Maine Policy Review Summer/Fall 2012

Summer/Fall 2012 · Vol. 21, No. 2 · $15

Maine Policy Review TWENTIETH

ANNIVERSARY

Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center

MAINE POLICY R

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

E

V

I

E

W

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 1

PUBLISHERS MARGARET CHASE SMITH POLICY CENTER Linda Silka, Director

MARGARET CHASE SMITH FOUNDATION Charles Cragin, Chair

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 Catherine Dickerson Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center

DEVELOPMENT Eva McLaughlin Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center

COVER ILLUSTRATION Robert Shetterly

PRINTING J.S. McCarthy

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 Foundation. The material published within does not necessarily reflect the views of the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center or the Margaret Chase Smith Foundation.

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 the journal’s Web site, http://digitalcommons.library. umaine.edu/mpr/.

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 mpr@maine.edu

The University of Maine does not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, including transgender status and gender expression, national origin, citizenship status, age, disability, genetic information or veteran’s status in employment, education, and all other programs and activities. The following person has been designated to handle inquires regarding nondiscrimination policies: Director, Office of Equal Opportunity, 101 North Stevens Hall, 207.581.1226.

2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

View current & previous issues of MPR at: http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

THANKS TO …

Major Sponsor

Margaret Chase Smith Foundation Benefactors

Maine Community Foundation Donors

Karl Turner & Susannah Swihart Linda Silka & Larry Smith Contributors

H. Allen & Sally Fernald Merton G. Henry Richard C. Hill Roger Katz William Knowles

Barry K. Mills & Susan G. Mills Peter Mills Maine Development Foundation Maine Education Association The Potholm Group (TPG)

Evan Richert Lee Webb And anonymous Contributors

Marge Kilkelly & Joe Murray Philip McCarthy H. Paul McGuire Sylvia Most & Alan Cardinal Lars Rydell

Elizabeth Ward Saxl and Michael Saxl Basil Wentworth And anonymous Friends

Friends

Tracy B. Bigney Michael R. Crowley Evergreen Communications Maroulla S. Gleaton David Hart

Volume Twenty-one 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: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

6

THE MARGARET CHASE SMITH ESSAY Attraction and Retention— Maine’s Challenge

by Ed Cervone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

STUDENT PERSPECTIVE The Pursuit of Happiness

by Derek Sargent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

THANKS TO OUR REVIEWERS

4 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

. . . . . . . . 113

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FORUMS

Celebrating Maine Policy Review’s 20th Anniversary

Consumer Support for a Maine Woods Tourism Quality Label

Ann Acheson, Ralph Townsend, Kathryn Hunt, Merton G. Henry, Peter Mills and Linda Silka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

David Vail and Harold Daniel report findings of a survey of North American vactioners, which assessed the strength of interest in quality-labeled Maine vacation experiences and tested consumer will­ingness to pay a price premium for certified tour “prod­ucts.”

Improving Maine’s Future through Education: Overcoming Challenges and Learning to “Row” Together Linda Silka, Karen Hutchins, Meredith Jones and Chris Rector present their recommendations for strengthening Maine’s educational systems through working together across disciplines and areas of expertise.

Linda Silka, Karen Hutchins, Meredith Jones and Chris Rector . . . 14

David Vail and Harold Daniel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Home Care Workers in Maine: Increasingly Essential Workers Face Difficult Job Conditions Sandra Butler examines the nature of the job of home care aide and presents findings from the Maine Home Care Worker Retention Study carried out from 2008 through 2010 and the follow-up Older Worker Study completed in 2011.

Sandra S. Butler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

School District Reorganization in Maine: Lessons Learned for Policy and Process Janet Fairman and Christine Donis-Keller examine Maine’s recent effort to consolidate school districts and provide a list of “lessons learned” from the process.

Janet Fairman and Christine Donis-Keller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Outdoor Smoke-Free Policies in Maine David E. Harris, Suzanne Roy, and Sarah Mayberry review the history and poli­cy implications of smoking bans, focusing on bans on outdoor smoking in particular.

David E. Harris, Suzanne Roy and Sarah Mayberry . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Attitudes toward Offshore Wind Power in the Midcoast Region of Maine James Acheson discusses the results of his survey on public opinion about offshore wind power and assesses the accuracy of some of the public’s concerns.

James M. Acheson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Biofuels Development in Maine: Using Trees to Oil the Wheels of Sustainability

In the Public Interest: A Discussion with Theda Skocpol about the Scholars Strategy Network Theda Skocpol discusses the Scholars Strategy Network, an organization that helps university-based researchers and teachers to get involved in public debates.

Luisa S. Deprez and Amy Fried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

Caroline Noblet, Mario Teisl, Katherine Farrow, and Jonathan Rubin discuss findings from their survey on consumers’ knowledge and perceptions of ethanol.

Caroline L. Noblet, Mario F. Teisl, Katherine H. Farrow and Jonathan Rubin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 5

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR

, s r e d a e R Dear

g that it is fittin f topics , 2 1 0 2 range o ersary in 0th anniv s: it covers a wide roughout 2 ’s w ie v e the year interest th e Policy R ate Main ers published over that have been of ucation. Linda r b le e c e ed d th As w t topic of how people from pical of o nt in the state an n ty ta r is o e p su porta the im this is prove discuss ors tackle urrently im is Rector ther to im that are c years. Several auth h Jones, and Chr might work toge ibe what 0 es dit scr the past 2 Hutchins, Mere ifferent perspectiv e Donis-Keller de nsolidation n d n co re Silka, Ka ciplines and with irman and Christi d school district e Policy is te a a in d F a d t t n e n M a n re e line nc ’s m s. Ja diffe t focus si wer) and by Caro outcome ot work in Maine n l a ta r n o o p ti a c an im edu d po c did n also been (cellulosi shore win nd what worked a 2007. Energy has mes Acheson (off Jonathan Rubin ese new Ja nd t th in initiated nding. Articles by erine H. Farrow, a nd attitudes abou ws a perena u vie th Review’s fo Mario F. Teisl, Ka owledge, behavior, Daniel’s article re vey on travld n t, sur L. Noble cuss consumers’ k vid Vail and Haro sent results of a xperience. re a e is p d ethanol) nergy in Maine. D y—tourism; they th Woods tourism e state’s e r th m f o sources o in Maine’s econo uality-labeled” N e Policy Review is ne makes t q in vo c “ a r nial subje gness to pay for a arlier issues of M ith Essay, Ed Ce se population e m n S li in diver se elers’ wil pic also featured garet Cha ounger and more Sandy Butler r a M e to th larger, y raphics.

Another ic challenges. In racting a ine’s aging demog Maine and the tt ph a a r r g fo o s m n e a d re is M atio ers in Healthca ommend at the problem of home care work c .” e re c e la p m so in n b and te to com m several studies o er Mainers to “age is, Suzanne Roy, a st e th to o ld arr sue ndings fr vid E. H llowing o e. Our is presents fi le they play in a the article by Da smoking in Main kocpol about in r t ro aS importan nted in this issue, s bans on outdoo rview with Thed rsity-based e te se ss in u re n c ’s dis lps u ive ried also rep rry, which prez’s and Amy F anization that he research more e b y a M org Sarah isa De rgaret e their (SSN), an s with Lu and mak ssay from the Ma conclude s Strategy Network lic policy debates e g Sargent. b e-winnin lar the Scho get involved in pu e first-place-priz students by Derek th rsary, l rs th annive ital researche ssible, followed by st for high schoo 0 2 ’s w ie v nte ce Policy Re aine Dig widely ac h Library essay co st Maine e University of M mmons. ju t it o m n S s Chase igitalco rough th year mark that this line “presence” th re now available (d ore “visible” to d e it c x e We are much m nsive a new on st issues a move to th current and pa eview will now be g part of an exte a o ls a t u in b bo be yR s, where aine Polic efit from Common ine.edu/mpr/). M and also will ben a es library.um rnet search engin search. te ic In f em re users o ality acad u q f o n o collecti

6 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012



Best,

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/R



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: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 7

THE MARGARET CHASE SMITH ESSAY

The Margaret Chase Smith Essay

Attraction and Retention— Maine’s Challenge

by Ed Cervone

P

opulation may be Maine’s biggest challenge as we look for ways to grow our economy—and this is nothing new.

In 2000, Deirdre Mageean, Richard Sherwood, and Gillian AvRuskin coauthored an article published in Maine Policy Review entitled, “Whither Maine’s Population.” Their analysis highlighted three interrelated trends: slow overall population growth, a reduction in the number of young people, and the aging of the population. They stressed that these trends would have real implications for economic growth, for workforce development, and for the delivery of services such as health care. The article urged Maine policymakers and leaders to plan and prepare so that we could address these challenges.

Twelve years later, these trends continue, and if anything, have accelerated. At the time of that article, Maine was the fourth oldest state in the nation by median age. Today, it is the oldest

state. Population projections now don’t just call for slower growth, but actually for no growth. More of Maine’s population will reach retirement age and exit the workforce, taking with them their skills and knowledge. We won’t have enough younger workers to fill those vacancies, and it is not clear whether the younger workers we do have will possess the necessary skills to meet the demands of the market. Together, these factors will greatly hinder Maine’s productivity and economic growth.

One thing is certain: If we are to grow the economy and sustain that growth over time, Maine will need more people. I am referring to people who currently aren’t here, who will move to Maine communities, participate in the economy, raise families, and make Maine their home. This is our attraction and retention challenge. Since I have moved to Maine, we have approached this challenge in a relatively limited fashion. We have developed a handful of policy tools and programs, aimed predominantly at young Mainers who have left for academic or career pursuits, and we haven’t provided resources to those efforts at a level that reflects the magnitude of the challenge.

This is not to say that these tools and programs don’t have value, nor that young Mainers aren’t a good target population for attraction and retention efforts, but I would argue that this limited approach hasn’t been successful in turning the demographic tide.

8 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

Why do people move to a region and why do they stay? People seek employment and economic opportunities. They seek a quality of life comprised of cultural, community, and environmental assets.

They seek a diversity of people and experiences. People are more willing and able to relocate based on these assets than in the past, and they have more choices every day. Maine is in competition with the rest of the world, and we have everything to gain or lose. The good news is that we have many assets in place, but we have done an inadequate job of communicating that to the world.

In 2001, I was living in Colorado and decided to go back to grad school and then pursue a new career. I applied to a variety of universities around the country based on program offering and proximity to skiing. Maine made the list as an afterthought. There were mountains, snow, and programs at the University of Maine that matched my interests. I was accepted at the University of Maine and chose to come because the people there reached out to me and not only expressed an interest, but pitched a compelling future I hadn’t considered. I saw real opportunity, and that brought me to Maine sight unseen.

Once here I received a superior education in a diverse community of peers from around the world. The combination of community, people, natural beauty, and career opportunities kept me here—attraction and retention at work. I had lived, worked, and traveled around the country

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

THE MARGARET CHASE SMITH ESSAY

and overseas and had not experienced the quality of life I have found in Maine. I am a rational person and certainly not unique, so it seems likely that a similar sell could be made to more people with a little planning and effort.

But we need to think more broadly than young Mainers who left home or even someone like me. We must sell Maine to the whole world. From a practical perspective, limiting the pool of potential new Mainers makes the difficult task of recruitment even more difficult and less likely to succeed. What’s more, greater diversity would appear to have its own benefits. Growing and prosperous regions in our country are more racially and ethnically diverse than Maine. We strive to be similar to them in many other economic measures—why not population?

We expect Maine children to grow up and compete in a global economy, yet many have no exposure to a global population and this leaves them at a competitive disadvantage.

Fortunately for us, some of this has already started to happen in pockets around the state. Families from Africa, Asia, and Latin America have immigrated to the U.S. and have chosen Maine for many of the same reasons listed in this essay. Some are here as refugees seeking a better quality of life; some have come to get an education in our high schools and colleges; and some have come for work in a variety of industries. All see opportunity here and the potential for prosperity. They bring with them their skills, their experiences, and their families. These are things our economy and communities need, and we could use a lot more.

Programs and policy are tools that will play a role, but they are not the solution. The best attraction and retention plan for Maine would focus on three tasks in which all Maine people and institutions

could play a role. The first is to ensure that the assets that make Maine “meaningfully unique” are intact and remain so for years to come. This includes industry, educational institutions, historic communities, cultural and arts institutions, and our vast natural resources. We cannot put off the hard work or the investments needed in these areas if we want people to come and stay. The second task is that we need to tell the world about all these great things, and we need to do it again and again. I have heard a number of thoughtful explanations rationalizing our reluctance to speak about our assets, but in the end those explanations are only useful if they lead to solving that problem. The third and most important task is that we need to be welcoming.

This applies to all people. People who move here aren’t here to take, and they aren’t here to undo what makes this place Maine. Quite the contrary—they are here to give, to partake, and are drawn here by all that makes this place Maine. Their presence reinforces and sustains the identity of this state.

We have an opportunity and urgent need to change Maine’s current demographic trajectory. Further delay would be a mistake. It will not be easy, but it is necessary. And in the end, greater diversity and greater numbers will strengthen our state in ways that will surprise us. It could even create the type of community and energy that brings back some of those young Mainers who left looking for something else. 

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

Ed Cervone is the president and CEO of the Maine Development Foundation.

Originally from Pennington, New Jersey, he moved to Maine in 2001 to earn his master’s of science in ecology and environmental sciences from the University of Maine’s Department of Resource Economics and Policy. Cervone has been researching and working on economic policy issues in Maine for more than 10 years. He is a resident and city councilor in Hallowell.

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 9

MAINE POLICY REVIEW’S 20TH ANNIVERSARY

Celebrating Maine Policy Review’s 20th Anniversary

by Ann Acheson, Ralph Townsend, Kathryn Hunt, Merton G. Henry, Peter Mills and Linda Silka

T

his year we celebrate 20 years of publishing Maine Policy Review. We invited several people who have been closely associated with the journal over the years to provide their perspectives on Maine Policy Review’s past, present, and future: Ralph Townsend, the founding editor; Kathryn Hunt, who served the journal for 13 years as managing editor and editor; Merton G. Henry, long-time colleague of Margaret Chase Smith and member and past chair of the Margaret Chase Smith Center Advisory Board; Peter Mills, current chair of the Center’s Advisory Board and a contributor to the journal; and Linda Silka, director of the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center.

“More Light than Heat”

By Ralph Townsend

Its contributions are, for the most part, on an intellectual level that sheds more light than heat on some of the most controversial issues of our times….It, therefore, probably will not make much news that will compete with hours of violence and sex on TV and columns on the bedroom lives of public figures in the press.But it deserves some quiet scrutiny by those who like a serious discussion of public problems.

—James Russell Wiggins, Ellsworth American, Feb. 27, 1992, Section II, page 1.

10 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

In the spring of 1991, I made an appointment to meet with Steve Ballard, then director of the Margaret Chase Smith Center for Public Policy [later renamed the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center]. My purpose for meeting was modest: to suggest that Maine would benefit from a policy journal that discussed, analyzed, and debated policy issues that were specific to Maine. I had not expected to walk out the door an hour later as the founding editor of the Maine Policy Review.

I brought to my duties as founding editor a policy wonk’s conviction that, in the long run, good policy analysis matters. During my five years as editor, the journal devoted a large share of its content to regulatory policy. To a small extent, this reflected my own interests. But regulatory policy was high on the state agenda, and the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center had a particular interest in regulatory policy. States had become deeply engaged in questions of deregulation as the agenda shifted to state-level regulation of electricity and intra-state telecommunications. Siting, land-use policy, and environmental regulation were also being strenuously debated in most states, and certainly in Maine, in the 1990s. Because of this agenda, the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center attracted support from public utilities and the natural resource industry for the “Public Regulation and the Environment” (PURE) project. That project provided the first five years of financial support for Maine Policy Review, and many articles during those years had their origins in presentations at the annual PURE conferences.

My goals for Maine Policy Review were modestly long run. I hoped it would publish some pithy analysis that some future governor or legislative committee chair would find by accident, and the analysis would thereby shape policy for the better. And in re-reading some articles from the early issues of 20 years ago, I think some of the contributions would still be useful today to those working in the legislative or regulatory process. So it was rewarding when Russell Wiggins, who had been managing editor of the Washington Post and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, opined that we had achieved “more light than heat” in our first issue. Like all good editors, he did not praise without reservation: he did hint at a need to work a bit harder in some places with his qualifying “for the most part” in the quotation at the head.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

MAINE POLICY REVIEW’S 20TH ANNIVERSARY

When I stepped down as editor, I knew that the editorial team of Greg Gallant, Kathy Hunt, and Chris Spruce would not only sustain but improve Maine Policy Review. It is therefore a great pleasure to see the journal thriving on its 20th anniversary. Much like a parent watching children succeed on unforeseen paths, I still consider my role in Maine Policy Review as one of the most rewarding of my career.

Durable and Deep

By Kathryn Hunt

For 13 years I worked on Maine Policy Review— first, as managing editor and then, with the departure of the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center director Steve Ballard, as editor. Over those years, the journal evolved from one primarily focused on regulation, utilities, and the environment to a multifaceted journal covering the breadth of issues affecting our state. With parallel improvements to its look and format, the journal came into its own as an enduring publication that I would describe as durable, deep, and an increasingly scarce public good.

What do I mean by durable and deep? The durability of the journal gets to the heart of what we tried to instill in Maine Policy Review from the start. At one point in my tenure as editor, the question was raised by our editorial board: “Why continue to publish in hard copy? Why not publish electronically?”

The answer to this question, which helps to explain the journal’s durability, lies in my bookcase today— where every issue of Maine Policy Review resides and to which I turn when confronted with an issue that requires more than superficial understanding. So many of the challenges we confront today have deep and long histories that are important to understand, but which too often are forgotten in the currency of the moment. Our goal was to create a durable resource that lived in bookcases and on coffee tables, accessible because it wasn’t hidden or forgotten in a vast cyber world, and timely because the articles spoke to deep roots and consequently, would hold their value over time. (Of course, the journal is also available online, but I suspect I am not alone in preferring to find it in my bookcase.)

And what do I mean by increasingly scarce public good? Without a generous contribution from the Margaret Chase Smith Foundation every year, we would not have been able to achieve our goal of durability. We would also not have been able to provide the journal at no cost to readers. We debated at length whether to charge a subscription fee, even conducting reader surveys on the issue, and learned something surprising. Our readers were willing to make an annual charitable contribution to the journal at a level significantly higher than they were willing to pay for a subscription—sometimes a difference of hundreds of dollars. What to make of this finding? Here’s what we concluded. When Maine Policy Review is stacked against popular news and information sources in the private marketplace, the journal fares poorly: too deep, too infrequent, too hard to digest and regurgitate in sound bites. But, in the public marketplace, Maine Policy Review is a valued public good, helping not only to inform but also to educate Maine’s citizenry.

Normally, I would extend this thought to suggest that it is in the public domain where multifaceted issues are still given the considered attention they deserve. Given the state of politics today, however, I think I’ll end by saying that at least in Maine Policy Review, serious issues are still treated seriously. And I think people are still hungry for this.

Rambling Thoughts

By Merton G. Henry

Senator Margaret Chase Smith, in a life spanning most of the 20th century, embodied those traits of independence, integrity, and dedication to public service that Maine cherishes in its political leaders.

Since World War II, Maine has been blessed with a line of superb leaders in both Washington and Augusta.

Maine Policy Review reflects the traits of these political leaders by raising and discussing major issues confronting our state.

Today we live in a highly partisan political society with seemingly endless bickering and an inability to reach across party lines to solve problems. During her political career from 1940 to 1973, Senator Smith lived and worked in an era when reaching across the aisle

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 11

MAINE POLICY REVIEW’S 20TH ANNIVERSARY

and compromise were not anathema. When Senator Smith was asked by the University of Maine for permission to use her name in connection with its policy center, she insisted that the policy center be nonpartisan if her name was to be involved. Nothing has reflected that nonpartisanship better than Maine Policy Review over the past 20 years.

Both the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center and Maine Policy Review have had outstanding leadership, which has contributed immeasurably to their increasing recognition and influence in Maine. As new issues confront Maine, both the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center and Maine Policy Review stand ready to help address those issues in our ever changing society. The best years of both still lie ahead.

Policy Versus Politics

By Peter Mills

With 20 years of Maine Policy Review laid out on my dining room table, it is easy to be overwhelmed by what we find within these several thousand pages— an abundance of inquisitive energy, analysis, candor, and values encapsulated in what has become an encyclopedia of careful thinking about the social and political fabric of our small state.

It has not always been clear how to identify the audience for such a journal—whether it be legislators, executive branch administrators, town managers, town leaders, school leaders, lawyers, or students of policy.

But one thing is sure: Maine Policy Review has found its way into the hands (and minds) of those who make a difference in how we live. In the fields of education, agriculture, utilities, the environment, taxation, and economics, the journal has provided a place for pragmatic people to do their deepest thinking about the future of our polity.

Day-to-day public news is too often consumed with temporal politics, the sturm und drang of who’s winning and losing. TV and news outlets recount daily conflicts as though they were sporting events.

Important public issues are reduced to a contest of wills between blind ideologies with name calling and negative ads fueled by cash from biased billionaires.

12 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

Not so at Maine Policy Review. There is a sense that if thoughtful people gather facts, analyze them carefully, seek peer advice, and keep asking questions, certain answers will emerge, answers that actually work when based on experience and an open-minded willingness to amend and adjust.

It is too often true that politics makes a painful mess of the noblest policy. As an academic friend of mine so cynically observes, “In politics, the plural of anecdote is policy.” But it need not always be so.

In the long run, politicians will respond to good policy so long as it remains a visible lodestar to provide a direction and focus for political energy.

Maine Policy Review is Maine’s policy lodestar.

Because she knew and believed that politics must always be guided by sound policy, Margaret Chase Smith would be so proud.

Reflections of a “Newcomer”

By Linda Silka

When I was asked to become the director of the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center in 2009, a major draw was the opportunity to join the group of colleagues producing the Maine Policy Review.

From Massachusetts, where I was then located, I had watched how this publication was deepening and informing policy discussions in Maine. My associates at universities in Massachusetts were eager to learn how such a journal had originated and how it maintained its edge because there are few data-driven, scholarly publications that, at the same time, are written for leaders and citizens who use the information for creating real policies.

Articles in Maine Policy Review have been important in framing discussions on so many topics.

As I travel throughout Maine representing the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center, I frequently meet people who want to discuss (that is, agree with or argue about) an idea they learned about in Maine Policy Review. Most recently these lively discussions have included the special issues on food and on sustainability. From Portland to Fort Kent, people I’ve met want to talk about the ways these two issues

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

MAINE POLICY REVIEW’S 20TH ANNIVERSARY

are helping them to think through difficult questions about Maine’s economic future and how that future may be tied to reinventing the state’s agricultural past and developing ways to link fishing, farming, and forestry in rural and urban settings.

In the last year, as I have traveled to conferences and workshops around the country, I’ve begun taking along copies of the latest Maine Policy Review to show the approach we in Maine have created for bringing together ideas, people, and topics and avoiding partisan stalemates. Maine remains an important exemplar of how people can work together across the aisle and across disciplinary boundaries and do so in ways that are informed by the latest scholarship that is written in a way that can lead directly to action.

Some Closing Thoughts

By Ann Acheson

Reading the complimentary words about Maine Policy Review from this group of thoughtful people has reminded me again why I have so enjoyed the unexpected opportunity that came my way when I was asked to be managing editor 10 years ago, and then became editor in 2008. It’s good to take step back from the everyday tasks of hounding authors for overdue articles, editing drafts, and worrying about scarce resources to reflect on what the journal is all about and how much it means to its readers and contributors.

As others here have noted, Maine Policy Review has grown and evolved over the last 20 years, but remains true to its mission of providing “independent, peer-reviewed analyses of pubic policy issues relevant to Maine,” as the statement reads on our masthead.

One of the ways Maine Policy Review has changed in recent years is in the increasing number of special issues on a particular theme. From the journal’s founding in 1992 through 2006, there had only been two special issues: housing (1999) and aging (2003).

Since 2007, we have published five special issues on various, but important, topics: the future of Maine’s North Woods (2007), climate change and energy (2008), early childhood (2009), Maine’s food system

(2011), and sustainability (2012). Another special issue, on libraries and information in Maine, is scheduled for winter/spring 2013. In all of these cases, people have approached us with proposals for the issue and have worked closely with us on the issue’s development and production as guest editors. We have been honored to have some eminent political figures write the Margaret Chase Smith Essay in recent special issues, including Senator Olympia Snowe, former first Lady Barbara Bush, former Senator George Mitchell, Representative Chellie Pingree, and Agriculture Department Undersecretary Kevin Concannon.

As Maine Policy Review moves forward, we continue to wrestle with the question of the best format for such a journal in the digital age. Many journals have ceased to publish in hard copy and only exist in electronic format. Many people today, especially younger ones, now “consume” most content via electronic means. Moreover, hard-copy publishing and distribution are expensive, in the case of Maine Policy Review usually accounting for 25 percent of our total costs. For the near future, at least, we do not plan on converting the journal to a solely online existence.

However, we have for many years made Maine Policy Review available on our Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center website and have now moved to a new phase in making the journal more widely accessible. Our new online “presence” is through the University of Maine Digital Commons, where both current and past issues are now available (digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/ mpr/). Maine Policy Review will now be much more “visible” to users of Internet search engines and also will benefit from being part of an extensive collection of quality academic research. -

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 13

EDUCATION AND MAINE’S FUTURE

Improving Maine’s Future through Education: Overcoming Challenges and Learning to “Row” Together

by Linda Silka Karen Hutchins

Although people agree that education is a crucial ingredient in the mix of factors that will improve Maine’s economic prospects, we often come at the problem from different angles and develop different methods to improve educational outcomes. In this article, Linda Silka, Karen Hutchins, Meredith Jones, and Chris Rector assert that progress in securing a bright future for Maine requires working together across disciplines and areas of expertise to support education. The authors present nine recommendations for strengthening Maine’s educational systems.



Meredith Jones Chris Rector

14 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

EDUCATION AND MAINE’S FUTURE

…progress in INTRODUCTION

M

any people have come to realize that education is a crucial ingredient in the mix of factors that will improve the economic prospects of Maine’s coming generations. There is the need to ensure that more of Maine’s youth are educated; that educational efforts start early in children’s lives; that students are encouraged to continue their education beyond high school; and that connections are improved between higher education and business to ensure alignment for improving the economic prospects for youth.

The need to improve educational outcomes is clear.

Evidence shows that states and nations that fall behind in educational achievement fall behind economically (Royal Society 2011). And in Maine, with its rural character and erosion of high-paying jobs, this issue is particularly urgent. But what are the best pathways for achieving these improvements, and how do we work together to achieve them?

Other countries and states are making significant headway at improving the educational outcomes of their youth (Hanushek, Peterson and Woessman 2012).

China, for example, is rapidly increasing the number of scientists it produces with the aim of dramatically improving its economy and the lives of its people (Royal Society 2011). Kentucky, Massachusetts, and North Carolina have become leaders in developing significant statewide educational initiatives linking economic development and education (Alssid, Goldberg and Schneider, 2011). And the city of Kalamazoo, Michigan, is modeling what individual communities can achieve when private and public organizations and individual citizens come together to increase the educational prospects for youth (e.g., Bartik, Eberts and Huang 2010). Although new efforts to improve education are coming to the forefront, there are concerns. Will these new efforts improve educational outcomes and lead to economic prosperity, or might they end up failing to revitalize the economy?

Will individual efforts remain scattershot and cancel each other out?

In Maine, there are numerous outstanding education initiatives, including such programs as EduCare Central Maine, Early College for ME, Jobs for Maine’s Graduates, and the Mitchell Institute, to name a few.

These programs provide opporsecuring a bright tunities for Maine students and families from prebirth through future for Maine college graduation, helping ensure education support requires a focus throughout an individual’s life.

High-quality research is being on how to work conducted on specific initiatives (e.g., ASSISTments efficacy trial) together to support and on long-term education patterns and trends (e.g., education….

Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems [SLDS]) at institutions such as the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Maine. This research provides critical data that informs the education system in Maine. Although there is a solid programmatic and research infrastructure for education in the state, there is still work to be done. For example, according to the 2010 U.S. Census, only 37.3 percent of people 25 years or older in Maine have attained a bachelor’s degree or higher, and at the University of Maine, for example, only 36 percent of the fall 2007 freshman cohort graduated in four years (www.umaine.edu/ois/fact_book/graduationrates/total. htm). Improving economic prospects depends on improving educational attainment, and improving those numbers depends in large part on the ability to overcome a set of challenges currently facing the state of Maine.

The answers are not simple, and they are complicated by the diverse voices that cite contradictory research on, and personal testimonials about, which policies and interventions will improve education.

Recognizing that the problem of enhancing educational achievement will not be solved by any one group working alone and in isolation, we assert that progress in securing a bright future for Maine requires a focus on how to work together to support education, instead of on which method is the “right” method. As Bruce Katz stated at the 2012 GrowSmart Maine Summit, one has to “collaborate to compete.” It does not matter who is doing the hard work—whether educators, policymakers, business leaders, or parents. Working in concert to support students and the future is what matters. But what does it mean to work together?

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 15

EDUCATION AND MAINE’S FUTURE

If agreement on the “best” intervention remains a challenge, how can working together be achieved?

The goal of this article is not to critique current research or programs. Instead, we argue that Maine needs to strengthen current infrastructure and initiatives by reevaluating how diverse voices are accounted for in these discussion; how we make sense of data and what drives those evaluations; how we can learn from each other; and how we can work together to improve educational prospects for Maine citizens.

This article discusses nine recommendations for strengthening Maine’s education system and moving forward together. Our recommendations are about how to set in place approaches for using the proverbial wheel, instead of reinventing it. Although we apply these recommendations to education, they likely apply to many of the current issues society faces, such as health care.

In some ways, education is everyone’s problem…, but in other ways it is no one’s.

The way this article was developed embodies the idea that working together across institutional and disciplinary boundaries is more fruitful than working separately. We work in different environments. Chris has been a legislative leader in the Maine Senate and is a business owner and vice president of the foundation board of directors for Many Flags, One Community in Rockland, Maine; Meredith is the president and CEO of the Maine Community Foundation and second vice chair of Educate Maine; Karen is a doctoral student who has worked at many different levels of higher education and teaches graduate students who work in the K-12 school system in the U.S. and China; and Linda is an academic who directs a policy center, teaches in the UMaine School of Economics, has facilitated strategic planning for many of the coalitions in Maine working to improve STEM [science, technology, engineering and mathematics] education, and served as principal investigator on many federally funded 16 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

initiatives to build educational partnerships. None of us has educational interventions as our primary focus, yet each of us has come to see education as uppermost to Maine’s future. We believe that by bringing together our differing experiences we can contribute to the discussion about how groups can work together to address Maine’s educational challenges.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Paradox of Ownership (and Lack Thereof )

The issue of who is charged with improving education is a puzzling conundrum. In some ways, education is everyone’s problem (e.g., we all pay for education), but in other ways it is no one’s. Everyone loses if the future generation is not well educated, but no one person or organization is fully responsible for the full spectrum of a child’s education. For example, with some exceptions, preschools and K-12 schools, and K-12 schools and universities and colleges operate relatively independently. No one is in charge and everyone is in charge. All of this makes it difficult to move forward and to muster the collective will to create effective interventions. And, then when some group does step up and designs an intervention that succeeds, STEM education for example, they rightly feel ownership over the success and may well have a hard time seeing shared ownership as fair and equitable. In light of these complexities, we need to confront questions related to ownership: How are new players invited into the change process if people already involved feel that they own the process? How can educational change be made everyone’s responsibility and still have each person feel that improving education is his or her responsibility?

Avoiding the Cult of Experts while Learning from Experts

One of the struggles at the heart of efforts to improve education is that experts are needed—people knowledgeable about educational practices—but their advice and skills need to be used with care. This is complicated. Although careful attention needs to be paid to the experts and what they advise, we also need to be open to solutions that are proposed by people

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

EDUCATION AND MAINE’S FUTURE

who have not spent their lives inside the education industry. Problems that look as though they cannot be solved when examined through expert lenses might be solvable when approached in other ways. The entrepreneur Salman Khan (www.khanacademy.org) reportedly thought a lot about what he was seeing with his own children’s struggles with learning and wondered if traditional practice should be reversed: have students devote class time to doing homework where they can get immediate feedback and have the lectures take place at home with children watching them on the internet. Doing the problems in class made it possible for careful attention to be given to the central task in learning. Evidence suggests that this reversal holds promise. In short, we need to draw on the expertise available, but also need to develop a culture that allows us to evaluate and critique those expert ideas and to think creatively about how to bridge different forms of expertise.

Drawing from Examples Outside of Education

We could draw all of our examples from education, but there is much that is going on outside of education that could be of value in attempts to strengthen educational practices. Consider, for example the model being explored in Maine businesses of “fail fast, fail cheap” innovation (eurekaranch.com). The idea is that one should first test out small innovations without investing a lot of resources, then assess what happens, and only then move forward with additional investments. In Maine this model is being used in business, health care, and many other areas. Could it also be used in education?

Examples from outside of education are also potentially important for understanding key factors for innovation, such as those drawn from social networking studies. Analyzing social networks helps explain the importance of working outside of our respective social groups. Granovetter (1973) argues that if the tie between person A and person B is strong, they are likely to be similar, sharing similar values and beliefs. Strong ties promote efficient sharing of information and high levels of trust and influence, yet they also limit exposure to new ideas, which decreases challenges to the group through those new ideas (Granovetter 1983). On the other hand, weak ties help

create networks across dissimilar groups, thus facilitating the diffusion of innovative ideas (Granovetter 1973). Relating this to education, working with people outside of the education realm, or developing weak ties across diverse groups, could help promote innovation and strengthen problem solving. The strong ties that currently exist in the education system can then be used to facilitate change. Leveraging innovative ideas from different fields and industries to improve education makes sense, but the task is not simple.

How would we bring people together and test these approaches? How can we do this efficiently when we likely see and approach the world differently?

Finding Better Ways to Learn

The current challenge comes not so much from the absence of ideas, but rather their surfeit. There is an overwhelming number of reports and recommendations: state reports, national reports, reports about STEM education, reports about how to reach underserved students, and reports about how to redesign education so that skills for the jobs of the future are enhanced. There is a seemingly inexhaustible supply of reports putting forth one recommendation or another, with different people basing their recommendations for change on different reports. It can be challenging to make good use of what is out there.

So, part of what we need in Maine is a set of robust, regularized practices for how to find, interpret, and evaluate reports and recommendations. This set of practices should be designed to be useful not just to scholars, but to anyone who seeks to contribute to the discussion of how to improve educational prospects of Maine’s youth.

Maine’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) provides an illustration of how to design a system that allows people to track and compare complex information (in their case, on environmental hazards and health in their communities [tracking.publichealth. maine.gov]). This example illustrates how to make information accessible and comparable so that it is meaningful when combined or evaluated together.

Groups such as the Great Schools Partnership and the New England Secondary School Consortium have begun this much needed work, as have national groups such as Change the Equation (2012). More is needed.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 17

EDUCATION AND MAINE’S FUTURE

Learning from Complex Data

We struggle as a state to sort through educational data to decide which will be best help us to understand where we are, what interventions we should undertake, and whether these interventions are successful. Because the data are comparative, there are many questions about which data to use. Which kinds of comparisons make the most sense? Should Maine compare itself against its own past? Should Maine compare itself against other states? Much available data, for example, compare Maine with other states, yet it is not clear which states are the most appropriate for comparison.

Should Maine compare itself to other rural states? To states with similar income levels or a similar job base? To states that have undertaken similar educational interventions? The choice will make a difference in the picture of Maine’s educational status. For example, if the comparison states are improving and Maine is not improving to the same degree, Maine’s performance could be interpreted as in decline. This could lead people to search for an explanation for what caused this decline and to make (un)necessary changes to current programming (Silka 1989) or (un)fairly critique ongoing interventions.

The question of what represents meaningful data for assessing an intervention’s effectiveness is complicated by what researchers sometimes refer to as “floor effects” or “ceiling effects.” Showing that interventions have been successful can be harder at some points in the performance continuum than at others (Hanushek, Peterson and Woessman 2012). For example, if a state already performs near the top on an education measure, it can be hard to achieve a large percentage increase (a so called ceiling effect).

Moreover, with measurements it can be easier to show a decline in top-scoring states than in bottomscoring states. Often there is much more room in the middle to move up and down and thus interventions can look more effective in that range. In short, we need a set of practices that help people to think about and use data effectively so they do not draw the wrong conclusions.

Achieving the Right Scale in Interventions

As a state with strong local control of education, many of Maine’s school efforts take place at the local level. In fact, the majority of municipal taxes go to 18 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

funding K-12 schools. Yet, mandates and tests frequently come from the state and the national government. Questions arise here: Should we be trying to intervene and change things at the local level? Are we better off aiming for larger scale if we want to get an impact? There is also a related question: If we start at the local level and obtain the hoped-for effect, how will we achieve local and statewide effects? How will the interventions scale up successfully? Turning again to initiatives in Kalamazoo we see an interesting example of scale. The Kalamazoo Promise is a promise made to all students of the Kalamazoo Public Schools (KPS) that upon graduation from high school they will receive a four-year scholarship to cover tuition and fees at an established list of colleges and universities.

This promise is made possible through donations and partnerships in the community and state. Research documents the promising outcomes of this program in KPS schools (Bartik, Eberts and Huang 2010).

This program, however, addresses just one school system. How does a state such as Michigan leverage this effort to affect statewide education? Looking to Maine, there is almost the opposite problem. There are numerous programs available to Maine students aimed at providing them with the support and resources to attain a college education (e.g., Alfond Challenge, Mitchell Institute), yet it is unlikely that these programs will transform a school district; the programs are restricted by qualifications and/or the number of scholarships available in a given year. Still, these statewide programs have the potential to provide a foundation on which future locally based programs can build to transform the educational success of individual districts or counties.

Finally, how does Maine learn from the rest of the country without falling into the trap of using data that create false comparisons between Maine and other states? How do we contribute to creating an educated populace within the U.S. without losing sight of what works in our state? Again, despite the scale, achieving our educational goals requires us to work together and think about education across contexts.

Examining Our Theories of Action

Many evaluators of interventions probe what is called the “theory of action” that underlies choices

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

EDUCATION AND MAINE’S FUTURE

about particular programs. For example, if one is implementing a “Just Say No” program to prevent teen pregnancies, one’s theory of action could be that one assumes that teens do not yet know how to say no and need instructions to learn to do so. That theory for what will reduce teen pregnancy rates could be right, but it could be wrong. Perhaps teens are aware that they should say no, but pregnancies are occurring for other reasons. For education, we need to look at theories of action and see if data are available that support the viability of the planned intervention. Otherwise, a lot might be invested to make little, if any, difference.

Waterville, Maine, recently built a new EduCare facility, where children birth to five years old and their families get the care, support, and education necessary to succeed in kindergarten. EduCare Central Maine serves primarily low-income children in the most rural EduCare facility in the country, providing critical insights on early childhood education in rural communities (www.educarecentralmaine.org). Numerous theories of action are at play here. First, based on what we have read, one of EduCare’s theories of action is that families are a critical component of a child’s education; they need to be involved at all levels; and families may need some assistance in learning how to support their children so they are ready to learn. Second, Educare Central Maine involves a partnership between Educare Central Maine, Waterville Public Schools, Kennebec Valley Community Action Program, the local head start program, William and Joan Alfond Foundation, and the Buffett Early Childhood Fund. This partnership operates under the theory of action that we emphasize in this paper, specifically that working together is essential for strengthening the educational prospects of Maine students. Finally, the theory of action at the heart of this program is that quality, holistic early childhood education, particularly for underserved students, is foundational in a child’s education career. Identifying these theories of action gives us a place to begin analyzing the success of the program. In what ways does bringing families into the education process change a child’s education? In what ways does working in partnerships strengthen education in Maine, and in what ways does early childhood education affect a child’s educational career? In addition to guiding data collection, understanding theories

of action also helps explain to other organizations and other initiatives what we are trying to achieve.

Learning to “Row” Together

In addition to attending to and thoughtfully examining theories of action, one must also be aware that those theories may not be shared. For example, some people might believe that increasing the links between education and business will better prepare students for the highly skilled jobs of the future. But if particular theories of action are not shared, we can easily end up doing things that undermine each other’s efforts. In essence, we all need to row the boat in the same direction. If we don’t—if we row in different directions—the “boat” may simply spin around and the effort we invest will result in little return. Hard as this is, it is important to the future. For example, what would happen if Educare Central Maine did not work with the school districts the students would enter for kindergarten, or if they did not work with the other local organizations supporting families? Would the process to kindergarten be hindered? Would resources be wasted? We think so.

…how does Maine learn from the rest of the country without falling into the trap of using data that create false comparisons between Maine and other states?

An exemplary case of rowing together to provide multiple pathways for students is the “Many Flags, One Community” initiative in the greater Knox County region of Maine. Three mainland high schools (Oceanside High School, Camden Hills Regional High School, Medomak Valley High School), plus three island high schools (Vinalhaven, North Haven, Isleboro), the Region 8 Career and Technical High School, along with the University of Maine, Kennebec Valley Community

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 19

EDUCATION AND MAINE’S FUTURE

College, and industry training partners (such as the Maine Marine Trades Association), have formed an innovative regional approach to secondary and postsecondary education (www.manyflags.org). The Many Flags/One Community model provides a framework for regional governance and shared services and programs that will result in an integrated and seamless 9-16 education system. Although each of the participating schools is governed by its own board and trustees, the schools have agreed to a regional Many Flags board of directors that will oversee the coordination of secondary and postsecondary programs and services.

…good ideas without action will not be enough. Implementation and evaluation are even harder than coming up with the ideas in the first place.

Developing this regional model was not easy.

For more than 18 months, representatives from the participating institutions served on a steering committee designed a governance structure, a budgetary process, and a set of operating principles to guide the new regional initiative. Keys to success for This model emphasizes scheduling flexibility, the use of virtual/distance learning tools, and shared regional curriculum models, all with an emphasis on dual credit and early college and technical-training opportunities for every student. The extent to which a fully integrated and seamless secondary and postsecondary system can emerge is dependent upon the willingness of the participating institutions to continue to work together to overcome the natural organizational obstacles that will always arise. Many Flags is an ambitious concept with many “oars in the water.” While the ultimate goal is to develop a campus at the center of the region that would co-locate a new career and technical center along with a higher education center (University of Maine and Community College), and an industry training facility, the near-term goal is to coordinate 9-16 education using existing resources.

20 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

The Many Flags model exemplifies the benefits of working together and across education and business institutions to improve access to and success in K-16 education; it is a model that offers new hope for building local and regional partnerships that may have statewide benefits.

Good Ideas Are Not Enough

Finally, we must continue to remember that while it is important to constantly be on the look out for good ideas that may improve the educational prospects for Maine’s youth, good ideas without action will not be enough. Implementation and evaluation are even harder than coming up with the ideas in the first place.

The ideas should be drawn, at least in part, from research and be supported by data. Further, they should be tested with a tough eye to results and not simply taken at face value. The Mitchell Institute provides an excellent example of data-driven programming.

Recognizing changing demographics and industry in Maine, along with Maine’s low college attainment and college graduation rates, the Mitchell Institute established selection criteria (e.g., financial need and academic promise) and programming (mentoring, community service projects, network) to increase college-education attainment and improve the likelihood that students will remain in Maine after graduation. After instituting these criteria and rules, they further track their students. This allows them to understand who they are reaching, if they are meeting their goals, and most importantly, the effects of their programs on individuals and communities in Maine.

If Maine develops a culture of innovation and rigorous evaluation, we will succeed. Things do and can change.

CONCLUSION

W

e authors came together because of collaborations on other topics, but quickly began to appreciate each other’s experience and to see how much we could learn from each other about educational challenges. Our discussions on education led to the discovery that we had been working on parallel tracks with regard to education. We had each been talking to others about how the educational prospects of Maine’s youth and adults might be improved, but we had been

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

EDUCATION AND MAINE’S FUTURE

discussing these issues with people who shared similar backgrounds and assumptions. Through collaboration, we found common ground on educational questions and identified a set of challenges that we believe should be explored and addressed to move education in Maine forward. This essay offered nine recommendations for working together to address the challenges associated with issues of power, interdisciplinary networks, complex data-driven approaches to education, scale, and partnerships.

Maine’s future depends on the strength of the state’s educational system, and fortunately much of the infrastructure for building a bright educational future for students in Maine is already in place. Innovators, philanthropists, committed public and private institutions, and numerous partnerships are actively invested in strengthening the education system. Maine is blessed with groups committed to educational improvement (the Maine STEM Collaborative, the Governor’s STEM Council, Great Schools Partnership, the Maine Center for Research on STEM, to name just a few), helping Maine become a leader in educational innovation through such initiatives as the laptop program and the RISE Center. Yet, we face the challenge of how to mobilize integration among these disparate activities to ensure that we are indeed rowing together.

We offer these nine recommendations for bringing together diverse perspectives and approaches in order to strengthen Maine’s education system. These recommendations are offered by four people from diverse backgrounds who each grabbed a paddle to guide a shared canoe in search of ways to tap into the strength and innovation already flowing through the state of Maine. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

REFERENCES Alssid, Julian L., Melissa Goldberg and John Schneider. 2011. The Case for Community Colleges: Aligning Higher Education and Workforce Needs in Massachusetts. Boston Foundation, Boston, MA. Bartik, Timothy, Randall W. Eberts and Wei-Jang Huang. 2010. The Kalamazoo Promise, and Enrollment and Achievement Trends in the Kalamazoo Public Schools. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, Kalamazoo, MI. research. upjohn.org/confpapers/15/ [Accessed November 8, 2012] Change the Equation. 2011. Maine STEM Vital Signs.

Change the Equation, Washington DC. changetheequation.org/sites/all/themes/equation/vital_signs/VitalSigns_Maine.pdf [Accessed November 18, 2012] Granovetter, Mark S. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360– 1380.

Granovetter, Mark S. 1983. “The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited.” Sociological Theory 1:201–234.

Hanushek, Eric A., Paul E. Peterson and Ludger Woessmann, L. 2012. Achievement Growth: International and U.S. State Trends in Student Performance. Program in Education Policy and Governance, Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge.

Royal Society. 2011. Knowledge, Networks, and Nations: Global Scientific Collaboration in the 21st Century. The Royal Society, London. royalsociety. org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/ publications/2011/4294976134.pdf [Accessed November 8, 2012] Silka, Linda. 1989. Intuitive Judgments of Change.

New York: Springer-Verlag.

Special thanks to Alan Hinsey, project coordinator for Many Flags, One Community Initiative, for his contributions to the section on learning to row together. Thanks also to colleagues for their feedback on drafts and their insights.

Please turn the page for information about the authors.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 21

EDUCATION AND MAINE’S FUTURE

Linda Silka directs the

Meredith Jones is the

Margaret Chase Smith

president and CEO of

Policy Center and is a

the Maine Community

professor in the University

Foundation, a statewide

of Maine School of

public foundation. Before

Economics. Her research

being elected president,

focuses on building

she served as the vice

research partnerships

president of programs and helped create the Maine

among diverse researchers

Compact for Higher Education and ENCorps, a volunteer

and stakeholder groups.

leader program for civic-minded baby boomers. Before

Karen Hutchins is an IPh.D. candidate in the Department of

joining the Maine Community Foundation, she also worked for the Maine Health Care Association and for the Maine Development Foundation.

Communication and Journalism and a graduate

Chris Rector served

research fellow in the

two terms in the Maine

Sustainability Solutions

Senate and three terms

Initiative at the University

in the Maine House of

of Maine. Her research is

Representatives. A career

focused on community-university partnerships, engaged

entrepreneur, his public

research, and public participation in environmental

policy interests focus on

conflicts. She previously worked as an advisor at Plymouth

economic development,

State University in New Hampshire and York County

microbusiness, the creative

Community College in southern Maine.

economy, workforce development, and education. He attended Boston University and graduated from USM with a bachelor’s degree in economics.

22 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

EDUCATION AND MAINE’S FUTURE

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 23

MAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION

School District Reorganization in Maine: Lessons Learned for Policy and Process

In 2007, Maine’s legislature enacted a law mandating school district consolidation with the goal of reducing the state’s 290 districts to approximately 80. Five years later the success of this policy is open to debate.

Janet Fairman and Christine Donis-Keller examine

by Janet Fairman

what worked and what didn’t work in this effort to

Christine Donis-Keller

consolidate school districts and provide a list of “lessons learned,” with clear implications for the design and implementation of state educational policy.

24 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012



View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

MAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION

The “lessons

M

aine embarked on a bold education policy initiative in 2007 when Governor Baldacci proposed and the legislature enacted a law mandating school district consolidation with the goal of reducing the state’s 290 districts to approximately 80 (Maine State Legislature 2007). This was the first major effort to consolidate school districts since the Sinclair Act of 1957 (Maine State Legislature 1957). Five years later, the success of this policy is still open to debate. While the total number of school districts did decline from 290 units in 2007–08 to 164 in 2011–12, many school districts were not required to reorganize, and several that reluctantly consolidated to avoid fiscal penalties now seek to separate from their regional partnerships (e.g., Gagnon 2012; Moretto 2012; Steeves 2012).

Substantial revision of the law each year, a delay in enforcing the penalties until 2010–11, and the elimination of the fiscal penalties for 2012–13 diminished the authority of the policy and returned Maine to a system of voluntary consolidation and regional collaboration.

This paper focuses on the implementation of Maine’s reorganization policy from 2007 to 2009.

We discuss what worked and what didn’t work in the state’s most recent effort to consolidate school districts.

Research findings on the fiscal and educational impacts of the policy will be reported separately. The “lessons learned” from Maine’s experience provide insights for state and local education leaders and have clear implications for the design and implementation of state education policy and the hard, messy work of reorganizing school districts at the local level.

THE POLICY CONTEXT

T

he school district reorganization law of 2007 emerged from a context of declining state fiscal resources and increasing education costs. During his first year in office in 2004, Governor Baldacci pursued reform through a task force and legislation that proposed regionalization and collaboration with incentives (Task Force on Increasing Efficiency and Equity 2004). However, the bill was defeated in the legislature. Several factors then converged to open what Kingdon (2002) has termed a “policy window” of opportunity, including severe state fiscal constraints, a decline in K-12 enrollment, public

demand for tax relief, and flat learned” from trends in student academic performance. At the same Maine’s experitime, numerous studies and reports recommended increased ence ... have clear efficiency in the delivery of Maine’s K-12 education, both implications for for the purpose of directing a larger portion of funding the design and to classroom instruction as opposed to administration implementation and to increase coherence in educational goals, learning of state education opportunity, and quality across the state (e.g., The Brookings policy and the hard, Institution 2006; Children’s Alliance 2006; Donaldson messy work of 2006). But the problem of how to coax districts to consolidate reorganizing school remained.

Historically, communities districts…. in Maine have vehemently defended the notion of “local control” in governance and education. While the Sinclair Act of 1957 enticed some districts to voluntarily consolidate through fiscal incentives (Donaldson 2007), the overall trend was steady growth in the number of districts, superintendents, and amount of educational spending. From 1950 to 2000, the number of districts increased by 68 percent, the number of superintendents increased by 33 percent, and K-12 spending per pupil increased by 461 percent (excluding transportation, construction, and debt service and without adjustment for inflation) (Donaldson 2006).

The 2007 district reorganization law outlined two broad goals: (1) to improve educational opportunities and equity for Maine students; and (2) to reduce the cost of providing education and to increase efficiency in education delivery (Maine State Legislature 2007). To achieve these goals, the law required districts with fewer than 2,500 students to join with other districts and outlined a process for communities to select partners through regional planning committees. Larger districts, high-performing districts, and isolated districts were

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 25

MAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION

allowed to stand alone, but were asked to improve their administrative structure and efficiency.

The law departed from earlier efforts to consolidate districts in that it mandated consolidation, set a strict timeline, and imposed substantial fiscal fines for noncompliance. Yet, the law did include some financial supports to help defray regional planning and startup costs, and provided facilitators to guide districts through the process of developing a reorganization plan. With the exception of the financial supports, other aspects of this policy approach are markedly different from the way other states have pursued consolidation (e.g., Plucker et al. 2007; Spradlin et al.

2010). Other states have typically encouraged voluntary consolidation through fiscal incentives or a combination of fiscal incentives and disincentives, such as reduced subsidy for small schools or more favorable subsidy or priority for construction of larger, regional schools. Other states have often focused on school consolidation rather than district consolidation.

…the policy and the process of deliberation at the local level were successful in reducing the total number of school districts, and also had the positive effect of engaging communities in serious conversation to explore or expand collaboration and improvement of K-12 education.

The decision to approach district reorganization in Maine through a mandated policy, rapid timeline, and fiscal penalties had some negative consequences both for the survival of the policy itself and for outcomes of the policy. Yet, the policy and the process of deliberation at the local level were successful in

26 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

reducing the total number of school districts, and also had the positive effect of engaging communities in serious conversation to explore or expand collaboration and improvement of K-12 education.

RESEARCH METHODS

D

espite the flurry of school district consolidation efforts across the country, empirical research remains limited. A few studies have examined the fiscal aspects of consolidation (Cox and Cox 2010; Duncombe and Yinger 2012), equity (Berry 2007), educational impacts (Berry and West 2010; Johnson 2006), and the process of reorganization (Nybladh 1999; Ward and Rink 1992). We developed a study to address gaps in the research literature and to examine this phenomenon in a more comprehensive way, looking at how the process of reorganization unfolds along with the impacts of district consolidation.

The findings reported here are drawn from a larger, multiyear investigation of consolidation of Maine school districts conducted by research teams from the University of Maine and the University of Southern Maine. In 2007–08, the University of Maine studied a sample of 29 districts (school administrative units) engaged in five regional planning groups for consolidation using a case-study approach. We collected the data through confidential interviews, a survey of regional planning committee members, observation of meetings, and collection of documents from state and local levels. We analyzed the data both within cases and across cases, identifying recurring themes and patterns. Our research followed these five regional planning groups as they struggled to understand the requirements of the 2007 reorganization law, select partners, and form a reorganization plan (Fairman et al. 2008).

In 2008, the University of Maine partnered with the University of Southern Maine to follow the reorganization progress for an expanded sample that included a total of 98 districts (school administrative units) attempting to form 15 regional planning groups.

Cases were selected to reflect variation in district size, governance structures, geographic location, and other variables, as represented in Table 1. To maintain

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

MAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION

Table 1:

Demographic Characteristics of the Study Sample (15 Regional Groups)

Demographic Characteristics

Number of cases

Governance structure of school districts partnering Only municipal system

1

Two or more school administrative districts

1

Mostly school union(s)

3

Mixture of different governance types

10

Number of districts (School Administrative Units, SAUs)

Demographic Characteristics

Number of cases

Number of high schools 1 high school

6

2 high schools

6

3 high schools

3

Total number of attending pupils (October 2006) <1,500 pupils

2

1,501–2,000 pupils

4

2,001–2,500 pupils

4

2 SAUs

2

2,501–3,000 pupils

2

3–4 SAUs

5

>3,000 pupils

3

5–7 SAUs

1

8–10 SAUs

4

50–100 miles

4

>10 SAUs

3

101–250 miles

4

251–400 miles

3

Total number of municipalities

Total number of square miles

2

1

401–550 miles

0

3–5

5

551–700 miles

2

6–8

4

701–850 miles

1

10–15

3

851–1,000 miles

0

15–20

1

1,001–1,200 miles

1

>20

1

Number of schools

Geographic location in Maine Northern

4

< 5 schools

5

Western

1

5–7 schools

6

Eastern Coastal

3

8–10 schools

4

Central Coastal

2

>10 schools

0

Southern

5

confidentiality for the districts and participants, we’ve described the cases using a range rather than exact figures for some variables.

The research team followed the progress of regional groups as they worked to revise their partnerships and reorganization plans and to obtain voter approval in local referenda. Again, this involved interviews with district leaders and regional planning members, observation of regional planning meetings, and collection of documents. We then followed regional groups that

successfully reorganized into their first or second year of implementation.

Further, the study tracked statewide progress toward reorganization through collection of documents and through observation of state-sponsored facilitators’ meetings. We conducted interviews with state policymakers to understand both how the reorganization law developed and the intended policy goals. Our interviews with education department staff and reorganization facilitators described the state’s implementation

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 27

MAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION

of the law. Overall, we conducted 376 interviews with a wide range of stakeholders from 2007 to 2011.

This paper focuses on the early planning and implementation period of the district reorganization effort from 2007 to 2009 and explores the following research questions: • Why did some school districts successfully consolidate while others did not?

• What community or district factors either facilitated or challenged the effort to consolidate?

• What aspects of the policy itself and the state’s implementation approach either facilitated or challenged districts’ efforts to consolidate?

FINDINGS

Community and District Factors

Several factors that relate to the communities or school districts served to either support or impede progress in reorganizing. The primary factors included geographical location of districts, community and district self-interests, existing and prior relationships between the partnering districts, and leadership for reorganization.

Geography Geographic proximity was the first thing that district leaders considered when looking for prospective partners. All of the groups we studied looked first to the districts immediately adjacent to them. In most cases, districts were able to partner with neighboring districts. Three groups in our sample attempted to partner with districts that did not share borders. Not long into their regional planning talks, all three groups fell apart, and only one eventually reorganized. These three groups were also among the largest groups discussing partnership, each with seven or more district partners and covering more than 550 total square miles.

Aside from the problem of nonadjacent district borders, the large geographic area and long traveling distances between communities in some proposed

28 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

regional units became a serious obstacle to reorganization. Superintendents and school board members were concerned about the distance administrators and staff would need to travel between schools. Of the four groups in our study with more than 550 total square miles, only one was able to reorganize.

Most of the groups with the largest geographic areas were located in northern and western Maine, where the population density is the lowest. Thus, districts had to combine with a larger number of district partners to reach the minimum enrollment of 2,500 initially required by the law. Across our sample, the groups in northern, western, and eastern coastal Maine struggled or failed to reorganize. Five of these eight groups eventually reorganized, but with fewer partners than initially proposed and some well after the 2009 deadline. By contrast, the seven groups we studied along the central coast or southern Maine had smaller regional areas of 50 to 250 square miles and were all successful in reorganizing.

Self-interest After identifying possible partners, district leaders and regional planning members focused on selecting partners with whom they would be compatible. That is, districts sought partners that would have a fiscally neutral or beneficial impact on the regional unit, partners of similar size to preserve a balance of power on the regional planning board, and partners who shared their educational priorities and student-achievement results. These criteria reflect the tendency for school districts, like individuals, to act from a perspective of self-interest to maximize the anticipated, positive outcomes (Weiss 1983). There are three areas of selfinterest that served to either facilitate or impede reorganization.

Financial Interests. As districts began their regional planning, they examined the budgets, assets, and debt service of the proposed partnering districts. During the regional planning meetings, we observed community, district, and municipal representatives posing hard questions about the pros and cons of partnering with districts that held a debt service for recent school construction, or districts that had not spent money to maintain buildings that would need costly renovations.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

MAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION

The 2007 reorganization law required consolidating districts to share educational costs, assets, and debt.

The most problematic task for planning groups statewide, and for the groups we studied, was determining a fair and acceptable way to share educational costs, assets, and debt (Fairman et al. 2008). Amendments to the law in 2008 (Maine State Legislature 2008) allowed more flexibility in devising a cost-sharing formula, but did not prevent unfavorable fiscal results for some district partners.

In addition to differences in spending and debt among prospective district partners, some groups identified significant differences in property valuations and the ability to generate tax revenue for education.

Because of these differences, district leaders and regional planning members voiced strong concern that consolidation could increase the cost of education and local tax rates in some communities. This was particularly salient for groups in eastern coastal Maine where waterfront property values had skyrocketed while the K-12 enrollment had declined. One superintendent explained, The cost shares that would occur here… were really quite large because of the huge differences in valuations of the towns….

The pie shifts were huge and they didn’t want that added tax burden shifting from one town to another.

In some groups, there was a sense of distrust or skepticism that the regional unit would fairly allocate the state subsidy to partnering communities. This distrust impeded progress in several of the groups we studied. A superintendent commented, It was just a real problem that they couldn’t seem to get past….instead of receiving the state subsidy in their own check per town, it was going to come into this new structure…with one check.

Despite the law’s stated purpose of reducing education costs, many districts were unable to identify potential cost savings, which diminished their interest in pursuing consolidation. Instead, these districts predicted an overall increase in education costs and tax burden if they consolidated. Other districts, however, saw the potential for both short- and long-term savings

and increased efficiencies. Anticipated sources of savings included downsizing the number of central administrative positions; shared staff and delivery of some programs; shared purchasing of supplies and fuel; and shared leasing of buses or office space. Some groups anticipated a financial benefit from consolidation in the potential to increase their public high school enrollment with an influx of students from partnering K-8 districts that did not operate high schools.

…concern about meeting districts’ financial self-interests was an issue for all groups we studied and was a significant factor that impeded progress for about half….

Overall, concern about meeting districts’ financial self-interests was an issue for all groups we studied and was a significant factor that impeded progress for about half of the 15 groups. In eight of the 15 groups, district leaders and planning members were either skeptical about the potential for cost savings or were adamant that costs would increase. Five of the eight voted down reorganization plans in referendum. Similarly, costsharing was the most frequently cited barrier for all groups submitting reorganization plans statewide in December 2007 (Fairman et al. 2008). While some were able to identify some areas of potential cost efficiencies from consolidation, these savings were still hypothetical and uncertain. The short-term burden of extended superintendent contracts and possible increases in teacher salaries across communities in a regional unit threatened to increase costs. Several district leaders indicated that the potential for future savings would depend on their ability to eventually close some of the smaller schools that had a higher per pupil cost.

Governance Interests. Districts initially attempted to partner with others that were fairly similar in terms of enrollment size. Yet many districts found themselves

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 29

MAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION

partnering with considerably larger ones. In groups with uneven district enrollments and groups with a large number of district partners, decisions about how communities would be represented on the regional school board, the size of the board, and voting rules and weights were seen as critically important, and many groups struggled for several months to reach consensus on these decisions.

In some cases, smaller communities would have low representation on the board, or no direct representation, particularly if a community tuitioned students to neighboring districts. The prevailing concern among the smaller communities was the balance of power on the regional school board and a fear of being outvoted. One regional planning member talked about this tension within the planning discussions: “We talked about weighted votes and how representation would be made up. And our town, we want to have equal say, just as any other town does.” Repeatedly, planning members said they feared a loss of local control over financial and educational decisions. In small rural communities, the local school was seen as central to the community’s shared identity and the long-term economic viability of the community, and school buildings served as the primary public meeting space. These communities feared a regional board would be more likely to close smaller schools.

Educational Interests. Following finance and governance issues, education was also an important area of interest for districts in selecting partners for consolidation. First, district leaders and regional planning members explored whether neighboring districts and potential partners shared a similar educational vision or priorities. Districts looked at the curriculum in other districts and schools and often focused on the range of courses and extracurricular offerings at the secondary level. One superintendent remarked, We were already established [the regional planning committee] and one of the criteria we set was that if anybody wants to join us, they have to tell us why they would improve our educational system….

It was, “What can you bring to the table educationally?”

Many of the districts we studied saw advantages in sharing or expanding programs regionally through consolidation….

We found no clear pattern of success in reorganization based on the balance of district enrollment size within the proposal regional unit. Districts generally felt their partnering options were restricted to the existing neighboring districts for logistical reasons and to districts not already partnered with other groups.

Smaller districts were compelled to find larger partners

30 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

to meet the minimum enrollment. Thus, the regional units that did form typically combined districts of different sizes.

However, we did see a pattern related to the number of district partners and the statewide consolidation results. In six of the 15 groups where a majority of communities voted against reorganization, the groups were quite large, with seven or more district partners. In the other nine groups where most of the partners approved the reorganization plan, six groups had two to four district partners and three had eight or more partners. Among these three, however, there was a history of extensive collaboration and shared personnel. Statewide, the majority (64 percent) of the 25 regional units that approved their plans before July 2009 had only two or three district partners (Maine Department of Education 2011).

Many of the districts we studied saw advantages in sharing or expanding programs regionally through consolidation, such as pre-K, art and music, foreign language, career and technical education, technology, and advanced placement courses. These districts saw opportunities to increase equity in educational opportunity for students. By contrast, some districts worried that their partners did not share the same commitment to high-quality educational programming. A municipal representative from one group stated,

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

MAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION

If I’m to vote for this…I have to believe that educational quality will not suffer, and that it will improve. We need to supply a better education, or at least the same, hopefully with a cost saving.

Second, districts considered academic performance as an indicator of educational priorities, and quality. If they discovered that potential partners were not performing at a comparable level on state assessments, this difference was a concern and could be a deal-breaker. A regional planning group member explained how educational performance was an important interest: We wanted to make sure that if we were going to consolidate that our testing averages weren’t either significantly higher or lower than another group that we were going with, especially if we were going to start combining programs.

Third, districts considered whether or not potential partners had a policy of school choice for secondary education, and whether this would create inequity among the partnering communities. Some districts sought K-8 district partners that could increase their public high school enrollment, whereas some K-8 districts sought to maintain their option to send students to different high schools in their area. In seven of the 15 groups we studied, high school choice was maintained at least initially for some of the partnering communities. In other groups, high school choice was phased out or ended upon reorganization. The overall trend was to eliminate high school choice where it had existed historically.

Fourth, districts considered opportunities for innovative approaches to education where they had more than one secondary school in the proposed regional unit. For example, regional planning members discussed ideas for assigning upper or lower secondary grades to certain high schools, or creating secondary schools with a unique programmatic emphasis.

Although district leaders and community members expressed excitement about the potential to restructure or refocus educational programming, this opportunity was not a sufficient motivator by itself to consolidate.

Education was an important topic of discussion within all 15 regional planning groups we observed.

Five of the 15 groups formed a subcommittee to focus on education or curriculum, and four of these groups obtained voter approval of their reorganization plan.

In three of the 15 groups, participants saw no potential educational benefits and these groups overwhelmingly voted down their reorganization plans. In a majority of the groups we studied, planning members did envision the possibility for consolidation to improve educational equity in resources and learning opportunity.

One superintendent summed up a partnership this way: “the natural reason for us to get together is everybody needed something, and everybody was a little concerned about something.”

Relationships The quality of the relationship between districts and communities discussing potential partnership was another factor that shaped the reorganization planning process and outcome. In about half of the 15 groups we studied, district leaders and planning members cited prior district relationships and trust as factors that made consolidation planning go more smoothly and helped ensure successful reorganization. One planning committee member explained, “We had a long-standing relationship both with the school district and the community, so we knew a lot about them and they knew a lot about us. We thought the communities were similar.” A planning committee member in another group said, “There was a lot of trust. There was trust that no one had hidden agendas.” Districts that had a history of positive collaboration when they began planning for consolidation needed less time to get to know their district partners as they had already established trusting relationships between the key players. Examples of prior collaboration included previous partnership in a school administrative unit, membership in a regional consortium, or collaborative agreements for shared programs, personnel, purchasing, or school facilities.

In other groups, district and community relationships were not strong or entirely congenial, which contributed to tension and discord in the planning process.

Even communities with similar demographic characteristics and education systems were sometimes unable to see any common interests. In these communities, a long

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 31

MAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION

history of community pride and rivalry, often expressed through high school sports, and a lack of mutual respect between communities, drove a wedge between the communities that made it difficult for planning members to think of themselves as part of one regional group. In some groups, we found a general attitude of distrust in the prospective district partners because a prior collaboration had not proved satisfactory. These groups struggled to develop a reorganization plan and gain voter approval of the plan.

Superintendentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; professional aspirations also affected the working relationship between potential district partners and the reorganization process. In several cases, only one of the partnering superintendents aspired to lead the regional unit, and the lack of competition in these groups generally reduced the tension and uncertainty in reorganization planning.

In a few groups, more than one superintendent vied to lead the regional unit, which produced some discord and sometimes slowed the reorganization process.

Leadership The leadership of superintendents, and sometimes other members of the planning group, was an important factor influencing the planning process and outcome. In most cases, superintendents used their leadership skills to support and facilitate the reorganization process and made an effort to communicate with their communities about the potential for educational opportunities from reorganization. In a few cases, superintendents passively resisted reorganization or actively worked against reorganization at both the local and state levels.

In the interviews, superintendents were the most frequently mentioned resource supporting the work of the planning committees. Superintendents were a valued resource because of their knowledge and expertise in district finances, teacher contracts, educational programming, and education law. Planning committee members generally lacked expertise in these areas, and relied on superintendents and their central office staff to provide the information needed. One planning committee member explained, Our superintendent really stayed with it and became, you know, basically the

32 ¡ MAINE POLICY REVIEW ¡ Summer/Fall 2012

computer that we all operated from. She was able to synthesize data and take what we were discussing and lay it out into a form that we could consider further.

Superintendents took an active role in suggesting district partners, selecting a state-supported facilitator, working on the details of the reorganization plan, and communicating with the public. Consistently, superintendents indicated they were motivated to help their communities with reorganization as a way to support improved educational opportunities for students, even if it meant they might lose their positions in the consolidation process. The additional workload for superintendents and their central office staff was considerable, particularly the task of generating the necessary financial information.

Regional planning members also assumed important leadership roles in the reorganization planning.

Chairs were typically selected by the committee because they were respected in their communities and had been active in school and community affairs. Chairs exerted strong influence in 10 of the 15 groups we studied.

They led planning meetings, coordinated work with superintendents and state-supported facilitators, and led public meetings.

In a majority of groups that successfully reorganized, these leaders generally communicated a positive view of the potential educational benefits and cost savings. Superintendents and planning members engaged individual community members in informal conversations and made persuasive arguments within the regional planning meetings. But these leaders also used more formal communication strategies including district newsletters and flyers, public informational meetings, and editorials in local newspapers. Three of the 15 groups had a subcommittee on public relations or communications to carefully orchestrate communications about the reorganization work.

We also found examples of leadership against or passive resistance to the state mandate. A few superintendents who did not agree with the consolidation mandate did not provide or delayed the information requested by the regional planning groups. They used a passive-resistance approach to impede progress on the reorganization plan. Other superintendents more

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

MAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION

actively opposed consolidation. In three of the regional groups we studied, district leaders and regional planning members were openly against the idea of consolidation and organized in opposition when the policy initiative was announced early in 2007. In these groups, district and planning leaders communicated through newsletters, public meetings and editorials the view that no cost savings or educational benefits would result from consolidation. They lobbied against the reorganization law and advocated for its revision or abolishment, while complying minimally by holding reorganization meetings and forming a reorganization plan. Two of these groups failed to approve a reorganization plan by the 2009 deadline.

bill that cut $36.5 million in state funding for district administrative costs: It’s the only way it was going to happen….

The superintendents’ association had a white paper supporting consolidation for ten years…. There were no results even from that work. And had…[it] not [been] in the budget, I do not believe we would have achieved what we achieved.

Some state policymakers and a few superintendents

Policy Factors

Through the interviews with policymakers, state education officials, school district leaders and regional planning members, we examined how the state’s approach to reorganization influenced community and school district response to the policy and the policy’s overall success. Consistently, district leaders and community members stressed that the state’s approach, lack of clarity in the law, short timeframe for compliance, and uncertainty about the permanence of the policy diminished motivation to consolidate and impeded progress. Yet, some aspects of the law or state implementation were credited with supporting the reorganization planning, including the structural support of the regional planning committees, the state-supported facilitators, a template for developing reorganization plans, and financial supports for reorganization.

Policy Approach Some state policymakers and a few superintendents argued in 2007 that an aggressive, mandated approach was necessary to make headway on district consolidation in Maine as the incentives used with the Sinclair Act of 1957 had not produced substantial district consolidation. They pointed to the “fiscal cliff” looming for education finance because of the state’s limited resources and a legislated tax cap. A state education official, reflecting on the policy approach in January 2010, also defended the governor’s decision to include the reorganization initiative within a budget

argued in 2007 that an aggressive, mandated approach was necessary to make headway on district consolidation in Maine….

A state legislator involved in drafting the reorganization law offered this view in a July 2009 interview, The mandate was all about treating everybody the same. So even if you didn’t have to consolidate, like an island school or the bigger school districts, you still had to meet the fiscal parameters…. I wished we could have done an incentive program, instead of the penalties…but we couldn’t afford them…and there was a sense from a lot of people that we were investing so much new money in K-12 anyway….

A superintendent working on reorganization in 2007 shared his view: “As much as we may say there are opportunities for collaboration and savings, the nature of Maine communities is such that that isn’t going to happen unless it’s forced upon towns and school districts.” A facilitator in another group we

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 33

MAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION

studied agreed that a mandated approach was necessary: I think it has to be mandated or else it’s not going to happen…the comment I heard a lot [in the regional planning committee] was, “Well, I don’t really like this but we have to do it, so let’s come up with the best plan we can.” So I think the mandate was pretty important.

District leaders and community members stressed that the governor and state leaders were too focused on the goal of cost savings and did not sufficiently articulate the potential educational benefits of consolidation.

Yet, the majority of district leaders and community members we interviewed disagreed with the state’s approach, favoring more incentives and supports for regional collaboration and voluntary consolidation.

Districts in 11 of the 15 groups we studied already collaborated by sharing administrative personnel, programs, purchasing, or school buildings. They maintained that diminishing resources for education and declining enrollments had already compelled districts to find creative ways to increase efficiency. Given the existing efforts to economize, the decision to mandate consolidation and include fiscal penalties produced strong anger and resentment and reduced public support for compliance with the law. A superintendent described the public sentiment: “Whether you are for or against consolidation, just the way this was done… where it was basically top down, the anger is still there for a lot of people.”

Anger about the state’s approach hindered progress in the selection of district partners, reorganization talks, development of plans, and the ability to obtain 34 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

voter approval for reorganization across many groups we studied. Some districts and communities openly lobbied to change or overturn the law, and some decided to take their chances on being penalized for noncompliance rather than consolidating. However, most districts in our study reluctantly proceeded with reorganization primarily for the purpose of avoiding fiscal penalties. One superintendent explained, “I think that really forced a lot, because I think—had there not been penalties, [they] would have voted against it.” A facilitator in another group stated, “They wanted to be in compliance with the law… so they wouldn’t have the threat of the commissioner withholding their subsidy.”

District leaders and community members also identified the law’s “one-size-fits all” approach as a serious limitation. Smaller communities feared a loss of voice on regional school boards and loss of local control over major decisions on the budget or educational programming. Districts that had operated as a loosely organized union were reluctant to give up the local school boards and direct state subsidy for one regional board and centralized funding. These groups lobbied strongly for an alternative structure and other types of flexibility in the law.

Policy Articulation There was general agreement in the interviews on the need to take some action to curb the rising cost of education. Although many people agreed with the governor’s call to action, they did not feel that he made a strong case for using consolidation to solve the problem. What was lacking, in their view, was an effort to build consensus around both defining the problem and proposing a solution. One legislator described a familiar notion found in public policy literature and practice: If you’re going to try for major change, you have to either create buy-in to a vision that says we need this change…or we need to create the feeling of a crisis so people want the change.

District leaders and community members stressed that the governor and state leaders were too focused on the goal of cost savings and did not sufficiently

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

MAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION

articulate the potential educational benefits of consolidation. One superintendent noted, “It was presented as a cost saving initiative, [but] its real value would be to improve educational quality for small districts.”

The ability to envision educational benefits was a far stronger motivation for districts to consolidate than was the prospect of cutting costs alone Another factor related to policy articulation cited in the interviews was the lack of clear language to guide implementation in the 2007 reorganization law. To begin with, there was no strategic planning prior to enactment to provide a framework for implementation by the state. As one state coordinator for reorganization explained, When the law was over, it lacked a lot of clarity. We referred to it as, you know, we were trying to fly the airplane and build it at the same time…. There was no structure, no game plan, no plan about once the law passes what do you do.

The Maine Department of Education mobilized a staff and structure to support district reorganization planning while it was occurring. This made it difficult for the state to be responsive in answering questions and providing requested information. In addition, the law itself was vague in certain areas, which left facilitators and regional planning members uncertain how to proceed. For example, the 2007 law did not specify a method to calculate each partner’s share of the combined regional budget. One superintendent commented during the reorganization planning, “There are a lot of flaws in the law. There’s a lot of stuff that’s not explained or defined…we’re flying blind half the time.” The law’s vagueness contributed to uncertainty and delayed important decisions, particularly with respect to determining the cost-sharing agreement.

Timeline A significant challenge for most districts statewide was the short timeframe for selecting partners and developing and then preparing to implement the plan.

The initial deadline of only one year proved to be unrealistic, given the complex issues and decisions that districts needed to resolve. Across the 15 groups in our study, we found that as the number of part-

nering districts grew and the total geographic region expanded, groups needed more time and struggled more to reach consensus on decisions and were less likely to successfully reorganize. The state later extended the deadline to July 2009.

Public members of regional planning groups often lacked expertise in education finance or curricula and needed more time to make sense of information from the state or districts. One regional planning committee member commented, “No one feels it’s adequate time.

These are huge decisions to make. We’re all educated, but we’re not specialists.”

Superintendents reflected in the interviews on the difficulty of getting neighboring communities to see their common interests. The goal of moving from local control to a regional approach required a significant shift in cultural attitudes, which would take time. One superintendent described this challenge: At the state level, changing the law was a technical change…. The reality is that technical change is the easy part of the work. It’s cultural change where the difficulty comes. The way the law was structured in terms of the timeline, and the dramatic changes that it’s asking for these communities to make, it didn’t take into consideration the amount of work it takes to make cultural change. The entire change process was ignored.

State Education Policy Context Uncertainty about the stability of the reorganization law coupled with a pervasive mistrust in state education leadership at the local level diminished support for the policy and stalled reorganization.

Immediately after the policy was announced, some districts mobilized opposition to repeal the law and others worked to draft amendments. From January through April 2008, work halted in 11 of the 15 groups we studied while the legislature debated how to amend the law (Maine State Legislature 2008).

A new option for structuring regional units fueled more uncertainty within planning groups as they debated which structure to pursue. One superintendent commented, “The impact it had upon the [regional

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 35

MAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION

planning committee] was that the legislature kept changing the rules of the game while we were trying to play the game. That was extremely frustrating.”

After the amendment, some groups splintered and formed new partnerships and had to begin the process anew. A statewide referendum question on the general ballot in November 2009, after many groups had already consolidated that July, created substantial uncertainty and impeded full implementation. Each year, dozens of legislative bills were presented to repeal or amend the law and the law was continually revised.

Fiscal penalties were at first delayed and then eliminated after only two years. These efforts to change or repeal the law reduced public confidence that the law would be upheld and enforced, which reduced motivation for compliance.

District leaders and regional planning members we interviewed consistently described a strong sense of mistrust and low confidence in the state’s education leadership. Part of this feeling they attributed to the state educational agency’s pattern of abruptly halting education initiatives only after districts had already invested considerable effort and time to comply. Representative comments from different groups were: We lose considerable resources within the school because we are constantly revamping things to meet changing state requirements and that’s not a productive use of our resources.

There’s a great deal of mistrust in the state government. One of the things I consistently heard from people was: “Well, that’s what the law says right now, but what about five years from now?”

[There’s] an inherent distrust of what the state has been saying and what they actually do. We’ve watched over the last 10, 15, 20 years a lot of the initiatives that have been started by the [Maine] Department of Education, and we’ve watched them pull the rug out, without letting it play out to see how effective it would be. And I think the initial thought

36 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

when this whole consolidation [initiative] began was that, “Okay, here we go again….”

District leaders and community members repeatedly expressed frustration that the state appeared to pursue education initiatives without sufficiently researching or piloting them, building consensus and support, or making a commitment to clear goals and change efforts. Thus, the state’s track-record for implementing major education reforms contributed to the public’s low confidence that the reorganization initiative would be sustained.

Structural Supports The structural framework of the regional planning committee was a key factor supporting reorganization work. Although state policymakers initially proposed a more centralized approach for determining regional districts, the law gave school districts and local communities the authority to select their own partners and develop reorganization plans. The law required regional planning committees to guide the work, with representatives from district administration, municipal government, and the general public. This organizational structure allowed districts to seek input from various stakeholders and to engage members of the partnering communities in deliberations together. A positive consequence of these discussions was that communities were able to discover their common interests, explore opportunities for collaboration, and overcome barriers for cooperation. A municipal representative in one group explained, We got to know each other quite well [on my subcommittee]. We learned to respect each other. Initially there was some tension and some discomfort, as there will always be in these kinds of groups. We all recognized that we had different needs but that on balance, we had a lot of common ground. We worked on enlarging the boundaries of that common ground.

Others agreed that the process of public debate and deliberation was important to successful reorganization planning. A superintendent observed, “The

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

MAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION

process did some great things. It brought people together, where they saw commonalities, and they saw where there were some opportunities to save money.”

While the law outlined specific elements required in a reorganization plan, it did not suggest how to organize that information. A law firm assisting several districts in the state developed a template for organizing reorganization plans, which was quickly endorsed by the Maine Department of Education.

District leaders and regional planning members consistently said that having a template helped them to focus their work and provided a clear guide for what they needed to do.

The reorganization law also provided some funding to support costs associated with planning work and start-up tasks. One important structural support was the state-sponsored facilitator. Planning groups decided whether or not to work with a facilitator and selected their facilitator, who was often someone who had worked with the districts in the past. In about half of the 15 groups we studied, district leaders and planning members credited their facilitator with keeping their planning group moving forward and completing tasks on time. One superintendent said, “The facilitator played a pivotal role…explained the law and why we have to do certain things.” However, in a few groups, district leaders and planning members were not satisfied with the skills or knowledge of the facilitator they selected. Six of the 15 groups we studied changed facilitators or selected someone in their community to lead the planning meetings.

The reorganization law also included funding to compensate school districts for the expense of hiring lawyers to review their reorganization plans, converting and merging districts’ financial and student data systems, evaluating facilities, purchasing software for bus transportation routing, and other costs. While most districts used these funds to support reorganization planning and early implementation, they consistently argued that these funds did not begin to cover their actual expenditures.

Statewide Progress toward Reorganization

Maine has made progress toward reducing the total number of school districts by almost half—from

290 in 2007 to 164 by July 2011 (Maine Department of Education 2011). Though far short of the goal of 80 districts, the reduction is still substantial. A total of 167 districts (school administrative units) reorganized into 41 regional units. The degree of reorganization varied between the regional units, however. Some of the new regional units consisted of districts that already shared administration and collaborated extensively through a school union structure, and at least one of the regional units was simply a renamed school administrative unit.

Many districts were not required to reorganize: 49 were allowed to remain unchanged as they had 1,200 or more students, and another 18 were exempt primarily due to geographic isolation. Additionally, 56 districts remain nonconforming with the law. Thus, 123 districts did not officially engage in reorganization (Maine Department of Education 2011). For the districts that did reorganize, most felt compelled to do so because of the threat of fiscal penalties. Once the penalties were eliminated, many communities pursued a process to dismantle the regional unit. According to the Maine Department of Education in October 2012, there were 34 communities representing 17 regional units that have either formally initiated the process of withdrawal from the unit or have informally begun to explore withdrawal. This number represents 42 percent of the 41 regional units that reorganized. As these regional units untangle themselves, and if this trend continues, the total number of school districts in Maine will certainly increase.

LESSONS LEARNED

O

verall, the ability of communities and school districts to identify mutual interests with other district partners was the most critical factor determining whether districts could successfully partner or not. Leadership from superintendents and other planning members was another significant factor that propelled communities to approve or reject reorganization. Positive and collaborative relationships between some districts facilitated efforts to consolidate.

With respect to policy, the overwhelming consensus was that the approach of a mandate with penalties, short timeframe, and poor articulation all produced a negative reaction against the policy and led

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 37

MAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION

to efforts to repeal or revise the law. The recurring efforts to change the law, together with a general lack of confidence in the state’s education leadership, produced a high level of uncertainty about the fate of the policy, reduced motivation to engage in reorganization work, and stalled work in a majority of cases.

We summarize here the broad lessons learned as relevant to current and future efforts in Maine and other states to reorganize the delivery of K-12 education.

Policy Lessons 1. The problem, options, and proposed policy solution need to be clearly articulated by state education leaders.

2. Effective communication and persuasion are needed at the state and local levels to build support for the policy, and the rationale should include educational benefits along with cost-savings.

3. Ample time should be allowed for public discussion of options, stakeholder input, and consensus-building for the policy.

4. The policy should include a state implementation plan and time to put that framework into place before the districts begin their reorganization work, so the state is ready to support district work.

5. The law should include clear language to guide district reorganization work.

6. Fiscal incentives and start-up funds are helpful, but may not be sufficient on their own to motivate districts to consolidate.

7. Penalties can be a powerful motivator for districts to consolidate, but may also backfire by creating negative reactions or noncompliance.

Process Lessons 1. Districts need a reasonable timeframe for planning and implementation. Changing cultural beliefs and satisfying common interests takes time. The process may take two years or more.

2. The larger the number of partnering districts the more time will be needed for negotiation and planning, and the more difficult the process will be.

3. Regional planning is hard, messy work requiring many hours for district leaders and planning members. How districts approach the process matters. Negotiations may bring communities together or stir up contention and negative feelings.

4. Superintendents play a critical role in assisting the planning process by lending their expertise and providing district data.

5. Positive relationships or collaboration between partnering districts facilitates the reorganization process, but does not guarantee reorganization success.

6. A trained and trusted facilitator who is familiar with the communities can help members stay focused on the task and overcome differences.

7. Leadership from the superintendent and others is critical for building support for reorganization. Effective communication and persuasion are needed.

8. District and community support for consolidation will center primarily on the satisfaction of self-interests to m eet fiscal, governance, and educational benefits. The desire to maintain some degree of local control in these aspects still runs deep in Maine communities. -

8. The policy should avoid a “one-size-fits all” approach and instead allow flexibility for districts to achieve the goal of efficiency in different ways.

38 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

MAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported in this paper was funded in part by the Maine Department of Education and the Penquis Superintendents’ Association. The opinions expressed here are solely the authors’ and should not be attributed to any organization. The authors wish to thank Dr. Walter Harris and Dr. David Silvernail for their guidance and helpful comments on this paper, and the many individuals on both research teams who assisted with data collection and analysis at various stages of the multiyear project.

REFERENCES Berry, Christopher. 2007. “School Consolidation and Inequality.” Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2006/ 2007, ed. Tom Loveless and Frederick Hess.

Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC. pp.

49–75.

Berry, Christopher and Martin West. 2010. “Growing Pains: The School Consolidation Movement and Student Outcomes.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 26(1): 1–29.

The Brookings Institution. 2006. Charting Maine’s Future: An Action Plan for Promoting Sustainable Prosperity and Quality Places. Report of the Metropolitan Policy Program. Washington, DC. Children’s Alliance. 2006. A Case for Cooperation: Making Connections to Improve Education for All Maine Students. Children’s Alliance, Augusta, ME. Cox, Betty and Becky Cox. 2010. “A Decade of Results: A Case for School District Consolidation?”

Education 131(1): 83–92.

Donaldson, Gordon. 2007. The Sinclair Act: An Uncertain Legacy. White Paper. University of Maine, Orono.

Donaldson, Gordon. 2006. Pursuing Administrative Efficiency for Maine’s Schools: How Our Past Can Inform Our Current Decisions. White Paper.

University of Maine,Orono.

Fairman, Janet, Walter Harris, Dianne Hoff, Sarah Mackenzie, Gary Chapin and Debra Allen. 2008.

Perceptions and Process: Early Findings from a Study of School District Consolidation in Maine.

A Report to the Penquis Superintendents Association. Center for Research and Evaluation, University of Maine. Orono.

Gagnon, Dawn. 2012. “Glenburn, Veazie Vote to Pull out of RSU 26.” Bangor Daily News (Nov. 7).

Johnson, Jerry. 2006. An Investigation of School Closures Resulting from Forced District Reorganization in Arkansas. Rural School and Community Trust, Arlington, VA. Kingdon, John. 2002. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Longman, New York.

Maine Department of Education. 2011. Reorganization Status of All School Systems. Maine Department of Education, Augusta. www.maine.gov/education/ reorg/plansandresponses.html [Accessed April 1, 2012] Maine State Legislature. 1957. Public Law 1957, Chpt. 364, An Act Relating to Educational Aid and Reorganization of School Administrative Units (Sinclair Act). Augusta.

Maine State Legislature. 2007. Public Law 2007, Chpt. 240, Part XXXX. Augusta.

Maine State Legislature. 2008. Public Law 2007, Chpt. 668. An Act to Remove Barriers to the Reorganization of School Administrative Units.

Augusta.

Moretto, Mario. 2012. “DOE Counsels Patience in RSU 24 Withdrawal.” Bangor Daily News (Sept. 8–9).

Nybladh, L. 1999. The Role of Information and Data in Citizen Voters’ Decision-Making about School District Consolidation: A Case Study of Select School Districts in New York State and the State of North Dakota from a Rational Choice Theory Perspective. Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell University.

Duncombe, William and John Yinger. 2010. “School District Consolidation: The Benefits and Costs.”

The School Administrator 67(5): 10–17.

Please turn the page for more references and information about the authors.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 39

MAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION

Janet Fairman is an assoPlucker, Jonathan, Terry Spradlin, Marshall Magaro, Rosanne Chien and Jason Zapf. 2007. “Assessing the Policy Environment for School Corporation Collaboration, Cooperation, and Consolidation in Indiana.” Education Policy Brief 5(5). Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Spradlin, Terry, Fatima Carson, Sara Hess and Jonathan Plucker. 2010. “Revisiting School District Consolidation Issues.” Education Policy Brief 8(3).

Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Steeves, Heather. 2012. “Was Maine’s School Consolidation Endeavor a Success?” Bangor Daily News (Feb. 3).

Task Force on Increasing Efficiency and Equity in the Use of K-12 Education Resources. 2004. Final Report of the Task Force on Increasing Efficiency and Equity in the Use of K-12 Education Resources.

Office of the Governor, Augusta.

Ward, James and Frances Rink. 1992. “Analysis of Local Stakeholder Opposition to School District Consolidation: An Application of Interpretive Theory to Public Policy Making.” Journal of Research in Rural Education 8(2): 11–19.

Weiss, Carol. 1983. “Ideology, Interests and Information.” Ethics, the Social Sciences, and Policy Analysis, ed. Daniel Callahan and Bruce Jennings. Plenum Press, New York.

ciate research professor in the Center for Research and Evaluation, College of Education and Human Development at the University of Maine. In addition to her research on school district reorganization, she conducts research on math- and scienceeducation reform and innovative classroom practices, professional development and data use, and leadership.

Christine Donis-Keller is an education consultant with expertise in K-12 research, evaluation, and policy studies. She served as research associate at the Center for Education Policy, Applied Research and Evaluation (CEPARE) at USM during the consolidation study. Her current work includes an evaluation of an arts initiative in an urban public school system and a statewide program to support school improvement through professional development.

40 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

MAINE SCHOOL DISTRICT REORGANIZATION

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 41

MAINE OFFSHORE WIND POWER

Attitudes toward Offshore Wind Power in the Midcoast Region of Maine

by James M. Acheson

42 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

Given the likelihood of the development of offshore wind farms in Maine and the increasingly politicized nature of discussions about wind power in general, there is a need for more systematic information on Mainers’ opinions about offshore wind power. In this article, James Acheson provides information on the range of public opinion about offshore wind power based on a survey of people in Midcoast Maine. He also assesses the accuracy of some public concerns and discusses the broader policy issues raised about offshore wind development.



View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

MAINE OFFSHORE WIND POWER

D

eveloping alternative energy sources is not just a technical or scientific problem. Sociocultural and political factors are also important components. In this article, we present findings from a study of attitudes about offshore wind-power development in Maine.

There is a practical reason for wanting to understand the public’s attitude towards this type of development: public support or opposition to energy projects can easily translate to political support or opposition and can affect policy and public financing (Kintisch 2011).

There is a high probability that wind turbines will be placed in waters off the Maine coast in the near future. In the last three years, planning has begun to establish an offshore wind farm in federal waters using floating wind turbines. The DeepCwind Consortium, made up of the University of Maine and several other agencies and businesses, issued the “Maine Deepwater Offshore Wind Report” regarding a study on the feasibility of such a wind farm in the Gulf of Maine and specifying a five-phase plan for its development (University of Maine and James Sewall Co. 2011).

Tentatively, the University of Maine would establish a 1:3-scale floating tower located near Monhegan Island in 2013. More small turbines would be constructed at a later date. The number of turbines would gradually be expanded, so that by 2020-2030 four to eight wind farms, each producing between 500 and 1,000 megawatts of electricity would be in place between 18.5 and 93 km from shore (University of Maine and James Sewall Co. 2011). In addition, the University of Maine and Maine Maritime Academy are placing a test buoy and scale models in the waters off Castine in Penobscot Bay, which may result in placement of other windpower devices in this area in the future. In the summer of 2012 hearings were held by Statoil, a Norwegian firm wanting to establish a wind farm in the ocean near Boothbay (Betts 2012).

In the past few years, wind power has become increasingly politicized both in Maine and elsewhere.

Articles have appeared in the Maine press presenting arguments of both proponents and opponents hoping to influence the Maine public. Advocates promise a variety of benefits ranging from increasing renewable energy supplies and reducing greenhouse gases and dependence on oil from countries not friendly to the U.S. to jobs, economic development, tax reductions,

…public support and a reduction in the balance or opposition to of payments problem (Curtis 2011). Opponents see wind energy projects can power as threatening the Maine way of life (DiCenso 2011). easily translate to They point to problems that can come on the heels of industrial political support or wind power, including noise, damage to aesthetics, reduction opposition and can of stocks of birds, threats to endangered species, and for affect policy and offshore wind-power projects, navigational hazards, reductions public financing. in fish stocks, and conflicts over fishing grounds (Sambides 2011; Turkel 2010). In 2011, the controversy took on a nastier edge when several anti-wind-power demonstrators were arrested (Bangor Daily News 2011). The battle ranges far beyond Maine, attesting to the large amount of money involved (The Economist 2010).

In the ebb and flow of the controversy over windpower development in Maine, there is little systematic information on public opinion about offshore wind power. In this article, we seek to provide information on the range of public opinion in Maine about offshore wind power; the focus is on those in the Midcoast region, who will be the first to experience offshore wind-power development. A secondary concern is to assess the accuracy or validity of some issues of concern to the public. Finally, we discuss the broader policy issues raised in the examination of people’s attitudes about offshore wind power development.

METHODOLOGY

T

he data on which this article is based were gathered in 2010 and 2011 by a large-scale mail survey of three groups of people in Midcoast Maine (Lincoln and Knox counties): fishermen; owners of tourism-related businesses; and coastal landowners.

The sample for each group was selected by different means. We obtained names and addresses of Midcoast fishermen from the official 2008 lobster license list from the Department of Marine Resources, and drew a random sample from that list. We purchased a list of

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 43

MAINE OFFSHORE WIND POWER

business names and addresses and supplemented and corrected this list by using local and regional Chamber of Commerce, tourism, and municipality websites.

This sample included almost all businesses in categories we defined as being tourism-related (e.g., hotels and motels, gift shops, convenience stores, tour boats). This is a saturation sample of tourism-related businesses in the selected Midcoast towns. For the coastal landowner random sample, we used a combination of town tax maps and records for towns that had these online and visits to town offices for those towns that did not have online records. For both methods, we obtained the names and addresses of coastal landowners from current tax maps and town lists of taxpayers and drew the random sample from these names. All of these records are in the public domain except for the list of fishermen, which we obtained from the Department of Marine Resources with the permission of the commissioner at the time, George Lapointe.

A majority of our respondents agreed or strongly agreed that humans had done great damage to the environment and that offshore wind power would help solve this problem.

Response to the survey was fairly good, but not superlative. No incentive was offered to respondents for returning the forms. We sent 1,442 questionnaires and 402, or 28 percent, were returned: 401 surveys to fishermen—79 (20 percent) returned; 543 to business owners—150 (28 percent) returned; and 498 to landowners—173 (35 percent) returned. The survey included four different kinds of questions: 1. Demographic information: legal residence, number of months (or weeks) residing in Maine, age, education level, work status, whether they owned property in Maine, the location of the property and whether the

44 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

property had shore frontage, and questions concerning occupation (e.g., work in or own tourism business, fishing business).

2. We gave 25 statements about offshore wind power and its effects and about environmental attitudes in general and asked respondents to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement using a fivepoint scale.

3. We asked three open-ended questions in which respondents had to write a short answer. The questions asked respondents to comment on the “positive and negative aspects of offshore wind power;” the “most important issues related to offshore wind power;” and finally, “the most important questions researchers should study related to offshore wind power.”

4. We asked questions about the amount of experience and knowledge people had with wind power.

ATTITUDES ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT AND OFFSHORE WIND POWER

A

majority of our respondents agreed or strongly agreed that humans had done great damage to the environment and that offshore wind power would help solve this problem. Sixty-eight percent of respondents (273 of 396) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that “humans have seriously overexploited natural resources of the world.” Only a relatively small proportion of respondents (104 of 398 or 26.1 percent) agreed or strongly agreed that “the seriousness of environmental problems has been over exaggerated by environmentalists.” When respondents were asked to rate agreement or disagreement with the statement “offshore wind power will help to reduce greenhouses gases in the atmosphere,” 265 of 399 (66.4 percent) agreed or strongly agreed.

The respondents largely agreed that offshore wind power will help to solve some serious economic problems for Mainers. When respondents were asked whether “offshore wind power will results in jobs for

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

MAINE OFFSHORE WIND POWER

Maine coastal people,” 246 of 400 (62 percent) agreed or strongly agreed. Moreover, 57 percent (225 of 400) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that “Maine needs jobs and industry and offshore wind power will help to increase both.” Of the 398 people who answered the question, 242 (60.8 percent) agreed or strongly agreed that “offshore wind power will increase economic opportunities in Maine.”

Seventy-two percent (289 of 398) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that “offshore wind will help reduce reliance on foreign oil.”

On the whole, the respondents in our study were mildly positive about the prospects of developing offshore wind power. When asked to rate their agreement with the statement “I think the benefits of offshore wind power outweigh the potential negative impacts,” a total of 222 of 398 (55.7 percent) who answered the question agreed or strongly agreed. A total of 216 of 400 who answered the question (54 percent) agreed or strongly agreed that “offshore wind power should be developed in the Gulf of Maine.”

RESPONSES OF FISHERMEN, COASTAL LANDOWNERS, AND TOURISM BUSINESS OWNERS

T

he fishermen in our study were more negative about the prospects for offshore wind power than either landowners or business owners. On virtually every question fewer fishermen than landowners or business owners agreed that offshore wind power will solve problems, and more fishermen agreed that it would cause more problems than did the landowners or business owners. Many, but not all, fishermen in our study appear to think that wind turbines are likely to be placed in offshore areas now used by fishermen, which will result in gear tangles or their being forced to abandon those areas for fishing. This is reflected in their answers to a number of questions. For example, 40.2 percent (37 of 92) of the fishermen agreed or strongly agreed that “offshore wind power will reduce fish catches,” but only 6.4 percent (9 of 140) of the business owners and 9.7 percent (15 of 154) of the landowners agreed or strongly agreed with that statement. Of the fishermen respondents in the sample, 56.5 percent (52 of 92) agreed or strongly agreed that

“offshore wind power will conflict with use of fishing gear,” compared with 17.4 percent (27 of 155) of the landowners and 12.2 percent (17 of 139) of the business owners. Of the fishermen who answered the question, 52.8 percent (48 of 91) agreed or strongly agreed that offshore wind power will pose a navigational hazard, compared with only 20.7 percent (32 of 155) of the landowners and 14.8 percent (22 of 149) of the business owners.

These themes about the potential problems for fishermen from wind power also came out strongly in telephone interviews with 172 fishermen that were conducted late in 2010 and early in 2011. Fishermen are clearly concerned about the possible effect of offshore wind power on their fishing operations.

At the same time, fewer fishermen in our survey thought that offshore wind power would solve environmental problems than did coastal landowners or business owners. For example, for the statement “offshore wind power will help to reduce greenhouse gases,” 72.4 percent (113 of 156) of the landowners agreed or strongly agreed as did 71.2 percent (99 of 139) of the business owners. Only 50 percent (46 of 92) of the fishermen agreed or strongly agreed. Seventy-eight percent (121 of 155) of the landowners agreed or strongly agreed that offshore wind power would help reduce reliance on foreign oil; only 55.4 percent (51 of 92) of the fishermen agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. Not surprisingly, fishermen were less sanguine than either landowners or business people about the desirability of developing offshore wind power. Only 37 percent (34 of 92) of the fishermen agreed or strongly agreed that offshore wind power should be developed in the Gulf of Maine, while 53.8 percent (84 of 156) of the landowners and 64.3 percent (90 of 142) of the business owners agreed or strongly agreed. It is quite clear from fishermen’s responses on this survey and in conversations that they believe that offshore wind power will limit the area they can fish, or result in territorial conflicts over fishing space as boats dislodged from one area by wind-power developments try to find new locations in which to fish. This colors their whole attitude toward the wind-power enterprise.

But fishermen were not consistently more negative about all aspects of offshore wind power than the other groups in our sample. For example, when asked whether

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 45

MAINE OFFSHORE WIND POWER

“offshore wind power will result in jobs for Maine coastal people,” 64 percent (100 of 156) of the landowners and 64.3 percent (90 of 140) of business people agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, along with 51 percent (47 of 92) of the fishermen. When respondents were asked whether “humans have seriously overexploited natural resources of the world,” 62.6 percent (57 of 91) of the fishermen agreed or strongly agreed, which was not all that different from the percentage of landowners (106 of 154 or 58.8 percent) or of business owners (100 of 139 or 71.9 percent).

Attitudes and Demographic Characteristics

Demographic characteristics are singularly unhelpful in explaining responses of people in our study. Attitudes towards wind power or the environment do not correlate with age, legal residence, work status (i.e., working full time, retired). There is one exception to this generalization: respondents with lower educational levels were less supportive of offshore wind power than those with higher educational levels. This relative lack of commitment shows in the responses to a number of questions. Eighty percent of the 141 people with graduate or professional degrees agreed or strongly agreed that offshore wind power will result in less reliance on foreign oil, compared with 61 percent of the 94 with a high school education or less.

Seventeen percent of the 141 people with graduate or professional degrees agreed or strongly agreed that “environmental problems have been exaggerated,” while 34 percent of the 94 people with high school education or less said the same. Ninety-one of the 139 people with graduate or professional degrees (65.5 percent) agreed or strongly agreed that “offshore wind power would be good for Maine and the nation,” compared with 48 (51 percent) of the 94 with a high school education or less.

There is a strong suggestion in the data that differences in attitudes towards offshore wind power are linked to knowledge of wind power. Of the 140 people in the sample with graduate degrees, 18 (13 percent) said they have a good deal of knowledge about offshore wind power. Only four percent of the 96 people with a high school diploma or less said they had a lot of knowledge. Moreover, 74 percent of the 141 people with advanced degrees said they had seen a wind farm, 46 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

compared with 51 percent of the 86 respondents with a high school education or less.1 RESPONDENTS’ VIEWS ON POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF OFFSHORE WIND POWER

R

espondents’ possible support or opposition to offshore wind power came out most clearly in answers to the open-ended questions. The ones that proved to be most informative were, “What do you think are the positive aspects of offshore wind power development along the Maine coast?” and “What do you think are the negative aspects of offshore wind power development along the Maine coast?” The responses were coded into the categories shown in Table 1. Overall, there were more responses regarding positive aspects than negative aspects.

Some of these responses are quite obvious, but others require explanation. The largest percentage of positive responses was that offshore wind energy would reduce reliance on foreign oil (20.8 percent). These responses suggest that respondents did not like the U.S. to be dependent for a critical resource on “enemy” or unfriendly countries. The second largest set of positive responses, almost equal to the first, was that offshore wind power could “reduce pollution” (20.6 percent).

This reason suggests that respondents were concerned with global climate change and damage to the environment. “Renewable energy” was the third most important positive aspect mentioned. By this, respondents indicated that wind energy does not deplete any resource and is sustainable. These responses indicate that the respondents are concerned about running out of oil or gas. A smaller proportion of respondents (12.6 percent) gave a fourth response—namely, that offshore wind power would lower electric costs or help with heating costs. The people giving this response appeared to be among a minority aware of the benefits Mainers could gain from using heat pumps or thermal storage devices. The “other” category of positive responses fell into no easily definable category. These included “low impact,” “self reliance,” “energy of the future,” “consistent winds,” and an enigmatic “it’s all positive.” Forty-two responses (12 percent) indicated “none” or something similar. By this, respondents

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

MAINE OFFSHORE WIND POWER

Table 1:

Views on Positive and Negative Aspects of Offshore Wind Power Development

Mention Mention Total % meant that there was nothing posiAspects (coded) #1 #2 Responses Responses tive about offshore energy; they Positive Aspects were solidly against it.

Responses regarding negative Reduce reliance on foreign oil 58 41 99 20.8 aspects of offshore wind power Reduce pollution/clean energy 65 33 98 20.6 were more complicated. The largest Renewable energy 81 10 91 19.2 percentage of negative responses Lower heat/electricity costs 44 16 60 12.6 was because of “appearance” or “aesthetics” (26.6 percent). These Other 47 1 48 10.1 responses suggest that people think None (no favorable trait) 42 42 8.8 the turbines would be close Jobs 13 24 37 8.0 enough to shore to be visible and Total 475 100.0 that they would spoil the view. The second largest percentage of negaNegative Aspects tive responses was because of Appearance, aesthetics 84 25 109 26.6 potential harm to birds and whales Potential harm to birds and whales 28 22 50 12.2 (12.2 percent).2 The third largest Gear conflict, loss of fishing grounds 41 6 47 11.5 group of negative responses (11.5 percent) was that the turbines Cost (construction, maintenance) 39 5 44 10.7 would conflict with fishing operaNoise 33 11 44 10.7 tions. By this, respondents meant Other 36 6 42 10.2 that the turbines and anchor cables None (no unfavorable trait) 33 33 8.0 would make it difficult or imposNavigation hazard 15 9 24 5.9 sible to use certain kinds of fishing gear in certain places. The fourth Technical feasibility 7 4 11 2.7 largest set of negative responses Subsidies 5 1 6 1.5 (10.7 percent) was that costs Total 410 100.0 would be too high and that this would result in high electric bills for consumers. The responses mentioning “subsidies” wind development would produce jobs. There is, in as a negative aspect (1.5 percent) appeared to assume fact, strong evidence that development of a large-scale that offshore wind power would not be competitive offshore wind farms will produce large numbers of with other sources of electricity and that it could only jobs. In Maine alone, Fisher et al. (2010) estimate that operate if the government subsidized it substantially, building a five-gigawatt wind farm would produce an at great cost to the taxpayers. Responses in the “other” estimated 16,700 jobs for 20 years. Maine needs jobs, category of negative aspects included a variety of and Maine people were aware of this fact as their reasons such as “negative effect on tourism,” “rapid responses to the structured questions concerning jobs obsolescence,” and “need gas or nuclear backup.” Those indicates, but the responses to the open-ended quesmentioning “none” were favorable to offshore wind tions suggests “jobs” was not a primary positive aspect power because they saw no negative characteristics. of offshore wind development.

The other categories, we believe, are self explanatory.

We were impressed that the majority of positive A surprisingly small number of responses responses to offshore wind power were for altruistic mentioned jobs as a positive aspect of offshore wind reasons or because it would benefit society as a whole power in the open-ended question, whereas in the (e.g., reduce pollution, a sustainable resource, reduce structured questions, 59 percent (236 of 400) of reliance on foreign oil). One of those favoring a respondents agreed or strongly agreed that offshore wind-power project said, “wind power will help address

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 47

MAINE OFFSHORE WIND POWER

the issue of rising and unstable fossil fuel costs.”

Another wrote, “we feel this is a project for the future.”

Only a small number said that it would produce tangible economic benefits (e.g., jobs, cheaper electricity) for individuals in the short run. A large number of the positive responses to offshore wind power were focused on the common good.

Despite the welter of conflicting information bombarding the public, in our study respondents voiced relatively strong support for the development of offshore wind power.

Responses about negative aspects of offshore wind power were different in this respect. Many of these responses could be classified as the NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) effect, i.e., that wind power would result in some cost to them or their neighbors (e.g., appearance, conflict with fishing gear, noise, a navigation hazard, higher electric rates). These types of responses have been common in media reports about opposition to land-based wind projects. For example, one woman was quoted as saying at a hearing that she opposed a proposed wind installation because she has “not heard enough assurances that the turbines would not affect the health of nearby residents or harm local property values.” Others quoted in the article said, “I don’t want to move. I have a gorgeous property.” “I do not want to be treated as a guinea pig.” Another who rose in opposition said that “having a 476-foot tall turbine towering over her property will have a permanent negative effect on her property” (Trotter 2011a).

Her concerns were echoed by many of the responses regarding negative aspects of offshore wind power.

Most of our respondents mentioned either primarily positive or primarily negative aspects of offshore wind power. Some, however, gave more nuanced answers and mentioned both positive and negative effects. One, for example, said, offshore wind power 48 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

will “help to keep down air pollution, and reduce our balance of payments problem with Persian Gulf countries, but it probably will kill a lot of migratory birds.”

WIND POWER IN MAINE AND BEYOND: KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, AND MISUNDERSTANDINGS

D

espite the welter of conflicting information bombarding the public, in our study respondents voiced relatively strong support for the development of offshore wind power. In this respect, the people in our Midcoast Maine study are different from people in Massachusetts questioned about proposed windpower development in Cape Cod. The authors of a study on wind-power development on Cape Cod conclude, “the overwhelming majority of the population expects negative impacts from the project; much smaller numbers expect positive effects” (Firestone and Kempton 2007: 1584). Moreover, those who opposed the Cape Cod wind-farm development gave a different list of reasons from those mentioning negative aspects in Maine, including environmental damage, higher electricity rates, aesthetics and impacts on recreational fishing and boating.

According to the data at our disposal, Maine people had more accurate information about offshore wind power than people in Massachusetts. Regarding Cape Cod wind power, Firestone and Kempton report that, “many of the beliefs upon which opinion are based appear to be factually incorrect” (2007:1584). At least some of the blame is attributable to the newspapers whose reporting concentrates on conflict and controversy and ignores the “expertise of nearby research institutions” (Thompson 2005). In Maine, many of our respondents showed a lack of awareness of certain issues, but were quite sophisticated about others. Five issues deserve to be discussed in more detail.

Subsidies

A small number of respondents said in the open-ended question that the primary negative aspect of wind power was subsidies; the idea is that wind power is not viable without being propped up by government funds, which would cost taxpayers a good deal. It is true that the wind-power projects in Maine

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

MAINE OFFSHORE WIND POWER

and the experimental offshore wind-power project of the University of Maine do receive financial help (i.e., subsidies and grants) from the federal government.

What no one mentioned on their survey form or in telephone interviews is that all forms of energy are subsidized—most far more heavily than wind power.

In 2006, the federal subsidy to energy producers was 13.6 billion dollars (Combs 2011). Of that amount, 34.6 percent went to ethanol, 25.7 percent went to the oil and gas industries, and 20.2 percent went to coal. These three industries received 80.5 percent of the total federal subsidy in that year. Wind energy received only 3.4 percent of the total or 458 million dollars.

Heating

Offshore wind turbines will produce large amounts of electricity, and one of the uses of that electricity is for heating. This possibility was not recognized by the vast majority of the people in our study. Only 25.3 percent (100 of 394) agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “offshore wind power will lower heating costs,” and 27.4 percent (108 of 394) said they did not know. In addition, only 12.6 percent of responses in the open-ended question about positive aspects of offshore wind power mentioned that it could lower heating costs. Only two respondents mentioned the possibility of using electricity to power heat pumps or thermal-storage devices although such devices are widely used in the southern states and are beginning to be sold in New England.

The Maine legislature has recently enacted a “Heat Pump Pilot Program” to encourage homeowners to install this technology (Bangor Hydro Electric Co. 2012). (Some did mention that the electricity could be used to power electric cars although we did not ask about cars.) It is our impression that Mainers were aware of the possibilities of electric cars, but that the majority know little about electric heat pumps or heat storage devices. In addition, no one brought up that many houses in the Atlantic Provinces and Quebec are heated with electricity using resistance heaters.

Resistance electric heat becomes a possibility if the price of electricity goes low enough, as is the case in the eastern provinces of Canada. Despite the high price of heating oil, our study suggests that Maine

people have not really begun to explore alternatives to oil-fired or gas furnaces.

Environmental Concerns

Many people in our study had little knowledge of the potential effects of offshore turbines on the ocean and marine life. Most had little to say about such issues, and there was no consensus among those who did hazard an opinion. When we asked whether offshore wind turbines may increase mortality on birds and whales, 33.3 percent (132 of 397) agreed or strongly agreed, 22.2 percent (88 of 397) disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 29.2 percent (116 of 397) said they did not know. Twenty percent (81 of 396) agreed or strongly agreed that offshore wind turbines would enhance fish habitat, 21.5 percent (85 of 396) disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 35.9 percent (142 of 396) said they did not know.

Offshore wind power can create some problems and help solve others. Environmental issues are used by both sides involved in the debate concerning offshore wind power. Those favoring establishing offshore wind power point out that it will reduce greenhouse gases, which will help solve the global climate-change problem (Fisher et al. 2010; Sambides 2011). In addition, turbine platforms can act as artificial reefs and no-take zones for fish (Punt et al. 2009). Those opposed believe that wind turbines may kill birds and have a negative effect on whales, which means violating the Endangered Species Act, and may harm fish habitat (Deese and Schmitt 2010). There has been considerable research on the effect of turbines on fish and marine mammals. The evidence is that the overall effect of wind turbine noise on fish appears to be slight (Hoffman et al. 2000). Marine mammals are affected within 200 meters (Koschinski et al. 2003), but apparently not beyond that limited range. The noise generated by wind turbines shrinks to insignificance when compared with other sources of noise. Large boats generate 30 times the noise of the maximum estimate for offshore wind-turbine developments.

Dr. Peter Jumars (personal communication) points out that the environmental effect of the wind turbines planned by the DeepCwind Consortium will likely be less than those in Europe. Wind turbines in Europe have been placed on stationary platforms in shallow

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 49

MAINE OFFSHORE WIND POWER

water where there is considerable “scour” on the bottom.

The wind turbines being planned by the DeepCwind Consortium will be placed on floating platforms miles from shore in water more than 300 meters deep so that little scour will occur. The effect of wind turbines on the marine environment will depend on the type of turbines employed and their placement, but this point was made by only one or two of our respondents.

Noise and Aesthetics

If our respondents underestimated the importance of some of the effects and issues of offshore wind power, they overestimated the importance of others.

Noise and aesthetics were in this category.

In our open-ended questions asking respondents for the most important negative aspects of offshore wind power, 10.7 percent of total responses concerned the noise turbines would create. There has been a lot of discussion about the “noise problem” of land-based turbines. It is possible that some people were confusing offshore turbines with onshore turbines.

We can find no studies of human perception of noise levels of offshore turbines. Turbines placed within a few miles of shore might make audible noises, but the noise problem would almost certainly shrink to insignificance if the turbines were placed miles from shore where planners are proposing to place the offshore wind farms in the Gulf of Maine.

In the open-ended question, the largest set of negative responses (109 of 410, or 26.6 percent) regarding offshore wind power mentioned aesthetic or visual problems. The people mentioning this are assuming that the wind turbines would be placed within a few miles of shore where they would impair the seascape. In fact, the tentative plan is to put the turbines from three to 20 miles offshore. Turbines placed within three miles of shore would certainly be visible; those placed 20 miles at sea would be visible, if at all, only under the best conditions.

We had assumed that the visual problems with wind turbines would shrink to insignificance if turbines were placed a number of miles at sea. Many of the respondents in our survey assumed this was true. Of the 397 people who responded to our statement that “the effect of offshore wind power will depend on how far offshore the turbines are placed” 241 (60.7 percent) 50 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

agreed or strongly agreed. But this was not universally the case. For some people, turbines were a problem regardless of distance. One of our respondents, who lived in South Thomaston, said he was bothered by the sight of wind turbines on Vinalhaven some 15.5 miles distant. A number of others said that wind turbines in the far distance would “spoil the view.” One said, “I love unfettered views and panoramas;” another said wind turbines would “spoil the scenic aspects of the coast.” These people did not want to see any wind turbines, regardless of distance.

Fishing

The unhappiness of fishermen in our study is not completely unwarranted. In other jurisdictions, the concerns of fishermen and fishing communities have been largely ignored in the placement of wind turbines, to the detriment of the fishing industry. Martin and Hall-Arber (2008) argue that human coastal communities are largely left out of marine planning. “Resource areas” on which “stakeholders and communities are dependent are neither mapped nor integrated into the planning process” (Martin and Hall-Arber 2008: 778).

Offshore wind farms in Germany were placed by analysts and officials who assumed that the costs to fishermen would be negligible since the wind sites took only a small percentage of the bottom (Berkenhagen et al. 2010). The fishermen, for their part, did not make an effective case for protecting any specific locations.

Colin Woodward points out that as a result, “they ended up protecting nothing,” which resulted in very substantial reductions in areas they could fish and a sharp decline in catches (Woodward 2011: 78–79).

Woodward advises the fishing industry to plan ahead.

Fishermen in New England are beginning to become aware of the potential effects of offshore wind power on their livelihoods. In Maine, fishermen are lobbying to become involved in the oceanplanning process established by the administration of President Obama (Trotter 2011b), and fishermen in Massachusetts have successfully lobbied Governor Duval Patrick to press the federal government to remove a large portion of ocean area from consideration as locations for future wind farms (Wicked Local Wareham 2011). Fishermen in other areas have taken a more active role. A group of fishermen in New Jersey has

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

MAINE OFFSHORE WIND POWER

organized a corporation, Fishermen’s Energy, and is seeking to develop a large offshore wind farm (Windpower Monthly 2011).

POLICY ISSUES

P

ublic attitudes can quickly manifest themselves in the form of political support or severe opposition in the political arena. The lack of action on global climate change is a case in point. A growing percentage of the U.S. population is convinced—despite a good deal of evidence to the contrary—that humans are not responsible for global warming, and an even larger percentage of the population appears confused on accuracy of science in general (Mooney and Kirshenbaum 2009).

At present, our data indicate that a majority of the public in the Midcoast seem to be generally in favor of developing offshore wind turbines in Maine.

Our results may underestimate support for offshore wind power by the Maine population at large. We surveyed populations that are most likely to be affected by offshore wind-power development in the near future, especially fishermen. A study of attitudes towards wind power of all types among respondents in the state as a whole yielded more strongly supportive results than what we found (Marrinen et al. 2012).

There are substantial pockets of unhappiness that might develop into severe opposition under the right circumstances. The responses of respondents to our survey suggest that opposition to establishing offshore wind power could arise for two reasons. One concerns the public trust doctrine and the common-pool nature of the ocean. The other is the collective-action problem posed by offshore wind development

Common-Pool Fisheries and the Public Trust Doctrine

Fishermen in our study generally seemed to assume that they had a right to fish in areas where they had fished in the past and that they had cause for complaint if the placement of offshore wind turbines would dislodge fishermen or make it impossible for them to carry out traditional activities. Some fishermen assumed that they would have to share the ocean space with others, but they didn’t like it. Others assumed that people and companies using the oceans for other

purposes had no right to dislodge them. One said, “we [fishermen] have been fishing in these waters for centuries. No one has a right to take them away from us.”

There is some justice in these sentiments.

There are substantial pockets of unhappiness that might develop into severe opposition under the right circumstances.

According to the law, the oceans and fish in them are protected by the public trust doctrine: “The Public Trust Doctrine provides that public trust lands, waters and living resources in a State are held by the State in trust for the benefit of all of the people, and establishes the right of the public to fully enjoy public trust lands, waters and living resources for a wide variety of recognized public uses” (Slade et al. 1997: 1). But the policy issues involved in the rights of fishermen are scarcely clear cut. Each state has its own body of case law specifying how the oceans and resources may be used under the trust doctrine. In addition, the federal government regulates access to ocean space and resources through a variety of laws, regulatory devices, and agencies. Some of the most important laws are the Marine Mammal Act, Endangered Species Act, the Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, the Submerged Land Act, Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Clean Water Act, and Coastal Zone Management Act. These laws are administered by a number of agencies, e.g., Coast Guard, Federal Aviation Agency, Department of Transportation, NOAA, Army Corps of Engineers, Minerals Management Service of the Department of the Interior, or Environmental Protection Agency. These agencies have different mandates and functions that they use to allow access to the various resources of the oceans under different conditions. The result is a “hodgepodge of legislation and jurisdiction” that creates bureaucratic competition and conflict (Firestone et al. 2005: 72). It is far from clear what the law is regarding the management of resources or even which regulatory framework

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 51

MAINE OFFSHORE WIND POWER

applies. As a result, deep-sea mining, drilling for oil, and commercial fishing take place in a contentious environment marked by conflict and lawsuits. The same will be true of offshore wind power development.

Officials in government agencies have no doubt that they have the right and duty to regulate access to different kinds of ocean resources. User groups (e.g., fishermen) have a different perspective. One lawyer familiar with maritime law agrees that fishermen have been using the ocean so long that they do have some “property rights” to ocean waters. Exactly what rights they have vis à vis owners of wind turbines will likely only be clarified after a number of court cases take place. There were two cases brought by fishermen’s groups in Massachusetts seeking to block a wind farm slated for development off Cape Cod; one case with a Martha’s Vineyard group was settled in June 2012, but the other, with a larger group of Cape fishermen, is still pending as of this writing.

The important point is that fishermen are likely to have enough “property rights” that they can cause substantial problems for anyone obstructing their use of the ocean and access to fish. This should be of concern to proponents of offshore wind power and a source of hope for those opposed.

Collective-Action Problems

The crux of most of the political problems with offshore wind power is that it is likely to pose a collective-action problem. The essence is that there is a divergence between what is rational for individuals and what is optimal for society (Elster 1989; Ostrom 2000; Taylor 1990). In collective-action dilemmas, it is rational for individuals to select the strategy that brings the highest individual reward for them even though doing so would result in poor results for the society as a whole. Collective-action problems are common.

Taylor goes so far as to say that “politics is the study of ways of solving collective action problems” (Taylor 1990: 224) Marine fisheries present the quintessential collective-action dilemma. It is in the self-interest of skippers to catch as many fish as possible and to resist establishing rules to conserve the stocks. The result, all too

52 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

often, is overfishing, destruction of the breeding stocks, stock failure, low incomes for fishermen, and high prices for consumers. All skippers have acted rationally, but the result is negative for everyone. Such failures to solve the collective-action problem have been documented in great detail in the literature on common property resources (Ostrom 2000).

Efforts to establish offshore wind power present another collective-action problem. There is a strong argument to be made that society as a whole would gain a great deal by developing alternative sources of energy that do not emit greenhouse gases and will make the U.S. less dependent on foreign oil. But it is in the short-term interest of some sets of people to oppose such developments. Among those are fishermen whose fishing operations could be disrupted; people with homes near the turbines who could hear the noise; and people with land on the shore whose views could be disrupted. It makes perfect sense for people in these categories to oppose offshore wind power (Haggett 2011). Virtually all of the lobbying in opposition to offshore wind power comes from these people, who assume, perhaps for good reason, that they are the losers in the game.

There are several ways to solve collective-action dilemmas (see Dixit and Skeath 2004), but it is always difficult to do so because it means asking people to sacrifice private goals for the benefit of the public.

In the case of wind power in general, the dilemma may have no good solution. One solution to collectiveaction problems is to impose a penalty scheme on those who do not cooperate. But predictably, it will be difficult to get people to support rules they see as antithetical to their own interest.

Our study suggests that there are two patterns of responses to offshore wind power development. Some respondents appear to be unwilling, at the present at least, to support developing offshore turbines because they assume the costs to them would be larger than the gains. But there are many others whose responses support the development of offshore wind power to promote the common good, even though it may cost them personally. The future of offshore wind power may well depend on which point of view gains ascendency.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

MAINE OFFSHORE WIND POWER

CONCLUSION

M

ore work will need to be done to expand our understanding of all the factors influencing attitudes of the public toward offshore wind power.

Scientists and engineers could overcome all of the technical problems, but if there is no public support for policies and financing available, alternative energy development such as floating offshore wind turbines may not be realized.

Attitudes are complicated. The press tends to support the idea that people are for or against policies (e.g., offshore wind power). Some articles feature people and statements that are highly critical (e.g., Sambides 2012; Turkel 2010); others that are far more positive (see, for example Betts 2012). But the situation is far more complicated. Not only are attitudes in a single community highly differential, with some people supporting and others opposing a policy, but attitudes of a single person can be contradictory. As Anderson, Noblet and Teisl (2012: 106) write, many people hold multiple values at the same time, and, in fact, many of these environmental values “are not mutually exclusive.” Some of our respondents, for example, want renewable energy, but they still object to wind turbines close to their homes. Complicating the situation further, some of the variables influencing public opinion in one area appear to be quite different from those taken into account in others (Haggett 2010).

Variables which are not important at one time may appear critical under other circumstances. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research on which this article is based was funded by the Advanced Structures Composite Center’s DeepCwind Consortium Research Program, with a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy, P.I. Habib Dagher, P.E., director of the Advanced Structures and Composite Center and professor of civil engineering, University of Maine. Ann Acheson, research associate at the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center, University of Maine, oversaw administration of the offshore wind-power survey and provided editorial assistance in the preparation of this article.

ENDNOTES 1. A chi square test on the question “have you seen a wind farm” is significant at the 0.01 level; the results on the question about knowledge of offshore power was not significant (chi square = 0.12).

2. The literature on the effect of humans and human activity on marine life is truly massive. Although it is not our goal to review this literature, readers interested in the topic might begin by looking at Desholm and Kahlert (2005), for impact on birds, and a recent comprehensive report done by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (2009) in the UK, as well as some of the other references cited in later sections of this article.

REFERENCES Anderson Mark, Caroline Noblet and Mari Teisl. 2012.

“Our Environment: A Glimpse at What Mainers Value.” Maine Policy Review 21(1): 104–111.

Bangor Daily News. 2011. “Wind Power Fight Not Over, Say Activists.” Bangor Daily News (June 24): 5B. Bangor Hydro Electric Company. 2012. “Heat Pump Pilot Program.” Keeping Current 10(1).

Berkenhagen, Jorg, Ralf Doring, Heino O. Fock, Matthias H.F. Kloppmann, Soren A. Pedersen and Torsten Shulze. 2010. “Decision Bias in Marine Spatial Planning of Offshore Wind Farms: Problems of Singular Versus Cumulative Assessments on Economic Impacts on Fisheries.” Marine Policy 34:733–739.

Betts, Stephen. 2012. “Wind Project Warmly Received.”

Bangor Daily News (7 June): B2 Combs, Susan. 2011. “Government Financial Subsidies.” Chapter 28. The Energy Report 2008.

Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Austin. www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/ subsidies/ [Accessed November 1, 2012] Curtis, Abigail. 2011. “Wind Company Works to Gain Support in Town.” Bangor Daily News (May 4): B1.

Please turn the page for more references and information about the author.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 53

MAINE OFFSHORE WIND POWER

Deese, Heather and Catherine Schmitt. 2010. “What Are the Impacts of Offshore Wind Turbines?” The Working Waterfront 23(1): 1.

Department of Energy and Climate Change. 2009.

UK Offshore Energy: Strategic Environmental Assessment, Non-technical Summary January 2009. Department of Energy and Climate Change, Great Britain.

Desholm Mark and Johnny Kahlert 2005. “Avian Collision Risk at an Offshore Wind Farm.” Biology Letters 1:296–298 DiCenso, Mike. 2011. “Time for a Wind Energy Reality Check.” Bangor Daily News (May 18): A5.

Dixit, Avinash K., and Susan Skeath. 2004. Games of Strategy. Norton, New York.

The Economist. 2010. “Not on My Beach Please.” The Economist (August 21): 47–48.

Elster, Jon. 1989. The Cement of Society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Firestone, Jeremy and Willett Kempton. 2007. “Public Opinion about Large Offshore Windpower: Underlying Factors.” Energy Policy 35(3): 1584– 1598.

Firestone, Jeremy, Willett Kempton, Andrew Kreuger and Christen Loper. 2005. “Regulating Offshore Wind Power and Aquaculture: Messages from Land and Sea.” Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy 14:71–111.

Fisher, Curtis, Suraj Patel, Catherine Bowes and Justin Allegro. 2010. Offshore Wind in the Atlantic: Growing Momentum for Jobs, Energy, Independence, Clean Air and Wildlife Protection.

National Wildlife Federation, Reston, VA.

Kintisch, Eli. 2011. “Arts and Sciences Academy Tackles Social Science and Green Power.” ScienceInsider (May 20). http://news.sciencemag.org/ scienceinsider/2011/05/arts-and-sciences-academytackle.html?ref=hp [Accessed May 22, 2012] Koschinski, Sven, Boris M. Culik, Oluf D. Henriksen, Nick Tregenza, Graeme Ellis, Christoph Jansen and Gunter Kathe. 2003. “Behavioural Reactions of Free-ranging Porpoises and Seals to the Noise of a Simulated 2 MW Windpower Generator.”

Marine Ecology Progress Series 265:263–273.

Marrinen, Sarah, Mario Teisl, Caroline Noblet and Hsaing-tai Cheng. 2012. “Deep-water and Landbased Wind Power as Substitutes: Measuring the Influences for Wind Power Support in Maine.”

Paper presented at the 2012 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association Meetings, Lowell, MA. Martin, Kevin and Madeleine Hall-Arber. 2008. “The Missing Layer? Geo-technologies, Communities, and Implications for Marine Spatial Planning.”

Marine Policy 32:779-786.

Mooney, Chris and Sheril Kirshenbaum. 2009.

Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future. New York: Basic Books.

Ostrom, Elinor. 2000. “Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 14(3): 137–158.

Punt, Maarten, Rolf Groeneveld, Ekko van Ierland and Jan H. Stel. 2009. “Spatial Planning of Offshore Wind Farms: A Windfall to Marine Environmental Protection?” Ecological Economics 69(1): 93–103.

Sambides, Nick. 2011. “National Prowind Campaign Has Maine Voice.” Bangor Daily News (April 21).

Haggett, Claire. 2011. “Understanding Public Responses to Offshore Wind Power.” Energy Policy 39:503–510.

Sambides, Nick. 2012. “Residents Protest Passadumkeag Wind-Site Proposal.” Bangor Daily News (July 12): B3.

Hoffman, Erik, Jens Astrup, Finn Larsen, Sten MunchPetersen and Josianne Strottrup . 2000. Effect of Marine Windfarms on the Distributions of Fish, Shellfish and Marine Mammals in the Horns Rev Area. Baggrundsrapport nr. 24. Danish Institute for Fisheries Research, Department of Marine Fisheries, Charlottenlund.

Slade, David C., R. Kerry Kehoe and Jane K. Stahl.

1997. Putting the Public Trust Doctrine to Work: The Application of the Public Trust Doctrine to the Management of Lands, Waters and Living Resources of the Coastal States, 2nd ed. Prepared

by Coastal States Organization, Inc., for the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

54 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

MAINE OFFSHORE WIND POWER

James M. Acheson is a research professor of

Taylor, Michael. 1990. “Cooperation and Rationality: Notes on the Collective Action Problem and its Solutions.” The Limits of Rationality, ed. Karen Cook and Margaret Levi. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. pp. 222–249

anthropology and marine sciences at the University of Maine. His research focuses on economic

Thompson, Robert. 2005. “Reporting Offshore Wind Power: Are Newspapers Facilitating Informed Debate?” Coastal Management 33(3): 247–262).

Trotter, Bill. 2011a. “Wind Farm Proposal Debated at Hearing.” Bangor Daily News (May 19): B1.

Trotter, Bill. 2011b. “Fishermen Criticize Federal Plans for Coordinated Ocean Policy and Planning Efforts.” Bangor Daily News (March 4).

anthropology and on social science aspects of resource management, including marine resources and forests. He has published four books and more than 100 articles in professional journals in these areas.

Turkel, Max. 2010. “Wind Power Foes Target First Wind.” Bangor Daily News (Nov 15): B1.

University of Maine and James Sewall Co. 2011. Maine Deepwater Offshore Wind Report. Funded by U.S. Department of Energy.

Wicked Local Wareham. 2011. “Patrick Administration Requests Wind Power Steer Clear of Fishing Sites.” Wareham Courier (April 19). www. wickedlocal.com/wareham/news/x396826868/ Patrick-administration-requests-wind-power-steerclear-of-fishing-sites#axzz1YPhQfsow Windpower Monthly. 2011. “Fishermen’s Energy Receives State Approval for Offshore Project.”

Windpower Monthly (May).

Woodward, Colin 2011. “Word from Europe: Plan Ahead.” Island Journal 27:78–82

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 55

BIOFUELS DEVELOPMENT IN MAINE

Biofuels Development in Maine: Using Trees to Oil the Wheels of Sustainability

As national standards require increased use of renewable transportation fuels by 2022, Maine is positioned to be a leader in wood-based cellulosic ethanol production and use. Caroline Noblet, Mario Teisl, Katherine Farrow, and Jonathan Rubin consider Mainers’ will-

by Caroline L. Noblet

ingness to accept and use biofuels. They document the

Mario F. Teisl

current level of consumer knowledge and behavior and

Katherine H. Farrow

identify factors (environmental, economic, and ener-

Jonathan Rubin

gy security) that may assist or constrain drivers from purchasing biofuels.

56 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012



View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

BIOFUELS DEVELOPMENT IN MAINE

Maine may be INTRODUCTION

T

The Rise of Biofuels

he Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) mandates the sale of renewable energy and advanced biofuels through the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). This standard requires 36 billion gallons of renewable transportation fuel by 2022, with 21 billion provided by advanced biofuels. It is estimated that three-quarters of the requirement will be from cellulosic ethanol, a form of ethanol produced from plant fiber (cellulose), where sources may include trees, switchgrass and scrap wood (Sissine 2007). With the help of the RFS and a $0.46 per gallon tax credit and a $0.54 per gallon tariff on imported ethanol (Kish 2012), U.S. production capacity of corn-based ethanol swelled to 13.5 billion U.S. gallons in 2010 (Renewable Fuels Association 2011). Recently, the subsidy for corn-based ethanol and the import tariff were eliminated; however, according to an article by Miguel Llanos on the NBC News website (nbcnews. com), a $1.01 per gallon tax credit for the production of cellulosic ethanol remains in place. These ambitious production targets and changing system supports yield the need for “rapid build-up in production capabilities…for cellulosic biofuels” (USDA 2010: 18), given that cellulosic ethanol production is “far below” the EISA revised targets (EIA 2102a: 1). In addition, there is concern that reaching consumption targets set under the RFS will be challenging (EIA 2012b).

Given the above, there is an increased interest in the potential for cellulosic ethanol from wood products (Solomon et al. 2007; Solomon and Johnson 2009).

Cellulosic ethanol has a better carbon footprint than either traditional fuel or corn-based ethanol (RostrupNielsen 2005), and its production does not lead to higher food prices like other sources of ethanol (i.e., corn and sugarcane). In addition to the environmental benefits of ethanol production and use, there are substantial economic and energy-security benefits.

For example, the U.S. currently imports 49 percent of its petroleum requirements (EIA 2011), some of this coming from relatively unstable nations. One way to reduce the negative impacts of the volatility of oil prices on the transportation sector is to substitute

domestically produced biofuels uniquely positioned for imported oil.

However, there are several to be a leader substantial technology and infrastructure hurdles limiting greater in wood-based market penetration of these fuels.

For example, outside of flex-fuel cellulosic ethanol vehicles, most gasoline engines cannot use ethanol blends greater production and use. than 10 to 15 percent. The environmental benefits of some biofuels have come into question as impacts on deforestation have become linked to production of certain biofuels depending on feedstock and production process (Pimentel and Patzek 2005; Pimentel et al. 2009).

Thus, it is important to consider not only technological barriers to increased consumption, but also citizen and consumer understanding of the differences in biofuels.

Broad generalizations about the environmental and energy-security benefits of biofuels are not sufficient.

There are substantial differences between them, with some having superior environmental benefits and others being similar to gasoline and diesel fuel. What is needed is a better understanding of consumers’ acceptance of production and consumption characteristics of different biofuels (Wegener and Kelly 2008).

The Potential for Maine

Maine may be uniquely positioned to be a leader in wood-based cellulosic ethanol production and use.

The Forest Bioproducts Research Initiative (FBRI), a university/business partnership led and housed at the University of Maine, has leveraged multimillion dollar grants to develop solutions to overcome technological hurdles, including examining how wood can be transformed into ethanol, gasoline, heating oil and other substances (www.forestbioproducts.umaine.edu).

Increases in investment and scale of these products may have impacts on Maine’s economy, environment, and people. The University of Maine has recently procured a National Science Foundation Sustainable Energy Pathways grant to further investigate the technological possibilities of wood-based cellulosic ethanol, along with the economic and environmental impacts that may accompany a scale-up of biofuels production in

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 57

BIOFUELS DEVELOPMENT IN MAINE

Maine. Maine citizens may welcome a new output opportunity for the forest industry; alternatively, Mainers may react negatively to wood-based-fuel production if it leads to deterioration in forest management, congestion, pollution from the building and running of biorefineries (see Marciano et al. 2009), or transportation fuels with inferior characteristics. To develop optimal policies and understand the likelihood of successful Maine-based production, we must determine citizen understanding of, and willingness to support, wood-based cellulosic ethanol; previous work has noted that discussion of citizen perceptions and preferences may improve decision making and potentially reduce conflict (Anderson et al. 2012).

To develop optimal policies and understand the likelihood of successful Maine-based production, we must deter­mine citizen understanding of, and willingness to support, woodbased cellulosic ethanol….

Here we consider Mainers’ willingness to accept and use biofuels. Although there is little research on citizen or consumer opinions about biofuels, what little exists does not examine why people hold specific opinions (Delshad et al. 2010), and much of this research is in other countries, e.g., Belgium (Van de Velde et al.

2009); Greece (Savvanidou et al. 2010); or regions, e.g., Indiana (Delshad et al. 2010); Oklahoma (Ulmer et al. 2004). Although the economic, environmental, and fuel-security impacts of biofuels differ across source material (Pimentel 2003), consumers seem ignorant of these differences (Collantes 2010; Jensen et al. 2010).

Outside of a regulatory mandate, successful markets for cellulosic ethanol will require that production of the fuel is competitive with existing markets or consumers are willing to pay a premium for the product (Hite et al. 2008; Bhattacharjee et al. 2008; 58 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

Collantes 2010; Jensen et al. 2010). An important first stage in implementing marketing and education strategies is to document consumers’ current level of knowledge, perceptions, and behavior; and to identify the factors (environmental, economic, and energy security) that may assist or constrain consumers from purchasing biofuels: 1. Do consumers realize ethanol is part of our fuel supply, and if so, what attributes do they associate with ethanol?

2. Will differentiation of biofuels by source provide information sufficient for consumers to identify preferred biofuels and introduce differing impacts as a driver of buying decisions?

3. To what extent do existing perceptions of biofuels and their attributes block consumers from considering biofuels as an appropriate substitute for gasoline?

4. In a forested state such as Maine, how do residents view the forest management issues and economic development opportunities caused by increased wood harvests to meet biofuel demand?

These questions serve as the primary motivation for the current analysis.

METHODS

D

Sampling and Survey Administration

uring the summer of 2009 we administered a mail survey to a representative sample of 3,800 New England residents (500 residents per state, with an over sample of Maine residents, 800). The sample frame was purchased from InfoUSA, which maintains a database containing information about 210 million U.S. residents.

The survey was administered with multiple mailings, including an introductory letter sent by post return-receipt requested to identify undeliverable addresses. In total, 382 Maine residents and 958 New England (non-Maine) residents responded to the survey

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

BIOFUELS DEVELOPMENT IN MAINE

Table 1:

Transportation Characteristics of Respondents Maine

for a response rate of 52 and 38 percent, respectively, yielding an overall response rate of 40 percent. Given that the number of respondents representing each state is not proportional to the states’ representation in the New England population, we used a weighting procedure when aggregating our data to the New England level.

The characteristics of our respondents are different than the states’ population characteristics according to the 2010 U.S. census data. Most notably, our survey respondents are more likely to be male, slightly older, and have higher education and incomes levels. In turn, we calculated weights to correct our respondent profiles to be more consistent with state census data.

Specifically, we corrected for gender and education biases and, after weighting, found our income averages were much closer to the state averages. Given that the income and age results were not that different, we decided not to make corrections for these two variables.

Survey Questionnaire

The survey questionnaire was greatly informed by focus groups held in Maine and Massachusetts during the summer and fall of 2008 (Teisl et al. 2009). The final survey instrument consisted of six sections aimed at eliciting information regarding consumers’ environmental concern (in general and regarding specific issues), including their experience with, or knowledge of, biofuels, with a specific focus on cellulosic ethanol production; driving habits; responses to environmental psychology constructs; a fuel-choice experiment; current environmental behaviors; and socioeconomic characteristics.

Most questions were phrased on a five-point rating scale, including environmental concern (1 = not at all concerned, 5 = very concerned) and the importance of benefits/concern regarding cellulosic ethanol and reasons to change driving habits (1 = not at all important, 5 = very important). Likert-type scales were used for questions about perceptions of/experience with ethanol (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).

Environmental behavior questions were framed as frequency of engaging in the activity (1 = never, 5 = always), the exceptions being whether a respondent participates in an environmental group or efforts to reduce driving (yes/no). The survey also gathered infor-

Price/gallon

New England

2.56*

Gallons/week

18.7*

Miles/week

2.64 14.6

235*

153

44

45

Percentage carpooling to work

6

8

Percentage biking/walking to work

4*

9

2*

14

Percentage of weekly driving for commuting to work

Percentage using public transportation Percentage stating they try to drive less Average importance

a

ratingsa

75

67

of why they try to drive less:

To save money

4.7

4.6

To reduce wear and tear on vehicle

4.0

4.0

To reduce oil imports

3.7

3.9

To reduce air pollution

3.5

3.8

To reduce global warming

3.1

3.5

Rating based on a scale from 1 = not at all important to 5 = very important.

* Indicates statistical difference between Maine respondents and other New England respondents (p = 0.05)

mation on existing driving habits (by activity), gallons of fuel used per week, average price per-gallon, and the type of fuel currently used in their vehicle.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

T

Driving Habits

o understand how consumer habits may change when wood-based cellulosic ethanol becomes commercially available, we need to establish a baseline of consumers’ driving habits. Mainers in our survey spend less per gallon for fuel compared to the average New England driver (Table 1). Mainers drive more and use more fuel than the average New England driver. This result is not surprising given the cheaper fuel and the fact that much of New England is more urbanized than Maine. More urbanized areas tend to have more public transportation options; this explain why New Englanders, on average, are seven times more likely to report using public transportation.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 59

BIOFUELS DEVELOPMENT IN MAINE

Regional Concerns of Respondentsa

Table 2:

Concerns

Maine

New England

Economy

4.6

4.6

Dependence on fuel imports

4.4

4.3

Forest management

3.8*

3.6

Amount of air pollution

3.7*

3.9

Global warming

3.6*

3.9

a

Rating based on a scale from 1 = not at all important to 5 = very important.

* Indicates statistical difference between Maine respondents and other New England respondents (p = 0.05)

Table 3:

Respondent Behaviors and Views Surrounding Imported Goods Behaviors and Views

Maine

New England

------------ % -----------Buying

behaviorsa

Buy American-made products Buy eco-labeled products Attitudes and beliefs toward importing

51

55

18

24

fuelb

It is a good idea to buy less imported fuel

88

85

Buying American-made fuel improves our economy

73

79

Importing fuel hurts our national security

44

43

a

Percentage of people stating more than “sometimes” including “always.”

b

Percentage of people stating they “agree” or “strongly agree with the statement.”

That Mainers are less likely to walk or bike to work is also likely due to differences in urbanization and that Mainers face longer and more severe winters than the average New Englander.

A majority of both groups try to drive less, and the top two motivations are economic (Table 1), where reducing fuel imports could be a security motivation as well as an economic one. In contrast, airquality concerns are relatively unimportant in people’s driving decisions; although Maine’s average response on a five-point scale “to save money” (4.7) and average

60 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

response “to reduce air pollution” (3.5) do not seem particularly telling, statistical analysis reveals that these responses are indeed statistically different and require our attention. These results suggest that, even when biofuels have improved fuel security and environmental characteristics, price is likely to be the primary driver of fuel choice.

Concerns for the Region

Wood-based cellulosic ethanol has the potential to be marketed under three distinct messages: air-quality improvements over gasoline or other ethanol sources; improved local economic conditions (jobs, wages) due to production of cellulosic ethanol (from forest to refinery) in the Northeast; and national security benefits with ethanol produced domestically rather than reliance on foreign oil. To capture the issues of greatest concern to consumers and provide insight about messages regarding wood-based cellulosic ethanol that may resonate them, we asked consumers to express their concerns about regional environmental issues (air pollution, impacts of global warming, and use of forest resources), regional dependence on foreign fuels, and economic development concerns.

Mainers and New Englanders in our study are most concerned with the region’s economic growth, followed by regional dependence on foreign fuels, followed by the three environmental concerns (Table 2). Of these, forest management was a great concern of Mainers, while air quality was more important to the average New Englander. The ordering of these concerns indicates the reception of environmentally focused educational or marketing messages may differ across the region. Again, the primary concern for the region is economic, suggesting that economic messages will be the most powerful while messages about environmental improvements may be the least likely to resonate with consumers.

Relative Importance of Economic and Energy Security Issues

To refine our understanding of the relative motivations of Maine consumers, especially with respect to the issue of fuel security, we asked several questions about respondents buying American-made

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

BIOFUELS DEVELOPMENT IN MAINE

Table 4:

or eco-labeled products and several questions to determine people’s attitudes and beliefs towards importing fuel. About half of all Mainers say they buy Americanmade products more often than “sometimes” (Table 3), whereas less than 20 percent stated they bought ecolabeled products with this level of frequency.

Most people have a positive attitude (“It is a good idea….”) to buy less imported fuel. Interestingly, the economic development benefits of buying domestic fuel are more important than the fuel-security benefits.

Not surprisingly, a majority (58 percent of Mainers) state they cannot tell if the fuel they buy is imported, indicating that a marketing campaign promoting the economic development benefits of cellulosic fuel could be successful, especially if gas pumps were labeled with this information.

Respondent Awareness and Knowledge of Ethanol

Percentage hearing about ethanol as a fuel additive

Maine

New England

91

87

Percentage indicating they know about ethanol sourcesa Corn

98

98

Soybean

38

26

Trees

37

21

Sugar cane

37

33

Switchgrass

27

27

Garbage

25

21

Construction waste

15

8

Paper production waste

13

7

50

68

Percentage thinking they use gasoline without ethanol a

of those who indicated they had heard about ethanol

Knowledge and Perceptions of Ethanol

What people know about and how they view a new technology can have a great impact on consumer acceptance. We therefore asked several questions to measure respondents’ knowledge and perceptions of ethanol. We find almost all Mainers and New Englanders were aware of ethanol as a fuel additive (Table 4), and of those who were aware, almost all had heard that ethanol could be made from corn.

Knowledge of other potential sources of ethanol (e.g., switchgrass, trees, and garbage) was relatively low and varied across the region, especially with respect to the knowledge that ethanol can be made from trees. Mainers were, not surprisingly, more aware of this potential source given that production facilities are more likely to be located here. In addition, there was some media attention, both positive and negative, surrounding the Red Shield research project in Old Town.

To capture whether consumers realized the fuel they currently use is a blend of 90 percent gasoline and 10 percent ethanol (i.e., E10), a survey question specifically targeted this knowledge: “What type of fuel do you typically put in your vehicle?” Remarkably, half of all Mainers believed they were using only gasoline, despite the fact that the Maine Department of Environmental Protection stated “by November 2008 nearly all the gasoline distributed in Maine…. blended

gasoline with 10% ethanol” (Maine DEP 2011). This knowledge of E10 in the fuel supply varied across the New England states, with southern New England respondents having higher awareness levels, probably due to the relative timing of the introduction of E10 into a state. A case in point, Maine transitioned to E10 fuel blends in late 2008 (Maine DEP 2011) only about seven months before the timing of the collection of the survey data. In contrast, New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island’s fuel supply has contained a substantial amount of E10 blends since 2004.

Inconsistent labeling of blended fuels may also have led to a lack of consumer knowledge regarding the fuel supply in their own and neighboring states.

Labeling requirements for ethanol used as a blend agent vary by state. In addition to different labeling requirements, the at-pump labels across states differ substantially, where some use the term ‘gasahol;’ and others may or may not use the entire word ‘ethanol’ or abbreviate to E10. Thus, the current labeling system does not adequately inform consumers about the contents of their fuel supply, which may in part explain the lack of awareness of some respondents.

Given the varied knowledge of ethanol in the Northeast, familiarity may be a key component in acceptance of alternative fuel resources. Thus, we also

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 61

BIOFUELS DEVELOPMENT IN MAINE

Table 5:

Respondents’ Perceptions of Ethanol Perceptions

Maine Agree

Uncertain

New England Disagree

Agree

Uncertain

Disagree

-------------------------------------------------------------- % ------------------------------------------------------------Ethanol is cheaper than gas

44

40

16

46

34

20

Ethanol damages engines

31

36

33

42

46

12

Ethanol improves acceleration

42

52

6

42

53

5

Ethanol lowers fuel efficiency

31

45

23

39

45

16

Ethanol produces less pollution

25

37

38

30

30

40

have an interest in identifying the types of information about biofuels and biofuel-related attributes that could be communicated to consumers. To best move forward with communicating information about biofuels, an understanding of consumer prior perceptions is required.

On the whole, Mainers and other New England respondents are uncertain about the attributes of ethanol as a fuel additive (Table 5), which suggests that many consumers have not made up their minds about ethanol. Almost half of both groups agreed that “ethanol is cheaper than gas” although many were uncertain. Mainers were evenly split about whether ethanol damages engines, whereas other New Englanders were more negative. Recent legislative efforts in Maine (L.D. 1320 2009–2010) attempted to provide a supply of E10-free gasoline for use by Maine citizens, in line with the prevailing perception that E10 damages small engines such as lawn mowers or recreational vehicles such as ATVs, snowmobiles, or boats.

Differing media coverage of this legislative initiative may provide context for this regional difference.

Mainers were similar to the rest of New England in that, of those with an opinion, most agreed that ethanol improves acceleration. In reality, since ethanol has a relatively high octane rating (113) adding it to regular (87) or premium unleaded (93) leads to improved engine performance (EERE 2011). Mainers with opinions on this attribute (54 percent of survey respondents indicate a neutral response to this question) were relatively less likely than New Englanders to think that ethanol lowered fuel efficiency; although ethanol contains less energy than gasoline, at a 10 percent ratio (E10), it has little impact on fuel efficiency (EERE 2011).

62 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

One of the key environmental attributes that has been touted for ethanol is the production of less greenhouse-gas pollution (EIA 2012a, 2012b). Only 25 percent of Mainers thought that ethanol produces less pollution, while 37 percent expressed uncertainty.

In reality, compared to gasoline, corn-based ethanol produces 19 percent less greenhouse gases, and cellulosic ethanol produces an 86 percent reduction (EERE 2011).

Thus, perceptions about ethanol are relatively negative or uncertain. However, many people have seemingly not formed a strong attitude, so attitudes appear to be still malleable. Hence, biofuel promoters (and detractors) have the opportunity to influence individuals’ opinions through information and marketing programs.

In addition, our research indicates that perceptions of ethanol differed across people’s knowledge of E10 in their fuel. In our data, those who were aware of ethanol’s presence in their fuel were statistically more likely to attribute damage (or negative effects) to ethanol, while being less likely to believe in the benefits of ethanol. These respondents are more likely to agree that ethanol causes engine damage and lowers fuel efficiency, and are more likely to disagree that ethanol improves acceleration and produces less pollution. Those who do not realize they are currently using ethanol are more likely to believe that ethanol is cheaper than pure gasoline. In addition, we find differences across driving habits between these two consumer groups. Those who recognize ethanol is present in their fuel tend to drive more miles per week (average = 242 miles) than those who are unaware of ethanol’s presence (average = 180 miles); those who purchase more gallons of fuel per week are statistically more likely to recognize that ethanol is present in their fuel.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

BIOFUELS DEVELOPMENT IN MAINE

Table 6:

Benefits and Concerns Associated with Biofuel Production

While product attributes are key components of consumer acceptance, the perceived impacts of biofuels production in the state is a primary driver of citizen acceptance. Here we seek to understand Mainers’ reactions to different economic, fuel-security and environmental impacts of biofuels production.

We presented 10 potential impacts of cellulosic ethanol production and asked Mainers to rate the importance of each; the levels of importance seemed to fall into three tiers (Table 6).

The highest tier of importance included increasing local employment and decreasing fuel imports; as seen earlier, local employment seems to be the primary driver of the latter impact. Mainers also placed changes to forest health in this highest tier of importance. In the middle tier, Mainers were concerned about how biofuel harvests may affect the prices of other wood fuels (primarily firewood and wood pellets) and harvest intensity. A study by Marciano et al. (2009) found that 13 percent of Mainers thought that current harvest levels were too high, while 42 percent were unsure. Decreasing global warming relative to gasoline was also in this middle tier. The lowest tier included lowering the trade deficit, decreasing global warming relative to corn-based ethanol, and declines in recreation opportunities in forests.

Cellulosic ethanol is touted as producing lower global-warming gases relative to other transportation fuels; however, Mainers found this to be a relatively unimportant benefit. In fact, interest in global-warming issues was consistently low throughout the survey, indicating that messages about cellulosic ethanol’s ability to decrease global warming may be of interest to a limited audience. The ability of cellulosic ethanol production to increase local employment is much more important to Mainers. However, work by Marciano et al. (2009) indicates support for biorefineries declines as they approach an individual’s community, suggesting that NIMBY-ism (not in my backyard) is likely to be an issue. Potential impacts on the forest environment are also highly important. Given the importance of forest impacts to Mainers, promoters of cellulosic ethanol should make sure harvesting practices are environmentally sound and sustainable, and that this is well communicated to the public.

Importance of Benefits/Risks of Cellulosic Ethanol Production from Wood: Percentage of Respondents Indicating Benefit or Risk Is Somewhat to Very Important Behaviors and Views

Maine

New England

--------------- % --------------Increases local employment

73

72

Decreases dependence on foreign fuels

72

76

Increases risks to wildlife

71

76

Promotes sustainable forestry

71

67

Increases the price of other wood-based fuels

62

50

Increases intensive logging

59

61

Decreases global warming relative to gasoline

58

66

Lowers the U.S. trade deficit

53

61

Decreases global warming relative to corn-based ethanol

48

54

Lowers forest recreational opportunities

46

54

CONCLUSIONS

T

his work provides empirical evidence that consumers do not hold identical (or even similar) knowledge base and preferences when it comes to a new energy technology, such as wood-based biofuel.

We have found that consumers judge the value of biofuels by using their a priori knowl­edge of ethanol sources, their perceptions of the attributes of different fuels, and their interest in the ways that cellulosic ethanol might mitigate the impacts of fossil fuels.

Interestingly, consumers in the Northeast focus more on the economic, environmental, and national security attributes of this type of fuel than on global warming and other environmental concerns.

At the current levels of ethanol blend in transportation fuels (i.e., E10) consumer choice may not be a driving factor of the market. However, as decision makers look ahead to higher fuel blends (i.e., E20 or greater) to meet RFS consumption standards, the importance of consumer preferences and attitudes towards ethanol is revealed; consumer attitudes about price, fuel performance, flex-fuel vehicles, and

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 63

BIOFUELS DEVELOPMENT IN MAINE

environmental impacts will affect the volume and type of biofuels sold. As consumers become increasingly aware of the attributes associated with biofuels, and the differences between various biofuels, a window of opportunity may open for Maine. Mainers must carefully evaluate the tradeoffs associated with production and use of wood-based cellulosic ethanol.

We hope this article contributes to this crucial conversation. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Funding provided in part by the Northeast SunGrant Initiative, United States Department of Transportation, and by the Maine Sustainability Solutions Initiative, National Science Foundation Grant EPS-0904155 to Maine EPSCoR at the University of Maine. The authors also wish to thank John Thøgersen for extensive and helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). 2011.

Ethanol Myths and Facts. EERE, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. www1.eere.energy. gov/biomass/ethanol_myths_facts.html [Accessed January 29, 2012] Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2011.

Energy in Brief—What Everyone Should Know about Energy. EIA, U.S Department of Energy, Washington, DC. www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/ foreign_oil_dependence.cfm [Accessed February 3, 2012] Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2012a.

Biofuels Issues and Trends. EIA, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. www.eia.gov/biofuels/ issuestrends/pdf/bit.pdf. [Accessed October 19, 2012]

REFERENCES Anderson, Mark W., Caroline Noblet and Mario Teisl.

2012. “Our Environment: A Glimpse at What Mainers Value.” Maine Policy Review 21:104–110.

Bhattacharjee, Sanjoy, Daniel Petrolia and Cary W. Herndon. 2008. “Estimating Willingness to Pay for E10 Fuel: A Contingent Valuation Method.”

Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting. Dallas, TX, February 2–5, 2008. ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/6730/2/sp08pe13. pdf [Accessed June 3, 2011] Collantes, Gustavo. 2010. “Do Green Tech Policies Need to Pass the Consumer Test? The Case of Ethanol Fuel.” Energy Economics 32(6): 1235–1244.

Delshad, Ashlie B., Leigh Raymond, Vanessa Sawicki and Duane T. Wegener. 2010. “Public Attitudes toward Political and Technological Options for Biofuels.” Energy Policy 38:3414–3425.

Hite, Diane, Patricia Duffy, David Bransby and Christa Slaton. 2008. “Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Biopower: Results from Focus Groups.” Biomass and Bioenergy. 32:11–17.

64 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

Kish, Daniel. 2012. “Ethanol Subsidies Are Gone, But Not Forgotten.” U.S. News & World Report January 5. www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/ energy-intelligence/2012/01/05/ethanol-subsidiesare-gone-but-not-forgotten [Accessed January 29, 2012]

Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2012b.

“Biofuels Market Face Blending Constraints and Other Challenges. EIA, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/ detail.cfm?id=8430 [Accessed October 19, 2012] Jensen, Kimberly L., Christopher D.Clark, Burton C. English, R. Jamey Menard, Denise K Skahan and Adrienne C. Marra. 2010. “Willingness to Pay for E85 from Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood Residues.”

Energy Economics 32(6): 1253–1262.

Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Maine DEP). 2011. Frequently Asked Questions—Ethanol in Gasoline. Maine DEP, Augusta. www.maine.gov/ dep/air/mobile/faqs.html [Accessed March 1, 2012] Marciano, James, Jessica Leahy, Robert Lilieholm and Terry Porter. 2009. Maine Forest and Forest Products Survey: Preliminary Findings. Forest Bioproducts Research Institute, University of Maine, Orono. forestbioproducts.umaine.edu/ publication/maine-forest-and-forestproducts-survey-preliminary-findings/ [Accessed January 30, 2012]

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

BIOFUELS DEVELOPMENT IN MAINE

Pimentel, David. 2003. “Ethanol Fuels: Energy Balance, Economics, and Environmental Impacts Are Negative.” Natural Resources Research 12(2): 127–134.

Pimentel, David, Alison Marklein, Megan A. Toth, Marissa N. Karpoff, Gillian S. Paul, Robert McCormack, Joanna Kyriazis and Tim Krueger.

2009. “Food Versus Biofuels: Environmental and Economic Costs.” Human Ecology 37(1): 1–12.

Pimentel, David and Tad W. Patzek. 2005. “Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass and Wood.” Natural Resource Research 14(1): 65–75.

Renewable Fuels Association. 2011. Building Bridges to a More Sustainable Future: 2011 Ethanol Industry Outlook. RFA, Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2010. A USDA Regional Roadmap to Meeting the Biofuels Goals of the Renewable Fuels Standard by 2022. USDA, Washington, DC. www.usda.gov/documents/ USDA_Biofuels_Report_6232010.pdf [Accessed October 18, 2012] Van de Velde, Liesbeth., Wim Verbeke, Michael Popp, Jeroen Buysse, and Guido Van Huylenbroeck. 2009.

“Perceived Importance of Fuel Characteristics and Its Match with Consumer Beliefs about Biofuels in Belgium.” Energy Policy 37:3183–3193 Wegener, Duane T. and Janice R. Kelly. 2008.

“Social Psychological Dimensions of Bioenergy Development and Public Acceptance.” Bioenergy Research 1(2): 107–117.

Rostrup-Nielsen, Jens R. 2005. “Making Fuels from Biomass.” Science 308(5727): 1421–1422 Savvanidou, Electra, Efthimios Zervas and Konstantinos P. Tsagarakis. 2010. “Public Acceptance of Biofuels.” Energy Policy 38:3482– 3488.

Caroline L. Noblet is a lecturer in the School of Economics at the University

Sissine, Fred. 2007. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007: A Summary of Major Provisions. Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, Washington, DC. www.dtic.mil/ cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc. pdf&AD=ADA475228[Accessed June 3, 2011] Solomon, Barry D., Justin R. Barnes and Kathleen E. Halvorsen. 2007. “Grain and Cellulosic Ethanol: History, Economics and Policy.” Biomass and Bioenergy 31(6): 416–425.

of Maine. Her research focuses on understanding individuals’ actions towards the environment and their assimilation of information. She currently teaches a suite of courses in the social sciences.

Solomon, Barry D. and Nicholas H. Johnson. 2009.

“Valuing Climate Protection through Consumers Willingness to Pay for Biomass Ethanol.” Ecological Economics. 68:2137–2144.

Teisl, Mario F., Caroline Noblet, Andrew Knox and Jonathan Rubin. 2009. Consumer Biofuel Knowledge and Preferences: Results of Focus Groups. University of Maine, School of Economics Staff Paper No. 580.

Ulmer, Jonathan D., Raymond L. Huhnke, Danielle D. Bellmer and D. Dwayne Cartmell. 2004.

“Acceptance of Ethanol-blended Gasoline in Oklahoma.” Biomass and Bioenergy 27(5): 437–444.

Please turn the page for more information about the authors.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 65

BIOFUELS DEVELOPMENT IN MAINE

Mario F. Teisl is a professor

Jonathan Rubin is a

in the School of Economics

professor at the University

at the University of Maine.

of Maine with a joint

His research focuses on

appointment in the School

understanding how people

of Economics and the

make decisions when

Margaret Chase Smith

exposed to health and

Policy Center. He was

environmental information

recently a Fulbright scholar

and developing ways to estimate people’s values for environmental goods. He has

at the Clean Energy Research Centre at the University of Botswana and serves

published more than 50 journal articles, and his research

as chair of the Committee on Transportation Energy, U.S.

has been used by numerous state and federal agencies.

Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences. He has published numerous articles in national

Katherine H. Farrow is a recent graduate of the

and international articles on credit training, energy, and policy.

M.S. program in natural resource economics from the University of Maine and is currently a Marine Extension Associate at Maine Sea Grant. In 2013, she will be a NOAA Knauss Fellow in Washington, D.C.

66 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 67

TOURISM QUALITY LABEL

Consumer Support for a Maine Woods Tourism Quality Label

David Vail and Harold Daniel report findings of a survey of North American vacationers. The survey assessed the strength of interest in quality-labeled Maine vacation experiences and tested consumer willingness to pay a price premium for certified tour “products.” The survey revealed that nearly four out of ten

by David Vail

leisure travelers are responsive to the benefits promised

Harold Daniel

by quality-labeled vacation experiences. The authors also describe steps communities, businesses, and state tourism leaders can take toward developing a Maine Woods quality label.

68 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012



View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

TOURISM QUALITY LABEL

Table 1:

Proportion of Visitors Who View Maine Favorably, Compared to Competing New England Destinations

TOURISM QUALITY LABELS GAIN MOMENTUM

T

2008 Maine Visitors

Non-returning Past Visitors

--------------------------- % ---------------------------

ourism quality labels, such as “Ecotourism Customer service quality 68 41 Australia” and Sweden’s “Nature’s Best,” Value for the money 62 32 have been introduced in a growing number Variety of activities 64 41 of affluent nations (see Vail 2004). The recent launch of “Adventure Green Alaska,” “Travel Overall experience quality 80 45 Green Wisconsin,” and “New Hampshire Grand” indicates that quality labeling is also catching on in U.S. tourism. Here in Maine, the Department Quality-centered Maine Woods Tourism: of Environmental Protection’s “Environmental Challenge and Opportunity Leader” program has certified the environmental The Maine Office of Tourism’s motto—“There’s practices of more than 100 lodgings and restaurants, 1 More to Maine”—reminds prospective visitors that the and the Maine Woods Consortium has initiated an state offers much more than the coast’s iconic lightexploratory project to evaluate the market potential houses, lobster, and L.L. Bean.

But Maine, and espeof a distinctive quality label for Maine Woods tourist cially its interior regions, must address a quality experiences. challenge as it appeals to 21st century markets.

This is This article reports the findings of a survey of suggested by a 2008 tracking survey of overnight leisure North American consumers commissioned by the visitors to various Maine tourism regions.

A sizable Maine Woods Consortium, with additional financial majority of coastal visitors answered affirmatively when support from the Maine Office of Tourism. The asked if they would “probably” or “definitely” recomauthors designed authors and carried out this survey mend Maine destinations to others. However, for in the fall of 2011. Two of its main objectives were to Maine’s four interior tourism regions positive responses assess the strength of consumers’ interest in qualityranged from a low of 28 percent for Aroostook to a labeled Maine vacation experiences and to test their high of just 42 percent for the Maine Highlands and willingness to pay a price premium for certified tour the Lakes and Mountains region (DPA 2009). “products.” Survey Sampling International designed a For the state as a whole, a 2008 prospect survey representative sample of U.S. and Canadian households of potential visitors reveals a big gap in perceptions of with recent travel experience and administered the Maine vacation experiences. Respondents were asked to online questionnaire. Since Maine is primarily a “drive compare several aspects of Maine vacations with other to” tourist destination, households residing within New England destinations.

The responses of current Maine’s “drive market”—the Northeast and eastern overnight visitors were compared with past Maine visiCanadian provinces—were oversampled. tors who chose not to return and with “prospects” who As the tourism quality labels listed earlier convey, had considered but not chosen Maine as a destination. most certification programs put a premium on environTable 1 shows that most actual 2008 Maine visitors mental stewardship. Our survey broadens the focus to hold the state in high repute relative to nearby destinagauge the strength of consumers’ preferences for five tions.

(The majority of them have made multiple repeat distinct aspects of a certified vacation experience: visits.)

However, those who have visited Maine in the quality of lodging; quality of dining; quality of recrepast but not returned hold a dimmer view, and those ational activities; outstanding environmental practices; who have considered Maine but not vacationed here and local community contributions (for instance hiring have a distinctly negative view (DPA 2009). and training local employees and purchasing local farm These findings suggest that the Maine Woods products). In our analysis, we call the first three aspects region faces three sizable challenges in its quest to self-interested certification and the latter two aspects attract more first-time tourists and bring back more altruistic certification.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Prospective Visitors 23 22 22 23

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 69

TOURISM QUALITY LABEL

repeat visitors: upgrading product quality, enhancing destination appeal, and effectively branding and promoting top-quality products and destinations. This perception of the challenge was highlighted at the Maine Woods Consortium’s 2012 stakeholder retreat, “Profiting from Quality Maine Woods Vacation Experiences,” where 70 participants reached nearly universal agreement that outstanding visitor experiences—not cheap ones—are the key to tourism growth, profitability, and job quality in rural Maine. The (former) State Planning Office has gone so far as to state that, “The goal…is to provide Maine visitors with opportunities to experience the state’s world class natural, historical, and cultural resources” (Maine SPO 2005, emphasis added). Achieving true world-class status is a tall order for interior Maine, but it is a worthy and probably a necessary aspiration.

The Maine Woods Consortium (MWC) has responded to the challenge of product quality with three initiatives. The first and most advanced is the Maine Woods Tourism Training Initiative (MWTTI), which has offered customer service and other instruction to 550 frontline employees and managers representing more than 300 tourism businesses since 2010. The MWTTI has also supported development of WelcomeMe, an online tool for customer service training, by the Maine Business School at the University of Maine. It is available to all Maine hospitality businesses and their employees. The second initiative is Maine Woods Discovery, a partnership among five highly regarded outdoor-recreation specialists who create and cooperatively promote distinctive seasonal vacation packages. (Current members include the Appalachian Mountain Club, Maine Huts and Trails, the New England Outdoor Center, Northern Outdoors, and the Northern Forest Canoe Trail. MWD’s goal is to reach 20 members by 2015. See www.mainewoodsdiscovery.org) The consortium’s third initiative—the focus of this article—explores the potential of a certified Maine Woods quality label to increase the profitability of participating businesses while advancing MWC’s “triple bottom line” mission of economic, community, and environmental sustainability. The exploration began in 2010 and 2011 with interviews with key informants and sessions with focus groups to gauge stakeholders’ 70 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

views about a Maine Woods tourism quality label.

Participants expressed diverse opinions on several core issues, such as what types of business should be eligible for certification, how rigorous certification standards should be, how the certification process could be financed, what technical assistance should be provided applicants, and the shape of a potential branding and marketing strategy. Overall responses to a possible quality label initiative ranged from skeptical to enthusiastic. A widely expressed concern and a prime motivation for our consumer survey was uncertainty about the market advantage and bottom-line payoff of a Maine Woods quality label. How big is the potential niche market? Can certified quality attract new customers, induce greater spending, and increase repeat visits? Can certified businesses charge a price premium without losing many customers?

To begin answering those questions, MWC commissioned a review of experience with certified nature tourism in two U.S. states (Alaska and Wisconsin) and four developed nations (Australia, New Zealand, Norway, and Sweden). A literature review suggests that, for a substantial minority of travelers worldwide, certified quality labels have become an important criterion in choosing places to visit and businesses to patronize (Vail 2011); however, quality labels seldom appear to be decisive factors in vacation decisions. In particular, “responsible” environmental practices and community contributions are typically trumped by businesses’ reputation for outstanding product quality. As one analyst concludes, “consumer demand for responsible tourism [is] growing: but largely passive” (Chafe 2005: 3). Several surveys also indicate that many travelers are willing to pay a price premium for certified products, but there have been few real-world pricing experiments to corroborate this survey finding. The survey discussed in this article was designed to test the literature review’s fairly optimistic conclusions.

RESEARCH METHODS AND SAMPLE EVALUATION

T

he study is based on an online survey of 621 North American consumers selected from Survey Sampling International’s “Survey Spot Leisure Travel”

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

TOURISM QUALITY LABEL

email panel. Respondents were first asked to rate the importance of 22 vacation attributes in their travel decisions. These included the five dimensions of certification mentioned above: dining quality, lodging quality, quality of recreation experiences, environmental practices, and contributions to destination communities. Next, respondents expressed their level of interest in eight tour “concepts,” including six current Maine Woods Discovery vacation packages and two hypothetical packages with a Downeast focus. They were then asked to identify their favorite vacation package and express their willingness or unwillingness to pay a price premium if the package were certified across the five dimensions. Each respondent was randomly exposed to one of five price premiums, ranging from five to 25 percent. They next rated the strength of their preferences for 25 additional vacation features. Finally, they submitted demographic information (i.e., age, education, income) and described their actual leisure travel practices.

We have drawn inferences from the survey data using several standard empirical techniques. We used cross tabulation to identify relationships between pairs of variables and analysis of variance and Chi Square tests to test the statistical significance of relationships and assess the robustness of findings. Interpretation is aided by the use of factor analysis, a standard technique for exploring intercorrelation between variables. Cluster analysis is employed to identify respondent groups that reflect market segments in the population. 2 We compare the survey sample with the U.S. and Canadian populations, based on census data, and with the demographic characteristics of Maine’s actual overnight visitors. As mentioned, respondents living within comfortable driving distance (i.e., Maine’s drive market) were oversampled. This weights the sample toward the northeastern U.S. and eastern Canada where 46 percent of sample households reside, compared to their 18 percent share of all North Americans. This geographic concentration also results in a slightly older sample: 34.8 percent are 55 years or older, compared to 32.7 percent of all North Americans.

For reasons that were not intended and are not clear, the sample population exhibits lower median household income than the U.S. and Canadian populations: roughly $45,000 compared to nearly $50,000 for

the census population. As Table 2 also shows, a substantially smaller proportion of the sample have incomes exceeding $100,000. The sample population also has significantly lower incomes than the Maine Woods’ actual overnight visitors. Davidson Peterson Associates’ most recent visitor survey (2010) indicates that 71 percent of overnight visitors had incomes above $50,000 (DPA 2012).

Table 2:

Household Income U.S. and Canadian Census

Sample

Under $50k

49.1%

58.6%

$50k - 100k

30.4%

30.7%

Over $100k

20.6%

10.0%

Given income disparities between our sample of leisure travelers, the household incomes reported in the U.S. and Canadian censuses, and the incomes of Maine’s actual overnight visitors, we reanalyzed the survey responses twice, weighting the data to reflect the census income distribution and then to reflect Maine’s actual visitors. In both cases, the differences between weighted and unweighted analyses, particularly in ratings of certification importance and willingness to pay a price premium, were small. Hence, in this article we summarize the unweighted analysis, which is less complex and easier to communicate.

A PRELIMINARY EXERCISE: IDENTIFYING MARKET SEGMENTS

S

urvey respondents were asked to rate the importance of 22 vacation features. This provided a means of identifying consumer groups with shared interests and also created a larger framework for assessing interest in certified tour products. Figure 1 shows that, for respondents as a whole, value for the money and low travel cost are prime concerns in making vacation decisions. Exploring new places also rates high, followed by predictable vacation quality and certified lodging quality. The light blue bars show the importance attached to five dimensions of certification: certified

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 71

TOURISM QUALITY LABEL

Figure 1: Average Ratings of Importance

of the Vacation Dimensions

average importance attached to certification is not in itself particularly revealing.

Value for the money Low cost travel

Factor and Cluster Analysis

Exploring new places

These widely used statistical tools help determine the size and identify the composition of the potential niche market for a certified quality label. Response patterns can reveal a naturally occurring market segment that would be attracted to certified product quality, environmental standards, and community contributions.

Factor analysis determines how tourists subjectively combine the 22 features of vacation experiences.

Highly intercorrelated importance ratings are combined in summary variables, called “factors,” which are subsequently used to identify and label distinct tourist groupings: respondents with similar rating patterns across the factors. Factor analysis of the 22 importance ratings yielded seven summary variables (factors) which we have labeled:

Offering predictable quality of accommodations & experience Certified quality of lodging Convenient booking Offering a variety of leisure opportunities Learning something new Certified quality of dining Enjoying new foods Learning about local history/culture Viewing & learning about nature & wildlife Certified quality of recreation

• Importance of learning new things (arts, heritage, nature)

Certified environmental standards

• Importance of self-interested certification (lodging, dining, recreation activities)

Offers relaxing activities Arts, culture & heritage activities

• Importance of activities

Meeting new people

• Importance of value for the money

Returning to past destinations

• Importance of altruistic certification (environmental stewardship, community contributions)

Certified contributions to community Offers exciting activities

• Importance of a destination close to home

Closeness to home

• Importance of destination familiarity and loyalty

Offers vigorous activities 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

quality of lodging, certified quality of dining, certified quality of recreation activities, certified environmental standards and certified contributions to the community. Apart from lodging, certification falls in the middle and the lower end of the rankings. Worldwide experience indicates that tourism quality labels create niche markets, not mass markets, so the relatively low 72 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

7

Cluster analysis revealed three distinct groups of leisure travelers, indicating the presence of three market segments. Based on their characteristic preferences, we labeled these clusters cost sensitive (22 percent of the sample), adventurous and discriminating (60 percent of the sample) and indifferent (18 percent of the sample). The most notable finding is that more than half of North American leisure travelers fall into the adventurous and discriminating cluster.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

TOURISM QUALITY LABEL

Figure 2: Patterns of Importance Ratings 0.6 0.4

0.2

0 -0.2 -0.4 Factors -0.6

Learning Self-interested Cert

-0.8

Activities Value for the Money Altruistic Cert

-1.0

Close to Home Destination Loyal

-1.2 -1.4 -1.6 Cost Sensitive

Figure 2 shows a profile of each cluster across the seven factors. Arithmetically, each factor has an average of zero across the full sample, so that a factor with a positive value in the graph indicates an importance rating of above average for the cluster. (Conversely, a factor with a negative value indicates that cluster members rated it below the average for the full sample.)

The cost sensitive cluster is defined by a relatively high and statistically significant importance attached to value for the money, self-interested certification, and destinations close to home. The adventurous and discriminating cluster is defined by an elevated and statistically significant desire for vacation experiences that feature high value for the money, altruistic certification, and a variety of activities and learning opportunities, including arts, heritage, and nature experiences. The indifferent cluster is defined by its relatively low—and statistically significant—desire for learning, self-interested certification, specific activities, and value for the money.

Adventurous & Discriminating

Indifferent

Within the big adventurous and discriminating cluster we would expect to find the niche market of tourists who accord high importance to a certified quality label. Indeed, fully 94 percent of those who attach very high importance to all five types of certification are found within the adventurous and discriminating cluster.

ASSESSING INTEREST IN A MAINE WOODS QUALITY LABEL

T

he study seeks to answer several questions about those prospective Maine Woods visitors who attach very high importance to certified, quality-labeled vacation experiences. How many are there? Who are they?

Would they pay a price premium for certified tour products? In sum: is there a significant opportunity for Maine Woods tourism businesses to profit from a quality label?

The following discussion employs a few specialized terms to group the survey respondents:

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 73

TOURISM QUALITY LABEL

Figure 3: Proportion of Respondents Attaching Very High

Importance (VHI) to Certification

70% 62%

% of Total Sample

60% 50% 40% 30% 18%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0 Certified Low Importance

VHI Self Interested Exclusive

VHI Altruistic Exclusive

VHI Combined

• As mentioned, “self-interested certification” refers to quality-labeled lodging, dining, and recreation activities and “altruistic certification” refers to certified best environmental practices and significant contributions to local communities.

• “Very high importance” means that, on a seven-point scale, respondents attach ratings of six (very high importance) or seven (extremely high importance) to certification. We use the acronym VHI for these responses. For simplicity of exposition, all respondents who ascribe less than very high importance to all three self-interested dimensions or to both altruistic dimensions of certification are placed in the residual category, “certification low importance.” (In other words, the term does not literally mean that they attach low importance to certification).

Figure 3 suggests the scope of the potential niche market for quality labeled tour products. Roughly four out of ten respondents (38 percent) attach very high importance to certification: 18 percent exclusively to the three types of self-interested certification, five percent exclusively to the two types of altruistic certification; and 15 percent to all five types combined.

Logically, a quality label certifying both self-interested 74 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

and altruistic dimensions of vacation experiences would appeal to this entire group although, as we explain later, the “combined VHI” group can be considered the prime target market—the sweet spot—for a quality label initiative.

Of course, the ratings about the importance of certification merely indicate a potential advantage for quality-labeled businesses. Capturing that advantage in practice would require credible certification standards, a compelling brand (quality label), an effective marketing strategy, and actual vacation experiences that confirm the superiority of certified products.

Very high importance of certification turns out to be a good proxy for discriminating, demanding, and adventurous tourists. As shown in Figure 4, the combined VHI group attaches significantly greater importance to all vacation dimensions than the certification low importance group. Parenthetically, this finding aligns closely with a claim made by Fermata Associates (the state’s past tourism consultants). They advocated a rural tourism strategy focusing primarily on experiential tourists: travelers who seek varied and high-quality vacation experiences (Fermata 2005).

Numerically, the 33 percent of consumers who attach very high importance to self-interested certification, either exclusively or in combination with altruistic, are the largest group of highly motivated travelers.

Thus, it might seem sensible to design a quality label based only on outstanding dining, lodging, and recreation. That would probably be a strategic mistake, however, since the most highly motivated and most discriminating of all prospective visitors are the two groups who attach very high importance to environmental practices and community contributions, either exclusively (five percent) or in combination with dining, lodging, and recreational activities (15 percent).

Specifically, this 20 percent cohort accords by far the highest importance to “exciting activities,” “vigorous activities,” “viewing and learning about nature and wildlife,” and “arts, culture and heritage activities.”

Who’s in the Market for Certified Tour Products?

The groups who attach very high importance to certification do not stand out sharply in terms of

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

TOURISM QUALITY LABEL

Figure 4: Select Comparative Importance Ratings, Ordered by Size

demographic characteristics. The only statistically significant difference is that the combined VHI group is more likely to have young children than the full sample (42 percent vs. 30 percent). Although not statistically significant, this group is also slightly younger and better educated and has marginally lower incomes. The lack of clear distinguishing features complicates the task of identifying target groups for a quality label marketing strategy.

As explained, the survey sample reflects the North American population, adjusted to oversample Maine’s drive market. Actual Maine Woods visitors have significantly higher incomes (71 percent above $50,000 compared to 42 percent in the survey sample) and are more highly educated (77 percent have at least a bachelor’s degree compared to 35 percent in the survey). Our intuition was that, if anything, more affluent and bettereducated travelers would give greater weight to certified tourism products.

Highly educated travelers seem more likely to seek out superior products and highincome people can better afford to pay for them. However, a reevaluation of responses giving greater statistical weight to high-income respondents revealed no significant changes in the conclusions.

Fewer of the combined VHI group has already vacationed in Maine (36 percent vs. 42 percent of the full sample).

However, many more of them expect to pay a first visit to Maine in the future: 64 percent vs. just 38 percent of the full sample. A certified quality label might reinforce those good intentions.

Willingness to Pay a Price Premium for Certified Vacation Experiences

of Ratings Differences

Certification Low Importance

Combined Very High Importance

Art, culture & heritage activities

Learning local history/culture

Meeting new people

Viewing & learning nature & wildlife

Enjoying new foods

Learning something new

Offers exciting activities

Predictable quality accommodations & experience Exploring new places

After respondents expressed their degree of interest in eight Maine Woods Discovery (MWD) vacation packages, they were directed to focus on their “favorite” MWD vacation and then asked about their willingness

Value for the money

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

to pay a price premium if that package carried a quality label. The label described to them included certification of all five vacation dimensions. The sample was randomly divided into fifths with each exposed to a different price premium: five percent, 10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent, and 25 percent. Figure 5 shows the responses of various certification importance

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 75

TOURISM QUALITY LABEL

Figure 5: Willingness to Pay a Price Premium for Certified Vacation Experiences

Certification Low Importance

Self Interested VHI

Altruistic VHI

94% 80%

80%

75%

60% 35%

39%

38%

5%

36%

10% – 15% Price Premium

groups, with the five price premiums summarized as five percent, 10–15 percent, and 20–25 percent.

The response patterns can be interpreted in various ways, and they do not translate readily into a pricing guideline for certified businesses. (In particular, we cannot offer a compelling behavioral explanation of some statistical artifacts, for instance why the self-interested VHI group’s willingness to pay rises when the price premium increases from five percent to 10–15 percent and then falls at 20–25 percent or why the combined VHI group’s willingness to pay falls between five and 10–15 percent but then increases at 20–25 percent.) It is nonetheless striking that more than 75 percent of the combined VHI and altruistic VHI groups (using a weighted average) are willing to pay a 20 to 25 percent premium. This reinforces the expectation that a well-designed and effectively promoted Maine Woods quality label would strengthen participating businesses’ “market edge” by increasing their pricing leverage. It is especially noteworthy that even three-fifths of respondents who attach low importance to certification indicate a willingness to pay a five percent premium. This supports the interpretation that a market-verified quality label is widely viewed as a proxy for high quality and value for the money.

76 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

Combined

Since the certification process itself and the promotion of qualitylabeled products would 80% have costs, it is encouraging to think that a modest price premium 62% might recoup them.

Recalling that the Maine 50% Woods’ actual overnight visitors have considerably higher incomes than the survey sample, willingness to pay a premium may be even higher than the survey results indicate. In sum, the evidence of widespread 20% – 25% willingness to pay a price premium adds an encouraging footnote to the evidence of a sizable market niche for qualitylabeled vacation experiences.

CONCLUSIONS AND STRATEGIC INSIGHTS

R

ecapping the most salient survey findings: nearly four out of ten leisure travelers are responsive to the benefits promised by quality-labeled vacation experiences. A label certifying both the self-interested and altruistic aspects of tour products would positively influence the most prospective visitors. However, the prime target market would be the 20 percent who attach very high importance to certified environmental stewardship and community contributions, either exclusively or in combination with outstanding quality of dining, lodging, and recreation activities. Threefourths of this target group expresses willingness to pay a 20 to 25 percent price premium for certified vacation experiences, and even 60 percent of those who attach lower importance to certification express willingness to pay five percent more for quality-labeled products. The positive response to a hypothetical quality label suggests a significant opportunity to develop a niche market, particularly for a tourist destination and participating businesses that get a jump on their competitors and

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

TOURISM QUALITY LABEL

capture a “first-mover advantage.” This optimistic view must be tempered, however, by recognition that many steps are required to realize the promise uncovered by survey data. The research reported here raises several strategic questions.

Would a Maine Woods Quality Label Provide a Lasting Competitive Advantage?

The findings offer strong evidence that a quality label could strengthen the Maine Woods’ competitive advantage, as part of a coordinated strategy to lead market trends. Evidence from places as diverse as Costa Rica and Sweden suggests that early adoption of a quality label, combined with strong promotion, enhances the reputation of the entire destination, not just the participating businesses (Vail 2011).

However, the window of opportunity is probably limited to a few years. Porter (1980) suggests that the competitive advantage from an innovation dissipates as competitors imitate or surpass it to protect their own market share. Thus, timing matters: as the recent launch of “New Hampshire Grand” indicates, rival destinations are developing their own quality labels.

Furthermore, first movers cannot rest on their laurels: continuous improvement in both products and marketing are crucial to sustain customers’ confidence that they are buying exceptional vacation experiences.

What Are the Benefits from Coordinated Marketing of a Shared Brand?

Most of the likely participants in a Maine Woods quality labeling initiative are small businesses, with 25 or fewer employees. In view of their extremely limited marketing budgets, a widely recognized quality label has three potential benefits. First, it exposes their products to a far larger market than they could hope to reach individually. Second, economies of scale through collective marketing reduce the cost of acquiring new customers. Third, a brand that stands for excellence is likely to generate earned (i.e., free) media coverage beyond what small businesses can achieve on their own.

What Are the Implications for Pricing Strategy?

It is promising that the prime market segment for a quality label, one-fifth of leisure travelers, expresses willingness to pay a substantial price premium for

Not the First Time These Tourists Have Been “Discovered” Four Directions Development Corporation, a Native American community-development financial institution serving Maine’s four Wabanaki tribes, conducted its own survey of North American leisure travelers in 2010. The purpose was to determine if a potential market might exist for “voluntourism” experiences, combining community service with recreation and delivered by the Wabanaki communities. We identified a market segment that is remarkably similar to the adventurous and discriminating cluster and the combined VHI certification group, in essence corroborating the existence of these segments of the leisure-travel market.

We discovered a tourist segment that expressed a high level of interest in itineraries offering exposure to and learning about Native American culture and heritage. Like the adventurous and discriminating cluster and the combined VHI certification group, their interest extended to experiencing authentic cultures in their natural environment. This 20 percent segment of leisure travelers also exhibited a genuine interest in service to our communities as a way to learn about Wabanaki cultures.

As a result of this discovery, we are currently developing a set of unique voluntourism experiences, featuring meaningful service opportunities such as archeological field work and activities centered on our communities’ abundant natural resources. These experiences will be delivered by and within our communities.

Although developing the physical and institutional infrastructure to deliver high-quality voluntourism experiences will take time, the process got under way in summer 2012 with a small-scale pilot trip in partnership with the Penobscot Indian Nation.

The Four Directions Voluntourism Team: Susan Hammond, Bonnie Newsom, Jen McAdoo, Helen Scalia, Chris Schrum and Harold Daniel

certified vacation experiences. Even a majority of those who do not attach very high importance to certification indicate that they would pay a five percent price premium, presumably for the quality assurance conveyed by the label. These responses suggest that businesses offering quality-labeled products could recoup certification costs and enhance profits by setting higher

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 77

TOURISM QUALITY LABEL

price points than their noncertified competitors.

However, caution is needed in drawing inferences for pricing strategy. For one thing, a hypothetical survey question cannot substitute for real-world pricing experiments. Equally important, most certified businesses would presumably want to attract more customers than just the niche group strongly drawn by and willing to pay for a quality label. There is thus likely to be a tradeoff between price and customer volume. Past patrons, in particular, might react negatively to a conspicuous price increase. In sum, although the survey offers good news about tourists’ willingness to pay for quality-labeled products, every participating business must discover its own optimum price points by balancing expected benefits and costs.

What Can Maine Woods Communities and Regions Do?

The short answer is to develop itineraries—or “experience packages”—that appeal to the combined VHI certification segment. Community and regional tourism planners could appeal to this segment by developing a mix of commercial and free-access experiences featuring opportunities to learn new skills, meet new people, enjoy local foods, and of course, experience nature. Itineraries would blend local culture and heritage with the Maine Woods’ outstanding natural attractions. The special contribution of a Maine Woods quality label would be its highly visible brand and reputation for top quality.

What Can the State Do?

Maine already offers tourists abundant learning opportunities, running the gamut from country fairs to historical societies, guided wildlife watching, and L.L. Bean’s Outdoor Discovery programs. Statewide, opportunities for tourists to gain new knowledge and appreciation of local culture and environments are broad and deep. The Office of Tourism, for example, currently supports numerous destination trails, including birding, fiber arts, landscape garden, craft, art museum, biking, and fishery. This study suggests that there could be a powerful synergy between statesupported learning-and-doing experiences and a label certifying the best commercial tourism products.

78 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

Getting From Here to There: Steps toward a Maine Woods Quality Label

After learning about the survey findings, nearly all stakeholders at the Maine Woods Consortium’s Profiting from Quality Maine Woods Vacation Experiences retreat supported further exploration of a distinctive Maine Woods quality label. Predictably, there were diverse views about the best design and most effective organizational structure for the program, which raises a final question: What would it take to get from the present discussion phase to the real-world launch of a Maine Woods quality label? Destinations that already offer certified tour products have taken a range of approaches and their experiences give us a sense of the main steps along the way (Vail 2011).

1. Eligibility: What range of businesses, destinations, or other entities can be certified?

2. Principles and standards: What core principles will guide the design of performance standards? What weight will be given to quality vacation experiences, sustainable environmental practices, and contributions to host communities?

3. Rigor: Should entry-level certification be easy to achieve, encouraging a large number of participants; or should it be rigorous, admitting only “the best of the best?” Should there be a single certification standard or several levels, such as silver, gold, and platinum?

4. Relationship with existing quality initiatives: Should hospitality businesses have to meet Maine Environmental Leader standards and secure an AAA three diamond rating? Should guides and outfitters meet Master Maine Guide standards?

5. Application: Will applicants simply complete a survey attesting to their own practices or will there be an independent third-party audit? Will training and technical assistance be provided?

6. Creating the brand: What are potent tag lines, visual images, and a logo to communicate the

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

TOURISM QUALITY LABEL

essence of the Maine Woods’ highest-quality tourism products?

7. Seed money: How will organization building be financed and how will money be raised for a “big push” marketing effort? What are appropriate application fees and ongoing membership dues?

8. Recruiting initial applicants: What combination of information, persuasion, and tangible incentives can mobilize the critical mass of applicants needed for a successful launch?

Some of these steps would undoubtedly be contentious. And, even if stakeholders could reach consensus on all the details, realizing a quality label’s potential market advantage in competitive real-world markets would require participation by outstanding businesses, a credible certification process, an eyecatching brand, and a smart, well-financed marketing strategy. We look forward to being “participant observers” as the process unfolds. -

ENDNOTES 1. The MWC is an open association of business, government, and nonprofit entities, including Androscoggin Valley Council of Governments, Appalachian Mountain Club, Bethel Area Chamber of Commerce, Coastal Enterprises, Inc., Maine Office of Tourism, Maine Rural Partners, Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Northern Forest Center, Northern Maine Development Commission, Sunrise County Economic Council, and Western Mountains Alliance.

2. For a thorough discussion of factor and cluster analysis and their use in this study see Daniel, Vail and Burns (2012: Appendix 3). See also Wikipedia, “Factor Analysis and Cluster Analysis.”

Briefly, factor analysis simplifies complex data by identifying latent variables, based on the intercorrelation between individual variables. This study employs factor analysis to simplify the importance ratings. We used principle components analysis (PCA) supplemented by a Varimax rota-

tion. Varimax is a popular algorithm to improve the interpretability of factor analysis output.

Respondents’ factor scores (weighted averages representing each factor or latent variable) were later used in the clustering of respondents.

Cluster analysis describes a class of algorithms that

organize respondents into groups with common characteristics. We use the K-Means algorithm, one of the most popular, to partition observations in the database into K clusters, where “K” is an input variable. We used the algorithm to create from two to as many as eight distinct clusters, ultimately selecting the solution that yielded large enough clusters (at least 35 members) to reliably profile the members. This condition occurred with three clusters, which we labeled “cost sensitive,” “adventurous and discriminating” and “indifferent.”

Solutions with more than three clusters all yielded some groups with sample sizes smaller than 35.

REFERENCES Chafe, Zoë. 2005. Consumer Demand and Operator Support for Socially and Environmentally Responsible Tourism. Center on Tourism and Sustainable Development and the International Ecotourism Society Working Paper 104.

Daniel, Harold, David Vail and Ian Burns. 2012.

“Gauging Consumers’ Interest in Quality-Labeled Vacation Experiences and Maine Woods Discovery Tour Packages.” Maine Woods Consortium. www. mainewoodsconsortium.org Davidson Peterson Associates (DPA). 2009. Maine Office of Tourism Visitor Tracking Research, 2008 Annual Report. Maine Office of Tourism, Augusta.

Davidson Peterson Associates (DPA). 2012. “Maine Office of Tourism: Maine Woods Presentation.”

Presentation at Maine Woods Consortium conference, Profiting from Profitable Maine Woods Vacation Experiences, April 12.

Fermata Associates. 2005. Strategic Plan for Implementing the Maine Nature Tourism Initiative.

Fermata Associates, Putney, VT. Maine State Planning Office. 2005. “Growing Nature Tourism in Maine.” Maine’s Natural Resource Industries Newsletter 2(3): 1.

Please turn the page for more references and information about the authors.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 79

TOURISM QUALITY LABEL

Harold Daniel is the former director of the Center for

Porter, Michael E. 1980. Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, The Free Press, New York.

Tourism Research and Outreach (CenTRO) and an associate professor of

Vail, David. 2004. “An Ecotourism Quality Label for Maine? Insights from Sweden’s ‘Nature’s Best’ Initiative.” Maine Policy Review 13(2): 76–86.

marketing for the University of Maine Business School.

Vail, David. 2011. Maine Woods Quality Label– Background Study: Market Potential and Marketing Strategy. Maine Woods Consortium.

He has also held management positions at major marketing research suppliers, Burke Marketing Research and Behavioral Analysis Inc. (BAI), and in the marketing

David Vail is Adams Catlin Professor of Economics and

research departments of Campbell Soup Company and General Foods Corp.

Director of Environmental Studies emeritus at Bowdoin College. He advises the Maine Woods Consortium on tourism quality initiatives and the four Maine tribes on their Wabanaki Cultural Tourism Initiative. From 2004 to 2009 he was a consultant to the Swedish Ecotourism Association.

He currently serves on the boards of Coastal Enterprises, Inc., the Chewonki Foundation, Maine Huts and Trails, and the Swedish Program for American undergraduates at the Stockholm School of Economics.

80 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 81

MAINE HOME CARE WORKERS

Home Care Workers in Maine: Increasingly Essential Workers Face Difficult Job Conditions

by Sandra S. Butler

Maine is the oldest state in the nation and our population is aging faster than any other state. Maine elders hope to stay in their homes as long as possible, yet there is a shortage of workers available to provide the home care that older people need to be able to stay in their homes. Sandra Butler examines the nature of the job of home care worker and presents findings from a study of these workers. A better understanding of the demands of the jobs and concerns of the workers will help Maine retain current home care workers and attract more people to the field.

82 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012



View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

MAINE HOME CARE WORKERS

Like elders across INTRODUCTION

I

t is no secret that the population of Maine is aging.

When measured by median age (42.7), Maine is the oldest state in the nation according to the U.S. Census.

Moreover, Maine’s population is aging faster than any other state (Office of Aging and Disability Services 2012). This is particularly true for the oldest sector of Maine’s population—those 85 years of age and older— which saw a 58 percent increase over the past two decades, with an additional 10,000 individuals joining that age group.

Like elders across the country, older Mainers hope to stay in their homes as long as possible. According to the 2012 State Plan on Aging, 90 percent of older adults express the desire “to remain in their homes and communities as they age” (Office of Aging and Disability Services 2012: 3). Similar to Maine, older adults across the country prefer to remain at home even as they need personal care assistance. Four out of five elders needing long-term care live in the community and most prefer to remain at home as long as possible (Stone 2011). This preference to age in place and the high cost of nursing home care have led to an increased demand for community care over institutional care in Maine and throughout the country (LaPlante et al. 2004; Pohlmann 2003). This translates into an increasing need for home care workers to help those elders who need personal care assistance as they age in place.

The growing demand for home care workers is not just a Maine phenomenon. Nationally, the number of people projected to need personal assistance services is expected to double in the first half of this century, from 13 million individuals in 2000 to 27 million in 2050 (Kaye et al. 2006). Although, most personal assistance services are provided by unpaid family caregivers, the availability of these “informal” caregivers is decreasing due to the rising employment rates among women, smaller family sizes, increased childlessness, and higher divorce rates (Johnson and Wiener 2006).

At the same time as its population is aging, due to low birth rate and out migration, Maine has the second smallest percentage of individuals 18 years of age and younger in the country. The decreasing younger population affects the state’s workforce generally, and in particular, the availability of direct-care workers for the long-

term-care system (Office of Aging the country, older and Disability Services 2012).

The dearth of workers availMainers hope to able and willing to do personal care work has resulted in what stay in their homes has come to be known as the “care gap” in long-term care. as long as possible.

This article examines the nature of the job of home care aide and presents findings from the Maine Home Care Worker Retention Study carried out from 2008 through 2010 and the follow-up Older Worker Study completed in 2011. The two inquiries were initiated to determine factors leading to turnover and retention among home care aides and to better understand how individual workers experience the job.

Worker turnover is costly to society on several levels.

First, it results in inconsistent care and sometimes no care at all for frail elders. Second, home care agencies must devote more resources to recruitment and training when they lose workers. Third, community-based care is largely financed through public programs, such as Medicaid, so ultimately tax payers are responsible for the additional costs resulting from an unstable workforce. The article concludes with current policy considerations affecting home care workers in Maine.

THE JOB OF HOME CARE AIDE

T

he Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012) predicts the job of personal care aide to be the fastest-growing occupation in the country between 2012 and 2020, increasing 70.5 percent. The position goes by a variety of titles: personal care attendant (PCA), home care aide/worker, or personal support specialist (PSS)—the title currently used in Maine. These workers assist individuals with activities of daily living (such as bathing, dressing, toileting) and instrumental activities of daily living (such as shopping, cooking, and cleaning). In Maine, there were about 6,200 personal and home care aides in 2008, with a projected employment of 7,800 in 2018—a 26 percent increase (Seavey and Marquand 2011). There is no federally mandated training for personal care workers, but Maine requires 50 hours of training to be certified as a personal support specialist.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 83

MAINE HOME CARE WORKERS

Most home care workers are women (about 90 percent) and tend to be older than women in the overall workforce, with nearly three out of 10 being 55 or older (Seavey and Marquand 2011). Nationally, only about half (51 percent) of all personal care aides are white, non-Hispanic (Seavey and Marquand 2011), though in Maine nearly all are. It is also an occupation that draws many immigrant women. Nearly a quarter (23 percent) of personal care aides nationally were born outside the U.S. (Seavey and Marquand 2011).

Learning how to reduce turnover in the home care workforce has been a policy priority nationally and in Maine for some time.

There are many challenges associated with the job of home care aide, resulting in turnover rates of 44 to 65 percent annually (Seavey and Marquand 2011). The low level of compensation and lack of benefits are perhaps the primary challenges to the work. In 2007, Forbes magazine included personal- and home-careaide jobs among the 25 worst-paying occupations in the country (Stone 2011). In 2010, home care aides had a mean wage of $9.44 per hour, and 31 percent lacked health insuranceâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;nearly twice the rate of people lacking insurance among all Americans under age 65 (Seavey and Marquand 2011). Moreover, the value of these wages has decreased; from 1999 to 2006, when adjusted for inflation, real wages for home care aides had declined four percent (PHI 2008). In Maine, the median wage for home care aides, adjusted for inflation, rose four percent from $6.99 in 1999 to $8.86 in 2006 ($7.27 in 1999 dollars; PHI 2008).

Nonetheless, the average wage in 2006 placed a single Maine full-time home care aide below 200 percent of the poverty line in 2006, as was true for 28 other states. By 2010, Maine mean wages for personal care aides, at $10.22, remained below 200 percent of the poverty line; other New England states remained above the 200 percent level (Seavey and Marquand 2011).

84 ¡ MAINE POLICY REVIEW ¡ Summer/Fall 2012

As most workers face inconsistent hours and only work part time (Scala 2008), it is not surprising that more than 50 percent of home care aides receive some sort of public assistance (Seavey and Marquand 2011).

In addition to low wages and lack of benefits, home care aides face a variety of hazards that can affect their health and safety. These include musculoskeletal issues related to lifting and transferring clients, risks involved with physically demanding housekeeping, and hazards related to winter driving and negotiating icy entrances to homes (Seavey and Marquand 2011; Stacey 2011). Emotional stressors include having too much responsibility given the level of training and working within bureaucratic rules that do not always jibe with what workers believe is in the best interest of their clients (Stacey 2011). Despite these challenges, most home care aides find much about the work that is rewarding (Stacey 2011), and these rewards lead many to stay in their jobs for extended periods of time.

THE MAINE HOME CARE WORKER RETENTION STUDY

L

earning how to reduce turnover in the home care workforce has been a policy priority nationally and in Maine for some time. In 2008, the longitudinal Home Care Worker Retention Study (HCWRS), funded by the National Institute on Aging, was implemented to examine factors predicting turnover and retention among personal support specialists (PSS) in Maine and to understand more about how these workers experience their jobs. An earlier study, carried out by the Muskie School of Public Service between 2005 and 2007, found that increasing wages, hours, and mileage reimbursement could reduce turnover among Maine home care workers, difficult as that would be given the budgetary constraints on programs that fund long-term care (Morris 2009).

The HCWRS involved two mail surveys and one telephone interview with a sample of 261 PSSs drawn from 11 Maine home care agencies. Two of the home care programs were affiliated with area agencies on aging and were not-for-profit; the other nine were a mix of large and small for-profit companies. These 11 agencies covered all regions of the state, with study participants living in each of the 16 counties. Once agreeing to

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

MAINE HOME CARE WORKERS

participate in the study, agencies sent a mail survey instrument (Time 1) to all their PSS workers (n = 496) in October 2008; more than half of the workers completed the survey (n = 261), giving a response rate of 52.6 percent. Participating agencies provided the study team with regular reports of study participant terminations during the 18 months after completion of the first survey. Workers who left their employment received a second mail survey and completed a telephone interview lasting between 15 and 30 minutes soon after their termination (n = 90); workers who remained employed throughout the 18-month study period (n = 171) received the second survey and completed the telephone interview during the spring and summer of 2010 (Time 2). Study participants received $20 grocery gift cards at both Time 1 and Time 2.

The Time 1 survey instrument assessed demographic information and current home care jobs and included several standardized scales measuring health status and job-experience factors such as job satisfaction, burnout, and empowerment. These measures were also included in the shorter Time 2 survey instrument, which study participants completed after they had either terminated their employment or at the end of the data-collection period if they remained employed.

The telephone interview was composed of 18 openended questions covering topics such as why they had left if terminated, or what might make them consider leaving if still employed; what aspects of their PSS work brought them satisfaction; what parts of the job they found draining; and their views of their employing home care agency.

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

S

tudy participants ranged in age from 19 to 82 with an average age of 46. The vast majority was female (94.6 percent), and most study participants identified as white (93.5 percent). Twenty-nine study participants (11.1 percent) said they were Franco-American, three identified as Latino/a (1.1 percent), and nine (3.4 percent) were born outside the U.S. While similar to the national demographics of the home care workforce in terms of age and gender, the Maine sample was disproportionately white and U.S. born, reflecting the composition of the general Maine population.

More than a quarter of the study participants lacked any type of health insurance (28.0 percent); a similar number (28.7 percent) received Medicaid, 8.4 percent received Medicare, and only 14 (5.4 percent) study participants received health insurance through their home care agency.

Job tenure at the home care agency through which study participants had received the survey ranged from “just started” to more than 12 years, with a mean tenure of 2.6 years. Hourly wages were low, ranging from $7.50 to $13.50, with an average wage of $9.05.

Study participants reported working from no hours in the preceding four weeks to 504 hours, with an average of 18.0 hours per week, and driving from 0 to 1,750 unreimbursed miles in the preceding four weeks, with an average of 46.1 unreimbursed miles per week.

Study participants’ overall health—both physical and psychological—was measured by the eight subscales of the SF-36 of the Medical Outcomes Study (Ware 1993). The PSS workers had mean scores that were higher (indicating better health) than U.S. population norms on all but one of the eight subscales of the SF-36.

These included general health, vitality, role-emotional, role-physical, physical functioning, social functioning, and mental health. Only on the body pain subscale did the average score fall below—meaning greater body pain—the average U.S. norms (Ware 1993).

Study participants reported relatively high levels of job satisfaction in their responses to the 17-item Grau Job Satisfaction Scale (Grau et al. 1991), with an average score of 3.4 in a possible range of 1 to 4.

Job burnout was measured by two subscales of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Maslach and Johnson 1981): emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment, with each being measured both by frequency and intensity. The average score on the emotional exhaustion frequency subscale was quite low at 1.8 in a possible range of 1 to 7, with an intensity score of 2.1 in a range of 1 (never) to 5 (daily). The average score on the personal accomplishment frequency subscale was very high at 6.2 in a possible range of 1 to 7, with an intensity score of 3.9 in a range from 1 to 5. The study participants also reported high levels of empowerment with an average score of 4.0 in a possible range of 1 to 5 on the Perceptions of Empowerment Instrument (Kiefer et al. 2005).

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 85

MAINE HOME CARE WORKERS

JOB EXPERIENCE AND PREDICTORS OF TERMINATION

T

he relationships between job termination and these job experience variables, along with demographic and job factors (such as wages and hours worked), were examined for statistical significance. Five variables that were significant at the bivariate level were entered into a binary logistic regression to assess their predictive value, four of which remained significant at the multivariate level. (See Butler, Wardamasky and Brennan [2012] for further explanation of this analysis.) The analysis indicated that job termination was more likely for study participants who were younger, who lacked health insurance, had lower mental health scores, and surprisingly, had higher scores on the personal-accomplishment-intensity scale.

In considering the predictor of age, one can surmise that younger workers tend to be at a stage of their lives when increased job security, higher wages and better benefits than home care work typically provides are necessary. In contrast, many older workers may find the flexible hours and part-time nature of personal care work to be appealing, given possible income from other sources (e.g., Social Security, pensions, or spouse) and decreased living expenses than earlier in their lives.

It is interesting to note the importance of health insurance in predicting job retention for the workers in the study, given the ongoing national debate regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the 2010 health care reform commonly called the Affordable Care Act) and the state-level discussions regarding MaineCare eligibility. In this study, not having health insurance more than doubled the odds that a study participant would terminate. Most study participants who had health insurance received it through Medicaid (n = 75, 39.9 percent), their spouse (n = 46, 24.5 percent), Medicare (n = 22, 11.7 percent), or alternative employment (n = 16, 8.5 percent); only 14 (7.4 percent) received health insurance through their home care agency.

Lower scores on the mental health scale, which measured depression and anxiety, also predicted job termination. This finding was corroborated by what study participants reported in their telephone inter-

86 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

views. Many noted that they needed to put their own worries and concerns aside to provide good care to their clients, something that is difficult to do when one is struggling with emotional issues.

The fourth predictor of termination—higher scores on the personal-accomplishment-intensity scale—was unexpected. One possible explanation for this is that these intense feelings of personal accomplishment are related to age—older workers reported significantly lower intensity scores than younger workers, and younger workers are more likely to leave their jobs.

Also, it appears that feelings of personal accomplishment on the job decreased with time. On average, all study participants had lower scores for both the frequency and intensity personal accomplishment scales on their second survey as compared to their first.

Perhaps those workers who reported more intense feelings for items such as “accomplished many worthwhile things in the job” were more prone to disappointment if the job did not continue to meet their expectations than their counterparts who had less intense feelings of accomplishment.

REASONS FOR TERMINATION IN THEIR OWN WORDS

T

he telephone interviews with the participants who had terminated provided a more in-depth view of their reasons for leaving. Of the 90 study participants who left their home care jobs during the 18-month study period, 88 completed telephone interviews.

Reasons for leaving fell into three broad categories: (1) the job did not seem worthwhile given low wages, inconsistent hours, and unreimbursed mileage; (2) personal reasons, such as health, retirement, or family needs; and (3) burnout caused by poor communication with agency, difficult clients or client family members, or having clients die. (See Butler et al. [2010] for a more complete discussion.) Fourteen terminations (15.5 percent) were considered nonvoluntary by the study participants.

While wages were not a predictor of leaving the job in the quantitative analysis—perhaps because there was little variation in the wages earned—they were mentioned frequently by study participants in the telephone interviews as contributing to the decision to

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

MAINE HOME CARE WORKERS

terminate their employment. Along with unreimbursed mileage and inconsistent hours, many said they could not support themselves and their families. As stated by one 41-year-old woman, “the pay wasn’t that great… the part where they didn’t pay the mileage. I ended losing money on the whole thing so it really wasn’t worth it for me.” Many study participants reported similar calculations, causing them to ultimately decide the job was not worthwhile.

Nonetheless, even among those who left their employment, the job was often described in a very positive light. All study participants could readily respond to the question asking them to describe satisfying aspects of their work. The 88 interviews from study participants who terminated were analyzed for references to both challenging and rewarding aspects of the job. Interestingly, more than half (53.4 percent) reported more rewarding experiences than challenging ones, despite deciding to leave the work. As stated by a 22-year-old woman who had terminated her employment to take a full-time job, “when you walk in you can tell when someone wants you there. And that was just the best part.” Study participants also gained satisfaction in knowing they were facilitating people’s ability to age in place comfortably. As stated by a 48-year-old woman, who quit her job due to excessive travel, “people are happy, like when my shift is done, you know, and they can go to bed with peace of mind that somebody will be there tomorrow to look after them.”

But ultimately, for many of the study participants who left, the poor compensation and inconsistent hours made the work untenable. A 57-year-old woman, who left her job due to emotional and physical exhaustion and the lack of hours, described this problem clearly: And driving long distances for two hours here and two hours there…. And when you really stop and think about it, with the price of gas and my time invested in driving, I was making only three, four, and five dollars an hour, maybe even less.

The interviews clarified that many study participants left their jobs while still loving them. Although factors such as low pay and inconsistent hours drove

some workers to seek other employment, their descriptions of their job experiences remained largely positive.

PERCEPTIONS OF OLDER HOME CARE WORKERS

O

lder workers in the HCWRS were less likely to leave their jobs and to have longer job tenure. In Maine and nationally, the workforce is aging and this is particularly true of the personal care workforce. Fifty percent of home care workers are over age 45, and it is predicted that more than a third will be 55 or older by 2018. And although older workers face discrimination in many sectors of the workforce and have recently been hit hard in the recession, in the field of home care they tend to be welcomed for their reliability, life experience, and ability to relate to older clients (Rix 2001).

Although factors such as low pay and inconsistent hours drove some workers to seek other employment, their descrip­tions of their job experiences remained largely positive.

The Older Worker Study was carried out in 2011 to understand more about the experiences of older home care workers in Maine and to explore whether this is, in fact, a good job to recommend to older individuals—women in particular—looking for part-time work that would not require excessive new training and would allow them to remain active in their communities. Forty-two (16.1 percent) of the 261 study participants in the HCWRS were age 60 or older at the time of their first survey (in the fall of 2008). These individuals were invited to participate in the Older Worker Study in summer 2011, by taking part in a second telephone interview. Nearly three-quarters (n = 31, 73.8 percent) agreed to be interviewed, including 30 women and one man; study participants received $50

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 87

MAINE HOME CARE WORKERS

grocery gift cards for their involvement in this followup study. In 2011, when the interviews were conducted, they ranged in age from 63 to 80 with an average age of 67. Nearly three-quarters (n = 23) were still doing home care at the time of the interview, including the eldest study participant at age 80.

Most of the participants (80.6 percent) reported a history of low-wage work with jobs in direct care, house cleaning, factory work, childcare, retail, restaurant work, and farm work, along with raising their own children.

This led to periods of financial insecurity throughout their lives for all but three of the study participants (90.3 percent). These past financial hardships often translated into current situations that were similarly precarious.

Just slightly more than half of the study participants (51.6 percent) said their current income did not meet their basic expenses. A few (9.8 percent) said they were doing all right, mostly because they were receiving considerable government assistance. The remaining third (38.7 percent) said they were fine financially.

The question remains whether home care work is a good “older person’s job”...given its low rate of pay and low status.

One 68-year-old woman, who had a difficult time financially, spoke of her husband being in a nursing home, which was a distance away. Despite her economy car, it took half a tank of gas to visit him. She relied on Social Security and her income from home care work and received food stamps (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [SNAP]). She lived in a trailer with her daughter, son-in-law, and brother-in-law, but despite trying to pool their meager resources, she said it was difficult to make ends meet: “Yeah, it’s been very, very tough. In fact, I got a call today from my landlord that the check that I had put in to pay this month’s rent, it came back insufficient funds.”

Not surprisingly, given their past experience with financial insecurity, more than half the study participants 88 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

(n = 18, 58.1 percent) did not feel well prepared for retirement. Some stated that they would work as long as they were physically able, because they knew their Social Security would be inadequate. One 65-year-old replied to the question about whether she felt prepared for retirement: “There’s no preparation when you have no money.”

Although many of the participants (35.5 percent) thought younger workers might have some advantages over older workers in doing home care—in particular greater strength, as mentioned by eight individuals— most (64.5 percent) thought older workers had particular qualities and experiences that made them better workers. For example, a 64-year-old study participant replied to the question about whether older workers had any advantages in doing home care by saying I think they have more experience with life. And probably some of them have had hardships like the people they are taking care of…I firmly believe in book learning and all that, but you can learn a lot from experience too.

A few study participants (12.9 percent) submitted that their clients preferred older workers and felt more comfortable having someone closer to their own age helping them. This was described by a recently retired 65-year-old participant: “So, you know, they can talk about old times and I’m one of the old ones. And I also thought they were kind of relieved when they got somebody older.”

About a quarter of the participants thought that home care was ideally suited for older workers given its flexibility and part-time nature, while at the same time being difficult for younger workers who had family responsibilities and a need for full-time work with health benefits. As one 65-year-old woman who was still working at the time of the interview said: It provides us a job without a 9 to 5 job…

You tell them when you can work, and if they have something for you to do, they’ll give it to you. If you can’t work, that’s fine too. So that’s why I did it in the first place, because of the flexibility that it all affords.

I don’t think it’s good for younger people to

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

MAINE HOME CARE WORKERS

work in home health care, because there’s no incentive to stay there… I think it’s an older person’s job.

The question remains whether home care is a good “older person’s job” (and most likely, “older woman’s job”) given its low rate of pay and low status.

CURRENT POLICY ACTIVITY AFFECTING HOME CARE WORKERS IN MAINE

I

t has been nearly a decade since the Maine Center for Economic Policy published the comprehensive report Without Care: Maine’s Direct Care Worker Shortage (Pohlmann 2003). While this report covered all direct care workers—including those in nursing facilities and certified nursing assistants in home health care—its general recommendations, still relevant today, apply specifically to home care workers: (1) coordinate state efforts to address worker shortages; (2) provide livable wages and benefits for direct care workers; (3) invest in training for direct care workers and their managers; (4) develop career pathways and promote changes in workplace culture; (5) enhance the public image of the caregiving profession; and (6) support worker organizations (Pohlmann 2003: 43–46). Among these recommendations, the second one—wages and benefits—was most frequently cited by study participants in the HCWRS and the Older Worker Study.

As Pohlmann explains, unless an elder pays for home care privately, personal care services are reimbursed through Medicaid and the state’s General Fund.

Reimbursement rates are low ($14.20 in 2003) and must cover administrative and capital costs in addition to the wage paid to the PSS. So raising wages requires increased public funding, something that is difficult in these tight budgetary times. This situation has resulted in stagnated wages for PSSs at a time when inflation has affected gas prices and general living costs.

Maine has made some progress in the area of training. In 2010, the Maine Legislature passed LD 1364, “An Act to Stimulate the Economy by Expanding Opportunities for Direct Support Aides.”

This law established a work group to examine employment policies for direct support aides including developing an equitable framework for defining jobs,

administering compensation, and delivering training; establishing a statewide job classification system; setting wages with a goal of transparency and parity and reimbursement rates that cover costs for things such as health insurance. This law was the result of efforts by the Maine Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to first inventory all direct care/support workers employed in the DHHS longterm care programs (24 different job titles were listed for entry-level staff providing direct care and support to clients), and then to convene a task force on direct care workers in 2009.

Out of this task force came the proposed legislation (LD 1364) along with a grant proposal to the Health Resources and Services Administration to fund a competency-based curriculum and a coordinated training and credentialing system (Gattine and Scala 2010). In late 2010, Maine was one of six states to receive this demonstration funding authorized by the Affordable Care Act through the Personal and Home Care Aides State Training Program; the other five states were California, Iowa, North Carolina, Massachusetts, and Michigan (Seavey and Marquand 2011). The Muskie School of Public Service is administering this three-year grant. The hope is that the training will allow for career progression, specialization, and cross training (Gattine and Scala 2010) and ultimately improve job conditions and compensation for home care workers.

Another pending policy debate in Maine that will affect many home care workers is the expansion of Medicaid (MaineCare in Maine) eligibility for all individuals at 133 percent of the poverty line or below, which is to be implemented in 2014 as authorized by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Because of the low wages earned by home care workers, this expansion— including individuals previously not covered by Medicaid (e.g., those without dependent children or eligible disabilities)—would benefit many home care workers who are currently without health insurance.

The Supreme Court decision this past summer on the constitutionality of the ACA gave states permission to not go forward with this expansion, without penalty of losing federal funds for their existing Medicaid programs. As of this writing, Governor LePage had not yet indicated his stand on the Medicaid expansion.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 89

MAINE HOME CARE WORKERS

The expansion would be fully funded through federal dollars for the first three years and would extend health insurance to many uninsured Mainers, including those providing care to the state’s frail elders.

At the national level there has also been considerable attention focused on compensation for home care workers. This began when Evelyn Coke, a home care worker in her early 70s, was the plaintiff in a 2007 Supreme Court case against her home care employer (Long Island Care at Home) which she sued for nonpayment of overtime hours worked. Ms. Coke was a single mother of five children who worked for decades providing care for others. She earned very low wages, about $7 an hour and received no overtime pay, even when she worked up to 70 hours per week, sometimes putting in three consecutive 24-hour shifts (Martin 2010).

Evelyn Coke’s employer was operating under what had come to be known as the “companionship exemption” in the Fair Labor Standards Act. In 1938, the Fair Labor Standards Act provided much needed wage and overtime protections to workers, although the jobs women traditionally filled were excluded. In 1974, Congress expanded the Fair Labor Standards Act to provide protection to domestic workers (such as cooks and maids), but exempted individuals who provided companionship services. At the time, the Department of Labor, charged with writing regulations to implement the new law, interpreted the “companionship exemption” quite broadly, including professional home care aides employed by third-party agencies, under the exemption umbrella.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the home care agency in this case. However, Ms. Coke’s story helped to energize the campaign to change this regulation. On December 15, 2011, Hilda Solis, secretary of the Department of Labor, announced a new rule eliminating the companionship exemption. During the public comment period for the proposed rule, the Department of Labor received 26,000 comments, of which two-thirds were in favor.

Increasing reimbursement from Medicaid and other public programs for wages for home care workers, expanding options for health insurance, establishing core competencies and career ladders, and ending the companionship exemption are all policy decisions that 90 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

would help Maine home care workers to be able to continue to do this vital work. Given the state’s aging population and the growing need for personal care services, it is time to more highly value these essential employees for the crucial work they do. -

REFERENCES Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. Employment Projections: Fastest Growing Occupations. www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_103.htm [Accessed May 1, 2012] Butler, Sandra S., Nan Simpson, Mark Brennan and Winston Turner. 2010. “Why Do They Leave?

Factors Associated with Job Termination among Personal Assistance Workers in Home Care.”

Journal of Gerontological Social Work 57(8): 665–681.

Butler, Sandra S., Sara Wardamasky and Mark Brennan-Ing. 2012. “Older Women Taking Care of Older Women: The Rewards and Challenges of the Home Care Aide Job.” Journal of Women & Aging 24(3): 1–22.

Gattine, Elizabeth and Elise Scala. 2010. Workforce Issues and Challenges: Maine Identifies Opportunities to Address Direct Service Workforce Employment and Training Issues. www.nasuad. org/documentation/hcbs2010/PowerPoints/Tuesday/ Direct%20Care%20Workers-%20Issues%20and%20 Challenges.pdf [Accessed August 31, 2012] Grau, Lois, Barbara Chandler, Brenda Burton and Doreen Kolditz. 1991. “Institutional Loyalty and Job Satisfaction among Nurse Aides in Nursing Homes.” Journal of Aging and Health 3(1): 47–65.

Johnson, Richard W. and Joshua M. Wiener. 2006.

A Profile of Frail Older Americans and Their Caregivers. The Urban Institute, Washington, DC. www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311284_older_ americans.pdf [Accessed January 2, 2007] Kaye, H. Stephen, Susan Chapman, Robert Newcomer and Charlene Harrington. 2006. “The Personal Assistance Workforce: Trends in Supply and Demand.” Health Affairs 25 (4): 1113–1120.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

MAINE HOME CARE WORKERS

Kiefer, Kristin M., Lauren Harris-Kojetin, Diane Brannon, Teta Barry, Joseph Vasey and Michael Lepor. 2005. Measuring Long-Term Care Work: A Guide to Selected Instruments to Examine Direct Care Worker Experiences and Outcomes.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.

Seavey, Dorie and Abby Marquand. 2011. Caring in America: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Nation’s Fastest Growing Jobs: Home Health and Personal Care Aides. Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute, New York. www.directcareclearinghouse.org/ download/caringinamerica-20111212.pdf [Accessed February 1, 2012]

LaPlante, Mitchell P., H. Stephen Kaye, Taewoon Kang and Charlene Harrington. 2004. “Unmet Need for Personal Assistance Services: Estimating the Shortfall in Hours of Help and Adverse Consequences.” Journal of Gerontology 59B(2): S98–S108.

Stacey, Clare L. 2011. The Caring Self: The Work Experiences of Home Care Aides. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Martin, Douglas. 2009. “Evelyn Coke, Home Care Aide Who Fought Pay Rule, Is Dead at 74.” New York Times (August 10).

Stone, Robyn. 2011. Long-Term Care for the Elderly.

The Urban Institute, Washington, DC. Ware, J.E. 1993. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, Boston, MA.

Maslach, Christine and Susan E. Jackson. 1981. “The Measurement of Experienced Burnout.” Journal of Occupational Behaviour 2:99–113.

Sandra S. Butler is a

Morris, Lisa. 2009. “Quits and Job Changes among Home Care Workers in Maine: The Role of Wages, Hours and Benefits.” The Gerontologist 49(5): 635–650.

professor and the coordinator of the master’s degree program in social work at

Office of Aging and Disability Services. 2012. State Plan on Aging. Department of Health and Human Services, Augusta, ME. Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute (PHI). 2008. State Chart Book on Wages for Personal and Home Care Aides, 1999–2006. PHI National, Bronx, NY. www. directcareclearinghouse.org/download/PHI_State_ Chartbook_PHCA_Wages_99-06.pdf [Accessed December 15, 2008] Pohlmann, Lisa. 2003. Without Care: Maine’s Direct Care Worker Shortage. Maine Center for Economic Policy, Augusta.

Rix, Sara E. 2001. “The Role of Older Workers in Caring for Older People in the Future.” Generations 25(1): 29–34.

Scala, Elise. 2008. “Home and Community-Based Services: Workforce and Quality Outcomes.”

A Compendium of Three Discussion Papers: Strategies for Promoting and Improving the Direct Service Workforce: Application to Home and Community-Based Services, ed. Elise Scala, Leslie Hendrickson, and Carol Regan. Rutgers Center for State Health Policy, New Brunswick, NJ.

the University of Maine.

Her research has focused primarily on women’s financial security across the lifespan and successful aging, particularly in rural environments. She is the author of Middle-aged Female and Homeless (1994), and coeditor of Gerontological Social Work in Small Towns and Rural Communities (2003) and Shut-Out: Low Income Mothers and Higher Education (2004) and more than 50 articles and

book chapters. She recently completed a project funded by the National Institute on Aging on the experiences of home care workers in Maine, which she reports on here.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 91

OUTDOOR SMOKE-FREE POLICIES

Outdoor Smoke-Free Policies in Maine

by David E. Harris Suzanne Roy Sarah Mayberry

Although most people are used to bans on smoking in public indoor spaces, bans on outdoor smoking are relatively new. In this article, David Harris, Suzanne Roy, and Sarah Mayberry review the history and policy implications of smoking bans, focusing on bans on outdoor smoking in particular. The article provides a general discussion of smoking policy and a review the scientific evidence on the health implications of tobacco use and the impact of smoking bans. The authors conclude with examples of efforts to ban smoking, both indoors and out, in Maine parks and beaches, hospitals, and colleges and universities.

92 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012



View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

OUTDOOR SMOKE-FREE POLICIES

The ability of the INTRODUCTION

A

s evidence of tobacco’s harmful effects has accumulated, smoking bans have been instituted in the U.S., first in specific indoor venues (e.g., restaurants) and more recently in outdoor areas such as parks and beaches and on the campuses of hospitals and schools.

This article reviews the history and policy implications of smoking bans with an emphasis on the experience in Maine. We begin with a general discussion of smoking policy, including its legal basis and challenges; proceed to a review of the scientific evidence on the health implications of tobacco use, with an emphasis on secondhand smoke, a.k.a. environmental tobacco smoke or ETS, and the impact of smoking bans; and finish with a description of the Maine experience around smoking bans in general and outdoor smoking bans in particular. Our conclusions highlight the interconnections between federal, state, municipal, and public institutional efforts to limit smoking and suggest pathways by which smoke-free areas can be expanded in Maine and elsewhere.1 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY RESTRICTIONS ON SMOKING

Historical and National Efforts

The negative health consequences of tobacco use, including its connection to disease, were recognized soon after tobacco’s introduction into Europe in the late 16th century (Williamson 2007). As early as 1604, England’s King James declared smoking “a custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lung” (as quoted in Brandt 2007: 21), and in the 19th century Queen Victoria designated limited smoking areas (near chimneys) in Windsor Castle (Williamson 2007). In the U.S., early attempts to place legal limits on tobacco use began in the 19th century (Dawson 2010) and included a statewide ban on cigarette sales and public smoking in Utah in 1921, with 15 other states soon to follow (Brandt 2007). Beginning after World War I, however, an aggressive advertising campaign by cigarette manufacturers that portrayed smoking as attractive and even healthful (Brandt 2007) led to the repeal of these early

legislative efforts (Dawson 2010) federal governand prevented further meaningful legal restrictions on ment to project tobacco use in this country for many decades. its smoking By the 1950s, however, solid scientific studies linking restrictions beyond smoking to lung cancer were emerging (Williamson 2007), federal property leading to the first Surgeon General’s report on the negative is limited by health effects of smoking in 1964. As evidence that smoking constitutional was a health risk, not just to the smoker but also to those who constraints…. inhaled the secondhand smoke accumulated in the 1970s, the Surgeon General went further, calling for a ban on smoking in public places in 1971 (Dawson 2010), and a movement for nonsmokers’ rights emerged (Williamson 2007). States reacted by enacting smoking bans in particular indoor venues (e.g., restaurants, bars, elevators, and workplaces), starting with Arizona in 1973. The federal government restricted smoking in government buildings in 1979, finally banning it entirely in government buildings in 1997 (U.S. DHHS 2006) (a ban that was extended to include outdoor courtyards and areas within 25 feet of entrances in 2008) and on all U.S. commercial air fights in 1990 (Dawson 2010). In 2004 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services banned smoking on the grounds of all its facilities, and that same year the Federal Bureau of Prisons instituted near total smoking bans in all federal prisons (U.S. DHHS 2006). By 2010, 49 states and the District of Colombia had statutes regulating indoor smoking in some manner (Dawson 2010). In 2012 a nonsmokers’ rights group counted more than 970 municipalities with some level of restriction on indoor smoking (www. no-smoke.org).

The ability of the federal government to project its smoking restrictions beyond federal property is limited by constitutional constraints, however, as long as tobacco products are legal (Niezgonda 2006; Watchnick 2010). Federal smoking bans on commercial

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 93

OUTDOOR SMOKE-FREE POLICIES

air flights are justified legally by Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.

State Efforts

State legislatures, free from the constitutional constraints that limit the reach of federal legislation, have enacted far more sweeping restrictions on smoking. As already noted, virtually all states limit indoor smoking in public places (a category that includes privately owned establishments open to the public) in some way (Dawson 2010), with restaurants, bars, and workplaces in general being common venues for restrictions if not outright bans. It should also be noted, however, that three states rejected comprehensive smoke-free laws in 2010 (Watchnick 2010).

With bans on indoor smoking accepted by many members of the public in most places…efforts to extend smoke-free areas have turned to the outdoors.

State governments justify smoking bans by claiming that they are protecting the health and safety of the public (Hagan 2005) and establishment employees in particular (Williamson 2007). However, restaurant and bar owners have challenged these laws as violations of the “takings clause” of the 5th Amendment, which restricts the right of government, including state government, to “take” private property without compensation (Hagan 2005). To prevail in such a challenge, the establishment owners would have to prove that the smoking restriction had a substantial negative economic impact on their business, presumably by discouraging the patronage of smokers (Niezgonda 2006). The evidence, however, generally suggests otherwise. A restaurant and bar smoking ban in California resulted in a temporary loss of business, followed over a short period of time by an increase above pre-ban levels (Williamson 2007). Following a 94 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

2003 smoking ban in Boston, Massachusetts, bars, smoking in bars decreased, but bar patronage did not.

There was also no change in reported home smoking (Biener et al. 2007). This suggests that the ban was successful at reducing public smoking, but did not affect economic activity or transfer the smoking activity to the home. Thus, it is not surprising that challenges to bans on indoor smoking in public places as illegal government taking have been unsuccessful. Bans on indoor smoking in public venues have also been challenged unsuccessfully as violations of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment (Williamson 2007), the constitutionally protected right to privacy (Niezgonda 2006), and even the right to free assembly (Hagan 2005).

It should be noted that the evidence on the impact of smoking bans on bar patronage is not unequivocal.

Bars and music venues in Lawrence, Kansas, experienced a decline in patronage following a municipal smoking ban. However, many smoking bans allow businesses that may have been harmed by a smoking ban to apply for a partial waiver (Williamson 2007).

In Scotland, a ban on smoking in bars and pubs was indeed followed by a decline in alcohol consumption in these establishments by smokers who were also heavy drinkers, without a concomitant increase in alcohol consumption in the home by this group—a result that the authors believe may indicate an additional health benefit of smoking bans in bars (McKee et al. 2009).

State governments and the federal government have also taken a variety of other approaches to limiting smoking. Excise taxes are imposed on cigarette purchases by both state and federal governments and are widely recognized as effective at reducing smoking (Watchnick, 2010). Maine levees a $2/pack tax on cigarettes, an amount that is relatively high by national standards but low for New England. However, a recent attempt to increase this to $3.50/pack was turned back by the state legislature. In 2009 Congress passed, and President Obama signed, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA), which mandated increased size and specificity of text warnings on cigarette packs along with the addition of graphic pictorial warnings (Watchnick 2010). In November 2011, implementation of this legislation was blocked by the injunction of a federal judge who

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

OUTDOOR SMOKE-FREE POLICIES

found that it violated the right to free commercial speech (Outterson 2011).

Municipal and Institutional Efforts

With bans on indoor smoking accepted by many members of the public in most places in the U.S. where they apply (Hagan 2005), efforts to extend smoke-free areas have turned to the outdoors. In the spring of 2011, New York City, to much fanfare, adopted a ban on outdoor smoking covering beaches, parks, and pedestrian plazas. Workplaces and higher educational institutions have also contributed to the expansion of smoke-free areas into the outdoors. Smoke-free workplaces (where both the buildings and the grounds are smoke free) are now common across the country and are particularly popular in healthcare facilities. A nonsmokers’ rights organization lists nearly 3,000 hospitals, clinics, and other healthcare organizations that have adopted 100 percent smoke-free campus rules nationwide. More than 700 American colleges and universities also have smoke-free policies (www. no-smoke.org). The success of this approach can be judged from the fact that expanding this list is a major focus of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “Healthier Worksite Initiative.” These programs are commonly proposed as cost-saving measures for the employers as well as wellness measures for employees.

Smoking bans, and in particular bans on outdoor smoking, have not been without their critics, however.

New York City’s restriction on outdoor smoking was met with a “Perspective” piece in the New England Journal of Medicine that identified the arguments in favor of outdoor smoking bans as falling into two categories—public health claims that outdoor ETS is a health risk and nuisance arguments about cigarette litter—and went on to question the evidence for both (Colgrove, Bayer and Bachynski 2011). An op-ed

by Michael Siegel, “A Smoking Ban Too Far,” in the May 5, 2011, issue of The New York Times similarly attacked the evidence that outdoor smoking represents a public health risk. Smoking bans have also been attacked as discriminatory toward poor people and members of minority groups (Pierotti 2009; Colgrove, Bayer and Bachynski 2011), who are assumed to have higher smoking rates even though the evidence on this

point is remarkably and interestingly complex (CDC 2002), and as unwelcome attempts at paternalistic social engineering (Colgrove, Bayer and Bachynski 2011; Ferguson 2011). This second argument proposes that current smoking bans represent only the beginning of more draconian restrictions to come, a position that will not be referred to as “the camel’s nose under the tent” argument in this article. Since challenges to the science around smoking and smoking bans are central to the arguments against these expansions of smoke-free area regulations (Colgrove, Bayer and Bachynski 2011; Siegel 2011), it is important that we review this science.

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON SMOKING AND SMOKING BANS

Smoking Dangers

No one disputes that smoking causes disease, disability, and death. The U.S. Surgeon General has causally linked smoking to a range of chronic illness including cancers, cardiovascular diseases, pulmonary diseases, hip fractures, blindness, and oral disease (U.S. DHHS 2010). The National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI 2012) estimates that 20 percent of deaths in the U.S. are caused by smoking, and that smoking is the leading cause of preventable death and illness nationally. The U.S. Surgeon General also causally links exposure to secondhand smoke to respiratory diseases, coronary heart disease, and sudden infant death syndrome (U.S. DHHS 2010) and the disease burden of ETS may fall particularly heavily on children (Johannsson, Hauling and Hermansson 2003).

Because many people who are exposed to secondhand smoke receive this exposure both indoors and out, and because there are multiple other sources of disease-causing air pollution, one might expect that confounding factors would make it difficult to show a significantly increased disease risk from outdoor exposure to ETS alone. However, particulate pollution from tobacco smoke near an outdoor smoker is known to reach levels similar to those found with indoor smoking (Klepeis, Ott and Switzer 2007) and outdoor smoking near a building entrance affects not just the outdoor air quality, but the air quality within the building also (Repace 2005). Furthermore, brief exposure to ETS

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 95

OUTDOOR SMOKE-FREE POLICIES

causes cardiovascular changes related to heart-disease risk that are 80 to 90 percent as large as the effects from chronic active smoking (Barnoya and Glantz 2005). Even the lower levels of exposure to particulate air pollution than those exposed to ETS receive (compared to active smokers) significantly increase the mortality risk from cardiovascular disease (Pope et al.

2009).

This line of evidence supports the results of one study that attempted to directly determine the health impact of outdoor exposure to ETS by comparing the risk of respiratory symptoms among three groups: children of nonsmokers, children of outdoor smokers, and children of indoor smokers. This work found that the children of outdoor smokers (e.g., nonsmokers who were exposed to ETS but only outside) had a rate of respiratory symptoms that was intermediate between the rate for the children of nonsmokers (presumably little smoke exposure) and the rate for the children of indoor smokers (who were exposed to ETS inside), although only the nonsmoker and indoor smoker groups differed significantly (Johannsson et al. 2003). Although more research is needed to quantify the danger of outdoor ETS, the evidence suggests that exposure to outdoor smoke may indeed be harmful and justifies the Surgeon General’s assessment that there is no safe level of tobacco smoke exposure (U.S. DHHS 2006).

Impact of Smoking Bans

Even if both indoor and outdoor exposures to secondhand smoke are health hazards, one might question the efficacy of smoking bans to reduce this exposure and to mitigate disease risk. However, bans on indoor smoking have proven effective at improving air quality, reducing ETS exposure, and decreasing disease risk. Bans on indoor smoking improved both air quality inside the venue where smoking was banned and air quality outside the venue (Repace 2005). These bans also reduced ETS exposure to nonsmokers including both adults (Bondy et al. 2009) and children (Holliday, Moore and. Moore 2009). A Cochran Review concluded that indoor smoking bans reduce exposure to ETS, particularly among workers in venues where the bans are instituted (Callinan et al. 2010), and indoor smoking bans have been followed by a remarkable array of health improvements (Mackay et al. 2010).

96 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

Smoking bans also appear to change attitudes to de-normalize smoking and change behaviors to decrease smoking, including among American college students (Hahn et al. 2010). Bans on outdoor smoking have met with similar success. At a large American university, a smoke-free campus policy (indoor and outdoor smoking bans) was followed by a decrease in the prevalence of student smoking and a decrease in the number of students who believed that smoking is acceptable among their peers (Seo et al. 2011).

SMOKE-FREE MAINE

I

n Maine, smoking bans have followed the national trend. Beginning with indoor bans, smoke-free ordinances have progressed to some outdoor areas.

In addition to state laws, smoke-free rules now include municipal ordinances along with institutional rules at schools and hospitals.

Maine currently prohibits indoor smoking in enclosed public spaces and places of employment.

Maine’s “Workplace Smoking Act of 1985” (Maine Law 22 § 1580-A) was strengthened in 2009 to require that all indoor areas of Maine workplaces and vehicles used in the course of work be 100 percent smoke free and that smoking be prohibited outdoors at business facilities within 20 feet of entryways, vents, and doorways, or anywhere that would allow smoke to circulate back into the building. Maine law has also protected patrons in bars and restaurants from secondhand smoke since January 1, 2004, and this was extended to include outdoor eating areas in September 2009 (Maine Law 22 § 1542). Furthermore, Maine is one of several states to prohibit smoking in a motor vehicle when a child is present (Dawson 2010). This Maine statute was passed in 2007 (Maine Law 22 § 1549).

Parks and Beaches

Maine State Parks and Historical Sites were made smoke free in May 2009 (Maine Law 22 §1580-E).

This includes beaches, playgrounds, snack bars, picnic shelters, business facilities, and any enclosed public place or public restroom. Several Maine municipalities have followed suit with similar ordinances on smokefree beaches or 100 percent smoke-free parks. In 2011 the South Portland City Council passed an ordinance

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

OUTDOOR SMOKE-FREE POLICIES

prohibiting all tobacco use in town parks and beaches.

This action followed an extraordinary piece of activism by members of the South Portland High School Interact Club. Members of this service group, which is the youth affiliate of Rotary International, organized fellow students to accompany them to a city-owned beach (Willard Beach). There they collected more than 1,000 cigarette butts from the sand in an hour, and presented their collection to the city council with a request that the city beaches be made smoke free. City council members, perhaps thinking about the fact that their children and grandchildren play in the sand at Willard Beach, unanimously agreed. When asked by one of this article’s coauthors why the Interact Club had chosen this issue from the many worthwhile causes they could have pursued, one group member replied “because it’s a no-brainer.” This suggests that attitudes toward tobacco use are changing, at least among some youth, and that smoking is no longer considered normative as it was in the past.

Hospitals

In Maine, several hospitals, including Mercy Hospital in Portland and Franklin Memorial Hospital (FMH) in Farmington, have smoke-free campus rules.

As is the case in several areas of preventive health, Franklin Memorial Hospital was a leader in becoming the first smoke-free hospital in the state. As early as 1985, FMH instituted a policy prohibiting smoking among hospital visitors and employees. Patients, too, were prohibited from smoking unless their physician deemed that not smoking would cause them psychological harm. This exception proved problematic; a small number of physicians who saw smoking prohibitions as undue infringements on personal liberty or were concerned that elective-surgery patients who smoked would go to other hospitals granted most of their smoking patients the privilege to do so.

Consequently, in 1988 FMH tightened its rules, allowing patients to smoke only in their rooms and only after consultation with a substance-dependency counselor and with a majority vote of a three-member board (consisting of the primary physician, primary nurse, and dependency counselor). This policy was further tightened in 2008. At that time smoking was prohibited by staff, visitors, and patients in all FMH

buildings and grounds, including personal vehicles on hospital property. New employees signed a statement in which they agreed to abide by this policy.

The explicit motivation for FMH to take these actions was health promotion. Franklin Memorial Hospital has an extensive community health program and program leaders felt that FMH could maintain its moral authority in health-related lifestyle issues only if it led by example. Indeed, the process of FMH becoming smoke free occurred within the much larger context of community efforts over many years emanating from the hospital to reduce smoking in schools and work places throughout Franklin County.

Thus, the process of banning smoking at FMH was intimately related to smoking-reduction efforts in the community—neither would have been likely to succeed without the other. A cadre of activist physicians who were motivated by the immediate health impacts of smoking and the perceived need to set a positive example for the wider community led the process of becoming smoke free. In addition to the health benefits, FMH’s efforts were rewarded by the positive publicity it received by becoming the first smoke-free hospital in Maine.

Two of the most nettlesome issues in the institu­tion of smoking bans are the need to provide support rather than just punishment for smokers trying to quit and the requirement of an enforcement mechanism.

Two of the most nettlesome issues in the institution of smoking bans are the need to provide support rather than just punishment for smokers trying to quit and the requirement of an enforcement mechanism. Franklin Memorial Hospital developed a support system for smokers consisting of counseling, education, the provision of low-fat snacks, support

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 97

OUTDOOR SMOKE-FREE POLICIES

groups, and ultimately pharmacologic support.

The hospital provided for enforcement by explicitly allowing employees to remove tobacco products from patients’ rooms and encouraging them to remind other employees and visitors of the policy.

The no-smoking agreement signed by new employees provides a mechanism by which the hospital can discipline, and even terminate in extreme cases, employees who break the policy.

In Maine, national, state, municipal, and local institutional efforts to limit smoking have been tightly linked.

Higher Education

In August 2006, Kennebec Valley Community College became the first Maine institution of higher learning to adopt a 100 percent smoke-free policy. It wasn’t until five years later (January 1, 2011) that the University of Maine followed suit and became the first four-year school in Maine to adopt a 100 percent smoke-free policy. The following year (January 2012) the University of Maine at Farmington (UMF) culminated many years of efforts at making the campus smoke free by becoming 100 percent smoke free. The early stages in the development of UMF’s tobaccocontrol policy were discussed in an article in Maine Policy Review, which noted that UMF was in the forefront of nationwide efforts to curb tobacco use among college students at that time (Bryant 1999).

Colby College became the first private college in Maine to join the ranks of smoke-free institutions when it announced in April 2012 that it will be 100 percent smoke free starting in September 2013. The University of Maine at Augusta’s smoke-free-campus policy was announced in summer 2012 and will take effect on January 1, 2013.

Efforts to restrict tobacco use at the University of Southern Maine (USM) began in 1999 when a Tobacco Task Force of dedicated staff members recommended first a ban on smoking on some residence hall floors and then a building-wide smoking ban in the 98 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

new residence hall that opened that year. The following year, as a result of a task force recommendation, tobacco use was banned in all USM buildings. In 2001 the USM administration adopted a policy that allowed outdoor smoking on campus in designated areas only and not within 50 feet of any door entrances or windows of campus buildings. The policy relied on self enforcement (i.e., there was little effort by administration to enforce the policy) and there was an emphasis on respect for smokers’ rights to smoke as long as they adhered to policy requirements. Signage was provided by the local Healthy Maine Partnerships group using National Tobacco Masters Settlement Agreement funds.

By 2009, however, it was clear to the USM Tobacco Policy Committee that existing policy did not separate smokers from nonsmokers, and the committee turned its efforts toward instituting a smoke-free policy at USM. To gain grassroots support, the committee met with the senates representing multiple USM constituencies to advocate for campus-wide smoke-free policy. The student and faculty senates voted against the smoking ban while the professional and classified senates supported it. The USM Tobacco Policy Committee developed a strategic plan, which involved incremental steps for implementing the smoke-free policy, and reintroduced its proposal for a smoke-free USM to the faculty senate in the spring of 2011 where it was overwhelmingly adopted.

In both 2010 and 2011, the arguments in favor of a smoking ban at the faculty senate revolved around health and cost benefits while the arguments against it portrayed the ban as impractical (e.g., that smokers would just step over the USM property line to light up), overly intrusive on personal freedom, and a potential disincentive for students to attend the university.

The dramatic turn-around in opinions that made an endorsement of the ban possible in 2011 probably reflected the strategic plan for implementation of the ban that was available in 2011 but not in 2010.

On the basis of this success, the USM Tobacco Policy Committee gained the endorsement first of USM president Selma Botman and then after July 2012 of USM’s new president Theo Kalikow (who had been president of the University of Maine Farmington when that institution went smoke free). In August 2012, President Kalikow announced the roll-out of

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

OUTDOOR SMOKE-FREE POLICIES

the smoke-free policy at USM, with full compliance starting in September 2013.

CONCLUSION

T

his article follows the development of the science on the negative health effects of tobacco and the historical trends in legislation limiting its use. Scientific evidence has progressed from showing that smoking is harmful to the smoker to demonstrating the negative impact of indoor ETS, and has formed the basis for restrictions on smoking in public places. The dangers of outdoor ETS exposure are just beginning to be studied.

Although the available evidence suggests that outdoor ETS may also be dangerous, more work on this point is needed to quantify the harm. Determining the impact of outdoor ETS is important because demonstrating a danger from outside ETS directly challenges any arguments concerning personal freedom that might be raised to smoke-free regulations. Not even the most ardent libertarians maintain that one individual’s personal freedom allows him/her to endanger the wellbeing of others.

The early success of federal legislation on tobacco has been vitally important. However constitutional limitations on federal authority may limit further gains from that source. It is at least theoretically possible that the federal government could enact a tobacco prohibition similar to the one on alcohol in the U.S. mandated by the 18th Amendment in 1920 and repealed in 1933. Indeed, even current antismoking laws have been compared to that prohibition in that they take a moral stand against smoking that some perceive as similar to the moral stand against alcohol in 1920 (Pierotti 2009). However, considering the impact that a tobacco prohibition would have on tobacco tax revenues, a federal ban seems unlikely and if the prohibition on alcohol is any precedent, would probably be ineffective.

States have been central to the limitation of tobacco exposure through taxation and bans on both indoor and outdoor smoking. Most recently municipalities have instituted smoking bans, (including outdoor bans) and institutions (including educational and healthcare institutions) have expanded the outdoor areas that that are smoke free.

In Maine, national, state, municipal, and local institutional efforts to limit smoking have been tightly linked. For example, national tobacco settlement funds allocated to Maine supported efforts to make USM smoke free. Local high school students were instrumental in bringing the issue of a smoking ban at municipal beaches to the South Portland City Council, and Franklin Memorial Hospital’s community-health efforts formed a basis for the hospital itself becoming smoke free. Thus, those who wish to expand smokefree Maine, or who administer current regulations restricting smoking, or tobacco use in general, should consider the interconnected nature of efforts at the national, state, municipal, and institutional levels. The Maine experience with smoke-free regulations suggests the following lessons: 1. Recognizing and being in step with historical trends are important to the success of efforts to limit tobacco use. Both FMH and USM spent many years implementing incremental smoking restrictions that were politically acceptable at that time before becoming totally smoke free. The successful efforts to make Willard Beach smoke free occurred at a time when other municipalities around the country were considering similar regulations.

2. Dedicated activists are indispensable to efforts limiting tobacco use. Although they represented different groups, the high school student activists who brought their request for smoke-free beaches to the South Portland City Council, the USM staff activists who advocated with the university administration to make USM smoke free, and the physician activists who took the idea of a smokefree FMH to their administration were all committed individuals who were willing to expend time and energy to advocate for a cause in which they believed. Without these dedicated activists, it is unlikely that smoking would have been banned in these locations.

3. Having a well-thought-out and well-developed plan is vital to the success of smoke-free efforts. Activists should seek to establish such

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 99

OUTDOOR SMOKE-FREE POLICIES

a plan, and administrators who will ultimately be responsible for defining and implementing such a policy should demand this sort of preparation. One major reason that the smoke-free initiative succeeded in the USM faculty senate in 2011 after failing in 2010 was the wellthought-out strategic plan for implementation that the USM Tobacco Policy Committee had developed. This plan included both a mechanism to support smokers trying to quit and a reasonable enforcement policy. Similarly, the efforts to make FMH smoke free included a well-developed plan to support smokers trying to quit and a strategy for enforcement.

The plan by the South Portland High School Interact Club members to collect cigarette butts and present them to the city council to express their sense of urgency that smoking be banned on city beaches can only be described as brilliant political theater, while the manner in which South Portland’s mayor presented the new regulations to the media show that the city administration had a clear plan for implementation that emphasized education.

4. Some push-back is inevitable. At both FMH and USM, tobacco ban opponents raised objections based on arguments around personal freedom and potential loss of income to the institution. Thus, ultimately, both a grassroots effort by activists and bold decisionmaking by the institution’s administration (who must be willing to expend some political capital) were required to make large institutions such as USM and FMH smoke free. The same can be said of the South Portland City Council and mayor who defused some of the negative response to the smoke-free regulations they enacted by emphasizing an educational rather than a punitive approach to implementation.

5. The announcement of smoke-free regulations is not the end of the matter. Not everyone at any institution, never mind in any city, agrees with making outdoor areas smoke free and some members of any community are 100 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

addicted to nicotine. Successful implementation of smoke-free regulations requires education and the provision of smoking-cessation tools to those who need them. These efforts also require coordination with neighbors, e.g., the USM smoking ban will not be successful unless the university coordinates with the cities of Portland and Gorham. -

ENDNOTES 1. Some of the ordinances, rules or policies discussed in this article are actually “tobacco-free” (e.g., the one at the University of Southern Maine), meaning that not just smoking, but all forms of tobacco use are banned. However, the distinction between “smoke-free” and “tobacco-free” is not important for the analysis here. We use the term “smokefree” throughout the article, since our focus is on outdoor smoking bans.

REFERENCES Barnoya, Joaquin and Stanton A. Glantz. 2005.

“Cardiovascular Effects of Secondhand Smoke: Nearly as Large as Smoking.” Circulation 111:2684– 2698.

Biener, Lois, Catherine Garrett, Margie, Skeer and Gregory Connolly. 2007. “The Effects on Smokers of Boston’s Smoke-Free Bar Ordinance.” Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 13(6): 630–636.

Bondy, Susan J., Bo Zhang, Nancy Kreiger, Peter Selby, Neal Benowitz, Heather Travis, Ana Florescu, Nicole R. Greenspan and Roberta Ferrence. 2009. “Impact of an Indoor Smoking Ban on Bar Workers’ Exposure to Secondhand Smoke.” Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 51:612–619.

Brandt, Allan M. 2007. The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product that Defined America. Basic Books, New York.

Bryant, G. Lea. 1999. “A Dose of Public Health through Grassroots Advocacy: The Development of Tobacco-control Policy on a College Campus.”

Maine Policy Review 8(2): 30–36.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

OUTDOOR SMOKE-FREE POLICIES

Callinan, Joanne E., Anna Clarke, Kirsten Doherty and Cecily Kelleher. 2010. “Legislative Smoking Bans for Reducing Secondhand Smoke Exposure, Smoking Prevalence and Tobacco Consumption.”

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD005992. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.

CD005992.pub2.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

2002. “Cigarette Smoking Among Adults—United States, 2000.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 51(29): 642–645.

Colgrove, James C., Ronald Bayer and Kathleen E. Bachynski. 2011. “Nowhere Left to Hide? The Banishment of Smoking from Public Spaces.”

The New England Journal of Medicine 364(25): 2375–2377.

Dawson, Crystal R. 2010. “Life in the Smokey Lane: An Evaluation of Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Bans on Smoking in Vehicles Containing Children.”

Phoenix Law Review 4:885–910.

Ferguson, Pamela R. 2011. “Smoke Gets in Your Eyes: The Criminalization of Smoking in Enclosed Public Places, the Harm Principle and the Limits of the Criminal Sanction.” Legal Studies 31(2): 269–278.

Hagan, Robert P. 2005. “Restaurants, Bars and Workplaces, Lend Me Your Air: Smokefree Laws as Private Property Exactions–The Undiscovered Country for Nollan and Dolan?” Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 22:143–176.

Hahn, Ellen J., Mary Kay Rayens, S. Lee Ridner, Karen M. Butler, Mei Zhang and Ruth R. Staten. 2010.

“Smoke-free Laws and Smoking and Drinking among College Students.” Journal of Community Health 35:503–511.

Holliday, Jo C., Graham F. Moore and Laurence A.R. Moore. 2009. “Changes in Child Exposure to Secondhand Smoke after Implementation of Smoke-free Legislation in Wales: A Repeated Crosssectional Study.” BMC Public Health 9:430.

Johannsson, Annakarian, Arne Hauling and Goran Hermansson. 2003. “Indoor and Outdoor Smoking Impact on Children’s Health.” European Journal of Public Health 13:61–66.

Klepeis, Neil E., Wayne R. Ott and Paul Switzer. 2007.

“Real-Time Measurement of Outdoor Tobacco Smoke Particles.” Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association 57:522–534.

Mackay, Daniel, Sally Haw, Jon G. Ayres, Colin Fischbacher and Jill P. Pell. 2010. “Smoke-free Legislation and Hospitalizations for Childhood Asthma.” New England Journal of Medicine 363:1139–1145.

McKee, Sherry A., Cheryl Higbee, Stephanie O’Malley, Louise Hassan, Ron Borland, K. Michael Cummings, Gerard Hastings, Geoffrey T. Fong and Andrew Hyland. 2009. “Longitudinal Evaluation of Smoke-free Scotland on Pub and Home Drinking Behavior: Findings from the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project.” Nicotine and Tobacco Research 11(6): 619–626.

National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI). 2012.

How Does Smoking Affect the Heart and Blood Vessels? www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/ smo/smo_how.html [Accessed September 9, 2012] Niezgonda, Jessica. 2006. “Kicking Ash(trays): Smoking Bans in Public Workplaces, Bars, and Restaurants: Current Laws, Constitutional Challenges, and Proposed Federal Regulation.”

Journal of Legislation 33(1): 99–118.

Outterson, Kevin. 2011. “Smoking and the First Amendment.” New England Journal of Medicine 365(25): 2351.

Pope, Arden C., Richard T. Burnett, Daniel Krewski, Michael Jerrett, Yuanli Shi, Eugenia E. Calle and Michael J. Thun. 2009. “Cardiovascular Mortality and Exposure to Airborne Fine Particulate Matter and Cigarette Smoke: Shape of the ExposureResponse Relationship.” Circulation 120:941–948.

Pierotti, Jennifer C. 2009. “The ‘Bottom Line’: A Smokescreen for the Reality That Anti-Tobacco Employment Practices Are Hazardous to Minority Health and Equality.” The Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy 26(2): 441–471.

Repace, James. 2005. Measurements of Outdoor Air Pollution from Secondhand Smoke on the UMBC Campus. www.repace.com/pdf/outdoorair.pdf [Accessed August 29, 2012] Seo , Dong-Chul , Jonathan T. Macy, Mohammad R. Torabi and Susan E. Middlestadt. 2011. “The Effect of a Smoke-free Campus Policy on College Students’ Smoking Behaviors and Attitudes.”

Preventive Medicine 53:347–352.

Please turn the page for more references and information about the authors.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 101

OUTDOOR SMOKE-FREE POLICIES

Suzanne Roy has a bachelor’s degree in community

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (U.S. DHHS). 2006. The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. DHHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, Atlanta, GA. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (U.S. DHHS). 2010. How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: The Biology and Behavioral Basis for Smoking-Attributable Disease: A Report of the Surgeon General. U.S. DHHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, Atlanta, GA. Watchnick, Eryk. 2010. “Anti-Smoking Legislation: Why Strong Local Legislation & Action Better Protect the Consumer than Federal Legislation & Action.”

Loyola Consumer Law Review 23(4): 458–485.

Williamson, Marot. 2007. “When One Person’s Habit Becomes Everyone’s Problem: The Battle over Smoking Bans in Bars and Restaurants.” Villanova Sports & Entertainment Law Journal 14:161–190.

health education from the University of Maine at Farmington and a master’s degree in adult education from the University of Southern Maine. She has been health-promotion manager of the Employee Wellness Program of the University of Southern Maine since 2001.

Sarah Mayberry serves as program director for the Breathe Easy Coalition of Maine. This statewide umbrella coalition of the Smoke-Free Housing Coalition of Maine, Maine Tobacco-Free College Network, and Maine TobaccoFree Hospital Network is housed at the city of Portland’s Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health.

David E. Harris holds a Ph.D. in physiology and biophysics from the University of Vermont School of Medicine. He is currently a professor in the University of Southern Maine School of Nursing, where he teaches classes in pathophysiology and researches community health issues.

102 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 103

THEDA SKOCPOL INTERVIEW

In the Public Interest: A Discussion with Theda Skocpol about the Scholars Strategy Network

by Luisa S. Deprez Amy Fried

Luisa Deprez and Amy Fried interview Theda Skocpol about the Scholars Strategy Network (SSN). The SSN was founded to serve as a bridging organization to help university-based researchers and teachers to get involved in public debates and make their research and ideas accessible to fellow citizens, legislators, and journalists. The SSN includes scholars from many disciplines who share research about public policy issues, elections and civic life, as well as ideas for improvements in legislation and government practices.

104 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012



View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

THEDA SKOCPOL INTERVIEW

…it has been clear PREFACE

S

cholars in institutions of higher learning—colleges and universities—have long been regarded as writers whose work is not readily accessible to a wide array of policymakers, practitioners, and general readers.

As a result, much of the excellent research they do on matters of public interest receives little attention outside of scholarly circles. Perhaps even more importantly, their research does not get into the hands of those who can use it to consider and promote positive and constructive change.

This situation is now set to change with the creation of the Scholars Strategy Network (SSN). To find out more about the SSN, we asked Theda Skocpol, Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology at Harvard University and Director of the Scholars Strategy Network, to discuss it with us.

INTERVIEW

LD and AF: Can you talk a bit about the Scholars Strategy Network and the inspiration behind its creation?

TS: The idea percolated for several years among key people on the steering committee. For some time, it has been clear that a lot of excellent scholars who work in universities and colleges around the country would like to be more fully engaged in public discussions—not just about what is or is not the right policy to deal with a problem such as job creation or environmental protection or immigration reform, but also about how to make our governments and our democracy work better.

There is a very long tradition in American professional and academic life of civic engagement by university researchers and teachers. In recent decades, however, that has broken down somewhat.

[Washington] DC, for example, is its own world, with specialized think tanks and advocacy groups and lobbyists for each little area of public policy. People in DC speak an insider language full of technical details and acronyms. And while researchers who work for think tanks are involved in this DC world, university people around the country often are not, unless they move to

DC to work for one president that a lot of excelor another.

Also, a lot of important lent scholars who work gets done in the states— and a lot of what counts is work in universipublic opinion as it is shaped in the media and in citizens’ groups ties and colleges and social movements. Some university people are very around the country involved in those discussions and movements, but others are would like to not. Sadly, too much of academic life these days is hyperbe more fully specialized, with each professional group speaking its own engaged in public insider language. Hence, a lot of good research gets published in discussions.... specialized books or academic articles, but the findings and ideas never get translated into general public discussion.

So a number of us worked for several years to create a bridging organization to make it more inviting for university-based researchers and teachers to get involved in public debates and make their research and ideas accessible to fellow citizens, legislators, and journalists. At first, we did not quite know how to do it.

We knew we wanted groups in various regions along with a national office. We also knew we wanted to involve scholars from many disciplines and ask them to share research about public opinion, elections and civic life, as well as ideas for improvements in legislation and government practices.

LD and AF: So, knowing this, how did you move forward?

TS: After some experimentation in 2009, we realized we needed an approach to building SSN in which every member would have things to do and every participant would count. A year ago, we discovered a good way to proceed and have been growing fast and being effective in bridge-building ever since. People in colleges and universities all across the country are invited to join.

Each person has a profile highlighting areas of expertise, media contributions, and engagement in civic life

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 105

THEDA SKOCPOL INTERVIEW

and public-policy efforts, and each person writes briefs to convey important ideas and research findings in everyday language.

LD and AF: Does SSN focus on particular policy areas?

TS: Not exactly, and this is how we are different from many existing organizations that try to inject research into public debates. We are casting a very wide net, inviting scholars who work on everything from taxes and public budgets to health care to immigration to women’s issues or U.S. foreign policy. The idea is to be ready with ideas, findings, and people no matter what pops up on the public agenda. And we want to include broader historical and philosophical perspectives too.

We have eight major areas, and each one breaks down further into subtopics. It is all at our website (www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org), which is set up to make it easy for everyone to search our offerings, our people, and our briefs. The eight major topics are the economy and public budgets; economic security; health care; American democracy; society and social issues; education; environment and energy; and America and the world. But as I say, each has a lot of searchable subtopics, too.

…we [SSN] are not like a think tank at all.

We are eclectic across policy areas and areas of social and polit­ical relevance.

LD and AF: Numerous national organizations already offer guidelines for policy and policy directions that have rather clear political inclinations. Is SSN in this same vein?

TS: We have no SSN political orthodoxy. Everyone who joins subscribes to the classic progressive value, expressed well a hundred years ago by people such as

106 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

Jane Addams and pioneering health reformer Isaac Max Rubinow of Columbia University, that it is part of a scholar’s responsibility in American democracy to engage public issues and public discussions. But, each individual member decides for him or herself what that means in terms of endorsing candidates or parties or particular policies. We are proud of each member’s engagement, and we don’t try to downplay it if, for example, someone wants to write an op-ed for a candidate’s position. But SSN as such, as a whole organization, is not allied with any other organization whatsoever and does not take electoral or even specific policy positions. We are open to connecting our members and those who use our ideas regardless of political persuasion.

It matters a lot that we are not just specialized in one policy area and that our members think about the democratic political process, not just ideal policies in the abstract. Members often explore public opinion about an issue—such as immigration—and write about how a good policy idea could gain public support. We are not just a bunch of ivory tower experts thinking up plans to impose on other people; we think about what our fellow citizens believe and want government to do (or not do).

In sum, we are not like a think tank at all. We are eclectic across policy areas and areas of social and political relevance. We include moral philosophers and historians as well as the most hard-nosed economists and statistical-type scholars. Although we are 90 percent university and college based, we have a few scholars from research institutes, but only those who regularly collaborate with university scholars. It is not, in my view, true that many think tanks engage university-based researchers; they usually have their own staff experts. And in any event, think thanks often speak in specialist and DC-centric languages laden with acronyms that regular citizens and people outside the Beltway do not understand at all.

SSN is filling a different niche, building much broader bridges. It is a different animal, not a bureaucracy with employees, but a network that leverages the work and commitment of excellent people already employed in colleges and universities.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

THEDA SKOCPOL INTERVIEW

LD and AF: How are members solicited or invited to join the SSN? Are there criteria for membership, so to speak?

TS: Each person who becomes a member fills out a profile that briefly and clearly describes up to six publications that speak to public issues, broadly conceived, and indicates his or her civic interests (for example, participating in the League of Women Voters, or testifying at a legislative hearing). The member’s profile also lists/links to media appearances such as op-eds or radio programs or public talks. Each new member then works with us to write his or her first “vivid-English” two-page brief. This is usually a “key findings” brief that hits the important question, findings, and arguments of an already-published article or book or report.

It may also be a two-page “basic facts” brief that draws from many scholarly sources to sum up what is known about an important issue or public dilemma, education, health care and the like.

Basic facts and key findings briefs are always two pages maximum and are carefully edited to remove all jargon, acronyms, and insider specialty language of any sort. We tell people to imagine how they would explain an issue and important bottom-line facts and findings to a neighbor or their aunt at Thanksgiving dinner. Beyond the short briefs, SSN will also develop 10-page strategy briefs that lay out evidence for various policy options at greater length. But the twopagers are our bread and butter, and they are fascinating and easy to read.

LD and AF: And the success of this approach— for individuals and for states and regions?

TS: It has been very successful. More than 170 scholars across the U.S. have joined, or are in process of joining, with several more coming on board each week.

Everyone from advanced graduate students to distinguished senior professors is welcome, and we are building membership in all parts of the country, across many disciplines: in history, social sciences, and parts of natural science dealing with health and environmental issues. Each member who joins is also welcome and encouraged to invite other colleagues on board.

When a cluster of members joins in a particular state such as Maine or in a community with various universities and colleges such as the North Carolina Research Triangle, we also look for pairs of organizers who will put together an SSN regional network.

We have eight so far and will soon have more. Each regional network gets a small budget and has a chance to put on public events and to connect to state policymakers, media, and citizens groups in its own way.

Some focus on themes, for example the Southwest SSN network focuses especially on immigration and health care, but most have a broad purview.

I would say that the Maine SSN Network, co-led by the two of you, is the rate-buster among regional SSN networks so far. It is recruiting a vibrant group of members from institutions all over the state, and has a regular op-ed column in the Bangor Daily News, where SSN members write on crucial issues for the general public. Maine SSNers have also made contacts with national and state legislators and their staffs to get factual analyses into their hands. And there are sure to be opportunities to cosponsor events or discussions with Maine associations and policy organizations such as the Maine Center for Economic Policy.

The other side of our work is active outreach to make members and briefs available to journalists and bloggers, policymakers, and civic groups such as the League of Women Voters, community-based nonprofit organizations, or state and local health-reform groups.

We are having a lot of success because our briefs are easy to read and use. Once journalists or legislative staffers or civic group leaders read some briefs, they often contact SSN members directly and ask them to do other things. SSN will pay to send members to public forums. For example, one of our members is traveling to St. Louis in September to participate in a YWCA forum on how budget debates might affect the poor and nonprofits that serve them. We also have publicists working with us to help members turn their briefs into op-eds. We recently published one on Medicare vouchers in the Tampa Tribune and another one on current budget debates in the Detroit Free Press. The Maine SSNers, of course, regularly publish op-eds in the Bangor Daily News and sometimes in the Portland Press Herald.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 107

THEDA SKOCPOL INTERVIEW

LD and AF: What are the benefits to a wide-ranging approach such as SSN’s?

TS: It has worked well to have a broad umbrella such as this. You never know what will come up in advance, and we almost always have good people with intelligent things to say—and briefs that say those things in ways anyone can understand. For example, when the shootings in Aurora, Colorado, happened, we had two members who had done wonderful work on gun violence and gun-control issues, so we could feature their work and their media contributions right away. The Supreme Court is taking up affirmative action this fall [2012], and we have one of the leading experts on the history and workings of affirmative action. We will feature his brief and journalists will be able to contact him. We have huge clusters of members who do excellent work on health reform in all aspects at both the state and national level, and on immigration issues at regional and national levels. These folks are called on all the time. We have many who work on tax and budget issues. That is a big deal in the 2012 election season and will be again when Congress turns to dealing with the “fiscal cliff” in late 2012 and early 2013. And we have a growing set of experts who think creatively about environmental policy.

The Boston SSN network will sponsor a panel on efforts to fight global warming in February 2013.

A final point I should stress: we have people who know policy problems and possible solutions in all these areas. But we also have many scholars who know a lot about democratic politics: public opinion, election issues, and social movements. That allows SSNers to think and talk about making American democracy work better. For example, we have featured research that explores various kinds of electoral reforms, asking which do the best job of making elections honest and expanding citizen participation at the voting booth.

LD and AF: How has—and will—SSN reach out to legislators, policymakers, advocates, and citizens groups to let them know what SSN members and SSN briefs have to offer?

TS: We are developing different forms of outreach to all of the above: journalists and bloggers, policymakers, and citizen groups.

108 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

For journalists and bloggers, we have let dozens of them know already about the SSN website as a resource to find experts to talk with about stories, to get new ideas for stories, and to find briefs that quickly sum up crucial facts. A lot of journalists are delighted to hear about SSN, and many are using the website. We know because they call our members to follow up. Some of our briefs, which are pdfs that anyone can use or repost, have been linked to in articles and editorials.

This July [2012], for example, the New York Times had an editorial about giving felons back the right to vote after they finish prison sentences that they linked to an SSN brief by member Christopher Uggen at the University of Minnesota, who has done empirical opinion research to show that most Americans favor restoring the right to vote after criminals pay their debt to society. Bloomberg News quoted one of our experts, Christine Percheski, in articles about the role of married women in the 2012 election. Similarly, Huffington Post had a piece on nonprofits that was linked to a brief by one of our experts in that area, Scott Allard, of the University of Chicago. And as I mentioned earlier, SSN itself has publicists working to help our members develop and place op-eds, using their two-page briefs as a starting point.

We place a lot of stress on getting things into regional newspapers, not just the national outlets such as the New York Times. And when our members do publish op-eds, we feature them on our website under “SSNers in the News,” so the ideas get even broader circulation. A number of Maine op-eds have been featured this way.

For policymakers, we rely on regional groups and members to reach out to state and national legislators and their staffs. That has happened here in Maine, and in New Mexico the regional group includes staffers from Martin Heinrich, now in the House of Representatives and running for the Senate. Relevant SSN briefs have been sent to the office of Senator Sherrod Brown in Ohio, and so forth. In addition, we have active ties in Washington, DC. SSN and many of its briefs have been described and introduced to caucuses in the House of Representatives. Several SSNers did a consultation on health reform options just before the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

THEDA SKOCPOL INTERVIEW

In some ways, the most exciting frontiers are with civic groups. In several states, SSNers and units of the League of Women Voters are cooperating—we have good experts and briefs on how to make elections worked better—and we are now cooperating to do public forums with the YWCA and with the Coalition on Human Needs.

We have ties to the Center for Community Change, which works with community groups across the country. And many SSNers work with health-reform groups and labor groups in the states as well as nationally. It is a top priority in my mind to deepen ties between our members and civic, community, and citizens associations at the local, state, and national levels.

LD and AF: What, in your opinion, makes for success? For SSN’s success?

The Maine Chapter

By Luisa Deprez and Amy Fried We are excited to be a part of the national Scholars Strategy Network and to be involved in bringing together a group of extremely insightful and knowledgeable individuals from across Maine. Both of us are active scholars who conduct academic research and publish and present our views to other academics. But we are also citizens who strongly believe we have an obligation to share our research, findings, and expertise with policymakers, journalists, nonprofits, and the public.

Maine SSNers are engaged in an array of research activities from varying perspectives. They are united by a broad and deep commitment to climb out of the ivory tower and participate actively in the public arena. Examples include sociologist Amy Blackstone (University of Maine) who contributes her expertise on changing families and on sexual harassment in the workplace; political scientist Robert Glover (University of Maine) considers immigration legislation’s impacts on the young; social work professor Sandy Butler (University of Maine) provides information and insight into Maine policy efforts such as Parents as Scholars and the Competitive Skills Scholarship Program; John Dorrer (program director, Jobs for the Future) delves deeper into unemployment including its structural components and consequences; Lynne Miller (University of Southern Maine) explores further how Representative and VicePresidential nominee Paul Ryan’s budget proposals would undercut American education; Jennifer Wriggins (University of Maine School of Law) looks at how mandatory auto insurance helps us to makes sense of the individual mandate in health reform; and Michael Howard (University of Maine) brings attention to issues of global warming. We (Luisa and Amy) also wrote a brief specifically tailored to Maine that looks quite carefully at the high stakes of the Ryan budget for the state.

TS: I have already given a lot of examples of successful outreach to participate in policy discussions and public debates, so I won’t repeat those. Success means in part doing more and more of that, and finding new ways to help our members publish op-eds, give public talks, and sit down with policymakers who want some depth on a knotty issue.

Success also means drawing in more What we see in SSN, both in the state of Maine and nationally, is a wide array and more good people from colleges and of scholars writing on timely, contemporary topics. It will continue to be our universities. We will soon have additional intent to ensure that legislators and policymakers have access to timely, sound regional networks—four to six new ones are research on the array of issues confronting the state and nation to enable them in the process of forming—and I personally to develop and implement sound, substantial, and useful policies. aspire to sign up members in every one of the 50 states! SSN is proving an attractive idea to many scholars. When I sit down with younger scholars, for example, and keep spreading the word. Every member becomes explain that they can keep right on doing their speciala recruiter of others. It is working so far, and even ized research, publishing in academic journals, but though the effort has taken an overwhelming amount also, at the same time, use our briefs to get their ideas of time from me and others, we are on a roll and out to broader audiences, their eyes light up. There will keep going. is a huge untapped yearning for engagement with fellow American citizens among university and college Please turn the page for information about the authors. scholars. SSN offers a way to do that. We need to View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 109

Martha Stewart

THEDA SKOCPOL INTERVIEW

Theda Skocpol is the Victor

Amy Fried is a professor

S. Thomas Professor of

of political science at

Government at Harvard

the University of Maine.

University and the national

Co-leader of the Maine

director of the Scholars

chapter of the Scholars

Strategy Network, which

Strategy Network and

brings together scholars

biweekly columnist for

across the country to

the Bangor Daily News,

address public challenges

Fried’s most recent book is

and their policy implications. Her most recent books

Pathways to Polling: Crisis, Cooperation and the Making

include The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican

of Public Opinion Professions.

Conservatism (with Vanessa Williamson) and Health Reform and American Politics: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Lawrence Jacobs).

Luisa S. Deprez is professor in the Department of Sociology and in the Women and Gender Studies Program at the University of Southern Maine. She has written The Family Support Act of 1988: A Case Study of Welfare Policy in the 1980s (2002) and coedited Shut-Out: Low Income Mothers and Higher Education in PostWelfare America (2004), along with numerous journal

articles and book chapters about the restrictions of current welfare policy on low-income women seeking to access higher education. Deprez is co-leader of the Maine chapter of the Scholars Strategy Network.

110 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

STUDENT PERSPECTIVE

Margaret Chase Smith Library 2012 Essay Contest First Place Essay

The Pursuit of Happiness

by Derek Sargent

Each year, the Margaret Chase Smith Library sponsors an essay contest for high school seniors. This year, students were invited to assess the current state of national affairs and describe their vision of the American Dream for the 21st century. We feature here the 2012 first-place prize-winning essay.

I

t is impossible to live a week in the U.S. and not hear something about the “American Dream.” The American Dream has inspired artists, writers, politicians, and teachers for centuries. Every year newspapers and magazines have articles about the American Dream from native-born Americans to immigrants.

Every election, politicians speak of their dreams in speeches. The film industry shows this dream in movie after movie to the enjoyment of millions. The American Dream is a powerful symbol. It is part of America like apple pie, baseball, and rock-and-roll music.

The phrase “American Dream” has been around since historian James Truslow Adams coined it in 1931 during the Great Depression. He described it in his book The Epic of America as a dream “in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be

recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”

Adams gave it the name, but the idea of America as a land of unlimited possibility and opportunity has been around since the country’s earliest days. Immigrants have been coming to America for nearly 400 years, searching for something better than the life that they left behind.

The wonderful thing about the American Dream is that the individual defines it. It does not come with a government mandate or “how to” manual.

In America, it is possible to design your own fulfilling life, create your own reality.

You—and only you—are its architect, builder, and owner. Yet, the words “American Dream” are misleading because it implies that there is only one dream.

Really, the American Dream has many definitions, and its definition depends on factors such as age, cultural identity, and citizenship status.

I conducted a survey of more than 200 people, asking them to describe the American Dream. For the majority, material prosperity is at the heart of the American Dream. For many, their dream is symbolized in home ownership. Also, there is a hope that their children will be able to rise to a higher social class. Their American Dream was the opportunity to save, invest in the future, and own things.

For some adults, financial abundance was second to quality of life in their vision of the American Dream. These people said the ability to enjoy good health was a primary priority. As one person said, “You can have all the money in the world, all the spare time, all the friends, but what good is it, if you are dying of an incurable disease?” Interestingly, many said that freedom was an important part of the American Dream. They spoke of the right to decide how to live one’s life.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

For others, the American Dream is living in a country where all citizens have equal rights and opportunities. America’s minorities who have experienced discrimination have a dream to eliminate inequality and prejudice. Martin Luther King Jr. described his dream on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC, on a hot summer day on August 28, 1963, that all citizens will receive equal protection under the United States Constitution and that “they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Sadly, discrimination still exists, but since the civil rights movement more Americans have achieved their dream.

For many of America’s immigrants today, the American Dream is primarily about enjoying civil rights as well as the opportunity for economic success. This is especially true for new Americans emigrating from countries that suppress political and religious diversity and persecute those who disagree with the government. An American immigrant from Vietnam said, “My parents came here for opportunities, better living standards, equal rights, but most of all freedom of speech, thought, and worship.” These immigrants can take comfort in the words inscribed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty: “Your huddled masses yearning to be free.”

With the 21st century, Americans continue to pursue the American Dream—economic prosperity, personal liberty, civil rights. But still, achieving financial success seems to be fairly consistent with most Americans’ dreams. Few Americans will deny that we are intently focused on the “dollar.” In a society dedicated to capitalism, the ability to purchase a big house and a nice car separates those who are considered successful from those who are not.

Volume 21, Number 2 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 111

STUDENT PERSPECTIVE

Unfortunately, the method of acquiring this financial success has changed over the years. Earlier versions of the American Dream honored thrift and hard work as the preferred way to become successful. Today, however, many Americans dream of shortcuts to wealth.

Get-rich-quick schemes have replaced industry or perseverance. Rather than adhering to the traditional work ethic, far too many Americans are pinning their hopes on “easy” money.

Instant wealth has not always been part of the American Dream. During the Colonial period, Benjamin Franklin counseled people on “The Way to Wealth” in Poor Richard’s Almanac with “early to bed, and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy, and wise,” and “industry pays debts.” This was not extravagant wealth, but rather economic independence and the opportunity for social advancement through financial gain. Abraham Lincoln insisted that the greatness of the American North was “the prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or lands, for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another beginner to help him.

This system opens the way for all.”

Following the Civil War, Americans still believed in thrift and hard work with the tales of Horatio Alger who overcame adversity through hard work, perseverance, self-reliance, and self-discipline. The rags-to-riches legend became part of the American story—anyone could succeed and achieve wealth if they worked hard.

Then these ideas of financial success were wrapped together in religion with the Protestant “work ethic.”

These ideas shifted with the rise of American industry. The machine and assembly-line production required a different worker. Now Americans became consumed by desires for material goods and status. Americans lost the sense of individuality, thrift, hard work, and

craftsmanship that had characterized America before.

However, this shift did not lessen people’s desire for the American Dream.

The difference is people feel like it is almost an “entitlement” and not something to work towards. For some Americans, hard work and thrift are no longer part of the vision of the American Dream. Now work is something you do until you “strike it rich.” The media tells Americans that the road to financial success is more luck than hard work.

Look at the game shows with thousands of people wanting to participate and win huge amounts of money. Yes, this is achieving the American Dream, but without hard work. Lotteries are just like game shows—easy money with little effort. One does not need to work hard to choose a series of numbers. Now you only work until you hit the Big Lotto or Powerball. Yes, these people believe in the American Dream. Although they admit that winning is a longshot, they nevertheless fantasize about the possibility.

Hope has always been part of the American Dream, but for many people today, hope in the American Dream emphasizes luck. The ethic of work, sacrifice, and moral responsibility is replaced with the ethic of luck. Beyond game shows and lotteries opening a path to the American Dream, there is “million-dollar injury.” Americans file tens of thousands of lawsuits each year in hopes of cashing in on a personal injury or productliability case. This is like a lottery because your chance is based on whether you can prove you are injured by someone whose product or conduct can be proved faulty, and your party’s insurance is sufficient for a large award, and whether you have a good lawyer. Just like game shows and lotteries, injury and product-liability lawsuits can be extremely lucrative.

Once again the traditional path to the American Dream is bypassed. For many people today, the ways of Benjamin

112 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · Summer/Fall 2012

Franklin and Abraham Lincoln are not the components of financial success.

But even today, after all of this, the rags-to-riches myth is still part of the American Dream, and people are still taught that hard work, frugality, and selfsacrifice can help a person achieve financial success and social mobility. Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, and Horatio Alger instilled hope in generations of Americans. All three helped to establish basic guidelines for success in a land of infinite possibility—America.

In a great country where people are different from one another in so many ways, the American Dream is one of the strongest ties we share with one another.

North to south, east to west, across all lines of ethnicity, color, religion, and gender, Americans share in the aspiration of the American Dream. America’s immigrants remind us—by their success—that the American Dream is alive and well and within reach of anyone willing to work for it. What Americans should worry about is the day immigrants no longer find America attractive.  Derek Sargent graduated from Acadia Christian School in 2012 and is enrolled at the University of New England on a merit scholarship, planning to major in exercise science. While attending Acadia Christian, he was on the honor roll and received the Maine Principal’s Award. His extracurricular activities included captaining the soccer and basketball teams.

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

STUDENT PERSPECTIVE

Thanks to Our Reviewers…

We would like to extend our sincere thanks and appreciation to all those who took time to review articles submitted for consideration for Volume 21 of Maine Policy Review.

Their insights and recommendations assist us in our editorial decisionmaking, and provide valuable feedback to authors in revising their articles to be suitable for publication in the journal.

The following individuals reviewed articles for Volume 21 (2012):

James M. Acheson

Peter Mills

Thomas G. Allen

Charles Morris

William Brennan

Beth Nagusky

Britt Cline

Kenneth L. Nichols

Mary Davis

Linda Silka

Catherine Dickerson

Sharon Tischer

Todd Gabe

Richard G. Woodbury

Ellen Hawes Karen Hutchins Laura Lindenfeld Bridie McGreavy

View current & previous issues of MPR at: digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mpr/

Volume 21, Number 1 · MAINE POLICY REVIEW · 113

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!

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

5784 York Complex, Bldg. #4 Orono, ME 04469-5784

Maine Policy Review