Connecticut and TESLA: The Battle Lines Expand

It was a one-two punch from Connecticut aimed at Tesla, in the marketplace and in the boardroom. On Tuesday, at the company’s annual shareholder meeting at the Computer History Museum in Mountain view, CA, a shareholder resolution advocated by the Office of State Treasurer Denise Nappier was on the agenda.

And on Wednesday, the Connecticut legislature concluded the 2017 regular session, leaving behind a proposal that would have enabled Tesla to sell cars directly to Connecticut consumers, as is done in many other states.  It was the third consecutive year that the plan did not receive approval from legislators, in the face of strong opposition from the Connecticut Automotive Trades Association.

The Tesla proposal was approved by two legislative committees - Transportation and Finance, Revenue, and Bonding - but was never voted on by House or Senate members in their respective chambers.  The bill pitted the state’s longstanding car dealers against the new model that Tesla prefers.

The Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds shareholder resolution called for the declassification of Tesla’s board and for the annual election of all of Tesla’s directors.  The $32 billion Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds (“CRPTF”), of which Treasurer Nappier is principal fiduciary, owned 32,837 shares of Tesla, Inc. common stock with a market value of $11.6 million as of June 6, 2017.

Tesla’s board currently is classified, which means that each year only a portion of the directors are elected by shareholders.  This year shareholders had the opportunity to vote on three of Tesla’s seven directors. The company’s board recommended that “our stockholders vote against this proposal.”

“Independent shareholders gave Tesla a clear message: it's time to sharpen the company's governance profile and strengthen board member accountability to shareholders, whose interests they are elected to represent,” Nappier said after the shareholder vote.

Connecticut’s resolution, the first ever filed to declassify Tesla’s board, received an estimated 47 percent of the votes not controlled by directors and officers, indicating strong support for the annual election of directors, according to the Treasurer’s Office.  Representing the Connecticut Treasurer’s Office at the annual meeting, and presenting the proposal, was Aeisha Mastagni, a Portfolio Manager in the Corporate Governance Unit of the California State Teachers’ Retirement System. Overall, according to a U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission filing, 74.7 million shareholders voted against the proposal, with 32.7 million voting in favor.

“And now that Tesla has joined the ranks of the Fortune 500, we encourage the company to take particular heed of the recent vote,” Nappier added, “given that most of its largest U.S. company peers have already embraced annual election of directors.  It should reconsider its opposition to this fundamental provision of good governance.”

“At the end of the day, Tesla has and will continue to develop and deploy new technologies and products that will be an important part of the global economy’s clean energy future.   The company’s corporate structure should likewise evolve toward a more accountable governance framework that will fortify its bottom line and sustainable value,” said Nappier, a veteran shareholder activist.

In the aftermath of the Connecticut legislative session, a spokesman for Tesla told CT NewsJunkie that the company wasn’t quite ready to give up on the state. Tesla is allowed to sell direct to consumers in most jurisdictions in the U.S. and around the world. They are prohibited from selling directly in Connecticut, Michigan, Texas, and West Virginia, according to the company.

“The residents of Connecticut overwhelmingly want Tesla to be able to freely operate in the state, and despite inaction during this session,” a company spokesman said.  There are approximately 1,300 Tesla vehicles registered in Connecticut.

Student News Stories Showcase Next Generation of Journalists

With journalism and journalists under increasing criticism and new technology making old models of financing investigative journalism tougher, Hartford’s FOX 61 is showcasing young journalists as they learn the profession and develop stories that reach local newscasts. FOX 61 Student News was relaunched in February after a multi-year absence, and last week honored students at a special year-end awards ceremony held at Goodwin College in East Hartford. During the school year, FOX61 Student News empowered Connecticut middle and high school students to explore the world of multi-media journalism by giving them the opportunity to capture, edit and publish original content under the guidance of industry professionals.

Each student produced and hosted a news segment that showcased a local story or event that aligns with the station’s weekly HOPE segment. The student stories were featured on-air during Friday's Good Day Connecticut at 6:20 a.m. 7:30 a.m., and during the 5 and 10 p.m. news.

Among the winning stories:

• Best in Student News Reporting and Writing was awarded to Manchester High School’s Kailey Feshler for her story on the CT Humane Society.
• Best in Student News Pre and Post Production and Editing was awarded to three students from Daniel Hand High School in Madison: Liam Bennett, Delvantae Hutton and Ashleigh Violette for their story on Saferides.
• Best in Student News Photography and Lighting was awarded to two students from Norwich Free Academy: Alyssa Friedrich and Maggie Peter for their story on Local Manufacturing.

The winners in each of these categories received a scholarship, donated by Fox 61.

• Most Compelling Student News Story was awarded to three students from South Windsor High School: Lauren Adamo, Madison Donahue and Hannah Mitchell for their story on Josie the Therapy Dog. They shared the $3,500 scholarship provided by local sponsor, Big Y World Class Market.

Through the years, many students have participated in the Fox 61 Student News, reporting on different issues in their communities.

FOX 61 is one of the nation's most highly rated FOX Network affiliates, producing more news and winning more awards than any station in Connecticut. FOX 61 now airs more than 61 hours of local news and public affairs programming each week, more than any other market station. FOX 61 is owned and operated by Tribune Media, one of the country’s leading multimedia companies.

PERSPECTIVE: On the Job Hunt After Cancer

by Julie Jansen A recent Harris Poll survey conducted on behalf of Cancer and Careers (CancerAndCareers.org) found that 78% of the cancer survivors surveyed were concerned that their cancer diagnosis would hinder their ability to find a new job. For many survivors, job hunting after cancer proves to be a challenging experience. However, you can rest assured that if you are qualified for a job, an employer cannot refuse to hire you simply because you have had cancer.

If you are one of those survivors who is back on the job market after battling cancer, here are some tips to help make your job search a success.

Spiff Up Your Resume

The primary goal of your resume is to describe your experience and achievements in a way that makes a prospective employer want to set up an interview with you to talk about how you can do the same great things for them. A resume is not a job description. So keep lists of tasks and responsibilities short and to the point. Instead, your resume should focus more on your accomplishments and how you were able to make a positive difference to your department or company. A bulleted format works best for this part of your resume.

Another important element of a contemporary resume is a profile or summary, which is a brief paragraph at the top of your resume that summarizes your work experience. Your summary can be used to add a bit of personality to your resume. This is a good place to list the unique qualities that make you the right fit for the job.

Most companies use applicant-tracking software to scan your resume’s keywords before a human reads it. So it’s important to add the right keywords to your resume. Use technical or functional descriptors such as project management, event planning, and website design, rather than clichéd phrases like effective communicator and team player.

Absolutely add volunteer experience to your resume, especially if you have an employment gap because you took time off for treatment or had to leave your job. Include a list of achievements for your volunteer experience, just as you would for your paid jobs.

Finally, despite the persistent myth that a resume should only be one page, if you have worked for two or more years, then a two-page resume is the new rule of thumb.

Prepare for the Interview

Interviewing for a new job is nerve wracking for most people, with or without a cancer history. Preparation is the key to feeling more comfortable and confident during the interview process – and to getting invited back for that second interview.

The most important thing an employer is looking for during the interview process is how you, the job candidate, can solve their problems and meet their needs. Research the company as much as you can so that you can incorporate your knowledge of the company into the interview. This will also help you to ask smart, thoughtful questions about the job you’re applying for.

Prepare answers to the standard questions that are often asked during an interview, for example:

• Tell me about yourself.
• What are your strengths and weaknesses?
• Describe a time when you failed.

When answering, tell stories about your achievements and use concrete examples – but keep your answers brief and meaningful. Stay composed, and don’t let an interviewer’s quirky questions rattle you. Unless a question or request is discriminatory, just go with the flow.

Speaking of discrimination, you are not obligated to share the fact that you had cancer. And a prospective employer legally cannot ask you this question. However, in case a question about your health history does come up, you should decide in advance what your response will be. It is also a good idea to come up with a brief answer to questions about gaps in your work history.

If you are asked an uncomfortable question, try not to ramble. Instead, turn the conversation back to how you can make a positive difference for your potential employer.

The thought of looking for employment after cancer can be a frightening one. However, the good news is that many companies are hiring, and now that you are armed with these job- hunting tips, you’re more prepared than ever to land that job you’re after.

______________________________________

Julie Jansen is a career coach, resume and LinkedIn profile writer, and the author of I Don’t Know What I Want, But I Know It’s Not This: A Step-By-Step Guide to Finding Gratifying Work. She is a graduate of the University of Hartford.  This article first appeared in Coping magazine.  Her website is JulieJansen.net.

Hartford Whalers (Logo) Headed to Connecticut (Vehicles)

Connecticut drivers may soon see another vanity license plate option if a bill approved by the state legislature is signed into law by Governor Malloy.  A license plate commemorating the Hartford Whalers hockey franchise, which departed the Capital city 20 years ago, gained legislative approval in the final days of the General Assembly session. It is the latest of an ever-growing list of license plates supporting a variety of charitable causes and local organizations that are authorized by the state and raise money for various causes.  The Whalers license plate is to be a fundraising vehicle for the Connecticut Children’s Medical Center.

Stafford Springs State Rep. Kurt Vail, who introduced the bill, said in public hearing testimony earlier this year that “the popularity of the franchise has not gone away.”  He predicted that the license plate would be “a huge hit amongst our citizens.”  House Majority Leader Matt Ritter of Hartford said that “with memories of attending games with my grandfather still fresh…the Whalers continue to have a large and growing following in the city.”

Although the Whalers license plate was created by an act of the legislature, state law allows the Department of Motor Vehicles to issue special background plates on behalf of non-profit organizations. The organization must be non-profit, must submit a copy of the organization’s charter or by-laws, provide a letter of good standing from the State of Connecticut Secretary of State’s Office (if required) and supply any Internal Revenue Service ruling on their non-profit tax exemption status.

The logo production and cost incurred will be the responsibility of the organization. The logo prototype design, preferred in PDF format, must be submitted to the DMV. The logo can be no larger than 2 inches wide and 3.5 inches high. DMV has final approval on all the plate and logo designs.

A liaison for the organization must be appointed. This individual will be responsible for all communications with the DMV as well as certifying and authenticating (by signature) each member’s application, submitting the logo design to DMV for approval, submitting 400 applications with the required fee prior to the manufacturing of the special background plates, and submitting a Special Interest Plate disclaimer.

Many organizations in Connecticut offer license plates to their members and the general public.  General categories include animals, colleges, environment, organizations, police and fire, cities and towns, and recreation.

Organization vanity plates include Amistad, Benevolent & Protective Order of the Elks, IUOE Local 478, Grand Lodge of Connecticut, Knights of Columbus, Olympic Spirit, P.T. Barnum Foundation Inc., Preserving Our Past CT Trust for Historic Preservation, Red Sox Foundation, Lions Eye Research Foundation, Special Olympics, Federated Garden Clubs, Fidelco Guide Dog Foundation, Keep Kids Safe, New England Air Museum and the U.S.S. Connecticut Commissioning Committee.

When individuals purchase a Keep Kids Safe plate, a portion of the fee goes to the Keep Kids Safe Fund, which “makes many worthy projects happen for youngsters.”  The fund awards grants to schools, hospitals, municipalities and other non-profit organizations working to make all Connecticut children safer from severe and preventable injuries, according to the DMV website.

In most cases, remake of a current plate is $70; a new vanity plate is $139, a new series plate is $50.  For others, including the UConn Huskies plate, the price tag is somewhat different.  Off-the-shelf license plates cost $55, remake of a current plate is $75, a new vanity plate costs $144, according to the DMV website.

The Support Our Troops plate sends a portion of the fee to provide funding for programs to assist Connecticut troops, their families and veterans. When you buy a Red Sox plate, a portion of the fees support and help fund academic scholarship programs in Connecticut.

Also included are 17 varieties of military specialty plates, including Disabled American Veteran, Gold Star Family, Iwo Jima Survivor, Korean War Veterans Association, Marine Corps League, Laos Veterans of America, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Pearl Harbor 1941, U.S. Submarine Veteran, National Guard Association of Connecticut, First Company Governor’s Foot Guard, First Company Governor’s Horse Guard,

Colleges with designated plates include Central Connecticut State University, Penn State Alumni, University of Hartford, University of Connecticut, and University of New Haven.  Cities with available plates include Meriden, Norwich, and Stafford.

Organizations interested in launching a new special plate, should contact the DMV Special Plate Unit at (860) 263-5154 for further information.

Innovative Start-Up Companies Seek State Funds to Propel Growth

CTNext will bring together start-up businesses seeking the financing to move forward, providing the opportunity for them  to pitch at the next Entrepreneur Innovation Awards (EIA) event scheduled for Thursday, June 15 at the LOFT at Chelsea Piers in Stamford. Connecticut's "innovation ecosystem" will be highlighted as the nine companies, from all across the state, will be competing for $10,000 grants.  The competitors include:

• Deo2go (Fairfield): Creating a topical delivery device that can be filled with a variety of products including, but not limited to deodorant, lip balms, and sunscreen
• Egghead (Danbury): Developing a new way to package and sell ice cream that brings new revenue to a mature market
• FallCall Solutions (Trumbull): Creating a tele-monitoring system for the Apple watch and other mobile systems for elders and caregivers
• Fjord Weather Systems (Wilton): Developing a way to turn every boat on the water into a weather-monitoring system
• LiquidSphere (New Haven): Creating an interactive app that will connect people who struggle with stress, anxiety, depression and addiction with therapists via text and video sessions
• Lucca Ventures (Southington): Developing a Bluetooth-enabled microphone attachment to a full-face oxygen mask, letting patients communicate clearly while wearing it
• Obvia (West Hartford): Manufacturing dual-winglet blades and semi-shroud power upgrade for Sunforce Wind Turbines that will improve efficiency and scalability for the turbines
• Sweet Equations (East Hartford): Making custom candy cakes, edible cupcake displays and other desserts through the development of an on-demand decorating device
• Trekeffect (Lyme): Developing a system to let individual travel planners buy and sell their itineraries.

To determine the finalist pool, each company’s application was vetted by a separate and independent team of reviewers who deemed their products, services and/or business ideas worthy of consideration for an EIA. Each finalist will have an opportunity to compete for a $10,000 grant as well as the judges’ and crowd favorite awards, each in the amount of $2,000 each.

The judges who will hear the company pitches and determine the winners include:

• Elena Cahill: Senior Lecturer, University of Bridgeport, Entrepreneurship Department
• Jim Kern: Co-founder, COMRADITY
• Greg Kivenzor: Associate Professor of Marketing, Director of Experiential Learning Collaborative, UCONN- Stamford
• Mark Lasoff: Founder, LearnToProgram
• Mike Roer: President, The Entrepreneurship Foundation

Throughout the year, CTNext hosts the EIA, a Shark Tank–style pitch event where Connecticut-based startups and entrepreneurs compete for grants that can be applied toward a specific project that will help accelerate growth.

CT Next support the success of companies and entrepreneurs by providing guidance, resources, and networks to accelerate their growth. CT Next is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Connecticut Innovations, described as "a network of passionate people who offer services to busy entrepreneurs." Launched in 2012, there are now more than 1,500 members. Since its inception in 2014, CTNext has held 11 total events in cities and towns all over Connecticut, awarding $544,000 to 52 unique companies.

https://youtu.be/Au4ULyo5L1g

Migration Patterns Show Some Pluses as Population Numbers Decline

Connecticut's total population has declined over the past 3 years.  In fact, in 2016 Connecticut's total population fell below 2010 levels. New England and our neighboring states have also experienced an increase in people leaving. However, Connecticut has fallen the most post-recession, according to an analysis by the Connecticut Data Collaborative. International migration has helped, the data shows, but not enough to offset domestic out-migration.  Average international in-migration has grown 29% post-recession compared to pre-recession, but in terms of overall net migration, the state has seen an increased loss starting from 2012.

The state gains prime working age adults and children and also attracts well-educated international migrants, according to the analysis, and Connecticut loses the smallest percent of graduate degree holders. By income, the largest flows are at the lowest income levels (though largely due to age of earners), though the state is experiencing a slight loss of its highest income earners (incomes of $5 million or more).

Among the factors contribution to the population decline:

• Post-recession, Connecticut has about 14% fewer births each year compared to pre-recession averages. Increased deaths are also slightly contributing to Connecticut's overall population decline.
• Average domestic out-migration has increased by 55% post-recession compared to pre-recession, a difference of about 9,200 people.

Young adults move at a higher rate than the rest of the population (larger flows both in and out of Connecticut), and the state is losing young adults on net (18-29 year olds), but gaining working age adults (30-49 year olds), the Data Collaborative analysis shows.

Historically, Connecticut experienced population losses to other regions of the U.S. This is also true of New England in general. However, the recent declines in Connecticut's total population are primarily driven by increasing rates of net domestic out-migration and to a smaller degree a declining birth rate. But there are positive trends.

The state gains prime working age adults and children. Connecticut also attracts well-educated international migrants, and loses the smallest percent of graduate degree holders.  By income, the largest flows are at the lowest income levels (though largely due to age of earners), though the state is experiencing a slight loss of its highest income earners (incomes of $5 million or more).

Connecticut's domestic migration trends are now more like New York and New Jersey.  However domestic out-migration has more than doubled in Connecticut while New York and New Jersey are better than pre-recession, the researchers found.

More Daughters Mean More Venture Capital Investment, More Success, Study Shows

As the growing number of Connecticut start-up firms seek to attract venture capital funds to propel their growth, a newly published study may suggest some surprising influences on the investment decisions – and ultimately the success of venture capital investments. A National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper by Paul A. Gompers and Sophie Q. Wang from Harvard University says that gender diversity may boost performance of venture capital firms.  But it is not the gender diversity of the start-up firms leaders, or the gender diversity of the venture capitalists, who tend to predominantly be white males.

It is the gender diversity of the children of venture capitalists that appears to make the difference.

The paper, “And the Children Shall Lead: Gender Diversity and Performance in Venture Capital,” is based on a study of a dataset of gender of venture capital partners’ children. It finds that partners with more daughters than sons were more likely to hire female partners. But that’s not all.

The study also finds that having more girl children had a positive effect on deal and fund performance of these partners.  The authors indicate that the effects concentrate overwhelmingly on the daughters of senior partners than junior partners.

“Taken together, our findings have profound implications on how the capital markets could function better with improved diversity,” they say in the paper’s abstract.

Venture capital firms are typically deep-pocketed, small companies that bet on startup success by investing millions in exchange for an ownership interest and hopes of high returns.  Published reports indicate that according to the study, firms that increased their gender diversity by hiring more women saw their deal success rate increase by nearly 3 percent. Their profitability, as measured by internal rates of return, rose by more than 3 percent.

Venture capital in Connecticut is available from a range of private and quasi-public sources, including Connecticut Innovations.

The 62-page paper was posted last week; Paul Gompers is Professor of Business Administration and Director of research for the Harvard Business School Finance Unit.  Sophie Q. Wang is a PhD student in the Department of Economics at Harvard University. They based their results on some 12,000 venture-capital investments made between 1990 and 2016, primarily by U.S.-based firms.  They also studied personal information obtained from some 1,400 investing partners.

The NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.

PERSPECTIVE: 10 Reasons Your Performance Appraisal Might Be Useless

by Karen Hinds Are your performance appraisals useless? If you are a manager, end of year can often make you feel like a Christmas Grinch. You feel rushed, stressed, and even dread as you try to summarize an entire year of highs and lows on an employee’s performance appraisal. Invariably, someone will feel like they received a lump of coal after reading what they hoped would be a good review.

For employees, it’s a source of anxiety and even anger as they anticipate the results of their performance appraisals. Why do we tolerate this annual drain on productivity and morale? There are simple fixes, if done throughout the year, to make this process relevant and valuable to an employee’s growth. Here are 10 reasons why your current process might be of little or no value.

1. Emphasis is on the mistakes and the past.

Unfortunately, there are managers who view the appraisal process as an opportunity to only recap everything an employee has gotten wrong throughout the year. This is incredibly demotivating and hampers morale as well as trust in that relationship. Focusing on the past leaves no room for forward thinking and growth, which is the intent of an appraisal.

2. Appraisal is full of surprises.

An employee should not be surprised by what is written on their appraisal if the manager has done a great job communicating throughout the year. If surprises exist, it is an indication the manager/employee relationship is damaged and ineffective. Errors are inevitable, but the manager should immediately identify the error and help to design a plan of action that helps the employee correct the mistake and keep growing. When an employee does well, it also should be immediately acknowledged, documented, and celebrated.

3. No regular check-in.

Many performance appraisals only see the light of day when it’s time to write a new one for the upcoming year. If this is how your team operates, it is a complete waste of time. The appraisal should be a living, breathing document used as a roadmap throughout the year. Monthly and quarterly reviews with adjustments will increase the probability of the employee meeting and even exceeding the expectations set.

4. One-way conversations.

If an employee is simply sitting and listening to the manager during a performance appraisal or given a report to read, it is a sure sign the process is deeply flawed. This should be a two-way conversation where the employee and manager are both engaged. The manager and employee should be reviewing progress, examining the best way going forward, celebrating milestones, and setting new goals together.  As mentioned earlier, it’s an ongoing conversation, not an end-of-year marathon to talk and fill out paperwork.

5. No preparation for advancement.

An effective manager should know their primary job is to provide the environment where each employee can reach their peak performance and then move on, whether a vertical or lateral move.  Even when the organization is flat, advancement can still be made by varying projects and learning new roles and skills sets.

6. Setting goals that are not S.M.A.R.T.

Effective evaluation of an employee’s progress depends on the quality of the goals set. All goals must be measurable and adhere to the S.M.A.R.T standards of being Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-specific.

7. Manager’s unconscious bias.

Managers are not perfect and even the best-intentioned manager has unconscious bias. The bias could be based on an employee’s personal style, preferences, gender, age, accomplishments, race, ethnicity, etc. It’s also not unusual for managers to carry a chip on their shoulder caused by an incident going back months. When these behaviors are present, a successful appraisal is impossible.

8. Avoiding negative feedback.

Some managers cower at the thought of having to deliver negative feedback, especially to employees who may have a reputation of being difficult. They might tiptoe around the real issues and deliver a weak appraisal with no value by only highlighting what worked well.

9. Confusing performance and attitude.

Some employees are great talkers, enthusiastic, and friendly around the office but are poor performers. There are also employees who are exceptional performers but lack the social skills or choose not to be overly enthusiastic because that’s their personality style. They may also consciously choose to be less engaged socially due to the work environment. Managers need to be clear on what they are measuring: Is it performance or attitude?

10. Manager was never trained.

No one was born with excellent managerial skills, and even if you have managed people for many years, it is not an indication you are a competent manager or you know how to execute an effective performance evaluation. Companies should hold educational sessions to teach managers how to review an employee’s performance in a fair manner and set them up for future success.

_________________________________

Karen Hinds is president and CEO of Workplace Success Group, a Connecticut-based strategic talent development company. She has delivered talks about how to properly develop emerging leaders to companies, associations and organizations throughout the Greater Hartford region. She has presented “Bounce-Back Power: Everyday Strategies to Develop Resilience” as part of the University of Hartford’s Entrepreneurial Center professional development series. 

Good News, Bad News in State Health-Related Data, Analysis Finds

Connecticut is 11^th best among states in the number of people who had no trouble finding a doctor in 2015, according to State Health Compare. The top 10 states were Minnesota, Kansas, Vermont, Utah, North Dakota, Montana, Maine, Nebraska, Hawaii and Tennessee.  That's the good news. But Connecticut is also 17^th worst among states in the percent of residents with high medical cost burdens, at 23.1 percent. Utah has the highest percentage at 27.5 percent; Maryland the lowest at 15.3 percent, among the 50 states.

According to the data, 70.7 percent of state residents had a general doctor or provider visit during the year, a lower percentage than the national average of 73 percent, and ranking the state 38th in the nation.  The data also reveal that Connecticut is 19^th lowest among states in the percent of state budget devoted to Medicaid, and 28^th lowest in state public health spending per person.

Nearly one in ten Connecticut residents (9.1 percent) spent the night in a hospital during the year, 15^th highest in the nation.

Created by SHADAC, State Health Compare is a new online comparison tool with state-level estimates across 46 measures of health and health care from six federal agency sources. SHADAC is a multidisciplinary health policy research center with a focus on state health policy, supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and affiliated with the Health Policy and Management Division of the School of Public Health at the University of Minnesota.

Categories in the database include health insurance coverage, cost of care, health behaviors, outcomes, access, utilization, quality of care, public health, and social and economic factors. Metrics include costs of potentially preventable hospitalizations, percent of residents who needed but did not get care due to cost, chronic disease prevalence, weight assessment in schools, and adult cancer screening rates.

Data for most measures is available for multiple years, allowing trend analysis. Within most of the 46 measures, the tool allows visitors to dive deeper into the data by subpopulations such as by age, race/ethnicity, and education level. The tool provides a map, state rank and trend display for each metric. The data can be downloaded and exported.

The data was recently featured in CT Health Notes, a biweekly informational newsletter of the Connecticut Health Policy Project. It includes research summaries, news, event notices, policy proposals and other issues important to Connecticut’s health policy.

Start-up Entrepreneurial Activity Boosts CT's Ranking from 22 to 18 Among Nation's 25 Smaller States

In a state-by-state analysis of start-up business activities, Connecticut moved from ranking 22^nd among the smallest 25 states a year ago to 18^th this year – the largest forward progress of any of the nation’s 25 smallest states.  Vermont also moved up four positions, from 13^th to 9^th.  And Kansas advanced three positions, from 18^th to 15^th. This year among the 25 smaller states, Nevada was top in startup activity, followed by Oklahoma, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. Among smaller states, eleven ranked higher than they did last year, five experienced no changes in rankings, and another nine ranked lower.

The analysis was included in the 2017 Kauffman Index Startup Activity State Report, issued this month by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, based in Kansas City.

Among the twenty-five largest states, the five states with the highest startup activity in the 2017 Index were California, Texas, Florida, Arizona, and Colorado. Seventeen out of the twenty-five largest states had higher levels of startup activity in 2017 compared to last year.  Among the twenty-five largest states, the four that experienced the biggest increase in ranks in 2017 were Massachusetts, Tennessee, Washington, and Minnesota. The three that experienced the biggest negative shifts in rank in 2017 compared to 2016 were Louisiana, Maryland, and Virginia.

After two years of large increases, startup activity rose slightly in 2016, continuing an upward trend started in 2014, the report indicated. Only three years ago, the Startup Activity Index was at its lowest point in the last twenty years. Today it has gone up three years in a row, reaching close to the peak before the Great Recession drop, the report pointed out.

Among the twenty-five smallest states, the three that experienced the biggest increase in ranks in 2017 were Connecticut, Vermont, and Kansas. The three that experienced the biggest negative shifts in rank in 2017 compared to 2016 were Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Delaware.  In the twenty-five smallest states, the five states with the highest startup activity in the 2017 Index were Nevada, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. Eleven smaller states had higher Startup Activity Index measures this year.

The Startup Activity Index is an index measure of a broad range of startup activity in the United States across national, state, and metropolitan-area levels. The Startup Activity Index captures startup activity along three dimensions:

• The Rate of New Entrepreneurs in the economy— the percentage of adults becoming entrepreneurs in a given month.
• The Opportunity Share of New Entrepreneurs—the percentage of new entrepreneurs driven primarily by “opportunity” as opposed to “necessity.”
• Startup Density—the rate at which businesses with employees are created in the economy.