Connecticut’s Presidential Primary Ballot to Take Shape for April 26

In the roller-coaster that is the presidential nomination process, with its progress of caucuses and primaries in states across the country, Connecticut’s card does not come up until late-April.  Who will reach the Connecticut ballot, and the order in which they will be listed, will be determined in the coming weeks by Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, in accordance with criteria outlined in state law. That process begins this Tuesday, February 16,  with the announcement of presidential candidates who have qualified for the Connecticut primary ballot.  The order in which candidates will appear on the ballot for the Republican and Democratic parties will not be known until March 22, when Secretary Merrill will “determine the order of all candidates by lot in a public ceremony.”  Connecticut law also requires that “Uncommitted” appear last on each party’s ballot.

When Connecticut voters go to the polling places on Tuesday, April 26, voters in nearly two-thirds of the states will already have made their preferences known.  The same day as Connecticut, presidential primaries will also be held in Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.  The previous week, primaries will be held in New York, a state called home, at various times, by three of this year’s leading contenders – Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.

March 1 and March 15 are major dates on the presidential primary calendar this year.  Dubbed Super Tuesday, March 1 will see votes cast in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming.  Two weeks later, the spotlight will fall on Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio.

Also prior to Connecticut, the states of Wisconsin, Wyoming, Washington, Hawaii, Arizona, Utah Idaho, Michigan and Mississippi will conduct their presidential primaries, according to the Council on State Governments.

According to Connecticut’s Office of Legislative Research, in August 2010, the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee adopted rules prohibiting states, other than Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Nevada from holding a presidential primary before the first Tuesday in March in the year in which a national convention is held (Democratic National Committee, Delegate Selection Rules, Rule 11(A) and Republican National Committee Rules, Rule No. 16(c)(1)).  In response, Connecticut delayed the date of its presidential primary from the first Tuesday in February to the last Tuesday in April (CGS § 9-464).

Reaching the Primary Ballot

In Connecticut, the political parties with the largest and second largest number of enrolled members conduct presidential preference primaries, according to the website Ballotpedia. There are two methods by which candidates can access the primary ballot:

• The Connecticut Secretary of the State can order that a candidate's name be printed on the primary ballot if he or she "determines ... that the candidacy of such person for such party's nomination for president is generally and seriously advocated or recognized according to reports in the national or state news media." The secretary of state must publish a listing of such candidates at 10:00 a.m. on the 74th day preceding the primary.  (This year, that is Tuesday, February 16.)
• A candidate who is not included on the Secretary of the State’s list can petition for placement on a party's primary ballot. A candidate may request the requisite forms from the secretary of the state’s office beginning at 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday. The petition must contain signatures equaling at least 1 percent of the total number of enrolled members in the candidate's party in the state, and must be submitted to "the registrar of voters of the party holding the primary in the town of voting residence of the signers thereof" by 4:00 p.m. on the 53rd day preceding the primary (March 4). The registrar of voters must verify the signatures and forward the petition to the secretary of state by 4:00 p.m. on the 49th day preceding the primary (March 11).

Among the states holding presidential primaries after Connecticut in May and June are Indiana, New Mexico, California, New Jersey, Nebraska, West Virginia, Oregon and Montana.  Most states have their Democratic and Republic primaries on the same day, although a handful hold party primaries on different days. South Carolina’s Republican primary will be on February 20, for example, and its Democratic primary on February 27.

Should any candidate whose name is set to appear on the Connecticut April 26 primary ballot decide to withdraw from the race, the deadline is March 21.  A letter indicating withdrawal must be received by the Secretary of the State by 12 Noon.  Petitioning candidates may not withdraw, according to state officials.

Absentee ballots for military and overseas voters become available on March 12.  Absentee ballots will be available as of April 5.  Only registered voters in a particular political party can vote in the presidential primary of that party.  The deadline for new voters, and for unaffiliated voters to mail in party affiliations is April 21.  The in-person deadline is April 25, the day before the primary, at 12 Noon.  On primary day April 26, the polls are open from 6 AM to 8 PM.

Safety Gap: Parents Impose Rules on Teen Drivers, Teens Don’t Think So

Teen drivers are at the highest risk for crashes and crash-related fatalities, and are particularly vulnerable to distractions while driving.  The results of a new nationwide survey of teens and their parents suggest a considerable disconnect between the limitations parents believe they are imposing on driving and the use of cell phones, and their teens’ view of limitations imposed by their parents. The gap in numerous instances is wide, and has raised concerns about the resulting risks to teen drivers.

In families where parents reported limitations on their teen drivers – such as restricting cell phone use, number of teen passengers and driving times and locations – teens themselves sometimes said they did not have those limitations, according to the C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health, which indicated that parents play a key role in promoting the safety of their teens by setting expectations for driving.

“We found that the great majority of parents do have rules for their teen drivers; however, teens consistently perceive fewer limits on their driving than what their parents report. This signals an opportunity for parents and teens to have more conversations about safe driving habits,” says lead author Michelle L. Macy, M.D., M.S., an emergency medicine physician at the University of Michigan’s C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital.

Parents of teens 13-18 years old and teens themselves were asked about limits placed on driving circumstances that can increase a teen driver’s risk of a crash. About nine in 10 parents report they place at least one limit on their teen drivers while eight out of 10 teens report having at least one driving limit placed on them by their parents.

Among parents and teens who both responded, teens consistently say they have fewer limits on their driving than were reported by their parents.  Overall, 81 percent of teens report having at least one driving limit placed on them by their parents. In families where parents report limits on cell phone use, 13 percent of teens say they have no limits. In families where parents report limits on passengers or driving times/locations, 20 percent of teens say they have no such limits.

Limits on cell phone use and texting while driving are most commonly reported by parents and their teens. Fewer limits are set on passengers and driving times/locations. As many as one-quarter of parents report placing no limits on teen passengers or nighttime or highway driving, suggesting opportunities to increase teen driver safety by encouraging parents to place limits on these high-risk driving conditions, officials indicated.  Among the key limitations parents impose, according to the survey:

Limits on cell phone use include:

• requiring teens to park to use their cell phones (86%)
• forbidding texting while driving (73%)
• having cell phone turned off or put away (62%)

Limits on passengers include:

• allowing only 1-2 friends in the car (59%)
• allowing only certain friends (54%)
• no teen passengers allowed (40%)

Limits on driving times/locations include:

• no driving after 10 p.m. (61%)
• driving only to/from school, work, or activities (57%)
• no highway driving (36%)

Parents who judge their teens’ driving ability as “above average” (32% of all parents) are less likely to place limits on passengers and driving times/locations. Sixty-seven percent of parents set limits on passengers for their “above-average” teen drivers, compared with 81percent of parents who perceive their teen drivers as “below average.” Similarly, 69 percent of parents set limits on driving times/locations for their above-average teen drivers, compared with 85 parents of parents who perceive their teen as below average. In contrast, parents do not adjust their restrictions on cell phone use in relation to their teens’ driving ability.

There was greater agreement between parents and teens on limits placed on cell phones than on passengers or driving times/locations, according to the national survey, conducted in September 2015 and released earlier this year.

“This may indicate that parents communicate to their teens more clearly their expectations around cell phone use while driving than for other driving situations. It is also possible that parents and teens have greater awareness of the risks of using cell phones while driving, due to media attention on cell phone distractions as a common cause of crashes,” the survey analysis points out.

The analysis also indicated that the higher degree of disagreement between teens and parents in relation to the limits set for passengers and driving times/locations suggests the need for more dialogue in families to ensure rules and expectations around driving are understood. Written parent-teen driving agreements are one way for parents to clearly communicate rules and expectations, officials indicated.

Connecticut’s Tim Hollister, author of two books about parenting and safe teen driving and the website From Reid’s Dad, recently developed a video for parents, with financial support from the Travelers, which underscores the influence of parents in teen driving.  Hollister will be speaking on the subject at the Easton Public Library on February 10 and the Newington Public Library on February 24.  Hollister, whose son Reid died as a result of a car accident at age 17, will share information parents should know regarding teen driving and discuss his most recent book, His Father Still.

https://youtu.be/QmCJKvyXhEQ

https://youtu.be/wccN8aqOWA4

Eight CT Companies Among the Fastest Growing Tech Companies in North America

The Technology Fast 500 is a closely watched annual listing of the fast-growing tech companies, businesses that are releasing new, emerging technologies from the U.S. and Canada worldwide.  The latest ranking includes eight Connecticut companies, including one, operating in Stamford, that reached the top 100. Combining technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and rapid growth, Fast 500 companies—large and small, public and private—are located in cities all across North America and are “disrupting the technology industry,” according to consulting firm Deloitte, which has compiled the annual list for two decades.

Fast 500 award winners on the current list were selected based on percentage fiscal year revenue growth during the period from 2011 to 2014.  Companies must own proprietary intellectual property or technology that is sold to customers in products that contribute to a majority of the company’s operating revenues in order to be considered for inclusion on the list, according to Deloitte.

The lone Connecticut company to crack the top 100 was Milford medical device manufacturer SurgiQuest, which was number 100.  The company’s growth was pegged at 877 percent.  It was incorporated in 2006, with a focus on laproscopy technology.

Not far behind, at number 119, was Revolution Lighting Technologies, a manufacturer based in Stamford.  The analysis placed the company’s growth at 755 percent.  Revolution Lighting Technologies Inc. engages in the design, manufacture, marketing, and sale of light emitting diode (LED) lighting solutions in the United States, Canada, and internationally.  The company’s customers include the U.S. military.

Madison-based Clarity Software Solutions, Inc., with 298 percent growth, placed at number 247 on the top 500 fastest growing technology companies in North America.  Clarity Software Solutions, Inc. helps health insurance clients optimize customer relationships-and save time and money-by enhancing flexibility and control over document management and communications delivery, according to the company’s website.

Also making the list were Evariant of Farmington, a software developer, at number 272, and HP One, a software company in Trumbull at number 307.  Biopharmaceutical company Alexion, in the midst of moving its headquarters from Cheshire to New Haven, was ranked at number 349, and etouches, a Norwalk software company ranked at number 357.  Rounding out the Connecticut companies on the list is Wallingford oil extraction technology company APS Tecnhology, at number 466.

“Amid a fierce business climate, there seems to be no shortage of new and established companies that are unlocking a seemingly unlimited potential for growth and advancement through technology’s continued disruption and proliferation across industries,” said Sandra Shirai, principal, Deloitte Consulting LLP and US technology, media, and telecommunications leader.

“It is inspiring to witness the innovative ways companies are incorporating emerging technologies for business gains, be it cognitive computing, or the Internet of Things. We congratulate all those ranked on the Fast 500 and look forward to seeing their continued growth into 2016.”

Revolution Lighting Technologies ranked eighth among energy tech companies, and SurgiQuest Inc. ranked sixth among medical device companies.

Overall, 283 of the 500 companies were in the software sector, and 67 percent of the 500 companies have received venture capital funding at some point in their company’s history.  Topping the list was StartApp, with a growth rate of 21,984 percent from 2011 to 2014. Based in New York and founded in 2010, StartApp provides a free monetization and distribution platform that integrates with applications on mobile devices.

Two-thirds of the companies are private, and 33 percent are public.  The average growth rate of the top 500 companies was 850 percent, with individual company growth on the list ranging from 21,984 percent to 109 percent.  Broken down by region, 20 percent of the companies are based in the San Francisco Bay Area, 14 percent in the New York Metro Area, 7 percent in New England, and 6 percent in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C.

New Casey Foundation Initiative Aims to Improve Job Prospects for Young Adults in Hartford

A total of up to $900,000 will be awarded over the next four years to a Hartford collaborative initiative to strengthen the next generation of workers and meet employer demand.  The Annie E. Casey Foundation has announced plans to award $6 million in grants to increase job opportunities for young adults from low income families in Hartford and four other communities - Cleveland, Indianapolis, Philadelphia, and Seattle. Hartford expects to receive up to $900,000 over the grant period for planning and implementation.

Through Generation Work, the Foundation aims to combine building relationships with businesses, factoring in their needs in the local economy, with youth development strategies to prepare young people for work, such as mentoring and on-the-job learning opportunities. Ultimately, the Casey Foundation hopes to help establish local networks of workforce development organizations that serve young job seekers and have strong connections with businesses.

The Hartford Generation Work initiative is led by United Way of Central and Northeastern Connecticut, working with five other community partners:

• Capital Workforce Partners,
• Hartford Foundation for Public Giving,
• Hartford Opportunity Youth Collaborative,
• Our Piece of the Pie, and
• Workforce Solutions Collaborative of Metro Hartford.

Hartford’s initiative will connect young adults, including those out-of-school or work or underemployed, with education, training and employment for careers in manufacturing and healthcare, officials said. The initiative also intends to improve coordination and collaboration among partners and youth initiatives.

“The strength of our future workforce is one of our nation’s greatest assets and is critical to our ability to compete globally,” said Allison Gerber, a senior associate who oversees the Casey Foundation’s investments in improving job opportunities for low-income individuals and families. “The next generation is eager to work, but we must create more avenues for young adults to develop the knowledge and experience they need to succeed in the job market.”

While the Great Recession hit many hard, teens and young adults have experienced the most drastic drop in employment, data show. Millions of young people — particularly young people of color, justice-system involved, or aging out of foster care and from low-income families — face obstacles to employment or education, and the percentage of young people ages 18 to 29 in the job market nationwide has steadily declined in recent years. At the same time, employers often struggle to find workers with the right set of skills for available positions, Foundation officials point out.

Insurance Department Recovers $6 Million for Policyholders, Taxpayers in 2015; Recoveries, Fines Both At 4-Year Low

The Connecticut Insurance Department recovered approximately $6 million for policyholders and taxpayers in 2015, helping individuals and families with their claims and complaints.  The total dollar amount of the recoveries declined for the third consecutive year, down from a high of $8.7 million in 2012, $7.4 million in 2013 and $6.3 million in 2014. Officials indicated that the Department’s Consumer Affairs Unit (CAU) fielded more than 6,100 complaints and inquiries and helped policyholders recoup more than $4 million from January 1 to December 31, 2015.  The number of complaints and inquiries dropped slightly from the previous year, when 6,500 were handled, recouping $4.3 million for policy owners.  In 2013, policyholders saw $4.7 million returned.  In 2012, the numbers were virtually identical to 2015.

“Behind these statistics are the individuals and families the Department was able to help through our intervention,” Commissioner Katharine L. Wade said. “In many cases we were able to make a real difference in their lives and I encourage anyone with questions or concerns about their insurance to contact the Department. We are here to help consumers.”

The department, in announcing the annual totals for 2015, also highlighted some individual recoveries, including:

• $27,000 for home health care services for a senior citizen under her long-term care policy
• $13,000 to pay for speech therapy for an autistic child
• $16,000 paid to a policyholder for an inpatient stay at a skilled nursing facility
• $37,000 in an additional payment to a homeowner to settle a claim

“Our staff makes certain that companies and agents comply with all state insurance laws and regulation and have extensive knowledge to answer a wide range of insurance questions,” the Commissioner said.

In addition to recoveries for policyholders, the Department’s Market Conduct division levied approximately $1.7 million in fines against carriers and returned that money to the state General Fund in 2015. The fines resulted from a variety of violations and settlements ranging from untimely claim payments to improper licensing. That was the lowest total for fines in recent years, perhaps signifying greater compliance.  In 2014, fines totaled $2.03 million, in 2013 the total was $2.7 million and in 2012 fines levied totaled $4.6 million.

The majority of the funds recovered for policyholders stemmed from complaints over health, accident, homeowners and life and annuities policies.

The following is the breakdown of funds recovered in 2015:

• Accident, Health - $2.7 million, compared with $2.5 million in 2014
• Auto - $430,000, compared with $381,000 in 2014
• General Liability - $17,200, compared with $65,000 in 2014
• Homeowners - $530,000, compared with $65,000 in 2014
• Life, Annuities - $294,000, compared with $330,000 in 2014

Recoveries in 2013 were largely focused on homeowners, as a result of Superstorm Sandy-related claims. Department recoveries in 2012 reflect the impact of claims from 2011 Storm Irene and the late October snow-filled Nor’easter that landed in Connecticut.

The Department calculates its consumer recoveries based on what the policyholder received as a result of the Department’s intervention. The inquiries and complaints also help the Department identify industry trends that may adversely affect consumers and trigger investigation by the Market Conduct division, officials said.

In addition, complaint data also help determine topics for consumer education and serve as tools to help the Department monitor the industry.  The Market Conduct enforcement actions are posted on the Department’s web site at www.ct.gov/cid

Ten Percent of CT Community College Students Earn Bachelor's Degree, Below National Average, 30th in U.S.

Nationally, only 14 percent of community college students go on to earn a bachelor’s degree within six years.  In Connecticut, that percentage is even lower – 10 percent.  That’s the finding in a new study measuring states’ effectiveness at helping community college students attain four-year degrees. In the best-performing states—Wyoming, Montana, and Maryland—nearly 20 percent of community college students earned a bachelor’s within six years. But in several states, bachelor’s completion rates were in the single digits. Connecticut ranked 30th out of 43 states.  The study was released this week by the Community College Research Center at Teachers College, Columbia University.  

As the cost of higher education continues to grow, the role of considerably less-expensive community colleges - and their success at helping students earn an associate’s degree and continue in higher education is receiving more scrutiny.  The study concluded that "transfer outcomes depend on what community colleges and 4-year colleges do to teach and support their students."  The data also indicated that 36 percent of higher income students transfer to a 4-year school while 28 percent of low-income students do.  A diminishing percentage complete the requirements for a bachelor's degree after transferring.

The study’s analysis indicated that for “students who plan to transfer to a four-year college, there too often is no clear path through the thicket of choices at the community college and across the divide to the four-year school. Though as many as 80 percent of new community college students want to get a bachelor’s degree, only about 14 percent transfer and graduate within six years.”

The Connecticut State University and College System has developed a Transfer and Articulation Program (TAP) aimed at “ensuring Connecticut community college students complete degree programs that transfer to the Connecticut State Universities and Charter Oak State College “without either losing or generating excess credit.”

Under the new plan, students attending any of the state’s 12 community colleges enrolled in the program would complete the first 60-63 credits at a community college and the final 60-63 credits at one of the state universities (Central, Eastern, Southern or Western).  The program, which launches for students entering college in the Fall 2016 semester, will allow students to select from “over 20 concentrations that prepare them to complete four-year bachelor’s degrees.”

The first TAP pathway—Biology—was approved by the Board of Regents last month, “after careful review by TAP's Framework Implementation and Review Committee (FIRC) and curriculum committees on all 17 CSCU campuses.”  Additional pathways are slated to be determined beginning next month, with a total of 11 initially to be selected.  Possible subject areas include history, chemistry, communication, criminology, English, math, political science, psychology, social work and sociology, according to the state Board of Regents website.

“This research tells Connecticut that far too many community college students are failing to meet their higher education goals,” said Davis Jenkins, a senior research associate at the center, told the Connecticut Post. The TAP program aims to help address that. The study found that students who can tranfer 90 percent of their crfedits are 205 percent more likely to earn their bachelor's degree, compared to those who transfer half or less.  

The study looked at the outcomes of more than 700,000 degree-seeking students nationwide who entered higher education through a community college in fall 2007, providing evidence about where students are getting stuck in particular states.

Some states, such as Oklahoma, had above-average rates of transfer out of community colleges but low transfer-student graduation rates at four-year schools. In others, such as Washington, community colleges transferred out relatively few students, but relatively high numbers of those who transferred earned bachelor’s degrees. In the states where more community college entrants earned bachelor’s degrees, both rates tended to be high, according to the study’s authors.

The study also found that “the student demographics at community colleges appear to matter less than how the colleges serve students aiming to transfer. Regardless of whether they are rural or urban, or serving mostly lower or higher income students, community colleges can boost the transfer success of their students by looking to better performing schools to inform their practices.”

Housed at Teachers College, Columbia University, CCRC strategically assesses the problems and performance of community colleges in order to contribute to the development of practice and policy that expands access to higher education and promotes success for all students.

https://youtu.be/Fg61rj6kO-o

Advertisers Target Hispanic and Black Youth with Unhealthy Snack Ads, UConn Center Study Finds

The University of Connecticut’s Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity is calling on media companies to “set nutrition standards” for snack ads aimed at children and teens and “stop targeting advertising high-calorie, nutritionally poor foods to all young people,” but “especially advertising aimed at Black and Hispanic youth.” The recommendations come in the wake of a report that found that Black and Hispanic children “are exposed to more food advertising than white non-Hispanic children” and much of it is for unhealthy foods that have a greater likelihood of adversely impact children’s health.

The Rudd Center’s report, Snack Facts, found that Black children saw 64 percent more snack food ads on TV compared to white children, and Black teens viewed 103 percent more compared to white teens.  The disparity, according to the report issued last fall, had increased between 2010 and 2014, the most recent year studied.  “FACTS” is an acronym for “Food Advertising to Children and Teens Score.”

The findings also indicated that in addition to a barrage of advertising for unhealthy snacks, Black children and teens saw approximately 50 percent and 80 percent more ads for healthier fruit and yogurt brands – although the positive findings were generally outdistanced by findings of concern.  Black children also saw 99 percent more ads for savory snacks and Black teens saw 129 percent more, compared with white children and teens.

From 2010 to 2014, TV ads for savory snacks (salty or spicy) viewed by black children increased 48 percent and ads viewed by black teens increased 95 percent.  “Given that youth of color suffer from higher rates of obesity and other diet-related diseases,” the Rudd Center indicated, “snack food advertising likely exacerbates health disparities affecting their communities.”

Two-thirds of 2- to 5 year-olds and more than half of youth ages 6 to 19 report having three of more snacks per day, and Americans are spending more on snacks – an increase of more than $100 million from 2012 to 2015, according to data cited in the report.

The Rudd Center report found that snack advertising on Spanish language television had changed dramatically between 2010 and 2014, and not for the better:

• Yogurt advertising declined by 93 percent, and not one fruit brand advertised on Spanish-language TV in 2014.
• Spending on savory snack ads (salty/spicy snacks) skyrocketed 551 percent and sweet snack ads rose 30 percent.
• Ads for unhealthy snacks comprised 88 percent of snack food ads viewed by Hispanic children on Spanish-language TV in 2014, a dramatic jump from 39 percent in 2010.

The 102-page report reviewed the advertising practices of specific companies in the snack food industry, and highlighted changes in advertising emphasis.  It also tracked trends in advertising on social media.  The advertising analysis examined 90 brands spending more than$1 million in total advertising in 2014 from 43 different companies, according to the report. 

The report suggested that “media companies could provide lower rates for advertising that promotes nutritious foods,” noting that aggressive marketing of unhealthy snack foods to children and teens exacerbates the crisis of poor diet and related diseases among young people.”

Snack FACTS examined the nutritional quality and advertising for 90 snack food brands offered by 43 companies that were marketed to U.S. children and teens on TV, internet, and in schools in 2014. Researchers analyzed healthier snacks, including yogurt, fruit, and nuts, as well as unhealthy snacks, including sweet and savory snacks such as cookies, chips, and fruit snacks, comparing 2010 and 2014 when possible.

The report also indicates that “companies have recognized the business opportunity in marketing healthy snacks to young people,” and urges those companies to respond in children and youth’s best interest.

The Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, which affiliated with UConn a year ago after a decade at Yale University, is a non-profit research and public policy organization devoted to improving the world’s diet, preventing obesity, and reducing weight stigma. The Rudd Center is described as “a leader in building broad-based consensus to change diet and activity patterns, while holding industry and government agencies responsible for safeguarding public health.”  Research related to the report was funded by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Award-Winning Start-Up Accelerator to Launch Largest Class of Social Enterprises, Fledgling Businesses

When the Hartford-based Social Enterprise Trust, known as reSET, was among the winners of the U.S Small Business Administration’s Growth Accelerator Competition last year – the only Connecticut organization to do so and one of 80 nationwide – it was not known what earning that designation, and  the $50,000 that came with it, would mean for reSET’s Impact Accelerator program. Now, the picture is becoming clearer – and boosting Hartford’s reputation as a city for socially committed entrepreneurial start-up businesses.  The expanding initiative is attracting not only home grown companies, but start-ups from elsewhere across the country, including as far away as California.

Tailored for impact-driven businesses but available to all early-stage ventures, reSET’s Impact Accelerator, now beginning its fourth year, has as its primary objective to test and hone entrepreneurs’ models, and to connect them to networks, mentors, customers, and resources.

A cohort of 22 businesses have been accepted to the program and most of their models are impact focused, serving the educational technology, health and health tech, energy, and agriculture industries. More than 60 percent of them are already generating revenue.  It is the largest group of companies to take part in the accelerator program at reSET, and the first to include a handful of out-of-state participants.

Running from January 20 to June 2, reSET’s accelerator will feature a more flexible program designed for busy, full-time entrepreneurs, as well as a ‘pay what you can’ model.  Entrepreneurial teams will attend five weekend summits, with 30+ optional workshops, mentor office hours, and consultations with an Entrepreneur in Residence conducted during the week.

At program’s end, a $25,000 accelerator funding pool will be available to the cohort, and they'll have priority access to reSET’s investment fund as well, via mentors and advisors that can help them put their best foot forward with their applications, according to reSET officials.

The 2016 cohort includes: Agyncy (www.agyncy.com), AmRide (www.amride.com), Asarasi (www.asarasi.com), BLT Robotics (www.bltrobotics.com), Doors to Explore (www.doorstoexplore.com), DopaFit (www.mydopafit.com), Enviro Power, LLC (www.enviropowertec.com), Keep Sight (www.keepsight.com), Lion’s Heart (www.lionsheartservice.org), Mivy (www.mivyapp.com), Movia Robotics (www.moviarobotics.com), Muni (www.muni.info), myHomeProNetwork (https://myhomepronetwork.com), Plucked (www.pluckedadmissions.org), RepVisits (www.repvisits.com), ScripFlip (www.scriptflip.org), SnapSeat (www.snapseatbooths.com), Tainted Inc. (www.tainted-beauty.com), Text Engine (www.textengine.info), The TubieGuard (the-tubieguard.myshopify.com), Trekeffect (https://trekeffect.com), and Untapped Potential (www.upotential.org).

“We’ve made a strategic shift with our accelerator model so it can accommodate more participants at one time, which we feel will really encourage more collaboration,” said Rosie Gallant, reSET’s Director of Programs. “The shift will help tee up the accelerator for our annual Impact Challenge as well, since the program will wrap in the spring right around when applications will open for the competition in which participants will vie for this year’s $100,000 prize purse.”

reSET is a non-profit organization whose mission is to advance the social enterprise sector.  Its strategic goals are threefold: to be the “go-to” place for impact entrepreneurs, to make Hartford the Impact City, and Connecticut the social enterprise state.  reSET aims to inspire innovation and community collaboration, and to support entrepreneurs in creating market-based solutions to community challenges.  reSET’s goal is to meet entrepreneurs wherever they are in their trajectory and to help them take their businesses to the next level.

Health Care Providers, Insurers Need to Collaborate to Improve Care, Rein in Costs

When Eric Schultz began his keynote remarks, the President and CEO of Massachusetts-based Harvard Pilgrim Health Care made sure to alert his audience to his homegrown pedigree.  Whether his youth in the Naugatuck Valley, college years (five of them) at UConn, or graduate work at Yale contributed to Harvard Pilgrim’s more-than-solid inaugural years doing business in Connecticut isn’t certain, but the above-expectations numbers are indisputable.  And Schmitt made clear that his nonprofit health insurance company is looking for even greater achievements in his home state. Since entering the Connecticut market in the summer of 2014, the company has been aggressively growing its customer base in a competitive market while working diligently to grow and expand its network of doctors.  Harvard Pilgrim Health Care announced recently that its Connecticut membership has grown to more than 24,000, exceeding expectations for 2015. It now serves more than 800 Connecticut businesses.  Twenty-nine of the state’s 30 hospitals are now in-network.

With more than 500 business leaders in attendance at an annual Economic Summit & Outlook last week, brought together by the Connecticut Business and Industry Association and MetroHartford Alliance, Schmitt spent some time touting a new model launched in the state of New Hampshire that he believes may be a glimpse into the direction the industry is moving. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care’s footprint in New England now covers “where 90 percent of New Englanders live,” in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine and New Hampshire. 

Schultz, who succeeded now-Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker in leading the organization five years ago, pointed to what he described as “a practical example of how an insurance company and groups of providers can work together to get control of medical cost trends and to help improve medical outcomes and help create better experiences for physicians and their patients.”

The goals, Shultz explained, are to reduce insurance premium trends by 10 to 15 percent, to improve clinical outcomes, to create a better “practice environment” for medical staff and to grow business.  The partnership is driven to “produce something that’s better than what we have today, because we know the financing of health care is largely broken in the U.S.”

Launched in October 2015 and in business as of January 1, Benevera Health, a joint venture led by senior leadership at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care and Dartmouth-Hitchcock, is a population health company, centered around “clinical and medical informatics.”  Dartmouth-Hitchcock, a nonprofit academic health system that serves a patient population of 1.2 million in New Hampshire and Vermont, is led by Dr. James Weinstein, recently named as one of “100 Physician Leaders to Know” by a national health care trade publication.

“We are combining insurance data with clinical data,” Schultz said, “from their electronic medical records and our claims system, and creating a very powerful source of information.”  That information, he stressed, could be used to better understand what’s happening in regards to patient care, and it can help to redesign and improve clinical care.  This has the potential to be especially important in chronically ill patients, noting that 10 percent of patients drive 50 percent of health care costs.  “It is a great financial opportunity and a great clinical opportunity.”

“The magic,” Shultz noted, is in having the provider and the payer sit down together and figure out” what should be done.  Too often in the past, he said, providers and insurers haven’t gotten together – a lack of cooperation and collaboration that contributes to higher costs and to disconnects regarding patient care.  His expectation is the Benevera will “reduce headaches” that insurance companies often cause providers, reduce duplication and costs, and improve patient care. 

In fact, when the new venture was launched last fall, officials from the two companies stressed that the groundbreaking entity, “will take health care coordination to a new level by bringing together clinical, financial and operational data from across partner institutions to provide actionable analytics for clinicians to further improve the quality and efficiency of patient care.”  They added that  “at the center of this approach will be locally-based care advocates who will identify early opportunities to engage patients – especially those with chronic, complex or emerging conditions - and provide them with one-on-one support.”

Schultz noted that insurance companies tend to resist providers suggesting how insurance plans ought to be designed.  He disagrees with that resistance.  “If more insurers took more input from providers on plan design, we’d be a lot better off.”

Harvard Pilgrim is the only not-for-profit, regional health plan operating in four contiguous New England states.  Harvard Pilgrim’s flagship health plans in New England provide health coverage to 1.3 million members, while another 1.4 million individuals are served through Health Plans, Inc., a subsidiary that provides integrated care management, health coaching and plan administration solutions to self-funded employers nationwide.  Schultz holds an MBA in Health Care Leadership from Yale University’s School of Management, as well as a bachelor of science degree in biology and a bachelor of arts degree in economics from the University of Connecticut.

“We’re about change and driving change,” Schultz told those attending the Hartford summit, “and I believe we need to do more of that.”  He’s hoping to build a similar structure in Connecticut, and in other states around the country, because “it’s exactly what we need to do.”

Link to CT-N video of Economic Summit & Outlook.

CT is a Top-10 State in Energy Efficiency, Recent Growth of Solar Power Capacity

An annual ranking from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) rated Connecticut among the top ten energy-efficient states in the country along with Massachusetts, California, Vermont, Rhode Island, Oregon, Maryland, Washington, and New York, with Minnesota and Illinois tied for 10th place. Connecticut was noted for its financial incentives and energy efficiency investments. The state  ranked 6th in the 2015 State Energy Efficiency Scorecard, the same position it held in 2014. The state also earned the same number of points as it did in 2014, totaling 35.5 points out of 50.

According to the report, “Connecticut’s leadership is committed to pursuing policies that encourage energy efficiency within the state, although processes like building code adoption have moved relatively slowly in recent years. Connecticut has put significant resources behind the launching of its green bank. While there are signs of early success, these projects will need to be closely tracked as other states look to Connecticut as an example. Connecticut will need to realize even higher levels of savings in the future in order to remain in the top tier and meet state energy savings targets.”

Connecticut earned 15 out of 20 points for its utility policies and programs, 6 points out of a possible 10 points for transportation policies, 5 points out of 7 for its building energy code stringency and compliance efforts, earned 3 points out of 4 for its combined heat and power policies and programs, 5.5 out of 7 points for state-led energy efficiency initiatives, and 1 point out of 2 for appliance standards.

At the bottom of the list were Mississippi, South Dakota, Louisiana, Wyoming and North Dakota.

The ACEEE also developed a similar rating system for the nation’s largest cities, ranking the top 50.  Leading the list were Boston, New York City, Washington, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Minneapolis, Portland, Austin and Denver.  The only Connecticut city to crack the top 50, Hartford, ranked at number 45.  Connecticut’s Capitol City earned 23 points out of a possible 100, in an analysis that included local government operations, community-wide initiatives, building policies, energy & water utilities, and transportation.

The report noted that “policymakers, regulators, and citizens are increasingly recognizing that energy efficiency is a crucially important resource. States and localities are leading the way when it comes to implementing energy-efficient policies and programs.”

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organization, acts as a catalyst to advance energy efficiency policies, programs, technologies, investments, and behaviors. The organization believes that “the United States can harness the full potential of energy efficiency to achieve greater economic prosperity, energy security, and environmental protection for all its people.”

Another  recent study, “Lighting the Way III: The Top States that Helped Drive America’s Solar Energy Boom in 2014,” by the research and policy arm of Environment Connecticut finds Connecticut ranks 10th nationally for solar power capacity per capita installed in 2014, with 13 watts of solar electric capacity per person installed last year. Nevada led all of the states in 2014, with 119 watts per capita, according to the study. Part of this success is credited to supportive state policymaking.  The organization points out that “solar power has tripled in the U.S. in the last two years, with another American family or business going solar every four minutes.  That’s in part because the price of solar has dropped more than 50 percent since 2011.”

They add that “research shows the cities and states with the most solar power aren’t necessarily the ones with the most sunshine; they also include states with smart pro-solar policies.  States like Connecticut have outpaced sunnier locales like Florida because of policies that allow increasing numbers of homeowners, businesses, communities and utilities to go solar.”

olar power in Connecticut has grown 221 percent per Capita since 2012, ranking the state 13th in the nation, the report points out. The top solar growth states in the nation, like Connecticut, have adopted renewable energy requirements, strong laws allowing solar customers to sell their excess power to the electric grid, and other policies encouraging growth of the industry, the report indicates.  The industry is also adding jobs much faster than the overall economy, employing 1,600 people in Connecticut last year, according to www.solarstates.org

“Demand for solar power in Connecticut is growing exponentially,” said Bryan Garcia, President and CEO of the Connecticut Green Bank. “Consumers continue to demand solar power despite a 70 percent reduction in state incentives. In fact, increased private investment has enabled the market to offer lease and loan products that deliver immediate positive cash flow to consumers. This makes solar PV a cleaner, cheaper and more reliable alternative."

Bipartisan legislation signed by Governor Malloy earlier this year lays a foundation for continued growth of solar power, and jobs, in Connecticut, Environment Connecticut points out, citing the stated goal of building enough residential solar systems to power over 40,000 homes in the state by 2022.