PERSPECTIVE: Municipality Prevails as Fire Department Takes Over Ambulance Services in Milford

by David Slossberg In a first-of-its kind decision in Connecticut, the state has granted a municipality’s petition to revoke the basic level transport license of its national ambulance provider and reassign that license to its superior municipal fire department.  This pioneering effort was championed by the City of Milford, which now benefits from complete municipal control over the operation of, and revenue from, the provision of emergency medical services within its boundaries.

The City of Milford filed a petition with the Connecticut Department of Public Health (”DPH”)  in December 2014 requesting that it assign the Milford Fire Department as the City’s primary service area (“PSA”) responder for basic level ambulance service, a change that meant ousting American Medical Response (AMR), which had held the PSA license for Milford since 1995.

The City filed its petition pursuant to a newly enacted statute that gives municipalities the right to petition for removal and reassignment of its primary service area responders.  The City presented written briefs, testimony and oral arguments explaining why and how provision of ambulance service by its Fire Department would effectively maintain or improve patient care in the area.  Problems cited included AMR’s delayed response times, refusal to negotiate a service contract with improved standards, and failure to provide a bariatric ambulance (a specially-outfitted ambulance to accommodate the severely obese).

After nearly two years of proceedings before the DPH, the State agreed that the Milford Fire Department is better suited to meet community needs. The finding is based on Milford Fire Department’s plan for additional ambulances, considerably shorter response times, increased personnel training requirements, decreased costs, and more intense scrutiny of performance standards.

This decision is particularly important because it focuses emergency response on patient care, and makes clear that communities can have cost effective emergency services tailored to local needs that does not have to be compromised by the bottom line financial concerns of a large, national company.

I believe the decision is an effective first step towards breaking up AMR’s monopoly in the region. Over the last 15 years, AMR has compiled regional strongholds by buying smaller, local ambulance companies.  However, as it has become more regionally based, it has also become less responsive to the needs of local communities like Milford.  By controlling the primary service area, municipalities can either provide services themselves at standards suitable for their citizens, or place those services out to bid at standards set by the municipality.  That effectively prevents companies like AMR from citing, among other things, the costs to provide ambulance coverage on a regional basis and labor issues as reasons why they cannot agree to meet faster response times and more rigorous performance review and reporting requirements.  If they want the work, they must meet these higher standards.

The final decision of the Commissioner of the Department of Public Health transferred control of the basic level ambulance service in Milford to the Milford Fire Department in mid-October.  The City has now implemented its plan to the benefit of its residents.  Emergency responders currently serve the city’s population of some 55,000 in an area of approximately 26 square miles.

Milford Mayor Ben Blake lauded the decision, emphasizing that “it is a culmination of almost two years of hard work to develop a better response system for our residents and secures important advancements that will benefit patients and taxpayers.”

Of the victory, Milford’s Fire Chief, Douglas Edo said,” It was important for the City of Milford to have control over these services, which are so crucial to the public’s health and safety.  We are thrilled that the issue was decided in our favor to the great benefit of our community.”

_____________________________________

Atty. David Slossberg is a named partner in the Milford-based law firm Hurwitz, Sagarin, Slossberg and Knuff, LLC. He can be reached at 203-877-8000.

PERSPECTIVE commentaries by contributing writers appear each Sunday on Connecticut by the Numbers.

Seven CT Businesses Among 500 Fastest Growing Tech Companies in US

Where in Connecticut are the fastest growing technology companies?  New Haven, Branford, Trumbull, Madison, Norwalk, and Farmington. Seven Connecticut companies earned a ranking rank on the recently released 2016 Technology Fast 500 rankings of the fastest-growing tech companies in North America, compiled by professional-services firm Deloitte.  That’s the same number of Connecticut firms on last year’s list.

Four of the state’s representatives produce software, aligning with the dominance of that sector, with some 58 percent of this year’s Fast 500 companies in software. Two of the Connecticut companies work in biotechnology, which comprised the second-most represented segment on the list, covering 13 percent of firms.

New Haven-based Achillion Pharmaceuticals ranked highest among Connecticut companies, at No. 43, posting 2,436 percent growth. It was ranked #12 among biotechnology/Pharmaceutical companies. Achillion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a "science-driven, patient-focused company leveraging its strengths across the continuum from drug discovery to commercialization to provide better treatments for people with serious diseases," according to the company website.  

Following at No. 239, Farmington-based Evariant Software recorded a 303 percent increase. Next came HPOne, a Trumbull health-insurance solutions firm, which recorded 199 percent growth.  Madison's Clarity Software Solutions was No. 385, Norwalk-based software company etouches ranked No. 461, with 132 percent growth.  Rounding out the Connecticut tech firms earning a slot among the top 500 were Branford-based Core Infomatics at No. 469 and Alexion Pharmaceuticals, now headquartered in New Haven, at No. 473.

New York City and California firms accounted for nine of the top 10 companies on the list. By region, the San Franciso Bay area had 20 percent of the companies, New York 17 percent,  Los Angeles 8 percent,  Washington 6 percent and New England 5 percent.

Los Angeles-based Loot Crate, which delivers entertainment and pop culture-themed collectibles, ranked No. 1 overall, with 66,661 percent growth between 2012 and 2015. Founded in 2012, Loot Crate has more than 650,000 subscribers worldwide in 35 countries. The ranking summary points out that "Loot Crate’s position at the top of this year’s list showcases how innovation isn’t always about new technology and invention, but also about ingenuity, the recombining of existing assets, and know-how in new ways to maximize value."

Yieldbot, a New York City-based company focused on media, ranked No. 2.

"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, & Telecommunications leader.

The focus of the Connecticut firms that made this year’s list reflected the overall composition of the rankings, which were based on companies’ revenue growth between 2012 and 2015.  Software continues to have the greatest impact across technology sectors, representing 58 percent of the entire list and five of the top 10 winners overall.

"Combining technological innovation, entrepreneurship, and rapid growth, Fast 500 companies—large, small, public, and private—hail from cities far and wide across North America and are disrupting the technology industry," the introduction to the rankings emphasized.

Rate of Success Obtaining Venture Capital is High in Hartford, Study Finds

A look at the nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas to see how entrepreneurs have fared in their quests to secure money from venture capitalists, angel investors, and online crowds brought a somewhat surprising result – among the cities mentioned as ranking high in venture funding success rates was Hartford. Connecticut’s Capitol was listed among a handful of cities with success rates for businesses seeking venture capital that “are about twice as high as the national average.” According to a new report issued this month by the Kauffman Foundation, roughly $68 billion was invested in venture capital (VC) deals in the United States in 2014 and 7,878 employer businesses reported receiving venture capital funds. Thirty percent of those recipients were located in just four metro areas: New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Boston. The national average was 0.2%.

Among the metro areas that rank highly in terms of those venture funding success rates, according to the report “Trends in Venture Capital, Angel Investing and Crowdfunding,” include: San Francisco, CA (0.8%), San Jose, CA (0.8%), Boston, MA (0.5%), Hartford, CT (0.5%), Memphis, TN (0.4%), Minneapolis, MN (0.4%), Philadelphia, PA, (0.4%), Richmond, VA (0.4%), Washington, D.C. (0.4%). Among the lowest ranked of the 50 largest metropolitan regions in the nation, at 0.1 percent, were Baltimore, Denver, Jacksonville, Las Vegas, Orlando, Riverside, and Tampa.

The report noted that “Some perhaps unlikely metro areas rank highly in terms of those venture funding success rates: Hartford, Memphis, Richmond, and Buffalo. This doesn’t necessarily mean that there are higher quality firms there, and, of course, the volume of firms seeking VC is smaller…And, these data don’t mean that all the funding came from local sources: venture capital firms in New York could be investing in Hartford businesses. But these numbers lend credence to arguments…that high-quality deals can be found everywhere, and that firms in these regions can succeed in raising equity capital.”

While 10.3 percent of entrepreneurs report using personal credit cards when starting their business, nationally, only 0.6 percent initially received venture capital, the analysis found.

The metros with the highest percentage of firms receiving venture capital funding when starting include: San Jose (2.4%), San Francisco (1.5%), Salt Lake City (1.3%), Austin (1.2%), Baltimore (1.1%), Birmingham (1.1%), and Nashville (1.1%).

According to the report, based on the 2014 Annual Survey of Entrepreneurs (ASE), “the primary sources of initial financing for new businesses in the United States are: personal and family savings, bank business loans, and personal credit cards.”  The report notes, however, that “entrepreneurs also tap other sources of funding, including venture capital, which “can be disproportionately important for business growth.”

The ASE, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, is the largest annual survey of American entrepreneurs ever done, and is done in a public-private partnership between the Census Bureau, the Kauffman Foundation, and the Minority Business Development Agency. The ASE samples approximately 290,000 employer businesses across all U.S. geographies and demographics, the report explained.

The top metropolitan statistical area for crowdfunding success in 2014 was Charlotte; for angel investing, San Jose led the way.  The report concludes that the concentration of venture capital firms in California, Massachusetts, and New York, “is well-correlated with the relative concentration of firms that receive VC investments.” Crowdfunding campaigns in Minneapolis and Oklahoma City, the report indicates, “may not be entirely due to local funders.”

“The ASE data add quantitative confirmation to what we know from other sources: high-quality entrepreneurs can be found—and can get funding—in nearly every corner of the United States.”

Including Hartford.

CT is Among 24 States Seeing Weak Revenues, Highest Number Since Recession

Connecticut is not alone. According to the National Association of State Budget Officers’ (NASBO) annual state spending survey, half of all states saw revenues come in lower than budgeted in fiscal 2016 and 24 states – including Connecticut - are seeing those weak revenue conditions carry into fiscal 2017. That is the highest number of states falling short of revenue projections since 36 states budgets missed their mark in 2010, according to the NASBO report and Governing.  As a result, 19 states made mid-year budget cuts in 2016, totaling $2.8 billion, Connecticut among them. That number of states “is historically high outside of a recessionary period,” according to the report.  The revenue slowdown is caused mainly by slow income tax growth, even slower sales tax growth and an outright decline in corporate tax revenue, the report explains, stating that “progress since the Great Recession has been uneven, and many states are seeing softening state tax collections.”

Overall, state spending totaled $786 billion last fiscal year, a 3.7 percent annual increase. Although it marks the seventh straight year of spending growth, it represents a slowdown from fiscal 2015 when spending increased by 4.4 percent.

“Weaker-than-anticipated revenue collections and resulting budget gaps in fiscal 2016 led some states to cut spending during the year,” the report indicated, with overall spending increasing just 1.8 percent to $781 billion in fiscal 2016, compared with the previous year’s growth of 5 percent. When accounting for inflation, 32 states are still spending less than they did before the Great Recession and total state spending also has yet to surpass pre-recession levels.  Across the states, cuts enacted by legislatures come most often in K-12 education, an “all other” category, followed by Medicaid, higher education and corrections, according to data compiled for the NASBO report.

The state has an estimated $1.3 billion or $1.5 billion budget deficit, according to reports from the governor’s Office of Policy and Management and the legislature’s nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis, CTNewsJunkie reported recently.

“Certainly a recession is coming sometime soon,” said NASBO President-elect Michael Cohen, who is also California’s finance director, told Governing. “But I think economists in all of the state offices would tell you that’s a really hard economic forecasting [task] of predicting when that’s going to happen.”  NASBO had previously predicted that fiscal 2016 would mark the full recovery of state budgets from the recession, but the cutbacks and increased inflation has delayed that at least another year.

The report indicates that eight (including energy-producing states like Alaska, North Dakota and Oklahoma) planned to spend less in 2017, and 11 states planned to up their spending by 6 percent or more next year. In those states, sales tax increases have improved their revenue with Louisiana, for example, anticipating a 17 percent increase in revenue, driven by an expected $800 million increase in sales tax collections.

Most states have focused on strengthening their rainy day funds, according to the report, though some states – particularly energy-producing ones – have had to tap their reserves to help address budget shortfalls. Twenty-nine states increased their rainy day fund balances in fiscal 2016, and 25 states project increases in fiscal 2017. Since aggregate rainy day fund levels hit a recent low in fiscal 2010, 40 states had increased their amounts as of the end of fiscal 2016, at least in nominal terms, the report said.

“States will also have to contend with rising spending demands in areas such as health care and education, long-term pressures such as pensions and infrastructure, and increasing federal uncertainty,” the report predicted, “particularly concerning the prospects of tax reform and health care policy. In this environment, states are likely to be cautious in their spending and revenue forecasts, as they continue to focus on ensuring structurally balanced budgets.”

https://youtu.be/uAvz-zo9NQw

MA Overtakes CT, Jobs on Horizon for EB - Bad News, Good News for State Economy

Connecticut is “in a rut”according to one regional newspaper, while another is reporting on plans by a local company to hire 14,000 workers during the next decade.  Bad news and good news, simultaneously. “Ten years ago, it was the undisputed economic king of New England, with average incomes 13 percent higher than Massachusetts and 40 percent above third-ranked New Hampshire,” the Boston Globe's data reporter says of Connecticut.  “Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, low- and middle-wage workers in Connecticut consistently took home bigger paychecks than their Massachusetts peers.  In the past few years all these economic advantages have disappeared. Unemployment is now far lower in Massachusetts. And Bay State employees get the best wages — whether you look at low-earners, top-earners, or those in the middle.”

The Globe cites recent housing data to underscore the point.

“Of all the cities tracked by the National Association of Realtors, 90 percent have seen their housing prices rise since 2010. That leaves just 17 metropolitan areas still trying to claw back from the recession. Four of those underwater markets are in Connecticut — and they extend to virtually every corner of the state, from Stamford in the southwest to New London in the east and as far north as Hartford.”

“Among the biggest changes in the Massachusetts economy,” the Globe column points out, “has been the explosion of professional, scientific, and technical services — think architects, engineers, software designers, consultants, and scientific researchers. Since 2000, this sector has grown by nearly 50 percent in Massachusetts, which is a key reason the state as a whole has performed so well. In Connecticut, these same fields have expanded by just 6 percent.”

Globe reporter Evan Horowitz, who writes the paper’s Quick Study column using data to discuss policy,  notes that “without a hub like Boston, Connecticut can’t simply pull pages from the Massachusetts playbook.”  He suggests that “a Trump-fueled surge in corporate profits and stock valuations could provide a much-needed boost to the state’s fortunes. But if there’s one lesson of recent years, it’s that counting on Wall Street excess to compensate for other economic ills is a dangerous strategy; bubbles burst, recessions happen, and in the absence of a long-term economic strategy, Connecticut could once again find itself floundering.”

A brighter ray of potential economic sunshine is reported by the Day of New London, outlining plans by General Dynamics Electric Boat in Groton for a massive decade-long hiring spree resulting from an increase in submarine orders by the U.S. Navy, spurred by “strong Congressional support.”

“The company will hire 14,000 new employees over the next 13 years,” the Day reports.  “Those employees will fill new positions and those being vacated by retirees and those who leave for other reasons. The burst in new hires will take EB from its workforce of 14,500 today to 18,000 in 2030.  This year alone, the company hired 1,600 new full-time employees. Another 800 received conditional job offers and are in the process of applying for a security clearance or awaiting that clearance.”

Reporter Julia Bergman indicates that “six different submarines are currently under construction there. Another is in for its ‘50,000 mile checkup.’ And an eighth is undergoing a major overhaul.”

The work – and the jobs – extend beyond EB.

“While the engineering workforce has neared its peak, EB will continue to hire a larger number of shipyard personnel such as welders, machinists, and electricians,” the Day reports. “About 40 percent of this year’s new hires were tradespeople.”  Training programs and local colleges are straining to meet the demand, the newspaper reports.

Underscoring the importance of healthcare to Connecticut’s economy, there is a new number one employer (by number of employees) in the state, according to published reports.  A year ago, United Technologies was the largest employer in Connecticut, according to 24/7 Wall Street.  After selling its helicopter division, Sikorsky, UTC’s employee headcount dropped from around 24,500 to an estimated 16,000. With 20,396 total employees, Yale New Haven Health is now the largest employer in Connecticut, the publication notes.  Yale New Haven Health includes Bridgeport Hospital, Greenwich Hospital, Yale New Haven Hospital, Yale New Haven Children's Hospital, Smilow Cancer Hospital at Yale New Haven and Yale New Haven Psychiatric Hospital.  The Hartford Business Journal last year ranked Hartford Healthcare, with 18,000 employees, just behind Yale New Haven Health.  Hartford Healthcare acute care facilities include Backus Hospital, Hartford Hospital, The Hospital of Central Connecticut, MidState Medical Center and Windham Hospital.

Education Is Key to Improving State of Black Hartford, New Report Says

"The State of Black Hartford,"  published more than two decades after a landmark sociological text originally published in 1994, squarely focuses on education as the overriding issue on which Hartford’s future, and Connecticut’s, will be determined, flatly stating that “the future of Hartford rests with how we educate our children so they can contribute to the state and survive as productive citizens.” “The mis-education of children is a human rights struggle. Children of color are our children and the thousands that are failing can no longer be tolerated. We have a moral, ethical and economic responsibility to educate children in Hartford. Hartford’s future is our children and they deserve an opportunit to compete and survive,” the new report’s conclusion states.

The report, published in recent weeks and unveiled at a public session in Hartford, points out that “the city remains challenged with high unemployment rates, uneven public education, missed opportunities in economic development, and a work force that is not adequately prepared to achieve sustainable living wages.  There are new forms of discrimination where children graduate from high school without a real education to support themselves.”

Observing that “education in Hartford has been a priority for many years,” the report goes on to suggest what should happen next.  “Leaders with great intentions have tried, but it is time to require and invite the involvement and participation from parents and families as partners in their children’s education. There is no other way to address the needs of children. Our society has made it very clear it will not take care of them.”

The 220 page report, made possible through a $36,000 grant from the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving, was written by volunteers from a diverse group of disciplines, including educators, social workers and ministers. It was published by the Urban League of Greater Hartford, Inc.  Stanley F. Battle, director of the University of St. Joseph's master's of social work program was Editor; Ashley L. Golden-Battle was content editor.

The State of Black Hartford 2016 addresses challenges that African Americans face at both the national and local level through a series of briefs and chapters.  The chapter authors “pay close attention to how Blacks are perceived by the public” and “incorporate barriers to education, economic stability, health and welfare.”  Metrics and case studies are used "to better understand Black Hartford."  Chapter authors include Peter Rosa, Amos Smith, U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, Maris Dillman, Rodney L. Powell, Yan Searcy, Kimberly Hardy, Yvonne Patterson, Eunice Matthews, Clyde Santana, Trevor Johnson, and Rev. Shelley Best.

Noting that Hartford holds the “distinction of being both the capital for one of the wealthiest states in the country and being one of the poorest cities in country,” among the key observations highlighted in the report:

• “We need family stability, livable wages, economic development, and education to fully bridge the achievement gap.”
• “Hartford is a great place to work—the Greater Hartford community is aware of this fact. It is important to make sure that Hartford residents receive some of those benefits.”
• “Economic growth and business development are the foundation for Hartford’s survival. With downtown development and the presence of universities, it is time to develop new business incubators in the arts, home repair, healthcare, biotechnology, and business.”
• “In Hartford, 37 percent of the population is Black yet they make up only 10 percent of the population throughout the rest of Connecticut and 12 percent of the population in the United States (DHHS, 2012). The population of Hartford is younger than other Connecticut and U.S. cities with over 70 percent of the residents being under 45 years old (DHHS, 2012).”
• “The lifeblood of Hartford depends on education, business, employment, economic status and mortality, housing and food.”

Issues including criminal justice, housing, healthcare, child welfare are also discussed in depth in the report.  Case studies, anecdotal evidence and data are highlighted throughout the report.  The central role of faith, and religious institutions is also the focus of the report, in the context that “presently Black Churches are still striving to meet increasing demands with decreasing resources.” 

That uphill effort is reflected in the report indicating that “the Black Church cannot continue to operate as an independent agent with sparse budgets drawn from the meager donations of an already struggling congregation.  Clergy and congregations need to build coalitions with other churches…”  The importance is underscored as the report stresses that “active involvement of faith leaders as community leaders in the ongoing struggle for social, political, and economic justice is no less necessary now than it has ever been.”

The report bluntly states that “…if we do not educate children from urban school districts, the future of this state will be at serious risk. The achievement gap continues to expand with little improvement. It is true that there has been some improvement in graduation rates. However, many graduating seniors from urban school districts must endure remedial work if they decide to attend a two or four-year institution.”

Education is viewed as essential to solving a range of persistent challenges facing the city’s African-American community and city residents: “The challenges that confront Hartford include the overarching issue of poverty.  While some efforts to address economic development, crime, and financial stability have been discussed in this book, education is the ultimate determinate of success.  In order for Hartford to excel, the population must be educated. The emerging majority must be able to support itself and children require cutting edge educational opportunities.”

Among the data points:

• One half of high school graduates need help when they start a community college or a state university. Sixty-three percent of Hartford high school graduates require a remedial coursework.
• Slightly less than one third of Black males and slightly more than one third of Latino males to begin college education at public institutions of higher education complete their education within six years.

The report notes that “Frequently, urban youth can’t afford to attend community colleges, so how will they be able to earn a four- year degree?  Hartford has the right idea to focus on education and economic development. Children need their parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and the community to be successful.”

The report also calls for crime and homicide rates to be addressed at the community level. “There are families who have lived in Hartford for over 30 years and all of their children graduated from the Hartford Public school system. Their children are successful.  How did they do it and why don’t we ask them?”

Economic development, the report explains, is another pivotal area that requires attention that differs from past efforts: “Blacks must become a major part of the growth strategy of these neighborhoods. The promise will only work if there is a diverse group of investors with Black investors in these zones. Black people must become owners in the city in greater numbers.”

Dr. Stanley F. Battle, educator, author and civic activist is currently Director/Professor of the MSW Program in the Department of Social Work and Latino Community Practice at the University of Saint Joseph.  Previously, Dr. Battle was the Interim President at Southern Connecticut State University, Chancellor at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University (NCA&T) and President of Coppin State University in Baltimore.

The mission of the Urban League of Greater Hartford is “To reduce economic disparities in our communities through programs, services and educational opportunities.”

PERSPECTIVE: 10 Years, 10 Questions – A Reflection on Safe Driving Advocacy

Connecticut was reeling, from 49 teen-driver-related deaths in 2006 (among more than 5,000 nationally), and then seven teen fatalities in six weeks during August and October 2007. Connecticut’s governor, a grandmother herself, had had enough, and appointed a task force to overhaul our state’s teen driver law. The Connecticut task force recommended, the legislature accepted, and the governor signed (in April 2008) revisions to our teen driver law that made it one of the strictest in the nation: an earlier curfew, longer passenger restrictions, mandatory seat belts, a ban on texting, license suspensions for violations, enhanced powers for police, and a required safe teen driving class for parents. The class, a controversial proposal, demonstrated that the political mood was to risk the ire of parents in the name of safety.

The group would build on the heroic efforts of three mothers who had lost teens in crashes in the span of eleven days in 2002, but plainly there was more to be done. Governor Rell asked me to serve, because one of the 2006 fatalities, on December 2, had been my son Reid, seventeen years old, the driver in a one-car crash on an interstate highway. I had an opportunity to make sure that Reid had not died in vain.

I have learned that stricter traffic safety laws work. Nationally, annual deaths from motor vehicle crashes have declined from more than 50,000 in the 1970’s to about 35,000 in recent years. In Connecticut in 2014, that 2006 number, 49 teen-driver-related deaths, was reduced to ten, a remarkable public safety achievement. But while learning the characteristics of successful advocacy, I also became acquainted with the forces that impede stricter safe driving laws and efforts to lower crash rates and fatalities.

So where are we today? Confronted by this alarming new statistic: in 2015, more than 35,000 people died on American roads, a seven percent increase from 2014. More than four thousand of those deaths were in teen-driver-related crashes. In 2016, we are on pace for yet another increase. Decades of progress are beginning to reverse.

I now offer ten questions. These are intended to be provocative. They ask, “Why not?” and “Can’t we do better?” They are unconstrained by political reality, cultural norms, or public budgets. My aim is to provide to you readers, especially those in government and the traffic safety community, with pointed inquiries about where we are drawing the line today between freedom and safety:

1. Why does the government allow the manufacture and sale of cars that can go much faster than eighty miles per hour, when it is illegal to drive faster than eighty on any road in the United States? In the October 2007 crash in Connecticut that killed four teens, the estimated speed was 140 miles per hour. The federal government can mandate safety features for automobiles, the technology to install so-called “speed governors” exists, and they can be installed and even retrofitted at little cost.
2. Federal regulations ban cigarette advertising because smoking is dangerous, so why do we allow automobile advertising on television that shows illegal and unsafe driving? Ads show cars driving fast, in dangerous places, performing stunts and smashing through concrete and glass without a scratch. Would it really hurt sales to ban advertising that shows absurdly unsafe and plainly illegal driving?
3. The federal Food and Drug Administration does not allow products to be sold to the American public until they have been proven safe, so why does the federal government allow installation in cars of electronic devices that have nothing to do with the safe operation of the vehicle, without making the manufacturers first prove that these devices will not distract from safe driving? Are we allowing auto manufacturers to experiment with the safety of the American public? Why is the response to date only voluntary guidelines?
4. If assessment of risk and judgment about how to avoid it are not fully developed in the human brain until we reach age 22 to 25, why do states issue licenses to teens as young as 14, 15, and 16? Tradition and parent convenience are not acceptable answers.
5. Because it is well-established that new teen drivers have the highest crash rates, and that parent supervision is essential to the success of teen driver laws, why don’t all states require at least one parent or supervising adult, as a condition of putting their teen on public roads, to attend a class about the elevated dangers of teen driving?
6. Why do most distracted driving laws cover only cell phones and texting, but not distractions from dashboard-mounted, interactive, Internet-ready, smartphone-synched screens?
7. When all of the world’s leading public health and safety organizations agree that hands-free/voice-activated use of a cell phone can be just as distracting as hand-held use (because voice-activated causes what is called “cognitive blindness”), why do so many states ban or limit hand-held use, but allow hands-free?
8. Why do cell phone and distracted driving laws vary by state, when the driving technology and the risk are essentially the same everywhere? Has anyone considered the absurdity of someone driving from Maine to Florida passing through fourteen different sets of rules about cell phone use? One uniform set of rules would help drivers understand their obligations and law enforcement monitor compliance.
9. Why do most distracted driving laws focus on specific devices, such as cell phones and laptops, when it is foolish for our laws to try to keep pace with ever-evolving ways that information, music, and entertainment are delivered, and a more comprehensive approach would be a rule targeting driver conduct, such as: “Except in an emergency, no driver of a vehicle not in Park shall use any electronic device, whether in hand-held, hands-free, or voice activated mode, to send or read a message, send or view a photograph or video, make a phone call, or communicate with a person outside the vehicle”?
10. Why do legislators often demand incontrovertible statistical evidence before enacting stricter safe driving measures when the risks are obvious? In 2014, at a conference, I heard a leading traffic safety engineer say that, “We don’t know definitively how risky cell phone use while driving is.” Well, maybe not to the fourth decimal point, but should the lack of precise, multi-year data hold us back from common sense safety regulation when the danger, if not the exact quantity, is clear?

In summary, can we envision adopting driving laws that better align with science and evidence; requiring safety education for parents of teen drivers; banning cars that can go faster than any speed limit; allowing only advertising that proclaims features, but doesn’t show driving fantasies; making manufacturers prove that electronic devices are safe before installing them; imposing a uniform distracted driving law that focuses on driver conduct instead of particular devices; and treating hands-free and voice-activated the same as hand-held? The costs and even the inconvenience would not be substantial, but the lives saved would be.

As I always say, I am not an expert, engineer, or professional; I’m just a Dad with a keyboard, fueled by a still-raw, emotional need to vindicate the memory of a boy who died. I’m a guy who has done some research and writing, an outsider questioning what has and has not been achieved, and why. It’s a strange thing, traffic safety advocacy: success is ephemeral and change is incredibly hard.

Giving up and accepting fatalities and injuries as the price of our mobility, or beyond our control, is not an option.

_______________________________

Tim Hollister, of West Hartford, is the author of “From Reid’s Dad,” www.fromreidsdad.org, a national blog for parents of teen drivers, and Not So Fast: Parenting Your Teen Through The Dangers of Driving (Chicago Review Press, 2013). Tim’s advocacy has received national public service awards from the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Governors Highway Safety Association, and the National Safety Council.  This excerpt of his Reflection is printed with permission.  The full text can be seen here.

Mattress Recycling Has Solid First Year in Connecticut

Saying bye-bye to a used mattress in Connecticut has changed dramatically during the past year-and-a-half, as Connecticut became one of only three states in the nation to institute a statewide mattress recycling program. The initiative, approved by the state legislature two years ago and underway since May 2015, has gained a solid foothold here, according to its first annual report.  The Mattress Recycling Council (MRC), a non-profit organization established by the mattress industry that created and manages the program in Connecticut, California and Rhode Island, presented its inaugural Annual Report of the Connecticut Bye Bye Mattress Program to Connecticut municipal leaders and state regulators last month. The report summarized the Program’s performance from its inception through the end of the state’s 2016 fiscal year (June 30).

The Connecticut program has “exceeded, met or is on pace to achieve nearly all benchmarks” set in its plan, which was approved by the state in 2014. Highlights include:

• Recycled 150,000 mattresses.
• Recovered more than 2,800 tons of steel, foam and other materials that will be made into new useful products.
• Expanded the collection network to 101 free drop-off sites throughout the state.

“We are pleased with the program’s productive start and will continue to work with city leaders, businesses and the state to improve the program, expand the number of communities served, and increase the volume of mattresses recycled,” said Ryan Trainer, President of MRC and the International Sleep Products Association.

Bye Bye Mattress allows Connecticut residents to drop-off used mattresses at participating collection sites, collection events and recycling facilities free of charge. This collection network is made possible by the $9 recycling fee that Connecticut consumers pay when they buy a new mattress or box spring. The fee provides for collection containers, transporting the discarded mattresses and recycling costs.

Industry-led recycling programs like Bye Bye Mattress will play an important part in helping Connecticut reach its goal to divert 60 percent of materials from disposal by 2024, officials indicated in the 59-page report.

“We applaud the mattress industry for developing a successful statewide program under the mattress stewardship law that has already recycled thousands of mattresses in an environmentally sound manner,” said Robert Klee, Commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.  “This program has created jobs, recovered vast quantities of resources to be reused, saved municipalities $1.5 million in disposal costs and given residents an easy way to recycle a cumbersome item.”

MRC is also working with more than 130 other public and private entities, including mattress retailers, hotels, military bases, universities and healthcare facilities in Connecticut to divert their discarded mattresses from the solid waste stream.  The MRC website indicates that the organization continues to enroll interested municipal transfer stations in the program and work with those interested in hosting recycling events.

Connecticut’s Public Act 13-42 (enacted in 2013 and amended in 2014) required the mattress industry to create a statewide recycling program for mattresses discarded in the state. Connecticut residents can find their nearest participating collection site, collection event or recycling facility at www.ByeByeMattress.com.

Preventing Elder Abuse: CT Ranks 26th in USA

Connecticut ranks 26^th among the nation’s 50 states in providing protections for elder abuse, according to a new analysis of state policies by the financial website WalletHub. Connecticut is the 7^th oldest population in the nation.  The U.S. Census Bureau expects the national population aged 65 and older to nearly double from 43.1 million in 2012 to 83.7 million in 2050, in large measure due to aging Baby Boomers who began turning 65 in 2011.

Abuse happens every day and takes many forms, WalletHub’s explains. “Anyone can become a victim of abuse, but vulnerable older Americans — especially those who are women, have disabilities and rely on others for care or other type of assistance — are among the easiest targets for such misconduct.”

WalletHub’s analysts compared the 50 states and the District of Columbia based on 10 key indicators of elder-abuse protection. The data set ranges from “share of elder-abuse, gross-neglect and exploitation complaints” to “financial elder-abuse laws.” By one estimate, the analysis summary points out, elder abuse affects as many as 5 million people per year, and 96 percent of all cases go unreported.

States described as having the “Best Elder-Abuse Protections” are the District of Columbia, Nevada, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Missouri, Tennessee, Iowa, Louisiana, Vermont and Hawaii.  At the bottom of the list were Rhode Island, California, Wyoming and South Carolina.

WalletHub’s review of data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia were conducted across three key dimensions: 1) Prevalence, 2) Resources and 3) Protection.  Connecticut’s highest ranking in the individual categories was in Resources, ranking 23^rd.  The Resources category included Total Expenditures on Elder-Abuse Prevention per Resident Aged 65 & Older, Total Expenditures on Legal-Assistance Development per Resident Aged 65 & Older, Total Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program Funding per Resident Aged 65 & Older.

The state legislature earlier this year folded the Legislative Commission on Aging into the new Commission on Women, Children and Seniors.  Former executive director Julia Evans Starr pointed out in an April article that "Elder abuse is a significant social justice issue that transcends race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, income, and education levels. At least 10 percent of older adults have suffered elder abuse — and that proportion is set rise among Connecticut’s rapidly growing, longer-lived population. It demands a strong policy response."

Panera in Connecticut: State of Flux

If you’re looking for a Panera location in Connecticut, check twice before you head out for a sandwich.  There may be a new location opening nearby, or the locale you’re familiar with may have already closed its doors. The churn at Panera may not be unusual, but it did come as an unwelcome surprise to regulars at the Newtown location when it abruptly closed in mid-November, with a sign on the door saying farewell (and please visit other locations.)   And later this month, the long-time location in Darien will be closing.

The Darien store has been renting 3,754-square-feet — the entire first floor of its building, since 2007, when it became the first Panera Bread restaurant to open up in Connecticut, according to published reports.

The chain now has more than 2,000 locations, including in Connecticut – some owned by the company, most by franchisees.  While the departure from Newtown was an unexpected surprise to customers, plans to leave the Darien location have been known since June, when it was first reported by local media.

Last fall, a Panera location closed in Meriden and a location in nearby Wallingford opened. Also on the plus side, a Panera opened earlier this year at Evergreen Walk shopping plaza in South Windsor.  As of this spring, there were 17 Panera Bread locations in Connecticut, all across the state.  The Downtown Hartford location, its first in the city, opened in 2013.

As of June 28, 2016, there were 2,007 bakery-cafes in 46 states and in Ontario, Canada operating under the Panera Bread, Saint Louis Bread Co. or Paradise Bakery & Cafe names. Published reports indicate the company has 97,000 employees nationwide and saw a 3.4 percent growth in sales in its third quarter this year. In 2015, it reportedly generated roughly $2.7 billion in revenue. Founder and CEO Ron Shaich attended college at Clark University in Worcester in the 1970’s.

Earlier this year, Fortune magazine reported that the company estimated that over 20% of orders would be produced and paid for digitally by the end of 2016, up from 16%. In some markets, digital sales are making up more than a third of retail sales, according to the company. The restaurant chain says digital orders could make up half of the total business down the road, the magazine reported.

According to the industry website Fast Casual, Panera Bread does not sell single-unit franchises, so it is not possible to open just one bakery-cafe. Rather, the company has chosen to develop by selling market areas which require the franchise developer to open a number of units, typically 15 bakery-cafes in a period of 6 years.

Panera says it serves 3 to 4 percent of all Americans every week.