First Time Home Buyers: New Hartford, Westbrook, Coventry Most Attractive

In Connecticut, as elsewhere across the country, it is a home buyers’ market.  And that is especially prevalent in some of Connecticut’s smaller communities, and those in the central and northern parts of the state, according to an analysis by NerdWallet, a national finance website, which determined the top places for first-time homebuyers in Connecticut. The site identified the top communities for new home buyers, considering how much individuals would need to spend on a mortgage and examining the data on appreciation “to find the best locations, based on the health of the local housing market, the costs of housing, and the prosperity and safety in each community.”

“To be sure,” the website noted, “the state is not a magnet for first-time buyers based on affordability, but the places we identified stand out as being the most suitable for those looking for a foothold in the housing market.”

The top community was New Hartford, which was described as having “a population of just over 6,900, this small community was the 11th-safest among the 116 in the state we analyzed. Additionally, the select monthly ownership costs were the second-lowest among the top 10 cities, at $1,813; that’s $235 less than the median for all 116 communities.”

Runner-up was Westbrook, along the Connecticut shoreline.  Westbrook had “the second-most expensive home value among the top 10. But it also had the strongest home value growth rate among all 116 communities analyzed — a positive economic sign for homebuyers,” the website indicated.   “Although home values in many areas of the state fell between 2011 and 2014, they grew by 4.87% in Westbrook; that’s well above the median decline of 6.8% for all communities analyzed. Westbrook also had the lowest real estate tax rate among the top 10, at 1.15% of assessed value per year.

The top ten communities:

1. New Hartford
2. Westbrook
3. Coventry
4. Berlin
5. Colchester
6. Windsor Locks
7. Durham
8. Ellington
9. Marlborough
10. Windsor

Of Coventry, the third-ranked community, the website said: “Homeowners here see median monthly ownership costs of $1,883, which is $165 less than the median of all communities analyzed. Among the top 10 locations, it takes the third-shortest amount of time to save for a down payment in Coventry (19.86 years). With a crime rating of "safe," low poverty rates and home values nearly $20,000 less than the state median, Coventry could be an ideal location for first-time homebuyers if they can find employment within commuting distance.”

The fourth-ranked town, Berlin, was cited for its population growth, “the third-highest of all 116 communities analyzed, rising 3.34% between 2011 and 2014 — much higher than the median population growth of 0.5% for all places analyzed. The median home value here as of 2014 was $286,800, slightly higher than the median of all places analyzed.”

Colchester, with a median age of 39, was described as the youngest among the to 10, and Windsor Locks, home of Bradley International Airport, was highlighted for the affordability of its homes, “the least expensive” among the top communities.

Rounding out the top twenty were South Windsor, Canton, Haddam, Suffield, Glastonbury, Burlington, Tolland, East Hampton, Southington and Lebanon.  A total of 116 communities were ranked in the analysis, with Stamford, Ansonia, Waterbury, New Haven,  and Bridgeport at the bottom of the list.  

For their calculations, the website assumed a first-time homebuyer in Connecticut earns an annual income of $73,361, the 2014 state median for households headed by residents ages 25 to 44. They also assumed a personal savings rate of 4.8 percent, based on the U.S. 10-year average as measured by the Federal Reserve Bank. Assuming the homebuyers are starting with nothing in the bank, they then estimated how many years it would take to save for a 20 percent down payment

By following the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's recommendation that homeowners shouldn't allocate more than 28% of their gross monthly income to housing costs, NerdWallet analysts determined that a first-time homebuyer in Connecticut could afford to spend $1,712 a month on ownership costs — mortgage, taxes, utilities and insurance.

CT Medical Examining Board Website Ranked 15th in US

If you’re looking for information about your doctor, you may find yourself searching the website of the state medical board.  In states across the country, those are the agencies that license physicians and also discipline them for offenses including sexual misconduct, substance abuse, and negligent care. But the accuracy and completeness of the information you find varies from state to state, according to a new analysis from Consumer Reports, which ranked the Connecticut Medical Examining Board as 15^th in the nation for the information readily available to the public from the agency website.

Consumer Reports Safe Patient Project partnered with the nonprofit Informed Patient Institute to evaluate the websites of state medical boards in all 50 states. They found that most are difficult to navigate and the information on them varies widely.

Overall scores were based on eight categories:  Search Capabilities, Complaint and Board Information, Identifying Doctor Information, Board Disciplinary Actions, Hospital Disciplinary Actions, Federal Disciplinary Actions, Malpractice Payouts and Convictions.

Connecticut, with an overall score of 58, was rated good in four categories, very good in two, and excellent in one category.  Only one category was given a poor rating.

The highest rated state medical board websites were in California (84), New York (79), Massachusetts (78), Illinois (76), North Carolina (76), Virginia (72), New Jersey (70), Florida (70) and Texas (68).

The Federation of State Medical Boards, which represents the boards and facilitates communication among them, acknowledges that variation is a potential issue. “Consistency is certainly a worthy goal,” Lisa Robin, chief advocacy officer for the organization told Consumer Reports. “Looking at the disciplinary trends to make improvements in the system … we would always encourage that.” Still, she also says that, “the rate of discipline alone is probably not a good picture of really what the boards do and how well they’re able to protect patients in their state.”

But, as Consumer Reports’ analysis found, those state boards fall short in other measures, too. In fact, in many instances, physicians who have been severely disciplined continue to practice while their offenses remain relatively hidden, buried deep on the boards' websites or unavailable entirely online.

The Connecticut Medical Examining Board website includes a listing of disciplinary actions taken by the Connecticut Medical Examining Board or the Connecticut Department of Public Health but notes that “information is not intended for licensure verification purposes.”  Actions taken – ranging from reprimands to civil penalties to license suspension or revocation are listed.  Board meeting minutes are also available on the site, as well as procedures for individuals to file complaints.

Greater Hartford Residents Prefer Focus on Vibrant Communities Over Recruiting Businesses

In a time of reduced resources and stark choices for policy makers, a survey of Greater Hartford residents suggests that investments aimed at creating vibrant communities, with the focus on local schools, transportation options, walkable, attractive physical environment is preferred to devoting greater resources to recruiting employers. In a survey for the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving as part of the Metro Hartford Progress Points effort, and conducted by Inform CT, residents of Hartford and Tolland County, by 57 percent to 43 percent, said that investing in communities was a better approach than recruiting businesses.

The findings reaffirm one of the key goals in the new three-year strategic plan of HFPG, launched earlier this year, developing vibrant communities.  The plan states that “All of our region’s residents should have the opportunity to live and contribute to strong, safe vibrant communities,” and calls for a “focus on people and places with the greatest need by engaging and supporting partners who promote meaningful civic engagement, safe affordable housing, quality health and mental health care and a rich diversity of cultural and other experiences to improve the quality of life.”

The data from the survey reflect a difference of opinion among older residents of the region.  Individuals over age 46 took the opposite view from younger residents, with a majority expressing a preference for spending skewed toward recruiting companies.   The reversal was dramatic, with two-thirds of those age 36-45 preferring investing in communities, by a margin of 67%-33%, and individuals age 46-55 expressing a preference for resources to be aimed at recruiting companies, with two-thirds holding the opposite view, 63%-38%.

Across all age groups, a majority of homeowners preferred that the emphasis be on vibrant communities, 52%-48%, and an even larger majority of respondents who are not homeowners, 64%-36%, shared the same view.

The preference for policy to be targeted more towards assuring vibrant communities than recruiting companies was consistent across a majority of respondents of various education levels and among white, black and Hispanic residents of the region, according to the survey.  A majority of survey respondents who are currently employed full-time, as well as those working part-time, and those unemployed all expressed a preference for investing in communities rather than recruiting companies.

The Greater Hartford survey results are not inconsistent with data gathered elsewhere.  A March 2014 national survey by the American Planning Association (APA) found that Millennials and Baby Boomers want cities to focus less on recruiting new companies and more on investing in new transportation options, walkable communities, and making the area as attractive as possible. The national survey found that 65 percent of all respondents and 74 percent of millennials believe investing in schools, transportation choices and walkable areas is a better way to grow the economy than investing in recruiting companies to move to the area, according to the APA.

A 2013 study in Michigan, posing similar questions, brought similar results.  In the statewide survey, 64 percent of Michigan citizens said they believed the most important thing state government can do for job creation is to “provide quality education, good roads and transportation, good public services like safety, water, fire, parks and libraries that create an environment in which people want to live, work and run a business.”  This contrasts with 29 percent who said the most important thing state government can do is to “cut taxes for individuals and businesses.”

Earlier this month, at the annual Municipal Collaboration Summit organized by the Hartford Business Journal, one of the session’s was devoted to an exploration of “Building Vibrant Communities,” with observations from representatives of Connecticut Main Street Center, the Partnership for Strong Communities and the Connecticut Economic Resource Center.

The Hartford Foundation for Public Giving serves 29 towns, hundreds of nonprofits and more than 750,000 residents in the Greater Hartford region.  As Greater Hartford’s community foundation, HFPG brings together members of the community to “share information, understand local problems and put resources behind effective solutions.”

Developed by a group of key regional stakeholders, Metro Hartford Progress Points is a periodic 'check-up' to build greater understanding about issues facing the Greater Hartford community. The second edition of Progress Points, released late last year, takes a deeper look at key issues impacting our communities and how they are connected, with a particular focus on access to better schools, better jobs and stronger neighborhoods.  Along with the Hartford Foundation, partners include the Hispanic Health Council, MetroHartford Alliance, United Way of Central and Northeastern Connecticut, Urban League of Greater Hartford, Capitol Workforce Partners, Capitol Region Council of Governments, the Center for Urban and Global Studies at Trinity College and the City of Hartford.

The survey was conducted for the Foundation during the 4^th quarter of 2015 by Inform CT.

Influx of Chinese Students in CT High Schools Reflects National Trend

When the soon-to-be-vacated UConn campus in West Hartford attracted the interest of a Chinese education company looking to establish their first international high school in the United States, some may have been surprised by the interest by the interest in having American, Asian, and other international students live and receive instruction on the suburban campus. But for those who have noticed the nearly exponential growth of Chinese high school students coming to the United States to study, the proposal submitted to the town of West Hartford and the UConn Board of Trustees was less surprising.

Chinese made up 35 percent of the 92,000 foreign secondary school students in the United States in 2015, according to the US Department of Homeland Security, by far the largest group studying here, the Boston Globe reported this week. That number has grown rapidly from only dozens a decade ago, fueled by the growing middle class in China and a desire to their children to gain an early advantage in efforts to attend college in the United States.

The number of international students across New England, with its long history and tradition of private schools, rose from 9,338 in 2010 to nearly 14,000 last year.

In Connecticut, with the second largest international student population in the region, the number has quickly climbed from 2,548 to 3.548, an increase of 39 percent in the past five years, the Globe reported, based on data from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.   In Massachusetts, the number has jumped from 3,780 to 5,963 during the past five years.  Every New England state has seen the number of international students attending local high schools increase, which Chinese students spurring the growth.

The number of Chinese K-12 students rose 290% percent to 34,578 as of November 2015 from 8,857 five years previously, according to data collected by the Student Exchange and Visitor Program, a unit of the Department of Homeland Security that tracks foreigners on student visas and the schools they attend, the Wall Street Journal reported.  Chinese students make up roughly half of the 60,815 foreign pupils in U.S. high schools and the 6,074 in primary schools, according to the newspaper.

Founded in 1999, the Beijing-based Weiming Education Group is the largest and leading provider of private schools in China with over 40,000 students in 42 campuses. The Group, which is looking to establish the new international high school in West Hartford, has established a long-term international education partnership with more than 20 schools and education institutions from a dozen of countries including the United States, Britain, Canada, Singapore, and South Korea.

The company’s website points out that “Internationalized education has become the strategic direction” of the Weiming Education’s operation management, noting U.S. offices in Michigan and Connecticut. To date, about a half-dozen partner high schools in the United States are in Michigan.

The Hartford Courant reported last summer that Cheshire Academy, a private school with 400 boarding and day students in grades 8 through 12, had 85 students from mainland China this past academic year among its international contingent of 164 students from 32 countries, or more than 40 percent of its total enrollment.

West Hartford has yet to make a decision regarding the disposition of the UConn property, with a number of competing proposals under consideration.  The UConn Board of Trustees is poised to move forward with a sale of the property to Weiming, but the town retains right of first refusal, and ultimately has zoning control over the property, regardless of the owner.

Gender Identity in Schools Among Topics at Connecticut School Health Issues Conference

The keynote address “When Boys Will be Girls: Getting A Grip on Gender” will greet attendees – school nurses and school health officials from across Connecticut - attending the 38^th Annual School Health Conference on Thursday in Cromwell. “Critical Issues in School Health 2016,” a two-day conference, will have expert presentations on issues ranging from absenteeism to infectious diseases, food allergies to mental health.  But no issue has grown in attention and interest recently than how to respond to LGBT students in the school setting.

The conference is coordinated by the Connecticut chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics with the assistance of the Association of School Nurses of Connecticut.  

The keynote will be given by Robin McHaelen, MSW, founder and executive director of True Colors, a Hartford-based non-profit organization that works with social service agencies, schools, organizations, and within communities to ensure that the needs of sexual and gender minority youth are both recognized and competently met. McHaelen is co-author of several books and articles on LGBT youth concerns, and has a national reputation as a thought leader in LGBT youth concerns, programs and interventions.

In her presentation, titled “When Pink and Blue Are Not Enough,” McHaelen offers suggestions on working with LGBT students, and seeks to increase “understanding, knowledge and cultural competency regarding LGBT students,” while identifying issues of “risk, challenge and strengths specific to LGBT youth.”  She also will point to “opportunities for intervention that will ensure appropriate care within a safe, affirming environment.”

Among the recommendations:  offer gender-neutral bathroom options, always use the patients’ chosen name and chosen gender pronouns, and “recognize that there are additional stressors (and that there may be significant feat on the part of) transgender patients.” 

McHaelen will be offering a similar presentation at the New England School Nurse Conference, to be held in late April in Mystic, hosted by the Association of School Nurses of Connecticut.  The president of the Association is Suzanne Levasseur, Supervisor of Health Services for the Westport Public Schools.  The New England affiliates include Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.  The conference theme is “Waves of Change, Oceans of Opportunity.”

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students are the targets of bullying, harrassment, and disproportionately high discipline rates at school, researchers have pointed out. But without consistently collected, reliable, large-scale sources of data, it's difficult to track the extent of those problems or the effectiveness of proposed solutions, a group of researchers at Indiana University said in a briefing paper released this week.

Expanding existing federal surveys on youth safety and well-being to include more questions about gender identity and sexual orientation could provide a clearer picture, according to the researchers, noting that “if you don’t measure it, you can’t improve it.”  They suggest addressing the data gap by adding discipline and harassment items to existing health surveys that currently include measures of sexual orientation and gender identity, such as the Youth Risk Behavior Survey, collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Although these measures provide more specific information about sexual orientation and in some cases gender identity, they do not provide sufficient information about the specific negative outcomes experienced by LGBT students,” the research paper points out.  They conclude: “the availability of data documenting the experiences of LGBT students is a civil rights concern, and the expansion of data collection efforts to include sexual orientation and gender identity is a critical next step in ensuring the rights of LGBT and all students to participation and protection in school.”

The mission of the Association of School Nurses of Connecticut is to support, assist and enhance the practice of professional school nurses in their development and implementation of comprehensive school health services that promotes students' health and academic success.  The Connecticut Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics has over 600 active members committed to both improving the health and safety of Connecticut's children and supporting those who provide care to these children.

Increased Municipal Burden, Disproportionate Impact on Low-Income Drivers Among Possible Effects of Highway Tolls, Report Finds

If Connecticut opts to introduce a system of tolls on the state’s roads to help fund a significant expansion of transportation infrastructure projects in the years ahead, the toll system instituted could run the risk of causing an increased use of local roadways that “could shift the burden of maintenance and congestion to municipalities,” and lower income residents in the state could be faced with “a higher burden relative to their incomes than wealthier Connecticut residents.” Those warnings to policy makers are included in an Issue Brief  by Inform CT that reviews the various tolling options and respective challenges posed.  Connecticut eliminated tolls more than 30 years ago in the aftermath of a horrific accident at the Stratford toll plaza, and state leaders have been in a “perpetual debate about whether to reinstate them ever since,” the paper points out.

With overhauling the state’s transportation system is a leading element in Governor Malloy’s agenda to boost the state’s economy, renewed attention is being paid to methods of generating sufficient revenue to support those initiatives, and to issues raised in the 2015 policy brief.  Spurred by advances in technology, the possibility of imposing a system of electronic tolls, such as those in use in other states, are among the considerations, with border tolling, distance tolling and congestion pricing among the options.

The issue brief indicated that a disadvantage of a distance toll system on all limited access highways in Connecticut would be that it “could create an incentive for people to use alternative roadways. The increased use of these roadways could shift the burden of maintenance and congestion to municipalities.” The advantage would be that distance tolls “could help to more efficiently allocate the cost of these roadways to drivers who use them the most.”

In analyzing the potential impact of tolls placed at Connecticut’s borders, the policy paper notes that while such an approach would “help to ensure that out-of-state residents driving through Connecticut pay for their use of Connecticut’s roadways,” border tolls “place a disproportionate burden on residents of Connecticut who commute out-of-state to work. This burden is further amplified if we believe that, on average, these out-of-state commuters use a smaller share of the roadways than their in-state commuting counterparts.”

Congestion pricing, which provides for higher toll charges at peak traffic times, “helps to limit traffic on major roadways and create an incentive for people to use more environmentally friendly forms of public transportation,” the policy paper indicates.  However, a congestion pricing system “could polarize roadway use by displacing low income commuters during peak driving hours. Congestion pricing could also create displacement effects whereby the increased use of local roadways could shift the burden of maintenance and congestion to municipalities.”

The report suggests that “congestion pricing and distance tolls could become more affordable for low income residents if electronic payment systems were implemented that allow for income-based rate reductions.”

Earlier this year, a study panel recommended installing tolls and raising taxes in order to pay for Malloy's 30-year, $100 billion transportation program.  Legislators have said that any decision on the imposition of tolls is at least a year away, as attention focuses during the current session on establishing a method to assure that money allocated to transportation is not redirected to other areas of government.

The issue brief also stress that “a key consideration when trying to outweigh the benefits and costs of implementing tolling in Connecticut is how the revenue from the tax will be redistributed to the residents of the state.” It goes on to highlight that “as the bill stands, the monies raised would go into the Special Transportation Fund but allocation of the monies from there is not specified. The allocation of these funds is an important discussion that needs to take place before the impact of the legislation can be considered in earnest.”

InformCT is a public-private partnership that currently includes staff from the Connecticut Economic Resource Center and the Connecticut Data Collaborative. The mission of InformCT is to provide independent, non-partisan research, analysis, and public outreach focused on issues in Connecticut, and to act as the convener for fact-based dialogue and action.

Legislature to Examine Why Zero Convictions for Human Trafficking, Even As Incidents Increase in CT

Human trafficking is a form of modern-day slavery. This crime occurs when a trafficker uses force, fraud or coercion to control another person for the purpose of engaging in commercial sex acts or soliciting labor or services against his/her will.  It is happening in Connecticut. Connecticut’s Permanent Commission on the Status of Women (PCSW) is convening a Joint Informational Forum with the state legislature’s Judiciary, Public Safety and Security, and Children’s Committees on Thursday, March 31 at the Legislative Office Building to examine the issue, the response of law enforcement and other agencies in Connecticut, and where changes in state law need to be made.

A decade ago, in 2006, Connecticut enacted Public Act 06-43, which created the felony charge of trafficking in persons.

“And yet, since then, only 10 arrests have been made and there have been no convictions,” according to PCSW, which noted that during that same time, the Department of Children and Families has received more than 400 referrals of individuals with high-risk indicators for human trafficking that demanded a collaborative response, including the participation of law enforcement.  Those numbers have climbed each year, with 133 referrals in 2015, according to the Governor’s office. 

“We decided to convene trafficking experts because, as we learn more about human trafficking, in particular sex trafficking of adults and minors, we need to ensure that victims are supported and that law enforcement and prosecutors have the tools to adequately punish traffickers, those buying sex, and those permitting and facilitating the sale of sex in Connecticut,” said Jillian Gilchrest, senior policy analyst for the PCSW, and chair of the state's Trafficking in Persons Council.

“Although the legislature has made great strides to increase awareness and enhance training programs against human trafficking, and especially the sex trafficking of minors – the truth is that this modern-day slavery is a national issue,” said State Rep. Noreen Kokoruda, the ranking member of the General Assembly’s Committee on Children. “Connecticut must take the critical steps necessary to combat human trafficking and to make sure that the legislation we passed is enforced. In order to proactively address this issue, we need a collaborative effort from all agencies; this issue is simply too important to ignore.”

Data from the National Human Trafficking Resource Center (NHTRC) indicates that in 2015 there were 120 calls made and 39 human trafficking cases reported in Connecticut – the highest numbers in the past three years. The statistics are based on phone calls, emails, and webforms received by the NHTRC that reference Connecticut. The NHTRC works with service providers, law enforcement, and other professionals in Connecticut to serve victims and survivors of trafficking, respond to human trafficking cases, and share information and resources.

Since 2007, the NHTRC has received more than 600 calls to their hotline that reference Connecticut.  As Connecticut’s felony crime of trafficking in persons, Connecticut Statute §53a-192a approaches its 10-year- anniversary, members of the Judiciary, Public Safety, and Children’s Committees are interested in understanding why no one has been convicted under §53a-192a and what policy or legislative changes can help remove current barriers to prosecution in these cases, officials said.

In Connecticut, a person is guilty of trafficking in persons when such person compels or induces another person to engage in sexual contact or provide labor or services by means of force, threat of force, fraud or coercion. Anyone under the age of 18 engaged in commercial sexual exploitation is deemed a victim of domestic minor sex trafficking irrespective of the use of force, threat of force, fraud or coercion.

In a January report to the state legislature, the Trafficking in Persons Council pointed out that “Connecticut is not unique; there are many states that have yet to prosecute a trafficking case. In fact, according to the U.S. Department of State, as of 2011 only 18 states brought forward human trafficking cases under state human trafficking statutes.”

A series of proposals are now being considered by the state legislature.  In recent testimony, the PCSW pointed out that “the demand side of human trafficking and prostitution has all but been ignored in Connecticut. Arrests have been concentrated first on prostitutes, and secondarily on those buying sex. In fact, in the last 10 years in Connecticut, prostitutes were convicted at a rate of 7 times that of those charged with patronizing a prostitute It’s a basic premise of supply and demand: if you reduce the demand, you reduce the supply, which in this case, is the purchase of women and children for sex.”

In legislative testimony last month, the PCSW pointed out that “more and more trafficking and prostitution are being arranged online and taking place at hotels and motels throughout Connecticut. According to the National Human Trafficking Resource Center (NHTRC), Hotels and Motels are among the top venues for sex trafficking in Connecticut.”  PCSW stressed that “as we learn more about human trafficking, and what the crime looks like in Connecticut, we must ensure that our policies keep pace with that reality.”  Among the proposals is one designed to “give more tools to investigators,” Gov. Malloy and Lt. Gov. Wyman recently told a legislative committee.

The Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Council is chaired and convened by the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women and consists of representatives from State agencies, the Judicial Branch, law enforcement, motor transport and community-based organizations that work with victims of sexual and domestic violence, immigrants, and refugees, and address behavioral health needs, social justice, and human rights.

The report recommended that “Connecticut must ensure the creation of laws that address the continuum of exploitation, the implementation of laws, and the pursuit of criminal punishments for such cases. Sentences should take into account the severity of an individual’s involvement in trafficking, imposed sentences for related crimes, and the judiciary’s right to impose punishments consistent with its laws.”

Regarding victims of trafficking in Connecticut, the report recommended that “Key victim protection efforts include 3 "Rs" - rescue, rehabilitation, and reintegration. It is important that human trafficking victims are provided access to health care, counseling, legal and shelter services in ways that are not prejudicial to victims’ rights, dignity, or psychological well-being. Effective partnerships between law enforcement and service providers mean victims feel protected and such partnerships help to facilitate participation in criminal justice and civil proceedings.”

According to Rep. Rosa C. Rebimbas, ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, “Connecticut has made great strides to protect vulnerable women and children with strong laws against human trafficking, and resources to help them escape from the horrors of human trafficking, yet we are still behind when it comes to prosecution of the criminals who perpetrate such heinous offenses. We will continue to press for stronger laws to protect Connecticut residents, and to bring justice on their behalf.”

Combatting Childhood Obesity Starts From Day One; Wide-Ranging Policies Proposed

Less “screen time,” more physical activity, more nutritional foods and fewer sugary beverages – that’s the formula to prevent obesity from taking root in infants and toddlers in the formative years of childhood, according to new recommendations by the Child Health Development Institute (CHDI) of Connecticut.  A series of “science-based policy opportunities” for Connecticut, outlined this week, also include support for breastfeeding in hospitals and child care centers. The need for stronger action is underscored by recent statistics.  In Connecticut, one of every three kindergartners is overweight or obese, as is one of every three low-income children. Children who are overweight or obese are more likely, according to the policy brief, to have:

• risk factors for future heart disease, such as high cholesterol and high blood pressure
• a warning sign for type 2 diabetes called “abnormal glucose tolerance,” although many children are being diagnosed with the full-blown disease in increasing numbers
• breathing problems such as asthma
• gallstones, fatty liver disease, and gastroesophageal reflux (acid reflux and heartburn)
• problems with their joints

“Recent research shows that obesity may be very difficult to reverse if children are not at a healthy weight by 5 years of age,” the policy brief indicated. “Investing early in preventing childhood obesity yields benefits for all of us down the line by fostering healthier children, a healthier population overall and greatly reducing obesity-related health care costs over time.”

The policy brief recommends five ways Connecticut’s child care settings and hospitals can help our youngest children grow up at a healthy weight:

1. Support breastfeeding in hospitals and in child care centers and group child care homes.
2. Serve only healthy beverages in all child care settings.
3. Help child care centers and group child care homes follow good nutrition guidelines.
4. Increase physical activity time for infants and toddlers in all child care settings.
5. Protect infants and toddlers in all child care settings from “screen time.”

The recommendations stress that “talking, playing, singing and interacting with people promotes brain development and encourages physical activity,” and urges that healthy infant and toddler development be encouraged by:

• Never placing them in front of televisions, computers, or tablets to occupy them
• Never allowing infants and toddlers to passively watch a television, computer, mobile phone or other screen that older children in the same room are watching

“Healthy lifelong weight begins at birth,” said Judith Meyers, President and CEO of CHDI and its parent organization the Children’s Fund of Connecticut. “Investing in obesity prevention policies makes sense for Connecticut.”  Meyers added that “the numbers are staggering,” and it has become clear that “to really address this problem we need to prevent it in the first place.”

If Connecticut were to implement the five recommendations highlighted in the policy brief, it would be the first state in the nation to do so, officials said.  A number of the proposals have been successfully implemented in other jurisdictions, including states and cities.  Marlene Schwartz, Director of UConn's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, noted that Connecticut has long been a leader in providing nutritional lunches in schools, and said that now the state’s attention needs to move to the earlier years of childhood.  “The field has realized that we need to start even earlier,” she said.  Rudd also indicated that determining "policy changes that might help reduce the disparities" in Connecticut, which are apparent in race, ethnicity and socioeconomic data, is also essential.

Legislation now pending at the State Capitol, which is not as comprehensive as the policy brief recommendations, is designed to "increase the physical health of children by prohibiting or limiting the serving of sweetened beverages in child care settings, prohibiting children's access to certain electronic devices in child care settings, and increasing children's participation in daily exercise."  The proposed legislation, HB 5303, was recently approved by a 10-3 vote in the Committee on Children, but has an uncertain future before the full legislature.

Dealing with childhood obesity has been a challenge because of the “many different systems and programs that impact childhood development – which can also provide “many different places for opportunities to influence what happens.”  Officials said that some of the policy proposals can be realized through legislative action, others by regulatory changes, and others through voluntary initiatives.  They indicated that since Connecticut established the Office of Early Childhood in recent years, coordination of oversight and services has improved, which is an encouraging development.  Child care settings provide an opportunity to impact a large proportion of the state’s pre-kindergarten children, but plans to disseminate the message more broadly, including through pediatrician’s offices, are being considered. 

The recommendations call for “allowing toddlers 60-90 minutes during an 8-hour day for moderate to vigorous physical activity, including running, and “adherence to federal nutrition guidelines” including more whole grains and low-sugar cereals, no sugary drinks, and fewer fried foods and high-sodium foods.  Through 11 months, infants should be served “no beverages other than breast milk or infant formula, and those 12 months through 2 years old should be served no beverages other than breast milk, unflavored full-fat milk water, and no more than 4 ounces of 100% fruit juice.”

The CHDI policy brief indicates that “childhood obesity can contribute to poor social and emotional health because overweight and obese children are often bullied and rejected by their peers as a result of their weight. That stress can affect every part of their development, interfering with their learning (cognitive), health (physical and mental), and social well-being.”

The recommendations, described as “affordable, achievable, common sense measures,” were prepared for CHDI as part of a grant to the UConn Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity, funded by the Children’s Fund of Connecticut.  The author was public health policy consultant Roberta R. Friedman, ScM.

CHDI began focusing on strategies to promote healthy weight in children from birth to age two after publishing the IMPACT “Preventing Childhood Obesity: Maternal-Child Life Course Approach” in 2014. The report reviewed scientific research on the causes of obesity and explored implications for prevention and early intervention. In 2015, the Children’s Fund of Connecticut funded four obesity prevention projects in Connecticut that addressed health messaging, data development, policy development and baby-friendly hospitals.

Raising Revenue Getting Tougher for Towns, Cities in Connecticut; Property Tax Drives Disparities

The Connecticut Data Collaborative has launched a series of reports that will examine the fiscal situation of Connecticut’s 169 municipalities making the data compiled in several recent statewide initiatives that examined fiscal challenges facing the state and its towns more readily accessible to the public. The goal is to “highlight the major findings from these initiatives and reports; expand on the research that was done; present it through a new medium; and inform a broader audience on the work being done in the state.”

The first data story, published this month, highlights the findings from a report to the General Assembly’s Program Review and Investigations Committee prepared by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston’s New England Public Policy Center (NEPPC), “Measuring Municipal Fiscal Disparities in Connecticut.”

The conclusion: the capacity to raise revenue from property taxes is the main driver of fiscal disparities in Connecticut.

• 78 of 169 towns have a deficit, with revenue capacity below the cost of providing services. These 78 towns represent almost 60 percent of state’s population.
• 91 of 169 towns have sufficient capacity to raise revenue capacity to cover the cost of services.
• Municipal cost differences exist but are not as dramatic as the differences in the ability to raise revenue
• Current state non-school grants made to towns have a limited effect in reducing non-school fiscal disparities in Connecticut.
• Five cost factors were identified as driving non-school municipal costs: unemployment, population density, private sector wages, town road maintenance, and jobs per capita.
• Statistical analysis shows that the following factors do not impact costs: poverty, population, the share of foreign-born population, and the share of older rental housing units

The website points out that “a municipal gap exists when the costs are higher than the revenue raising capacity,” and provides an interactive town-by-town listing of the “gaps.”  The highlighted findings:

• The largest gaps are in Hartford (-$1,330), Bridgeport (-$1,168), New Haven (-$1,101), New Britain (-$1,056) and New London (-$896). The largest surpluses are in Westport, New Canaan, Darien, and Greenwich.  The data is FY 2007-2011, averaged.
• 78 towns in the state have a deficit - the capacity is below the cost of providing services. These towns cover almost 60 percent of state’s population.
• 91 towns have sufficient capacity to raise revenue greater than the cost of services. These towns cover 40 percent of the state’s population, primarily in Fairfield County, Litchfield and the shoreline.

Since property taxes are the primary way that municipalities raise revenue, the website examined the trends in the Equalized Net Grand List (ENGL) since 2011.  Overall, property tax revenue has been on the decline, the data indicated. An interactive table on the site shows - by town- the average annual growth rate (or decline) in the grand list from 2011 to 2014, and also shows the Municipal Gap calculated by the report. In total, ENGL has declined for 145 of the 169 towns since 2011 – “thus the revenue raising capacity for towns has only become more difficult.”

73 Local Health Departments Serve CT's 169 Municipalities

Connecticut has 73 local health departments serving the state’s entire population – individuals residing in the state’s 169 cities and towns. Data compiled by the state Office of Legislative Research breaks down the health departments by full-time and part time, as well as their geographic coverage. Of the 73 local health departments across the state, 53 are full-time departments, while the remaining 20 are part-time. The full-time departments include 33 individual municipal health departments and 20 health district departments (multi-town departments serving from two to 20 towns).

By law in Connecticut, a town may have a part-time health department if: (1) it did not have a full-time department or was not part of a full-time district before January 1, 1998, (2) it has the equivalent of one full-time employee, and (3) the Department of Public Health commissioner annually approves its public health program and budget.

According to the Department of Public Health (DPH), based on the state’s 2013 estimated population, full-time health departments (both municipal and district) serve about 95 percent of the state’s population, while part-time departments serve the remaining 5% percent, OLR reports.

Connecticut’s local public health system is decentralized and a local health department falls under the jurisdiction of its respective municipality or district. Staff are hired and employed by the municipal or district health department.

The law requires towns, cities, and boroughs to nominate a municipal health director, who must be approved by their respective legislative bodies and DPH. The DPH commissioner may remove the director for cause. The town, city, or borough may also take such action with the commissioner’s approval.

Municipal and district health departments enforce the state’s public health laws, rules, and regulations, including the Public Health Code. Responsibilities include jurisdiction to:

• examine and remediate public health hazards, nuisances, and sources of filth;
• levy fines and penalties for Public Health Code violations;
• grant and rescind license permits (e.g., for food service establishments or septic systems);
• establish fees for health department services;
• submit to DPH reports on reportable diseases from health care providers and clinical laboratories; and
• provide for sanitation services (district directors may serve as sanitarians as practical).

Full-time municipal and district health departments receive state funding. The legislature eliminated funding for part-time health departments in 2009, according to OLR.