Danbury Leads CT in 5-Year Job Growth; 41st in Ranking of 50 States’ Leaders

When job growth is measured over the past five years, Danbury leads the way in Connecticut. An analysis of changes in employment figures between 2013 and 2018 from the 381 metropolitan areas defined by the U.S. Census Bureau focused on the leading city in each state, and ranked them. The analysis, by the website howmuch.net, found that Danbury - which saw job growth of 6.6 percent - outpaced Connecticut’s largest cities, but that the leading city in 40 of the 50 states had a stronger track-record.

The leading cities in five-year job growth were Lake Charles, LA: 28.3%; Bend-Redmond, OR: 26.6%; Elkhart, IN: 24.0%: St. George, UT: 23.4%; Greeley, CO: 21.1%; Gainesville, GA: 20.9%; Fayetteville, AR: 20%; Boise City, ID: 18.6%; Austin, TX: 18.4%; and Reno, NV: 18.0%.  The analysis notes that the top cities “are truly remarkable job markets at the center of the recovery, perhaps because they were hardest hit by the recession.”

The standing of Austin, Charlottesville and Nashville are noted for “a reputation as fun destinations with music and tech scenes. They are mid-sized cities with universities, hospitals, and large well-known employers. These are the ingredients for long-term economic growth and positive employment numbers.”

“In many ways, Danbury is the forgotten city in Fairfield County up north here,” P.J. Prunty, executive director of the Greater Danbury Chamber of Commerce, told the Danbury News-Times earlier this year. “These statistics show that people are attracted to a city that has opportunity and good employment. It’s growing, and that’s a good thing. People are voting with their feet by moving here.”  Back in April, the Danbury Labor Market Area had the lowest unemployment rate of the nine LMAs in the state. The Danbury LMA outpaced the state and national unemployment rates, the News-Times reported.

Leading the way in the five-year analysis, released this month, are Barnstable in Massachusetts, at 13.7 percent employment growth; in New Hampshire it is Portsmouth at 10.1 percent, in Rhode Island, Providence/Warwick at 7.7 percent; Maine the greatest job growth has been in Portland/South Portland at 7.1 percent.  Vermont is the only New England state with a leading city growing jobs at lower rate than Connecticut’s – Burlington/South Burlington at .8 percent.  Only Alaska and Wyoming are lower, rounding out the 50 states.

Also noted:  “Some places are factory towns with unsustainable growth rates. Others are truly remarkable places to live with thriving, growth-oriented economies, and still others are barely seeing any benefits from the economic recovery.”

Accelerating Efforts to Prevent Suicide in CT as Numbers Climb

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a report this year which indicated that suicide rates nationally jumped by 25 percent since 1999, a finding that “shocked” even experts who believed the rate had been flat. Each year, more than 41,000 individuals die by suicide, leaving behind their friends and family members to navigate the tragedy of loss, according to the National Alliance on Mental Illness. Connecticut's rate, 9.7 deaths per 100,000, rose 20 percent during that time, and 49 states saw an increase, according to the CDC. Connecticut’s suicide rate, is ranked number 46 in the country.

Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the U.S. with one occurring on average every 13.3 minutes.

For every suicide, there are 30 people who made the attempt, Dr. James F. O'Dea, vice president of the Behavior Health Network of Hartford Healthcare, recently told the Meriden Record-Journal.  The U.S. Health Resources & Services Administration reports that “approximately 45% of suicide victims had contact with primary care providers within 1 month of suicide.”

“Connecticut suicide rates may have not have increased as much in comparison to other states, but isn’t the real question, ‘Why is it increasing at all?’” Luis Perez, president and CEO of Mental Health Connecticut, told The Hartford Courant earlier this year.

“It’s been well-researched that most people who die by suicide do so because they want the pain to stop — and they don’t see any other way,” Perez said. “Prevention is critical. Knowing the safe and right way to talk to someone who may have thoughts of suicide and letting people know they are not alone, that millions of people struggle with suicide ideation is key.”

According to the state Department of Public Health, approximately 31 percent of victims had a history of treatment for mental illness and 42 percent had previously attempted or thought about suicide or disclosed their intent to commit suicide. The CDC offers 5 steps to help someone at risk: 1. Ask. 2. Keep them safe. 3. Be there. 4. Help them connect. 5. Follow up.

The U.S. government’s anti-bullying website, stopbullying.com, points out that “many issues contribute to suicide risk, including depression, problems at home, and trauma history. Additionally, specific groups have an increased risk of suicide, including American Indian and Alaskan Native, Asian American, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth.”  The site indicates that “this risk can be increased further when these kids are not supported by parents, peers, and schools. Bullying can make an unsupportive situation worse.”

Matt Riley, Chief Operating Officer of the Connecticut-based Jordan Porco Foundation, recently told WTNH-TV that suicide is the second leading cause of death for Americans ages 15 to 24. One in ten college students and one in five high school students consider suicide. Young people considering suicide are most likely to talk to peers, so the Jordan Porco Foundation focuses on peer-to-peer outreach and awareness, with a series of successful program initiatives on college campuses in Connecticut and across the country.

In recent years, a new student-driven primary prevention program was piloted to help high school students develop positive coping skills and enhance protective factors in preparation for life beyond high school. Schools and organizations participating included Manchester High School, Immaculate High School in Danbury, Enfield Public Schools, Capital Preparatory High School in Hartford, Institute of Living in Hartford, Jewish Family Services in West Hartford, Wilton High School, Boys & Girls Club of Bristol, and Guilford Youth & Family Services.

Numerous organizations across Connecticut offer Mental Health First Aid, an 8-hour training to teach participants how to help someone who is developing a mental health problem or experiencing a mental health crisis. The evidence behind the program demonstrates that it helps trainees identify, understand and respond to signs of mental illnesses and substance use disorders.  The course is often offered to participants free of charge.

https://youtu.be/jl87bmuCTdM

https://youtu.be/TT_HLG5FkKA

UConn Analysis Has Role in Ensuring Integrity of State Elections

Little known even by University of Connecticut advocates across the state, the flagship university’s Voting Technology Research Center (VoTeR) advises the state on the use of election technology, investigates voting solutions and voting equipment, and develops and recommends safe-use procedures for electronic systems used in the electoral process. VoTeR will be at it again as a follow-up to Election Day, analyzing the technology and tabulations, as they’ve done before.

The Center’s website notes that “starting in 2008 the Center has performed technological audits and assisted in the hand-counted audit procedures in all statewide elections in Connecticut.”  Stated goals are “to ensure the integrity of the election outcomes conducted with electronic voting systems and to continuously assess the security and dependability of such systems.”

Alexader Russell, a Professor of Computer Science and Mathematics at the University of Connecticut, leads the Center. He holds a B.A. from Cornell University and both an M.S. and a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The mission of the VoTeR Center is to advise state agencies in the use of electronic election technologies, to investigate voting solutions and voting equipment, and to develop and recommend safe use procedures for electronic systems used in the electoral process.

“Of course, the most sensational attack against an electronic voting system is one which undetectably changes the reported outcome of an election,” Russell recently told UConn Today. “While the James Bond-appeal of these attacks elevates them to a common topic of conversation, the fact of the matter is that along the spectrum of various attacks those are comparatively difficult, expensive, and high-risk.”

A 2014 study published in the Journal of Election Technology and Systems concluded that “audits are a critical procedural component of the electoral process to guarantee the proper conduct of an election.”  The study, by Laurent D. Michel, Alexander A. Shvartsman and Nikolaj Volgushev of the Center, noted audits “can be valuable in the forensic analysis of data collected from voting terminals” used during an election. The system referenced in the study “was rigorously tested against several thousand event logs collected in real elections in the State of Connecticut.”

The statistical analysis of the post-election audit data for the November 2016 presidential election undertaken by the Center was released earlier this year, in June.  The analysis of 615 records “revealed no indication suggesting inaccuracy in the tabulator counts in the audited districts.”  The analysis, of 10 percent of the districts randomly selected by the Office of the Secretary of the State, was performed at the request of that office which oversees Connecticut elections in conjunction with municipal officials.

The analysis indicated that “445 records (72.4%) show no discrepancy, 85 records (13.8%) show discrepancy of 1 vote. There are 58 records (9.4%) showing a discrepancy of 2 or 3 votes; 14 records (2.3%) showing a discrepancy of 4 to 6 votes; 6 records (1%) showing a discrepancy of 7 to 10 votes; 3 records (0.5%) showing a discrepancy of 11 to 20 votes and 4 records (0.6%) showing a discrepancy of more than 20 votes.”

“The main cause for discrepancies between the hand and machine counts,” the review concluded, “appears to be human error in counting as reported by the auditors.”

Steps like training voting staff in best practices, and teaching them what to look out for in terms of suspicious activity, are key to safeguarding the entire voting system, UConn Today reported, indicating that Russell believes Connecticut has done a good job in these areas.

“One present difficulty is that vendors are primarily focused on functionality and ease-of-use rather than security,” Russell added. “In fact, we even lack clear standards for exactly what ‘security’ means for voting equipment.”

Connecticut makes certain that optical scan tabulators are not connected to the internet, and that each town performs logic and accuracy testing before each election or primary, to ensure that the voting equipment and ballots accurately collect the votes and tabulate the results, he noted.

More than 20 states – including Connecticut - faced cybersecurity threats in the 2016 election.

Westport Earns Top 20 Ranking Among Nation's Small Cities; Shelton Reaches Top 100

For those looking to identify the best small cities in the nation - with populations between 25,000 and 100,000 – the search may not need to go further than Connecticut, according to a new analysis. Westport was the lone Connecticut community to reach the top 20 nationally, at number 19, with Shelton also earning a place in the top 100, at number 85, and Norwalk (#146), Trumbull (#157) and West Hartford (#159) also reaching the top 200.

The analysis, by the financial services website WalletHub, was based on 40 key indicators of livability, ranging from housing costs to school-system quality to restaurants per capita.  The indicators were grouped into five categories – affordability, economic health, education & health, safety, and quality of life.

On those scales, Westport was ranked 20^th in education & health, 65^th in safety, 82^nd in economic health, 258 in affordability and 595 in quality of life.  Other than Westport, no Connecticut community reached the top 30 in any overall category.

"Of the 22 Connecticut cities analyzed, 18 ranked in the top half. This is an indication that many Connecticut communities are able to offer high quality of life at low living costs," said WalletHub analyst Jill Gonzalez.  "Westport in particular made it to the top of our ranking due to several factors. The city has a very healthy economy, demonstrated by the fact that its residents have one of the highest median household incomes, and had absolutely no personal bankruptcies filed in the past year. It also has one of the lowest crime rates in the country."

Westport tied for fourth in the U.S. for the highest percentage of the population with a high school diploma or higher.  Trumbull had the second lowest percentage of population in poverty in the U.S., just behind Plainfield, lllinois.

Just outside the top 200 communities, were Stratford, Milford, Middletown, Danbury, Newington, Torrington, Bristol, Manchester, and Naugatuck.

Nationwide, among the 1,200 communities included in the analysis, leading the way were Leawood, KS; Carmel, IN; Princeton, NJ; Brentwood, TN; Milton, MA; Needham, MA; Los Altos, CA; Littleton, CO; Newton, MA; and West Fargo, ND.  Massachusetts placed three communities in the top 10 and a total of six in the top 20.  Also reaching the top 20 from the Bay State were Arlington, Melrose and Wellesley.

National Startup Analysis Sees Potential, Standout Efforts Underway in Hartford

A new analysis of the status of the business startup community in six American cities – including Hartford – has found that Connecticut’s Capitol City has “strong startup potential,” and in some ways is already standing out among peers and competitors. Startup Genome, with support from the Kauffman Foundation, selected six U.S. metropolitan areas that are not in the top 40 most populous and which have been faring less well economically than the country as a whole for a deeper analysis.  In addition to Hartford, the analysis includes Albuquerque, Fresno, New Orleans, Reno and Springfield, MA.

“In each of these metros, efforts are underway to support entrepreneurs, create more startups, and generate stronger economic trajectories. Like many other American cities (and elsewhere), they’ve been through economic ups and downs and now see startups as their next best hope for sustainable and broadly-shared growth,” the report, released this week, points out.  Startup Genome works to increase the success rate of startups and improve the performance of startups across more than 30 countries.

“Every startup ecosystem shows room for growth and improvement, and Hartford has key strengths to build on. The city's strong heritage in insurance is already being leveraged by many stakeholders and the ecosystem is clearly attracting experienced talent to start and join companies,” Dane Stangler, president & chief policy officer of Startup Genome told CT by the Numbers.

In Hartford, reSET, which specializes in encouraging and assisting entrepreneurship and social enterprise, was among several local partners with whom Startup Genome worked to gather data from more than 300 respondents.  Additional partners were the MetroHartford Alliance, Wesleyan University, UConn’s Connecticut Center for Entrepreneurship and Innovation, Upward Hartford,  as well as Launch EZ, the West Hartford Chamber of Commerce and others.

“More broadly, Hartford shows greater diversity than peer ecosystems and already has a few hundred startups operating. By continuing to strengthen the local culture and focusing on startup success in key areas, the Hartford economy will enjoy higher levels of job creation and growth,” Stangler added.

Hartford and the other cities were determined to be in the Early Activation phase of the Ecosystem Lifecycle, with a mix of prominent attributes and areas with potential yet to be realized.  In its analysis, the report indicates that “just in the span of a few years the startup scene has exploded,” in Hartford, noting that:

• investors and experts in Hartford provide more hours of help to founders than in the other cities, and more than the global average. (Experts include university faculty, corporate employees, mentors, and others.)
• nearly four in 10 founders in Hartford are women, which is twice the global average across all ecosystems in the Startup Genome database.
• 11 percent of startup founders in Hartford are immigrants, the second-highest in the sample.

“We’re so grateful that Startup Genome was able to include Hartford in its recent analysis of early-stage ecosystems, thanks to support from the Kauffman Foundation,” said reSET Managing Director Ojala Naeem.  “Our great city is too often overlooked, and with local and state funding being what they are, national attention on all of the amazing businesses making an impact here is more important than ever. We have so many smart and motivated entrepreneurs who are worthy of investment consideration. They just need a spotlight.”

The comprehensive assessment of Hartford’s ecosystem also noted that “Hartford’s [startup] founders claim to have the right ambition to go global,” concluding that “Hartford’s startups have more potential to strengthen Global Market Reach and Global Connectedness.” In a number of areas analyzed in the assessment, Hartford is seen as having potential to strengthen the local startup community, its reach beyond Hartford, and the demographic of startup teams.

During the past seven years Startup Genome has provided a way for entrepreneurs everywhere to “tell us about their journeys and their regions - giving their local expertise a voice at the policy-making table.” The organization’s primary research with founders, supplemented with secondary research and data from global and local partners, helps create the world’s most comprehensive research on startups. Approximately 10,000 startup founders fill out global survey providing direct input each year.

“Hartford has some record of successes – generating more will help ecosystem size and performance,” Startup Genome observed in its assessment of Hartford.

Report Provides Guidance for School Districts and State Policymakers to Address Students’ Trauma & Mental Health Needs

It is described as a “framework to advance policy and strategic school district planning to more effectively address the mental health and trauma needs of students and promote student success.”  A new report, driven by research highlighting the connection between mental health and educational outcomes, is aimed at school districts looking to increase integration of student mental health services and supports. The 40-page report, developed by The Child Health and Development Institute of Connecticut (CHDI), a subsidiary of the Children’s Fund of Connecticut, in partnership with the national Center for School Mental Health at the University of Maryland, provides a framework for policymakers and school districts interested in improving outcomes by addressing the mental health and trauma needs of students. The report indicates that “in a typical classroom of 25 students, approximately five will meet criteria for a mental health disorder but most of them are not receiving appropriate mental health treatment or support. Among those who do access care, approximately 70 percent receive services through their schools.”

Connecticut is cited as an example of how states can promote collaborations within and across the behavioral health, education, and juvenile justice systems to provide an array of trauma-informed, evidence-based, and tiered services for students.  It notes that school principals indicate that mental health is one of the most challenging unmet needs among their students and schools are increasingly seen as a critical setting for the delivery of mental health services.

The report provides “a blueprint and resources to guide state policymakers and school district leaders," including:

• an overview of core components of the Comprehensive School Mental Health
• Systems (CSMHS) model structured around family-school-community partnerships and the delivery of evidence-based mental health services within a multi-tiered system of supports;
• examples of best practice strategies to develop, implement, and sustain CSMHS;
• a model for a trauma-informed multi-tiered system of supports for school mental health;
• creative approaches to advance policy and funding structures to sustain CSMHS; and
• recommendations for state-level policymakers, districts, and schools to advance a comprehensive statewide system of school mental health to improve outcomes for all students.

“Approaching student mental health with a comprehensive lens that integrates health promotion, prevention, early intervention, and more intensive treatments leads to better school, student and community outcomes," said Dr. Sharon Hoover, Co-Director of the Center for School Mental Health at the University of Maryland and lead author of the report.

National prevalence rates indicate that approximately 20 percent of children meet criteria for a mental health disorder; however, many children’s mental health needs are not identified and the majority of children with identified challenges do not receive services, the report explained.  Among those who do access care, approximately 70 percent receive services through their schools. Linking children to services through their schools reduces many traditional barriers to care. School mental health services are also associated with higher completion rates than treatment delivered in traditional outpatient community-based settings.

The report uses Stamford Public Schools (SPS) as a” local model for improving outcomes by adopting a trauma informed approach to school mental health.” CHDI began working with SPS in 2014 to conduct a review of the district’s mental health system and to develop a plan to enhance trauma-informed mental health services district-wide.  That plan was subsequently implemented, and “lessons learned in Stamford are being used to engage other Connecticut districts to … integrate school and community-based mental health services, and promote quality and sustainability of these enhancements.”

“Schools are well positioned to promote wellness and social emotional competence for all students, as well as identify and address mental health concerns for students in need,” said Dr. Jeana Bracey, Director of School and Community Initiatives at CHDI and report co-author. “However, the responsibility is not on schools alone to integrate or fund these supports. This framework helps districts connect to and collaborate with Connecticut’s robust network of trauma-informed state and community-based services and programs so all students can be successful.”

The report concludes that a “systematic and streamlined partnership between families, schools, and communities to support a continuum of mental health supports in schools can lead to better behavioral health for all students, as well as increased access, earlier identification and intervention, and ultimately better outcomes for students with mental health challenges.”

[Visit wwws.chdi.org to download the IMPACT report or to read more about CHDI’s work related to school mental health.]

CT Minimum Wage Tied for 10th Highest in USA

Connecticut's state minimum wage rate is $10.10 per hour, greater than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 but not nearly the highest in the nation. The top five states are District of Columbia: $12.50 per hour; Washington: $11.50 per hour; California: $11.00 per hour; Massachusetts: $11.00 per hour and Oregon: $10.75 per hour, according to U.S. Department of Labor data analyzed by the website howmuch.com.  Arizona and Vermont are just behind the leaders at $10.50, followed by New York at $10.40 and Colorado at $10.20.  Maryland, Hawaii and Rhode Island join Connecticut at $10.10 in a four-way tie.

The Connecticut minimum wage was last changed in 2008, when it was raised $2.45 from $7.65 to $10.10. A proposal considered by the Connecticut legislature in 2018 – but not approved - would have raised the state minimum hourly wage from $10.10 to $12 on Jan. 1, 2019; from $12 to $13.50 on Jan. 1, 2020; and from $13.50 to $15 on Jan. 1, 2021. After reaching $15 in 2022, it would have indexed any future increases to annual increases in the consumer price index.  A similar proposal is expected to be considered when the legislature next convenes in January.

The federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour, a rate used by 20 states. That includes five states – Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Tennessee – that have no state minimum wage laws and therefore the federal minimum wage is the default.  And two states – Georgia and Wyoming – have minimum wages below the federal level, so the federal minimum is in effect. 

The Massachusetts minimum wage will rise to $15 an hour over five years under legislation approved earlier this year, becoming the third state – after California (effective 2022) and New York – to approve legislation putting the state on a path to a $15 minimum wage in the years ahead.  In New York, the current rate of $10.40 will increase incrementally in the coming years, to $12.50 as of January 1, 2020. Thereafter, it will be adjusted annually for inflation until it reaches $15.00.

Delaware enacted a two-step increase in 2018. The rate rises from $8.25 to $8.75 effective January 1, 2019, and will increase again to $9.25 effective October 1, 2019.

Eighteen states began 2018 with higher minimum wages than the previous year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Eight states (Alaska, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, and South Dakota) automatically increased their rates based on the cost of living, while eleven states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington) increased their rates due to previously approved legislation or ballot initiatives.

Seattle, Washington’s largest city and half of the state’s population, has moved toward a local minimum wage of $15 per hour, based on a city law passed in 2014 that incrementally increased the local minimum over several years.

New Haven, Bridgeport at Bottom of Ranking for Disability-Friendly Cities

Connecticut’s two largest cities are not particularly hospitable for individuals with disabilities, according to a new national analysis.  New Haven and Bridgeport are at the bottom of a list of 182 cities that were included in the review, released this month to coincide with National Disability Employment Awareness Month The personal-finance website WalletHub compared the largest U.S. cities – including at least two from each state - across 31 key indicators of disability-friendliness. The data set ranges from wheelchair-accessible facilities per capita to rate of workers with disabilities to quality of public hospital system. The 31 indicators were grouped into three categories:  Economy, Quality of Life and Health Care.

The report on 2018’s Best & Worst Cities for People with Disabilities placed New Haven at the bottom of the list, and Bridgeport just two positions higher.  They were the only Connecticut cities evaluated in the analysis.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, one in four U.S. adults, or 61 million total, have a disability that impacts their major activities. And among Americans age 65 and older, that number rises to two in five. In 2017, nearly 5.7 million people with disabilities were employed.

New Haven, which ranked number 182 overall, ranked 180 in Economy, 134 in Quality of Life and 173 in Health Care.  Bridgeport, just above New Haven at number 179 in the overall ranking, placed 164 in Economy, 128 in Quality of Life and 163 in Health Care.

WalletHub analyst Jill Gonzalez explained that among the metrics dragging down New Haven's overall ranking was the second lowest employment rate for people with disabilities, at 71.03 percent. This refers to the civilian non-institutionalized population aged 18-64 in the labor force. Other areas where New Haven ranked poorly, Gonzalez pointed out, were the share of people with disabilities living in poverty, which is almost 37 percent, and the relatively low number of family doctors and general practitioners per capita.

Bridgeport ranked as the fourth worst city for people with disabilities. One of the issues driving the ranking, Gonzalez said, was similar to New Haven's - a low employment rate for people with disabilities, at 74.28 percent. The other issues are mostly related to the quality of life.

“Bridgeport has one of the lowest number of wheelchair accessible art, entertainment and recreational establishments per capita, and a large number of older buildings with little to no access for disabled residents," Gonzalez said.

The analysis found that only Detroit had a lower employment rate for individuals with disabilities that New Haven.  On the overall list, Providence, RI was just one notch above New Haven, at the bottom of the rankings.

The cities ranked at the top of the list were Overland Park, KS; South Burlington, VT; Sioux Falls, SD; Scottsdale, AZ; Columbia, MD; San Francisco; Rapid City, SD; St. Louis, MO; Bismarck, ND; and Grand Rapids, MI.

Data used to create this ranking, according to WalletHub, were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Council for Community and Economic Research, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Education Statistics, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Trust For Public Land, Genworth Financial, United Cerebral Palsy, WalkScore, Yelp, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, Affordable Housing Online, Kaiser Family Foundation, Eligibility.com, Redfin and WalletHub research.

Income Inequality Increasing Faster in CT Than US; Among Largest Disparities in Nation

In Connecticut, to earn a place in the top one percent would require making $700,800, the highest threshold in the nation.  The average annual income of the top one percent is also among the highest in the nation at $2,522,806.  That is 37 times the annual income of the bottom 99 percent, which is $67, 742, according to data analyzed by the Economic Policy Institute. The data reveal that the top one percent take home 27.3 percent of all the income in Connecticut, and that the share of income by the top one percent has increased at a faster rate in Connecticut in recent years than in the nation as a whole.

Connecticut ranks #3 of the 50 states in income inequality, based on the ratio of top one percent to bottom 99 percent income.  (New York’s top one percent makes 44 times the bottom 99 percent; Florida 39 times; Connecticut 37 times)  The Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk metro area is the most unequal metro area in Connecticut, the data indicate. The top 1 percent make 62.2 times more than the bottom 99 percent.

Overall in the Northeast, the top 1 percent take home 24.7 percent of all the income in the Northeast.  The average annual income of the top one percent is $1,777,756 compared with $54,662 for “everyone else,” the other 99 percent.  Nationwide, the top one percent take home an annual income of $1,316,985 versus $50,107 for the other 99 percent.   The most unequal metro area in the U.S. is Jackson, WY, where the top one percent make 132 times the rest of the population.

The data is based on an Economic Policy Institute report published this summer. EPI is an independent, nonprofit think tank based in Washington, D.C. that researches the impact of economic trends and policies on working people in the United States.

The report used 2015 data, the most recent available, finding that the top 1 percent of families in the U.S. earned, on average, 26.3 times as much income as the bottom 99 percent—an increase from 2013, when they earned 25.3 times as much.

Eight states plus the District of Columbia had gaps wider than the national gap. In the most unequal—New York, Florida, and Connecticut—the top 1 percent earned average incomes more than 35 times those of the bottom 99 percent.

The report found that income inequality has risen in every state since the 1970s and, in most states, it has grown in the post–Great Recession era. From 2009 to 2015, the incomes of the top 1 percent grew faster than the incomes of the bottom 99 percent in 43 states and the District of Columbia.

(Infographics:  Economic Policy Institute; howmuch.net)

Housing and Health - Foundations Fund Research in CT to Examine Relationship

Housing and health are increasingly the focus of study, to better determine how one impacts and influences the other.  Foundations at the state and national level are among those devoting resources in Connecticut to seek answers that can ultimately guide future public policy. With a $125,000 grant from the Connecticut Health Foundation, the Open Communities Alliance will work to create better links between housing and health care and set the stage for a two-year pilot program to enable interested families of children with acute asthma to move to healthier neighborhoods.

The “Healthy Housing Vouchers” project aims to use housing policy to improve health outcomes for low-income families and reduce health disparities, tying together clinical and nonclinical factors that affect people’s well-being. 

The Open Communities Alliance project will create a streamlined process for low-income families of children with asthma to help them access affordable housing in healthier communities if they choose. It will include referrals, counseling on the impact of environmental conditions on health, help identifying potential rental locations, and assistance with security deposits, moving expenses, and supportive services as they adapt to a new community. The initial participants in the pilot program will be low-income families who receive government-funded housing vouchers and have children with acute asthma.

The Connecticut Health Foundation will also be providing a $100,000 grant to support Connecticut Voices for Children’s work to promote policies that advance health equity for children and families. The work will include conducting policy research, producing educational materials and analyses to inform policymakers about issues affecting children and families, bringing together state agencies and advocates through the Covering Connecticut’s Kids and Families Coalition, and participating in state-run councils to represent research-based policy solutions.

These projects are among  11 awarded a total of $535,000 - announced this month - by the Connecticut Health Foundation, based in Hartford.  It is the state’s largest independent health philanthropy dedicated to improving health outcomes for people of color.

Earlier this year, the Connecticut Data Collaborative and the Liberal Arts Action Lab were awarded a 500 Cities Data Challenge grant by the Urban Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The joint proposal was one of 10 selected from a large competitive pool of applications submitted by organizations from cities across the United States.

The one-year $148,000 grant will support local research and educational outreach on housing conditions, health outcomes, and neighborhood disparities in the capital city of Hartford.

The Connecticut Data Collaborative is a nonprofit organization focused on providing public access to data, creating an ecosystem of data users, and increasing data literacy. The Liberal Arts Action Lab, launched in early 2018 by Trinity College and Capital Community College, investigates problems posed by Hartford community partners, with teams of undergraduate students and faculty fellows who conduct semester-long research projects to strengthen the city.

The Urban Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation designed this challenge grant to encourage communities to delve into the 500 Cities open-access dataset, to design innovative solutions on social factors that influence health, and to guide local organizations on how to effectively use neighborhood-level data. The broader goal is to promote more comprehensive cross-collaborative approaches to foster a broader “Culture of Health” in urban areas.