PERSPECTIVE: Access to Healthy Foods: How Far Are You Willing to Go?

by Garth Graham For the first time in the history of the United States, today’s youth are expected to have a shorter life-span than their parents. With medical, scientific and technological advances, this notion seems dumbfounding. But when we step away from the science and technology and take a deeper look at our communities, you can find the root causes.

Access to healthy food, public safety and environmental factors are all driving forces behind this decline in longevity. These social determinants of health are becoming increasingly influential to our health as individuals and as communities.

Increasing access to healthy foods is one of the primary social determinants of health that the Aetna Foundation is trying to address. We know that living closer to super markets or retailers that provide healthy food lowers health issues related to obesity, such as diabetes. Providing a community with healthier food doesn’t just benefit the well-being of the people that live there – it has also been show to increase economic activity.

While many of us are lucky enough to have full pantries and fridges, a large portion of the country is not as fortunate. More than 23 million Americans, including 6.5 million children, live in food deserts—places where fresh fruit and vegetables (and healthy foods in general) are largely inaccessible. A significant percentage of this group live in low-income neighborhoods, both urban and rural.

It will require more than a merger between Whole Foods and Amazon to reduce the number of food deserts across the country. Solving this problem starts by giving communities direct access to healthier options, which can help address the fact that more than 90 percent of people don’t eat the recommended amount of fruits and vegetables.

One approach that is helping communities across the country is the development of community gardens and farmer’s markets. The Aetna Foundation is committed to helping communities with this approach and has already supported 5,538 garden beds that have been planted across the country. More than three-quarters of nutrition education participants say that they consume more fruits and vegetables as a result of these activities. Some of the programs that are already making a difference in their local communities include:

• The e3p3 Live Well Perris in California is establishing community gardens and providing healthy food education and resources to its residents.

• Healthy St. Pete Empowering Change in Florida serves children, adults and seniors in low-income or low access areas of the city and designated food deserts, and also encourages policy change regarding nutritional access and availability.

Aetna is also working with groups like Meals on Wheels America to combine improved access to healthy food with innovative models for patient care coordination. Aetna recently announced a collaboration that will integrate Meals on Wheels’ daily nutritious meals, social support and critical safety checks into a continuum of care required as people age. Meals on Wheels and Aetna will pilot this model in several markets, and identify best practices intended to improve vulnerable seniors’ health outcomes.

Access to healthy food remains a pressing issue when it comes to determining the health of individuals and communities. We must find sustainable and scalable solutions that can be implemented in communities across the country. By improving access to healthy food, we can increase healthy behaviors, drive economic growth, and lower costs associated with obesity – one community at a time.

Garth Graham, M.D., MPH, is a leading authority on social determinants of health. President of the Aetna Foundation since 2013 and Vice President of Community Health for Aetna, Inc., Dr. Graham is a former deputy assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Obama and Bush administrations where he also ran the Office of Minority Health. Dr. Graham holds a medical degree from Yale School of Medicine, a master’s in public health from Yale School of Public Health and a bachelor of science in biology from Florida International University in Miami. He holds three board certifications including internal medicine, cardiology and interventional cardiology and serves as an Associate Professor of Medicine at the University Of Connecticut School Of Medicine.  This article first appeared on HuffPost and is published here with permission of the author.  

PERSPECTIVE: Racism 101

by Debby Irving “Data is like a Rorschach test.” Brandeis University’s Tom Shapiro said this to me when I confessed to him how I would have once interpreted the below data.

• US Racial Wealth Gap: Average Household Wealth
• White              $ 656,000
• Latino              $   98,000
• Black               $   85,000     (2013 Institute for Policy Studies)

Only ten years ago, I would have seen the above as evidence that white people were smarter, harder working, and more financially responsible. Because I thought racism meant white people not liking people of color, I remained clueless about the vast racialized systems and structures that shape the lives of all Americans, including mine. The process of “Waking Up White” has been an education in how an entire population, myself included, can be duped into ideas about human superiority and inferiority along racial lines.

Data is fascinating in that, without drilling into the story behind the data, it can serve to reaffirm ideas we already hold. Which is what happened to me.

• US Incarceration Rates by Race and Ethnicity
• White   380     per 100,000
• Latino   966     per 100,000
• Black   2,207   per 100,000     (2010 Prison Policy Initiative)

• CT Public School Graduates’ College Graduation Rates
• White              53.8%
• Hispanic          21.4%
• Black               24.4%     (2008 Connecticut State Department of Education)

Pre-wake-up, the three sets of above data would’ve reaffirmed my embedded racial beliefs, ideas I’d ingested early and often about white people as harder working, more responsible, less threatening, smarter, and less of a drain on society. Can you see how this data could support each and every one of those beliefs?

What’s astounding to me is that in my white, suburban childhood no one even mentioned white people’s supposed superiority. My ideology formed around counterpart ideas that were more explicit; ones about black and brown people as lazy, irresponsible, criminal, dangerous, less intelligent, and content to live like sloths off of hard working white people.

My understanding was that the US specialized in fairness, offering everyone a chance at the “American Dream,” through sheer hard work and good character. In that scheme, those who achieved success had earned it. If white people were in positions of leadership -- more specifically, white male Christian people – that meant they got there on their own merit, right? This thinking allowed me, at a very early age, to form ideas that connected ability to biological type and, in my imagination, white trumped all other racial types. It felt obvious, and in my all-white world, no one ever challenged my racial beliefs. We didn’t talk about race. It was considered rude.

In the white silence, my ignorance deepened as I collected evidence in support of what I already thought was true. Images of thriving, white all-American prototypes saturated my world through real life, TV Shows, textbooks, literature, and dollar bills. It felt wonderful to be part of a country ruled by fairness. I was emboldened imagining myself part of the superior race. The seduction of contempt is powerful.

The reality is far from fair. Embedded in US society lives a web of systems that differentially distribute access to rights, resources, representation, and respect. Creating room for this far harsher reality has been the ultimate waking up challenge. I resisted it for decades. As I’ve learned that there is a drastically different explanation for the above data, I’ve had to do battle with feelings of defensiveness, guilt, shame, and entitlement.

Here’s just one example of what I’ve learned. Following WWII, the US government transferred $120 billion to private citizens through the housing portion of GI Bill, a benefit package offered to returning veterans. Despite that fact that 1.2 million African-American GIs, as well as Latino-, Indigenous-, and Asian-American GIs also fought in WWII, 98% of GI Bill housing wealth went to white GIs, like my father. Though the GI Bill didn’t specify “whites only,” US housing and lending policy at the time restricted who could live where according to racially “redlined” maps. The GI Bill was only good in white-designated neighborhoods. My socially engineered, racially segregated, white world, where stories of rags to riches abounded, all but guaranteed I’d have no exposure to real black or brown people to pull me from denial.

Racism 101 is about this paradigm shift. Until white people understand the degree to which “we don’t know what we don’t know,” data intended to explain racial disparities in health care, food supply, transportation, education, lending, housing, and law is more likely to reaffirm old ideas than to inspire new ones. Waking up is hard to do. It’s also the only option to make a fair and just America a reality.

__________________________________________

Debby Irving is a racial justice educator and author of Waking Up White: And Finding Myself in the Story of Race. She will be speaking on Saturday, Jan. 20 at First Church in West Hartford as part of “Racism 101” which begins at 9 a.m. 

PERSPECTIVE: An Unexpected Journey on the Path to News Literacy

by Amanda Muntz 2008: I was 10. I looked away from the television, where Fox News was broadcasting the election results. My father shook his head in disbelief.

“Well, that’s it, folks. Barack Obama has just been elected the 44th president of the United States of America.”

My father, who prides himself on being a “constitutionalist,” went on: “Well, he’s got America fooled.” And: “You’re living in a totally different world now, Amanda.”

I was too young to process what was going on, but I trusted my parents and I believed that Obama could only be bad for this country. Back then, I thought of the government as an immoral institution that didn’t have the majority’s best interest in mind.

2017: At 19, I now recognize that I lived in a political bubble. It took a move and a new school to start broadening the views that I was exposed to. And when I began an internship with the News Literacy Project, I realized that if I had been taught at a younger age what I learned this summer, I would have been spared a long and rocky road to reaching an understanding of news literacy. NLP taught me how to properly check citations for credibility and to research facts across different sources. This ability alone has made sifting through large amounts of information much more manageable and efficient.

As a child, I’d hear members of my extended family mutter “socialist devil” and yell “Oh, all you do is lie!” whenever they saw Obama on television. I was never exposed to anything positive about the president and his family until I moved from Austin, Texas, to New York City at age 16.

The students at my new high school were more liberal than my classmates in Texas, and, over time, I saw that although I had been raised as a conservative, I had no idea what I truly thought about politics. My new friends would discuss Obama, and I recognized that I knew nothing about his administration or policies. I had heard at home that nothing he said could be believed, and I knew that most people who were close to me couldn’t stand him. But once I came to the realization that their opinions weren’t necessarily mine, I decided to take a step back.

I stopped talking about the president. I figured I had no business expressing an opinion that I wasn’t even sure was mine. I started to lower the defenses I had been taught to put up when listening to or about Obama.

Instead, I began reading articles from news outlets across the political spectrum. And I entered my senior year of high school with this conclusion: I had absorbed too much vitriol against Obama and his administration to have an unbiased opinion. That possibly wasn’t the right lesson to take away; in hindsight, I see that I wasn’t equipped with the educational tools to know how to sift through the immense amount of information I was reading or how to distinguish news — facts presented impartially — from opinion, which can be fact-based but also include personal views or even advocacy. However, it did lead me to have the confidence to say, “Honestly, I don’t have enough unbiased information on that issue to have an opinion that I’m comfortable sharing right now.”

I didn’t know it then, but I was taking my first steps toward news literacy.

I began to hear people with opposing views, instead of just listening for the sake of arguing against them. I wasn’t afraid to acknowledge when someone made a good point, and I learned to disagree with a degree of curiosity — wanting to hear their response, rather than to pick a fight. I began to tell the difference between news and opinion.

Those skills became increasingly important when it came time for the 2016 presidential election — the first election I could vote in.

I was in my first year at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut. Between the polarized political atmosphere across the United States and the largely liberal environment on campus, I became increasingly frustrated with people simply parroting what they found on their Facebook feeds or other social media platforms. While I’m glad there are places online for everyone to share their opinion, I wish my peers wouldn’t read every Tumblr rant as if it were a Pulitzer Prize-winning news report. Amid all this chaos, I knew it was up to me to make an informed decision.

So I put two cable news outlets — CNN and Fox News — to the test. I livestreamed the Republican National Convention with friends, so there were no commercial breaks or commentary. For the Democratic National Convention, I decided to go back and forth between Fox and CNN. To avoid leaning left, I tried to watch more of the commentary on Fox. The results were not comforting.

What I found was that while CNN aired most of the speeches and the comments were generally positive, Fox didn’t even show half of the people at the podium. Instead, the Fox reporters and commentators were drowning them out — talking over them about topics that the speakers weren’t even discussing. As the first night of the convention came to an end, and more prominent figures such as Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Michelle Obama took the stage, Fox finally started to stick with the speakers. I found myself wondering how CNN’s coverage during the Republican convention compared with this.

I didn’t stop there. I enrolled in government and economics classes. I began reading articles from a variety of news outlets, including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. I finally started to develop my own political opinions — and am finding that I’m more progressive on social issues and more conservative on fiscal ones.

News literacy is — and should be — an increasingly pressing concern in today’s world of social media and endless platforms for opinions. The lack of awareness of fake news and heavily biased news is what attracted me to accept an internship at the News Literacy Project. Being an intern at NLP has taught me how to properly sift through information and how to truly reach my own conclusion by checking facts and reading across multiple sources. Throughout this summer, I’ve seen what a difference these lessons can make.

I particularly urge high school and college students to try to make the distinction between news and opinion and begin implementing news literacy in their everyday lives. While it’s important to listen to different people and hear their points of view, it is even more important to process this information and formulate your own opinions. The News Literacy Project provides an excellent platform to begin educating yourself and others.

________________________

Wesleyan University student Amanda Muntz is studying international law and globalization at the University of Birmingham in England.  This article first appeared on the website of The News Literacy Project.

PERSPECTIVE: Life in the Slow Lane? Drive Through Data

by Patrick Flaherty The Connecticut State Data Center at the University of Connecticut recently released population projections for Connecticut and its towns through 2040¹. The projections suggest a slowing of population growth but do not show an exodus of young people from Connecticut. Declines in the younger population groups are driven by a low birth rate while migration out of state is concentrated in older age groups.

Nevertheless, the number of senior citizens will increase while the school-aged population will decline. Growth with be uneven across cities and towns with some (particularly the largest cities) gaining significant population while others decline. Some of the smallest towns are projected to reverse part of the strong growth they have experienced in recent decades.

Statewide Overview: Connecticut's population increased by over 255,000 from 1970 to 1990 and added an additional 300,000 from 1990 to 2015, a 9.3% increase (Chart 1). Population growth is projected to grow just 1.7% in the 25 years from 2015 to 2040, less than 20% of the growth rate of the previous 25 years.

Focusing on the most recent 15 year period and comparing it to the next shows a similar pattern. Population grew 5.5% from 2000 to 2015 but is projected to grow just 1.1% from 2015 to 2030. While these projections are not predictions of what will happen (unforeseen events such as changes in the economy could affect these projections), they are carefully calculated projections based on fertility rates, survival rates, domestic migration, international migration, and college migration.

Age profile: The age profile of Connecticut’s population will change during the projections period. As shown in Chart 2, compared to 2015, in 2040 Connecticut is projected to have more children under age 10, people aged 25 to 44, and age 70 and over. On the other hand, there will be fewer aged 10 to 24 and 45 to 69.

Focus on 2015-2030: While the longer-term trends are of interest, many planning horizons are of shorter duration². The rest of this article will compare the 15 years from 2000 to 2015 with the projections for 2015 to 2030. The age distribution of the population changed from 2000 to 2015 as the largest cohort aged into its 50s and beyond.

There will be more changes by 2030 (Chart 3) as the number of school and college-aged (age 5 to 24) is expected to decline and the number of those mid-twenties to mid-forties is projected to increase as the “millennial” generation ages. The number of people in their mid-forties through late-fifties will decline as the last of the baby-boomers moves past age 60. Chart 4 compares the 2015 and projected 2030 populations but also includes an “Aged 2015” population – that is, a representation of what the 2030 population would look like if everyone in Connecticut in 2015 were still here in 2030 and no one died or moved in or out.

Compared to the “Aged 2015” population, the 2030 projected population shows more people from age 40 to 54, but fewer people aged 55 and above. While some of this is due to natural decrease (death) the majority of the decline is due to migration to other states. For example, in 2015 the largest five-year age cohort were those aged 50 to 54. By 2030 there are projected to be more than 90,000 fewer people aged 65 to 69 than there were people aged 50 to 54 in 2015. Three-quarters of this decline is due to domestic net migration (people leaving Connecticut for other states).

Statewide Overview: In addition to statewide projections, the Connecticut State Data Center provides population projections by age for every town in Connecticut.

From 1970 to 2000, Connecticut largest cities lost population. Hartford had the largest decline (down 36,439), but Bridgeport (down 17,013), New Haven (down 14,081) and New Britain (down 11,903) all lost significant population. On the other hand, Danbury and suburban towns such as New Milford, Glastonbury, Shelton, and Southbury all gained more than 10,000 residents each with other suburban towns such as Cheshire, Guilford, Farmington, South Windsor and Southington not far behind. Since 2000 some of this trend has reversed.

From 2000 to 2015 New Haven gained the most population of any city or town in Connecticut (+8,245) followed by Danbury, Stamford, Norwich, and Bridgeport (+6,313). Hartford gained more than 3,000 residents and New Britain more than 2,000. Towns that lost the most population from 2000 to 2015 were Branford, Enfield and Greenwich.

When considering the towns that are projected to lose population, the Connecticut State Data Center (CSDC) emphasizes that the projections are for resident population. As noted on the CSDC website, “Resident population is defined as those persons who usually reside within a town in the state of Connecticut (where they live and sleep majority of the time). Individuals who reside in another state but either own property or work remotely in a town within the state of Connecticut are not included in these population projections.”

Looking ahead through 2030, towns expected to gain the most population are New Haven, West Haven, Manchester, Bridgeport, Norwich, and Danbury. Greenwich, Westport, Monroe, New Fairfield and Wilton will have the largest losses.

The five largest cities in 1970 -- Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven, Stamford and Waterbury -- had 60,000 fewer residents by 2000, but they have been increasing since and are projected to top their 1970 population by 2030. On the other hand, the 10 smallest towns in 1970 gained nearly 60% by 2015 but are projected to decline through 2040.

School-Aged population: Connecticut’s population aged 5 to 19 fell by just over 1,000 from 2000 to 2015 and is projected to decline nearly 40,000 by 2030. However, some towns will see an expanding school-aged population with three towns (Manchester, Stamford, and West Haven) increasing by more than 2,000 school-aged children each³.

While the upper end of the 5 to 19 age group may include those no longer in school, for towns losing school-aged population the largest declines are all in the age 10 to 14 cohort. Similarly, towns gaining school-aged population, the largest increases are in the age 10 to 14 group. As noted, these are population projections, not projections of school enrollment. Nevertheless, these projections suggest there will be towns with significant increases in school-aged population even as the statewide number of people of school-age will be declining.

Senior population: Connecticut is projected to see an increase of more than 84,000 in the population aged 70 and over from 2015 to 2030. Nearly every town will see a population increase for this age group. For example, as shown in Chart 6, Oxford, Newtown, Wallingford, and Southington are projected to see the largest increases in the population aged 70 and above.

The enormous increase in Oxford is a good illustration of the difference between a projection and a forecast and shows the limitations of the projections. Oxford has seen a significant number of seniors moving into town over recent decades.

The models used to create the projections assume this trend will continue. A forecast (which tried to predict exactly how many seniors would be living in Oxford in 2030) would need to consider other factors such as the availability of housing for seniors and not just past trends. Nevertheless, the projections are a useful indication of where things are headed, even though other factors – from economic events to policy changes – will affect the course of population growth in Connecticut.

Implications: As the millennial generation ages into its 40s, Connecticut may have an opportunity to attract even more of this large generation than the projections suggest. The projections may also understate the aging of the population – the 85+ age group is the most difficult to project and the groups just under that may not leave Connecticut at the pace suggested by the projections. On the other hand, the declines in the school-aged population have already begun and are likely to continue even as some towns and school districts are facing an influx of new students.

___________________

Patrick Flaherty is Assistant Director of Research for the Connecticut Department of Labor.  This article first appeared in the December 2017 issue of The Connecticut Economic Digest, published by the Department. 

1 Details about the projections including on-line data visualizations are available at http://ctsdc.uconn.edu/. Questions about the methodology for producing the projections should be directed to the Connecticut State Data Center through the above-referenced website.

2 For example, the Department of Labor’s long term industry and occupational projections look out 10 years.

PERSPECTIVE: Is Algorithmic Transparency the Next Regulatory Frontier in Data Privacy?

by William J. Roberts, Catherine F. Intravia and Benjamin FrazziniKendrick  The U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection held a hearing last month on the use of computer algorithms and their impact on consumers.[1]  This was the latest in a series of recent efforts by a variety of organizations to explore and understand the ways in which computer algorithms are driving businesses’ and public agencies’ decision-making, and shaping the digital content we see online.[2]

In its simplest form, an algorithm is a mathematical formula, a series of steps for performing mathematical equations. The witness testimony and questions from the members of the Subcommittee highlighted a number of issues that businesses and government regulators are facing.

Bias and Discrimination

A variety of businesses use algorithms to make decisions, such as social media platforms determining what content to show users, and credit card companies deciding what interest rates to charge consumers. However, the algorithms may treat otherwise similarly-situated consumers differently based upon irrelevant or inappropriate criteria.[3] Examples of bias in these algorithms abound.

For example, research shows that credit card algorithms drive interest rates up for individuals who have entered marriage counseling. Advertisement algorithms have shown job advertisements in engineering to men more frequently than women.

Exploitation of Consumer Data – Hidden Databases and Machine Learning

One way in which businesses and other entities can exploit consumer information is by creating databases of consumers who exhibit certain online behaviors. For example, they can identify users who search for terms such as “sick” or “crying” as possibly being depressed and drive medication ads to them. Companies have been able to develop databases of impulse buyers or people susceptible to “vulnerability-based marketing” based on their online behavior.[5]

Further, the past few years have seen a huge growth in the use of “machine learning” algorithms.[6] The cutting edge of machine learning is the use of artificial neural networks, which are powering emerging technologies like self-driving cars and translation software. These algorithms, once set up, can function automatically. To work properly, however, they depend on the input of massive amounts of data, typically mined from consumers to “train” the algorithms.[7]

These algorithms allow companies to “draw predictions and inferences about our personal lives” from consumer data far beyond the face value of such data.[8] For example, a machine learning algorithm successfully identified the romantic partners of 55% of a group of social media users.[9] Others have successfully identified consumers’ political beliefs using data on their social media, search history, and online shopping activity.[10]  In other words, online users supply the data that allows machine learning algorithms to function, and businesses can use those same algorithms to gain disturbingly accurate insights into individuals’ private lives and drive content to users “to generate (or incite) certain emotional responses.”[11] Additionally, companies like Amazon use machine learning algorithms “to push customers to higher-priced products that come from preferred partners.”[12]

Concerns in Education

In the education context, the use of algorithms to drive decision-making about students raises concerns.[13] How the algorithms will affect and drive student learning is an open question. For example, will algorithms used to identify struggling pre-med students be used to develop interventions to assist those students, or used as a tool to divert students into other programs so that educational institutions can enhance statistical averages of applicants who are accepted to medical school?

Additionally, how will a teacher’s perception of a student’s ability to succeed be affected by algorithms that can identify students as being “at-risk” before the student even sets foot in class?[14]  The bias in algorithms could also affect the ability of students to access a wide variety of learning material. For example, university librarians have noted that algorithms they use to assist students with research suffer from inherent bias where searches for topics such as the LGBTQ community and Islam return results about mental illness.[15]

Transparency is also at issue. Should students and families be aware that educational institutions are basing decisions about students’ education and academic futures on algorithmic predictions? And, if students have a right to know about the use of algorithms, should they also be privy to how the specific institution’s algorithmic models work?

Finally, concern has grown over the extent to which algorithms, owned and operated by for-profit entities, may drive educational decisions better left to actual teachers.[16] Presumably, teachers are making decisions based on the students’ best interests, where algorithms owned by corporations may be making decisions to enhance the company profit. 

Future Issues for Consideration

Regulation in this area may be forthcoming. Already, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), for example, gives EU residents the ability to challenge decisions made by algorithms, such as a decision by an institution as to whether to deny a credit application.[17] New York City is considering a measure to require public agencies to publish the algorithms they use to allocate public resources, such as determining how many police officers should be stationed in each of the City’s departments.[18]

In the meantime, educational institutions in particular should carefully consider issues such as:

• Are companies using software to collect student data and build databases of their information?
• Which educational software or mobile applications in use by an institution are using machine learning algorithms to decide which content to show students?
• Should institutions obtain assurances from software vendors that their applications will not discriminate against students based on students’ inclusion in a protected class, such as race or gender?
• How will the educational institution address a bias or discrimination claim based on the use of a piece of educational software or mobile application?
• Is technology usurping or improperly influencing decision-making functions better left to teachers or other staff?

While no regulatory framework currently exists, educational institutions may find they are best able to proactively address algorithmic transparency while negotiating contracts for the use of educational technology.

In negotiating contracts with educational technology vendors, for example, education institutions may want to determine what algorithms the technology is using and whether student data the vendor is gathering from students will be used to train other machine learning models. Further, educational institutions may want to consider issues of bias in the algorithms and negotiate protections against future discrimination lawsuits if the algorithms consistently treat similarly situated students differently.

Ultimately, educational institutions will need to evaluate each piece of educational technology to understand how its built-in algorithms are influencing the data it collects and the information it presents to users.

_________________________________

William Roberts is a partner in Shipman & Goodwin LLP’s Health Law Practice Group and is the Chair of the firm’s Privacy and Data Protection team.  Catherine Intravia focuses her practice at the firm on intellectual property, technology and information governance matters. Benjamin FrazziniKendrick is an associate in the firm’s School Law Practice Group, providing legal advice to public schools and other institutions in civil litigation, special education, and civil rights compliance.

Notes

[1] Algorithms: How Companies’ Decisions About Data and Content Impact Consumers: Hearing Before the H. Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Commc’n and Tech. and Subcommittee on Digital Commerce and Consumer Prot., 115th Cong. (2017) (hereinafter Algorithm Hearing), video and written testimony available at https://energycommerce.house.gov/hearings/algorithms-companies-decisions-data-content-impact-consumers/

[2] INT 1696-2017, 2017 Leg. (N.Y.C. Council 2017), available at http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3137815&GUID=437A6A6D-62E1-47E2-9C42-461253F9C6D0; see also Dan Rosenblum, The Fight to Make New York City’s Complex Algorithmic Math Public, City and State New York (Nov. 27, 2017), http://cityandstateny.com/articles/politics/new-york-city/making-new-york-city-algorithms-public.html#.WiKktbQ-ccg.

[3] Algorithm Hearing, supra note 1, written statement of Dr. Catherine Tucker, Sloane Distinguished Professor of Management Science and Professor of Marketing, MIT Sloane School of Management at 3-4, available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20171129/106659/HHRG-115-IF17-Wstate-TuckerC-20171129.pdf.

[5] Algorithm Hearing, supra note 1, written statement of Frank Pasquale, Professor of Law, University of Maryland at 10 (hereinafter Statement of Pasquale) (citing Latanya Sweeney, “Discrimination in Online Ad Delivery,” Communications of the ACM 56 (2013): 44, abstract available at https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2013/5/163753-discrimination-in-online-ad-delivery/abstract).

[6] See generally Bernard Marr, A Short History of Machine Learning — Every Manager Should Read, Forbes (Feb. 19, 2016, 2:31 am), https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2016/02/19/a-short-history-of-machine-learning-every-manager-should-read/2/#6ed1622d6b1b; Erick Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, What’s Driving the Machine Learning Explosion, Harvard Business Review (July. 18, 2017), https://hbr.org/2017/07/whats-driving-the-machine-learning-explosion.

[7] Algorithm Hearing, written statement of Michael Kearns Professor and National Center Chair, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania at 1-2 (hereinafter Statement of Kearns), available at http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF17/20171129/106659/HHRG-115-IF17-Wstate-KearnsM-20171129.pdf

[8] Id. at 1.

[9] Id.

[10] Id. at 1-2

[11] Statement of Kearns, supra note 7, at 3-4.

[12] Statement of Pasquale, supra note 4, at 16.

[13] Learning From Algorithms: Who Controls AI in Higher Ed, and Why it Matters, EdSurge On Air, transcript and audio download available at https://www.edsurge.com/news/2017-11-14-learning-from-algorithms-who-controls-ai-in-higher-ed-and-why-it-matters-part-2.

[14] Statement of Pasquale, supra note 4, at 15.

[15] Id. at 16 (citing Matthew Reidsma, Algorithmic Bias in Library Discovery Systems, Matthew.Reidsrow.com (Mar. 11, 2016), https://matthew.reidsrow.com/articles/173).

[16]  Statement of Pasaqule, supra note 4, at 16 (citing Elana Zeide, The Structural Consequences of Big Data-Driven Education, 5 Big Data 164-172 (2017), abstract available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2991794)

[17]  Is Your Institution Ready for GDPR?

[18] Dan Rosenblum, The Fight to Make New York City’s Complex Algorithmic Math Public, City and State New York (Nov. 27, 2017).

PERSPECTIVE: Golden Years Require Golden Finances

by Valerie Dugan The so-called Golden Years are upon you, and along with the bittersweet knowledge that you no longer have to commute and toil on a regular schedule, there also are decisions to be made about how and where to retire, and what that means financially.

You have plenty of options regarding your future lifestyle, from simply staying in the home you have occupied during your working years, to hitting the road in a recreational vehicle, or heading straight to a retirement community where you will find a plethora of similar-minded compatriots to share your after-work years.

Deciding what type of retirement best fits your personality and lifestyle is a decision that is best made long before you actually retire. In order to ensure you have the resources to live a certain lifestyle after your working years, you should start planning while you still are in the early stages of your career.

The earlier you start saving for your retirement, the more money you will have to apply to your Golden Years lifestyle. There are numerous options for saving and investing that can give you what you need later on, and it always is wise to conduct research to establish the path that best fits your requirements.

When it comes to your living situation, there are several types of retirement communities which have their own styles, their own environments and their own costs. For instance, age-restricted communities are specifically geared toward persons aged 55 and older. Similarly, age-targeted communities are for those aged 55 and up, but younger people are also allowed to live there.

Continuing care retirement homes differ in the degree of medical care and services they offer. This option offers long-term agreements providing for housing, services and nursing care, all typically in one location.

There are many amenities available depending on the type of community the individual retiree prefers, and the more amenities that are offered, the more they cost. In addition to medical care, retirement communities can offer options ranging from active sports, such as golf courses, tennis courts and hiking trails, to organized social activities.

With so many options available, there are a number of financial considerations that should be kept in mind. Some retirement communities require that housing be purchased, while some offer the option of renting as well. Some require a “buy-in” with at least a portion returned if you should move out after a certain number of years.

This is a major decision for most retirees and should be carefully considered before signing a contract. If you envision extended travel in your future, and the possibility of being away for months at a time, it may make more sense to have the added flexibility associated with renting.

Before making a decision that could impact you for decades, you may want to consult a professional to ensure that your financial future can match your dreams with cold hard dollars. Future decisions to sell also should take into account the restricted market that accompanies a restricted community.

As you age, you may decide to make more use of the amenities offered by your retirement community than you required in earlier years. These can include meals, transportation, lawn care, housekeeping, emergency monitoring and security. Regardless of what level of involvement you decide you need, remember that everything you add also adds to your costs.

We also should consider that retirement communities have rules governing the daily activities of residents, and we should fully acquaint ourselves with them and how they will affect us personally before we sign a contract. If you own a pet or like to grill outside, you may be surprised to find that you are significantly restricted in those activities in some communities, and fines and penalties can be involved if the rules are violated.

And we should especially remember that making the best decisions on retirement involves not just our current physical condition, but how we will have aged a decade or more from now. Look to the future before signing something permanent in the present.

Retirement communities may sound similar, but that doesn't mean they are the same. Take the time to exercise due diligence in making decisions to ensure that you truly can live happily ever after.

_____________________________

Valerie B. Dugan, CFP, is a Senior Vice President and Financial Advisor with the Global Wealth Management Division of Morgan Stanley in Hartford. For more information, she can be reached at 860-275-0779.

The information contained in this article is not a solicitation to purchase or sell investments. Any information presented is general in nature and not intended to provide individually tailored investment advice. The strategies and/or investments referenced may not be suitable for all investors as the appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor's individual circumstances and objectives.  Investing involves risks and there is always the potential of losing money when you invest. The views expressed herein are those of the author and may not necessarily reflect the views of Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, or its affiliates. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, member SIPC.

PERSPECTIVE: Celebrating the Bland but Influential People of Connecticut

by Christopher Hoffman Being from Connecticut is like being from Canada: nobody cares. The very idea of the place leaves people disoriented. Perhaps no other state in the Union is as colorless. Say Maine, and people think of lobsters and fishermen in long yellow slickers. Say California, and they think of giant redwoods and Hollywood. Say New Jersey, they think of toxic waste and eight-lane turnpikes. Say Connecticut, and people think . . . insurance?

On my last trip overseas, I offered to buy the Australians and Europeans I met a beer if they could tell me exactly where Connecticut is in the United States. In five months of travel, I never had to buy a single can or bottle of beer. Even Americans are confounded by Connecticut.

When you admit to being from Connecticut, people's faces go blank, and you can see them furiously rushing through the files in their minds trying to come up with something to say about the state. Texas (Boy, it's hot down there, huh?), Florida (Ever seen an alligator up close?), or even Iowa (Man, there's nothing out there!) are all easy. But Connecticut? Finally it hits them, the one thing about Connecticut that they know for certain: ''Everybody's rich back there, aren't they.''

In a democratic society like the United States, one does not like to be connected with anything that smacks even vaguely of inherited wealth or privilege. I immediately explain to people that most of that wealth is concentrated in the ''panhandle'' (Texas, Oklahoma, and Idaho all have panhandles. Why not Connecticut?), and that the rest of the state is filled with regular-guy, working-class towns. I usually get the feeling that they don't believe me.

What exactly are the people of Connecticut really like? They are solid, calculating, sober and, above all, practical. Extremes are very much frowned upon in the Nutmeg State. Nothing about us, after all, is extreme. The land is pretty, but nothing to knock your socks off. The winters are cold, but not too cold. The summers are hot, but not too hot. We have no floods, no earthquakes, no tornados, no truly dangerous snakes; only the occasional hurricane.

Most of all, though, Nutmeggers are tinkers, inventors and suppliers. We do not make history. We provide other people with whatever they need to make history. During the Revolution, Connecticut provided the Continental Army with so much material that George Washington nicknamed the state the Provisions State.

Charles Goodyear vulcanized rubber for the first time in Shelton in 1939, thereby making the future industrial use of rubber possible. Samuel Colt invented the Colt Peacemaker, gun that won the West, in Hartford. Igor Sikorsky, one of the fathers of the modern helicopter, set up his plant in Stratford.

By far the most famous of the Yankee inventors is Eli Whitney. Whitney put the first assembly line into production making muskets in Hamden in 1798. He also invented the cotton gin, thereby extending the life of slavery another 60 years. Nobody's perfect.

Politically, Connecticut Yankees are not leaders. But that does not necessarily mean that they are followers. Men burning with righteous passion from New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia wrote the Constitution, but it was the delegation from Connecticut that saved it.

The convention was deadlocked over how the individual states would be represented in the legislative branch of the Federal Government. The big states wanted representation based on population while the small states wanted each state to have an equal number of representatives regardless of size. The dispute threatened to break up the convention.

In stepped Roger Sherman and the Connecticut delegation. Level-headed, sober and practical, they proposed a compromise that would create a bicameral legislature in which each state would have two members regardless of size in one house and representation would be based on population in the other. The idea became known as the Connecticut Compromise. It carried the day and saved the Constitutional Convention.

This type of thinking continues to dominate Connecticut politics and government. Connecticut is often cited as one of the ''bellwether'' states of the union, but this is a little deceiving. True, Connecticut is decidedly more liberal than most other states, but it actually practices a very conservative form of liberalism.

We believe in trying new things, but only if they have worked somewhere else first. We would never be ones to experiment wildly because that would not be prudent, and we are above all prudent. We let other states (especially Massachusetts) start things. We watch, and, if it works and we like it, we try it. Right now, I am certain that our political leaders have a critical eye turned toward the state-wide health insurance plan being tried in Massachusetts. If it proves successful, I am sure that we will become ''one of the first in the nation'' to adopt a similar plan.

Many writers have lived in Connecticut, but only one has been a Connecticut Yankee to the core: Wallace Stevens. Stevens moved to Hartford in 1916 after taking a job with an insurance company. From that time until his death, he lived an odd double life, rising to become vice president of the company while composing some of the finest verse of his generation. His poetry was somber and sedate, much like his life, and much like the state in which he lived. He was a far cry from his well-known contemporary, the mighty Hemingway (an Illinois boy) who traveled the world, regularly shed and took on wives, shot big game in Africa and fished for huge marlin off the Florida Keys.

Actually, the two men did meet once under unusual circumstances. While Stevens was vacationing in Key West in 1936 (and far from the level-headed influence of Connecticut), he appeared at Hemingway's house wanting to fight. Stevens was a portly, graying, 56-year-old man at the time. Hemingway was 20 years younger and near the height of his pugilistic powers.

''Papa'' decked Stevens in the first round. Stevens went back to Hartford and continued to produce poetry to ever-increasing acclaim right up to his death at the age of 75. Hemingway drank away his health and his talent, and then blew his brains out with a shotgun when he was 61. Was Stevens a wimp? Maybe. But then again, look at how he ended up (happy, healthy, creative virtually to the end) compared with the macho-man Hemingway (physically and mentally ill, unable to write). Maybe it isn't so bad being a wimp after all.

Still, I cannot help but wonder what kind of a man Hemingway would have been if he had been born in Wethersfield instead of Oak Park. Perhaps Connecticut's calming influence would also have caused him to go into the insurance business. In that case, he might have called his first book ''The Premium Also Rises.''

______________________________

A somewhat lengthier version of this opinion piece was published in The New York Times nearly three decades ago, on September 4, 1988. How much about Connecticut has changed?  

Christopher Hoffman has gone on to a career as a news reporter, communications director and writer in Connecticut, working for the State Attorney General and New Haven Public Schools, and writing for the Hartford Courant, New Haven Register, Connecticut Magazine, Yale Medicine Magazine and the Columbia Journalism Review.  He is currently a freelance reporter and writer, and can be contacted at christophercarlhoffman@gmail.com. Abridged and published here with permission of the author.

PERSPECTIVE: The Hypocrisy of “Live and Let Live” or… When Did ‘Pile-On’ Become the Norm?

by Frances J. Trelease In my role as college lecturer, I often confer with students on global current events. After all, under our current president, stories of conflicts are as plentiful as the proverbial Horn of Plenty. And sometimes we look at how social media fans the flames of outrage between two sides.

But in a recent class, our goal was to highlight how public figures – political, athletic or celebrity – often handle themselves in a clumsy or obtuse manner.  We were to focus on mannerisms, more so than messages. But the talk quickly turned -- predictably so-- back to message. Also predictably… President Donald Trump took front and center stage.

Before I steered Trump policy talk back to the oafish and awkward (think the hilarity of George W. malapropisms, and Trump’s Twitter ‘covfefe’,) I read some of the indignations voiced by these intelligent, young adults. Their outrage was real. Here’s a sampling of what they railed against recently:

• A NY Times editorial penned by actress Mayim Bialik, who wrote of her own casting experiences in Hollywood, post-Harvey Weinstein. She was accused of insensitivity to other women, after saying she chose to dress conservatively to auditions.
• Comments by Carolina Panthers quarterback Cam Newton, who let slip with a chuckle, “It’s funny to hear a female talk about [wide receiver] routes.” (Better thought than vocalized? Sure. Deserving of the firestorm it ignited? Perhaps not.)
• and Heaven help ANYONE – on either side of the debate – who spoke their views on the NFL/anthem debate.

A good number of the comments my students reacted to were… dare I say… innocent off-the-cuff remarks. Not intended to wound or draw blood. Yet in most cases, the speakers in question faced unexpected and vociferous blow back.

The speakers apologized to their protestors, those who voiced indignation and anger, those who questioned their moral compass. They apologized to those who charged, “How dare you talk down a group I identify with? Don’t you know we’re all welcome in this great country of ours?”

Yet in this increasingly “pile on” culture, these same protestors don’t hesitate to pillorize, denigrate and lambaste their fellow citizens over the smallest perceived slight or disagreement – yelling down from their high ground of acceptance and tolerance.

Now don’t get me wrong. The Richard Spencers and David Dukes of the world, the white nationalists who marched in Charlottesville with swastikas emblazoned on their shirts and head scarves… it’s time to send them back to the sewers they crawled out from. No, I’m referring to those civil adults among us who voice their views because they feel they can. Increasingly, at a hasty turn of phrase, or a slight misstep, they find themselves buried in an avalanche of online vitriol.

I fear we’ve become, as a society, thin-skinned and quick to rage. We can’t or won’t take it… yet we’re quick to dish it out.

Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, described what he calls a dangerous growth in “identity politics.” While we ostensibly applaud our differences, we prey on them as well.

The zeitgeist of our country has never been more divided. To close that divide, perhaps it’s time to separate out the truly offensive (terrorists, and others who directly seek to cause harm), from those among us who are simply outspoken, sometimes to the displeasure of others. Whatever happened to civil debate?

If you disagree with someone, by all means say so. But don’t leave the village burning in your wake.

________________________________

Frances Trelease, (MBA, UConn ’96,) is the founder of Boomer Den LLC, which provides internships for midlife adults. She is also a college lecturer and former journalist for Gannett Newspapers. She is dedicated to partnering talented adults with new career opportunities. http://boomerden.com, Fran@BoomerDen.com

PERSPECTIVE: Let’s Hope Our White Friends Regain Their Senses Soon

by Frederick A. Hurst There was a time when we folks of color could rely on the predictability of White folks and be assured that, whether they were good or bad, we could predict their moves in any given situation. But nowadays, we don’t know what to think about White folks and that has become a real functional problem.

I mean, if White folks legally lynch us, co-opt us, cheat us or deny us economic and health security and justice under the law, we are not caught by surprise, just as we are not caught by surprise when White folks join us in genuine opposition to such behavior and honestly contribute to reversing the effects of it as do many White folks. However, Black folks are finding it more and more difficult to distinguish White friends from White foes.     

These are such confusing times that I am even unsure how to write about what seems to be happening. Black folks generally want to be one with White folks when they deserve it. But how can we be one with White folks while watching the many ways they rationalize acquitting cops who we watch murdering our Black men on national television? How can we be one with them when they elect a Donald Trump as president and let him twist their minds over the difference between using the flag and national anthem as touchstones of legitimate protest and using them to divide our country and to so easily make White folks believe that our Black athletes, who kneel during the national anthem, are unpatriotic?

My brother was killed in Vietnam while White folks were burning the American flag at the Pentagon and all over the streets of America in protest of the war (I was at the Pentagon during the protests observing White violence). Our Black athletes are kneeling to the flag in deference to all it stands for and as a reminder to White folks of what it has always stood for and should still stand for – most of all, justice. They are not desecrating the flag in protest. They are honoring it and all that it stands for. And my family story is not unique among Black folks.

So, it is disconcerting to hear White folks, who are supposed to be our friends, succumbing to Trump-like attacks on our patriotism even as many of them and/or their parents were among the ones who burned the flag and ran President Lyndon Johnson out of politics and laid the foundation for the election of Richard Nixon as his successor.

I don’t mean to belabor the point but my youngest brother served and died in Vietnam shortly after my oldest brother returned from his Vietnam service and my second youngest brother served on the DMZ in Korea shortly after that. My namesake, Uncle Frederick, served in the Pacific campaign in WWII and my Uncle Alton served in North Africa in the same war. And like so many other Black folks who served the American country and flag, both uncles returned to a society that rejected them and often lynched their Black counterparts for “stepping out of line” in the name of the “confederacy” and the flag that they tried to use to replace our own American flag.

Our White “friends” seem to have forgotten that Jackie Robinson, while serving in the United States Army in honor of the same American flag, was court marshaled for refusing to move to the back of a Southern bus years before Rosa Parks was arrested and later commemorated for the same behavior. So it is very disconcerting to listen to White “friends” suggest that their “love” of the flag is somehow greater than our love simply because we honor it in a different way.

Many Black folks feel that we are being victimized by something else that is going on in White America. White folks are fighting for power among themselves. And they are trying to use folks of color as pawns in their battle, which they can succeed at only if we folks of color allow them to do so. But stopping it is not easy because all sides in this White struggle – liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, alt right and far left – are fighting for their base and a shifting White middle and, unfortunately, a good portion of that White middle is bigoted as are most of those who identify with the alt right.

White emotions are running high – which often times means running amok – making it easier for the Trump-like demagogues on all sides to influence White opinion through faux patriotic, racist catcalls, which is why patriotism and the flag and racial appeals are proving to be easy tools for the Trump-like to divert even good people’s attention away from the real White battle for raw power.  

By any stretch of the imagination, the “old days” were slow going for African Americans but we always knew where we stood and what the fight was about and prepared for it. There was no confusion. We had good White folks and bad White folks and we always had to be prepared to fight even the good ones, who felt compelled to compromise with the bad at our expense. But we could reason with the good ones and even some of the bad ones. We understood this and had the all important benefit of no confusion.

President John Kennedy’s equivocation during the Civil Rights Movement is a good example. He was not a great civil rights president but we were able to keep our concerns on his mind until he was tragically assassinated and Lyndon B. Johnson stepped in and chose to be a historical leader on the issue of civil rights. But the situation today with Trump and the hard right, the radical left and the confused middle is out of control. We Black folks no longer have clarity. We don’t know who White folks are anymore. Too many seem to have completely lost their identity which is why watching them unite around patriotism and the flag is so scary and reminiscent of past historical trends that didn’t bode well for Black folks and certainly didn’t bode well for the European Jewish community during the Nazi era.

When the good White folks and the bad White folks united around such amorphous concepts as patriotism and the flag and claimed them as their own while ignoring the real issues of their times, we got lynched, literally and figuratively, and White folks justified it among themselves until the amorphous trends played themselves out.

One thing I know. Black folks should not be the first ones to speak out against the unfair characterization of Colin Kaepernick and other Black athletes and their supporters as unpatriotic for kneeling in protest of injustice. White folks should be, just as they should be unequivocal in speaking out against Trump-related bigotry. And as history has made clear, when White folks fail to act, Black folks must not fail to act. And we should not be the ones to have to remind White folks, friend and foe alike, of the same moral obligation that Martin Luther King, Jr. reminded his fellow White ministers of in his “Letter from the Birmingham Jail.”

He wrote:  “I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.” (emphasis added; available in full at www.afampov.com)

In this day and age, the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. written as he sat in isolation in the Birmingham jail during one of his many battles against injustice, should not be necessary. Unfortunately, they seem to be more necessary now than ever before. It is not a racist president or that substantial part of his White base that is racist who are most confounding. It is our confused White “friends” who are most worrisome because confusion is so easily misdirected by tyrants like Trump who understand that, in the midst of confusion, logic fails and appeals to emotions dominate and symbols like the flag can be useful in manipulating the behavior of confused White people, especially when they consider themselves to be righteous as so many White folks do, and who also consider themselves to be the arbiters of what is righteous.

So we Black folks and our many allies of color, and more enlightened White folks, are going through perilous times waiting for our confused White allies to recover from their confusion. And we know that during their recovery period, which we know can last for days or decades, we will bear the brunt of the consequences unless we prepare to defend ourselves, which we will do because historical circumstances have given us a new level of sophistication. You can’t hang us all!

Watching White folks unite around their own misappropriation of flag and country is disconcerting but historically familiar. We know where it could carry them and we know we are in for a tough fight. But we also know it’s a winnable fight and a mere continuation of the long fight from slavery to freedom that has been unabated since the first African slave was forced to build America without pay. Yet, from the very beginning, we have served our country and honored our flag with our blood. So, to see White folks willingly misappropriate the American flag as their own in this day and age, when we are presumed to be an enlightened people, is disheartening.

I don’t mind speaking up about it even though I understand there will be consequences. But my courage pales in comparison to that of Colin Kaepernick and those other Black athletes who continue to kneel in the view of huge crowds of mostly White folks who don’t want to hear the message these brave Black athletes are kneeling for and who conveniently convert the message into an anti-flag and country scam that in their confused minds justifies their tolerance of injustice in total contradiction to what our flag stands for.

I have no words that can heal White confusion. History says it will eventually work itself out but not without some cajoling and substantial discomfort for all of us. But history also tells us that the period from the onset of the confusion to the working out can be catastrophic, which is why I hope our White “friends” regain their senses soon.

____________________________

Frederick A. Hurst is co-owner, with his wife Marjorie J. Hurst, of An African-American Point of View (Point of View).  The free community newsmagazine by and for the African-American community and for other readers who are interested in news from the African-American community, in its 11th year of operations.  It is based in Springfield, MA and is published twice monthly, circulating in Springfield and in Connecticut.  This article first appeared, in a slightly longer form, in the most recent issue of Point of View and is published here with permission.

PERSPECTIVE: Connecticut Could Still Be the New Hollywood East for the Smallest Screens

by Lucy Wyndham Back in 2007, all the talk was of how Connecticut was to become the new Hollywood East, creating tax breaks, building up a trained crew base and hoping that the number of actors and directors already living in the state would attract the likes of Steven Spielberg and Sam Mendes.

Ten years on, things have panned out a little differently to the way that many had dreamed. The big budget movie producers might not have adopted Connecticut as their own, but the state nevertheless has a strong digital media industry that is growing, not on the big screen but on the smallest of all.

Niche is the new mainstream

Some directors might be disappointed at the direction the industry has taken and the shift in focus. But while cable TV and online media such as YouTube and Twitch TV might not be as glamorous, every piece of market research from survey sites says that this is where the smart investment dollars should be spent in the 21st century.

The big screen is by no means dead, but it is also not the entertainment powerhouse that it once was. The digital revolution, and the rise of mobile and smartphone technology in particular, mean that today’s consumers want bespoke entertainment that can be accessed when and where they choose. In other words, niche is rapidly becoming the new mainstream, and the Connecticut digital industry is in the right place at the right time.

From wrestling to animation

Lobbyist James Amann represents almost a thousand small filmmakers. He was the speaker of the House of Representatives when the push to grow Connecticut’s film and media industry got underway in 2007, and he looks back on the past ten years with mixed feelings. He applauds the progress made in building a digital industry, but feels the movie side was “mothballed” and represents a missed opportunity.

However, Catherine Smith, the Commissioner of the State Department of Economic and Community Development pointed to the breadth of development seen in the state, citing everything from World Wrestling bouts to recordings of the Jerry Springer Show to the popular animated productions coming out of Blue Sky Studios, all of which are created in Connecticut.

A world of opportunity

Since the inception of the tax incentive program in July 2006, qualified companies have earned $604 million in tax credits which leveraged the expenditure of over $2.1 billion in Connecticut’s economy encouraging the relocation of major networks, digital media companies and production operations. These in turn have led to the creation of close to two thousand jobs, including the following:

• NBCUniversal relocated talk shows including Jerry Springer (200 jobs)
• NBC Sports HQ consolidation and relocation (600 jobs)
• 20th Century Fox Blue Sky Studios relocated (500 jobs)
•    ESPN Digital Media Center-2 (200 jobs)

On top of these success stories, there has also been the relocation of Emmy Award winning home makeover series This Old House Stamford and numerous ot

her expansions including Tantor Audiobooks and XVIVO, the scientific digital animation company.

To prepare constituents for the job opportunities created by these successful incentives, the Connecticut Office of Film Television & Digital Media has partnered with UConn School of Digital Media Design to establish the Digital Media CT program. This develops training, programming and events specifically to encourage participation and employment in this ever-expanding industry.

Sustained growth

The sectors that Connecticut’s digital industry are focused on are areas that seem set to go from strength to strength. It could be less a question of whether Connecticut will become East Hollywood as whether Hollywood will be seeking to become West Connecticut in the years to come.

____________________________

Lucy Wyndham is a professional freelance writer with many years of experience across a variety of sectors. She made the move to freelancing from a stressful corporate job and loves the work-life balance it offers her. When not at work, she enjoys reading, hiking and spending time with her husband and two children.