Maine Policy Review Winter/Spring 2010

Winter/Spring 2010 ¡ Vol. 19, No. 1 ¡ $15

Maine Policy Review

Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center The University of Maine

MAINE POLICY R

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

E

V

I

E

W

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 1

PUBLISHERS MARGARET CHASE SMITH POLICY CENTER Linda Silka, Interim Director

MARGARET CHASE SMITH LIBRARY Greg Gallant, Director

EDITORIAL STAFF EDITOR Ann Acheson Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center

ASSISTANT MANAGING EDITOR Barbara Harrity Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center

PRODUCTION Beth Goodnight Goodnight Design

WEB SITE MAINTENANCE William Parker Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center

DEVELOPMENT Eva McLaughlin Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center

COVER ILLUSTRATION Robert Shetterly

PRINTING J. S. McCarthy Printers

Maine Policy Review (ISSN 1064-2587) publishes independent, peer-reviewed analyses of public policy issues relevant to Maine.

The journal is published two times per year by the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center at the University of Maine and the Margaret Chase Smith Library in Skowhegan. The material published within does not necessarily reflect the views of the Margaret Chase Smith Library or University of Maine.

The majority of articles appearing in Maine Policy Review are written by Maine citizens, many of whom are readers of the journal. The journal encourages the submission of manuscripts concerning relevant public policy issues of the day or in response to articles already published in the journal. Prospective authors are urged to contact the journal at the address below for a copy of the guidelines for submission or see our Web site.

For reprints of Maine Policy Review articles or for permission to quote and/or otherwise reproduce, please contact the journal at the address below.

The editorial staff of Maine Policy Review welcome your views about issues presented in this journal. Please address your letter to the editor to: Maine Policy Review • 5784 York Complex, Bldg. #4 • University of Maine • Orono, ME 04469-5784 207-581-1567 • fax: 207-581-1266 http://mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

THANKS TO …

Major Sponsor

Margaret Chase Smith Library Patrons

An Anonymous Patron Benefactors

Linda Silka and Larry Smith

Donors

Karl Turner and Susannah Swihart

Contributors

H. Allen and Sally Fernald Merton G. Henry Richard C. Hill Roger Katz William Knowles Barry K. Mills and Susan G. Mills

Peter Mills Maine Children’s Alliance Maine Department of Environmental Protection Maine Development Foundation Maine Education Association

Maine Forest Service, Forest Policy and Management Division Evan Richert Lee Webb and Anonymous Contributors

Hussey Seating Company Marge Kilkelly and Joe Murray Philip McCarthy Sylvia Most and Alan Cardinal

Lars Rydell Basil Wentworth and Anonymous Friends

Friends

Tracy B. Bigney Sandy Butler Maroulla S. Gleaton David Hart

Volume Nineteen of Maine Policy Review is funded, in part, by the supporters listed above. Contributions to Maine Policy Review can be directed to the Margaret Chase Smith Foundation, 10 Free Street, P.O. Box 4510, Portland, ME 04112. Information regarding corporate, foundation, or individual support is available by contacting the Foundation.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FORUMS TO OUR READERS . . . . . . . . .

6

THE MARGARET CHASE SMITH ESSAY This issue features the top three prize-winning essays from the 2009 Margaret Chase Smith high school student essay contest, sponsored by the Margaret Chase Smith Library in Skowhegan. David Richards, the library’s assistant director , introduces the essays.

Introduction

David Richards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

FIRST PLACE ESSAY

What Needs to Change, and What Will It Take?

Chelsea Bernard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

SECOND PLACE ESSAY

A Call to Change

Terrence H. Walsh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

THIRD PLACE ESSAY

4 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

A Restoration of Faith

Stacy Sullivan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FORUMS Prospects for a Rim County Population Rebound: Can Quality of Place Lure In-Migrants?

Investing in Human Capital in Difficult Times: Maine’s Competitive Skills Scholarship Program

Will population rebound in Maine’s rural “rim” counties? Can investing to enhance “quality of place” attract large numbers of settlers? David Vail concludes that quality-of-place investments may not be a core development tool for rural areas, but can complement traditional rural economic policy measures.

The Competitive Skills Scholarship Program aims to meet the needs of employers through improved access to a skilled labor force and to improve job prospects for low-income and unemployed Mainers by providing education and training. Preliminary data suggest a high level of satisfaction by program participants and that graduates are finding positions in high-growth, high-wage occupations.

David Vail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Sandra S. Butler, Luisa S. Deprez, John Dorrer and Auta M. Main . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Maine’s Paradoxical Politics Kenneth Palmer discusses the paradoxes of Maine’s politics that often draw national attention and how these paradoxes have contributed to Maine having a “creative and effective political system.”

COMMENTARIES

Kenneth Palmer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Economic Assessment of Children’s Health and the Environment in Maine Reducing children’s exposure to environmental toxins is important for both moral and economic reasons. Mary Davis analyzes the economic impact of environmentally related childhood illnesses in Maine, concluding that funding for initiatives aimed at reducing childhood exposure to environmental pollutants “would be money well spent.”

Land Use Planning on a Grand Scale: A Decision Maker’s Perspective E. Bart Harvey III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Educare: A Catalyst for Change

Lauren Sterling, Sheryl Peavey and Michael Burke . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Why Margaret Still Matters

Martha Sterling-Golden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Mary E. Davis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Development in the Gulf of Maine: Avoiding Geohazards and Embracing Opportunities Maine needs to be proactive in mapping potential seafloor hazards if it is to safely develop its offshore resources, especially wind and tidal energy.

The authors focus on one widespread and important geohazard, shallow natural gas deposits.

Laura L. Brothers, Joseph T. Kelley, Melissa Landon Maynard, Daniel F. Belknap and Stephen M. Dickson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 5

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

, s r e d a e R Dear

affodils, spring. D laying y rl a e d an sp ably mild ll in short s like unseason re out on the ma ng n a ri p g S in c y. ents a perien ks earl d x e e e u f st w is l e e g ra e in e ll sev ot least o this, Ma ming, co planting y ways, n doxical n n u a g e m As I write forsythia are bloo b in ly ed ate ara and ave report ine is a unique st article, Maine’s p crocuses, a farmers h is M e ative and h . m re re c in e “ so r h e ’s d n Palm living Maine e th b e to n Frisbee, a d to n e te y K u p ib by e us hap ave contr described this mak ention, h tt litics. As a o l p a t and r n u o o ti ult presen of raw na c d which is iffi n d e ft a o e c r hich nation fa a numbe politics, w tical system.” state and sue cover ral e is ru th is li t a o th u p is b e in , v re if the rticles effecti unique s A d . sk n n a a lopio l il v a ss e fu e V avid re rec beauti spur d e of e D e v n . b a se c te y t a a n ts st e n m r e Maine h the curr facing ou -of-place investm with hazards, but future wit nd opportunities les deal r quality n’s a uncertain s d whethe ounties. Two artic toxins on childre llenge a n a h c te t a n a st l e c thers ta ” th ro n m e B in import ri “ m rural bound nviron s. Laura ’s e re e in f n x in o o a s to ti st M h la o c n popu on in s the c re to su Maine ca in-migrati is analyze d exposu hazards so n side of the o e g ment and t sorts. Mary Dav lleviate childhoo r o o a afl ren ne to a apping se oking at the hum olarship very diffe o can be do importance of m L Sch t a s. ls h e il w rc k u S d of er reso etitive uss the p th c health an o is m d o d n yers and C rs a e o oauth energy how th of emplo duce a s w d o e e sh n e and her c p offshore wind rs o th ing to pro er coauth velo or, meets tler and h partment of Lab ducation and train better de u B ra d n e e Sa D providing economy, ministered by the ainers by d a M , d er E. Bart m e y ra lo g Pro mmission oosehead nemp o u C d n n a o e ti la m M low-inco Use Regu n for the force. ries. Land mark concept pla y and other landled work il ta n sk e re m o m n d m co rke k Compa of the lan res three lum Cree y and Michael Bu a approval also featu P s e e e v su e th li is r e b is fo e e , v Th a in h n e y jo io P l g h l il w re g, Shery for the iscusses which w archse Harvey d s a good decision ine. Lauren Sterlin 10 in Waterville, re , ty a -quali 20 wa M h a ll f ig o re fa h a le e in p to k o n a L opens by ope oted e pe mentary that will nd for th untry dev n owners, a Educare program ms around the co rling-Golden’s com so many America e te h ra S g it th a w e ro h describ ducare p resonates g questions about on. Mart of other E care and educati Chase Smith still political provokin network d t o argare engage in h thoughtchildho M s f e to y o is rl n a e ra e ry e o m d o ig Sh base and st prepare w ssays by h ndscape. hy the life olitical la be done to better p prize-winning e test. The p e asking w th ss con e to om acro t could s the thre rary essay r the inevitawomen fr adership and wha ay feature Chase Smith Lib ss fea E le to h t it in o n ith n aret ase Sm rg m h women a S C M se t l inistratio a re a h a u Marg new adm 09 ann rgaret C a 0 e 2 M th e s e m th life. Our g o n m fr what cha dents fro quotation society. consider school stu tied to a merican to s A a d e w rm sk e a fo m re re the brace, to stants we contest’s ughtful nge; conte merican people em a h c f o some tho y s A te bilit e la u th d stim ake, an d that it should m is issue an f an early spring. th y jo n e is gift o pe you We ho while you enjoy th , n o conversati

6 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010



Best,

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR



My Creed . . .

is that public service must be more than doing a job efficiently and honestly.

It must be a complete dedication to the people and to the nation with full recognition that every human being is entitled to courtesy and consideration, that constructive criticism is not only to be expected but sought, that smears are not only to be expected but fought, that honor is to be earned but not bought.

Margaret Chase Smith

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 7

THE MARGARET CHASE SMITH ESSAY

The Margaret Chase Smith Essay

Introduction

by David Richards

E

very year since 1996, the Margaret Chase Smith Library has sponsored an essay contest. The program started in the wake of Senator Smith’s death in 1995, when donations in her honor began to arrive. The library decided to dedicate a portion of these gifts to establish an essay competition for graduating Maine high school seniors. Today, cash prizes range from $25 for honorable mentions to $500 for first prize.

Initially, the contest asked participants to address “issues relating to public service and responsibilities of citizenship.”

For the first three competitions, the theme remained unchanged. Eventually tiring of the sameness of the essays and with an important anniversary approaching, a new topic was selected in 1999. Because 2000 marked 50 years since Senator Smith’s famous “Declaration of Conscience” denouncing the excesses of McCarthyism, students were invited to write their own reflections on conscience. The topic struck a chord and submissions soared.

Since then, themes have continued to change, with the library staff picking a new, timely topic annually. They have included science and technology, the war

on terror, leadership, civic engagement, foreign affairs, civil rights, energy, and women in politics. For the 2008–2009 contest, the presidential election and incessant talk of change served as the inspiration for the essay prompt. Tying to a 1958 quote from Senator Smith not to fear the inevitability of change, the prompt asked: “What changes do you think the new administration will need to make, and we the people embrace, to reform American society?” The question, or more likely the enthusiasm generated by the campaigns, produced the greatest number of entries to date.

The three top entries in the 13th annual Margaret Chase Smith Essay contest follow. Interestingly, they represent the continuum of responses. One essay advocates change through more government intervention. Once calls for greater individual responsibility. The third is a blend of the two perspectives.

The first prize winner is Chelsea Bernard, a recent graduate of Dirigo High School in Dixfield. Placing second was Terrence Walsh of Acadia Christian School in Trenton. Third place went to Stacy Sullivan of Bonny Eagle High School in Standish.

Before reading the essays, a note on the contest timeline is necessary.

Although the essay prompt was formulated in the run up to the November 2008 presidential vote, most students probably only became aware of the

8 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

competition well after the election.

This was not intended as a student referendum on the Obama administration, but for some essayists that was what it became. Others approached the topic more broadly, considering what reforms American society required, irrespective of who became president. Recently rereading the essays a year after judging the contest and a year and a half after the election, I am struck by how dated they already sound. It seems as though the enthusiasm of the historic moment has largely waned and the idealism greatly dissipated.

Soaring talk of hope and change has already metastasized into partisanship and degenerated into gridlock.

In closing, the Margaret Chase Smith Library thanks the editors of the Maine Policy Review for once again sharing the views of Maine’s newest young voters with its readers. It is our hope that by valuing their voices, we are affirming the rewards of active citizenship for a rising generation of future leaders. That is a legacy of which Senator Smith would be pleased.

David Richards is the assistant director of the Margaret Chase Smith Library in Skowhegan, Maine.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

THE MARGARET CHASE SMITH ESSAY

F

i r s t

P

l a c e

E

s s ay

What Needs to Change, and What Will It Take?

By Chelsea Bernard

T

ense with anticipation, I spent election night shirking homework in favor of snagging a front-row seat to the unfolding of history. After spending more than a year closely monitoring the election process, faithfully following the months of speeches and scandals, America was about to announce its decision.

In these final moments, my thoughts skipped over decades past. I considered the history of reform: sweeping changes that revolutionized the rights of women and minorities, implemented the public educational system, prevented private business from swallowing millions of average workers, and much more. I remembered Andrew Jackson’s crusade for the “common man,” expanding voting rights while protecting popular democracy and individual liberties.

I imagined Abraham Lincoln’s furrowed brow as he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, blazing the path to freedom for an oppressed people. I contemplated Theodore Roosevelt’s commitment to trust busting, his dedication to dissolving monopolistic corporations after the pervasive corruption of the “Gilded Age.” As 200 years worth of American history flooded my brain, the overarching necessity for change grounded itself in an

abundance of examples. I began to draw parallels between the turbulent 1960s and the current state of our country, a country poised for new direction in the midst of an approaching chaos. Just as the 1960s uprooted the complacency inherent in the era of poodle skirts and jukeboxes, America now faces the challenge of renewing promise after a period of counterfeit ease. Curled up on my couch, I anticipated the changes that the new presidential administration would need to initiate in matters of education, the economy, and the environment.

A common adage claims that “education is the great equalizer.” But does this assertion ring true when education itself isn’t equal? In theory, every American child receives an education; that is, each is granted the opportunity to attend a state-funded public school. Unfortunately, many of these schools fail to provide adequate teaching and resources in order for students to flourish, especially in the depths of the inner cities, where income and teacher performance tend to be low.

And every year, more than one million students abandon their education. High school drop-outs are twice as likely to fall below the poverty line (thereby stressing welfare resources) than high school graduates and eight times as likely to be incarcerated as high school graduates (AYPF n.d.; Bridgeland, Dilulio and Morison 2006).

These alarming statistics mandate government action. Though No Child Left Behind attempted to remedy the problem by enacting nationwide education standards, the program needs to be reevaluated and reformed. As of now, the legislation ignores individual needs of students, basing the definition of success on the results of standardized testing in only two subjects—math and reading. Focusing on

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

only two areas drains funding and energy from worthy study of the humanities, the sciences, and the arts—areas that enrich humanity and society. Also, the punishments inflicted on school districts that fail to meet their progress goals merely encourage schools with lower-income and lower-performing students to set low standards for achievement (www.nochildleftbehind.com/education -articles/:(-Claims-Made-in-Opposition -to-NCLB).

A more holistic approach would encompass students of all incomes, abilities, and interests. The severe need for competent educators can be remedied by implementing performance-based pay, creating a national scholarship fund for aspiring teachers, and rewarding those who choose to tackle the most disadvantaged schools in need of quality instruction (Leigh and Mead 2005). Alternative education programs for students whose interests and abilities lie outside of the traditional academic spectrum should be provided.

This would give these students the opportunity to learn a trade or at a decelerated, hands-on pace. Education should not be approached as if “one size-fits-all.”

However, school districts can only do so much. Where the public school system fails, parents need to rise to the occasion.

Parents must take an active role in their children’s education. Enforcing homework and resisting the technological lures ranging from video games to the Internet are important for student success. And not a single government policy can replace the love and support of a parental figure.

The education of today directly influences the economy of tomorrow. Our minds are our capital. But before education can affect the economy, our current crisis needs to be resolved. Although no easy solution exists, a number of political

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 9

THE MARGARET CHASE SMITH ESSAY

steps can be taken in order to decrease subsequent damage.

The deregulation enacted by the Bush administration must be reversed.

The wanton actions of business executives exploited the economy in order to fill their coffers: facilitating the mortgage/lending crisis, allowing unlimited spending on borrowed dollars, and abusing conflicted interests (basing executive bonuses on the price of stocks that can be easily manipulated by those who receive the bonuses, for example). Essential reforms will guarantee regulation of financial institutions, limit speculation, and monitor potential conflicts of interest (Kutner 2008).

Unfortunately, the economy does require bailout money. In a case of “pay now, or pay more later” some key markets need government funding, especially housing. Although many deplore the idea of handing out money to the same people who created the situation, the cost of inaction is far too great. If the housing market collapses, the nation will be under even more financial strain than the bailout required. Again, regulation needs to ensure that stimulus money reaches the intended destination—to be reinvested in the econ-omy, not put into the pockets of AIG executives. Any company that desires bailout money should be required to sign a con-tract stating the intended use of national funds and also be subject to investigation of use after the money has been given.

But once again, all responsibility cannot fall on the government’s shoulders.

The American people need to get friendlier with the concept of saving rather than spending, of frugality rather than extravagance, of pinching pennies rather than swiping credit cards.

Understandably, careful spending can only go so far when faced with

un-employment. One way to increase job availability lies in national, government-subsidized projects (such as repair of the Interstate Highway System). Another involves rewarding businesses that employ Americans with lower taxes rates than those that outsource job opportunities to foreign countries. And renewable energy offers a long-term solution to the unemployment rates along with benefiting the environment.

The prospects of our environmental future loom menacingly. The U.S. is the number one source of pollution in the world, yet America’s congressmen have failed to pass a single bill that combats global warming pollutants.

The failure to act imperils not just the United States, but the planet. According to the Environmental Defense Fund’s Web site (www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=4981), 15 to 34 percent of plants and animals could disappear by 2050; the U.S. Geological Survey predicts that Glacier National Park will be devoid of glaciers by 2030; and there has been a 100 percent increase in the intensity and duration of hurricanes.

Investing in renewable energy promises many levels of employment in both research and applied fields. Reliance on foreign oil would also proportionally decrease with the popularity of “green” power. The U.S. should tax businesses that produce excessive levels of pollutants and/or fail to dispose of them properly; prevent the drilling of oil and establishment of falsely titled “clean coal;” and encourage the development of an entirely new power grid that runs on renewable resources. Tax breaks for private use of alternative energy provide incentives for everyday citizens to participate in the global effort (www.nrdc.org/ globalWarming/default.asp).

10 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

On an individual level Americans need to increase their eco-consciousness.

We all have a civic duty to investigate the wealth of information available online (or elsewhere), and incorporate that information into our everyday lives, striving to negatively affect the environment as little as possible. Recycling newspapers, biking to work, and conserving power at home exemplify common tips for reducing environmental harm. Many actions yield other benefits, such as increased fitness from increased exercise and decreased energy bills from decreased consumption.

But then, suddenly jolted from my train of thought, a booming announcement blares from my television set— Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States. My family erupted into a frenzy of excitement, tears glistening on our cheeks. Though I recognized the magnitude of the journey ahead, I eagerly anticipated the change to come. Reflecting on my wishes for the next administration, I felt confident about the ability for America to achieve them. And I still do.  REFERENCES American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF). n.d.

Every Nine Seconds in America a Student Becomes a Dropout: The Dropout Problem in Numbers. AYPF, Washington, DC. http://www.aypf.org/publications/ EveryNineSeconds.pdf [Accessed April 1, 2009] Bridgeland, John M., John J. DiIulio Jr. and Karen Burke Morison. 2006. The Silent Epidemic: Perspectives of High School Dropouts. A report by Civic Enterprises in association with Peter D. Hart Research Associates for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. http://www.gates foundation.org/united-states/Documents/ TheSilentEpidemic3-06Final.pdf [Accessed March 7, 2010]

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

THE MARGARET CHASE SMITH ESSAY

Kutner, Robert. 2008. “Seven Deadly Sins of Deregulation—and Three Necessary Reforms.” American Prospect (Septemeber 27). http://www.prospect. org/cs/articles?article=seven_deadly_sins_ of_deregulation_and_three_necessary_ reforms [Accessed April 1, 2009]

S

econd

recent graduate of Dirigo High School in Dixfield, has matriculated at Emerson College in Boston. She intends to study communications, while pursuing her many creative talents in art, drama, and music.

lace

E

s s ay

A Call to Change

Leigh, Andrew and Sara Mead. 2005. Lifting Teacher Performance. Progressive Policy Institute, Washington, DC. http://www. ppionline.org/documents/teachqual_0419. pdf [Accessed April 1, 2009]

Chelsea Bernard, a

P

By Terrence H. Walsh

T

he way we view change is like boiling water. Boiling water proceeds slowly and predictably. The water warms, and then it boils. However, most change is dramatic. It differs from what came before.

Consider a few analogies. Water can be gradually lowered below its freezing point, and it remains a liquid. But touch this water with anything, and it instantly turns to ice. It is liquid one second and a solid the next second. Or consider two chunks of uranium. Together they are harmless. But rearrange the uranium atoms, and you create a critical mass and conceivably an atomic bomb. Life is not always water coining to a boil. Sometimes it is a critical mass starting a radical change.

Before the presidential campaign and during the campaign, Americans volunteered words like “confused,” “discouraged,” and “worried” about America. They were concerned about the future, and no one uttered those famous American words, “Don’t worry—it (America) will fix itself.” But Barack Obama’s campaign inspired a wave of enthusiasm that had not been seen in the United States in many, many years. Really, there is no period in history with which to compare this period.

The campaign brought the exhilarating awareness that change is actually possible, and things do not have to stay the same.

Ideally, a presidential campaign is a time of reassessing where we are as a people.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Candidate Obama spoke often of radical change in America. He spoke of America turning to a new script and throwing the old script away. His speeches sketched a vision for America, that Americans can find solutions for America’s and the world’s biggest problems—poverty, hunger, disease, and the environment.

Obama’s vision of change has America shedding a warlike attitude around the world and focusing on diplomacy and greater equality and freedoms. This certainly excited American voters. Millions of American voters, old and new, decided that politics is important, and that they are part of the political process. These people are strong proof of this movement’s energy and passion. These people believe that they can cancel the forces of money and established power that are fighting against those seeking change in America.

Change is not an impossible dream.

The last 50 years of history have witnessed great changes. For examples, there are the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and the movement to end the nuclear arms race. Ideas have changed America and the world, and change for the better is possible, but it requires commitment, hard work, and sacrifice.

Now, candidate Barack Obama has become President Barack Obama, but he must continue to listen to the voices of the American people. The president is now the head of a movement that believes deeply in the change that he claimed as the theme of his presidential campaign. But with this presidency, there have been some troubling signs that Obama is moving away from his commitment to change. At times, the president’s decisions seem too cautious.

People understand that compromise is necessary and especially needed in a democracy, and there are many pressures with America’s most important

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 11

THE MARGARET CHASE SMITH ESSAY

position of presidency. But the withdrawal from important principles weakens the movement of change that the president has promised to deliver.

To sustain the movement of change, President Barack Obama must continue to support: • A withdrawal timetable for troops in Iraq.

• Response to the economic crisis.

• Jobs.

• Healthcare.

• Immigration.

• Environmental policy.

• Alternative energy sources.

• America’s infrastructure.

These are changes that are needed.

On other positions, I will work to sup-port the president when I agree with him and challenge him when I do not.

But still my prayer and hope is that he may succeed in making America the country he has encouraged Americans to believe is possible.

America and Americans can no longer live a worldview that life is just made up of routines. We can no longer take so much for granted. We are traveling along a road our country has not traveled before and probably would not choose. Now America is responding to change with fear. Fear claims our hearts when we think of change, but change is necessary for life and growth.

And the change can not be in parts, and it can not be cosmetic. With “true change,” comfort, security, and familiarity will be left behind so America can begin its greatest adventure and truest direction.

However, it would be wrong to say that change should only be on a political

level. Politics will not fundamentally change America or bring it back to a position where it needs to be. If only it were that simple. We should remember abolitionist Fredrick Douglas’s admonition that “the life of the nation is secure, only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous.”

Just as medical researchers seek ways to build up the cells in the body to prevent infectious diseases from attacking the body, so, too, must we rebuild America’s immune system. This means we must become a people of virtue. We need to get out of our easy-chair recliners and love and discipline children, be involved in schools, be faithful to God’s call in our lives, be ethical in business, and be involved in our communities. Doing these things is the only way to change America.

When we look back on major changes in American history, they were started by one person or a small group of people.

Even the birth of our great nation had its beginnings with a small band of patriots who believed in the principles of freedom.

Actually, throughout almost all of history, people who have proposed change have been a minority who have met hostility, death, or persecution, or at best neglect as a reward for their efforts. Yet the changes that have been made in human life have depended, and must always depend, on some person or group.

The effort to change is not for the weak or timid. Real change can only come from the transformed hearts and souls of individuals. Time changes nothing—only people change things. Today, there is a great danger that Americans will once again be lulled into thinking that our only part is voting for the right people, and now we can sit back and watch these people write new laws and find solutions for all of America’s problems. President John F. Kennedy’s famous challenge to

12 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

“ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” should still be our motto for today.

More than 200 years ago, our founding fathers wrestled with the idea of federalism as they began what we call the “American Experiment.” Although they realized the need for local and even national government, they also wanted to create a system of government that valued individual rights and guaranteed that government interference would be minimized. But since President Kennedy’s challenge, most Americans have not considered what they could do for their country besides supporting national defense efforts and paying taxes. Instead, the federal government has told us over and over again what it would do for us.

Today, we must not surrender any more of our responsibilities to the federal government. Despite the best intentions of those in government who created these policies, the government can not do everything. The government cannot be parents, cannot teach character and responsibility, and cannot regulate individual behavior.

We must continue to be watchful in our homes and communities. We must continue to support and work for candidates who share our values, we must state our opinions, and we must vote. All of these things are necessary to change America.

But this is only in the political realm.

We must not wait for government. We must renew individual obligations for American society. A change in the individual will be a change in society. For example, Americans, not the government, must take care of our neighbors. We must give of our time and money. We must take full responsibility for our actions and not surrender to the weakness of transferring blame to others. As Tuskegee Institute founder Booker T. Washington stated,

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

THE MARGARET CHASE SMITH ESSAY

“It is important and right that all privileges of the law be ours, but it is vastly more important that we be prepared for the exercise of these privileges.” It is time that we embrace freedom and the responsible behavior it demands. Change is never quickly or easily achieved. Sometimes it can only be measured in generations. But it must begin today. While the cost is high, the result will be real change in America.

As Franklin Roosevelt said at an earlier Democratic national convention in Philadelphia, “This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny.”

Maybe that rendezvous is today. 

Terrence H. Walsh graduated from Acadia Christian School in Trenton.

He currently attends Grace Evangelical College and Seminary in Bangor, where he is studying to become a pastor.

T

h i r d

P

l a c e

E

s s ay

A Restoration of Faith

By Stacy Sullivan

I

n the time leading up to and immediately after the inauguration of Barack Obama, the new president and his staff emphasized the importance of moving forward, rather than looking back and becoming preoccupied with the errors of the past. This was a difficult task in and of itself. With the majority of the American public still angry over the blunders of the past eight years, using the early period of his presidency as an indictment of the previous administration would have been tempting with the allure of public approval. While a multitude of problems face America, forming an almost perfect storm just as Obama assumed the leadership of the nation, he chose not to lay blame on anyone, but to look to the future. While this was an admirable decision, there is no denying that mistakes have been made that need correction and bridges have been burned that need to be rebuilt.

America is in rough shape; our economy, like economies all over the world, is faltering; we are engaged in not one, but two overseas wars; our population is deeply divided along ideological lines as the last few national elections have shown; and among the international community, America has slowly lost respect and ground as the leader of the world. Over the past decade or so a distinct lack of faith in the government developed. Whereas once it was expected that the federal government

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

of the United States would make the right decisions, now its citizens almost expect it to fail. Partisanship and bickering have become the hallmarks of Congress instead of progress and unity. Now, with a change in leadership and the country unusually united after the election of Barack Obama, it is time to “pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.”

That enormous task includes not only correcting past mistakes, but leading America into the future, while restoring the public’s faith in government. Such a gigantic task requires a gigantic federal program. Just as Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Johnson created all-encompassing federal programs to effect the change that they wished to see in domestic and international issues, so should Obama to set the country to rights. With such an intricate series of problems plaguing America right now, ranging from the economy to flagrant abuses of human rights like the situation in the Sudan, only a great government initiative to tackle the hard issues and make the difficult choices can see Americans through this crisis. It is now, in this time of crisis, that Americans need their government to solve the fundamental problems and to prove to its people that it can be trusted.

As America faced the Great Depression with Roosevelt’s New Deal and the civil rights era with Kennedy’s New Frontier and Johnson’s Great Society, so should we face our current issues with Obama’s unifying restoration. While national crises are horrible things, they afford the president the possibility to do progressive things he would otherwise not have the opportunity to do. Now, just when the American public is looking for a break from the past and actual progress from our government, the opportunity

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 13

THE MARGARET CHASE SMITH ESSAY

presents itself to make the changes that politicians often discuss but rarely make.

Obama, the perfect man to exact those changes with his talent for bringing people together and great oratory skill, can bring the sweeping change of progress to the early twenty-first century that Roosevelt brought to the early twentieth and Johnson and Kennedy brought to the mid-twentieth century.

The American public demands, first and foremost, that the economy be fixed. The current fiasco is the result of a period of deregulation, just as the Great Depression was the result of the wild financial innovation of the 1920s.

The Glass-Steagall Act, a legacy of the New Deal that regulated the banking industry and separated the securities and commercial banking industries, was gradually repealed by Republican‑controlled Congresses through the 1980s and 1990s.

Large financial corporations grew more and more irresponsible, with no federal regulations to stop them. Eventually, the implausibility of their schemes caught up with them and dragged the rest of the economy, along with the life savings of average Americans, down with them.

Obama and Congress are now in the position to re-regulate Wall Street and to ensure that banks will not give out loans to people who cannot repay them and that allow people to purchase homes they really cannot afford. Those firms that are “too big to fail,” like American International Group, are only in a position to threaten the entire American financial system with their demise because of the repeal of regulations such as the Glass-Steagall Act. A New Deal-like re-regulation of the economy would simultaneously repair and reform the economy.

Government organizations in charge of the federal bailout need to ensure that

the companies receiving the loans spend the money wisely and pay the money back.

In this time of economic hardship, average Americans feel the strain just as much as multinational corporations.

Federal grassroots programs are necessary to help to create jobs for Americans, as the unemployment rate stands at an incredibly high 8.1 percent as of February 2009 [9.7 percent as of February 2010, Editor’s note]. Programs are also needed to allow people and to stay in their homes until the current recession passes. A possibility for creating jobs would be finally completing the needed reworking of America’s infrastructure system. As it currently stands, not only is it run down, but it places heavy emphasis on car and air transportation, thus increasing America’s dependence on oil. America lags significantly behind many other countries in terms of modern, environmentally friendly transportation.

According to the Energy Information Administration’s Web site (www.eia.doe. gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.htm), America consumes more oil than any other nation, at 20 million barrels a day, and oil is a commodity that we can no longer afford to use recklessly. A regeneration of America’s infrastructure and modes of transportation would not only create bluecollar construction jobs, but also high-tech engineering jobs that would encourage higher education.

While the economy is in dire need of reform and repair, so, too is the American health care system. As it currently stands, Americans must obtain their own health insurance, whether through job benefits or independently. Those who cannot afford health insurance are left out in the cold because they often are denied the needed treatments for their maladies because of their uninsured status. A universal health care system, such as those in Canada,

14 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

the United Kingdom, and France, would eliminate the discrepancies in health care between the haves and the have nots. The lack of a universal health care system more or less amounts to discrimination based on class; denying a life-saving treatment for the lack of health insurance is the same as denying life, one of the “inalienable rights” cited in the Declaration of Independence.

The federal government has a responsibility to provide equal access to all necessary health care. Approximately 50 million Americans go without health insurance, and according to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States “is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage” (Institute of Medicine 2004). Although then First Lady Hillary Clinton attempted to enact universal health care in 1993 and failed, a universal health care bill needs to be introduced again to Congress. The United States cannot expect to lead the world into the future if it does not even provide basic health coverage for all of its citizens.

As part of the change Obama’s new administration should initiate, our foreign policy should be reevaluated. For the past eight years the U.S. has been more of a bully on the international stage than a good neighbor. The U.S. has continually bent the rules of the Geneva Convention regarding the humanitarian treatment of prisoners.

The American treatment of so-called enemy combatants from the War on Terror has drawn fire from various human rights watchdog groups. Obama has taken steps in the right direction by pledging to close down the American detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where enemy combatants were held without any legal representation and without being charged, and ending the practice of water boarding on his first day in office.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

THE MARGARET CHASE SMITH ESSAY

American’s faith in our own government would be restored.  REFERENCES Institute of Medicine of the National Academies of Sciences. 2004. Insuring America’s Health: Principles and Recommendations. Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC. Wallechinsky, David. 2009. “The World’s 10 Worst Dictators.” Parade (March 22): 4–5.

Stacy Sullivan graduated from Bonny Eagle High School in © Demers Photography

However, there is still more the U.S. can do for human rights abroad.

In Sudan’s Darfur region, an ethnic genocide has been going on for six years, the worst mass killing the world has seen since Rwanda, and perhaps even the Holocaust, and no one has stepped in to stop it.

America, as a world leader, has a responsibility to act as a protector of human rights around the globe. Part of that would be making the tough decisions about American involvement with the foreign countries with less than clean records on human rights. The United States imported $340 billion worth of goods from China in 2008 and conveniently ignores that China has almost no freedom of speech and religion, represses the Tibetans, and sends dissidents to labor camps without a trial. Saudi Arabia, too, has a questionable human rights record, often cited for its oppression of women, but the U.S. still imported $50 billion dollars worth of oil in 2008 from Saudi Arabia (Wallechinsky 2009). Because of our reliance on Saudi oil and Chinese goods, the U.S. effectively condones human rights abuses.

Now, at a time when America is in desperate need of change, President Obama has the opportunity to create that change and alter not only America but the world for the better with government initiatives. By repairing and reforming the economy, creating jobs, providing equal health care for all, and taking a strong stand for human rights, Obama would rescue America from its current low point and reestablish it at the pinnacle of the world. Once America starts making the tough, right decisions again, it will restore its glory and remove some of the tarnish.

And making those tough decisions, ones that perhaps not everyone will like at first, will legitimatize the American government, make it something to be respected again.

Standish. She is a student at Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, New York, where she is a history/ English double major, and is on the ski team.

She aspires to break into the publishing field after graduation.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 15

PROSPECTS FOR A RIM COUNTY POPULATION REBOUND

Prospects for a Rim County Population Rebound: Can Quality of Place Lure In-Migrants?

by David Vail

David Vail asks whether population will rebound in Maine’s rural “rim” counties and whether investing to enhance “quality of place” can attract large numbers of rural settlers. Review of the evidence suggests that Maine’s rim counties are not experiencing a population rebound and that rural counties vary greatly in their ability to hold onto existing residents or attract new ones. Vail argues that quality-of-place investments should not be considered as a core development tool for rural areas, but that they can complement traditional rural economic policy measures. Since it is difficult to stimulate a major population movement to Maine’s rim counties, amenity investments should focus on enhancing quality of life for current residents, thereby strengthening their incentive to stay.

16 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010



View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

PROSPECTS FOR A RIM COUNTY POPULATION REBOUND

As the search for quality places grows in importance, Maine possesses a globally known “brand” built on images of livable communities, stunning scenery, and great recreational opportunities….Crucial to this brand is the integrity of Maine’s distinctive towns and villages and the stunning natural areas that lie between them. (The Brookings Institution 2006: 6, 8) AMERICA’S RURAL REBOUND AND BROOKINGS’ UPBEAT MAINE FORECAST

A

above, preaches the good news that, in the 21st century, quality of place is one of Maine’s special assets supporting economic development. Without doubt, talented and affluent people are drawn to places offering an outstanding quality of life. The Brookings’ analysis implies that southern and coastal Maine have the greatest magnetism, but their optimism extends to every corner of the state. Their bright forecast of Maine’s prospects is backed by evidence of our own population rebound between 2000 and 2005. In that period, Maine’s 0.8 percent annual population growth was New England’s second highest, lagging behind only New Hampshire. Indeed, all Maine regions shared in the growth, although the pace was slower in northern and Downeast regions (0.2 percent and 0.3 percent/ year, respectively) (Brookings 2006).

The claim that Maine is primed for continuing in-migration, driven by exceptional quality of place, is bolstered by anecdotal stories and evidence “on the

Annual Percent Change

merica’s non-metropolitan population rebounded by 3.5 million in the 1990s, following a 1.4 million decline in the 1980s. The movement of retirees and highly skilled younger adults to “amenity-rich” rural areas was especially conspicuous. Among older people the rural shift was nothing new: they have relocated to rural areas since the 1950s.

However, before the 1990s, the graying of FIGURE 1: Non-metropolitan Net Migration by Region, 1990–2001 rural America had been reinforced by the continuing exodus of youths and younger adults from most rural regions. So the big 2.5 news of the 1990s was the positive net Northeast Midwest South West rural migration of young adults.

As Figure 1 shows, the rebound was 2.0 actually concentrated in the first half of the 1990s and in the South and West; by decade’s end, the rebound was losing 1.5 momentum. Important for this essay, it was less pronounced in the Northeast, 1.0 where rural migration actually turned negative in 2000. Indeed, apart from the 1970s’ “back to the land” episode, the 0.5 rural Northeast has experienced net out-migration fairly consistently since World War II. The underlying story is 0 familiar: better career opportunities, metropolitan amenities, and the lure of a milder climate have been major forces -0.5 drawing younger people away (Johnson 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 and Cromartie 2006: 29).

Beginning Year of Period The Brookings Institution’s 2006 report, Charting Maine’s Future, quoted Source: Johnson and Cromartie 2006: 39

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 17

PROSPECTS FOR A RIM COUNTY POPULATION REBOUND

FIGURE 2: Maine’s Coastal, Central and Rim Counties

ground.” Portland, for instance, is regularly featured in national “ten best places” lists: most livable small cities, gay-friendly communities, and hot tourist destinations.

Critical Insights’ 2009 survey of Maine’s business leaders concludes: Maine’s Natural Environment and perceived favorable quality of life continue to garner some of the highest levels of endorsement as Maine’s greatest assets as a place to do business (Critical Insights 2009: 4).

…new quote and Cromartie 2006: 39 Source: Johnson

Coastal Counties Central Counties Rim Counties 18 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

York County has become a haven for commuters employed in greater Portland, southern New Hampshire, and even metropolitan Boston. An urban renaissance of sorts is underway in central Maine’s major service centers, Bangor, LewistonAuburn, and Waterville. Money magazine rates Brunswick a prime destination for affluent retirees, and the influx of retired people has pushed east of Penobscot Bay to Hancock County.

To a great extent, Charting Maine’s Future framed our economic policy dialogue for several years, until the “great recession” and the state’s severe fiscal woes captured the headlines. Thus, it is fair to inquire whether Brookings’ assertion that quality of place is Maine’s key strategic asset is justified—especially in the case of our sparsely populated, economically distressed, remote, and chilly rim counties (Oxford, Franklin, Somerset, Piscataquis, Aroostook and Washington) (Figure 2). Provoked by Brookings’ upbeat prognosis, this essay attempts to answer two questions. Are there solid prospects for a rural population rebound in Maine’s rim counties? Can investing to enhance quality of place attract large numbers of rural settlers? Several types of evidence support provisional answers to these questions. Should the answers to these questions be ambiguous or negative, a third question arises: what are the implications for Maine’s rural economic strategy in an era of severely constrained state resources?

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

PROSPECTS FOR A RIM COUNTY POPULATION REBOUND

QUALITY OF PLACE: ARTICLE OF FAITH, MOBILIZING DEVICE—FISCAL STEPCHILD

I

n recent years, Maine has experienced a remarkable burst of community, regional, and state initiatives, built on the interrelated notions of quality of place, creative economy, and asset-based development.

Indeed, the potential of amenity investments to revitalize communities and local economies has become an article of faith through the Brookings report and the work of Governor’s Councils on Maine’s Creative Economy and on Maine’s Quality of Place. Former State Economist Catherine Reilly and economics professor Henry Renski, in a study commissioned by the Council on Quality of Place, echo the Brookings assessment (2007: 40): Initial evidence suggests that Quality of Place aids economic growth, which makes it an important consideration in Maine. It is an area in which Maine has a comparative advantage: the state’s natural setting and livable communities have attracted visitors and residents for decades; its internationally-recognized brand centers on these features. This makes Quality of Place an attractive framework for community and economic development initiatives in Maine.

This faith is embodied in an extraordinary array of recent initiatives. The Municipal Investment Trust Fund (launched in 1993), the Maine Downtown Center’s “Main Street Maine” program (1999), the Maine Cultural Affairs Council’s “New Century Community Program” (2002), and the Governor’s Council on the Creative Economy (2004) all predate the Brookings report. The Governor’s Council on Maine’s Quality of Place (2006) the Maine Downtown Coalition’s “Communities for Maine’s Future” effort (2007), and “Mobilize Maine” are descendents of the Brookings’ analysis and recommendations. These efforts are all statewide in scope; however, each also addresses rural Maine’s special needs and opportunities. Still other efforts have a distinctly rural flavor, for instance the Great Maine Forest initiative, the Maine Woods Consortium, the Maine Rural Partnership, and Northern and Eastern Maine Development Corporation projects. To this

inventory, we should add countless grassroots initiatives in the rim counties, such as the Western Mountains Alliance, the Piscataquis Tourism Authority, Voici the [St. John] Valley, and the Eastport Arts Center and Tides Institute.

When this essay was first drafted in early 2009, there was optimism that the Maine legislature’s bond package would channel tens of millions of dollars into the excellent investment proposals generated by the Governor’s Council on Quality of Place. In the event, the Governor’s $306 million bond package was whittled down dramatically, particularly for quality-of-place investments. Quality-of-place bonds that survived the Appropriation Committee’s long knives centered on Land for Maine’s Future (including the Working Waterfront Fund) and trails projects within the highways and bridges bond. This year voters will also decide on token amounts for Parks and Lands, the Endangered Building Fund, and Communities for Maine’s Future. As of this writing, a follow-up governor’s bill has emerged successfully from committee: LD 1389, “An Act to Create State and Regional Quality of Place Investment Strategies for High Value Jobs, Products and Services in Maine.” Given recent history, a skeptic could be forgiven for expecting little funding to back the bill’s rhetoric.

In recent years Maine has experienced a remarkable burst of community, regional, and state initiatives built on the interrelated notions of quality of place, creative economy, and asset-based development.

Quality-of-place advocates also expressed early optimism that their carefully crafted proposals would receive a healthy cut of Maine’s $1 billion-plus in Federal Recovery Act funds. However, when the state’s ARRA priorities were hammered out, quality-of-place initiatives were, not surprisingly, unable to compete effectively against urgent education, health,

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 19

PROSPECTS FOR A RIM COUNTY POPULATION REBOUND

FIGURE 3: Maine Net Migration, 1990–1999 and 2000–2005 50,000

1990–1999

Population Change

2000–2005

29,215

30,000

MAINE’S RIM COUNTIES AS A MAGNET FOR IN-MIGRANTS: EVIDENCE

20,000

17,846

10,000

I

8,046 4,547

0

-10,000

-7,347 -10,784 -14,409

-20,000 Maine

Coastal Counties

Central Counties

Rim Counties

…new quote

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

FIGURE 4: Maine Population Change Ages 15–44, 2000–2005 0.5 0.3

Percent Change

0

-0.5

-1.0

-1.4

-1.5

-1.9

-2.0 Coastal Counties

Central Counties

Source: Cervone 2007: 50, 51

20 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

Rim Counties

n my current study of amenity investments and development of tourist destinations, I have heard heartening stories about Maine natives and former seasonal residents returning to retire in Rangeley, Brownville, Caribou, and Machias and tales of big city emigrés launching craft workshops in Dover-Foxcroft, art galleries in Eastport, organic farms in Strong, and B&Bs in Greenville. It is also encouraging that Oxford County actually grew faster than the state between 2000 and 2006 (4.3 percent vs. 3.7 percent). It is clear that rural communities and counties vary greatly in their ability to hold onto existing residents and attract in-migrants. But do such anecdotes and local trends betoken a general rural population rebound?

Viewing Maine’s demographics from a rim-county vantage point, the Brookings report appears to have tweaked the data to support its optimistic message.

This is reflected in Brookings’ choice of indicators and time frame. The following figures from a 2007 Maine Center for Economic Policy (MECEP) report (Vail and Pohlmann 2007) show that Maine’s 2000–2005 population rebound was overwhelmingly a south coastal phenomenon (see Figure 3). The rim counties, with 21 percent of Maine’s population, attracted just 11 percent of the migrant flow. As in the past, rural settlers were older people. Youths and young adults continued to emigrate. Figure 4 illustrates population change of young adults from 2000 to 2005. Even Oxford County, with its comparatively rapid overall population growth, experienced a 24 percent decline in 25- to 34-year-olds between 1990 and 2005 (Hamilton et al 2008: 7). An oft-repeated fact is that Maine’s has America’s oldest population, by median age. In 2006, 14.6 percent of Maine residents were at least 65; the rim county figure was 16 percent (U.S. Census 2009).

By extending our view to the years before and since Brookings’ 2000–2005 glimpse, it becomes clear

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

80 Families with Financial Insecurity Indicators

40,000

and transportation needs. In sum, the rim counties cannot expect a major infusion of either state or federal revenues for quality-of-place investments in the foreseeable future.

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

2.5

2.0

Annual Percent Change

41,808

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

-0.5

PROSPECTS FOR A RIM COUNTY POPULATION REBOUND

that their optimism about Maine’s attractive power is grounded in a brief and evidently atypical time period.

In the 1990s, statewide net migration was negative and since 2005, the state’s growth has plummeted from 8,000+/year in the Brookings time frame to just 1,000 to 2,000 per year. Indeed, in 2008 Maine’s net migration turned negative once again and our population growth went from second fastest to second slowest among New England states (MDOL 2009).

In sum, a careful review of the evidence does not support Brookings’ claim that Maine’s rim counties are enjoying a population rebound, much less one that can slow the rapid aging of our rural population. Even so, it could be claimed that Charting Maine’s Future points in the right strategic direction. Perhaps by making smart quality-of-place investments, the rim counties still have a chance to hold onto their young people and attract migrants in significant numbers.

The following section explores this thesis by reviewing the core features of the national rural rebound.

UNDERSTANDING AMERICA’S RURAL REBOUND

M

ore important than counting heads is understanding why the 1990s rural rebound was concentrated in certain areas and why the “selective deconcentration” of America’s population largely bypassed Maine’s rim counties. With care, we can draw useful inferences from investigations into the 1990s migration surge from metropolitan to amenity-rich rural areas. Johnson and Cromartie (2006: 37) summarize a core insight distilled from numerous studies: “The vast majority of the non-metropolitan counties located in [fast growing] subregions benefited demographically from scenic landscapes, mild climates, proximity to rapidly growing metro areas, or a combination of these amenities.”

Much—though by no means all—of rural Maine possesses one of the big three “pull factors”: scenic landscapes. But, to state the obvious, the rim counties lack two of the big three attractors: a mild climate and ready access to dynamic metropolitan centers. Given sufficient time, climate change may make Maine’s Northern Forest and Downeast regions more attractive to prospective migrants. Who knows, heat, drought and fire in the U.S. Southwest might even reverse a 150-year trend

and draw amenity-seeking migrants back to the cooler, wetter Northeast. But, like nearness to lively metropolitan areas, climate change is far beyond Maine’s control.

Here in the Northeast, rural Vermont’s settlement patterns bear out the importance of metropolitan proximity. Between 1990 and 2003, when Maine’s rim county population was shrinking, non-metro Vermont grew by six percent, linked to greater Burlington’s even faster (12 percent) growth (Lawton 2005). In addition to Burlington’s attractive power, most Green Mountain State residents live less than an hour from Interstate highways and regular rail service to New York, Montreal, and Boston.

…rural communities and counties vary greatly in their ability to hold onto existing residents and attract in-migrants.

To what extent can Maine’s remote and chilly rim counties transform themselves into migratory destinations? Can they offset fundamental climate and location disadvantages by enhancing their quality of place—investing in amenity assets like charming and authentic town centers, diverse social and cultural activities, and high-quality health and education services? The answer is not clear. Following many years of study, University of Wisconsin analysts admit, “We do not have a good understanding of amenityled growth” (Green et al. 2005: 2). Thomas Power, a prominent recreational economist, stresses the “challenging complexity of amenities as an economic force” (2005: 72). What recent history does show is that there is no sure-fire formula—“build it (a per-forming arts center, snow-mobile trails, gourmet restaurants, regional airport, community college campus), and they will come.”

My review of the rural rebound literature largely dovetails with Catherine Reilly and Henry Renski’s conclusions in Place and Prosperity, their 2007 report to the Governor’s Council on Maine’s Quality of Place.

(A short version appeared in this journal [Reilly and Renski 2008].) The core findings suggest why it is

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 21

PROSPECTS FOR A RIM COUNTY POPULATION REBOUND

problematic to count on amenity investments as a technique to attract in-migrants. In sum, human-made amenities are necessary but rarely sufficient to attract settlers: facilitators but not drivers.

Strengthening amenities through targeted investment is seldom an effective substitute for two other critical factors: first, the “big three” attractors, and second, a region’s underlying economic prospects.

Regional economic prospects, in turn, are shaped by factors such as a rapidly growing industry, service-sector diversity, a skilled labor pool, career opportunities to lure additional skilled workers, and well-developed transport and communications infrastructure.

Working-age people generally “follow jobs.” But businesses typically locate and create jobs where there is already a pool of skilled people. This “chicken and egg” nexus tends to reinforce either a virtuous spiral of in-migration or a vicious circle of out-migration (Deller et al. 2001; Johnson and Cromartie 2006).

…new quote …although quality-of-place investments should not be considered a core rural development tool, they do complement traditional economic policy measures.

To illustrate the combined influence of basic economic conditions and human-made amenities, the Carsey Institute assesses prospects facing Maine’s Oxford County, which it labels an “Amenity/Decline” region. Although its natural and human-made amenities enhance the potential for economic and demographic revitalization, that dynamic is inhibited by secular decline in traditional resource-based industries and limited service sector diversity and development (Hamilton et al. 2008).

Rural Maine villages and towns are very small, as the debate over school system consolidation has amply revealed. Since communities of a few hundred to a few thousand lack the critical mass to be in-migrant destinations in their own right, a quality-of-place strategy to attract settlers must be regional in scope. Indeed, rural 22 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

Maine is well supplied with county economic development bodies, councils of governments, and regional development commissions. However, the quality-of-place strategy implies a level of intercommunity collaboration that has been difficult to achieve or sustain in much of rural Maine. Even clusters of rural towns lack the organizing capacity, and certainly the capital, to develop the core amenity assets required to attract significant numbers of in-migrants: a nearby hospital, quality schools, higher education programs, attractive town centers, varied, high-quality dining options, broadband Internet, and reliable cell phone and high-speed Internet service.

A few additional cautions about the qualityof-place strategy are in order. First, major amenity upgrades rarely happen overnight. An “extreme makeover” may take decades rather than months or years, and there is a further lag between enhancements on the ground and reputational effects on prospective settlers (Barringer et al. 2005; Deller et al. 2001). Second, the amenities that long-time residents prioritize, for instance youth recreation programs and well-groomed snowmobile trails, may differ from those most valued by prospective in-migrants, particularly retirees (Power 2005: 68). Third, attracting in-migrants by investing in amenity assets is a competitive game that everyone is playing. Coastal Maine and the other Northeast states have their own versions of the quality-of-place strategy to capture mobile, amenity-seeking settlers. It is far from certain that Maine’s rim counties can compete successfully in this game.

In conclusion, when rural Maine is viewed through the lens of America’s rural population rebound, its potential to attract sizable numbers of new settlers appears dim. To be sure, communities and sub-regions that have richer natural and humanmade amenities will continue to draw small in-migrant streams. My current research in Franklin, Piscataquis and Washington counties shows that some natives return to spend their “golden years” near kinfolk. Some seasonal home owners take up permanent residence.

Some nature-loving entrepreneurs settle and create new businesses. Some working-age people are drawn by opportunities in rural growth sectors such as health services and renewable energy. And impressive regional efforts to strengthen rural tourism destinations should

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

PROSPECTS FOR A RIM COUNTY POPULATION REBOUND

yield more quality jobs and related population growth as the national economy recovers. These bright spots are important, yet they do not negate rural development analyst David Marcouiller’s fundamental conclusion: “remote rural areas [are] at a disadvantage when attempting to build on amenities” (2005: 333).

IMPLICATIONS FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY—IF MAINE HAD ONE

M

aine’s rim counties obviously lack the warm climate and metropolitan proximity that have been so important in rural America’s highly selective population rebound. The literature review also shows that, while quality-of-place investments complement underlying economic potential in attracting new settlers, they are not an effective substitute. Given these sobering realities, is it in the public interest to invest further in rural Maine’s quality of place? It seems to me that Maine citizens do, in fact, have several reasons to support rural revitalization efforts. One is altruistic: a moral society fosters economic security for all its citizens. In Maine, the scope of this responsibility extends to our 259,000 rim county neighbors—especially the older and less-mobile ones—who must cope with adverse economic forces far beyond their control. The other reasons are grounded in enlightened self-interest. First, the Northern Forest and Downeast regions provide all Maine residents with recreational amenities, a diverse cultural heritage, and valuable ecosystem services. Sustaining their vitality is a public good. Second, although Maine has never pursued a coherent rural economic strategy, a ceaseless stream of state revenue has nonetheless flowed from the coastal counties to the rim counties (Colgan and Barringer 2007). It is plausible that greater rural prosperity could lighten tax burdens on downstate citizens. Finally, as noted earlier, the rim counties have untapped economic growth potential in sectors such as health care, renewable energy and experiential tourism.

Maine’s rural communities and regions are already investing creatively—I am inclined to say heroically— to enhance their own quality of place. To my mind, there is a strong case for greater state underwriting of the most promising grassroots initiatives, although we should have a realistic understanding about their limits.

The analysis in this article supports two policy ideas.

First, since it is not in our power to induce a major rim county migration, amenity investments should primarily target priorities articulated by the quarter million current residents for enhancing their quality of life. This will, coincidentally, strengthen their incentive to stay.

Second, although quality-of-place investments should not be considered a core rural development tool, they do complement traditional economic policy measures, such as transportation infrastructure, information technology services, R&D, employee training, and tax increment financing. The most direct economic payoff may be in attracting more experiential tourists.

This large and growing market segment comprises travelers who seek natural beauty, tranquility, and “soft” outdoor recreation opportunities, but also an attractive built environment, a lively culture, and quality dining and lodging. My current research supports the hypothesis that strategically clustered investments in charming village centers, cultural events, scenic byways, interpretive trails, and other amenity assets can significantly boost rural tourist numbers, tourism revenues and quality tourism jobs.

Amenity investments designed primarily to improve residents’ well-being and attract experiential tourists will, in their small way, also help lure the highly skilled people—information technology entrepreneurs, nurses, energy technicians, plant managers— needed to staff growing sectors such as health care, renewable energy, and next generation wood products.

However, this essay suggests that attracting such talent should not be viewed as the primary payoff to quality-of-place enhancements.

The near-term prospect for big injections of state and federal funds into quality-of-place investments—or rim county economic development more broadly—is not bright. Even so, I hope that all the creative ideas and grassroots initiatives of recent years will lead this year’s gubernatorial and legislative candidates to recognize the value of quality-of-place investments, both for rural community vitality and for their small instrumental contribution to rural economic development. -

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Please turn the page for references and author bio.

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 23

PROSPECTS FOR A RIM COUNTY POPULATION REBOUND

REFERENCES Barringer, Richard, Charles Colgan, Douglas DeNatale, Jennifer Hutchins, Deborah Smith and Gregory Wassall. 2005. The Creative Economy in Maine: Measurement and Analysis. The Southern Maine Review, special edition. University of Southern Maine, Portland.

Brookings Institution. 2006. Charting Maine’s Future: An Action Plan for Promoting Sustainable Prosperity and Quality Places. Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, Washington, DC. Cervone, Edmund. 2007. “Socioeconomic Indicators of Maine’s Regional Disparities.” Health Care and Tourism: A Lead Sector Strategy for Rural Maine, ed. David Vail and Lisa Pohlmann. Maine Center for Economic Policy, Augusta. pp. 41–52.

Colgan, Charles and Richard Barringer. 2007. “A History of Maine’s Rural Development Policy.”

Health Care and Tourism: A Lead Sector Strategy for Rural Maine, ed. David Vail and Lisa Pohlmann.

Maine Center for Economic Policy, Augusta. pp.

17–40.

Critical Insights. 2009. Minding Maine’s Business.

Critical Insights, Portland, ME. Deller, Steven, Sue Tsai, David Marcouiller and Donald English. 2001. “The Role of Amenities and Quality of Life in Rural Economic Growth.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83(2): 352–365.

Green, Gary, Steven Deller and David Marcouiller. 2005.

“Introduction.” Amenities and Rural Development: Theories, Methods and Public Policy, ed. Gary Green, Steven Deller and David Marcouiller.

Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Northampton, MA. pp. 1–5

Lawton, Charles. 2005. “Lessons from Southern Maine’s Economic Success.” Spreading Prosperity to the ‘Other Maines,’ ed. Lisa Pohlmann and David Vail. Maine Center for Economic Policy, Augusta. pp. 63–72.

Maine Department of Labor (MDOL). 2009. “Population Growth Slows as Migration Patterns Change.”

Labor Market Digest (January): 1, 8.

Marcouiller, David, Steven Deller and Gary Green.

2005. “Amenities and Rural Development: Policy Implications and Directions for the Future.”

Amenities and Rural Development: Theories, Methods and Public Policy, ed. Gary Green, Steven Deller and David Marcouiller. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Northampton, MA. pp. 329–336.

Power, Thomas. 2005. “Theory and Concepts in the Supply and Demand of Natural Amenities.”

Amenities and Rural Development: Theories, Methods and Public Policy, ed. Gary Green, Steven Deller and David Marcouiller. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Northampton, MA. pp. 63–77.

Reilly, Catherine and Henry Renski. 2007. Place and Prosperity. Maine State Planning Office, Augusta.

Reilly, Catherine and Henry Renski. 2008. “Place and Prosperity: Quality of Place as an Economic Driver.”

Maine Policy Review 17(1): 12–25.

U.S. Census. 2009. http://quickfacts.census.gov/gfd/ states [Accessed February 20, 2010] Vail, David and Lisa Pohlmann, eds. 2007. Health Care and Tourism: A Lead Sector Strategy for Rural Maine. Maine Center for Economic Policy, Augusta.

Hamilton, Lawrence C., Leslie R. Hamilton, Cynthia M. Duncan and Chris R. Colocousis. 2008. Place Matters: Challenges and Opportunities in Four Rural Americas. Carsey Institute Reports on Rural America, University of New Hampshire, Durham.

Johnson, Kenneth and John Cromartie. 2006. “The Rural Rebound and Its Aftermath: Changing Demographic Dynamics and Regional Contrasts.”

Population Change and Rural Society, ed. William Kandel and David Brown. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. pp. 25–50.

24 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

David Vail is Adams-Catlin Professor of Economics and former director of environmental studies at Bowdoin College. Since 2004, he has co-directed a Maine Center for Economic Policy project, Spreading Prosperity to All of Maine. In 2007–2008 he

was advisor to the Governor’s Council on Maine’s Quality of Place and currently serves on advisory committees for the New England Governors’ Commission on Land Conservation and the University of Maine System’s Center for Tourism Research and Outreach.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 25

MAINE’S PARADOXICAL POLITICS

Maine’s Paradoxical Politics

by Kenneth Palmer

Kenneth Palmer’s article, based on his 2009 University of Maine College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Maine Heritage Lecture, discusses the paradoxes of Maine’s politics that often draw national attention. He notes how these paradoxes have contributed to the state’s having a “creative and effective political system.” Maine politics are dynamic in nature, with parties loosely hung together, governors winning by pluralities rather than majorities, and significant turnover both in members and parties in legislative districts. Palmer suggests that Maine’s political leaders find themselves as centrists, pri-marily because they want to find practical solutions to difficult problems.

26 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010



View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

MAINE’S PARADOXICAL POLITICS

A

s Election Day 2009 neared some of us who teach American government were approached by persons in the national media asking us about various aspects of Maine politics. Their questions concerned national health care reform and the role of our two U.S. senators in that debate. On reflection, though, questions about Maine politics from people outside of Maine are really fairly common. The state presents a puzzle.

That is especially true for people who try to understand Maine from the perspective of regarding a state as a sort of microcosm of the national picture. That kind of thinking is not a good place to start in understanding Maine. Maine politics is, in fact, special and different.

Our state’s distinctiveness has been known for most of its history. In his work entitled Inside U.S.A., written in the 1940s, John Gunther wrote that Maine’s “chief distinction is…not size but character.” Among its particular qualities, Gunther identified one as “intrepidity”—a quality related to “the way people make their living by combat with the elements” (Gunther 1947: 485). Other special characteristics were “simplicity, financial integrity, humor,” and a strong sense of “state pride.” Gunther’s appraisal has been echoed in subsequent years and in many other sources. The current edition of The Almanac of American Politics, for instance, identifies Maine as “a state with a distinctive personality;” it uses adjectives such as “ornery, contrary minded and rough-hewn” to describe our citizens (Barone and Cohen 2009: 673).

Such broad-brush labeling—while colorful— doesn’t add much insight in understanding Maine’s politics. To go further, I believe we need to notice the state’s political culture and the demographic features that reinforce that culture. This article will try to sketch those patterns and look at the political process that flows from them. The paradoxes of our politics, the eccentricities that sometimes draw national attention, do fit together in some critical ways, and have helped to make Maine a creative and effective political system.

Maine’s political culture—by the term culture I mean the attitudes and expectations that citizens bring to government—has been called the moralistic or participatory culture. This comes from the work of Daniel Elazar (1984) whose path-breaking book American Federalism: A View from the States has shaped the thinking of many of us who study state

The paradoxes of politics. The moralistic culture our politics, the stresses the importance of community and the obligation eccentricities that of citizens to take part in its governance. Traditionally, much sometimes draw of New England has shared in the moralistic culture. Its oldest national attention… and perhaps best institutional expression is the New England fit together in some town meeting, an arrangement where the citizens come together critical ways, and to decide on their town’s goals and how to attain them. In the have helped to 1830s, Alexis DeTocqueville, in his classic study Democracy in make Maine a America, gave particular attention to the town meeting, which creative and effective he much admired. “It is in the township,” DeTocqueville wrote, political system. “that the desire for esteem and the taste for power are concentrated; these passions—so often troublesome elements in society—take on a different character when exercised so close to home. With much care and skill power has been broken into fragments in the township, so that the maximum possible number of people have some concern with public affairs” (DeTocqueville 2000: 35).

Maine’s devotion to this participatory culture has influenced our politics in several respects. For one thing, it has engendered a high level of citizen engagement. The state regularly ranks among the top tier of states in voter turnout in national elections, a habit that makes Maine an exception to many other high-turnout states, where voting behavior is linked to above-average levels of income and education in the population, characteristics less common in Maine. Another evidence of the participatory culture is the unusual strength and power of our state legislature. When Maine’s constitution-writers created certain executive offices such as treasurer and secretary of state, they assigned the legislature, not the governor, to name those officials. Later the attorney general would join the list. Maine is the only state with such an arrangement.

In his writings, Daniel Elazar (1984) argued the moralistic or participatory culture prevailed not only

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 27

MAINE’S PARADOXICAL POLITICS

in New England, but also across most of the northern part of the United States where New Englanders migrated. That view is relevant because Maine, while a New England state, bears some similarity to western states in the way it was settled. Ours was a frontier state in the early 19th century, a large area populated in rapid fashion, although the movement here was eastward from the south and west. From 1800 to 1860, the population increased fourfold, from about 150,000 to more than 600,000.

…state politics in Maine is unusually dynamic, with parties that are loosely hung together, with governors who win by pluralities, not majorities, with legislatures are marked by much turnover …newthat quote among members and significant turnover among the parties in individual districts.

That frontier quality seemed to intensify the communitarian culture. Maine’s Constitution of 1819 was even more democratic than the Massachusetts Constitution, under which we had been governed as a District. Property and religious requirements for voting, present in the Massachusetts charter, were mostly abolished in the Maine Constitution. Like some western states, Maine has long shown a willingness to modify government arrangements and processes, usually to make them more accountable to its citizens. Popular lawmaking, in the form of the initiative and the referendum, begun in South Dakota in 1898, and adopted in Maine in 1911, has been one such means. Maine has used the device more than 40 times since 1970. The 15 states that currently place limits on the terms of their state legislators, including Maine, have generally done so through a referendum. Maine adopted term limits early in the process, in 1993. Significantly, it is the only northeastern state presently to do so.

28 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

Our habit of molding governmental structure to citizen needs is also seen in the wide use of professionally trained town and city mangers for our localities. Most other states using the council/manager model employ it for towns of more than 10,000 people. Because Maine has relatively few such localities, our communities have modified the system such that a professional manager often works with a town meeting or a board of selectmen, not necessarily an elected council.

Another factor that strengthens the moralistic culture is the spread-out nature of our population, which is scattered among nearly 500 communities in the state. Maine’s six largest towns and cities account for only about 20 percent of the state’s population.

Research on state politics generally indicates that residents living in small towns show greater attention to the workings of state government than do residents of big cities. Urban residents sometimes find the affairs of the state government obscured by the activities of their city. A focus on the state government is important—it is a key element providing a shared sense of political involvement among communities, even when the distance between individual towns is large and travel often difficult.

How do these cultural characteristics affect our politics? The general answer is that they help keep politics dynamic and close to home. Candidates for public office must campaign diligently and thoroughly across the state, visiting as many towns as possible and meeting as many people individually as possible. That is as true for statewide candidates running for governor or national office as it is for candidates for local and state legislative offices. In his book This Splendid Game: Maine Campaigns and Elections, 1940–2002, Christian Potholm quotes an observer of Edmund Muskie’s 1954 gubernatorial campaign describing Muskie as a candidate who acted “as if he were running for selectman,” that is, carefully working his way through each town and each neighborhood (Potholm 2003: 51). That localism infuses our politics regularly, whatever the campaign season, the offices sought, or the issues of greatest concern in that election.

The stress on grassroots campaigning has contributed to Maine having a large number of independent voters, and undoubtedly, to our being the only state to

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

MAINE’S PARADOXICAL POLITICS

have elected two independent governors in the past 35 years. The link between campaign style and political independence is likely found in our candidate-oriented elections. The focus is on the personal qualifications, the capability of the candidate, less on the candidate’s party and party allegiances. Party loyalties still count in some districts, but their impact is generally less here than in most other states. The Maine Clean Elections Act of 1996, which enables legislative candidates to gain certain public financing, has contributed toward a loosening of ties between candidates and parties. However, an independent streak in Maine politics was evident long before that Act was approved. In fact, I would argue a strain of independence began in campaigns even when we were a solidly Republican stronghold.

In 1948 Margaret Chase Smith successfully challenged two opponents in the Republican primary for the nomination for U.S. Senator—one an incumbent governor and the other a former governor. She emphasized that as a sitting member of Congress, she had qualifications deeper than theirs. Although both her opponents had won statewide elections, neither had served in Congress. In contrast, she had represented Maine’s 2nd congressional district for eight years. In 1954, Neil Bishop, a veteran Republican politician, headed a group called Republicans for Muskie, and contributed to Muskie’s election to the governorship in that year, which is often cited as the beginning of a two-party system in Maine. Muskie undoubtedly helped to place the Democratic Party in a competitive posture with Republicans. Eight years after he left office, Maine elected another Democrat, Kenneth Curtis, to the governorship. Curtis served two terms from 1967 to 1975. Four years later, Maine again elected a Democrat, Joseph Brennan, to the governorship, who also served for two terms, from 1979 to 1987.

Still, it is worth noticing that the emergence of independent candidates in gubernatorial races began at about the same time Democrats began seriously contesting statewide elections. The effect of the presence of independents has been to make it difficult for either party to marshal an electoral majority behind its gubernatorial candidate. In the 10 elections we have held since 1970, the winning candidate for governor obtained a majority of the vote on only three occasions.

In just two instances was the winner a candidate running on a party label. Curtis won with just over 50 percent in 1970. The other two majority elections were landslides for incumbent governors running for re-election: Brennan in 1982 and Independent Angus King in 1998. In the other seven contests, at least three serious candidates competed in the race, and the winner obtained less than 50 percent of the vote. Looking toward 2010, about 20 candidates have so far entered the field to succeed Governor Baldacci, making it very likely the record of plurality winners will continue.

What about the legislature? Interestingly, the legislature has had relatively few independents or minor party candidates, in contrast to the influence independents have had in gubernatorial races. In the 2008 elections, eight independent candidates competed for office, and one was elected.

In a broader sense, though, the fluid, fragmented voting that marks contests for governor seems also present in legislative races. Those elections are highly contested, rather remarkably so. In 2008 every senatorial district had at last two candidates. In the Maine House, 136 seats, amounting to 90 percent of the chamber, were contested. (This is a slightly higher rate of competition than is true nationally for U.S. House districts.) Moreover, many of those campaigns are hard fought. In 40 percent of the races for seats in the state senate in 2008, the winner obtained no more than about 55 percent of the vote. All this takes place even though term limits restrict legislators to four consecutive terms in one chamber. But Maine voters are not willing to wait until the incumbent legislator is termed out. Choices are offered in each election in nearly all districts. Additionally, party turnover in legislative districts is fairly common. In the two election cycles following the 2004 election, about one-third of the House districts switched parties, that is, they elected a member of the other party in 2006 or 2008.

The upshot is that state politics in Maine is unusually dynamic, with parties that are loosely hung together, with governors who win by pluralities, not majorities, with legislatures that are marked by much turnover among members and significant turnover among the parties in individual districts. All of this facilitates a certain degree of bipartisanship, of coalition-building on major legislation. Party lines are surely

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 29

MAINE’S PARADOXICAL POLITICS

visible in Augusta. Since 1991, however, when a partisan gridlock in that year caused the state government to grind to a halt for three weeks—leaving Maine without a state budget and fueling a successful drive for legislative term limits—we have generally been able to work around party divisions.

If we step back in time, this pattern seems somewhat to resemble the way parties in the U.S. Congress operated about 50 years ago. At that time, each of the two congressional parties was really a mosaic of 50 state parties. Each state party had its own policy preferences and political styles, and the members of Congress from each state reflected those nuances. Cross-party coalitions in the U.S. Congress were fairly common. Indeed they were often essential for the enactment of major bills. Such national measures as civil rights bills in the 1950s and 1960s, and revenue sharing and the first environmental measures in the 1970s, were products of congressional coalitions, not party-line votes.

What has happened since that time is that the two parties have shifted from being primarily statebased organizations—which they were for most of our history—to ones much more centralized in Washington. We now have national parties. National party committees and congressional campaign committees play pivotal roles in fundraising for congressional races; national interest groups occupy a more critical place in congressional campaigns. Most important, in many states once powerful local parties have eroded, and have little independent impact on congressional elections. All this has led the parties in Congress to have greater unity—and to be more polarized along ideological lines—than in the past.

Maine has experienced less of that trend. Our parties largely remain tied closely to Maine’s political culture, with its emphasis on the personal qualifications of candidates and general resistance to outside pressures and money in the conduct of state campaigns. The state seems to stand out because—while the national policymaking process has changed markedly from a half century ago—Maine politics has largely retained its basic characteristics.

So how does this special political process of ours play out in Washington? The state’s greatest impact is, of course, found in the Congress. In some respects, our congressional delegation does not at all reflect the 30 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

changeable and unpredictable politics just described.

First of all, the Maine delegation is composed, as in the past, of politicians who run and win on political party labels. Independent candidates play at most a minor role in congressional campaigns. Second, Maine members of Congress tend to serve for long periods of time. The state has not defeated an incumbent U.S. senator since 1978 and has defeated only two House members running for reelection in the past 35 years: in 1974 and 1996. It is almost as if Mainers say that while we can afford to be unpredictable and even chaotic in campaigns for choosing state officials—when it comes to Washington we need politically to dress a little more formally, to emphasize the importance of experience in working on the national stage. It is common for observers to categorize Maine, in ideological terms, as politically moderate. It is true that we usually operate in the middle of the political spectrum. However, a better description may be that our political leaders are non-ideological. They find themselves in the center, not out of a desire to seek political balance, but primarily from a concern with finding practical solutions to difficult problems. That is true throughout our system, I would argue, whether we are speaking of local officials, state legislators, or United States senators.

Turning to the executive branch, we confront the curious problem of Maine’s ability or—perhaps more accurately said—inability to be an accurate predictor of presidential elections. Maine won a reputation for being a reliable state in that regard early in our national history, specifically, in the election of 1840. The state voted in September in those years, and in that year Maine supported the Whig ticket in the state election, defying the general expectation that 1840 would be a Democratic year. In November, Whig candidate William Henry Harrison won the presidency and Maine’s reputation was established, or seemed so (Robinson 1932). Consistently Republican after the Civil War, Maine’s voting habits usually corresponded with those of the nation until the beginning of the New Deal, when our record headed downhill. After rejecting Franklin Roosevelt in four presidential elections, we managed in most subsequent close elections to wind up on the losing side—favoring Tom Dewey in 1948, Richard Nixon in 1960, Hubert Humphrey in 1968, Jerry Ford in 1976, Al Gore in

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

MAINE’S PARADOXICAL POLITICS

2000 and John Kerry in 2004—the only state with such a low batting average. We should have stopped with William Henry Harrison.

Despite that record, and our limited experience in offering presidential candidates, presidents have looked to Maine for help in their administrations. That is especially true when they have sought individuals who can work on a bipartisan basis. Examples are former Senator Bill Cohen’s service as Secretary of Defense in the Clinton administration, former Senator George Mitchell’s current appointment as Middle East envoy and former governors John Reed and Kenneth Curtis as U.S. ambassadors to Canada and Sri Lanka, respectively.

In looking at Maine politics in Washington we need also to consider the relationship between the Maine Supreme Judicial Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. For many years the nation’s highest court did not hand down a full opinion concerning any case that had gone through our courts. Since 1980, however, the high court has settled nine cases from the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. Three concerned civil liberty issues that involved the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights. The others dealt with the interpretation of federal laws affecting activities in Maine. Among the cases that tested the meaning of federal rules were Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne (7107 U.S. 2211 [1987]), which involved the federal Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and Alden v.

Maine (8119 U.S. 2240 [1999]), which asked whether the 11th Amendment to the Constitution prohibited state employees from using a state court to sue the state government over the application of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 concerning employee wages. Both cases were extremely controversial. The U.S. Supreme Court—in a vote of five to four— affirmed, in each case, the decision of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

There is impressive evidence that Maine’s top court may be evolving as a leader among state supreme courts. Most of the nine cases successfully appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court did not involve specifically Maine issues. Because they concerned the interpretation of federal laws or federal constitutional provisions, they could have come from any state. A large portion of the cases the U.S. Supreme Court reviews from state courts involves some form of state resistance to

federal law or policy. Accordingly, the high Court reverses the outcome in about two-thirds of the state court decisions it considers. That appears not to be happening in Maine. In the nine cases reviewed since 1980, Maine was upheld in five of them. Those cases generally concerned national issues, not state questions. Maine happened to be the locale where the issues were joined. When the U.S Supreme Court affirmed the state’s rulings, the effect was to translate the conclusions of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court into national policy.

[Maine’s political leaders] find themselves in the center, not out of a desire to seek political balance, but primarily from a concern with finding practical solutions to difficult problems.

Finally, I would like to look at how our political culture and politics shape the making of policy in our state and local governments. At the outset, a word needs to be said about the federal system. I refer especially to the changes that have taken place in federal-state relations in the past few decades. Until about the mid-1970s, federal-state relations were often described with the phrase “cooperative federalism.” The federal government provided grants-in-aid to the states, enabling them carry out a broad array of policies. A good example was highway building. The state worked under national guidelines, but had some discretion in deciding on specific activities. The two political parties differed over the amount of control the federal government should have over the states. In presidential campaigns, intense debates took place over “the proper role of the federal government.” Democrats generally favored expansive national power. In contrast, Republicans urged that certain programs be lodged with the states with minimal federal interference.

Those debates no longer occur. In 2008, for instance, there was almost no discussion of federalism

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 31

MAINE’S PARADOXICAL POLITICS

issues. The main reason is that both parties now largely agree on the federal government’s place in setting the national policy agenda. A leading illustration was the administration of George Bush. A conservative Republican, President Bush pressed for a national social and economic agenda that paid little attention to the states. That posture differed sharply from the one embraced by Republican presidents Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s and Richard Nixon in the early 1970s.

One of the most important defenders of the states in those years was the business community, which preferred state regulation over national regulation.

Currently, however, big business tends to side with the federal government, not the states, in the writing of regulations. Its allies in the Republican Party do so also.

The same forces that have led to stronger national parties have also tilted the balance of federalism toward the national government in designing public policy.1

We have been a policy innovator.… …new quote when major shifts in policy were needed, the state has come together to carve out a new direc­tion.

In place of cooperative federalism, the present arrangement is sometimes styled “coercive federalism.”

Its main components are federal mandates and federal statutes that affect most areas in which the states work.

Language equipping the federal government to enter into the activities of state government is found in most national domestic policies. For instance, in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the stimulus bill), there is a provision stipulating that if a governor refuses to accept stimulus funds, the state legislature may do so anyway, despite the governor’s preference. In doing so, the Act overrides, in some states, established norms and constitutional rules.

How do the states operate with the federal government looking on so closely at what they are doing? A frequent practice is for state officials to seek adjustments, waivers, and exceptions from federal laws.

32 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

Our present intergovernmental structure impels ongoing negotiations between state and federal officials. In that work, a state’s members of Congress often serve as intermediaries. One example involves truck weights on Maine’s interstate highway system. Years ago, Maine and all other states could on their own set the maximum weight of truck cargoes passing through their jurisdictions. In the 1990s, however, Congress entered that field. It established a national standard of 80,000 pounds as the maximum allowable weight on interstate highways supported by the federal gas tax.

It enforced its rule by using a device called crossover sanctions. Congress said states not in compliance would lose a portion of their share of the federal gas tax. However, if the weight limit hurts a particular state’s economy, its congressional delegation may try to insert an exception into the legislation Congress periodically enacts to transfer money to states from the federal highway trust fund. When truck limits were first enacted, trucks passing into Maine were allowed to carry as much as 100,000 pounds on the turnpike from Kittery to Augusta. However, the exception applied to that stretch of road only. After many years of effort, our congressional delegation was able to extend the exception to the other 300 miles of Maine roads that are part of the interstate highway system under a one-year pilot program Congress enacted in December 2009.

The federal government’s intrusion into state affairs in no way diminishes the states as the workhorses of U.S. domestic policy. Most domestic policies are implemented through state bureaucracies. The federal presence would be more overwhelming without the participation of the states, which currently raise and spend more than half a trillion dollars on their own.

Compared to the federal government, all states share, in varying degrees, one important advantage: they govern smaller populations, and those populations are generally more homogeneous than the nation as a whole. The federal government’s policy gridlock on key issues is in part a consequence of its much greater complexity and the multiplicity of decision-making points. In contrast, the states can sometimes move rather swiftly and coherently in addressing public problems. It was to this quality that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis referred when he stated in New

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

MAINE’S PARADOXICAL POLITICS

State Ice Co. v. Liebmann (52 U.S. 271 [1932]): “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”

Maine’s civic engagement has followed Justice Brandeis’s hope. We have been a policy innovator.

Importantly, when major shifts in policy were needed, the state has come together to carve out a new direction. In 1957 the state enacted the Sinclair Act, which revolutionized Maine’s schools. Consolidating what had been hundreds of small school districts, the Act created school administrative districts large enough to ensure that students desiring to go to college would have curricula broad enough to provide sufficient courses toward that goal. Many of our environmental statutes date to a rather compressed time period, the years from 1969 to 1971. The pulp and paper industry—a huge conservative force in state politics—recognized that broad support existed for change in environmental regulation and did not seriously contest the measures.

In 1969, faced with the need for new revenues for the surging number of students entering Maine’s higher education system, the legislature enacted a state income tax with bipartisan support. Earlier in this decade, Governor Baldacci set the state on a new course to provide health care for our citizens and won support for that program in the first year of his administration.

In addition to generating widespread support, those shifts reveal two other important characteristics about Maine’s public policy. One is comprehensiveness.

We generally try to bring as many citizens as possible under the tent of a particular program or policy. In designing new programs, we urgently seek to ensure that policies do not have a “silo” effect of including some people and excluding others. New programs— whether ones dealing with economic development, the environment, social services, or other issues—endeavor to reach into every nook and cranny of the state. We do not like to trade in one program so that another can go forward. A leading example is seen in environmental policies. Mainers consistently reject the notion that jobs can or should be created at the expense of protecting the state’s natural environment.

A second characteristic of our policymaking is the rapid growth in the professionalization of our

government workforce. Recall that the moralistic or participatory political culture stresses citizen involvement in government. Citizens not only participate in electing officials; they often have served as the officials, especially in local governments. But the demands of more complex policies require technical expertise, that is, people trained specifically for certain posts and paid accordingly. In recent years, the increase in professional employees has been especially apparent among Maine’s local governments. That is in large part the case because we have so many local governments. The number of full-time salaried employees in our municipalities per 10,000 population has more than doubled since 1960.

Maine has been one of the fastest growing states in the country in adding such workers, as positions once held by citizen volunteers and part-time employees now become full-time, paid professional posts.

These last two features of Maine’s policymaking activities—comprehensiveness in approach and a growing political class—have an important quality in common: they both cost a lot of money. Our state’s expanded governmental sector is illustrated in a statistic concerning the state’s gross domestic product (GDP), the value of all products and services in the state. The portion that Maine’s governmental expenditures constitutes of its GDP moved from about eight percent in 1960 to about 13 percent in 2000. The rise has helped fuel in the last few years the numerous referendum issues that have addressed, in particular, local government finances and local governmental structure.

We may end by asking: How well will Maine resolve the tensions inherent in its policy style and in its governing arrangements? Can it reach solutions without damaging its special and admired political culture? We do not know the answers to these puzzles. Two factors, however, give us some confidence about the future.

One is our practical, moderate-oriented political style, one that insists that finding acceptable solutions to problems should trump adherence to ideology. The second advantage is that we are willing to experiment, to improvise, to innovate, and to find particular—even unusual—solutions to public problems that no one else may have thought of, but which seem to work for our citizens. That, indeed, is Maine’s tradition. I believe it will continue to be our strength. -

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Please turn the page for references and author bio.

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 33

MAINE’S PARADOXICAL POLITICS

Kenneth Palmer, emeritus professor of political

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This article is an edited version of the University of Maine College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Maine Heritage Lecture delivered November 5, 2009.

science, taught at the University of Maine from 1969 to 2004. He is the author of several books and more than 30 articles

ENDNOTE 1. An excellent discussion of these trends is Conlan, Timothy J. and Paul L. Posner, eds. 2008.

Intergovernmental Management for the 21st Century. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.

on American politics and Maine politics. His publications have appeared in the Maine Historical Society Quarterly, the Maine Bar Journal, the National Civic Review, and Publius: The Journal of Federalism. He is

coauthor of Maine Politics and Government, 2d edition

REFERENCES Barone, Michael and Richard E. Cohen. 2009. The Almanac of American Politics: 2010. National Journal Group, Washington, DC.

(University of Nebraska Press, 2009).

DeTocqueville, Alexis. 2000. Democracy in America, trans. and ed. Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Elazar, Daniel J. 1984. American Federalism: A View from the States. Harper and Row, New York.

Gunther, John. 1947. Inside U.S.A. Harper Brothers, New York.

Potholm, Christian P. 2003. This Splendid Game: Maine Campaigns and Elections, 1940–2002. Lexington Books, Lanham, MD. Robinson, Claude E. 1932. “Maine—Political Barometer.” Political Science Quarterly 47: (June): 161–184.

34 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 35

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF CHILDREN’S HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN MAINE

Economic Assessment of Children’s Health and the Environment in Maine

by Mary E. Davis

Reducing children’s exposure to environmental toxins is important for both moral and economic reasons.

Mary Davis discusses the economic impact of environmentally related childhood illnesses in Maine, focusing on disease categories with fairly strong evidence connecting environmental pollution to childhood diseases: lead poisoning, asthma, neuro-behavioral disorders, and cancer. Lead poisoning and neurobehavioral conditions are the most expensive because they lead to chronic diseases that are largely incurable and not easily treated. She concludes that state funding for initiatives aimed at reducing childhood exposure to environmental pollutants “would be money well spent.”

36 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010



View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF CHILDREN’S HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN MAINE

…the severity of INTRODUCTION

C

hildren in Maine today are growing up in an environmental landscape that is significantly altered from that of either their parents or grandparents. More than 80,000 synthetic chemical compounds have been created over the past 50 years in the U.S. alone, and information on the health effects of the vast majority of these chemicals is scarce to nonexistent, especially with respect to their impact on children. The proliferation of environmental toxics has been accompanied by an equally striking change in the pattern of childhood illnesses, termed the “new pediatric morbidity,” which has emerged in U.S. children and across the developed world (Landrigan et al. 2002). These changes represent a shift from infectious diseases and genetic abnormalities to illnesses related to an environmental cause or stressor. Childhood diseases are now more often the result of a combination of factors, including both environmental triggers and genetic susceptibility. Maine children appear to be no exception to this alarming health trend, and actually suffer disproportionately from many preventable diseases when compared to children from other parts of the country (Davis 2009).

Reducing childhood exposure to environmental contaminants is important for a number of reasons.

Certainly, there is a moral imperative to protect our most vulnerable citizens, and children are typically unable to make informed decisions on their own to limit exposure to toxic chemicals. Equally important is the fact that children are also more susceptible than adults to environmental pollutants due to their developing organ systems and small size, along with their unique activity patterns (crawling and hand to mouth contact) and exposure pathways (breast milk and placenta). In response to this emerging health threat, Maine passed the Toxic Chemicals in Children’s Products Law in 2008 (38 MRSA Ch. 16-D) to identify and regulate some of the worst toxic chemicals that threaten Maine children. The “Kids Safe Product Law,” as it is also known, built upon previous legislative efforts that established limits on lead content in children’s products (PL 2007 Ch. 604). The 2008 legislation is modest in its scope, given lack of resources, and is limited to products to which children are exposed.

Although there is certainly a larger moral question

involved in protecting our chilthe negative health dren, it is also important to evaluate the economic benefit of impact from enviimproving health outcomes.

These cost savings are directly ronmental exporelevant to the state’s investment in the process that the Maine sures is still largely legislature has set into motion.

This article seeks to outline unknown and our the potential economic impact of environmentally related childunderstanding hood illnesses in the Maine by focusing on several disease cateof this topic is gories where the scientific evidence connecting environconstantly evolving. mental pollution to childhood diseases is relatively strong.

Therefore, the These numbers represent the potential cost savings if environcurrent economic mental exposures were eliminated in Maine children, which cost analysis is is admittedly unlikely to occur even under the strongest legal more likely to protection framework. However, the severity of the negative underestimate the health impact from environmental exposures is still largely true impact…. unknown and our understand-ing of this topic is constantly evolving. Therefore, the current economic cost analysis is more likely to underestimate the true impact and should be updated as the scientific evidence becomes clearer.

ECONOMIC COST OF POLLUTION

T

he economic cost estimates outlined here are derived using the approach outlined in Landrigan et al. (2002) and Davis (2007 and 2009). [For a detailed description of the cost approach and data see these earlier papers.] Briefly, the disease rate and size of the population at risk are combined to provide an estimate of the total number of children suffering from a given disease regardless of the source, which is in turn multiplied by the percentage of those cases that are likely

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 37

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF CHILDREN’S HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN MAINE

Table 1:

Elevated Blood Lead Levels (EBLLs) and Pre-1950 Housing Units by County

County

Number Screened*

Number EBLL*

Percentage EBLL*

Androscoggin

6,674

149

2.2

Aroostook

Percentage Pre-1950 Housing Units** 41.6

3,916

10

0.3

39.4

12,888

173

1.3

36.9

Franklin

1,828

22

1.2

32.1

Hancock

2,329

28

1.2

35.4

Kennebec

6,338

64

1.0

35.3

Knox

1,549

41

2.6

44.0

Lincoln

1,088

10

0.9

38.1

Oxford

4,098

45

1.1

36.8

Penobscot

8,195

95

1.2

34.6

Piscataquis

968

20

2.1

35.2

Sagadahoc

1,976

25

1.3

36.5

Cumberland

Somerset

3,915

44

1.1

34.2

Waldo

1,699

18

1.1

32.1

26

1.1

38.0

…new quote Washington 2,408 York State Average

9,616

139

1.4

29.8

69,715

913

1.3

35.8

*EBLLs based on data obtained from ME Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program for children < 72 months of age (data collected between 2003 and 2007). **Source: CDC 2008

attributable to environmental causes. This number is then multiplied by the cost per case (in 2008 dollars) to provide an overall estimate of the economic burden of childhood diseases attributable to environmental causes in the state. These cost estimates are limited to four broad disease categories, including lead poisoning, asthma, cancer, and neurobehavioral conditions. The last category is further broken down into subcategories for mental retardation, autism, ADD/ADHD, and cerebral palsy. Maine-specific data relevant to the health risks, economic impact, and environmental exposures were used wherever possible, while national data were substituted when Maine-specific information was unavailable.

38 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

Lead Poisoning Lead exposure in children can lead to significant health consequences, including brain and kidney damage, anemia, and death at very high levels of exposure (National Research Council 1993). In response to these negative health effects, much has been done over the past few decades to reduce lead exposure in children and consequently blood lead levels have declined significantly over this time period, including in Maine.

Despite the reductions in lead exposure among children, however, subtle neurological and cognitive impairments remain at the comparatively low exposure levels observed today.

Children living in old homes are especially susceptible to lead exposure through residual lead paint (air and dust) and contaminated water (lead pipes) and soil. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (data provided in Table 1), 35.8 percent of Maine houses were built prior to 1950 at a time when lead paint and piping was commonly used, compared with the national average of 22.3 percent. Also, a recent study of the Portland peninsula provided evidence of urban soil contamination from historical industrial activities along with residual lead from gasoline and paint sources. The study reported that nearly 100 percent of the properties sampled in the area had lead concentrations in excess of the EPA recommended public health levels (Wagner and Langley-Turnbaugh 2008).

The Maine Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program provided data on the percentage of children tested in the state with elevated blood lead levels (see Table 1). Although the technical definition of elevated blood lead levels (EBLLs) in children establishes a benchmark of 10 µg/dL, substantial evidence has accrued to suggest that the negative health effects can be seen at even lower levels and that there is no safe amount of lead exposure in children.1 These small and often difficult-to-detect changes in cognitive function related to low-level lead exposure have been shown to affect school performance, educational attainment, IQ scores, and ultimately the lifetime job prospects and earning potential of exposed children. In particular, the association between lead exposure and IQ and earnings is well established in the scientific literature (Landrigan et al. 2002).

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF CHILDREN’S HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN MAINE

Figure 1: Asthma Prevalence by Region of the State

Following this reasoning, the cost estimates for childhood lead poisoning in Maine are con-ceptualized as a decrease in the expected earnings due to IQ loss. These costs will accrue over a lifetime and will materialize in forgone wages associated with lower mental abilities. Therefore, these estimates are indicative of lost potential in the current birth cohort and exclude the additional cost of actual direct or indirect expenditures for disease treatment and abatement. At current levels of lead exposure, each new cohort of babies born in Maine annually will suffer on average a one-point loss in IQ score and as a result can expect to earn as an aggregate $270 million less over their lifetimes.

Aroostook

Piscataquis

Western

Asthma Asthma is the most prevalent illness in children and the most common cause of childhood hospitalizations (Landrigan et al. 2002).

The national rate of asthma among children doubled between the years of 1980 and 1995 (from 3.6 percent to 7.5 percent) and is cur-rently estimated to be 8.7 percent.

West Exposure to outdoor and indoor air pollutants,Central including household chemical products and pesticides, has been associated with the both the onset and severity of asthma in children (U.S. IOM 2000). There is also growing evidence to suggest that chronic exposure to air pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter are causally related to decreased lung function and the development of asthma in children.

Overall, the available science suggests that approximately 30 percent of all asthma cases can be attributed in some way to the environment (Landrigan et al. 2002).

The prevalence of asthma in Maine children has been increasing in recent years and is currently estimated at 11.2 percent (Tippy 2005).

Maine has one of the highest asthma rates in the nation and ranks fifth for adults currently diagnosed with asthma. The asthma rate varies across regions of the state (see Figure 1), with estimates ranging from 9.1 percent in coastal areas to 14.4 percent in east

North Eastern

Somerset

Penobscot

Washington

Franklin

Hancock Oxford

Waldo Kennebec

Androscoggin

Lincoln

Knox

Sagadahoc

East Central

Cumberland

Coastal

14.4% 12.8%

York

9.1%–9.9%

Southern

State Average = 11.2% U.S. Average = 8.5%

Source: Tippy 2005

central Maine. The prevalence of asthma is higher in the MaineCare population (15.1 percent compared to 9.5 percent for privately insured children). The cost of caring for children with asthma in Maine was derived from a recent study that incorporated both the direct

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 39

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF CHILDREN’S HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN MAINE

health care costs (e.g., emergency room visits, medications, etc.) along with the indirect cost of care, such as parental time missed from work (Davis 2007). Out of the more than 30,000 children with asthma in Maine, approximately 9,000 of these cases can be linked to environmental causes. The total cost of these environmentally attributable asthma cases is $8.8 million every year.

Neurobehavioral Disorders

…new

Neurobehavioral disorders affect between three percent and eight percent of infants born in the U.S. each year, and 28 percent of these conditions can be linked either directly or indirectly to environmental factors (U.S. National Research Council 2000). Of the approximately 80,000 chemicals registered for commercial use with the EPA, more than 200 have been shown to have neurotoxic effects in adults, and a handful of others (lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], arsenic, and toluene) have been clinically proven to cause neurodevelopmental disorders in chilquote dren. The developing brain is highly susceptible to environmental exposures, much more so than fully formed adult brains. The neurological development process that begins in utero continues after birth, and if any stage of development is impeded during this process, the effects are often permanent. The placenta is not an effective shield against most neurotoxins, and the blood-brain barrier that protects adults is not fully formed until about six months of age.

Over last 10 years, the number of Maine children receiving special education services related to neurological impairment has been increasing, and nearly one in five public school students now receives special education services from the state (Maine DOE 2008a). The total cost to provide those services has been growing at 6.7 percent per year, and was estimated to be nearly $300 million in 2006 (Maine DOE 2008b). Although overall student enrollment has declined, the share of special education students has increased from 12.7 percent in 1986 to 17.7 percent in 2007 (Maine DOE 2008a). Growth in the number of special education students categorized as autistic is especially alarming, increasing 58.6 percent over the last three years of available data (2004–2007) (Maine DOE 2008c).

40 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

Table 2:

Developmental Disability as a

Percentage of Total Enrollment (2006) Disability Category

Percentage of Total Number Total Enrollment of Students (n = 194,232)

Mental Retardation

798

0.4

Speech and Language Impairment

8,612

4.4

Emotional Disability

2,943

1.5

Other Health Impairment

5,528

2.9

10,053

5.2

3,082

1.6

888

0.5

1,990

1.0

33,894

17.5

Specific Learning Disability Multiple Disabilities Developmentally Delayed Autism Total Source: Maine DOE 2008c

Table 2 provides a list of special education enrollment in the relevant disability categories.

Although recent evidence suggests that up to 28 percent of neurobehavioral conditions are attributable to the environment, or non-genetic factors, this paper uses 10 percent as a conservative downward adjustment to exclude potential double counting with lead poisoning cases (which also cause neurological impairment) and those related to substance abuse such as fetal alcohol syndrome. The current estimate also controls for double counting across the four neurological disease categories.

Neurological disorders that result from environmental exposures represent lifelong challenges for affected children, and future cleanup will not improve the health of children already suffering from a condition. For this reason, the estimates are derived for each birth cohort, i.e., the numbers represent the expected

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF CHILDREN’S HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN MAINE

impact at current exposure levels on the group of children born in Maine each year. The cost of caring for children with neurobehavioral conditions in Maine was derived from a recent study that estimated health care costs associated with each of the four disease categories—mental retardation, cerebral palsy, ADD/ADHD, and autism—and included the costs of special education services (Davis 2009). Based on the available information, the economic costs associated with environmentally attributable cases of these four neurobehavioral conditions in Maine total more than $100 million annually. This estimate includes the ballooning cost of special education expenditures in the state, along with the costs related to lifetime treatment and care for attributable cases. Using the less conservative attributable fraction of 28 percent reported by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS 2000b), this cost increases to $325 million per year.

Certainly, the true cost estimate is likely to lie somewhere between these two extremes.

Cancer Cancer-related deaths in children have been declining over the last 20 years due to medical advances in treatment options. However, the same time period has witnessed a troubling increase in the incidence of childhood cancers, i.e., the number of new cancer cases each year (Landrigan et al. 2002). There is a great deal of uncertainty on the underlying causes of childhood cancer. While the available evidence suggests that no more than 10 percent to 20 percent can be attributed solely to genetic factors, leaving the remaining 80 percent to 90 percent potentially linked to environmental causes, only a small number of toxic chemicals have been adequately researched and definitively linked to childhood cancers. For this reason, the cost calculations used here assume that only five percent of the childhood cancers are related to environmental causes. However, there is growing evidence to suggest that this estimate is overly optimistic, and that a large increased risk of cancer exists especially for leukemia and brain cancers in children with high pesticide and industrial exposures (Schuler et al. 2006).

Based on unpublished data from 1995 to 2004 made available by the Maine Cancer Registry, there are

approximately 62 new cases of childhood cancers each year in the state in the under 20 population, with an average of 12 cancer deaths expected annually. More than half of the childhood cancers in Maine can be attributed to leukemia, lymphoma, and cancers of the central nervous system, which correspond to the most frequently occurring childhood cancers nationally. The incidence of childhood cancers in Maine over the 10-year period observed was reportedly 186 per million children, which is higher than the national rate of 164 per million. This translates into an additional six childhood cancers in the state each year when compared with the national average. The elevated incidence of cancer among children is not surprising given that Maine also has the highest incidence of adult cancer in the nation (526.1 per million compared to 458.2 per million nationally).

At the average cost of cancer treatment of $840,500 and based on the conservative assumption that five percent of all cases will be related to environmental exposures, three children in the state each year are diagnosed with preventable cancer at an annual cost of more than $2.5 million. Under the less conservative assumption that 80 percent to 90 percent of childhood cancers are caused by environmental factors, 44 children are diagnosed with environmentally related cancers each year at an annual cost of nearly $40 million. Certainly, the true cost estimate is likely to lie somewhere between these two extremes.

Table 3:

Total Annual Cost of Environmentally Attributable Childhood Diseases in Maine (in 2008 dollars)

Childhood Disease Category Lead Poisoning Asthma Neurobehavioral Cancer Total

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Low-Range Estimate

High-Range Estimate

$270.0 million

$270 million

$9.0 million

$9 million

$100.0 million

$325 million

$2.5 million

$40 million

$381.5 million

$644 million

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 41

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF CHILDREN’S HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN MAINE

POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

T

he aggregate annual cost of environmentally attributable illnesses in Maine children for lead poisoning, asthma, neurobehavioral conditions, and cancer under the most conservative assumption is estimated to be around $380 million per year (see Table 3, page 41). Under less conservative assumptions, but still validated by the existing health literature, the estimates go as high as $644 million. This suggests a per child cost in Maine of between $1,350 and $2,300 per year.

These cost estimates represent both direct health care expenditures and indirect costs related to parental time off work or the reduced lifetime earning potential of exposed children. For this reason, some of the cost will occur immediately while some would be expected to accrue over the lifetime of the affected child.

…state funding for health care …new quote prevention and protection initiatives such as those aimed at reducing childhood exposure to environ­mental pollutants would be money well spent.

Maine children appear to suffer disproportionately from environmentally related illnesses such as cancer and asthma, although childhood exposure to environmental chemicals is not a problem unique to Maine.

Other states concerned with this issue have estimated costs using this same approach and have found similar results. The comparable per child cost (in 2008 dollars) was $1,246 in Minnesota (Schuler et al. 2006), $1,015 in Massachusetts (Massey and Ackerman 2003), and $1,317 in Washington State (Davies 2005). On the national level, the Obama adminstration recently recognized the importance of this issue by soliciting Congress to draft tougher chemical regulations that shift the burden of proof regarding the safety of new chemicals to the manufacturers by requiring them to provide health risk-related information to the EPA. 42 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

It is interesting to note the relative distribution of costs across the disease categories. Lead poisoning and neurobehavioral conditions make up the lion’s share of the total cost estimates. These categories are elevated in part due to the higher costs associated with chronic care, but also because they involve largely incurable diseases that are not easily treated with medication. The numbers for lead poisoniong are further compounded by the fact that all lead exposure in children can be attributed to environmental causes (100 percent). Maine has made great strides in reducing childhood lead exposure by establishing the Lead Poisoning Prevention Fund, resulting in a significant decline in blood lead levels in Maine children over time. Maine spends approximately $2 million per year on lead primary prevention programs, and the evidence presented in this paper suggests that this money is well spent.

Since these cost estimates are limited to a small subset of childhood illnesses, the full impact of environmental exposures in Maine children is likely to be much larger. For example, a recent Newsweek (Begley 2009) article reviewed the mounting evidence linking chemical exposure with obesity, a relationship that appears to be especially strong in developing fetuses and children. The scientific evidence is also growing that links endocrine disrupting chemicals in our environment with congenital abnormalities, lower sperm counts, and gender identity disorder. Based on the lack of sufficient data and research on the cumulative and synergistic effects of multiple contaminant exposures, the cost assessment presented here is most likely a conservative one and may understate the true risk to our children. Finally, within the included disease categories such as cancer, there are important and unaccounted for costs such as adult cancers that are related to childhood exposures. Many cancers have a long latency period so would not be expected to materialize until much later in life.

Recent work has been done in the state to address the growing concern about chemicals in consumer products (Governor’s Task Force 2007), suggesting that a more comprehensive chemicals policy that promotes transparency and consumer education is necessary. This paper points to a clear economic benefit of reducing childhood exposure to environmental pollutants in the state. Since nearly half of all children participate in

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF CHILDREN’S HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN MAINE

MaineCare and the number of students receiving publicly funded special education services is approaching 20 percent, much of the cost of these illnesses is already borne directly by the state (and indirectly by taxpayers).

Finally, it is important to emphasize that all of the economic costs outlined in this report represent preventable childhood illnesses and as such could be fully avoided if environmental exposures in children were eliminated. Beyond the economic impact, the unique susceptibility of children to environmental pollutants and their inability to make informed decisions to limit their risks makes the issue of reducing childhood exposures a moral imperative. Based on these results, it is clear that state funding for health care prevention and protection initiatives such as those aimed at reducing childhood exposure to environmental pollutants would be money well spent. -

Davies, Kate. 2005. Economic Costs of Diseases and Disabilities Attributable to Environmental Contaminants in Washington State. Collaborative on Health and the Environment – Washington Research and Information Working Group, Seattle, WA. http://washington.chenw.org/pdfs/ EnvironmentalCosts.pdf [Accessed February 16, 2010] Davis, Mary E. 2007. The Economic Burden of Childhood Exposure to Secondhand Smoke in Maine. University of Maine, School of Economics Staff Paper 570, Orono. http://www.umaine.edu/ soe/research-and-publications/ [Accessed February 16, 2010] Davis, Mary E. 2009. An Economic Cost Assessment of Environmentally-Related Childhood Diseases in Maine. University of Maine, School of Economics Staff Paper 579, Orono. http://www.umaine.edu/ soe/research-and-publications/ [Accessed February 16, 2010] Governor’s Task Force to Promote Safer Chemicals in Consumer Products. 2007. Final Report. Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Augusta. http://www.maine.gov/dep/oc/safechem/me-safer_ chem_rpt.pdf [Accessed February 16, 2010]

ENDNOTE 1. The EBLL 10 µg/dL is a risk management benchmark reflecting both a level of concern for harm and a level at which it is believed intervention will be successful. Although it is not intended to be representative of a threshold level for negative health effects, it is often interpreted as such for policy purposes.

Landrigan, Phillip J., Clyde B. Schechter, Jeffrey M. Lipton, Marianne C. Fahs and Joel Schwartz.

2002. “Environmental Pollutants and Disease in American Children: Estimates of Morbidity, Mortality, and Costs for Lead Poisoning, Asthma, Cancer, and Developmental Disabilities.”

Environmental Health Perspectives 110(7): 721–728. http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/ 110p721-728landrigan/landrigan-full.html [Accessed February 16, 2010]

Begley, Sharon. 2009. “Born to Be Big: Early Exposure to Common Chemicals May Be Programming Kids to Be Fat.” Newsweek (September 11).

Maine Department of Education (DOE). 2008a.

Students with Disabilities Maine Child Count Data Ages 3–21, 1986-2007. Maine DOE, Augusta. http://www.maine.gov/education/speceddata/ 14yeardata.htm [Accessed February 16, 2010]

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

2008. CDC Surveillance Data, 1997–2006: State Data by County. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA. http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ lead/data/index.htm [Accessed February 16, 2010]

Maine Department of Education (DOE). 2008b. State and Local Expenditure Trends. Maine DOE, Augusta. http://www.maine.gov/education/ speceddata/specedexpenditures.htm [Accessed February 16, 2010]

REFERENCES

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 43

ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT OF CHILDREN’S HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN MAINE

Maine Department of Education (DOE). 2008c.

December 1 Child Count/Percent to Total by Disability. Maine DOE, Augusta. http://www.maine. gov/education/speceddata/percentchart.htm [Accessed February 16, 2010]

Wagner, Travis and Samantha Langley-Turnbaugh.

2008. “Case Study: Examining the Contribution of Historical Sources of Lead in Urban Soils in Portland, Maine, USA.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 51(4): 525–541.

Massey, Rachel and Frank Ackerman. 2003. Costs of Preventable Childhood Illness: The Price We Pay for Pollution. Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University, Medford, MA. http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/policy_research/ healthEnvironment.html#publications [Accessed February 16, 2010]

Mary E. Davis is an adjunct assistant professor in the

Schuler, Kathleen, Susan Nordbye, Samuel Yamin and Christine Ziebold. 2006. The Price of Pollution: Cost Estimates of Environment-Related Childhood Disease in Minnesota. The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, St. Paul.

Tippy, K. 2005. Maine Child Health Survey, 2003/2004 Kindergarten and Third Grade Report. Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Chronic Disease, Portland. http://www.maine. gov/dhhs/boh/phdata/Non%20DHP%20Pdf%20Doc/ Maine%20Child%20Health%20Survey%202003% 202004%20Kindergarten%20and%20Third%20G.pdf [Accessed February 16, 2010]

School of Economics at the University of Maine.

She also holds academic appointments at Tufts University and the Harvard School of Public Health.

An economist by training, her areas of research interest include environmental health, biostatistics, and risk analysis.

U.S. Institute of Medicine, Committee on the Assessment of Asthma and Indoor Air (U.S. IOM).

2000. Clearing the Air: Asthma and Indoor Air Exposures. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_ id=9610&page=R1 [Accessed February 16, 2010] U.S. National Research Council, Committee on Developmental Toxicology. 2000. Scientific Frontiers in Developmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. http://www.nap.edu/openbook. php?isbn=0309070864 [Accessed February 16, 2010] U.S. National Research Council, Committee on Measuring Lead in Critical Populations. 1993.

Measuring Lead Exposure in Infants, Children, and Other Sensitive Populations. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. http://books.nap.edu/ openbook.php?record_id=2232&page=R1 [Accessed February 16, 2010]

44 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 45

DEVELOPMENT IN THE GULF OF MAINE

Development in the Gulf of Maine: Avoiding Geohazards and Embracing Opportunities

by Laura L. Brothers Joseph T. Kelley Melissa Landon Maynard Daniel F. Belknap Stephen M. Dickson

Mapping for marine-spatial planning is crucial if Maine is to safely develop its offshore resources, especially wind and tidal energy. Laura Brothers and her coauthors focus on shallow natural gas (methane) deposits, an important and widespread geohazard in Maine’s seafloor. They describe the origin, occurrence, and identification of natural gas in Maine’s seafloor; explain the hazards associated with these deposits and how to map them; and discuss what Maine can learn from European nations that have already developed their offshore wind resources.

Because the U.S. gives states a central role in coastal management, Maine has the chance to be proactive in delineating coastal resources and demarcating potential seafloor hazards.

46 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010



View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

DEVELOPMENT IN THE GULF OF MAINE

…if Maine is to INTRODUCTION

A

growing appreciation for the Gulf of Maine’s potential for wind and tidal power generation and its use as an energy corridor, offers the state of Maine a multitude of research and development opportunities (Baldacci 2008; OETF 2009). As of this publication, Maine’s federal delegation has acquired funding for researchers to assess the feasibility of developing tidal power in Cobscook Bay, and already Maine has identified three potential sites for construction of wind turbine prototypes (University of Maine 2009; Cousins 2009). Success in these budding sectors depends upon the identification of available coastal resources and the demarcation of potential hazards. The most widespread potential geohazard in the coastal Gulf of Maine is natural gas, or methane, found in Maine’s seafloor.

Although it does not occur in economic quantities, natural gas is prevalent throughout Maine’s muddy coastal embayments and within the Gulf of Maine’s deep basins (Figure 1, page 48) (Rogers et al.

2006). In recent geologic history, fluid-escape events occurred, and giant craters have formed in the seabed (Figure 2, page 49). The frequency and magnitude of these escape events are uncertain as are the mechanisms responsible for crater formation. Without considering these potential hazards, offshore development may be at risk. In this paper, we describe the origin and occurrence of shallow natural gas in Maine’s seafloor; explain how we identify natural gas; outline the hazards associated with these deposits; offer recommendations on how to effectively delineate this hazard as part of a comprehensive marine-spatial plan based on seafloor mapping; and briefly describe how European nations have developed their offshore wind resources and what Maine can learn from them.

We suggest that if Maine is to compete effectively for federal funding or to competitively attract private investment for ocean energy development, ocean mapping for marine-spatial planning is imperative.

WHERE DOES NATURAL GAS ORIGINATE?

M

ethane found near the coastline has origins in the rich biological productivity of Maine’s coastal region. Although no one has yet pinpointed

the specific source of methane in estuarine and coastal sediments, subsurface gas likely originates from organic matter deposited in marshes, lakes, and bogs between approximately 12,000 and 10,000 years ago, when sea level was as much as 200 feet lower than it is today (Belknap et al. 2002). Following this low-sea-level interval, Maine experienced a rise in sea level, with the ocean washing inland and depositing tens of feet of mud and sand over these former marshes and bogs (Barnhardt et al. 1995; Kelley et al. 1998).

Buried under a growing mass of mud, the organic material became deprived of oxygen.

Anaerobic bacteria decomposed the organic matter and produced methane as a byproduct in a manner similar to how methane is produced in landfills today (Judd and Hovland 2007).

compete effectively for federal funding or to competitively attract private investment for ocean energy development, ocean mapping for marine-spatial planning is imperative.

WHERE IS NATURAL GAS IN THE SEABED?

G

as is identified in geophysical surveys, specifically from seismic reflection profile data. In a seismic reflection survey, a vessel tows an instrument that issues a precisely tuned acoustic pulse that sounds like a “click” to human ears. As specific instrumentation varies per survey, we generically refer to this instrument as the “seismic source.” This acoustic energy travels through the water column, and the sound reflects off the seafloor. Some of the sound energy continues into the seafloor and reflects off deeper boundaries between layers with different physical properties. We refer to these surfaces as “reflectors.” Bedrock, sand, mud, and gravel have distinctive properties and form reflectors in the seismic record. A second instrument, called a hydrophone, receives the reflected sound at the water surface. The receiver measures the length of time the acoustic energy takes to reflect, along with

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 47

DEVELOPMENT IN THE GULF OF MAINE

Figure 1: Distribution of Subsurface Gas and Pockmarks along Maine’s Coast 67˚

65˚

46˚ N

Natural gas has a distinct acoustic return 68° from sediment or rock 60 m 44˚ (Schubel and Schiemer f 1973), and this signature o MAINE f l Blue Hill Gu ine has been observed 42˚ Ma Bay throughout coastal Gulf of Belfast Bay Maine (Figure 1). The pres60 m ence of methane in Maine’s 500 m 40˚ offshore areas has also been Somes verified using direct 70° methods such as seafloor 44° Black Sound44° chemical analyses and the 68° Ledges ignition of gas collected in sediment cores (Christian 2000; Barnhardt et al.

GULF OF MAINE 69° 1997). Although shallow biogenic methane exists in Gas and Gas 70° Maine’s seafloor, we must Pockmarks be clear that there are no petroleum fields along Maine’s coast. Simple 43° calculations based on conservative estimates of In addition to the coast, gas and pockmarks have also been observed in Gulf of Maine basins. volume, pressure, and This map represents a conservative estimate of gas and pockmark distribution. temperature indicate that Source: Modified from Rogers et al. 2006 the amount of methane held in Maine’s muddy embayments is not the intensity of the echo. Since the speed of sound economically recoverable (Gontz 2005). in water is known, the receiver calculates the water Bathymetry data are collected simultaneously with depth and depths to buried layers. The intensity of seismic reflection data to more fully understand the the return provides a measure of the relative hardness structure of the seabed. Modern swath-bathymetry data (rock or gravel) or softness (mud) of the seafloor. The resolves the seafloor topography with remarkable resulting record provides a vertical “slice” through the three-dimensional precision, allowing characterization seafloor that shows where layers of differing materials of navigation hazards, seafloor habitats, shipwrecks, and exist, but does not specifically identify what the mateother features on the scale of feet. Also acquired as a rials are (Figure 3, page 50). Scientists familiar with byproduct of swath-bathymetry data are data that indiregional geology interpret these records. Petroleum cate relative hardness of the seafloor. In this way, we companies use a similar method to identify hydrocan remotely determine if the seafloor is rocky, sandy, carbon resources. They must employ much more or muddy. Once acquired, these data are used to create acoustic energy, however, to identify oil and natural gas maps of the seafloor. From these compilations scientists thousands of feet deep in hard rock than is needed to map the distribution of seafloor substrate and natural explore shallow sediments in the Gulf of Maine. gas fields (Figures 1 and 2).

NB

NS

Georges Bank

km

0

100

tB

sco

ob

n Pe

ay

48 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

DEVELOPMENT IN THE GULF OF MAINE

Figure 2: Belfast Bay, Maine, Pockmark Field and Subsurface

Gas Disruption

WHERE IS GAS KNOWN TO EXIST?

A

s we have already discussed, our knowledge of subsurface natural gas deposits comes from geophysical surveys collected throughout the Gulf of Maine (Figure 1, Figure 3, page 50) (Barnhardt et al. 1996, 1998).

For the past 25 years, state and university researchers have conducted these surveys in areas of specific interest, many in accordance with particular research objectives funded by federal research agencies. These efforts produced several graduate theses and detailed information for approximately 12 percent of the seabed in Maine’s nearshore coastal waters (Barnhardt et al. 1998). Most of the Gulf of Maine’s seabed sediments remain unmapped in any systematic detail, and there is no comprehensive subsurface map of Maine’s coastal zone.

Regional disparities also exist in A plan view of Belfast Bay bathymetry, or water depth, illustrating how thousands of pockmarks can survey coverage. For example, southern dominate a seafloor. Belfast Bay has some of the world’s largest and most well studied pockmarks.

Maine with its comparatively high This image is the result of seafloor mapping conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey using swath population density and popular sandy bathymetry (interferometric sidescan sonar) and seismic reflection profile data (Chirp sonar). beaches attracted more research attention than Downeast Maine.

Geophysical data collected in southern Maine’s sandy embayments indicate SEAFLOOR FEATURES ASSOCIATED WITH that no gas presently occurs in the seabed subsurface.

NATURAL GAS DEPOSITS The limited data collected in Downeast Maine’s muddy embayments, however, positively indicate the presence assive seafloor depressions associated with fluid of shallow natural gas. Without total survey coverage, escape, called pockmarks, are commonly observed less-than-certain geological and physical characteristics in the vicinity of gas deposits in Maine (Figure 2, are used to infer where additional gas deposits may Figure 3, page 50). These types of features are found occur. For example, we expect gas in most shallow, worldwide and frequently exist above oil and gas fields, muddy embayments along Maine’s Downeast coast where the gas is rising from deep below the surface. based on extrapolations of surveys collected in similar But pockmarks also occur in previously glaciated areas, muddy embayments (Figure 1) (Barnhardt et al. 1996). such as Maine, where no extensive petroleum fields Partial mapping coverage of the Gulf of Maine means exist. Pockmarks are abundant along the New England that the known distribution of natural gas is a conservacoast and continue up to Newfoundland, but are not tive estimate of total shallow gas deposits. found in non-glaciated areas along the East Coast of

M

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 49

DEVELOPMENT IN THE GULF OF MAINE

Figure 3: What’s Underneath a Pockmark Field?

HOW DO THESE LARGE, UBIQUITOUS FEATURES FORM?

M

any hypotheses address-ing the formation of pockmarks have been pro-posed, including: cratering from WWII depth charges, whale feeding, sea-level changes, and ground-water escape or ice disturbance.

These hypotheses, however, cannot explain the distribution and number of pockmarks in Maine’s waters. We propose that fluid escape (gas and pore water) created Maine’s pockmarks. Seafloor fluid escape can occur steadily or abruptly.

Swath-bathymetry data (top) draped over seismic reflection profile data form a composite image of Belfast Evidence collected in Maine Bay, Maine’s seafloor and subsurface. Seismic reflective profile data show distinct geologic units like layers in a cake. This cross-section through the earth shows an example of natural gas (NG) imaged in the seafloor’s supports each of these pathsubsurface. Adjacent to the gas is the crater-like fluid-escape feature called a pockmark (PM). Although no scale ways, so both may happen. For is possible for an oblique image, Holocene mud (modern mud, M) thickness ranges between 16 feet and 32 example, seafarers occasionally feet across this short distance. Complex subsurface and seafloor relief is typical of coastal Maine and the lower report bubbles and sediment geological units, BR (bedrock) and GM (glacial-marine mud), occur on nearby land. plumes in Maine’s coastal Source: Modified from Andrews et al. in review embayments (Rogers et al.

2006). One geophysical survey imaged an expulsion event (Kelley et al. 1994). A later the United States south of New York City (e.g., geochemical survey, however, found little methane in Delaware Bay or Chesapeake Bay). the same field, suggesting that Maine pockmarks are Pockmarks may occur as singular features, or in not actively venting gas (Ussler et al. 2003). To reconfields numbering thousands of depressions. Maine’s cile these observations, we hypothesize that these pockmarks range in size from nine to 1,000 feet in features may form episodically with changes in environdiameter and may be up to 120 feet deep. The largest mental conditions such as changes in ocean temperapockmarks in the Gulf of Maine could contain the ture, storm- or tsunami-related sea-level changes, or by entire University of Maine football stadium or the physical vibration from earthquakes or other sources. governor’s mansion (Figure 4). Belfast Bay, Maine, Pockmarks, particularly those that occur in shallow contains more than 2,000 pockmarks. Curiously, water such as the Gulf of Maine, remain one of the these features occur in soft muddy seafloors and world’s most enigmatic seafloor features. Changes to exhibit uncommonly steep slopes on the order of the seabed, either naturally occurring or those resulting 20˚ to 44˚ (Andrews et al. in review). One untested from human-made development, could influence pockhypothesis suggests that deeper, stronger sediments mark occurrence. A fuller understanding of the origstabilize pockmark slopes. in(s) of pockmarks and the ability to predict seafloor expulsion events requires more study.

50 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

DEVELOPMENT IN THE GULF OF MAINE

Figure 4: How Big Is a Pockmark?

WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF SHALLOW GAS DEPOSITS FOR COASTAL DEVELOPMENT?

S

eafloor construction on sediments that contain natural gas requires special engineering approaches.

Activities such as seafloor loading or excavating affect seafloor stability.

Examples of seafloor loading include the installation of infrastructure (e.g., foundations, pipelines, and utilities, cables or moorings), and deposition of dredge spoils. An example of seafloor excavation is seafloor dredging. Upon loading, soft muddy An oblique view of the Belfast Bay pockmark field with the Blaine House for scale. Vertical slopes are gas-bearing sediments are more easily exaggerated, but it is clear how extensively pockmarks dissect the seafloor. Bathymetry collected by compressed and subject to settlement the U.S. Geological Survey. than non-gas-bearing sediments, so the seabed sinks. Sediment strength also depends upon pressure exerted by natural gas within foundation used in Troll A. After subsequent surveys, the seafloor and past loading and excavation history investigators determined that increased sediment (Sills and Gonzalez 2001). As a rule, the presence of temperatures, resulting from operation of the warmer gas decreases sediment strength. deep-production wells, led to the expansion of If a gaseous seafloor is not actively venting gas or previously unidentifiable gas (Tjelta et al. 2007). settling, we say that the sediment and natural gas are in To address this hazard, engineers installed venting equilibrium. A principal physical assumption for equimodifications to the Troll A foundation systems. These librium is that sediment weight, and the impermeable modifications were successful, and the platform nature of the overlying sediments, impedes the escape continues operation to this day. Although Maine sediof the gas. Thus the seafloor confines the gas. We ments and proposed infrastructure could not be cannot know where the tipping point occurs (i.e., the subject to the deep heat sources that affected Troll A, point where gas buoyancy overcomes sediment weight). the possibility for seafloor activities to facilitate gas It is possible that certain types of marine use may physmigration exists. The Troll A case study illustrates ically alter this equilibrium relationship. Understanding (1) the need to identify potentially gassy sediments seabed changes and stability may be critical to some before development; (2) the need to monitor developtypes of coastal development. ment, even after initial construction, for gas migraThe Troll A gas production platform, located in tion; and (3) that with understanding, mitigation of the Norwegian sector of the North Sea, exemplifies the problem can be successful. change in seafloor equilibrium. Geophysical surveys at While Troll A did not result in catastrophe, signifithe platform site and adjacent pockmark field before cant gas-related hazards have been reported. Judd and construction did not identify the presence of subsurHovland (2007) report rapid formation of pockmarks face gas. After nearly a decade of operation, however, during oil and gas installation construction and operaengineers found large amounts of gas accumulating in tion. Human activities are not the only trigger for and around the platform foundations. This unanticipockmark formation. Naturally occurring events, such pated buildup of gas warranted concern because an as temperature changes or earthquakes, can certainly excess of seafloor gas can compromise the type of affect the gas-sediment equilibrium.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 ¡ MAINE POLICY REVIEW ¡ 51

DEVELOPMENT IN THE GULF OF MAINE

Types of activities undertaken in pockmarked and gassy seafloor regions must either be constrained or appropriately designed for gas. For instance, pipeline or cable installations in pockmarked areas are infeasible due to the lack of structural support over these depressions. Additionally, jetting for cable placement and dredging in gassy areas has the potential to disturb equilibrium and induce gas migration.

These activities should be conducted with caution.

Lastly, sediments below proposed locations for infrastructure (e.g., offshore liquid natural gas terminals and foundations/moorings for floating tidal and wind turbine foundations) should be investigated for evidence of seafloor gas.

WHAT ARE EUROPEAN NATIONS DOING, AND HOW DOES MAINE COMPARE?

N

ations that are leading offshore wind energy production include the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany, and the Netherlands. These countries have already mapped their seafloors through national and European Union efforts (see the Web site www.unesco-ioc-marinesp.be/ msp_around_the_world). Several of these countries are oil-producing nations and are well acquainted with the hazards of subsurface gas and pockmarks (e.g., Troll A). Although U.S. petroleum and offshore foundation industries also have expertise in dealing with gas-associated geohazards, these industries have no historical presence in the Gulf of Maine. In addition, these European nations have a generally supportive regulatory and business community for renewable offshore energy.

According to the European Wind Energy Association’s Web site (www.ewea.org/index. php?id=180), much offshore wind power generation in Europe takes place in extensive, shallow, sandy shelves.

This is generally a less physically challenging environment for infrastructure development than the coastal Gulf of Maine. Maine’s immediate offshore environment is characterized by varying bathymetry and seafloor substrate. These geological differences influence how wind resources are developed. For example, some of Denmark’s wind farms are located 18 miles offshore in 15 to 50 feet of water. The turbines are secured to the sandy seabed with monopiles or gravity-base

52 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

foundations. In Maine, proposed wind turbines will be located three miles offshore, but water depths will be in the hundreds of feet and the seafloor could be muddy, gravelly, rocky, or some combination of all three, and gas may be present in the mud. Because of these water depths, Maine scientists and engineers are pursuing floating turbine platforms. These platforms can be moored and anchored at great depths. Currently, there is only one floating wind turbine in the world, located in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea (Statoil 2010).

Anchoring a platform is more challenging with a heterogeneous seafloor. Although an anchor can be designed for almost any seafloor environment, the extent and cost of site investigations and resulting anchor design are dependent on the nature of the seafloor.

Generally, non-uniform and complex seafloors, such as those in the Gulf of Maine, require more extensive, and therefore more costly, site investigations. Energy developers and engineers must weigh the costs of development within certain areas with the financial rewards of the energy generated from within these regions; this is true for both oil and gas and renewable energy investment sectors. Seafloor and subsurface characteristics are fundamental criteria in determining the economic viability of a site for offshore wind-power development.

Maine’s complex seafloor has not been deemed cost prohibitive, but its heterogeneity underscores the need for mapping and marine-spatial planning. The international Society for Underwater Technology (SUT) lists an assessment of public domain resources and regionally available data as critical steps in initial selecting renewable energy sites. An analysis of planning and development of eight offshore wind farms from Europe found that spatial planning and proper site selection were the most important factors in mitigating environmental impacts, preventing conflicts among users, and contributing to overall economic viability of production sites (POWER 2007).

NEXT STEPS: MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

O

ffshore development carries with it significantly more risk and cost than near-shore and land-based operations. Gas migration can cause unanticipated

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

DEVELOPMENT IN THE GULF OF MAINE

instability of the seafloor and costly setbacks during construction and operation. Further, there is a potential for gas-related catastrophic failures, which could greatly affect Maine’s chances at successful offshore energy development. Because safe development is entirely possible with appropriate measures, we urge large-scale hazard demarcation and advocate following established guidelines for offshore development.

The SUT provides recommendations for seafloor investigations related to renewable energy projects, including the collection of geophysical data and geotechnical-quality sediment samples (OSIG 2005).

This professional society consists of scientists and engineers from more than 40 countries who specialize in the technical issues surrounding the construction and operation of offshore infrastructures usually related to energy production. We cannot stress enough that working in the Gulf of Maine poses challenges that terrestrial infrastructure development does not.

We, therefore, advise that SUT’s recommendations be followed and augmented by local expertise.

The Future of Maine’s Coastal and Submarine Resources Maine’s leadership role in renewable ocean energy depends upon the safe and efficient development of its offshore resources. Compared to other nations that already produce offshore renewable power, the U.S. allows states to play a more central role in the management of their coasts and adjacent seafloor (three nautical miles from shore). Maine has the opportunity to be proactive in the delineation of its coastal resources and demarcation of its potential seafloor hazards.

Seafloor mapping is a cost-effective, nonintrusive, and environmentally sound method for identifying (a) areas where potential hazards of seafloor gas, pockmarks, and other features may exist; (b) seabed habitat critical to fisheries; (c) sediment types (i.e., rock, gravel, sand, fine-grained sediments) useful in siting offshore infrastructure; and (d) offshore cultural resources. As federal ocean management policy is being reviewed (Turnipseed et al. 2009) and national and state ocean energy potential is being evaluated (Ferland 2008; OETF 2009), initiation of a comprehensive mapping plan for Maine state waters is timely. Therefore, we recommend that Maine geophysically map its seafloor.

With a comprehensive management plan based on marine science, Maine will be well positioned to take advantage of federal and private investment in ocean resource management and renewable energy development within the approximate 3,000 square miles of ocean under Maine’s jurisdiction.

Maine has the opportunity to be proactive in the delineation of its coastal resources and demarcation of its potential seafloor hazards.

Already, other states, nations, and the European Union are meeting the needs of marine-spatial planning with seafloor mapping as their cornerstone.

Nations leading in wind energy production have already mapped their seafloors (Marine Spatial Planning Initiative 2010). Maine’s neighboring states have undertaken serious efforts to manage their seafloor for multiple uses. Massachusetts and Rhode Island each have their own ocean management plans, the Massachusetts Ocean Management Plan and the Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan (Ocean SAMP), respectively. Although there are key differences between these two models, both feature applied scientific research as the basis for policy planning that is also informed by stakeholder input. Seafloor mapping is a key component in both models. We recommend that Maine move toward a similar multi-user seafloor plan.1

What Are Maine’s Mapping Options?

In Maine, current offshore mapping and exploration practices are variable and not always coordinated.

Multiple government agencies with marine jurisdictions use some aspect of seafloor mapping (Turnipseed et al.

2009). Individual development projects also incorporate seafloor mapping. In the former case, seafloor information becomes available in the context of agency oversight (e.g., ocean bathymetry from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]), but may not extend, or easily relate, to local management

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 53

DEVELOPMENT IN THE GULF OF MAINE

objectives. In the latter case, much of the information collected is privately owned and not disseminated. A comprehensive mission with clear standards for data acquisition, formatting, processing, interpretation, archiving, and distribution would reduce incompatible and inaccessible data sets. In our opinion, systematic mapping, using proven technology, driven by a governmental agency such as NOAA or the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) or a strong partnership of agencies, will be far more advantageous to creating a common archive of information for planning and managing of the public trust than privately held piecemeal programs. Such a partnership occurs in Massachusetts where the USGS collects the data while the state uses the data for planning purposes in the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (Massachusetts OCM 2009).

…development of renewable ocean energy needs to be placed within a larger management plan.

The U.S. and Canada already collaborate on seafloor mapping for of the Gulf of Maine Mapping Initiative (Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment 2009). This collaboration developed because of diverse user groups’ need for seafloor information. Although the Canadian portion of the Gulf of Maine is almost entirely mapped, the U. S. portion remains unfinished. The Gulf of Maine Mapping Initiative already has contact with much of the scientific and management community for the Gulf of Maine, and this group is already a “clearinghouse” for swath-bathymetry data. The mapping data just need to be collected in an accessible way. We strongly advocate the collection and archival of subsurface data in conjunction with bathymetry data for the identification of potential geohazards such as natural gas and pockmark areas. We recommend that Maine actively pursue a partnership between a federal entity and a state office, such as the State Planning Office.

54 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

CONCLUSION

M

aine is establishing itself as a leader in tidal and offshore wind power development. The day is rapidly approaching when demonstration projects and more permanent offshore energy facilities, along with transmission corridors and infrastructure, may cross through the state’s submerged lands to tie into the electrical grid on the mainland. To maintain this momentum, development of renewable ocean energy needs to be placed within a larger management plan.

Just as previous mapping efforts discovered pockmarks and natural gas in Maine’s seafloor, better seafloor mapping will identify geohazards, areas of marine habitat, and potential offshore cultural resources. This information will be critical for additional site assessments and feasibility studies. Seafloor mapping will aid in the comparison of potential corridors, encourage private investment in offshore energy, and guide public decisions on areas of preference for energy infrastructure along with fishing, recreation, and marine conservation. Global competitiveness and energy independence and security for the state of Maine compel us to capitalize on our seafaring skills, marine sciences, and intergovernmental partnerships to more fully map the coastal waters of the Gulf of Maine. 

ENDNOTE 1.

For descriptions of some marine-spatial planning efforts and ocean management plans, readers may wish to visit the following Web sites: For Canada: www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans-habitat/ oceans/oap-pao/page01_e.asp For Europe: www.balance-eu.org/ or www.infomar.ie/ For Massachusetts: www.mass.gov/czm/ oceanmanagement/index.htm For Rhode Island: seagrant.gso.uri.edu/ oceansamp/

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

DEVELOPMENT IN THE GULF OF MAINE

REFERENCES Andrews, Brian A., Laura L. Brothers and Walter A. Barnhardt. In review. “Morphologic Feature Extraction and Spatial Characterization of Seafloor Pockmarks in Belfast Bay, ME.” Baldacci, John E. 2008. An Executive Order Establishing the Ocean Energy Task Force, No. 20 FY08/09, November 7, 2008. Office of the Governor, Augusta, ME. http://www.maine.gov/spo/specialprojects/OETF/Documents/OETF_eo20fy0809.pdf [Accessed December 1, 2009] Barnhardt, Walter, Daniel F. Belknap, Alice R. Kelley, Joseph T. Kelley and Stephen M. Dickson. 1996.

Surficial Geology of the Maine Inner Continental Shelf, 1:100,000 scale 7-map series, Open-File Nos. 96–7 through 96–13. Maine Geological Survey, Augusta. http://www.maine.gov/doc/ nrimc/mgs/pubs/online/ics/ics.htm [Accessed December 1, 2009] Barnhardt, W.A., Daniel F. Belknap and Joseph T. Kelley. 1997. “Stratigraphic Evolution of the Inner Continental Shelf in Response to Late Quaternary Relative Sea-Level Change, Northwestern Gulf of Maine.” Geological Society of America Bulletin 109:612–630.

Barnhardt, Walter A., Roland Gehrels, Daniel F. Belknap and Joseph T. Kelley. 1995. “Late Quaternary Relative Sea-Level Change in the Western Gulf of Maine: Evidence for a Migrating Glacial Forebulge.” Geology 23:317–320.

Barnhardt, Walter, Joseph T. Kelley, Stephen M. Dickson and Daniel F. Belknap. 1998. “Mapping the Gulf of Maine with Side-Scan Sonar: A New Bottom-Type Classification for Complex Seafloors.”

Journal of Coastal Research 14:646–659.

Belknap, Daniel F., Joseph T. Kelley and Allen Gontz.

2002. “Evolution of the Glaciated Shelf and Coastline of the Northern Gulf of Maine.” Journal Coastal Research, Special Issue 36:37–55.

Christian, Harold A. 2000. Gas Sampling and Seepage Liquefaction Assessment in Penobscot Bay, Maine, December 1999. Unpublished Report to the Department of Geological Sciences, University of Maine.

Cousins, Christopher. 2009. “Winds of Change: Three Offshore Wind-Power Test Sites Unveiled as Maine Positions Itself to Become a Leader in Renewable Energy Production.” Bangor Daily News (December 16).

Ferland, John. 2008. “Tidal Energy Development.”

Maine Policy Review 17:111–113.

Gontz, Allen M. 2005. Sources and Implications of Shallow Subsurface Methane in Estuarine Environments. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maine, Orono.

Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment.

2009. Gulf of Maine Mapping Initiative: A Framework for Ocean Management. http:// www.gulfofmaine.org/gommi [Accessed December 1, 2009] Judd, Alan and Martin Hovland. 2007. Seabed Fluid Flow: The Impact on Geology, Biology, and the Marine Environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kelley, Joseph T., Walter A. Barnhardt, Daniel F. Belknap, Stephen M. Dickson and Alice R. Kelley.

1998. The Seafloor Revealed: The Geology of the Northwestern Gulf of Maine Inner Continental Shelf, Open-File 96–6. Maine Geological Survey, Augusta. http://www.maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mgs/ explore/marine/seafloor/contents.htm [Accessed December 1, 2009] Kelley, Joseph T., Stephen M. Dickson, Daniel F. Belknap, Walter A. Barnhardt and M. Henderson.

1994. “Giant Sea-Bed Pockmarks: Evidence for Gas Escape from Belfast Bay, Maine.” Geology 22:59–62.

Marine Spatial Planning Initiative. 2010. MSP around the World. UNESCO, Paris. http://www.unesco-iocmarinesp.be/msp_around_the_world [Accessed March 24, 2010] Ocean Energy Task Force (OETF). 2009. Final Report of the Ocean Energy Task Force to Governor John E. Baldacci. OETF, Augusta, ME. http://www.maine. gov/spo/specialprojects/OETF/Documents/ finalreport_123109.pdf [Accessed March 28, 2010]

Please turn the page for more references and author bios.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 55

DEVELOPMENT IN THE GULF OF MAINE

Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics Group (OSIG). 2005. Guidance Notes on Site Investigations for Offshore Renewable Energy Projects. Society for Underwater Technology, London. http://sig.sut.org.uk/pdf/OSIG%20 Renewables%20Guidance%20Notes.pdf [Accessed December 1, 2009] Pushing Offshore Wind Energy Regions (POWER).

2007. Case Study: European Offshore Wind Farms—A Survey for the Analysis of the Experiences and Lessons Learnt by Developers of Offshore Wind Farms—Final Report. The North Sea Region Programme, Viborg, Denmark.

Rogers, Jeff, Joseph T. Kelley, Daniel F. Belknap, Allen Gontz and Walter A. Barnhardt. 2006. “ShallowWater Pockmark Formation in Temperate Estuaries: A Consideration of Origins in the Western Gulf of Maine with Special Focus on Belfast Bay.” Marine Geology 225(1–4): 45–62.

Schubel, J.R. and E.W. Schiemer. 1973. “The Cause of Acoustically Impenetrable or Turbid Character of Chesapeake Bay Sediments.” Marine Geophysical Researches 2(1): 61–71.

Sills, G.C. and R. Gonzalez. 2001. “Consolidation of Naturally Gassy Soft Soil.” Geotechnique 51(7): 629–639.

Statoil. 2010. “Hywind: Putting Wind Power to the Test.” Statoil, Stavanger, Norway. http://www. statoil.com/en/technologyinnovation/newenergy/ renewablepowerproduction/onshore/pages/ karmoy.aspx [Accessed March 24, 2010] Tjelta, T.I., G. Svano, J.M. Strout, C.F. Forsberg and H. Johansen. 2007. “Shallow Gas and Its Multiple Impact on a North Sea Production Platform.”

In Proceedings 6th International Conference Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics, Society for Underwater Technology (SUT), London.

Turnipseed, Mary, Larry B. Crowder, Rafe D. Sagarin and Stephen E. Roady. 2009. “Legal Bedrock for Rebuilding America’s Ocean Ecosystems.” Science 324(5924): 183–184.

Ussler, William, Charles K. Paull, J. Boucher, G.E. Friederich and D.J. Thomas. 2003. “Submarine Pockmarks: A Case Study from Belfast Bay, Maine.” Marine Geology 202:175–192.

Laura L. Brothers is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Maine. Her dissertation focuses on the formation and evolution of pockmark fields. She holds master’s degrees in oceanography and marine policy from the University of Maine.

Joseph T. Kelley is a professor of marine geology and chair of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Maine. He has mapped the seafloor of Maine’s nearshore waters and studied the effect of rising sea level on the Maine coast for more than 20 years.

University of Maine. 2009. “Congressional Initiative Promotes Tidal Power Research.” UMaine News (April 9). http://www.umaine.edu/news/ blog/2009/04/09/congressional-initiativepromotes-tidal-power-research/ [Accessed December 1, 2009]

56 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

DEVELOPMENT IN THE GULF OF MAINE

Melissa Landon Maynard

Stephen M. Dickson is

is an assistant professor

the state marine geologist

of civil engineering at the

at the Maine Geological

University of Maine, with

Survey in the Department

expertise in geotechnical

of Conservation. He has

engineering. Her research

worked for more than

focuses on characterization

two decades on coastal

of the behavior of soft soils

processes, hazards, and

with application to offshore

public policy along the

foundations and land-based

Maine coast.

and offshore geohazards such as landslides.

Daniel F. Belknap is a professor of earth sciences with cooperating appointments in the School of Marine Sciences and the Climate Change Institute at the University of Maine. His specialties include marine geology, sedimentology and stratigraphy, marine geophysics, and geoarchaeology. Much of this work centers on the effects of sea-level change on coastal and nearshore environments.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 ¡ MAINE POLICY REVIEW ¡ 57

MAINE’S COMPETITIVE SKILLS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

Investing in Human Capital in Difficult Times: Maine’s Competitive Skills Scholarship Program

The authors describe how the Competitive Skills Scholarship Program, administered by the Maine Department of Labor, aims both to meet the needs of Maine employers through improved access to a skilled labor force and to improve job prospects for

by Sandra S. Butler

low-income Mainers by providing access to educa-

Luisa S. Deprez

tion, training, and support. They note that many

John Dorrer

currently unemployed workers do not have the

Auta M. Main

skills or experience to take advantage of the new job opportunities that are likely to arise, and that there is a demonstrated correlation between higher levels of education and training and both higher income and reduced unemployment. Preliminary data suggest a high level of satisfaction by program participants and that graduates are finding positions in high-growth, high-wage occupations.

58 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010



View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

MAINE’S COMPETITIVE SKILLS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

…the Competitive INTRODUCTION

D

ynamic economies demand bold and innovative public policies and appropriate investments.

Maine’s recently implemented Competitive Skills Scholarship Program (CSSP) is an excellent example of a program that responds to and exemplifies both of these demands.

LD 1884, An Act to Create the Competitive Training Fund and Improve Maine Employment Security Programs (M.R.S.A. 26 §2033) went into effect on January 1, 2008. A central feature of this law is the establishment of the Competitive Skills Scholarship Program, which aims both to meet the employment needs of the Maine business, nonprofit, and community sectors and to enable low-income and unemployed Maine residents to participate in postsecondary education and certificate and training programs. For businesses, it increases the pool of skilled and trained employees. For individuals, it provides resources and support to acquire advanced skills and training.

CSSP is directly tied to the workforce needs of high-demand, high-wage employers in every region of the state. It was designed to “partner the worker with a job skill that is needed in their community,” thereby establishing “an unprecedented collaboration between Maine’s business community, worker advocates, and state government” while simultaneously cutting unemployment taxes for Maine businesses (da Houx 2007: 8).

Maine has a combination of challenging factors that made it ready for a program such as this. It “has the lowest incomes and the lowest rate of degree attainment of all the New England states” along with “a surplus of low-skilled workers and a shortage of middle- to high-skilled workers,” a combination that leaves “many businesses struggling to grow” (Brown and Main 2008: C6). A natural response to this challenge was to create a process, and a program, that sought to advance and develop the skills and abilities of low-income and underemployed workers to help to meet this shortage.

Organizations representing diverse constituencies—labor unions, low-income people, businesses groups, women, among others—were unified around LD 1884’s passage. Maine Department of Labor (MDOL) Commissioner Laura Fortman, the leader

of this effort, worked almost Skills Scholarship three years on its development and passage. Independent advoProgram … aims cacy groups including Maine Equal Justice Partners, the both to meet the Maine Women’s Lobby, and the Maine AFL-CIO lobbied for needs of the Maine the bill in the legislature, noting that the program could work business, nonprofit to provide real pathways out of poverty for low-wage earners and community while meeting the needs of Maine employers. The bill sectors and to passed with the unanimous support of both the Maine enable low-income House and Senate.

Although it is still too early and unemployed to report on how the CSSP program has influenced the Maine residents to long-term earnings of individuals or the supply of labor for participate in postMaine businesses, initial indications of the program’s potential secondary education are extremely positive. In this article, we first discuss the and certification and context that made Maine fertile ground for its development and training programs. creation, followed by a discussion of the impact of higher education on earnings potential.

We then provide a summative overview of the CSSP, including program goals, followed by a report on the first wave of a longitudinal study aimed at assessing the impact of CSSP over time. We conclude with observations on the significance of the program’s potential.

ECONOMIC AND LABOR-MARKET CHALLENGES FOR MAINE WORKERS

Since the beginning of 2008, more than 30,000 net payroll jobs in Maine have been lost; the number of Maine workers estimated to be officially unemployed at the end of 2009 is 55,000 or 8.3 percent of Maine’s labor force. For laid-off workers who qualified for unemployment insurance, the average duration for

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 59

MAINE’S COMPETITIVE SKILLS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

Figure 1: Maine Nonfarm Wage and Salary Jobs Since December 2007* 625,000 620,000 CEFC Forecast Estimates 615,000 610,000 605,000 600,000 595,000 590,000 585,000 580,000 575,000

No

v-0 8 De c-0 8 Jan -09 Feb -09 Ma r-0 9 Ap r-0 9 Ma y-0 9 Jun -09 Jul -09 Au g-0 9 Se p-0 9 Oc t-0 9 No v-0 9 De c-0 9 Jan -10 Feb -10 Ma r-1 0 Ap r-1 0 Ma y-1 0 Jun -10 Jul -10 Au g-1 0 Se p-1 0 Oc t-1 0 No v-1 0 De c-1 0 Jan -11 Feb -11 Ma r-1 1 Ap r-1 1 Ma y-1 1 Jun -11 Jul -11 Au g-1 1 Se p-1 1 Oc t-1 1 No v-1 1 De c-1 1

570,000

*Monthly figures after October 2009 estimated based on Consensus Economic Forecasting Commission estimates.

Source: MDOL 2009

drawing claims has increased from 14.2 to 16.7 weeks, and the number of workers exhausting their benefits has increased from 12,331 in 2008 to 23,233 in 2009 (MDOL, Unemployment Insurance Program, Administrative Records, authors’ calculations, January 2010). These numbers, significant as they are, omit the plight of underemployed and discouraged workers who have stopped looking for work—phenomena also being seen on the national front.

Labor-market analysts agree that most job losses during this current downturn will be permanent, unlike previous recessions in which laid-off workers were recalled by their former employers. This change will require affected workers to seek new opportunities as the economy improves. For many workers, this will not be an easy search. Nationally, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that there are 6.4 job seekers for every job opening (U.S. DOL 2009). Maine data show that for the 1,007 production workers—workers with relatively low skills and low wages—who filed unemployment insurance claims in August of 2009, there were only 25 job openings, a ratio of 42 workers for each opening 60 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

(MDOL, Administrative Statistics and authors’ calculations, 2010). The prospect of these workers returning to jobs comparable to those they lost is bleak.

If economic growth and job creation do pick up in 2011, as is predicted by the Consensus Economic Forecasting Commission, many of the workers currently among the unemployed will be confronted with job opportunities that their skills and experience do not match. Additionally, long-term structural unemployment attenuates workers’ competitiveness and earnings.

Figure 1 illustrates job loss in Maine since December 2007, with a forecast of the situation through December 2011. At present, the bulk of job losses are occurring in the construction (-6,400), manufacturing (-7,100), and retail trade (-6,300) industries (MDOL, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages and authors’ calculations).

A major challenge in Maine is the loss of jobs in traditional industries such as wood-product manufacturing, textile mills, and footwear manufacturing.

These industries were once important parts of Maine’s economy, giving a notable identity to many Maine

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

MAINE’S COMPETITIVE SKILLS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

communities. Between 2000 and 2008, however, more than 6,000 net jobs were lost in this sector, on top of the thousands of jobs these areas shed over the previous 20 years (MDOL, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages and authors’ calculations). Large employment changes, however, have not been limited to manufacturing industries lately. Relatively modern industries such as computer and electronic manufacturing have lost more than 3,500 jobs between 2000 and 2008. A good case is point is MBNA, a large banking and credit card company. In the early 1990s, it entered Maine and quickly set up an impressive infrastructure across the state for the operation of call centers employing more than 4,000 customer service workers.

After a 10-year run, however, changes in MBNA management and business strategy resulted in major workforce reductions and ultimately, in facility closings.

There are sectors where Maine has seen job growth, even with an economy in recession: health care and social assistance added jobs (+2,600), the continuation of a long-term trend (MDOL, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages and authors’ calculations). What we see on the horizon, according to occupational projections for the period 2006 to 2010, is net job growth for registered nurses (+2,997), customer service representatives (+1,332), business operations specialists (+533), and network and ata communications analysts (+376). These growth jobs are significantly different from those that have been lost.

The application of new technologies, the introduction of advanced work processes, and the process of globalization have been transforming both Maine workplaces and the skills needed by Maine workers for some time now. Recently, however, the impacts have become wider and deeper, warranting a governmental response as Maine has done with the creation of CSSP. HIGHER EDUCATION MATTERS

O

ne proven pathway out of poverty and low-wage jobs is through higher education. It is also the most advantageous route to jobs with potential for high future earnings and to significant individual satisfaction and societal benefits (Baum and Ma 2008). In Maine, postsecondary education is required for two-thirds of high-wage/high-growth jobs in the state (MDOL 2008).

For women, higher education is especially important. Although earnings differentials between women and men have decreased, a postsecondary education degree is still important for women as pay gaps between men and women lessen only when higher education is brought into play.

Maine ensured access to postsecondary education as part of the CSSP because of the demonstrated correlations between postsecondary education and higher wage levels for all groups.

Having educated workers is also important to economic development. A recent article in the New England Journal of Higher Education underscores “the need to attract and retain recent college graduates … a salient issue in every New England state” and the concern “that an inadequate supply of skilled workers will hamper economic growth” (Sasser 2009: 15) not only in New England but throughout the nation. And a recent Nellie Mae Education Foundation report further highlights the need for workers with a broad set of “21st-century skills” (Le and Kazis 2009).

Maine ensured access to postsecondary education as part of the CSSP because of the demonstrated correlations between postsecondary education and higher wage levels for all groups. Data from the 2000 Census, for example, revealed that the average annual earnings of individuals with bachelor’s degrees were between 74 percent and 87 percent higher than the earnings of those with only a high school diploma. This finding is supported by a study conducted by Baum and Payea that revealed that “over their working lives, typical college graduates earn about 73 percent more than typical high school graduates, and those with advanced degrees earn two to three times as much as high school graduates” (Baum and Payea 2005: 9). These findings underscore the need for more access to postsecondary

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 61

MAINE’S COMPETITIVE SKILLS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

Relationship between Education and Training and Employment and Earnings

10% 2008 Unemployment Rate 2008 Median Weekly Earnings

9.0%

$1,600 $1,531

2008 Unemployment Rate

8%

$1,561 $1,400

7%

$1,200

$1,233 6% 5.7%

5%

5.1%

$800 $757

4% $699 $618

3% 2%

$1,000

$1,012

3.7%

$600 2.8%

$453

$400

2.4% 1.7%

1%

2.0% $200

0%

$0 Less than a H.S. Diploma

High School Graduate

Some College, No Degree

Associate Degree

Bachelor's Degree

Master's Degree

Professional Degree

Doctoral Degree

Education Attained

Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Summary Current Population Survey 2009

education in Maine since the percentage of college graduates is lower in Maine than in comparable peer states: 22.9 percent to 28.2 percent (Lawton 2010: E3).

Evidence clearly supports investments in worker education and training as being the best protection against both low earnings and high unemployment.

A long-term examination of the relationship between employment and earnings status and educational preparation using aggregate U.S. data is illustrated in Figure 2. The Competitive Skills Scholarship Program is an appropriate and timely response to the need for increased postsecondary education and training among low-income and unemployed workers in Maine.

THE COMPETITIVE SKILLS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

T

he Competitive Skills Scholarship Program is administered by the MDOL through its network of statewide CareerCenters. Its purpose is to provide individuals with incomes at or below 200 percent of the poverty level access to education, training, and support

62 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

that will lead them to employment in high-wage, high-demand occupations. The expectation is that individuals will experience greater economic well-being and employers will have access to a skilled labor force.

To achieve its aim, CSSP provides grants that enable eligible participants to earn a degree or certificate for high-wage occupations that are in demand in Maine, as identified by the MDOL.1 These jobs carry an average wage at or above the 2009 state average of $14.28 per hour and are projected to have a significant number of job openings annually (the number of openings will vary by job classification).

For qualified Maine residents, CSSP pays for education (both two- and four-year programs), training, apprenticeships, and/or certificate programs to prepare them for targeted jobs. Participants receive a grant of up to $8,000 per year for full-time participation ($4,000 per year if half time). This grant can cover a wide array of educational expenses, including tuition and fees, and educational supports such as child care, transportation, books, supplies, equipment, and remedial and prerequisite training.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

2008 Unemployment Rate

9%

$1,800

2008 Median Weekly Earnings

Figure 2:

MAINEâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S COMPETITIVE SKILLS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

To be eligible, one must live in Maine; be at least 18 years old and legally eligible to work in the U.S.; not have a postsecondary degree; have the desire to apply for education or training for a job in a highwage, in-demand occupation; have an income of less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level for the family size involved; and have the ability to undertake and complete education or training as determined by the institution providing it. Upon entering the program, each participant, in consultation with his or her CareerCenter counselor, develops an individual career plan that balances the preferences of the participant, the occupational needs in the state, and the availability of approved education or training programs.

As we discuss next, preliminary findings about the efficacy of CSSP are encouraging, as is the ongoing commitment to assess its social and economic benefits.

CSSP PRELIMINARY FINDINGS

T

o learn more about the first cohort of CSSP participants and their experience with the program, the MDOL collaborated with researchers Luisa Deprez and Sandra Butler to survey participants regarding prior education, employment, and financial challenges, and to gather reflections from participants on their experiences in the program and future aspirations.

The MDOL sent the survey to 377 active and past CSSP participants in April 2009: 156 participants (41.4 percent) returned completed surveys. We then conducted descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis on the quantitative data and analyzed the qualitative data for emergent themes.

Sample Description To assess whether the sample of 156 participants was representative of the population of CSSP participants, we conducted comparisons on age, sex, and county of residence. We found no statistically significant differences on sex or residence, but did find statistically significant differences on age (p < 0.05). Sample participants ranged in age from 20 to 65 with a mean age of 38. Yet, while nearly two-thirds (63.6 percent) of the participants older than 55 years of age completed the survey, only one-eighth of those younger than 22

did (12.5 percent). Hence, the reader should bear in mind that the results reported here reflect the experiences of older CSSP participants to a greater extent than they reflect the experiences of younger participants. Nearly three-quarters of the sample was female (n = 113, 72.4 percent), reflecting a slightly higher percentage of females than in the population of participants receiving the survey (67.1 percent) although not a statistically significant difference. The respondents resided throughout the state, with all 16 counties represented by the survey sample.

Education, Employment History, and Economic Security A handful (n = 5, 3.2 percent) of the survey respondents had not completed high school before they entered the CSSP program. More than three-quarters of the respondents had attained, as their highest degree, either a high school diploma (n = 98, 62.8 percent) or the general equivalency diploma (GED, n = 26, 16.7 percent). These are precisely the people CSSP was created to assist.

An examination of Maine employment and wage history of respondents found considerable job instability and relatively low wages. During the five-year span from January 2003 through March 2008, respondents had an average of five different jobs. One respondent held 23 different jobs during those five years. The average annual income from Maine jobs during that time was $14,129 for the entire sample, ranging from $59 to $67,621 per year. It is possible some respondents received income from jobs outside the state over those four years, but their numbers were limited.

In addition to holding low-wage, unstable jobs, respondents were also unlikely to be receiving benefits through their employers. Only 46 respondents (29.5 percent) reported receiving health benefits for themselves in their current or most recent job, and even fewer (n = 21, 13.5 percent) received health benefits for their families. Only a quarter of the sample (n = 39) received paid sick days.

Not surprisingly, the respondents reported experiencing an array of financial challenges in the five years before beginning the CSSP program. More than one-third of respondents cited foregoing dental care, falling behind on rent or mortgage payments, receiving

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 ¡ MAINE POLICY REVIEW ¡ 63

MAINE’S COMPETITIVE SKILLS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

Table 1:

Occupations Pursued Total N

Total %

Women N

Men N

58

37.7

52

6

Community and social service

25

16.2

19

6

Business and financial operations

13

8.4

11

2

Education/training

10

6.5

8

2

Transportation/material moving

9

5.8

2

7

Computer/mathematical

9

5.8

4

5

Construction/extraction

6

3.9

0

6

Office & administrative support

5

3.2

5

0

Occupation Healthcare practitioner/technical

Healthcare support

4

2.6

4

0

Life/physical/social science

3

1.9

2

1

Humanities/liberal studies

3

1.9

1

2

Installation/maintenance/ repair

2

1.3

0

2

Legal occupation

2

1.3

1

1

Management

1

0.6

1

0

Production

1

0.6

0

1

Food preparation

1

0.6

0

1

Sales

1

0.6

1

0

Architecture

1

0.6

0

1

…new quote

Assistance Received from CSSP

Table 2:

N

%

Books/supplies

Assistance type

122

78.2

Tuition

120

76.9

Transportation

101

64.7

utility cut-off notices, and skipping meals due to lack of money as financial hardships that they had experienced.

Experience in CSSP Nearly two-fifths of the survey respondents (n = 61, 39.1 percent) reported that they were already in school (postsecondary, certificate and training programs) when they applied for CSSP. Of those not already in school, about three-quarters were unemployed (n = 72, 75.8 percent) and the remainder were working (n = 23, 24.2 percent). Respondents were pursuing an array of studies through CSSP. After identifying the indicated majors and stated professional goals for each respondent, we placed each respondent in one of 17 occupational categories developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics or in an additional category created for humanities/liberal studies as is indicated in Table 1. A Chi-square analysis found a statistically significant difference in the number of men and women in these categories (p < 0.05).

Table 1 presents a compilation of these findings on occupations pursued in total and by gender.

We also asked respondents to identify the types of assistance they received from CSSP: books and supplies, tuition, transportation, and stipends were the most frequently cited. Table 2 presents the type of assistance received by respondents.

In the final section of the short-answer questions, the survey offered respondents seven statements of possible ways in which CSSP might have affected their postsecondary education experience. Respondents could check all answers that applied. Table 3 presents the number of respondents checking each statement. The responses revealed the extraordinary opportunity that CSSP provides to people who need support to update their skills.

Stipend

77

49.5

School fees

67

42.9

Occupational expenses

31

19.9

Personal Reflections on CSSP Experience The survey ended with a number of open-ended questions. The first question asked respondents why they enrolled in CSSP. The responses included getting an education; moving forward in one’s career; making a better future; realizing a dream; getting training for a new career after a disability; and being an asset to one’s community. Respondents noted that CSSP provided the assistance they needed to take this step, corroborating the data presented in Table 3. The following two quotes illustrate some of the answers.

Child care

31

19.9

Career counseling

30

19.2

Eye care

21

13.5

Emergency help

21

13.5

Developmental/refresher courses

20

12.8

Clothing/uniforms

19

12.2

Dental assistance

6

3.8

64 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

MAINE’S COMPETITIVE SKILLS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

Table 3:

I always thought about getting a degree.

It was only a dream until now. (58-year-old female studying medical office management) I wanted my life back and I knew with some help I could be somebody. I wanted to be a good role model for my boys. (42-year-old female studying mental health and human services) Another open-ended question asked respondents how participation in a postsecondary program had affected their feelings about themselves. The themes that emerged here were overwhelmingly positive.

Respondents spoke of feeling more capable and confident, experiencing a sense of accomplishment, feeling empowered, having greater self respect and increased self-esteem, realizing their potential, feeling proud, and being generally happier. These positive feelings are captured in the following two respondent quotes.

For over 30 years working dead-end jobs. I have a chance to get jobs after my degree that pay what I’m worth—it feels good. (46-year-old male studying recreation management) It has validated that I am an intelligent hard-working individual. Losing a long-term job does a real number on your self-esteem—you lose your purpose.

(51-year-old female studying business and computer applications) Another question in this section asked respondents to reflect on whether their participation in the education or training program through CSSP affected their relationships with their children, spouse/ partner, friends, or other family members in any way.

Themes that emerged from the responses to this question included support and pride from friends and family members; children seeing their parent as a role model and now viewing school as more important; other family members and friends inspired to consider school also; relationships being better because respondent is happier; and while things may be stressful now because they have less time, there is a clear sense that it will be worth it in the end. The two following quotes provide examples of the rich narrative responses to this question.

Impact of CSSP on Postsecondary Education Experience Statement

N

%

CSSP made it possible for me, financially, to earn my degree

86

55.1

Staff at the CareerCenter helped me realize I really could go to school/get training

81

51.9

I would not have tried to start school without CSSP

74

47.4

CSSP made it possible for me to reduce my work hours and attend school/program

52

33.3

CSSP helped me get started with the courses I needed to prepare for college

44

28.2

I probably would have dropped out of school/program if CSSP had not helped

33

21.2

3

1.9

CSSP did not make any difference in my educational progress

My daughter and friends are very proud of me. I have been told I inspire others to keep going and to learn and pursue their dreams.

(58-year-old female studying nursing) I have been able to set an example for my son, that hard work is necessary in life for a sense of self-worth and this also allows you to gain the respect of others. With me going to school the same time as he is, he sees how important an education is, showing him LEARNING NEVER STOPS! Prior to starting school I was in a very abusive relationship with a man who did not believe I would ever return to school.

I have proven to myself and to him (we have broken up) that I am capable and worth it.

(30-year-old female studying nursing) The final question on the survey gave the respondents the opportunity to write anything further about their experiences with CSSP. Additionally, we asked them to offer suggestions for program improvement.

The overwhelming theme in the comments on this final page was one of gratitude. People wrote of the program being a life-saver, the best program on earth and miraculous.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 65

MAINE’S COMPETITIVE SKILLS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

While some people said “Don’t change any-thing!” others offered suggestions concerning the process of selecting one’s education/training program, including clarifying the list of career/training opportunities and updating the list to provide more opportunities, particularly in the medical field. One respondent suggested that there should be “more stress on helping you make sure the choice you are making is the right choice.” There were also suggestions with regard to the financial assistance including increasing the stipend, offering health insurance, and providing money for clothes.

Maine’s future prosperity will be inexorably linked with the investments we make now in human capital—cultivating the knowledge and skills of the workforce. …new quote The following three quotes provide a flavor of the gratitude expressed by most respondents on the last page of the survey.

This is a wonderful program! Thank you so much for all the help you have given me.

I feel like more women should take part in this program. I went from having the state take care of me to never having to be on MaineCare again. What a great feeling.

Thank you. (30-year-old female studying medical lab technology) My family and I want to thank everyone involved in CSSP. If it wasn’t for this program, my dreams of going to college wouldn’t have happened and it shows to my children that it doesn’t matter how old you are you can always face your fears and improve on your own intelligence and become somebody that you’ll respect as well as others. Keep helping others in Maine.

(37-year-old male studying to be a paralegal)

66 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

I would like to say thank you very for this opportunity-college. There are people in the world that can be great things just are not wealthy enough to achieve them. Thank you for helping my dreams come true, and giving me a better future to look forward to for myself and my children. (35-year-old female studying nursing) This initial examination of the experiences of CSSP participants provides a baseline for an expected longitudinal study of these 156 individuals over time. In addition, and separate from this study, CSSP staff made contact with the first 54 graduates of the program in January 2010. They learned that 70 percent were employed full-time, and another 20 percent were employed part-time. Full-time employees had an average hourly wage of $14.93—a 41 percent increase over the average wage of participants entering CSSP. Learning how CSSP-funded education and training affects future employability and financial security of program graduates will be key, especially as consideration is given to both continuing and expanding the program.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

A

s is clear from our investigation into the CSSP program, investing in the continuing education and training of low-income and unemployed Mainers is a proactive way to prepare them for, and stabilize them in, the current economy and the future. A recent MDOL report to the Maine legislature notes that CSSP participants are finding jobs in high-growth, high-wage occupations at salaries nearly double previous earnings; that they are staying in school and graduating; and that the program has made a critical difference in their decision to advance their education and to succeed (MDOL 2010). The 475 individuals currently being served are highly likely to follow in the footsteps of CSSP graduates, experiencing their same level of success. But many more Mainers wait to enroll as demand for this program far exceeds current capacity. We support those many survey participants who urged the continuation and expansion of the program, as it helped people to realize their dreams, and gave people a chance to

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

MAINE’S COMPETITIVE SKILLS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

believe in themselves again. Current plans call for an open enrollment once a year when new employer-generated funds become available. This is an important first step for this extraordinary program.

Reports by the Maine Department of Labor’s Center for Workforce Research and Information document bold and consistent shifts in Maine’s industrial and occupational structures, many of them persisting since the early 1980s. The plant closings and workforce reductions that have dislocated thousands of Maine workers, do not occur without extraordinary costs to individuals and communities, and transferring the skills and experience gained in one employment setting to the next is neither simple nor inexpensive. Workers will continue to face these industrial and occupational structural changes in the years ahead as technological innovations and globalization assert themselves. Maine’s future prosperity will be inexorably linked with the investments we make now in human capital—cultivating the knowledge and skills of the workforce.

It is important to understand the implications of this changing environment in order to best position CSSP to address them. To this end, there needs to be a clear understanding among all education and training sectors that educational preparation, skills sets, work environments, and job performance expectations will be fundamentally different for job growth areas than for those sectors reporting employment declines.

Additionally, we must move beyond the idea that employment security means getting an unemployment check. It means, in fact, repositioning those who are out of work back into the work force at the earliest possible time and into positions that enhance their ability to support themselves and their families. It is about connecting people to a process of reinstatement rather than just support for their out of work time.

Finally, the Maine Department of Labor must continue investigating how CSSP is working for participants so that it can redesign the program, if needed, to provide the greatest benefits to those involved in it. Staying in touch with participants both while they are in the program and after they leave and find employment is critical to a rigorous evaluation of the success of this program. Ongoing examination must be inquisitive and research focused. 

ENDNOTE 1. See http://www.state.me.us/labor/careerctr/ skillsscholarship/occupations.html

REFERENCES Baum, Sandy and Jennifer Ma. 2008. “Education Pays 2007: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society.” The College Board, Washington, DC. http://www.collegeboard.com/ prod_downloads/about/news_info/trends/ed_pays_ 2007.pdf [Accessed March 20, 2010] Baum, Sandy and Kathleen Payea. 2005. “Education Pays 2004: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society.” The College Board, Washington, DC. http://www.collegeboard.com/ prod_downloads/press/cost04/EducationPays2004. pdf [Accessed March 20, 2010] Brown, Rob and Auta Main. 2008. “Programs to Guide Mainers to Self-sufficiency.” Maine Sunday Telegram (August 3): C6. da Houx, Ramona. 2007. “Commissioner Fortman— Standing Up for Maine’s Workforce.” The Maine Democrat 13(Sept.–Oct.): 8–9.

Lawton, Chuck. 2010. “In Search of the Whys Behind Maine’s Pessimism.” Portland Press Herald (January 10): E1, E3.

Le, Cecilia and Richard Kazis 2009. “Educating All Learners for the New Economy.” New England Journal of Higher Education 23(3): 14–15.

Maine Department of Labor (MDOL). 2008.

Occupational Projections 2006–2010. MDOL, Center for Workforce Research and Information, Augusta.

Maine Department of Labor (MDOL). 2009. Forecast of the Consensus Economic Forecasting Commission.

MDOL, Current Employment Statistics Program and State Planning Office, Augusta.

Maine Department of Labor (MDOL). 2010. Competitive Skills Scholarship Program (CSSP) Highlights. A Report to the Maine Legislature. MDOL, Augusta.

Sasser, Alicia C. 2009. “The Future of the Skilled Labor Force.” New England Journal of Higher Education 23(3): 15–18.

U.S. Department of Labor (U.S. DOL). 2009. Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey. U.S. DOL, Bureau of Labor, Washington, DC. Please turn the page for author bios.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 67

MAINE’S COMPETITIVE SKILLS SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

Sandra S. Butler is a

John Dorrer is an econo-

professor and the coordi-

mist and research admin-

nator of the master’s degree

istrator who focuses on

program in social work at

workforce development,

the University of Maine.

human capital and labor

Her research has focused

market policies. As director

primarily on women’s

of the Center for Workforce

financial security across

Research and Information

the lifespan and successful

for the Maine Department

aging, particularly in rural environments. She is the author

of Labor, he is responsible

of Middle-aged Female and Homeless (1994), and co-editor

for overseeing the Maine’s

of Gerontological Social Work in Small Towns and Rural

statistical systems for

Communities (2003) and Shut-Out: Low Income Mothers

measuring employment, unemployment and labor market

and Higher Education (2004) and more than 50 articles and

developments. Before joining the Maine Department of

book chapters. She is currently the principal investigator on

Labor, he worked at the National Center on Education and

a project funded by the National Institute on Aging that is

the Economy in Washington, D.C.

investigating job experiences of home care workers.

…new quote

Auta M. Main is program Luisa S. Deprez is

manager for Maine’s

professor in the Department

Lifelong Learning Accounts

of Sociology and in the

(LiLA) and Competitive

Women and Gender

Skills Scholarship programs,

Studies Program at the

both housed at the Bureau

University of Southern

of Employment Services,

Maine. She has written

Maine Department of Labor.

The Family Support Act of 1988: A Case Study of

She previously spent eight years as executive director of the TimeBanks USA Network

Welfare Policy in the 1980s (2002) and co-edited Shut-Out:

in Washington, D.C., and Maine Time Banks in Portland.

Low Income Mothers and Higher Education in Post-

She also worked for several years at the Maine Centers

Welfare America (2004), along with numerous journal

for Women, Work and Community where she coordinated/

articles and book chapters about the restrictions of current

facilitated employment, training and entrepreneurship

welfare policy on low-income women seeking to access

programs for women and minorities.

higher education.

68 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 69

COMMENTARY

C O M M E N T A R Y Land Use Planning on a Grand Scale: A Decision Maker’s Perspective

by E. Bart Harvey III

O

n September 23, 2009, the seven members of the Land Use Regulation Commission (LURC) cast a unanimous vote to approve a nearly 400,000-acre concept plan for the Moosehead Lake region—the largest rezoning, and arguably the most controversial land use project, in Maine’s history.

(Figure 1 shows the area covered by the concept plan. The sidebar, page 72, provides further detail about LURC’s fouryear process to develop a concept plan for the Moosehead region.) In this commentary, I explain not only why I voted in favor of this plan, but also why I believe this approval was a good decision—for the Moosehead region, for Plum Creek and other landowners, for LURC, and for the people of Maine.

Land use decisions are by nature controversial since they usually involve a need to balance public and private interests.

In this regard, concept plans bring the controversy front and center. LURC approval of a concept plan requires that the agency find, among other things, that the plan strikes a “reasonable and publicly beneficial balance” between appropriate development and long-term conservation.

In this case, LURC’s task was to figure out to what extent Plum Creek’s proposal to rezone its land in the Moosehead region for hundreds of vacation homes and two nature-based resorts would affect the vast, largely undeveloped, and resource-rich landscape and what the public would gain from the conservation that Plum Creek was required to offer in return for developing parts of this landscape.

Our thinking about these questions occurred against a backdrop that is anything but static. Pressure to develop the highest-value real estate in Maine’s North Woods is ever present, and landowners have the ability to do so in a haphazard manner under the current statutes. Complicating the matter is a land ownership pattern that is in flux, bringing with it unclear management objectives of new owners. In sum, the future of the North Woods is rather unpredictable.

This unpredictable future has been a hallmark of the Moosehead region. An area of abundant natural and recreational resources, it is a valued place, which has faced development pressure for decades.

When Plum Creek arrived on the scene in 1998, questions about the region’s future took on new weight. Questions surfaced again in 2005 when the company filed its concept plan proposal with LURC. In reviewing Plum Creek’s proposal, the commission had the expertise of hundreds of witnesses at its disposal. Among them were witnesses representing the Open Space Institute who predicted that, under current laws and taking into account market conditions, Plum Creek could reasonably sell more than 600 real estate parcels in the area to vacation home buyers over the next 30 years, with little or no conservation as part of the bargain. Many of these homes would be placed on the shores of lakes and ponds and on so-called kingdom lots (large real estate parcels, ranging from a few hundred acres to thousands of acres in size, that are privately owned and often gated to prevent public access), and the homes

70 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

would be scattered piecemeal across the landscape. It was, therefore, not a matter of whether development would occur in the Moosehead region, but where and how it would happen.

LURC had set forth an alternative to its traditional command-and-control approach to zoning in adopting the concept planning tool in 1990: a way for landowners to gain development rights above and beyond what traditional rules allow— if they did it right and if they offered up some significant benefits to the public—and a way for LURC to deal with the problems that come with haphazard growth and to bring a sense of much-needed predicta-bility to land use planning. In other words, concept planning can offer a better way to achieve a North Woods’ version of smart growth—well-planned development that will provide for a continuation of traditional ways of life, sustainable economic opportunities, and outdoor recreation for the people of Maine without compromising the area’s unique natural resources and remote character—than mechanically applying LURC’s traditional tools of zoning.

For more than four years, LURC administered a regulatory review that was at its core a conversation about the future of the Moosehead region. By all accounts, this conversation was as robust as any major resource debate in Maine. We endeavored to create a process that was fact-based, comprehensive, inclusive and fair—to the public, to Plum Creek, and to opponents and supporters of the proposal. The quantity and quality of participation was extraordinary, and many positive changes were made to the plan as a result. It was testament to the success of the process.

The approved plan is a complex 1,000page document consisting of new land use zones and standards and many binding legal commitments. It allows well-planned residential and resort development on roughly

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

COMMENTARY

C O M M E N T A R Y Figure 1: Concept Plan for the Moosehead Lake Region

Rockwood Village

Moosehead Lake

Town of Jackman Lily Bay State Park

Town of Greenville

Private, State and Federal Land in Conservation Development Area Moosehead Region Conservation Easement 0

Roaches Pond Tract Conservation Easement

1.5

3

6

9

12 Miles

Source: Land Use Regulation Commission

16,000 acres of land near existing settlements such as Rockwood, Harford’s Point, and Lily Bay, setting the regulatory groundwork for a strong nature-based tourism economy in the Moosehead region. In turn, the plan requires the permanent conservation of 392,500 acres of land for commer-

cial forestry, outdoor recreation, and the protection of natural resources—the keystone to a vast area of conserved land stretching from Moosehead to Mount Katahdin and beyond. (See map, Figure 1.)

Although not everyone agrees with the commission’s conclusions (in fact,

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

three intervening parties have appealed the decision), our decision was solidly based on the evidence presented to us, and it followed both the letter and intent of the law. The commission operated within the scope of its authority to encourage wellplanned, well-managed multiple use of

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 71

COMMENTARY

C O M M E N T A R Y Overview: Plum Creek’s Concept Plan for the Moosehead Region Moosehead Lake, located in northwestern Maine, is the state’s largest lake, renowned for its fishing, outdoor recreation, and scenery. LURC’s comprehensive land use plan identifies the Moosehead region as an area with special planning needs, where new approaches would be needed to balance development with protection of forest, wildlife and recreational resources. One such approach is a concept plan, which is a landowner-initiated, long-term (generally 20- to 30-year) plan for the development and conservation of large blocks of lake shores and related backlands.

Plum Creek, a timberland management company and real estate investment trust, first submitted a proposed 30-year concept plan for its Moosehead region holdings in 2005—an area roughly the size of half of Rhode Island. At that time, the plan proposed development of up to 2,025 vacation homes and resort units located throughout the area, including in Big W Township, in Lily Bay Township, and along the shores of 18 lakes and ponds, and offered approximately 11,000 acres of permanently conserved land to satisfy LURC’s “publicly beneficial balance” criterion.

Plum Creek’s proposal was unprecedented in its scale and complexity and in the level of interest in and attention it generated. The four-year process undertaken to review the proposal by the commission and its staff and

land and resources. It operated within the scope of its comprehensive land use plan, which identifies the Moosehead region as an area with special planning needs where new approaches would be necessary to balance development with protection of forest, wildlife, and recreational resources.

And it operated within the scope of specific criteria for concept plans set forth in its rules.

consultants was equally unprecedented. The commission held four weeks of hearings, received testimony from 170 expert witnesses representing 26 formal parties, and accepted more than 3,800 individual letters and e-mails from members of the public. Largely because of this participation, Plum Creek formally amended the plan three times. In June 2009, following a lengthy, multi-step process, LURC amended the concept plan based on information in the record, and Plum Creek accepted the amended plan as its own.

The final plan authorizes the same maximum number of units as originally proposed, but reduces the number of affected lakes and ponds from 18 to six, pulls development near existing settlements and infrastructure, cuts the number of lakeshore lots by nearly half, eliminates all development north of the Moose River, reduces the size of the contested Lily Bay resort zone by more than half, establishes funds for wildlife and invasive species, and recreation and affordable housing mitigation, and requires 392,500 acres of permanently conserved land with guaranteed public access.

The approved concept plan, the commission’s decision document and additional information about the project can be found on LURC’s Web site: (www.maine.gov/doc/ lurc/reference/resourceplans/moosehead.html).

The commission approved the plan because it met the letter and intent of the law. But we were not obligated to like it.

Simply put, here is why I do: This plan strikes a balance between public and private interests that the commission would find difficult to achieve using any other regulatory vehicle at its disposal.

This kind of balance could not have been achieved absent two elements of

72 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

concept planning. First, because a concept plan is voluntary, it demands a partnership between the regulator and the regulated community. If the regulator is not satisfied, the plan is denied; if the landowner is not satisfied, the plan does not go forward.

Second, because a concept plan must include both a long-range vision and the implementing elements (i.e., the zoning, land use standards, and legal documents)

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

COMMENTARY

C O M M E N T A R Y to make that vision happen, the outcome is not theoretical. In other words, the plan does not sit on the shelf collecting dust.

The outcome is nothing less than extraordinary.

The Moosehead region now has a plan that recognizes that neither conservation nor development alone can sustain a region, so offers a symbiotic mix of expansive conservation and guided, permanently bounded development that protects the region’s valuable natural resources and sets the stage for much-needed economic growth. As Commissioner Steve Schaefer remarked just before casting his vote, this plan is a “tapestry for rural living.”

Plum Creek has a plan that is feasible and financially attractive. Other landowners now have an unambiguous regulatory road map to follow if they wish to seek ways to reduce regulatory uncertainty. LURC has a plan that better achieves the commission’s land use goals than its traditional zoning approach and establishes a working prototype for land use planning on a grand scale.

And the public has a plan that brings much-needed predictability to the future of an ever-changing landscape, laying out where development may and may not go and guaranteeing that the recreational access people had become accustomed to over decades will not be threatened.

Few moments in a regulator’s life are marked by dogged conviction that a good decision has been made. But given these results, and the integrity of the process that got us to this point, it is hard for me to think of our decision to approve the Moosehead concept plan as anything else. 

E. Bart Harvey III, a resident of Greenville, retired from Great Northern Paper Company after a 31-year tenure with the company. In 2000, he joined the Land Use Regulation Commission, the governing land use planning and permitting agency for the 11-million-acre unorganized territory of Maine (about half of the state). He has served as chair of the sevenmember volunteer board since 2003.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 73

COMMENTARY

C O M M E N T A R Y Educare: A Catalyst for Change

by Lauren Sterling, Sheryl Peavey and Michael Burke These public-private partnerships are the only way we’re going to get there.

It takes adults putting egos aside, putting historical differences aside, and saying, “Let’s figure out a better way to do it.” This—Educare—is a better way to do it and it’s starting to become a real national model. (U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan at the September 17, 2009, dedication of Educare of Oklahoma City)

T

he Summer/Fall 2009 issue of Maine Policy Review (Volume 18[1]) provided a comprehensive view of the early childhood system in Maine— from public-private investments to child care, mental and physical health, home visiting, economic security, and data collection and analysis. Educare is a tangible model of how to put pieces of that system together so children, their families, their schools, and their communities all benefit. We are bringing this evidence-based, quality approach to central Maine with New England’s first Educare center.

Educare Central Maine, located next to the George J. Mitchell Elementary School in Waterville, will open its doors in September 2010 and serve nearly 200 children and their caregivers with full-day, year-round early childhood services. Like all Educare centers, Educare Central Maine will provide center-based early care and education focused on dramatically improving student achievement for young children growing up in poverty.

Educare spans private and public sectors and highlights the recent federal focus on expanding quality early childhood experiences. The national, state, and local planning teams responsible for Maine’s Educare Center are already looking to its policy improvements as part of the broader movement to change early childhood systems. Right now there are eight Educare centers operating in large cities across the country; four will open in 2010; and nine more are at early stages of development. With its cohorts, Educare Central Maine joins the national Bounce Learning Network in working to change federal policy and expand highquality early education, with support from investors such as Doris Buffett’s Foundation, Buffet Early Childhood; the Gates Foundation; the Kaiser Family Foundation; and the Kellogg Foundation EDUCARE IN MAINE

How Educare Came to the State Governor Baldacci’s Economic Summit on Early Childhood in 2007 prompted an unprecedented collaboration of private funders, beginning with Doris Buffett, a part-time Maine resident.

Impressed with Maine’s efforts to improve policies and systems for families with young children, Buffett committed $3 million as seed funds for an Educare center in Maine. The Bill and Joan Alfond Foundation added to that funding with a $2 million challenge requiring an additional $4 million match to build the

74 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

facility and start an endowment. In March 2009 with legislative approval, Governor Baldacci committed $2 million towards facility construction, using state fiscal stabilization funds. Of the $11 million capital campaign goal, $8.4 million will fund construction and the rest will start an endowment for longterm program sustainability with existing federal, state, and local dollars.

Maine’s Unique Public-Private Educare Partnership Unlike other Educare programs, Maine’s Educare involves a unique partnership between government and private investors. Since August 2008, three planning teams have been working concurrently to reach the final goal of opening the first Educare Center in Maine: 1. The local partner members on the Educare Governance Board (Waterville Public Schools superintendent, Kennebec Valley Community Acton Program’s CEO and its Head Start director, along with representatives from the Bill and Joan Alfond Foundation and Buffett Early Childhood) oversee the newly formed 501(c)(3) non-profit and ensure the implementation of the core standards that define Educare.

2. The state planning team (the First Lady, three Children’s Cabinet commissioners and agency early childhood administrators) works to amend public policy to align with and support the Educare core standards for program sustainability after the facility is constructed.

3. The national Educare team (representatives from Buffet Early Childhood, Ounce of Prevention, and the Bounce Learning Network) are now partners with Maine for research, evaluation, and national policy change.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

COMMENTARY

C O M M E N T A R Y Why Waterville?

During the planning for a potential Educare center in Maine, Waterville put forth the strongest proposal to become the demonstration site. Proponents noted a history of effective organizational collaboration between the public school system and Head Start. The proposal articulated how the Educare model could build upon this good partnership to better serve young children. Finally, the proposal provided deep and detailed data arguing for the need, based on the area’s capacity issues, the number of underserved eligible parents with young children, and school-readiness data from school systems.

Who Will Be Served?

Educare Central Maine will be open to enrollment of children from families eligible for Head Start. It will also be open to children from families that are just above Head Start income eligibility guidelines, but who need quality care and whose parents are working or enrolled in higher education.

Educare Central Maine will conduct a parent outreach and advertising campaign for the above-income-eligible parents and screen through interviews and an application process.

Children from high-risk, low-income populations typically score well below national averages on a variety of school-readiness measures and are usually several months behind their more advantaged peers developmentally. For example, comprehending basic concepts such as colors, letters, sequence, and self-awareness are skills often lacking in children from impoverished environments.

In the area of the state to be served

by Educare Central Maine, 2007–2008 school readiness assessments of the

Waterville public schools reveal some disturbing realities about children coming into the K-12 system: • 67 percent of the kindergarten students come from low-income families.

• In grade 3, 60 percent of low-income students did not meet reading standards and 45 percent did not meet math standards.

EDUCARE AS A PROGRAM, A PLACE, A PARTNERSHIP, AND A PLATFORM FOR CHANGE

Program The Educare program is grounded in several connected core components to support optimal outcomes for children: research-based strategies and program evaluation; small class size and high staff/ child ratios; high staff credentials; focus on language and literacy; emphasis on social and emotional development; continuity of care; on-site family support services; and interdisciplinary service delivery approach.

Research-based strategies are derived from decades of solid studies, including many of those cited by authors in the Summer/Fall 2009 issue of Maine Policy Review. They inform the curriculum, training, and program design and support the national multi-site implementation study of Educare and Maine’s own rigorous evaluation process that will be conducted by the Muskie School of Public Service.

Small class size and staff/child ratios ensure high-quality, individualized care, build trusting and secure relationships, and support the child’s developing identity. In the Educare model, this

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

child:adult ratio is 3:1 for infants and toddlers and 5.3:1 for preschoolers.

High staff credentials reflect the research that shows that children do better with better-educated teachers.

Partnerships with schools, higher education, and government allow Educare centers to hire highly qualified staff, pay them competitive wages, and support their continued professional growth.

Indeed, the professional expectations for Educare Central Maine meet those in Quality for ME (Maine’s quality rating system).

Literacy development is a foundation for school readiness. Research shows that first-grade reading ability is a strong predictor of 11th-grade reading comprehension, vocabulary, and general knowledge (Cunningham and Stanovich 1997). The gap between children with “below average” and “average” vocabulary skills at kindergarten entry is extremely difficult and costly to narrow in later school years. Intersecting with family literacy principles, Educare programs provide frequent opportu-nities for parent education and family participation in language and literacy development.

Social-emotional skills—controlling one’s behavior, getting along with peers, and asking for and receiving help—are essential for children to become engaged, successful students.

Continuity of care helps children experience the world as predictable, supportive, and responsive as they stay with the same teacher from infancy to preschool. Transitions are carefully planned to minimize disruptions in the children’s lives and to ensure that parents, teachers, and children are fully supported.

Onsite family support services and voluntary home visiting address a child’s

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 75

COMMENTARY

C O M M E N T A R Y needs in the context of the entire family.

Educare builds on families’ strengths to support parents as the primary nurturers and educators of their children and encourages parent involvement and advocacy in their child’s education.

An interdisciplinary team approach means that staff and consultants will collaborate with area service providers to offer early care and education, health, nutritional, social, and other services that create an environment of acceptance and inclusiveness for all children, including those with special needs.

generating a more skilled workforce. In Maine the Kennebec Valley Community College and the University of Maine at Farmington will conduct early childhood degree coursework onsite at the center.

Wired for distance learning technology, the state-of-the-art early childhood professional teaching lab at Educare Central Maine will reach not only degreeseeking students, but also more than 750 early care providers regionally, thus supporting children in rural settings far from Waterville.

Place

Educare is more than a program of excellence that demonstrates what works—it sends the message that “the children and families served here matter and deserve an equal opportunity.” Most centers, like Educare Central Maine, are built next to elementary schools to make a powerful statement that “children are born learning” and “the work here is about education.” Furthermore, each Educare center is deliberately designed to show firsthand what quality, effective, and evidence-based programs for birth-to-five early learning looks like.

Educare is a place that nurtures early learning and models exemplary, evidencebased birth-to-five programming.

Educare Central Maine, a 35,000-squarefoot LEED “Green” project, merges quality physical and program designs to provide children with environmentally sustainable and emotionally supportive group experiences.

Design examples for optimized learning include wide hallways, forming not only large gross-motor space but the pathway to classrooms organized as “community neighborhoods.” Classroom windows maximize natural light and are low to the ground so small children can see out comfortably. Observation rooms abut each neighborhood and allow viewing of the teaching strategies and adult/child interactions that define Educare’s program quality.

Partnership Each Educare center draws upon all available public and private early care, educational, and financial resources to provide the highest-quality birth-to-five experiences for young children growing up in poverty. A key partnership aims at

Platform for Change

MEASURING OUTCOMES

Reviews of second-year Educare evaluation data from elsewhere in the U.S. demonstrate that the model appears to be working. It shows that children who receive the full five-year dosage of the Educare model score higher on standardized tests measuring vocabulary, literacy, and school-readiness skills.

Among the findings: • Social skills for kindergarten-bound Educare children average 60, exceeding the national average by 10 points.

76 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

• School readiness scores of kindergarten-bound Educare children average 98.8, nearing the national average of 100. Those children who entered Educare between birth and age two exceed the national average by five points.

• Using infant-toddler and early childhood environmental-rating scales, national studies of infanttoddler and preschool classrooms found average quality ratings far below those found at Educare.

Educare Central Maine leadership and staff hope to see equally promising outcomes. Outcomes will be evaluated both through the national partnership and independently through evaluation by the University of Maine’s Muskie School of Public Service. In addition, school-readiness data will be collected annually to determine Educare participant measures compared with control cohorts in nearby programs.

INFORMING PUBLIC POLICY

Although we understand that the most substantial investments are made when we keep children from falling behind in the first place, it takes bold leadership to stem the flow that funds remedial services and to redirect monies to proven preventive practices. We hope that Maine’s Educare center will demonstrate that we can create a financially sound early childhood “hub” through its unique governance, development, and operation all balanced on solid partnerships across private and public sectors.

Public will is needed to change from the way things have always been done.

Each Educare center works with state

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

COMMENTARY

C O M M E N T A R Y child advocates along with the Birth to Five Policy Alliance and the First Five Years Fund to shift the mindsets of citizens and funders. In Maine, we are incorporating Educare elements into the state’s child care quality rating system. We are following Maine’s Business Roundtable recommendation to establish an even broader early childhood partnership that can leverage public and private funds and bolster early childhood services statewide.

Indeed, even before construction is complete, Educare Central Maine’s governance board has identified some policy recommendations for the state:

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Chaunda Roseborough-Smith at Ounce of Prevention Fund.

REFERENCE Cunningham, Ann E. and Keith E. Stanovich.

1997. “Early Reading Acquisition and Its Relation to Reading Experience and Ability 10 Years Later.” Developmental Psychology 33(6): 934–945.

Sheryl Peavey is director of Maine’s Early Childhood Initiative, Department of Health and Human Services. She staffs the Maine Children’s Growth Council and the Governor’s Business Roundtable on Early Childhood

• Align funding policies to ensure continuity of service.

Investment.

• Rewrite policy to decrease administrative burden.

• Increase reimbursements that support quality programming for low-income families—particularly infants and toddlers.

• Blend Department of Education and Department of Health and Human Services funds, including Federal Title I, to support a birth to 8 agenda.

Policy changes proposed through the development of Educare Central Maine can have a positive impact on all early childhood programs, especially those serving Maine’s low-income young children. Supporting the quality, well-trained workforce and holistic family-centered services provided under the Educare model can position Maine as a resourceful leader at a time when economic crisis demands bold, well-informed, and creative change. 

Lauren Sterling staffs the Maine Governor’s Children’s Cabinet and the Maine Department of Education’s 21st Century Community Learning Center afterschool program. She currently coordinates cross-systems support to various child and youth initiatives, including Educare and the Shared Youth Vision Council.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Michael Burke is program director for the Buffett Early Childhood Fund, based in Omaha, Nebraska. The Buffett Early Childhood Fund and Ounce of Prevention Fund work together to support the Bounce Network of Educare Centers across America.

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 77

COMMENTARY

C O M M E N T A R Y Why Margaret Still Matters

by Martha Sterling-Golden

M

y sisters and I grew up in Bingham, Maine, just north of Skowhegan.

Our mother worked for Margaret Chase Smith early in the senator’s political career. She was always “Margaret” at our house, a strong, smart, determined woman toiling from afar for the people of Maine. It seemed so normal that a woman would be an elected official that I only gradually became aware that it was unusual and began to wonder why. As the wake of the last presidential election settles out behind us, I am still wonder-ing. Why does the life and story of Margaret Chase Smith still resonate with so many American women from across the political landscape?

Many in Maine believe that the elections of Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and now Chellie Pingree, prove that we have gone beyond the barriers to women and political leadership. Our representation in Washington reflects the strength of Maine women on the national stage, and certainly our federal officials have enormous impact on the architecture of American policy. However, what kind of progress has been made in districts around the state?

Maine women have done well, earning positions of leadership in Augusta, with long-standing representation by women in the state house. Unfortunately, we are far from parity in representation; indeed, women have lost ground in the legislature, with Maine dropping to 13th place in the percentage of female legislators, even as New Hampshire became the first state in the nation with a majority of women in a state senate. This decline matters, for it is in our local politics where the difference is most keenly felt: at the state house and on

the county commissions and municipal boards from which many of our gubernatorial candidates, as well as those for the U.S. House and Senate, emerge.

Maine’s political culture does not exist in a vacuum. It is a reflection of attitudes across the country, with implications for women’s leadership in every field. For example, the 2005 landmark survey of the Project for Excellence in Journalism revealed that more that three-fourths of all news stories contained male sources, only one-third contained a female source, and the great majority of the latter appeared in so-called lifestyle articles. In 2002 the Association of American Medical Colleges released a survey that found that only 11 medical school deans were women, out of 126 teaching institutions. Similar numbers appear in major law firms, which are breeding grounds for politicians. Women chair only two percent of these firms, and only 19 percent of partners are women.

Progress in politics cannot happen without broader success for women’s advancement.

Globally, the United States places 84th in the number of women elected to public office. We lag behind Mexico, China, and Pakistan. According to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, since 1789, only two percent of our congressional representation has been women. This in spite of the fact that women sponsor more bills and secure more co-sponsors than their male counterparts, delivering on average nine percent more discretionary spending for their home districts.

The root of this problem is deep within our culture and our well-intentioned selves. In my former role as president of the

78 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Winter/Spring 2010

Women’s Campaign School at Yale University, I heard tremendously accomplished women from around the United States and the world question whether they “knew enough” to be good representatives of their people. These women were presidents of companies, judges, activist mothers, and even foreign royals. What they shared was a desire to prepare themselves, as fully as possible, for the opportunity to lead their communities, provinces, states, or countries.

It is notable that in all my decades working in politics, I’ve never heard such questions expressed by a male candidate for anything. Women are still too ready to doubt, and it’s no wonder. The recent presidential campaigns displayed, with disheartening clarity, the superficial perils women face in media coverage. It happens to women in every field, whether television news, sports, business, or politics. Any woman who has ever sought tenure at a university or college understands the perils of “collegiality.” We are judged by a harsher, mercurial standard, and we are guilty of making those judgments of one another.

Who takes care of the children? Why didn’t she divorce him? That color washes her out. How did she get that job? She’s too shrill.

The complexities of women’s public lives are daunting. At Women’s Campaign School, we were often criticized for instructing women about the importance of their appearance at public events. Our participants arrived proudly arrayed in their red suits, having been told by one misguided consultant after another that “red is the power color” as though it might impart some magical properties to the wearer. We believed, and still teach, that traditional power finds difference distracting, noting the obvious lack of red jackets among public men. This is recognition of fact, not endorsement. We are not

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

COMMENTARY

C O M M E N T A R Y yet accustomed to accepting the authoritative voices of women without assigning negative connotations. We want to believe that we are beyond such superficial markers, but the amount of ink devoted to Hillary Clinton’s “traveling pantsuits” and Sarah Palin’s hair indicates otherwise.

The question we face is that if we cannot let go of our own outdated and gender-biased feelings about what power should look like, how can women transcend this bias and become full partners in governance? The problem remains that virtually every professional hierarchy has developed to suit the lives and ambitions of men, making leadership inherently hostile to women. We do not want to ask ourselves whether our fathers, husbands, brothers, friends, sons, or even we ourselves are capable of such prejudice because once recognized, one must either confront it, or give up the idea of leadership within one’s field. But we must ask.

Women are the majority of the population of the United States. We vote more, even as we receive less health care and lower wages and retirement benefits. With enormous increases in credentialed and experienced women ready to lead, we should begin to demand the necessary changes in leadership structures that will enable women to contribute all we can and be recognized accordingly. We have rejoiced too much in the success of too few, and the recent spate of new books on the topic of women’s progress, or rather, lack thereof, reinforces that there is a renewed awareness of the need for continuing vigilance and action.

Let’s take a long, cold look at the basics and prepare women to fully engage in political life. We must train a generation of women and men who think about power in a different way, one that doesn’t expect women to downplay strength while playing up charm. While it is true that women have access to political science, law, and social

sciences taught through the lens of women’s experience, we should provide more in-depth opportunity within women’s studies programs or elsewhere in the curriculum for applied politics. The progress of our country demands full opportunity for women in leadership, and our educational system must help.

Margaret Chase Smith did not consider herself a feminist. However, she was acutely aware of her own marginalization every time she stepped out of the Senate chamber to use the bathroom.

For the first 23 years of Senator Smith’s congressional life, she was forced to stand in line, between votes, with women visiting the Capitol. Male senators had private bathrooms, of course. Finally, in 1963 as Senator Mike Mansfield, D-Montana, prepared to step down from the Rules Committee, he arranged for Senator Smith and Democratic Senator Maurine Neuberger of Oregon to have offices adjoining a space that would become their shared private bathroom.

(It should be said that Senator Smith considered this shared arrangement “separate, but not equal” to accommodations provided for her male colleagues.)

We should challenge stereotypes wherever we may find them, especially within ourselves, and resist all efforts to diminish or trivialize our participation in any field of our choosing. Margaret Chase Smith will always matter, but one day she may be recognized as the mother of a fully integrated representative government, not as a brave anomaly. Maybe then red will really be a power color. 

View current & previous issues of MPR at: mcspolicycenter.umaine.edu/?q=MPR

Martha Sterling-Golden, a Maine native, has been active in politics for 30 years.

She is an alumna of the Women’s Campaign School at Yale University, and was president of the program from 2006 to 2008. SterlingGolden is currently on the board of Maine NEW Leadership at the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center, University of Maine and the board of Emerge Maine, a state chapter of the national Democratic women’s training program.

Volume 19, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 79

Dear Reader: Reader support is an important funding source for Maine Policy Review. To help us continue providing MPR to our readers, please send your contribution today.

Suggested contribution levels:

Major Sponsors . . . . . . $10,000 and above

Patrons . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5,000 - $9,999 Benefactors . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,000 - $4,999 Donors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $

500 - $999

Contributors . . . . . . . . . $

100 - $499

Friends . . . . . . . . . . . . . $

1 - $99

We list our contributors in each issue of the journal.

Please check one of the following :

I would like acknowledgement to be listed under the following

name(s) or company name:

I would like my contribution to be anonymous.

Please make your check payable to: Margaret Chase Smith Foundation Mail your contribution to the Foundation at: Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center 5784 York Complex, Bldg #4 University of Maine Orono, ME 04469-5784

Thank you for your support!

Maine Policy Review Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center 5784 York Complex, Bldg. #4 Orono, ME 04469-5784

PRSRT BPM U.S. POSTAGE PAID AUGUSTA, ME PERMIT NO. 121