OLR Report 2013-R-0283 summarizes the policies the state's higher education institutions have adopted on the reporting of suspected child sexual abuse that occurs on their campuses.
There is considerable variation in how the state's public and private colleges and universities respond to reports of suspected child abuse, including child sexual abuse, that occurs on their campuses or at school-sponsored events. While most schools have a policy on how to deal with such abuse, some do not. The more comprehensive policies, such as UConn's, include a clear direction to report the abuse and expressly reference the state's mandated reporter law. Some of the policies explicitly reference the term child sexual abuse, while others use the more generic child abuse term, which, by law, includes sexual abuse. Most of the policies were adopted within the last year.
For more information, read the full report.
September 18, 2013
September 17, 2013
Feds Looking at Next-Day Effects of Sleep Aids on Driving
Concerned that the effects of sleep aids, such as Ambien, may cause drowsy driving well into the next morning, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will ask drug manufacturers to conduct more extensive driving tests of all new anti-insomnia drugs, the New York Times has reported.
“The FDA is taking heightened interest in the issue, as new evidence suggests what many people have long suspected: the effects of common prescription sleep aids like Ambien can persist well into the next day,” the article states. “Of particular concern,” it said, is “whether people who take the drugs before bed can drive safely the next morning.”
The article notes that consumer advocates have long warned of a possible connection between sleeping pills and car accidents.
According to the Times, physicians wrote nearly 60 million prescriptions for sleep aids in 2012, and a 2007 federal survey found that nearly 5% of daytime drivers have tested positive for prescription or over-the-counter medication.
The Times reports that Dr. Ronald Farkas, the clinical team leader for the FDA’s division of neurology products, told a recent industry conference that it’s good advice “that if you feel impaired, don’t drive.” But, he cautioned, you might still be impaired even if you feel fine.
“The FDA is taking heightened interest in the issue, as new evidence suggests what many people have long suspected: the effects of common prescription sleep aids like Ambien can persist well into the next day,” the article states. “Of particular concern,” it said, is “whether people who take the drugs before bed can drive safely the next morning.”
The article notes that consumer advocates have long warned of a possible connection between sleeping pills and car accidents.
According to the Times, physicians wrote nearly 60 million prescriptions for sleep aids in 2012, and a 2007 federal survey found that nearly 5% of daytime drivers have tested positive for prescription or over-the-counter medication.
The Times reports that Dr. Ronald Farkas, the clinical team leader for the FDA’s division of neurology products, told a recent industry conference that it’s good advice “that if you feel impaired, don’t drive.” But, he cautioned, you might still be impaired even if you feel fine.
Veterans and the Affordable Care Act
The federal Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) wants vets to be clear about something regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA): “The health care law does not change VA health benefits or veterans’ out-of-pocket costs.”
The VA has a page on its site dedicated to explaining to vets what they should know about their health care options. The VA emphasizes three points:
Everyone — with a few exceptions — must either have health insurance that meets a minimum standard or pay a fee starting in January 2014. The fee is the higher of:
The VA has a page on its site dedicated to explaining to vets what they should know about their health care options. The VA emphasizes three points:
- It wants all veterans to receive health care that improves their health and well-being.
- Veterans enrolled in VA health care do not need to take additional steps to meet the health care law coverage standards.
- Veterans not enrolled in VA health care can apply at any time.
Everyone — with a few exceptions — must either have health insurance that meets a minimum standard or pay a fee starting in January 2014. The fee is the higher of:
- $95 or 1% of taxable income in 2014,
- $325 or 2% of taxable income in 2015, and
- $695 or 2.5% of taxable income in 2016.
September 16, 2013
If You’re a Scientist or Engineer, You’re Probably Working in 1 of 9 States
The National Science Foundation recently released a study about the dispersal of scientists and engineers employed in the United States in 2011, the most recent data available. The authors found that California, Texas, and New York account for the location of about a quarter of employed scientists and engineers. Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Ohio collectively accounted for about another quarter.
In Connecticut, there were 79,910 people employed in science and engineering occupations, about 1.4% of the national total, placing it 24th nationally. Connecticut out-paced the national average when it came to percentage of workers employed in science and engineering (and placed 12th among all states and the District of Columbia). About 4.6% of Connecticut’s workforce is comprised of scientists and engineers while the national average is 4.1%.
In Connecticut, there were 79,910 people employed in science and engineering occupations, about 1.4% of the national total, placing it 24th nationally. Connecticut out-paced the national average when it came to percentage of workers employed in science and engineering (and placed 12th among all states and the District of Columbia). About 4.6% of Connecticut’s workforce is comprised of scientists and engineers while the national average is 4.1%.
Hot Report: Deadline for Processing Gun Permit Applications
OLR Report 2013-R-0349 explains how long it takes to get a gun permit or license in Connecticut and other states.
The processing times for a gun permit (or license) application range from a low of three days in Nebraska to a high of six months in New York. All but six states specify the deadlines in law.
Connecticut has an eight-week deadline, which may be extended if the permit-issuing official does not get the results of the mandatory national criminal history record check on the permit applicant within the deadline. By law, the official cannot issue the permit before getting the check results (CGS § 29-29).
At least 19 states and the District of Columbia have a longer deadline than Connecticut for processing a gun permit application including Kentucky, Montana, and New Jersey (60 days); Arizona (75 days); California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, and Kansas (90 days); Arkansas and Nevada (120 days); and New York (six months).
For more information, read the full report.
The processing times for a gun permit (or license) application range from a low of three days in Nebraska to a high of six months in New York. All but six states specify the deadlines in law.
Connecticut has an eight-week deadline, which may be extended if the permit-issuing official does not get the results of the mandatory national criminal history record check on the permit applicant within the deadline. By law, the official cannot issue the permit before getting the check results (CGS § 29-29).
At least 19 states and the District of Columbia have a longer deadline than Connecticut for processing a gun permit application including Kentucky, Montana, and New Jersey (60 days); Arizona (75 days); California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, and Kansas (90 days); Arkansas and Nevada (120 days); and New York (six months).
For more information, read the full report.
V.A. to Provide Spousal Benefits to Gay Men and Lesbians
In a letter to Congressional leaders dated September 4, 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder said that President Obama had directed the Executive Branch to stop enforcing a federal law that limits spousal benefits to gay men and lesbians. Mr. Holder wrote that “decisions by the Executive not to enforce federal laws are appropriately rare. . . [b]ut continued enforcement would likely have a tangible adverse effect on the families of veterans and, in some circumstances, active-duty service members and reservists, with respect to survival, health care, home loan and other benefits.” He wrote that the unique circumstances the issue presented warranted non-enforcement in light of several developments, including a Supreme Court ruling that struck down a similar law, a part of the Defense of Marriage Act, on constitutional grounds.
September 13, 2013
U.S. Prison Population Declines for Third Straight Year
According to a recent Department of Justice (DOJ) report, the U.S. prison population in 2012 declined for the third consecutive year. The estimated 2012 total (1,571,013) was 1.7% lower than 2011. The federal prison population increased by 0.7%, while the state prison population decreased by 2.1%.
The report, by the DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, estimates the year-end prison population in both state and federal prisons. Data for Connecticut include both jail and prison populations, because the state has an integrated system of prisons and jails.
Among other findings:
The report, by the DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, estimates the year-end prison population in both state and federal prisons. Data for Connecticut include both jail and prison populations, because the state has an integrated system of prisons and jails.
Among other findings:
- The 2012 national imprisonment rate (number of prisoners sentenced to more than one year, per 100,000 people) was 910 for males and 63 for females.
- The Connecticut year-end 2012 total (17,530) was down 4.3% from 2011.
- California accounted for 51% of the decrease in the state prison population from 2011 to 2012.
SNAP Benefits to Drop in November
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan think tank, has issued a report that explains why and shows the impact on each state of the upcoming reduction in federal SNAP (formerly Food Stamp) benefits, and the impact on families. For example, a family of three will see a $29 benefit cut each month.
The federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “economic stimulus” legislation) provided a temporary 13.6% increase in SNAP benefits in response to the economic downturn. The impending reduction in November is based on a complicated formula that was part of the original stimulus legislation, as well as subsequent federal laws that accelerated the sunset date for the increase.
According to the report, which looks at federal agency data, Connecticut recipients, in the aggregate, will lose $44 million in benefits November 2013 through September 2014. This is based on 424,000 state residents receiving benefits (the most recent DSS enrollment data put the figure at 401,000 residents). For the entire country the reduction is expected to be about $5 billion in FFY 14.
The federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the “economic stimulus” legislation) provided a temporary 13.6% increase in SNAP benefits in response to the economic downturn. The impending reduction in November is based on a complicated formula that was part of the original stimulus legislation, as well as subsequent federal laws that accelerated the sunset date for the increase.
According to the report, which looks at federal agency data, Connecticut recipients, in the aggregate, will lose $44 million in benefits November 2013 through September 2014. This is based on 424,000 state residents receiving benefits (the most recent DSS enrollment data put the figure at 401,000 residents). For the entire country the reduction is expected to be about $5 billion in FFY 14.
September 12, 2013
UConn is Cool and Green
Sierra magazine, the official publication of the Sierra Club, recently announced the top “cool schools” in the United States. The rankings are based on the school’s efforts at solving environmental issues and operating sustainably.
UConn was named the number-one cool school for offering more than 600 sustainability-related classes; reducing its water use by 15% since 2005; and, over the past two years, retrofitting 13 buildings to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Also, more than a quarter of the food served in UConn’s dining halls is processed within 100 miles, with many ingredients harvested right on campus.
The Hartford Business Journal also reported that three other Connecticut schools made the list: Wesleyan University (No. 83), Eastern Connecticut State University (No. 136), and Connecticut College (No. 142).
UConn was named the number-one cool school for offering more than 600 sustainability-related classes; reducing its water use by 15% since 2005; and, over the past two years, retrofitting 13 buildings to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Also, more than a quarter of the food served in UConn’s dining halls is processed within 100 miles, with many ingredients harvested right on campus.
Sierra magazine’s top 10 cool schools of 2013 are:
- University of Connecticut (UConn) (Storrs, CT)
- Dickinson College (Carlisle, PA)
- University of California, Irvine (Irvine, CA)
- University of California, Davis (Davis, CA)
- Cornell University (Ithaca, NY)
- Green Mountain College (Poultney, VT)
- Stanford University (Palo Alto, CA)
- Georgia Institute of Technology (Atlanta, GA)
- American University (Washington, D.C.)
- University of California, Santa Barbara (Santa Barbara, CA)
The Hartford Business Journal also reported that three other Connecticut schools made the list: Wesleyan University (No. 83), Eastern Connecticut State University (No. 136), and Connecticut College (No. 142).
Hot Report: Standards of Care for Dog and Cat Breeders
OLR Report 2013-R-0309 summarizes federal and state laws and regulations that establish standards for the care of animals by dog and cat breeders. It also explains the positions large animal advocacy organizations hold on this issue. The American Kennel Club, American Cat Fanciers Association, and Humane Society of the United States were contacted for their positions. The American Kennel Club and the Humane Society provided responses for this report.
Federal laws and regulations establish minimum standards of care for the treatment of cats and dogs by commercial breeders. These standards apply to certain midsized and large breeders and exempt small and so-called hobby breeders. They set requirements for humane handling, shelter, space requirements, feeding, watering, sanitation, ventilation, veterinary care, and transport.
At least 19 states have laws and regulations establishing standards of care for commercial breeders to follow. These standards typically cover kennel size, limitations on cage stacking, access to water and food, sanitation, flooring material, temperature and ventilation, lighting, exercise, socialization, and veterinary care.
The American Kennel Club maintains a care and conditions policy for dog owners and breeders to follow and it conducts investigations and inspections to ensure compliance. Their policy is included in the report.
According to The Humane Society of the United States, federal laws and regulations applicable to dog and cat breeders are “extremely limited in scope, exclude a large percentage of breeders and other pet dealers, and provide very minimal standards of care.” As a result, “many states have enacted statutes to provide some degree of protection for dogs living in breeding facilities that are not subject to federal regulation and create more stringent standards than those set forth under [federal law].”
For more information, read the full report.
Federal laws and regulations establish minimum standards of care for the treatment of cats and dogs by commercial breeders. These standards apply to certain midsized and large breeders and exempt small and so-called hobby breeders. They set requirements for humane handling, shelter, space requirements, feeding, watering, sanitation, ventilation, veterinary care, and transport.
At least 19 states have laws and regulations establishing standards of care for commercial breeders to follow. These standards typically cover kennel size, limitations on cage stacking, access to water and food, sanitation, flooring material, temperature and ventilation, lighting, exercise, socialization, and veterinary care.
The American Kennel Club maintains a care and conditions policy for dog owners and breeders to follow and it conducts investigations and inspections to ensure compliance. Their policy is included in the report.
According to The Humane Society of the United States, federal laws and regulations applicable to dog and cat breeders are “extremely limited in scope, exclude a large percentage of breeders and other pet dealers, and provide very minimal standards of care.” As a result, “many states have enacted statutes to provide some degree of protection for dogs living in breeding facilities that are not subject to federal regulation and create more stringent standards than those set forth under [federal law].”
For more information, read the full report.
Should Law School Be Only Two Years?
An old saying about law school is that it scares students to death in the first year, works them to death in the second, and bores them to death in the third. Perhaps with that phrase in mind, President Obama recently suggested that law school programs be shortened from three years to two. He argued that legal education required only two years of classroom instruction, and that having students obtain practical experience instead of spending a third year as a law student would both benefit the students’ professional development and reduce their costs.
According to an article in Inside Higher Ed, many law schools focus the third year on clinics and externships, but students must pay tuition for these experiences while also taking elective courses. On the other hand, the article notes that, with law schools facing criticism for not providing students with adequate practical preparation, eliminating the third year could exacerbate that issue. As the article states, the question is whether students would obtain equivalent practical experience without the structure and support provided by a school.
According to an article in Inside Higher Ed, many law schools focus the third year on clinics and externships, but students must pay tuition for these experiences while also taking elective courses. On the other hand, the article notes that, with law schools facing criticism for not providing students with adequate practical preparation, eliminating the third year could exacerbate that issue. As the article states, the question is whether students would obtain equivalent practical experience without the structure and support provided by a school.
September 11, 2013
Innovative Cities: Better, Faster, Cheaper
An interesting article by Stephen Goldsmith in Governing discusses how certain urban leaders are using innovation to make their cities run better, faster, and cheaper. Goldsmith—a professor of government at Harvard’s Kennedy School and former Indianapolis mayor—identifies two principles that guide these cities. First, leaders employ strategies that span the entire community, from businesses to activists and philanthropic foundations. Second, leaders invest in systems that provide the foundation for innovation and expect innovation in return.
Goldsmith also references a series of papers that researchers at Kennedy School are writing on how local governments can improve the “innovation landscape.” First, focus on improving collaboration among existing agencies and sectors. Next, use data to improve decision-making and design solutions. Finally, create a permanent innovation framework in government, including a chief executive who “rewards and protects smart risk-taking and recruits risk-takers, including people from nontraditional backgrounds.”
For more information on how cities across the country are investing in innovation, see Goldsmith’s article and the Kennedy School paper series.
Goldsmith also references a series of papers that researchers at Kennedy School are writing on how local governments can improve the “innovation landscape.” First, focus on improving collaboration among existing agencies and sectors. Next, use data to improve decision-making and design solutions. Finally, create a permanent innovation framework in government, including a chief executive who “rewards and protects smart risk-taking and recruits risk-takers, including people from nontraditional backgrounds.”
For more information on how cities across the country are investing in innovation, see Goldsmith’s article and the Kennedy School paper series.
Northern Pass Proposes Job Creation Fund in NH
According to an article in the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Northern Pass project recently proposed a $7.5 million job creation fund for Coos County in northeastern New Hampshire. The project is a proposed transmission line to carry electricity from Canadian hydropower facilities through New Hampshire into New England.
Northern Pass will provide $200,000 in seed money to start the new jobs fund, but any future funding depends on the project’s subsequent approval. The fund will receive $1 million from Northern Pass once federal and state permits are approved and construction starts, followed by $500,000 a year until total contributions reach $7.5 million. An advisory group comprised of business leaders and elected officials will administer the fund’s uses.
A Northern Pass spokesman compares the proposal to any other business’ contribution to charity or community developments, only after first generating revenues. However, opponents of the Northern Pass project say that making charity money conditional on approval of a permit “boggles our minds.”
Northern Pass will provide $200,000 in seed money to start the new jobs fund, but any future funding depends on the project’s subsequent approval. The fund will receive $1 million from Northern Pass once federal and state permits are approved and construction starts, followed by $500,000 a year until total contributions reach $7.5 million. An advisory group comprised of business leaders and elected officials will administer the fund’s uses.
A Northern Pass spokesman compares the proposal to any other business’ contribution to charity or community developments, only after first generating revenues. However, opponents of the Northern Pass project say that making charity money conditional on approval of a permit “boggles our minds.”
September 10, 2013
24 Connecticut Hospitals Face Medicare Penalties for High Readmissions
According to a recent Connecticut Health Investigative Team article, 24 of Connecticut’s 31 acute care hospitals will face Medicare penalties in federal fiscal year (FFY) 2014, in response to the program’s attempt to reduce the number of patients readmitted within one month of discharge.
None of the 24 hospitals will face the highest penalty allowed under federal law, 2% of their base Medicare reimbursements. However, three hospitals will lose more than 1%: (1) Hospital of St. Raphael in New Haven (now merged with Yale-New Haven Hospital) will lose 1.77%, (2) Masonic Home and Hospital in Wallingford will lose 1.14%, and (3) St. Vincent’s Medical Center in Bridgeport will lose 1.06%.
The federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act allows the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to withhold part of a hospital’s Medicare payments if they have high 30-day readmission rates for patients hospitalized for pneumonia, heart attacks, and heart failure. Penalties are based on patient readmission data through June 2012. CMS will increase the maximum penalty from 2% to 3% in FFY 15.
The seven hospitals not facing any penalties include: (1) Day Kimball Hospital, (2) Hebrew Home and Hospital, (3) Manchester Memorial Hospital, (4) Middlesex Hospital, (5) New Milford Hospital, (6) Rockville General Hospital, and (7) Stamford Hospital.
Fourteen hospitals will face lower penalties than they did in FFY 13, including: (1) Yale-New Haven Hospital, (2) John Dempsey Hospital, (3) Saint Mary’s Hospital, (4) Johnson Memorial Hospital, (5) MidState Hospital, and (6) Danbury Hospital.
None of the 24 hospitals will face the highest penalty allowed under federal law, 2% of their base Medicare reimbursements. However, three hospitals will lose more than 1%: (1) Hospital of St. Raphael in New Haven (now merged with Yale-New Haven Hospital) will lose 1.77%, (2) Masonic Home and Hospital in Wallingford will lose 1.14%, and (3) St. Vincent’s Medical Center in Bridgeport will lose 1.06%.
The federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act allows the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to withhold part of a hospital’s Medicare payments if they have high 30-day readmission rates for patients hospitalized for pneumonia, heart attacks, and heart failure. Penalties are based on patient readmission data through June 2012. CMS will increase the maximum penalty from 2% to 3% in FFY 15.
The seven hospitals not facing any penalties include: (1) Day Kimball Hospital, (2) Hebrew Home and Hospital, (3) Manchester Memorial Hospital, (4) Middlesex Hospital, (5) New Milford Hospital, (6) Rockville General Hospital, and (7) Stamford Hospital.
Fourteen hospitals will face lower penalties than they did in FFY 13, including: (1) Yale-New Haven Hospital, (2) John Dempsey Hospital, (3) Saint Mary’s Hospital, (4) Johnson Memorial Hospital, (5) MidState Hospital, and (6) Danbury Hospital.
Hot Report: Gas Taxes and Road and Bridge Conditions in Connecticut and Massachusetts
OLR Report 2013-R-0306 explains the role Connecticut's and Massachusetts' gas taxes play in funding highway and bridge repair and the condition of highways and bridges in those states.
Connecticut's gas tax is composed of two separate taxes, a 25-cent per gallon excise tax and a “gross receipts tax” (now 26.4 cents per gallon), for a total of 51.4 cents per gallon. Massachusetts' gas tax, which had been fixed at 21 cents per gallon for more than 20 years, increased to 24 cents per gallon on July 31, 2013. (The Massachusetts tax also includes an additional 2-cent fee that is used only to clean up underground fuel storage tanks.)
Gas tax revenue in each state is deposited into a fund dedicated primarily to paying debt service on bonds issued to fund transportation projects. In Connecticut, this is the Special Transportation Fund (STF); in Massachusetts, the Commonwealth Transportation Fund (CTF). Money from other sources is also deposited into these funds. In Connecticut, these sources include certain motor vehicle license and permit fees, receipts, and other revenue. In Massachusetts, these include a portion of the state sales tax and motor vehicle fees. (Massachusetts also collects tolls on some of its roads, most notably the Massachusetts Turnpike. Massachusetts can use this revenue to operate and maintain only the tolled roads.)
The amount of revenue the gas tax in each state generates is one of several factors that determine the states' ability to pay for highway and bridge repair and maintenance. Other factors include the amount and cost of work that needs to be done, the number of vehicles paying the gas tax, and the amount of money available from other state or federal sources.
Even though Massachusetts' gas tax is lower than Connecticut's, it generated $662 million in 2011, about one-third more than the $493 million Connecticut's tax generated in 2012. One reason for this may be that Massachusetts has twice as many registered motor vehicles as Connecticut. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), there were about 5.63 million vehicles (private and commercial cars, buses, trucks, and motorcycles) registered in Massachusetts in 2011, compared to about 2.79 million in Connecticut.
The states differ in other ways with regard to funding transportation repair and maintenance. Connecticut, unlike Massachusetts, uses some of its STF revenue for Department of Transportation (DOT) operating costs, including the “Pay As You Go” program, which helps maintain highways and bridges. According to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) budget director, Massachusetts does not use its CTF money for road repair or maintenance.
Despite the differences in their gas taxes, neither Connecticut nor Massachusetts has been able to generate enough revenue to keep pace with necessary road and bridge repair. Recent studies in each state compared the amount of money needed to keep roads and bridges in “a state of good repair” with the amount of money available to achieve this. According to FHWA, a state of good repair means that roads and bridges, individually and collectively, are functioning as designed and regularly maintained and replaced.
In January, 2011, the Connecticut Transportation Strategy Board (TSB) reported a “state of good repair gap” of about $2 billion in Connecticut. It estimated that the gap would increase to more than $4.5 billion in 2017. In 2007, the Massachusetts Transportation Finance Commission found a $9 billion gap between the amount of money needed to bring highway infrastructure in that state into a state of good repair and the amount of state and federal funding expected for that purpose.
Several groups, including transportation advocates, a newspaper, and an engineering organization, have compared road and bridge conditions in the 50 states. These studies have generally found that Massachusetts roads appeared to be in better shape than those in Connecticut, while the opposite seems to be true with respect to bridges. However, the studies do not all agree. For example, a 2013 report, based on 2011 statistics, found Connecticut had a slightly higher percentage of roads in good condition, and a 2013 study found that the number of structurally deficient bridges had increased in Connecticut and decreased in Massachusetts in the previous two years. We provide links to these reports below.
For more information, read the full report.
Connecticut's gas tax is composed of two separate taxes, a 25-cent per gallon excise tax and a “gross receipts tax” (now 26.4 cents per gallon), for a total of 51.4 cents per gallon. Massachusetts' gas tax, which had been fixed at 21 cents per gallon for more than 20 years, increased to 24 cents per gallon on July 31, 2013. (The Massachusetts tax also includes an additional 2-cent fee that is used only to clean up underground fuel storage tanks.)
Gas tax revenue in each state is deposited into a fund dedicated primarily to paying debt service on bonds issued to fund transportation projects. In Connecticut, this is the Special Transportation Fund (STF); in Massachusetts, the Commonwealth Transportation Fund (CTF). Money from other sources is also deposited into these funds. In Connecticut, these sources include certain motor vehicle license and permit fees, receipts, and other revenue. In Massachusetts, these include a portion of the state sales tax and motor vehicle fees. (Massachusetts also collects tolls on some of its roads, most notably the Massachusetts Turnpike. Massachusetts can use this revenue to operate and maintain only the tolled roads.)
The amount of revenue the gas tax in each state generates is one of several factors that determine the states' ability to pay for highway and bridge repair and maintenance. Other factors include the amount and cost of work that needs to be done, the number of vehicles paying the gas tax, and the amount of money available from other state or federal sources.
Even though Massachusetts' gas tax is lower than Connecticut's, it generated $662 million in 2011, about one-third more than the $493 million Connecticut's tax generated in 2012. One reason for this may be that Massachusetts has twice as many registered motor vehicles as Connecticut. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), there were about 5.63 million vehicles (private and commercial cars, buses, trucks, and motorcycles) registered in Massachusetts in 2011, compared to about 2.79 million in Connecticut.
The states differ in other ways with regard to funding transportation repair and maintenance. Connecticut, unlike Massachusetts, uses some of its STF revenue for Department of Transportation (DOT) operating costs, including the “Pay As You Go” program, which helps maintain highways and bridges. According to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) budget director, Massachusetts does not use its CTF money for road repair or maintenance.
Despite the differences in their gas taxes, neither Connecticut nor Massachusetts has been able to generate enough revenue to keep pace with necessary road and bridge repair. Recent studies in each state compared the amount of money needed to keep roads and bridges in “a state of good repair” with the amount of money available to achieve this. According to FHWA, a state of good repair means that roads and bridges, individually and collectively, are functioning as designed and regularly maintained and replaced.
In January, 2011, the Connecticut Transportation Strategy Board (TSB) reported a “state of good repair gap” of about $2 billion in Connecticut. It estimated that the gap would increase to more than $4.5 billion in 2017. In 2007, the Massachusetts Transportation Finance Commission found a $9 billion gap between the amount of money needed to bring highway infrastructure in that state into a state of good repair and the amount of state and federal funding expected for that purpose.
Several groups, including transportation advocates, a newspaper, and an engineering organization, have compared road and bridge conditions in the 50 states. These studies have generally found that Massachusetts roads appeared to be in better shape than those in Connecticut, while the opposite seems to be true with respect to bridges. However, the studies do not all agree. For example, a 2013 report, based on 2011 statistics, found Connecticut had a slightly higher percentage of roads in good condition, and a 2013 study found that the number of structurally deficient bridges had increased in Connecticut and decreased in Massachusetts in the previous two years. We provide links to these reports below.
For more information, read the full report.
Expanded Loan Protections for Military Members?
The federal Department of Defense (DOD) is considering whether to expand loan protections available to members of the military. Recent legislation requires DOD to review its regulations implementing the Military Lending Act of 2006. In implementing that law, DOD set rules for payday loans, vehicle title loans, and tax refund anticipation loans, including limiting interest rates to no more than 36%.
Comments from consumer advocates in response to DOD’s request for input on the existing rules call for protections covering a broader range of payday loans, overdraft checking, installment loans, and rent-to-own contracts.
This comment period recently ended and DOD officials stated they intend to develop a proposed rule by the end of the year.
For more information, see an article in the Marine Times.
Comments from consumer advocates in response to DOD’s request for input on the existing rules call for protections covering a broader range of payday loans, overdraft checking, installment loans, and rent-to-own contracts.
This comment period recently ended and DOD officials stated they intend to develop a proposed rule by the end of the year.
For more information, see an article in the Marine Times.
September 9, 2013
Access Health CT Call Center Opens
Access Health CT, the state’s new insurance marketplace, has opened a call center to answer questions about health care coverage under the federal Affordable Care Act (often referred to as Obamacare), the Connecticut Mirror reports. The toll-free call center is open Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. and on Saturdays from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. It can be reached at 1-855-805-4325.
Beginning October 1, 2013, people will be able to enroll in health plans through Access Health CT. The plans take effect on January 1, 2014.
The call center is operated by Maximus, a Virginia company, and staffed by representatives in Hartford and New York City. The representatives have had training on the available health plans and the federal tax subsidies available to many to help lower the premium costs.
Beginning October 1, 2013, people will be able to enroll in health plans through Access Health CT. The plans take effect on January 1, 2014.
The call center is operated by Maximus, a Virginia company, and staffed by representatives in Hartford and New York City. The representatives have had training on the available health plans and the federal tax subsidies available to many to help lower the premium costs.
Shaming Property Owners Into Action
Bridgeport has added a new tool to its anti-blight efforts: a “shame campaign.” As ctlatinonews.com reported, the city recently started a website that posts photos of the city’s worst blighted properties and their owners’ names. The city has been running similar ads in the Connecticut Post.
Other cities across the county have tried similar approaches to put pressure on negligent property owners to clean up their properties:
• Reading, Pennsylvania has an online “Wall of Shame” that features blighted properties and their owners.
• Columbus, Ohio published a list of over 100 blighted property in the Columbus Dispatch.
• Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Webster, Massachusetts are among a growing number of towns that post large signs on blighted buildings, in public view, with the owner’s contact information.
• Baltimore’s blight website, Baltimore Slumlord Watch, was started by a resident who grew tired of the blighted conditions in her neighborhood.
Source: www.helpfightblight.com
Other cities across the county have tried similar approaches to put pressure on negligent property owners to clean up their properties:
• Reading, Pennsylvania has an online “Wall of Shame” that features blighted properties and their owners.
• Columbus, Ohio published a list of over 100 blighted property in the Columbus Dispatch.
• Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Webster, Massachusetts are among a growing number of towns that post large signs on blighted buildings, in public view, with the owner’s contact information.
• Baltimore’s blight website, Baltimore Slumlord Watch, was started by a resident who grew tired of the blighted conditions in her neighborhood.
September 6, 2013
Adjusting to Changes in Mortgage Guarantees: “Pushing Ice Cream Out of the Wrong End of an Ice Cream Cone”
Most people who want to buy a home don’t have the cash on hand to buy one. So, they borrow money from a bank and pay it back with interest, usually over 30 years. But to borrow money, one must make enough money to repay the mortgage and meet other living expenses. If he or she doesn’t make enough to cover the mortgage payments and daily expenses, he or she risks defaulting on the mortgage payments, something that costs banks money. Consequently, banks apply standards to determine if borrowers have the financial wherewithal to repay the mortgage. Obviously, not everyone does.
But the story doesn’t end there. Government tries to help those who can’t meet the banks’ standards, at least indirectly, by sharing, and consequently minimizing, the risk banks incur when lending money to people who don’t otherwise qualify for a mortgage. “The federal government guaranteed about 87% of new mortgage loans last year through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac [the popular names of two government-chartered corporations] and the Federal Housing Administration, effectively setting the terms and providing the money for nine out of 10 home purchases and refinanced loans,” the August 6, 2013, New York Times reported.
The good news is that the guarantees are “holding down interest rates, helping the housing market and the broader economy to recover,” according to the Times. Concerns arise, however, from the government’s attempts to avoid another housing crisis by tightening its criteria for guaranteeing mortgages. After all, the government’s on the hook for a guaranteed mortgage that goes belly-up.
But every action has a reaction, and the banks have been rejecting more loan applications. “Every few days somebody comes in who in my mind should be able to get a mortgage loan, and I have to turn them away. It’s like trying to push ice cream out of the wrong end of the ice cream cone,” according to a Boulder, Colorado mortgage broker quoted in the Times article.
As the Times sees it, this outcome puts the government between a rock and a hard place: “making the cost of the [housing finance] system an explicit government obligation, or making it harder for Americans to buy homes.”
Some policy analysts believe government shouldn’t have to make this choice. According to them, government-backed mortgages distort the economy and subsidize homeownership, “with much of the benefit flowing to affluent Americans at the expense of biomedical research or bridge repair.”
But the story doesn’t end there. Government tries to help those who can’t meet the banks’ standards, at least indirectly, by sharing, and consequently minimizing, the risk banks incur when lending money to people who don’t otherwise qualify for a mortgage. “The federal government guaranteed about 87% of new mortgage loans last year through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac [the popular names of two government-chartered corporations] and the Federal Housing Administration, effectively setting the terms and providing the money for nine out of 10 home purchases and refinanced loans,” the August 6, 2013, New York Times reported.
The good news is that the guarantees are “holding down interest rates, helping the housing market and the broader economy to recover,” according to the Times. Concerns arise, however, from the government’s attempts to avoid another housing crisis by tightening its criteria for guaranteeing mortgages. After all, the government’s on the hook for a guaranteed mortgage that goes belly-up.
But every action has a reaction, and the banks have been rejecting more loan applications. “Every few days somebody comes in who in my mind should be able to get a mortgage loan, and I have to turn them away. It’s like trying to push ice cream out of the wrong end of the ice cream cone,” according to a Boulder, Colorado mortgage broker quoted in the Times article.
As the Times sees it, this outcome puts the government between a rock and a hard place: “making the cost of the [housing finance] system an explicit government obligation, or making it harder for Americans to buy homes.”
Some policy analysts believe government shouldn’t have to make this choice. According to them, government-backed mortgages distort the economy and subsidize homeownership, “with much of the benefit flowing to affluent Americans at the expense of biomedical research or bridge repair.”
Hot Report: Health Freedom
OLR Report 2013-R-0337 provides information about the “health freedom” movement including the policies the movement promotes and states that have adopted similar policies in statute.
The “health freedom” movement generally advocates for patients' increased access to non-traditional health care treatments. Among other things, supporters of “health freedom” criticize government restrictions on the practice of complementary and alternative medicine by unlicensed practitioners. According to the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, “complementary medicine” generally refers to using a non-mainstream approach together with conventional (Western) medicine, while “alternative medicine” refers to using a non-mainstream approach in place of conventional medicine. Examples of complementary or alternative treatments include homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture, and massage therapy.
“Health freedom” advocates also generally support increased access to nutritional supplements and natural foods. Some supporters also criticize government-mandated vaccinations and water fluoridation.
A small number of states have enacted legislation implementing “health freedom” policies. At least seven states allow practitioners of complementary and alternative medicine to practice without a license. While the specific requirements vary, these laws generally (1) set certain parameters and conditions for such unlicensed practice and (2) require such practitioners to make certain disclosures to their patients.
There are also “health freedom” organizations and state laws that oppose the federal Affordable Care Act's individual insurance coverage mandate. The report does not discuss this aspect of “health freedom” advocacy.
For more information, read the full report.
The “health freedom” movement generally advocates for patients' increased access to non-traditional health care treatments. Among other things, supporters of “health freedom” criticize government restrictions on the practice of complementary and alternative medicine by unlicensed practitioners. According to the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, “complementary medicine” generally refers to using a non-mainstream approach together with conventional (Western) medicine, while “alternative medicine” refers to using a non-mainstream approach in place of conventional medicine. Examples of complementary or alternative treatments include homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture, and massage therapy.
“Health freedom” advocates also generally support increased access to nutritional supplements and natural foods. Some supporters also criticize government-mandated vaccinations and water fluoridation.
A small number of states have enacted legislation implementing “health freedom” policies. At least seven states allow practitioners of complementary and alternative medicine to practice without a license. While the specific requirements vary, these laws generally (1) set certain parameters and conditions for such unlicensed practice and (2) require such practitioners to make certain disclosures to their patients.
There are also “health freedom” organizations and state laws that oppose the federal Affordable Care Act's individual insurance coverage mandate. The report does not discuss this aspect of “health freedom” advocacy.
For more information, read the full report.
Stimulant-Related Emergency Room Visits Increasing Among Young Adults
The federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) recently reported a sharp increase in emergency department visits by adults aged 18 to 34 for nonmedical use of legal stimulants. The report shows more than a 300% increase from 2005 (5,605 visits) to 2011 (22,949 visits). About 30% of the visits also involved alcohol (stimulants can increase the risk of alcohol poisoning).
Legal stimulants include both prescription drugs (e.g., medications for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) and over-the-counter products (e.g., caffeine pills or caffeinated energy drinks). The report did not consider methamphetamine or other illegal stimulants.
The nonmedical use of prescription stimulants can lead to heart and blood vessel problems as well as abuse or dependence.
Legal stimulants include both prescription drugs (e.g., medications for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) and over-the-counter products (e.g., caffeine pills or caffeinated energy drinks). The report did not consider methamphetamine or other illegal stimulants.
The nonmedical use of prescription stimulants can lead to heart and blood vessel problems as well as abuse or dependence.
September 5, 2013
Is it Worth Moving to Take a Job?
A recent study contradicts the common wisdom that many homeowners are unlikely to pick up and move to new jobs if they are likely to lose money when selling their homes. “The equity in a home is not a crucial part of most unemployed people’s decisions to relocate for a job,” according to a Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland study. “If a job is available, the economic benefit of accepting it outweighs the potential costs of disposing of the home.”
The researchers found these results even when the homeowners had subprime or similar mortgages. “We conclude that negative equity does not limit job-related mobility and, hence, is not a major reason for elevated aggregate unemployment in the United States,” the researchers wrote.
The researchers found these results even when the homeowners had subprime or similar mortgages. “We conclude that negative equity does not limit job-related mobility and, hence, is not a major reason for elevated aggregate unemployment in the United States,” the researchers wrote.
Supreme Court Upholds Firing Sexual Harasser
According to Daniel Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Blog, a new decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court suggests that employers have the right to fire sexual harassers in the workplace. But does it also mean that any action short of termination is not enough?
The case involved a fired state employee and the Supreme Court upheld his termination, in part noting that the state has well established laws and public policies against sexual harassment in the workplace. The court deemed this case particularly egregious and therefore meriting termination.
But Schwartz raises the question of how an employer can determine which cases require termination and which do not. And could an employer be exposed to liability if a known harasser is not fired?
Read Schwartz’s blog, which includes a link to the court’s decision.
The case involved a fired state employee and the Supreme Court upheld his termination, in part noting that the state has well established laws and public policies against sexual harassment in the workplace. The court deemed this case particularly egregious and therefore meriting termination.
But Schwartz raises the question of how an employer can determine which cases require termination and which do not. And could an employer be exposed to liability if a known harasser is not fired?
Read Schwartz’s blog, which includes a link to the court’s decision.
September 4, 2013
Student Test Accommodations: A Work In Progress
The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) continues to work on a plan to accommodate students with disabilities and English language learners (ELLs) in student standardized testing. Connecticut, as a member of this consortium along with 24 other states and the Virgin Islands, expects to administer tests using SBAC’s accommodation plan beginning in the 2014-15 school year.
Additionally, SBAC has posted detailed reports from experts that summarize research on accommodations for ELLs and students with disabilities. It appears that SBAC aims to use this research to inform its design of a detailed accommodation plan.
SBAC’s plan would include student accommodations in the design of the tests, which will be given online. The tests will be “designed for all students” with built-in “accessibility tools and accommodations,” which include:
- foreground and background colors,
- tactile presentation of content (e.g., Braille), and
- translated content in signed form and select languages.
Additionally, SBAC has posted detailed reports from experts that summarize research on accommodations for ELLs and students with disabilities. It appears that SBAC aims to use this research to inform its design of a detailed accommodation plan.
Education Week reports that the other multistate assessment consortium, the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), issued a comprehensive policy document addressing test accommodations. The first edition of the PARCC Accessibility Features and Accommodations Manual advises districts to allow students to use:
- read-aloud accommodations and American Sign Language interpretation on the language arts test,
- a dictated (rather than written) response format, and
- calculators on portions of the math test.
Hot Report: Recycling Container Requirements in Public Places
OLR Report 2013-R-0325 explains the state's requirements for providing recycling collection containers in public places.
Connecticut law requires everyone, including residents, state agencies and institutions, schools, municipalities, and businesses, to recycle certain items (i.e., designated recyclables). The law's recycling requirements include providing collection containers for recyclables generated in certain common gathering areas or venues, such as arenas, bus terminals, and shopping centers. Supplying containers in these areas is generally the responsibility of the property or venue owner or operator (e.g., the business or municipality).
The law sets conditions under which the owner or operator must provide containers for collecting designated recyclables. Generally, they must provide containers if (1) the public generates the recyclables at the location and (2) they provide for solid waste collection. Because the recyclables must be separated from other solid waste, the owner or operator must provide separate containers for recyclables and other solid waste.
Besides providing containers for recyclables in certain common gathering areas or venues, municipalities, through their zoning powers, can regulate recycling containers but the law limits their ability to do so. They can require screens or buffers around the containers for aesthetic reasons. But the law generally prohibits them from (1) banning the use of containers to store designated recyclables, (2) requiring that containers comply with bulk or lot area requirements, and (3) unreasonably restricting access to or the size of the containers for businesses.
For more information, read the full report.
Connecticut law requires everyone, including residents, state agencies and institutions, schools, municipalities, and businesses, to recycle certain items (i.e., designated recyclables). The law's recycling requirements include providing collection containers for recyclables generated in certain common gathering areas or venues, such as arenas, bus terminals, and shopping centers. Supplying containers in these areas is generally the responsibility of the property or venue owner or operator (e.g., the business or municipality).
The law sets conditions under which the owner or operator must provide containers for collecting designated recyclables. Generally, they must provide containers if (1) the public generates the recyclables at the location and (2) they provide for solid waste collection. Because the recyclables must be separated from other solid waste, the owner or operator must provide separate containers for recyclables and other solid waste.
Besides providing containers for recyclables in certain common gathering areas or venues, municipalities, through their zoning powers, can regulate recycling containers but the law limits their ability to do so. They can require screens or buffers around the containers for aesthetic reasons. But the law generally prohibits them from (1) banning the use of containers to store designated recyclables, (2) requiring that containers comply with bulk or lot area requirements, and (3) unreasonably restricting access to or the size of the containers for businesses.
For more information, read the full report.
Child Care Costs More Than State University Tuition?
According to a recent Connecticut Post article, the annual cost for sending an infant in Connecticut to day care at a child care center was $12,844 in 2011, almost 40% more than the 2013-14 in-state tuition at the University of Connecticut ($9,256).
Connecticut ranked as the 23rd most expensive state for child care according to a Child Care Aware of America study cited in the article. Massachusetts was most expensive at $14,980 per year and Mississippi was least expensive at $4,591 per year. However, the rates throughout the Connecticut vary significantly, from $11,816 per year in Bridgeport to $18,727 per year in Stamford.
A 2012 Child Care Aware of America study, cited by the Post, compares child care rates throughout the country.
An infographic by the U.S. Census Bureau depicts trends in child care costs from 1985-2011.
Connecticut ranked as the 23rd most expensive state for child care according to a Child Care Aware of America study cited in the article. Massachusetts was most expensive at $14,980 per year and Mississippi was least expensive at $4,591 per year. However, the rates throughout the Connecticut vary significantly, from $11,816 per year in Bridgeport to $18,727 per year in Stamford.
A 2012 Child Care Aware of America study, cited by the Post, compares child care rates throughout the country.
An infographic by the U.S. Census Bureau depicts trends in child care costs from 1985-2011.
September 3, 2013
Maryland to Consider Bill Banning Discriminatory E-Book Sales to Libraries
According to a recent Governing article, a Maryland legislator plans to introduce a bill next year banning discriminatory sales practices by publishers when they sell e-books to public libraries.
Delegate Luedtke, the bill’s prospective sponsor, hopes to ban what he sees as exorbitant prices that publishers charge libraries for e-books and the onerous conditions placed on those purchases.
The prospective Maryland bill is similar to a version of a 2013 Connecticut bill (HB 5614), before it was scaled back and passed as a study.
For more information on E-books, see OLR Report 2013-R-0153.
Delegate Luedtke, the bill’s prospective sponsor, hopes to ban what he sees as exorbitant prices that publishers charge libraries for e-books and the onerous conditions placed on those purchases.
The prospective Maryland bill is similar to a version of a 2013 Connecticut bill (HB 5614), before it was scaled back and passed as a study.
For more information on E-books, see OLR Report 2013-R-0153.
Judicial Branch Email Alerts in Civil and Family Cases
The Connecticut Judicial Branch recently announced that its website now allows users to sign up for automatic email updates for civil and family cases that have public information available on the website. Activities that will be included in the email updates include document filings, the entry of an order, the scheduling of a case on the short calendar, or the scheduling of a case event (such as a hearing).
The Judicial Branch website has more information on the program, including instructions for how to sign up and answers to frequently asked questions (including the types of cases that are excluded from the program).
The Judicial Branch website has more information on the program, including instructions for how to sign up and answers to frequently asked questions (including the types of cases that are excluded from the program).
September 2, 2013
Are Flying Bicycles in our Near Future?
 |
| Image Source: CNN website, http://www.cnn.com /2013/06/20/tech/innovation/worlds-first-flying- bicycle, last visited August 14, 2013. |
The bike is similar to a traditional bike but is connected to a lightweight trailer that consists of a (1) giant fan, (2) biofuel 249cc motor, and (3) fold-away wing.
For city use, the bike can be disconnected from the trailer. To fly, the (1) bike hitches to the trailer, (2) wing is unfolded, and (3) the electric motor runs the fan. It needs open ground for takeoff and can stay airborne for up to three hours. The inventors say the machine controls like a fan-powered paraglider and could be used for such things as air scouting for forest rangers and border patrols. The fan can also detach from its casing and strap on a person’s back. According to the article, in many countries no license is needed to fly the machine in this manner, but the U.S. Powered Paragliding Association stresses proper training.
Do Housing Vouchers Bring Crime and Disorder to Neighborhoods?
By the mid-1990s, massive public housing projects had fallen out of the federal government’s favor. Decrepit housing projects were demolished and former tenants were given housing vouchers, which allowed them to rent private units. Voucher holders dispersed from poor inner-city projects to working and middle class suburban neighborhoods. Voucher program advocates argued that by de-concentrating poverty, associated social problems, like crime, would decline. But, controversy soon arose (as reported in a 2008 article in The Atlantic). Citing research by criminologists and social scientists, suburbanites contended that crime in their neighborhoods increased as former project tenants moved into their neighborhoods.
A recent Urban Studies article argues that blaming housing voucher households was misguided. The study of housing and crime data revealed no relationship between suburban housing voucher households and crime. While crime rates may be higher in communities where housing vouchers are more frequently used, the data suggest that increased crime is not being committed by voucher households. This is consistent with a recent Furman Center policy brief describing research that shows voucher households tend to move to higher crime neighborhoods, thus explaining the perceived correlation between voucher households and crime.
A recent Urban Studies article argues that blaming housing voucher households was misguided. The study of housing and crime data revealed no relationship between suburban housing voucher households and crime. While crime rates may be higher in communities where housing vouchers are more frequently used, the data suggest that increased crime is not being committed by voucher households. This is consistent with a recent Furman Center policy brief describing research that shows voucher households tend to move to higher crime neighborhoods, thus explaining the perceived correlation between voucher households and crime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)