Adult credentials, student learning, graduation, and public-school funding.
High school or higher91.5%2020–2024 · #26 of 50 · highest first
Associate degree or higher50.1%2020–2024 · #8 of 50 · highest first
Bachelor’s degree or higher42.5%2020–2024 · #6 of 50 · highest first
Connecticut over time
Explore Connecticut readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Connecticut officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Connecticut effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Connecticut change.
Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
Grade 4 reading Connecticut · source units
ConnecticutPublished U.S. benchmark
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
11 of 11 reviewed Connecticut actions match · 9 date markers shown. 22 major events shown separately.
Connecticut · 2024: 219.2 · Rank #8 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 215
FactVote uses NAEP Data Service mean scale scores for all public-school students in Connecticut. The series uses the total student group and the main reading and mathematics composite scales for Grade 4 and Grade 8. NAEP is generally administered every two years; the 2021 administration was postponed, so the timeline moves from 2019 to 2022. NAEP results are estimates from a sample. Statistical significance, not a visual gap alone, determines whether scores differ. Each grade and subject has its own scale. Follow one line over time rather than comparing the numeric distance between grades or subjects. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
Connecticut · state comparison
Adult educational attainment
Adults age 25 and older. Higher credentials overlap: these measures must not be added together.
Connecticut · 2020–202491.5%
Connecticut rank#26among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark89.6%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
High school or higher
Share of adults age 25+ with the stated credential or a higher credential.
Point-estimate ranks are not tests of statistical significance.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Connecticut stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Connecticut has a dark outline.
Lower value · 84.7%Higher value · 94.9%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Connecticut · 91.5%2020–2024 · Rank #26 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Connecticut with every state · 50 ranked
High school or higher · 2020–2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Vermont
94.9%
—
#2
Maine
94.8%
—
#3
Montana
94.6%
—
#4
New Hampshire
94.4%
—
#5
Wyoming
94.2%
—
#6
North Dakota
94%
—
#7
Minnesota
93.9%
—
#8
Wisconsin
93.6%
—
#9
Alaska
93.6%
—
#10
Utah
93.4%
—
#11
Iowa
93.3%
—
#12
South Dakota
93.2%
—
#13
Hawaii
93.2%
—
#14
Colorado
92.9%
—
#15
Washington
92.3%
—
#16
Nebraska
92.2%
—
#17
Pennsylvania
92.1%
—
#18
Michigan
92.1%
—
#19
Kansas
92%
—
#20
Idaho
91.9%
—
#21
Missouri
91.9%
—
#22
Oregon
91.8%
—
#23
Ohio
91.8%
—
#24
Delaware
91.7%
—
#25
Virginia
91.6%
—
#26
Connecticut · your comparison
91.5%
—
#27
Massachusetts
91.4%
—
#28
Maryland
91.1%
—
#29
New Jersey
90.7%
—
#30
Illinois
90.5%
—
#31
Indiana
90.4%
—
#32
North Carolina
90.1%
—
#33
South Carolina
90.1%
—
#34
Tennessee
90%
—
#35
Florida
89.9%
—
#36
Rhode Island
89.7%
—
#37
Oklahoma
89.4%
—
#38
Arizona
89.4%
—
#39
West Virginia
89.3%
—
#40
Georgia
89.2%
—
#41
Kentucky
88.9%
—
#42
Arkansas
88.7%
—
#43
Alabama
88.6%
—
#44
New Mexico
88%
—
#45
New York
88%
—
#46
Nevada
87.5%
—
#47
Louisiana
87.3%
—
#48
Mississippi
87.1%
—
#49
Texas
86%
—
#50
California
84.7%
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Share of Connecticut residents age 25 and older whose reported attainment is a regular high school diploma or equivalent (including GED or an alternative credential), some college, or an associate’s or higher degree.
This source snapshot keeps its own definition and period. A rank shown elsewhere applies only to that comparison’s measure and period.
Method and limitations
U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts, sourced from the American Community Survey 2020–2024 five-year estimate.
This is an adult educational-attainment measure, not a current high-school graduation rate or a measure of school quality.
A statewide estimate can obscure differences across communities and demographic groups.
NAEP state comparisons use public-school students in the same grade and subject. National benchmarks include public and private schools.
Connecticut · 2024219.2
Connecticut rank#8among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark215Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Grade 4 reading
FactVote uses NAEP Data Service mean scale scores for all public-school students in Connecticut. The series uses the total student group and the main reading and mathematics composite scales for Grade 4 and Grade 8.
NAEP is generally administered every two years; the 2021 administration was postponed, so the timeline moves from 2019 to 2022. NAEP results are estimates from a sample. Statistical significance, not a visual gap alone, determines whether scores differ. Each grade and subject has its own scale. Follow one line over time rather than comparing the numeric distance between grades or subjects.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
Connecticut
2024 · Connecticut: 219.2 · Rank #8 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 215 · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Connecticut Grade 4 reading history
Period
Connecticut
Compare
2003
228.3
2005
225.8
2007
227.2
2009
229
2011
227.4
2013
229.6
2015
228.9
2017
228.4
2019
224.3
2022
219.1
2024
219.2
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Connecticut stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Connecticut has a dark outline.
Lower value · 200.6Higher value · 224.8Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Connecticut · 219.22024 · Rank #8 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Connecticut with every state · 50 ranked
Grade 4 reading · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Massachusetts
224.8
—
#2
Wyoming
221.9
—
#3
New Jersey
221.6
—
#4
New Hampshire
221.5
—
#5
Colorado
220.9
—
#6
Indiana
220.1
—
#7
Utah
219.3
—
#8
Connecticut · your comparison
219.2
—
#9
Mississippi
218.5
—
#10
Florida
218.2
—
#11
Kentucky
218
—
#12
Montana
217.2
—
#13
Rhode Island
216.3
—
#14
Louisiana
216
—
#14
Ohio
216
—
#16
Hawaii
215.8
—
#16
Pennsylvania
215.8
—
#18
Idaho
215.7
—
#18
Washington
215.7
—
#20
Maryland
215.6
—
#21
North Dakota
215.5
—
#22
Wisconsin
215.3
—
#23
Tennessee
215.1
—
#24
South Carolina
214.9
—
#25
Iowa
214.6
—
#25
New York
214.6
—
#27
Georgia
214.4
—
#27
Minnesota
214.4
—
#29
Illinois
214.2
—
#30
South Dakota
214.1
—
#30
Virginia
214.1
—
#32
North Carolina
213.4
—
#33
Alabama
213.2
—
#34
Kansas
213.1
—
#34
Nevada
213.1
—
#36
Vermont
212.7
—
#37
Missouri
211.9
—
#37
Texas
211.9
—
#39
California
211.7
—
#39
Nebraska
211.7
—
#41
Arkansas
209.7
—
#42
Maine
209.6
—
#43
Delaware
209.5
—
#44
Michigan
209.1
—
#45
Arizona
208.1
—
#46
Oklahoma
207.3
—
#47
Oregon
207
—
#48
West Virginia
205.9
—
#49
Alaska
201.6
—
#50
New Mexico
200.6
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Compare spending per pupil and the composition of school revenue and current spending.
Connecticut · FY2024$26,316
Connecticut rank#4among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$17,619Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Current spending per pupil
Public elementary-secondary current spending per enrolled pupil.
Current spending excludes capital spending. More spending is not itself a measure of student outcomes.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Connecticut stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Connecticut has a dark outline.
Lower value · $11.06KHigher value · $31.92KStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Connecticut · $26,316FY2024 · Rank #4 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Connecticut with every state · 50 ranked
Current spending per pupil · FY2024 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
New York
$31,918
—
#2
Vermont
$28,818
—
#3
New Jersey
$27,234
—
#4
Connecticut · your comparison
$26,316
—
#5
Massachusetts
$24,429
—
#6
Hawaii
$23,878
—
#7
New Hampshire
$22,978
—
#8
Delaware
$22,201
—
#9
Rhode Island
$22,110
—
#10
Illinois
$21,776
—
#11
Pennsylvania
$21,091
—
#12
Alaska
$21,004
—
#13
California
$20,791
—
#14
Wyoming
$20,521
—
#15
Maryland
$20,208
—
#16
Maine
$19,962
—
#17
Washington
$18,564
—
#18
Michigan
$18,314
—
#19
Oregon
$18,083
—
#20
New Mexico
$17,664
—
#21
Ohio
$17,257
—
#22
Virginia
$17,104
—
#23
North Dakota
$17,102
—
#24
Minnesota
$17,098
—
#25
Nebraska
$16,147
—
#26
Wisconsin
$15,952
—
#27
Colorado
$15,908
—
#28
Georgia
$15,833
—
#29
West Virginia
$15,640
—
#30
Louisiana
$15,581
—
#31
Kansas
$15,558
—
#32
South Carolina
$15,060
—
#33
Nevada
$14,812
—
#34
Kentucky
$14,596
—
#35
Iowa
$14,369
—
#36
Missouri
$14,241
—
#37
Arkansas
$13,873
—
#38
Montana
$13,656
—
#39
Alabama
$13,627
—
#40
Indiana
$13,622
—
#41
North Carolina
$12,995
—
#42
Texas
$12,895
—
#43
Tennessee
$12,882
—
#44
South Dakota
$12,828
—
#45
Florida
$12,693
—
#46
Mississippi
$12,324
—
#47
Oklahoma
$12,162
—
#48
Arizona
$12,003
—
#49
Utah
$11,347
—
#50
Idaho
$11,060
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
The federal comparison uses a common adjusted cohort and school year. A newer state graduation snapshot, where retained, uses its own source and period; adult attainment is a separate measure.
Connecticut · 2021–2289%
Connecticut rank#9among 48 states with data
U.S. benchmark87%Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Federal public-school cohort graduation rate
Share of the adjusted ninth-grade public-school cohort graduating in four years. From 2017–18, the federal measure counts regular diplomas and eligible state-defined alternate diplomas for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities; earlier years count regular diplomas only.
Published NCES state comparison through 2021–22. Rounded whole percentages produce tied ranks. Missing or suppressed values are excluded. Any newer state graduation snapshot uses its own period and cannot inherit this rank.
Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.
Connecticut
2021–22 · Connecticut: 89% · Rank #9 of 48, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 87% · Selected for state comparisonView history and select a period
Connecticut Federal public-school cohort graduation rate history
Period
Connecticut
Compare
2011–12
85%
2012–13
86%
2013–14
87%
2014–15
87%
2015–16
87%
2016–17
88%
2017–18
88%
2018–19
89%
2019–20
88%
2020–21
90%
2021–22
89%
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Connecticut stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Connecticut has a dark outline.
Lower value · 77%Higher value · 91%Striped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Connecticut · 89%2021–22 · Rank #9 of 48, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Connecticut with every state · 48 ranked, 2 unavailable
Federal public-school cohort graduation rate · 2021–22 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
West Virginia
91%
—
#2
Iowa
90%
—
#2
Kentucky
90%
—
#2
Massachusetts
90%
—
#2
Missouri
90%
—
#2
Tennessee
90%
—
#2
Texas
90%
—
#2
Wisconsin
90%
—
#9
Connecticut · your comparison
89%
—
#9
Kansas
89%
—
#9
Mississippi
89%
—
#9
Virginia
89%
—
#13
Alabama
88%
—
#13
Arkansas
88%
—
#13
Delaware
88%
—
#13
Indiana
88%
—
#13
New Hampshire
88%
—
#13
Utah
88%
—
#19
California
87%
—
#19
Florida
87%
—
#19
Illinois
87%
—
#19
Nebraska
87%
—
#19
New York
87%
—
#19
Pennsylvania
87%
—
#25
Hawaii
86%
—
#25
Maine
86%
—
#25
Maryland
86%
—
#25
Montana
86%
—
#25
North Carolina
86%
—
#25
Ohio
86%
—
#31
New Jersey
85%
—
#31
North Dakota
85%
—
#33
Georgia
84%
—
#33
Minnesota
84%
—
#33
South Carolina
84%
—
#33
Washington
84%
—
#37
Louisiana
83%
—
#37
Rhode Island
83%
—
#37
Vermont
83%
—
#40
Colorado
82%
—
#40
Nevada
82%
—
#40
South Dakota
82%
—
#40
Wyoming
82%
—
#44
Michigan
81%
—
#44
Oregon
81%
—
#46
Idaho
80%
—
#47
Alaska
78%
—
#48
Arizona
77%
—
—
New Mexico
Not available
No comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.
—
Oklahoma
Not available
No comparable published observation for this period; excluded from rank.
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Published charges describe prices before aid. Costs and outcomes require their own definitions and populations.
Connecticut · 2022–23$15,763
Connecticut rank#4among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$9,750Same measure and period when published
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Public four-year in-state tuition and fees
Average published annual charges at degree-granting postsecondary institutions in the state.
2022–23 academic year, current dollars. Tuition averages are weighted by undergraduate enrollment; room and board use the NCES reporting universe. Charges exclude aid and do not equal a typical student’s net cost.
Compare states on the graph
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Connecticut stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Connecticut has a dark outline.
Lower value · $4.54KHigher value · $17.6KStriped: unavailable
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
Connecticut · $15,7632022–23 · Rank #4 of 50, highest firstSelected state
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
Compare Connecticut with every state · 50 ranked
Public four-year in-state tuition and fees · 2022–23 · highest value ranked #1
Rank
State
Value
Comparison notes
#1
Vermont
$17,600
—
#2
New Hampshire
$17,019
—
#3
Pennsylvania
$16,217
—
#4
Connecticut · your comparison
$15,763
—
#5
New Jersey
$15,265
—
#6
Illinois
$14,921
—
#7
Virginia
$14,825
—
#8
Rhode Island
$14,744
—
#9
Michigan
$14,718
—
#10
Massachusetts
$14,345
—
#11
Minnesota
$12,873
—
#12
South Carolina
$12,604
—
#13
Oregon
$12,424
—
#14
Delaware
$11,922
—
#15
Arizona
$11,768
—
#16
Kentucky
$11,299
—
#17
Alabama
$11,081
—
#18
Ohio
$10,922
—
#19
Maine
$10,813
—
#20
Hawaii
$10,484
—
#21
Tennessee
$10,437
—
#22
Iowa
$10,121
—
#23
Maryland
$10,041
—
#24
Missouri
$9,926
—
#25
Indiana
$9,886
—
#26
Louisiana
$9,843
—
#27
Colorado
$9,798
—
#28
North Dakota
$9,728
—
#29
Kansas
$9,274
—
#30
Mississippi
$9,120
—
#31
South Dakota
$9,079
—
#32
Wisconsin
$8,974
—
#33
Arkansas
$8,879
—
#34
Nebraska
$8,862
—
#35
West Virginia
$8,715
—
#36
California
$8,637
—
#37
New York
$8,575
—
#38
Oklahoma
$8,519
—
#39
Alaska
$8,291
—
#40
Texas
$8,195
—
#41
Washington
$8,006
—
#42
Idaho
$7,640
—
#43
New Mexico
$7,526
—
#44
North Carolina
$7,327
—
#45
Montana
$7,299
—
#46
Utah
$7,215
—
#47
Georgia
$7,075
—
#48
Nevada
$6,723
—
#49
Wyoming
$5,100
—
#50
Florida
$4,540
—
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Explore current officeholders and explicitly reviewed historical executive officials, labeled at the time of their actions. Timeline dates, action type, status and search also filter this list. Read any record’s summary, latest recorded status and official evidence below, or open it beside the timeline.
11 of 11 reviewed Connecticut actions · newest first
Jun 4, 2026 · HB 5563 · AN ACT CONCERNING VARIOUS CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROPOSALS, CERTIFICATES OF APPROVAL FOR AIRPORTS, HELIPORTS, VERTIPORTS, RESTRICTED LANDING AREAS AND OTHER AIR NAVIGATION FACILITIES, POLICE COLLABORATION WITH SOCIAL WORKERS, SURVEILLANCE PRICING, EDUCATION COST SHARING AND WITHHOLDING OF TAXES FROM LUMP SUM PAYMENTS. · EnactedConnecticut Legislature · HB 5563
AN ACT CONCERNING VARIOUS CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROPOSALS, CERTIFICATES OF APPROVAL FOR AIRPORTS, HELIPORTS, VERTIPORTS, RESTRICTED LANDING AREAS AND OTHER AIR NAVIGATION FACILITIES, POLICE COLLABORATION WITH SOCIAL WORKERS, SURVEILLANCE PRICING, EDUCATION COST SHARING AND WITHHOLDING OF TAXES FROM LUMP SUM PAYMENTS.
Jun 4, 2026 · Enacted
Rep. Nicholas Menapace · Co-sponsored / Rep. Jane M. Garibay · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kenneth Gucker · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tom Delnicki · Co-sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Effective October 1, 2026, HB 5563 extends the aggregation period for the organized retail-theft offense from 180 to 365 days, retaining the requirements involving shoplifting, more than $2,000 of retail property, financial gain, and coordinated activity. Shoplifting falls within the larceny-theft component of the fact; other financial offenses in the act do not automatically belong to that series.
Signed by Ned Lamont on 2026-06-04. Public Act No. 26-130. Approval, statutory effective dates, and implementation are distinct; this entry does not establish current enforceability.
Why this record is included
The amendment changes the period over which coordinated shoplifting can satisfy the organized retail-theft offense. Shoplifting belongs to the larceny-theft component of the FBI property-crime measure. The provision does not create a crime-reporting program or establish prevention. This connection does not establish causation or a change in the earlier measured value.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: Reported property-crime rate. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(b) Any person who, for financial gain and in conjunction with one or more other persons, commits larceny by shoplifting, as defined in section 53a -119, as amended by this act , of retail property having an aggregate value exceeding two thousand dollars and (1) wrongfully takes such property during a period of [one hundred eighty ] three hundred sixty-five days, or (2) sells, delivers or otherwise transfers such property to a retail property fence, shall have committed the offense of organized retail theft.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Jun 4, 2026 · HB 5563 · AN ACT CONCERNING VARIOUS CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROPOSALS, CERTIFICATES OF APPROVAL FOR AIRPORTS, HELIPORTS, VERTIPORTS, RESTRICTED LANDING AREAS AND OTHER AIR NAVIGATION FACILITIES, POLICE COLLABORATION WITH SOCIAL WORKERS, SURVEILLANCE PRICING, EDUCATION COST SHARING AND WITHHOLDING OF TAXES FROM LUMP SUM PAYMENTS. · SignedGovernor · HB 5563
AN ACT CONCERNING VARIOUS CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROPOSALS, CERTIFICATES OF APPROVAL FOR AIRPORTS, HELIPORTS, VERTIPORTS, RESTRICTED LANDING AREAS AND OTHER AIR NAVIGATION FACILITIES, POLICE COLLABORATION WITH SOCIAL WORKERS, SURVEILLANCE PRICING, EDUCATION COST SHARING AND WITHHOLDING OF TAXES FROM LUMP SUM PAYMENTS.
Jun 4, 2026 · Signed
Gov. Ned Lamont · Signed
FactVote reviewed summary
Ned Lamont signed HB 5563. Effective October 1, 2026, HB 5563 extends the aggregation period for the organized retail-theft offense from 180 to 365 days, retaining the requirements involving shoplifting, more than $2,000 of retail property, financial gain, and coordinated activity. Shoplifting falls within the larceny-theft component of the fact; other financial offenses in the act do not automatically belong to that series.
Signed by Ned Lamont on 2026-06-04. Public Act No. 26-130. Approval, statutory effective dates, and implementation are distinct; this entry does not establish current enforceability.
Why this record is included
The amendment changes the period over which coordinated shoplifting can satisfy the organized retail-theft offense. Shoplifting belongs to the larceny-theft component of the FBI property-crime measure. The provision does not create a crime-reporting program or establish prevention. This connection does not establish causation or a change in the earlier measured value.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: Reported property-crime rate. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(b) Any person who, for financial gain and in conjunction with one or more other persons, commits larceny by shoplifting, as defined in section 53a -119, as amended by this act , of retail property having an aggregate value exceeding two thousand dollars and (1) wrongfully takes such property during a period of [one hundred eighty ] three hundred sixty-five days, or (2) sells, delivers or otherwise transfers such property to a retail property fence, shall have committed the offense of organized retail theft.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Jun 4, 2026 · SB220 · SB 220 — Literacy, educator scholarships, ASL and paraeducator health benefits · Signed by governorGovernor · SB220
SB 220 — Literacy, educator scholarships, ASL and paraeducator health benefits
Jun 4, 2026 · Signed by governor
Ned Lamont · Signed
Reviewed topic context
Public Act 26-149 required reading-intervention guidance, revised aspiring-educator scholarship eligibility and teacher-shortage reporting, and established an American Sign Language working group. It continued and revised paraeducator health-benefit subsidies, including charter-school participation, subject to appropriations and eligibility conditions. The act amends existing scholarship and subsidy programs. It does not guarantee an award to every aspiring teacher or paraeducator, and it does not establish better reading scores or that teacher shortages were resolved.
Signed on 2026-06-04. Approved June 4, 2026. Most provisions specify July 1, 2026; the ASL working group specifies January 1, 2027. The charter-school cost calculation is effective from passage, and the act specifies separate reporting and curriculum-guidance deadlines. The act amends existing scholarship and subsidy programs. It does not guarantee an award to every aspiring teacher or paraeducator, and it does not establish better reading scores or that teacher shortages were resolved.
Why this record is included
Public Act 26-149 required reading-intervention guidance, revised aspiring-educator scholarship eligibility and teacher-shortage reporting, and established an American Sign Language working group. It continued and revised paraeducator health-benefit subsidies, including charter-school participation, subject to appropriations and eligibility conditions. The act amends existing scholarship and subsidy programs. It does not guarantee an award to every aspiring teacher or paraeducator, and it does not establish better reading scores or that teacher shortages were resolved. This topic relationship does not establish an effect on a state statistic.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance · education · reviewed policy-topic context. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
AN ACT CONCERNING STUDENT LITERACY, ASPIRING EDUCATORS, AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE AS PART OF THE WORLD LANGUAGES CURRICULUM AND THE PARAEDUCATOR HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN SUBSIDY PROGRAM.
Approved June 4, 2026
Governor Lamont signed the following legislation of the 2026 Regular Session on June 4:
AN ACT CONCERNING STUDENT LITERACY, ASPIRING EDUCATORS, AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE AS PART OF THE WORLD LANGUAGES CURRICULUM AND THE PARAEDUCATOR HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN SUBSIDY PROGRAM.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑Jun 4, 2026 · SB 220 · AN ACT CONCERNING STUDENT LITERACY, ASPIRING EDUCATORS, AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE AS PART OF THE WORLD LANGUAGES CURRICULUM AND THE PARAEDUCATOR HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN SUBSIDY PROGRAM. · EnactedConnecticut Legislature · SB 220
AN ACT CONCERNING STUDENT LITERACY, ASPIRING EDUCATORS, AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE AS PART OF THE WORLD LANGUAGES CURRICULUM AND THE PARAEDUCATOR HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN SUBSIDY PROGRAM.
Jun 4, 2026 · Enacted
Rep. Antonio Felipe · Co-sponsored / Rep. Geraldo C. Reyes · Co-sponsored / Rep. Anthony L. Nolan · Co-sponsored / Sen. Eric C. Berthel · Co-sponsored / Rep. Farley Santos · Co-sponsored / Sen. Patricia Billie Miller · Co-sponsored / Rep. Hubert D. Delany · Co-sponsored / Rep. Tom Delnicki · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kenneth Gucker · Co-sponsored / Rep. Christopher Poulos · Co-sponsored / Sen. John A. Kissel · Co-sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
SB 220 continues health-plan subsidies for qualifying paraeducators for fiscal 2027 and later years and expressly applies the provision to charter schools. Eligibility remains limited to paraeducators. One route subsidizes deductibles for qualifying public-school paraeducators with health savings accounts or Medicare-eligible high-deductible coverage, subject to employer-contribution offsets, caps and available appropriations. A separate, appropriated premium subsidy offsets paraeducators’ employee contributions in qualifying non-high-deductible plans. Only the under-65 portion relates to this uninsured measure.
Signed by Ned Lamont on 2026-06-04. Public Act No. 26-149. Approval, statutory effective dates, and implementation are distinct; this entry does not establish current enforceability.
Why this record is included
The provision concerns coverage affordability for a limited employee population, including charter-school paraeducators. Its Medicare-related route must not be equated with the under-65 uninsured population, and subsidy authorization does not prove enrollment gains. This connection does not establish causation or a change in the earlier measured value.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Sec. 6. Section 203 of public act 23 -204, as amended by section 124 of public act 24 -81, is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective July 1, 2026): (a) As used in this section: (1) "Health benefit plan" has the same meaning as provided in section 38a-1080 of the general statutes; [,] and (2) "Partnership plan" has the same meaning as provided in section 3- 123aaa of the general statutes. (b) For the fiscal [years] year ending [June 30, 2024, and June 30, 2025] June 30, 2027, and each fiscal year thereafter , the Comptroller shall establish a program to provide a subsidy, within available appropriations, to each paraeducator who (1) opens a health savings account, pursuant to Section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or any subsequent corresponding in ternal revenue code of the United States, as amended from time to time, or is eligible for Medicare and enrolls in a high deductible health plan, and (2) is employed [by a local or regional board of education] in a public school. Such subsidy shall be in an amount up to a certain percentage, as specified by the Comptroller, of the deductible for the health plan in which such paraeducator is enrolled, minus the amount of any employer contributions to a health savings account or health reimbursement account, and not exceeding an amount specified by the Comptroller. No paraeducator may receive Substitute Senate Bill No. 220 Public Act No. 26-149 7 of 8 more than one subsidy pursuant to this section. The Comptroller may work with the local or regional board of education that employs such paraeducator to distribute such subsidy. (c) For the fiscal year ending [June 30, 2025] June 30, 2027, and each fiscal year thereafter , the Comptroller shall establish a program to provide a subsidy, from any funds appropriated for such purpose, to each local or regional board of education that provides coverage to paraeducators and their dependents under a health benefit plan or a partnership plan for such fiscal year or any portion thereof. Such subsidy shall be (1) in an amount not more than ten per cent of the aggregate premium cost, inclusive of the employee and employer shares, paid by such board of education for coverage under such health benefit plan or partnership plan, divided by the number of paraeducators employed by such board of education and enrolled in health coverage, and (2) used to offset the employee's share of such premium that is deducted from the payroll check of each paraeducator employed by such board of education during any pay period during such fiscal year. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to a local or regional board of education that provides coverage under a high deductible health plan, as that term is used in subsection (f) of section 38a-520 of the general statutes. Pursuant to the provisions of subsection (b) of section 10 -66dd of the general statutes, the provisions of this section shall apply to charter schools. [(d) The Comptroller and the Commissioner of Education shall enter into a memorandum of understanding, in accordance with the provisions of section 4 -97b of the general statutes, to allow the Comptroller to utilize the sum of $5,000,000 that is appropriated to the Department of Education for assistance to paraeducators pursuant to section 1 of public act 23 -204 to implement the provisions of this section.]
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑May 26, 2026 · SB 1 · AN ACT MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE STATE BUDGET FOR THE BIENNIUM ENDING JUNE 30, 2027, MAKING DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2026, AUTHORIZING AND ADJUSTING BONDS OF THE STATE AND CONCERNING PROVISIONS RELATING TO REVENUE, SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER ITEMS TO IMPLEMENT THE STATE BUDGET. · SignedGovernor · SB 1
AN ACT MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE STATE BUDGET FOR THE BIENNIUM ENDING JUNE 30, 2027, MAKING DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2026, AUTHORIZING AND ADJUSTING BONDS OF THE STATE AND CONCERNING PROVISIONS RELATING TO REVENUE, SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER ITEMS TO IMPLEMENT THE STATE BUDGET.
May 26, 2026 · Signed
Gov. Ned Lamont · Signed
FactVote reviewed summary
Ned Lamont signed SB 1. Effective July 1, 2026, SB 1 transfers Covered Connecticut Section 1332 waiver authority from the Office of Health Strategy to the Department of Social Services. A proposed waiver requires a report, a joint public hearing and approval by each of three legislative committees within 30 days; inaction by any committee counts as rejection. Implementation requires federal issuance of the waiver. The transfer changes program administration without itself expanding eligibility or establishing waiver approval.
Signed by Ned Lamont on 2026-05-26. Public Act No. 26-68. Approval, statutory effective dates, and implementation are distinct; this entry does not establish current enforceability.
Why this record is included
This is an administrative relationship to subsidized health coverage. Transferring authority does not itself create a program, change eligibility or establish an approved waiver. This connection does not establish causation or a change in the earlier measured value.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(c) (1) The [Office of Health Strategy ] Department of Social Services may, subject to the approval required under subdivision (3) of this subsection, seek a waiver pursuant to Section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act, as amended from time to time, to advance the purpose of the Covered Connecticut program. The [Office of Health Strategy ] department shall implement such waiver if the federal government Substitute Senate Bill No. 1 Public Act No. 26-68 158 of 745 issues such waiver. (2) The [Office of Health Strategy ] Commissioner of Social Services shall submit a report, in accordance with section 11 -4a, to the joint standing committees of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to appropriations, human services and insurance containing any proposed waiver described in subdivision (1) of this subsection before seeking such waiver from the federal government. (3) Not later than thirty days after the [Office of Health Strategy ] Commissioner of Social Services submits a report under subdivision (2) of this subsection, the joint standing committees of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to appropriations, human services and insurance shall convene a joint public hearing on the proposed wai ver contained in the report submitted pursuant to subdivision (2) of this subsection, separately vote to approve or reject such proposed waiver and advise the [Office of Health Strategy ] commissioner of their approval or rejection of such proposed waiver. If any committee takes no action on such proposed waiver within the thirty-day period, the proposed waiver shall be deemed rejected.
Inspect this action on the timeline ↑May 26, 2026 · SB 1 · AN ACT MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE STATE BUDGET FOR THE BIENNIUM ENDING JUNE 30, 2027, MAKING DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2026, AUTHORIZING AND ADJUSTING BONDS OF THE STATE AND CONCERNING PROVISIONS RELATING TO REVENUE, SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER ITEMS TO IMPLEMENT THE STATE BUDGET. · EnactedConnecticut Legislature · SB 1
AN ACT MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TO THE STATE BUDGET FOR THE BIENNIUM ENDING JUNE 30, 2027, MAKING DEFICIENCY APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2026, AUTHORIZING AND ADJUSTING BONDS OF THE STATE AND CONCERNING PROVISIONS RELATING TO REVENUE, SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER ITEMS TO IMPLEMENT THE STATE BUDGET.
May 26, 2026 · Enacted
Sen. Martin M. Looney · Co-sponsored / Sen. Bob Duff · Co-sponsored / Sen. Saud Anwar · Co-sponsored / Sen. Jorge Cabrera · Co-sponsored / Sen. Christine Cohen · Co-sponsored / Sen. Mae Flexer · Co-sponsored / Sen. John W. Fonfara · Co-sponsored / Sen. Sujata Gadkar-Wilcox · Co-sponsored / Sen. Herron Gaston · Co-sponsored / Sen. Joan V. Hartley · Co-sponsored / Sen. Jan Hochadel · Co-sponsored / Sen. Paul Honig · Co-sponsored / Sen. Julie Kushner · Co-sponsored / Sen. Matthew L. Lesser · Co-sponsored / Sen. Rick Lopes · Co-sponsored / Sen. Ceci Maher · Co-sponsored / Sen. James J. Maroney · Co-sponsored / Sen. Martha Marx · Co-sponsored / Sen. Douglas McCrory · Co-sponsored / Sen. Patricia Billie Miller · Co-sponsored / Sen. Norman Needleman · Co-sponsored / Sen. Catherine A. Osten · Co-sponsored / Sen. MD Rahman · Co-sponsored / Sen. Derek Slap · Co-sponsored / Rep. Nick Gauthier · Co-sponsored / Rep. Nicholas Menapace · Co-sponsored / Rep. Rebecca Martinez · Co-sponsored / Rep. Travis Simms · Co-sponsored / Rep. Ronald A. Napoli · Co-sponsored / Rep. Jason Doucette · Co-sponsored / Rep. Amy Morrin Bello · Co-sponsored / Rep. Anne M. Hughes · Co-sponsored / Rep. Michael "MJ" Shannon · Co-sponsored / Rep. Anthony L. Nolan · Co-sponsored / Rep. Aimee Berger-Girvalo · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kaitlyn Shake · Co-sponsored / Rep. Corey P. Paris · Co-sponsored / Rep. Jane M. Garibay · Co-sponsored / Rep. Kara Rochelle · Co-sponsored / Rep. Farley Santos · Co-sponsored / Rep. Roland J. Lemar · Co-sponsored / Rep. James Sanchez · Co-sponsored / Rep. Daniel Gaiewski · Co-sponsored / Rep. Aundre Bumgardner · Co-sponsored / Rep. Michael D. Quinn · Co-sponsored / Rep. Laurie Sweet · Co-sponsored / Rep. Patrick S. Boyd · Co-sponsored / Rep. Larry B. Butler · Co-sponsored / Rep. Iris N Sanchez · Co-sponsored / Rep. Gary A. Turco · Co-sponsored / Rep. Hilda E. Santiago · Co-sponsored / Rep. Dominique Johnson · Co-sponsored / Rep. Jonathan Fazzino · Co-sponsored / Rep. Derell Wilson · Co-sponsored / Rep. Henry J. Genga · Co-sponsored / Rep. Jaime S. Foster · Co-sponsored / Rep. Mary M. Mushinsky · Co-sponsored / Rep. Hubert D. Delany · Co-sponsored / Rep. Steven J. Stafstrom · Co-sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
Effective July 1, 2026, SB 1 transfers Covered Connecticut Section 1332 waiver authority from the Office of Health Strategy to the Department of Social Services. A proposed waiver requires a report, a joint public hearing and approval by each of three legislative committees within 30 days; inaction by any committee counts as rejection. Implementation requires federal issuance of the waiver. The transfer changes program administration without itself expanding eligibility or establishing waiver approval.
Signed by Ned Lamont on 2026-05-26. Public Act No. 26-68. Approval, statutory effective dates, and implementation are distinct; this entry does not establish current enforceability.
Why this record is included
This is an administrative relationship to subsidized health coverage. Transferring authority does not itself create a program, change eligibility or establish an approved waiver. This connection does not establish causation or a change in the earlier measured value.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: People under 65 without health insurance. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(c) (1) The [Office of Health Strategy ] Department of Social Services may, subject to the approval required under subdivision (3) of this subsection, seek a waiver pursuant to Section 1332 of the Affordable Care Act, as amended from time to time, to advance the purpose of the Covered Connecticut program. The [Office of Health Strategy ] department shall implement such waiver if the federal government Substitute Senate Bill No. 1 Public Act No. 26-68 158 of 745 issues such waiver. (2) The [Office of Health Strategy ] Commissioner of Social Services shall submit a report, in accordance with section 11 -4a, to the joint standing committees of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to appropriations, human services and insurance containing any proposed waiver described in subdivision (1) of this subsection before seeking such waiver from the federal government. (3) Not later than thirty days after the [Office of Health Strategy ] Commissioner of Social Services submits a report under subdivision (2) of this subsection, the joint standing committees of the General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to appropriations, human services and insurance shall convene a joint public hearing on the proposed wai ver contained in the report submitted pursuant to subdivision (2) of this subsection, separately vote to approve or reject such proposed waiver and advise the [Office of Health Strategy ] commissioner of their approval or rejection of such proposed waiver. If any committee takes no action on such proposed waiver within the thirty-day period, the proposed waiver shall be deemed rejected.
Records come from published fact relationships or reviewed topic records with official supporting evidence and verified Connecticut officeholder attribution. Historical executive officials require evidence tied to the action date and are excluded from incumbent proposals. Inclusion follows an explicit topic review, a related state fact, or the action’s title and supporting evidence. Explicit topic reviews take priority; repeated actions use the most recent explicit review for this topic. Duplicate actions attached to several facts appear once. This topic match is not a new finding that an action caused a result, and the reviewed collection is selective. Collection reviewed Oct 5, 2026.
What candidates are saying
Explore statements about schools, learning, college costs and educational attainment from FactVote’s Connecticut candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
44 statements from 18 candidates
2026 Connecticut Attorney General — General Election
1 candidate with matching statements · 2 statements
Connecticut parents have the right to direct their children’s education. As Attorney General, I will defend parental rights, uphold due process, and ensure state policies affecting families comply with state and federal law.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Attorney General authority, consumer protection, and government accountability
Candidate campaign source
Connecticut parents have the right to direct their children’s education. As Attorney General, I will defend parental rights, uphold due process, and ensure state policies affecting families comply with state and federal law.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Governor Lamont’s forward agenda will continue focusing on lowering costs and making life more affordable for working families across Connecticut. Childcare, healthcare, housing, and education are essential building blocks for a strong economy and stronger communities.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Health care
Candidate campaign source
Governor Lamont’s forward agenda will continue focusing on lowering costs and making life more affordable for working families across Connecticut. Childcare, healthcare, housing, and education are essential building blocks for a strong economy and stronger communities.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Connecticut has made historic progress toward universal pre-K and expanded childcare access with an additional $300 million to fund the Early Childhood Education Endowment. Governor Lamont is committed to finishing the job with a long-term strategy for sustainable funding to expand access for famili…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Education, child care, and workforce training
Candidate campaign source
Connecticut has made historic progress toward universal pre-K and expanded childcare access with an additional $300 million to fund the Early Childhood Education Endowment. Governor Lamont is committed to finishing the job with a long-term strategy for sustainable funding to expand access for families while supporting childcare workers and providers across the state.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
Equally important, we need to ensure we have a well-trained, educated workforce to meet the demands of a modern economy. It’s time to align education with opportunity and bring back skilled trades and apprenticeships that empower our youth and rebuild our middle class.
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Education, child care, and workforce training
Candidate campaign source
Equally important, we need to ensure we have a well-trained, educated workforce to meet the demands of a modern economy. It’s time to align education with opportunity and bring back skilled trades and apprenticeships that empower our youth and rebuild our middle class.
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026
The Office of Lt. Governor Susan Bysiewicz offers internships to graduate and undergraduate students. First and second-year law students can also take advantage of law internships. Students who take advantage of the program can gain real-world exposure to how government works. To take advantage of t…
Read exact statement & source
Source topic or question: Date: November 21, 2023 Read time: 1 minutes
Candidate campaign source
The Office of Lt. Governor Susan Bysiewicz offers internships to graduate and undergraduate students. First and second-year law students can also take advantage of law internships. Students who take advantage of the program can gain real-world exposure to how government works. To take advantage of this opportunity, you must meet the following requirements:
Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026
This section matches specific schools, learning, college costs and educational attainment terms in retained, attributed source text from published Connecticut candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
Connecticut incumbents
What incumbents are proposing
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Connecticut legislators and Connecticut’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Connecticut’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
2 matching sponsorships or proposals · 2 Connecticut incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
Rep. Jahana Hayes
U.S. House of Representatives, Connecticut District 5 · D–CT
1 proposalView proposals from Rep. Jahana HayesU.S. Congress · Connecticut delegation · HR 8333
YouthBuild for the Future Act
Apr 16, 2026 · In Congress
Rep. Jahana Hayes · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
HR 8333 would authorize funding for YouthBuild from fiscal 2027 through 2032. The existing program includes diploma or equivalency education for young people who left school without a secondary diploma. The connection to the age-25-and-older fact is through potential future adult attainment, not an immediate change in the measured population.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
The fact measures diploma-or-higher attainment among adults age 25 and older. Completion and equivalency programs address a component of attainment; rules for current students concern a potential future component of the adult population. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: Adults with at least a high school diploma. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(i)Authorization of appropriationsThere are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section— (1)$159,500,000 for fiscal year 2027; (2)$167,500,000 for fiscal year 2028; (3)$175,900,000 for fiscal year 2029; (4)$184,700,000 for fiscal year 2030; (5)$193,000,000 for fiscal year 2031; and (6)$203,600,000 for fiscal year 2032..
1 proposalView proposals from Sen. Christopher MurphyU.S. Congress · Connecticut delegation · S 595
Office of Gun Violence Prevention Act of 2025
Feb 13, 2025 · In Congress
Sen. Christopher Murphy · Sponsored
FactVote reviewed summary
S 595 would establish an Office of Gun Violence Prevention in the Justice Department to coordinate prevention work. Its definition expressly includes firearm homicide, violent crime, domestic violence, suicide, and unintentional injury. Each relationship concerns the relevant firearm component, not all homicide or all FBI violent offenses.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.
Why this record is included
The proposed office coordinates programs, data, evaluation and policy. This administrative connection concerns the firearm-related component of the linked mortality or FBI violent-crime measure; its broader gun-violence definition is not a substitute for the statistical definition. This connection does not establish causation or a change in the earlier measured value.
Retained Connecticut evidence context: Firearm deaths · Homicide deaths · Reported violent-crime rate. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
(3)Gun violenceThe term gun violence includes homicide, violent crime, domestic violence, attempted suicide, suicide, and unintentional death or injury involving a firearm.(4)OfficeThe term Office means the Office of Gun Violence Prevention established under section 3(a).3.Office of Gun Violence Prevention(a)Establishment(1)In generalThe Attorney General shall establish within the Office of Legal Policy of the Department of Justice the Office of Gun Violence Prevention.(2)DirectorThe Attorney General shall appoint a Director to be the head of the Office.(b)Duties(1)In generalThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall coordinate, integrate, and maximize the efficacy of each responsibility, program, and service relating to gun violence prevention administered by the Attorney General to maximize an integrated approach to reducing gun violence and serving victims of gun violence, including—(A)the responsibilities of the heads of the Criminal and Civil Divisions of the Department of Justice, the Director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, each United States Attorney, the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Director of the Office on Violence Against Women, the Director of the Office of Victims of Crime, and the Director of the Office of Justice Programs; and(B)the administration of the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (34 U.S.C. 40901). (2)EvaluationThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall evaluate laws, regulations, Federal programs, offices, data sources, and grant programs relating to gun violence prevention administered by the Attorney General to assess how each such law, regulation, Federal program, office, data source, and grant program can be maximized, modernized, and coordinated to reduce gun violence.(3)Policy recommendationsThe Director shall recommend to Congress and the President legislative and executive policy options to promote evidence-based gun violence prevention strategies, including the implementation of existing laws, regulations, and grant programs.(4)DataThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall—(A)identify gaps in available data needed for gun violence prevention research, policy development, and the implementation of evidence-based gun violence prevention strategies; and(B)develop a plan to collect and analyze the data described in subparagraph (A).(5)AssessmentThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall assess ongoing research efforts of the Department of Justice relating to gun violence to establish a comprehensive research agenda on the causes and solutions of gun violence.(6)EducationThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall educate the general public about Federal laws, regulations, and grant programs relating to gun violence prevention, including by conducting education and awareness campaigns—(A)directed at—(i)owners of firearms;(ii)parents and legal guardians of minors; and(iii)professionals who provide services to individuals and communities disproportionately impacted by gun violence; and(B)that include education relating to the secure storage or firearms and suicide prevention.(7)Crisis responseThe Director, in consultation with the Advisory Council, shall assist communities that have experienced gun violence (such as a mass shooting, a school shooting, a gang-related shooting, or a domestic violence shooting) with crisis response activities, including providing information about and increasing access to—(A)mental health services for members of the community;(B)anti-gun trafficking activities;(C)crisis response training for first responders and offices of gun violence prevention serving the community; and(D)suicide prevention services for members of the community.(8)CoordinationIn carrying out the duties under this subsection, the Director shall coordinate with Federal agencies and commissions that have jurisdiction over gun violence prevention, including— (A)the Department of Health and Human Services;(B)the Department of Veterans Affairs;(C)the Department of Education;(D)the Department of Housing and Urban Development;(E)the Department of Commerce;(F)the Department of Homeland Security;(G)the Department of Defense;(H)the Department of the Interior;(I)the Department of Labor;(J)the Department of Agriculture;(K)the Small Business Administration; (L)the Consumer Product Safety Commission;(M)the Federal Trade Commission; and(N)the United States Sentencing Commission.(9)Annual reportNot later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Director shall submit to Congress a report that includes—(A)information on the state of gun violence in the United States;(B)recommendations for policy initiatives and legislation to reduce gun violence in the United States; and(C)a description of the efforts of the Director to carry out the duties under this subsection.
Only current Connecticut officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Connecticut statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 5, 2026.
Sources & methods
Every section retains its primary sources, units, reporting periods and comparison limits. Maps, graphs and tables use the same observation and cohort. All 50 states are listed; D.C. and territories are excluded. Missing and suppressed values remain unavailable and never become zero.
#1 is the highest measured value. Equal source values share a rank and leave gaps (1, 2, 2, 4). Ranks use source precision and are descriptive, not a score of the state. Survey uncertainty and reporting coverage can limit comparisons. Published U.S. benchmarks are used where available; a state average is not substituted.
Connecticut snapshots and fiscal sources keep their own dates and accounting scope. National events and federal distribution explainers describe national context. Actions and statements are filtered to Connecticut, retain their reviewed evidence, and do not establish that a policy caused a measured change.
Retained state source collections assembled October 5, 2026. Original review and source dates remain visible. Refreshing this page does not refresh an official data release.