228 1269 1310 1351 1596 1678 1882 N/A N/A N/A Source: Maine Department of Transportation 22 Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 COMMUNITY LIVING, WORKING AND MOVING FORWARD, TOGETHER. Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 23 Maine’s Housing Affordability Improves and Remains a Competitive Advantage 19 - Housing Affordability HOUSING AFFORDABILITY 2007-2014 Benchmark: Maine’s housing affordability index will reach and maintain a level around 1 by 2020. 1.5 U.S. AVERAGE NORTHEAST MAINE 1.25 A rating of 1 or above is considered affordable. 1 Source: MaineHousing .75 .5 2007 2008 2009 2010 AVERAGES FOR 2014 HOUSE COST AVERAGE 2011 2012 2013 HOMEOWNER INCOME 2014 RENT AVERAGE RENTER’S INCOME Over the years, housing has consistently been more Background: The index is the weighted average of $220,300 $34,937 U.S.homeownership affordability* affordable in Maine’s$934 central and rim counties and less MaineHousing’s and rental$53,567 affordable in southern and coastal Maine. High housing affordability indexes**. The weighting is based on the $269,400 $60,805 $1,061 $36,474 Northeast costs in many of Maine’s job centers make it difficult relative numbers of homeowner and rental households. for people to live in the communities where$26,926 they work, A higher index means that housing$170,000 is more affordable. $49,747 $776 Maine adding to transportation costs and environmental What the Data Shows: impacts and taking a toll on family and civic life and our • Housing affordability in Maine has improved fairly transportation infrastructure. steadily from 2007 through 2014 *The homeownership affordability index is the ratio of the home price that a Maine household at median income can afford to the actual median home price. • M aine’s housing affordability has consistently exceeded the Northeast average, with the gap expanding in recent years • H omeownership has become more affordable in Maine while tightening rental markets have made renting less affordable **The rental affordability index is the ratio of the rent that a Maine renter household with median renter household income can afford to the actual average rent for a two-bedroom apartment, including utilities. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY 2007-2014 Why It Matters: Housing affordability is an important Related Indicators: Gross Domestic Product, Per Capita Personal Income, Employment, Transportation Infrastructure factor in Maine’s economy, as our lower housing 1.5 a competitive advantage over other costs provide U.S. AVERAGE Northeastern states in attracting and retaining people. NORTHEAST Housing affordability also affects our quality of life; when 1.25 MAINE housing is readily affordable, people have more money to spend on other necessities and amenities. A rating of 1 or above is considered affordable. 1 .75 AVERAGES FOR 2014 .5 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 HOUSE COST AVERAGE HOMEOWNER INCOME RENT AVERAGE RENTER’S INCOME U.S. $220,300 $53,567 $934 $34,937 Northeast $269,400 $60,805 $1,061 $36,474 Maine $170,000 $49,747 $776 $26,926 24 Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 20 - Gender Income Disparity Maine Women’s Earnings Increase but Fail to Keep Pace with Men’s Earnings WOMEN’S INCOME AS A PERCENTAGE OF MEN’S 2007-2014 100% U.S. MAINE 90% 80% 70% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 AVERAGE INCOME GAP IN 2014 U.S. AVERAGE Background: This indicator compares the median annual incomes for women and men working full-time, full-year inMEN Maine and the nation. WOMEN GAP What the Data Shows: $39,054 $49,149 -$10,095 • In Maine, women’s earnings for every dollar earned by men peaked at $0.83 in 2012 and dropped to $0.81 in 2013 and $0.79 in 2014 • T he median annual income for women in Maine rose from $35,426 in 2013 to $36,153 in 2014 (+$727), while men’s earnings improved from $43,927 in 2013 to $45,856 in 2014 (+$1,929) • T he gap between men’s and women’s earnings in Maine was essentially the same in 2014 ($9,703) as it was in 2009 ($9,810) MAINE and labor force Women’s choices of occupation participation account for some of the earnings gap, but much isMEN also due to wage discrimination. The WOMEN GAPgap tends to be smaller at higher levels of education and in certain $45,856 $36,153 -$9,703 occupations, yet varies significantly across occupations with a high percentage of female employees or with comparatively high median earnings for women. Reducing the earnings gap requires a multi-faceted approach that limits occupational segregation, expands career choices for women, enforces equal employment laws, and eliminates workplace harassment and discrimination. Maximizing the contributions of women is an important part of improving the lives of Maine people and growing our economy. Related Indicators: Gross Domestic Product, Per Capita Personal Income, INCOME AS A PERCENTAGE OFWorker, MEN’S 2007-2014 • N ationally, for everyWOMEN’S dollar earned by men, women Value Added per Employment, Poverty, Postsecondary Educational Attainment, Wellness and Prevention, Food Insecurity earned $0.79 in 2013 and $0.80 in 2014 100% Why It Matters: While the earnings gap varies by age, race, education level, marital status, and occupation, the overall pattern of women earning less than men persists throughout the labor market, resulting in significantly 90% lower lifetime earnings for women and limiting women’s contributions to our economy. At the national level, it has been estimated that the earnings gap means women earn80% approximately $431,000 less than men over a 40-year career. 70% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 U.S. MAINE 2012 2013 2014 AVERAGE INCOME GAP IN 2014 U.S. AVERAGE MAINE MEN WOMEN GAP MEN WOMEN GAP $49,149 $39,054 -$10,095 $45,856 $36,153 -$9,703 Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 25 Benchmark:. Maine’s median annual income for women working full-time will improve to 100% of the median annual income for men working full-time by 2020. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 21 - Wellness and Prevention Benchmark: The combined percentage of overweight and obese adults in Maine will decline to 50% by 2020. Source: Center for Disease Control, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Improving Maine’s Health Status an Important Factor in Economy PERCENTAGE OF OVERWEIGHT AND OBESE ADULTS 2007-2013 80% U.S. MAINE 70% 2007 60% 2013 50% 2007 2010 62.9% 62.9% 64.8% 64.9% 2013 TREND OF PEOPLE OVERWEIGHT OR OBESE IN 2007-2013 Why It Matters: Being overweight or obese is the third Background: The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance U.S. MAINE leading cause of preventable deaths in Maine and the System (BRFSS) is the nation’s premier system of nation. Adults with weight issues are at risk for chronic health-related telephone surveys that collects state NORMAL/ diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, stroke, high data about U.S. residents regarding their health-related 25.2% 29.4% 28.9% 26.3% UNDERWEIGHT 37.1% 35.2% 35.1% 37.1% cholesterol, asthma, arthritis, and some cancers. The risk risk behaviors, chronic health conditions, and use of OBESE increases with weight. Obesity is highly correlated with preventive services. The Survey includes the percentage 37.7% 35.4% 36% 36.6% cardiovascular disease, asthma, hypertension, diabetes, of adults classified as overweight (Body Mass Index of OVERWEIGHT 25.0 to 29.9) and obese (Body Mass Index greater than or and joint degeneration, which are being found in younger ages, particularly among equal to 30). 2007 2013 those with low incomes. 2007 2013 What the Data Shows: • While 2014 adult overweight rates for Maine and the U.S. are not available, these rates have been fairly stable in recent years • The increase in the combined rates in both areas has been driven by a rise in obesity rates, which were 28.2% in Maine and 28.9% in the U.S. in 2014 • Approximately two-thirds of Maine and U.S. adults have been classified as overweightOF or obese in PERCENTAGE OVERWEIGHT recent years 80% • Approximately one-third of Maine children are overweight or obese and more likely to have weight and 70%associated health issues as adults These health effects have important economic implications. Studies have shown that Maine’s high overweight and obesity rates lead to an additional $767 million annually in medical expenses and $2 billion annually in lost productivity. Reducing our overweight and obesity rates can help improve our overall health status and in turn help to control health care costs and improve productivity. Many employers are now using wellness and insurance programs to encourage AND OBESE ADULTS healthy behaviors among2007-2013 their employees to increase productivity and bring down health care costs. U.S. Related Indicators: Gross Domestic Product, Per Capita Personal MAINE Income, Value Added per Worker, Poverty, Cost of Doing Business, Cost of Health Care, Health Insurance Coverage, Food Insecurity 2007 62.9% 62.9% 60% 2013 50% 2007 2010 64.8% 64.9% 2013 TREND OF PEOPLE OVERWEIGHT OR OBESE IN 2007-2013 U.S. 37.1% 26.3% MAINE 35.2% 29.4% 37.1% 25.2% 35.1% 28.9% NORMAL/ UNDERWEIGHT OBESE 36.6% 35.4% 37.7% 36% OVERWEIGHT 2007 2013 2007 2013 26 Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 22 - Health Insurance Coverage Maine’s Health Insurance Coverage Remains Steady and Above U.S. Average POPULATION WITH HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE (3-YEAR MOVING AVERAGE 2006-2014) 100% U.S. MAINE 95% 90% 85% 80% 2006-2008 2008-2010 2010-2012 U.S. AVERAGE Background: This indicator compares the three-year average of the percentage of the total population in Maine 2% coverage. 6% and the U.S. with health insurance 10% HEALTH INSURANCE What the Data Shows: COVERAGE IN 2014 49% Maine’s13% • After peaking at 91% in the mid-2000s, threeyear moving average of health insurance coverage has 19% been approximately 90% since 2007 • Source: he U.S.’s T three-year moving average has risen from Kaiser State Health Facts 85% in 2006 to 86% in 2014 • A ccording to the Kaiser Foundation, the distribution of health care coverage in Maine changed little from 2013 to 2014, with employer-provided coverage increasing from 46% to 47%, Medicare coverage declining from 17% to 16%, and the uninsured population declining from 10% to 9% 2012-2014 MAINE EMPLOYER Why It Matters: Making health insurance coverage available to a large number of people provides greater MEDICAID 2% 5% Health insurance helps access to health care services. 9% MEDICARE people establish a relationship with a provider and access preventive care that can help avoid more costly and 16% UNINSURED 47% disruptive procedures down the road, helping people live OTHER PRIVATE 20% healthier, more productive lives. As Maine’s population ages and with health care costs rising once again, OTHER PUBLIC financing both private and public insurance programs is likely to present an even greater challenge in the years ahead. Adding more quality jobs that offer health insurance to employees can help alleviate the burden on public insurance programs. The federal Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplace has significantly improved affordability and coverage for individuals and sole proprietors. Maine also gained a new nonprofit insurer which has become • From 2013 to 2014, the U.S. percentage of individuals leading plan provider in the state for enrollees in covered by employer-provided health insurance rose POPULATION WITH HEALTHtheINSURANCE COVERAGE the Health Insurance Marketplace. As of the end of the from 48% to 49%, the percentage(3-YEAR covered byMOVING Medicaid AVERAGE 2006-2014) 2015 open enrollment period, nearly 84,000 Mainers had rose 100%from 16% to 19%, the percentage covered selected a health plan through the Marketplace, U.S. with by Medicare declined from 15% to 13%, and the about 90% of enrollees qualifying for subsidized MAINE coverage. uninsured population declined from 13% to 10% 95% Related Indicators: Value Added per Worker, Employment, Cost of Doing Business, Cost of Health Care, Wellness and Prevention, Food Insecurity 90% 85% 80% 2006-2008 2008-2010 2010-2012 2012-2014 MAINE U.S. AVERAGE 2% HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE IN 2014 10% 49% 13% 19% 6% Benchmark:. The percentage of Maine’s population with health insurance coverage will continually rise and remain above the U.S. rate. 2% EMPLOYER 9% 47% 16% 20% 5% MEDICAID MEDICARE UNINSURED OTHER PRIVATE OTHER PUBLIC Source: Kaiser State Health Facts Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 27 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Reducing Maine’s Food Insecurity Key to Other Improvements 23 - Food Insecurity Benchmark: Maine’s percentage of food insecure households will decline to the U.S. average by 2020. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service FOOD INSECURE HOUSEHOLDS 2008-2014 (3-YEAR MOVING AVERAGE) 20% U.S. NEW ENGLAND MAINE 16% 2008 12.2% 10.9% 13.7% 12% 2014 8% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 14.3% 12.5% 16.2% FOOD INSECURE HOUSEHOLDS IN 2014 Proper nutrition is critical to early childhood Background: Food insecurity is measured annually U.S. of Agriculture Economic NEW ENGLAND development, while a lack of accessMAINE to nutritious food by the U.S. Department can have serious effects on the physical and mental Research Service using U.S. Census data. Households health, academic achievement, and future economic with dependable access to enough food for active, prosperity of young children. Nationally, food insecurity healthy living are considered food secure, while those has been estimated to cost $167.5 billion annually in experiencing disrupted eating patterns, reduced lost productivity, diminished educational outcomes and food intake, and reduced quality or variety of diet are increased educational spending, avoidable health care considered to be food insecure. costs, and the value of charity efforts. The total cost for What the Data Shows: Maine has been estimated to be $787 million. • Maine’s percentage of food insecure households has Eliminating “food deserts” where affordable and healthy risen from 13.7% in 2008 to 16.2% in 2014 and remains food is difficult to obtain, supporting hunger prevention above the New England and U.S. averages programs like Good Shepherd Food Bank, and increasing • According to Feeding America, approximately 206,000 participation among eligible students in federal child Mainers, including nearly one in four Maine children, nutrition programs are important to reducing food are facing hunger insecurity. The 126th Maine Legislature created The FOOD INSECURE HOUSEHOLDS 2008-2014 Why It Matters: Food insecurity is a foundational Task Force to End Student Hunger in Maine and the AVERAGE) indicator with long-term effects on Maine(3-YEAR people andMOVING 127th Maine Legislature created the Commission to End Maine’s economy. Hunger is often associated with Student Hunger to help address food insecurity 20% U.S. among poverty but is not limited to those living below the Maine children. NEW ENGLAND poverty line, and nationally is more strongly connected MAINE Related Indicators: Gross Domestic Product, Per Capita Personal Income, Value with16% unemployment. Among adults, food insecurity is 2008 Added per Worker, Employment, Postsecondary Educational Attainment, Fourth associated with poor overall health status, obesity and Grade Reading Scores, Eighth Grade Math Scores, Cost of Health Care, Wellness 12.2% weight gain, chronic disease, and mental health issues and Prevention 10.9% which can contribute to workforce challenges such as 13.7% 12% absenteeism and reduced productivity. The mental and 2014 physical problems associated with food insecurity are 14.3% exacerbated among the older population. 12.5% 8% 14.3% 2008 2009 12.5% 2010 2011 2012 16.2% 2013 2014 16.2% FOOD INSECURE HOUSEHOLDS IN 2014 U.S. 14.3% NEW ENGLAND 12.5% 28 Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 MAINE 16.2% ENVIRONMENT BY LAND, LAKE, SEA AND STREAM. Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 29 24 - Air Quality Source: Maine Department of Environmental Protection MAINE AIR QUALITY INDEX 1980-2015 100 Very Unhealthy Unhealthy Unhealthy for Sensitive Groups 75 NUMBER OF DAYS Benchmark:. Maine’s overall number of listed days and the severity of the health categories for listed days will continue to decline through 2020. Air Quality an Asset to Maine’s Economy and Quality of Life Moderate 50 25 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Background: The air quality indicator is based on ozone levels averaged over an eight-hour period in parts per billion, as measured by a network of monitors recording concentrations of major pollutants throughout the state. The data is based on the number of times the maximum value in the state for each day falls into each air quality index category. A separate comparison is of Maine’s statewide maximum eight-hour ozone design value to the national standard. The maximum eight-hour ozone design value measures the fourth highest daily maximum concentration averaged over three years. Maine’s values were above 100 for much of the 1980s but have been at or below the national ambient air quality standard of 75 since 2010. Why It Matters: Maine is recognized both within the state and beyond for our environmental quality, which helps make the state an attractive place to live and visit. Air quality is an important indicator of Maine’s overall environmental quality. While Maine’s location means our air quality is subject to actions outside of our state, both state and federal policy have a role to play. On average, Maine’s air is cleaner than the other Northeastern states and offers an advantage in attracting people and businesses, and affects our overall health status and our cost of health care. Related Indicators: Gross Domestic Product, International Exports, Workforce, Cost of Health Care, Wellness and Prevention, Water Quality What the Data Shows: • The number of days falling into one of the designated health risk categories peaked in 1985 at 85, including four days classified as very unhealthy • Both the number and severity of unhealthy air quality days have declined in recent years, to a low of 17 days of moderate risk in 2014, the first year without a day above that risk category • In 2015, 21 days were classified as moderate and two were classified as unhealthy for sensitive groups 30 Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 25 - Water Quality NO GRADE Maine’s Water Quality Far Exceeds U.S. Average PERCENT OF CATEGORY 1 OR 2 WATER BODIES 2006-2012 100% Maine Lakes and Ponds Maine Rivers and Streams U.S. Lakes and Ponds 75% U.S. Rivers and Streams Source: Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Quality, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 50% 25% 0% Benchmark: The percentage of Maine’s assessed water bodies classified as Categories 1 and 2 will be maintained over time. 2006 2008 2010 Background: The chart compares water quality in Maine and the U.S. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection reports the water quality for Maine’s rivers and streams and lakes and ponds to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency every two years. Maine’s assessed waters are classified into five categories, with Category 1 waters attaining all designated uses and water quality standards, and Category 2 waters presumed to attain all uses and standards. Categories 1 and 2 are approximately equivalent to the EPA’s “good” classification. What the Data Shows: • While 2014 data is not yet available, Maine’s water quality has consistently been well above the U.S. average 2012 Why It Matters: Maine’s rivers, lakes, and streams provide drinking water for Maine’s people and support our diverse ecosystems. The overall quality of Maine’s natural environment is a key part of our state’s identity, image, and brand. Maine’s natural environment, and in particular our water resources, helps to support a vibrant tourism economy and is frequently cited as a main reason that people and businesses stay in or relocate to our state. While many of the indicators in this report address Maine’s challenges, the environmental indicators speak to one of Maine’s key assets and the benefits and opportunities it presents for Maine’s people and economy. Related Indicators: Gross Domestic Product, Value Added per Worker, International Exports, Cost of Health Care, Wellness and Prevention, Air Quality • S ince 2006, approximately 95% of Maine’s assessed rivers and streams and approximately 90% of Maine’s assessed lake and pond acreage met the Category 1 and 2 standards • F rom 2006 to 2012, the percentage of U.S. rivers and streams meeting the “good” standard dropped from 55% to 46%, and the percentage of U.S. lakes dropped from 42% to 31% Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 31 BACKGROUND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Maine Economic Growth Council was established by statute in 1993 to develop, maintain, and evaluate a long-term economic plan for Maine. Its members represent a broad and diverse cross-section of Maine’s key constituencies. Members are jointly appointed by the Governor, Senate President, and Speaker of the House. The Council is chaired by Steve Von Vogt, President and CEO of Maine Marine Composites, and Senator Andre Cushing. The Maine Economic Growth Council and Maine Development Foundation extend their sincere appreciation to the individuals and organizations that generously provided data and guidance in the development of this report. The report is designed by Pica and printed by J.S. McCarthy. The annual Measures of Growth report is a widely used and respected report on Maine’s economy. The report has been revised from time to time to provide the most current and meaningful assessment of Maine’s progress toward long-term economic growth and a high quality of life for all Maine people. THE NATURE OF DATA The Growth Council strives to provide the most accurate, timely, and consistent data available. Source data is regularly revised as methodologies improve and more information becomes available. As a result, the data presented here may differ slightly from that of past reports. Despite these limitations, the overall trends and policy implications are unchanged. The Maine Economic Growth Council is administered by the Maine Development Foundation (MDF), a private, non-partisan membership organization created in statute in 1978 that drives sustainable, long-term economic growth for Maine. MDF Program Director Ryan Neale administers Council meetings and researches and writes the report. The work of the Growth Council is financed by a state appropriation through the Maine Department of Economic and Community Development, with additional support provided by the membership of MDF. MAINE ECONOMIC GROWTH COUNCIL MEMBERS 2015-2016 Hon. Andre Cushing, Co-Chair State Senator Senate District 10 Thomas Driscoll Executive Director E.S. Boulos Company Stephen Von Vogt, Co-Chair President and CEO Maine Marine Composites Greg Dugal President and CEO Maine Restaurant Association and Maine Innkeepers Association LuAnn Ballesteros Director, Office of Government Relations The Jackson Laboratory Susan Corbett CEO Axiom Technologies Hon. Jennifer DeChant State Representative House District 52 Hon. Jim Dill State Senator Senate District 5 George Gervais Commissioner Maine Department of Economic and Community Development Thomas Kittredge Economic Development Director City of Belfast Jim Mayer Senior Vice President & National Energy Sector Leader TRC John Napolitano President Plumbers and Pipefitters Union 716 Hon. Matthew Pouliot State Representative House District 86 Steve Schley President Pingree Associates Inc. Mark St.Germain President & Principal Scientist St.Germain Collins Tim Walton Director of External Affairs and Public Policy Cianbro Corporation 32 Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council, April 2016 CREDITS: Prepared by the Maine Development Foundation for the Maine Economic Growth Council PDF available for download at mdf.org MEGC Maine Economic Growth Council 295 Water Street, Suite 5 Augusta, ME • 04330 207-622-6345 www.mdf.org