Competitiveness Committee - Metro Denver Economic Development ...

0 downloads 323 Views 6MB Size Report
25 & 26 Small Business Innovation Research Grants per Worker ..... Arizona. 41. 44. 16. 19. 22. 32. 31. 23. Arkansas
Towar daMor eCompet i t i veCol or ado TENTHEDI TI ON,2014-2015

Toward a More Competitive Colorado 10th Edition, 2014-2015

Preface

Colorado competes each day for new jobs both nationally and internationally. Employers and their consultants search the Internet for data to compare state against state for potential locations and expansions. The Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation (Metro Denver EDC), an affiliate of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, releases a new edition of Toward a More Competitive Colorado each year in conjunction with Wells Fargo. The annual study examines a host of economic competitiveness rankings. The goals of this research are twofold: 1. To examine job creation opportunities where the state and region have a competitive advantage. 2. To set benchmarks by which Colorado’s competitiveness can be tracked against the nation and competing states. This study is a collection of numerous national rankings on economic competitiveness. While there are hundreds of different rankings on any host of topics, the ones chosen are typical of the elements that weigh most heavily in either a company’s perception of the region or the reality of the company’s business circumstances (see the Methodology page). The Metro Denver EDC’s economic development recruitment and retention efforts focus on key industry clusters where the region has a significant concentration of jobs or other assets in excess of the national average. For more information on Metro Denver’s major industry clusters, visit www.metrodenver.org/industries. By comparing the needs of the region’s clusters with Colorado’s competitive position, a number of challenges facing the Colorado economy become apparent. These disconnects are addressed by the Colorado Competitive Council (C3), a public policy affiliate of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce. Cover photos credits: Lockheed Martin Space Systems, Colorado State University, and Colorado School of Mines

Toward a More Competitive Colorado 10th Edition, 2014-2015

Methodology The 10th edition of Toward a More Competitive Colorado includes data from a variety of sources, including both private organizations and government agencies. In all cases, the data in this publication is the most recent, publicly available information as of September 2014. It should be noted that the data year reflects the year that the data describes, not necessarily the year of publication. The charts in Toward a More Competitive Colorado generally present three years of data for each ranking, consisting of 2003, 2008, and 2013 (or the most current year available). In cases where these three years are not available, data for the closest available years are presented. There are instances in which only one or two years of data are included due to data availability. All 50 states are ranked for each data point, excluding Washington, D.C. and U.S. territories. There are two types of slides included in this report: (1) the top five and bottom five ranking states and (2) Colorado versus its key competitor states. For slides portraying the top five and bottom five states, a state’s position is based on its ranking in the earliest year of data. For example, a state ranked number one in 2003 continues to appear in the number one spot even if its relative rank dropped below the fifth position in later years. Colorado is always included in the top five and bottom five states slides, regardless of position. The Colorado versus competitor states slides always present data for Colorado, Arizona, Georgia, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah. The order in which the states appear is based upon the states’ ranking in the earliest year of the data series. The scale for all charts ranges from zero at the top to 50 at the bottom. Using this scale, a number one rank is always the most desirable and is portrayed with the tallest bar. However, the interpretation of this most desirable ranking varies depending upon the statistic presented. For example, a state with the highest level of per capita personal income is ranked as number one, reflecting the most desirable position. Likewise, a state with the lowest prevalence of obesity is ranked as number one, also reflecting the most desirable position. The ranking box on each slide identifies Colorado’s relative position for the most recent year. International Comparisons The 10th edition also includes slides comparing Colorado’s competitive position internationally, reflecting the increasingly global business environment and the state’s position as a potential location for multinational operations. Each chart portrays Colorado’s relative position compared with 38 countries.

The 38 countries consist of the 34 OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries* plus the four BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China). While the ranking is based on the data for all 39 areas (38 countries plus Colorado), the charts portray the data for 11 locations only. The 11 locations** are Colorado, the United States, the four BRIC countries, and the five OECD countries to which Denver International Airport offers direct flights (Canada, Germany, Great Britain, Japan, and Mexico). Where data for all of the 11 locations for each measure is not available, it is indicated in the slide with no bar and a corresponding footnote. The scale for the international charts ranges from zero at the top to 39 at the bottom. Similar to the domestic charts, a number one rank is always the most desirable and is portrayed with the tallest bar. The location’s position is based on its ranking in the earliest year of data. The slides are divided into strengths and challenges for Colorado based on the state’s ranking among the top 20 locations (strength) or the bottom 19 locations (challenge). In cases where data does not exist for all 39 areas, Colorado’s position is identified as a strength or challenge based on the state’s rank among the top half or bottom half of the areas with data. While numerous publications compare and rank the competiveness of nations, few publications have comparable data for U.S. states. In order to make a reasonable comparison, standard U.S. source data was used to create a ranking for Colorado developed according to a similar methodology as the international rankings. Every attempt was made to ensure that reasonable data is presented, but the data may not be directly comparable due to the different countries’ data standards, workforces, time periods, and other factors.

*The 34 OECD countries are: Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxemburg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States

** Charts portray the data for the 11 locations using the following abbreviations: BRA - Brazil CAN - Canada CHN - China CO - Colorado DEU - Germany GBR – United Kingdom IND - India JPN - Japan MEX - Mexico RUS - Russia USA - United States

Toward a More Competitive Colorado, 10th Edition Figures STRENGTHS Figures Economic Vitality 1 & 2 State Competitiveness Index 3 & 4 State New Economy Index 5 & 6 Employment Growth Rate 7 & 8 State Gross Domestic Product per Employee 9 & 10 Per Capita Personal Income 11 & 12 Economic Outlook

13 & 14 15 & 16 17 & 18 19 & 20 21 & 22 23 & 24 25 & 26 27 & 28 29 & 30 31 & 32 33 & 34 35 & 36 37 & 38 39 & 40 41 & 42

Innovation State Innovation Index Entrepreneurial Activity Index Proprietors as Percentage of Total Employment Number of New Businesses per 1,000 Employees Venture Capital Investments per $1,000 of State GDP Initial Public Offerings – Top 5 States Small Business Innovation Research Grants per Worker NASA Prime Contract Awards Total R&D Spending at Academic Institutions per Capita Ratio of Total R&D Expenditures to State GDP Patents Granted per One Million Residents State Technology and Science Index High-Tech Employment per 1,000 Workers Average High-Tech Worker Wage Clean Tech Leadership Index

43 & 44 45 & 46 47 & 48 49 & 50 51 & 52 53 & 54 55 & 56 57 & 58 59 & 60 61 & 62 63 & 64 65 & 66 67 & 68

Taxes Lowest State Tax Revenue per Capita State Business Tax Climate Index Corporate Tax Index Lowest State and Local Tax Burdens on New Investment Small Business Policy Index Business Tax Index Lowest Workers’ Compensation Rates Lowest State Sales Tax Rates Lowest Residential Property Rate in Largest City in Each State Lowest Tax Burden for Family with $50,000 Annual Income in Largest City Lowest Total State Expenditures per Capita Lowest per Capita State & Local Government Expenditures for Public Welfare Programs State Fiscal Condition

69 & 70 71 & 72 73 & 74 75 & 76 77 & 78 79 & 80 81 & 82

Livability Well-Being Index Annual Population Growth Rate Volunteer Rate Lowest Percentage of Children in Poverty Lowest Total Crime Rate per 100,000 Population Percentage of State Land Devoted to National Forest System State Parks and Recreation Areas per Capita

Toward a More Competitive Colorado, 10th Edition Figures 83 & 84 85 & 86 87 & 88 89 & 90 91 & 92 93 & 94 95 & 96 97 & 98 99 & 100 101 & 102 103 & 104

K-12 Education Per Student Expenditures for Public K-12 Schools Percentage of Public School Fourth Graders Proficient or Better in Reading Average Fourth Grade Reading Scores Percentage of Public School Eighth Graders Proficient or Better in Reading Average Eighth Grade Reading Scores Highest AP Exam Scores (3+) per 1,000 High School Juniors and Seniors Average SAT Scores Public High School Graduation Rates Lowest Percentage of Teens Ages 16 to 19 Not Attending School and Not Working Lowest Percentage of Teens Not in School and Not High School Graduates Population 25+ Completing High School

105 & 106 107 & 108 109 & 110 111 & 112 113 & 114 115 & 116 117 & 118

Higher Education Population 25+ with Bachelor’s Degree or Higher Science and Engineering Graduate Students per 1,000 Individuals 25-34 Years Old Science and Engineering Doctorate Holders as Percentage of Workforce State Engineering Degree Production per 1,000 Workers State Computer Science Degree Production per 1,000 Workers Lowest Percentage of Family Income Needed to Pay for Public Four-Year College State Higher Education Grant Aid Targeted to Low-Income Families

119 & 120 121 & 122 123 & 124 125 & 126 127 & 128 129 & 130 131 & 132 133 & 134 135 & 136 137 & 138 139 & 140 141 & 142 143 & 144 145 & 146

Health America’s Health Rankings Lowest Obesity Prevalence Among Adults Participation in Physical Activities Lowest Adult Cigarette Smoking Rate Fewest Retail Prescriptions Filled per Capita Fewest Deaths per 100,000 Population Fewest Cancer Deaths per 100,000 Population Fewest Diabetes Deaths per 100,000 Population Fewest Heart Disease Deaths per 100,000 Population Fewest Stroke Deaths per 100,000 Population Lowest Ratio of Pre-Term Births to Live Births Fewest Infant Deaths per 1,000 Live Births Active Physicians per 100,000 Population Lowest Average Employer-Based Insurance Premium for an Individual

147 & 148 149 & 150 151 & 152 153 & 154 155 & 156 157 & 158 159 & 160

Infrastructure Infrastructure Index State Broadband Internet Speeds Percentage of Electricity Generated through Renewable Sources Percentage of Electricity Generated through Non-Hydro Renewable Sources Total Wind Energy Net Generation – Top 10 States Total Wind Energy Installed Capacity – Top 10 States Total Solar Energy Installed Capacity – Top 10 States

Toward a More Competitive Colorado, 10th Edition Figures INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177

STRENGTHS Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per Capita Employment Growth Rate Venture Capital as a Percentage of GDP Ratio of Total R&D Expenditures to GDP Lowest Taxes as a Percentage of GDP Annual Population Growth Rate Eighth-Grade Math Achievement Eighth-Grade Science Achievement Population 25-64 Completing High School Population 25-64 with a College Degree Population 25-34 with a College Degree Lowest Adult Male Cigarette Smoking Rate Lowest Adult Female Cigarette Smoking Rate Lowest Obesity Prevalence Among Adult Males Lowest Obesity Prevalence Among Adult Females Fewest Cancer Deaths per 100,000 Population Fewest Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes Deaths per 100,000 Population

WHERE COLORADO IS CHALLENGED Economic Vitality 178 & 179 Lowest Unemployment Rate 180 & 181 Export Dollars per Capita

182 & 183 184 & 185 186 & 187 188 & 189 190 & 191 192 & 193 194 & 195

Taxes Lowest Local Government Tax Revenue per Capita Lowest State and Local Tax Revenue per Capita Sales Tax Index Lowest State and Local Business Tax Burden Lowest Urban Commercial Property Taxes on $1 Million Property Lowest Urban Industrial Property Taxes on $1 Million Property Lowest Rural Industrial Property Taxes on $1 Million Property

Livability 196 & 197 Lowest Single-Family Median Home Price in Largest Metro Area 198 & 199 Charitable Contributions as a Percentage of Income 200 Lowest Percentage of Population in Non-Attainment Air Quality Areas

201 & 202 203 & 204 205 & 206 207 & 208 209 & 210

K-12 Education Pre-K Resources per Child Spending on K-12 Public Schools as a Percentage of Personal Income Lowest Student/Teacher Ratio in Public Elementary & Secondary Schools Average Salaries for Public School Teachers Average ACT Composite Scores

Toward a More Competitive Colorado, 10th Edition Figures 211 & 212 213 & 214 215 & 216 217 & 218 219 & 220 221 & 222 223 & 224

Higher Education State and Local Public Higher Education Support per Full-Time Student State and Local Public Higher Education Support per Capita Percentage of Graduates Attending College Directly from High School Percentage of High School Graduates Entering Same-State College within 12 Months of Graduation State Engineering Tech Degree Production per 1,000 Workers State Nursing Degree Production per 1,000 Workers State Education Degree Production per 1,000 Workers

225 & 226 227 & 228 229 & 230 231 & 232

Health Health Policy Cost Index Percentage of Population with Health Insurance Lowest Average Hospital Expenses per Inpatient Day Registered Nurses per 100,000 Population

Infrastructure 233 & 234 Federal Highway Funding per Capita 235 & 236 Highway Performance 237 Percentage of State Funding for Transportation

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS 238 239 240 241 242

Lowest Unemployment Rate Lowest Business Tax Burden in Major Cities Lowest Effective Corporate Income Tax Rate Fewest Infant Deaths per 1,000 Live Births Lowest Health Expenditures as a Percentage of GDP

Toward a More Competitive Colorado 10th Edition, 2014-2015

Acknowledgements Report sponsor: Wells Fargo

Research economists:

Patty Silverstein, Development Research Partners David Hansen, Development Research Partners Lisa Strunk, Development Research Partners

Metro Denver EDC staff: Kelly Brough Tom Clark Pam Reichert Janet Fritz Dani Barger Kim Woodworth Amanda Melroy

Toward a More Competitive Colorado Executive Summary on Competitiveness

The Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation (Metro Denver EDC) is proud to present the 10th edition of Toward a More Competitive Colorado (TMCC). In 2004, the Metro Denver EDC began a longitudinal study of Colorado’s economic competitiveness, including its trends and its cycles. Today, we have accumulated volumes of historical data stretching back to the year 2000, Colorado’s best economic year historically. Colorado has achieved great things as a state. We are now considered a global competitor with a promising future. The state achieved this perch with a common vision, strong leadership, and the political and civic will to make Colorado a great place to live with a great economy to match. But, we must be vigilant in working to maintain and improve this position.

Economic Vitality Our economy continued to thrive this year, with Colorado ranking among the most economically competitive states in the nation. The state holds admirable positions in job growth, competitiveness, innovation, and workforce quality. In the past 14 years, the state has ranked among the top-10 states for job growth six times. During the same time period, Colorado ranked among the bottom-10 states three times. In 2013, Colorado was the third-best state for job growth. By comparison the state ranked 49th in 2002 for job growth following the “dot.bomb” recession. Innovation Colorado’s esteemed reputation as a national center of innovation gets another boost this year, with the state ranking fifth in the State Innovation Index published by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Economic Development Administration. In addition, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation rates Colorado fifth highest in the United States for entrepreneurial activity, and most notably, higher than any of our competitor states (Texas, Arizona, Utah, Georgia, and New Mexico). When assessing the entrepreneurial strength of a state, the number of single proprietors in the marketplace is a prevailing measure. Colorado ranks fourth highest for its number of proprietors as a percentage of total employment. Taxes As we have reported for the past 10 years, Colorado’s tax system is chaotic and unbalanced between state and local governments. While Colorado has the lowest sales tax rate among any state that levies one—ranking 11th in per capita state expenditures—its local governments rank fifth highest in the country when it comes to total tax revenue per capita. Comprehensive reform in our state tax policies is cumbersome, requiring a statewide referendum to enable substantive changes and end this imbalance in the state’s tax system. Colorado’s property tax system—driven by the strictures of the Gallagher Amendment—continues to place significant costs on any type of commercial property. For example, Colorado has dropped from 24th in property taxes on industrial properties to 34th in terms of its competitive position over the span of this report. As the state and region look toward the reshoring of advanced manufacturing from Asia, this continued upward creep in property tax burdens on commercial buildings will reduce our future competitive position globally.

Livability Colorado’s housing market has experienced significant increases in the cost of a single-family home. Always among the nation’s higher-priced markets, Colorado now has the highest median housing price for any state without a coastline—ranking 6th highest. Therefore, we view the cost of housing as a short- and longer-term challenge to our economic growth and competitiveness. K-12 Education There is some positive movement in Colorado’s high school graduation rates, which have trended upward from 27th in the country in 2000 to 20th in 2010, reflecting a gradual increase of 26 percent in the state’s graduation rate over the past decade. The state’s reading proficiency scores for 4th and 8th grade students continue to hold steady among the top states. Colorado’s fourth graders rank ninth in the nation, while eighth graders take the 11th spot. Sadly, for a state to rank 9th best in the country requires that only 40.6 percent of its fourth grade students be proficient in reading. When it comes to college preparation, Colorado’s SAT scores dramatically outrank our competitor states, with only Utah coming close. Teacher salaries across the United States have trended downward during the past 10 years, but rank the highest among our competitor states of Texas, New Mexico, Utah, and Arizona. Higher Education Colorado continues its dominance as one of the most highly educated states in the country. In fact, the state has ranked among the top-3 states for the past 10 years. Colorado’s current No. 2 ranking (behind Massachusetts) illustrates the desirability of the state for highly educated workers and knowledge-based companies. When it comes to educating our residents, the state does face challenges. Some national polls indicate that Americans increasingly view a college education as a “private benefit” to the student, and thereby the student or student’s family is responsible for the cost of a degree. Colorado faces challenges in this area, ranking 49th in per student support for higher education. The state has held low positions, never reaching above No. 46, since Toward a More Competitive Colorado was first published. In numerous polls, voter support for additional higher education funding is in direct correlation with the percentage of people with college degrees, about 38 percent.

Health When it comes to the health of our citizens, Colorado holds a commanding position again this year. We remain the “leanest” state in the United States and retain our position as the No. 1 state for physical activity. These two components of health contribute to lower rates of heart attacks, diabetes, and strokes while extending longevity. Overall, the health of Colorado’s workforce continues to be one of our strongest competitive positions. Infrastructure The Reason Foundation’s ranking of Highway Performance nationwide showed an uptick for Colorado from 41st in 2009 to an improved 33rd rank —neither is commendable. As Colorado continues to add new residents as the third-fastest-growing state, its roads and transit systems must keep pace. This past year, the Colorado Department of Transportation— through a change in how it accounts for revenue—engineered a “one time only” windfall fund for road construction. Much of this work is focused along Interstate 70 in and out of the mountains. The improvements will provide a 10-15 year Band-Aid for the congested arterial, but this creative accounting cannot be repeated. When the last $500+ million of this fund is depleted, there will be no new money for road construction, only maintenance of the existing system. Statewide polling this past summer by MPACT64—a public/private transportation group—dashed efforts for new roads and transit throughout Colorado. Rural citizens opposed any proposed tax increases while metro residents were somewhat supportive. International We have revised our methodology to compare Colorado to other countries to better reflect the state’s global economic position. This year we are benchmarking the state relative to the 34 OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) and to the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) rather than just our major commercial partners. While direct data comparisons are difficult to come by, this year’s analysis offers a glimpse at our future global competitiveness. If Colorado was a country it would be:

- 1st in population growth



- 3rd in college degrees behind Russia and Canada



- 5th lowest in taxes as a percent of GDP

- 6th in eighth grade science achievement



- 7th for fewest cancer deaths



- 10th in R&D expenditures as a percentage of GDP

Conclusion As we release the 10th edition of Toward a More Competitive Colorado, we look backward and forward. With a strong recovery in Colorado’s job market, increasing infrastructure construction, K-12 educational improvement (albeit slow), and what appears to be a balanced political system, our near-term future looks bright. Ahead of us is a sagging highway system in need of repair, a statewide water plan, and possible resolution regarding oil and gas discovery and production. Higher education still needs attention or Colorado will see its land grant universities become private universities. We do not see this as a wise decision. A public discussion on higher education’s role in our state economy is due. Toward a More Competitive Colorado helps us to frame these major issues and develop strategies that work toward possible solutions. We’ll continue to update our business community and our state’s citizens regarding our progress.

For additional information, contact 303.620.8092, [email protected], or www.metrodenver.org Published November 2014

Affiliate of:

Strengths Focusing on Maintaining Colorado’s Competitive Edge

Economic Vitality

State Competitiveness Index Beacon Hill Institute

0 5

7th Best

10 15 20 Rank 25

2003 2008

30

2013

35 40 45 50

DE

MA

WY

UT

WA

CO

NV

AR

HI

WV

MS

Competitive states have the ability to generate and maintain per capita personal income growth. The State Competitiveness Index utilizes 46 indicators to identify which states are poised for long-term prosperity. Colorado has ranked in the top-10 states since the first publication in 2001, one of only three states to achieve this distinction.

Fig. 1

State Competitiveness Index Beacon Hill Institute

Colorado vs. Competitors 7th Best

0 5 10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2013

35 40

45 50

UT

CO

TX

GA

NM

AZ

Governmental and fiscal policy, security, infrastructure, technology, and other factors contribute to a state’s competitiveness. Colorado and Utah have consistently ranked among the most competitive states. New Mexico continues to rank toward the bottom. Texas’ rank has improved due to improved telecommunications infrastructure, increased IPO’s, and business incubation.

Fig. 2

State Competitiveness Index Beacon Hill Institute

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2001 44 22 41 47 10 6 8 1 36 35 43 12 39 27 16 23 38 48 19 20 2 26 9 50 24 30 15 46 7 28 42 34 28 20 32 44 13 37 25 40 17 30 33 11 5 14 4 49 18 3

2003 43 25 44 47 19 10 9 1 36 34 48 14 40 30 15 17 34 45 27 18 2 23 7 50 24 20 15 46 8 26 37 31 33 28 38 42 13 29 22 41 10 39 32 4 6 12 5 48 20 3

2006 46 14 16 46 20 4 24 21 27 30 42 6 33 45 18 17 39 48 36 23 1 34 7 50 31 28 11 29 3 43 38 35 26 5 44 40 15 32 25 37 7 41 22 2 12 10 13 49 19 7

2007 48 13 19 46 24 3 25 27 33 31 40 5 36 44 18 17 39 50 35 23 2 41 6 49 26 15 11 28 9 42 29 38 30 4 45 31 14 34 21 42 8 37 20 1 12 16 7 47 22 10

2008 48 24 22 43 25 4 21 19 31 37 45 5 33 36 12 18 38 49 25 28 1 30 7 50 29 10 14 15 17 42 34 35 27 3 44 40 8 39 31 46 11 41 23 2 13 15 6 47 20 9

2011 49 36 32 34 31 3 26 24 18 30 20 16 44 43 8 12 46 40 28 23 1 25 4 50 33 27 6 37 11 48 41 29 21 2 45 35 17 39 19 47 13 38 15 5 14 7 9 42 22 10

2012 49 14 31 41 24 6 33 17 25 27 35 16 38 43 13 10 44 37 30 20 1 28 3 50 32 21 11 29 12 47 46 34 26 2 40 45 22 39 23 42 4 36 7 5 19 9 8 48 18 15

2013 46 40 23 41 29 7 27 20 30 18 49 13 45 37 6 14 35 39 24 21 1 32 5 50 28 36 4 34 3 41 44 26 16 2 33 47 19 31 17 38 11 43 9 8 12 10 15 48 22 25

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

State New Economy Index

Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation

0 5 6th Best

10 15 20 Rank 25

2002 2008

30

2014

35 40 45 50

MA

CA

CO

WA

MD

SD

ND

WV

AR

MS

The State New Economy Index uses 25 measures to gauge which states are best prepared for economic growth and a changing global economic climate. Colorado ranks sixth in the nation with a strong technological base, innovative and entrepreneurial environment, and an educated population.

Fig. 3

State New Economy Index

Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation

Colorado vs. Competitors 6th Best

0 5 10 15 20

2002

Rank 25

2008

30

2014

35 40 45 50

CO

TX

AZ

UT

GA

NM

Colorado outranked its competitors in most of the technology, innovation, and workforce-related measures, but still struggled in exports, manufacturing, and foreign direct investment indicators. Utah outranked or ranked closely with Colorado in several technology and entrepreneurial activity measures including broadband telecomm, e-government, and fast-growing firms.

Fig. 4

State New Economy Index

Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2002 45 39 15 49 2 3 7 9 17 18 38 20 19 32 40 30 42 44 29 5 1 22 14 50 28 41 36 31 12 6 25 11 24 47 27 33 13 21 23 35 46 34 10 16 26 8 4 48 37 43

2007 46 25 22 47 5 9 6 7 23 18 41 24 16 31 38 34 45 44 32 3 1 19 11 49 35 42 28 27 13 2 33 10 26 37 29 40 17 21 15 39 48 36 14 12 20 8 4 50 30 43

2008 47 32 20 48 8 10 6 4 23 21 35 26 16 36 42 31 45 41 28 3 1 17 14 50 37 40 27 25 13 5 29 9 24 39 30 43 15 22 11 34 44 38 18 12 19 7 2 49 33 46

2010 47 31 20 48 7 9 5 6 21 19 40 27 15 35 38 26 44 43 28 3 1 17 13 50 33 37 34 30 11 4 32 10 24 36 25 42 14 22 16 39 45 41 18 12 23 8 2 49 29 46

2012 46 28 16 48 4 7 9 2 21 18 36 24 20 42 38 29 45 44 27 5 1 19 13 50 33 37 35 26 12 10 30 11 25 34 32 47 14 22 23 40 43 39 17 8 15 6 3 49 31 41

2014 41 32 17 47 3 6 8 2 25 21 43 24 16 38 37 31 44 46 28 5 1 18 13 50 33 39 35 27 11 10 26 12 23 36 29 48 15 22 19 34 42 40 20 9 14 7 4 49 30 45

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Employment Growth Rate U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

0

3rd Highest

5 10 15 20 Rank

2003

25

2008

30

2013

35 40 45 50

NV

HI

AK

AZ

MT

KS

MI

CO

MA

OK

Employment growth trends have been extremely volatile for most states since 2003. Colorado’s rank fell during both recessions, first in 2002 and 2003 and then again in 2009 and 2010. However, Colorado has ranked in the top 10 since 2011. In 2013, North Dakota (3.7 percent) ranked first for the fifth year in a row and Utah (3.2 percent) ranked second.

Fig. 5

Employment Growth Rate U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 15 20 Rank 25 30 35 40 45 50

3rd Highest

2003 2008 2013

AZ

NM

UT

TX

GA

CO

Colorado employment increased 3.1 percent in 2013, ranking the state in the top 10 for the past three years. Utah was the top employment-growth state from 2012 to 2013 among the competitors and Texas ranked fourth in the nation. New Mexico ranked 41st with 0.8 percent employment growth in 2013.

Fig. 6

Employment Growth Rate U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 49 17 5 34 4 2 39 45 6 22 11 3 36 46 48 42 31 41 9 16 13 30 23 50 40 26 29 1 15 24 21 25 37 44 43 27 28 32 19 35 20 38 8 14 10 7 18 47 33 12

2001 42 2 8 33 11 14 34 25 6 32 12 5 40 48 41 19 45 27 20 13 28 50 26 49 39 7 24 3 17 29 4 35 44 10 43 9 38 30 21 47 23 46 15 16 18 22 36 31 37 1

2002 38 1 12 18 26 49 29 33 7 43 5 9 48 39 36 37 30 35 13 6 50 47 23 17 27 2 31 8 32 16 3 45 40 10 46 42 41 20 11 34 15 24 25 19 21 22 44 14 28 4

2003 32 3 4 28 26 48 45 21 6 39 2 11 44 31 34 46 27 12 20 14 49 47 30 40 33 5 18 1 16 25 7 36 42 10 43 50 37 38 9 19 15 23 35 22 29 17 13 41 24 8

2004 17 18 2 27 33 28 46 10 3 19 5 6 48 34 24 36 37 43 32 30 49 50 35 38 45 8 39 1 20 41 13 42 16 11 47 29 12 44 40 25 21 14 26 4 22 9 15 23 31 7

2005 16 20 2 25 21 17 42 27 5 13 7 4 40 39 22 43 23 50 49 28 44 48 30 45 31 12 34 1 32 35 15 38 19 18 47 9 6 37 46 24 26 29 8 3 41 14 10 33 36 11

2006 20 23 1 21 22 15 25 37 13 16 14 4 32 47 26 24 33 50 45 31 36 49 34 39 30 8 35 5 38 42 6 41 11 17 48 12 10 40 46 19 18 28 7 2 44 27 9 29 43 3

2007 23 26 21 39 30 9 31 43 47 19 22 6 32 41 27 10 20 3 37 35 24 50 36 25 34 8 17 28 42 44 14 18 7 15 49 13 16 33 48 12 11 38 4 1 46 29 5 45 40 2

2008 36 4 47 23 40 9 19 22 50 42 41 44 32 43 16 10 34 6 21 31 15 49 29 30 24 17 11 48 26 35 13 12 33 2 45 7 38 20 46 37 5 39 3 18 27 25 8 14 28 1

2009 38 2 48 11 40 33 27 34 47 43 30 45 35 42 8 18 31 4 13 9 17 49 24 28 22 19 5 50 20 26 25 10 37 1 39 16 46 14 29 44 3 41 7 36 15 12 21 6 32 23

2010 32 2 49 10 48 40 42 30 39 41 35 46 33 6 26 47 7 36 27 17 3 13 20 24 44 22 21 50 28 37 43 11 34 1 29 31 25 8 16 19 12 15 4 23 5 14 38 9 18 45

2011 48 7 34 41 29 9 30 33 20 32 23 45 24 8 28 42 14 35 44 31 15 3 5 47 43 38 40 39 36 49 50 18 13 1 19 10 26 27 46 17 25 6 2 4 37 21 16 11 22 12

2012 44 20 6 47 4 5 40 46 11 31 13 36 33 10 24 32 26 35 48 30 19 8 23 43 42 14 9 25 39 41 49 28 15 1 21 7 22 45 50 18 17 12 3 2 29 38 16 34 37 27

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2013 37 46 9 49 5 3 40 16 8 14 13 6 38 26 23 27 34 31 45 39 21 12 17 42 32 20 24 7 35 28 41 22 18 1 29 25 11 48 30 15 33 19 4 2 43 44 10 50 36 47

State Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per Employee U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

0

16th Highest

5 10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2013

35

40 45 50

DE

CT

AK

NY

NJ

CO

AR

ME

WV

MS

MT

State GDP, the broadest measure of goods and services produced in a state, reveals the productivity of a state’s workers when viewed on a per-employee basis. Colorado’s State GDP per Employee of $126,100 compares with $151,700 in Delaware and $100,800 in Montana. Alaska ($180,600) has held the top position for the past nine years.

Fig. 7

State Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per Employee U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Colorado vs. Competitors

0 5

16th Highest

10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2013

35 40 45 50

CO

TX

GA

NM

AZ

UT

Colorado has a higher state GDP per employee ($126,100) than all of its top competitors except Texas ($138,900). Texas is the only competitor state to increase in rank since 2008. Colorado, Georgia, New Mexico, and Arizona have all declined since the early part of the last decade.

Fig. 8

State Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per Employee U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 42 3 19 46 6 10 2 1 31 13 18 33 9 29 37 36 38 27 47 11 7 16 21 49 30 50 39 20 25 5 14 4 26 48 28 43 23 22 24 41 40 32 12 34 45 15 8 44 35 17

2001 41 3 21 47 6 11 2 1 29 13 20 42 9 31 39 36 35 25 45 10 7 16 23 49 30 50 37 22 26 5 17 4 24 48 28 40 27 18 19 38 43 32 12 33 44 14 8 46 34 15

2002 41 4 23 46 6 11 3 1 29 14 17 43 10 30 37 40 36 28 45 9 7 15 24 49 32 50 39 18 25 5 22 2 20 47 27 42 26 21 16 38 33 31 12 34 44 13 8 48 35 19

2003 42 3 22 46 6 11 2 1 29 14 19 45 10 30 37 39 40 20 47 9 7 16 21 49 32 50 34 25 26 5 18 4 23 44 28 38 27 24 17 41 33 31 12 35 43 13 8 48 36 15

2004 38 3 26 42 5 13 1 2 28 17 19 46 11 30 31 41 40 15 45 8 7 23 22 49 34 50 36 20 27 6 16 4 25 47 29 37 21 24 18 43 32 33 10 35 44 14 9 48 39 12

2005 38 1 25 41 5 14 2 3 26 17 16 45 13 31 32 42 40 9 46 11 7 23 21 49 35 50 37 18 27 6 19 4 22 48 29 30 28 24 20 43 36 33 12 34 44 15 10 47 39 8

2006 40 1 24 39 6 14 2 3 26 19 16 47 13 32 34 41 37 8 44 12 9 27 25 49 35 50 36 18 28 7 21 4 20 48 31 29 22 23 17 43 42 33 11 30 46 15 10 45 38 5

2007 41 1 19 39 6 14 2 3 25 18 16 45 13 31 33 37 42 12 48 11 8 28 26 50 36 47 35 17 30 7 23 5 24 43 32 27 22 21 20 44 34 38 10 29 49 15 9 46 40 4

2008 41 1 24 36 6 13 3 5 27 21 16 46 14 29 39 40 42 12 50 11 10 30 26 47 35 49 34 18 31 7 20 4 23 38 33 19 17 22 25 45 32 37 9 28 48 15 8 44 43 2

2009 40 1 24 38 6 15 2 3 26 19 17 46 12 31 37 42 43 14 47 8 10 30 25 49 35 50 33 21 27 7 23 4 18 41 34 29 16 22 20 45 36 32 11 28 48 13 9 44 39 5

2010 42 1 25 39 6 16 3 4 31 20 17 46 15 26 38 40 41 10 49 8 11 30 24 50 34 48 32 21 27 7 23 5 18 37 33 28 13 22 19 45 35 36 12 29 47 14 9 44 43 2

2011 41 1 27 39 6 15 3 5 37 21 17 47 14 31 36 35 42 9 50 8 12 34 24 49 40 46 26 22 32 7 19 4 18 30 33 25 13 23 20 45 28 38 10 29 48 16 11 43 44 2

2012 40 1 27 39 6 16 5 4 38 21 18 48 14 31 34 37 42 10 50 11 12 35 25 49 41 46 26 22 33 7 23 3 19 17 32 28 13 24 20 44 30 36 8 29 47 15 9 45 43 2

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2013 41 1 30 35 6 16 3 4 39 24 18 47 15 31 32 36 44 12 50 11 10 37 25 49 42 45 20 28 34 7 23 5 19 13 33 21 14 27 22 46 26 38 8 29 48 17 9 40 43 2

Per Capita Personal Income U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

0 16th Highest

5 10 15 20

Rank 25

2003

30

2013

2008

35 40 45 50

CT

NJ

MA

MD

NY

CO

NM

UT

AR

WV MS

Colorado’s high personal income level is due mainly to its ability to attract and retain highly educated people with high-paying jobs. However, continued population growth combined with limited wage growth have led to a decline in the state’s ranking. Colorado’s per capita personal income of $46,600 compares with $60,800 in Connecticut and $34,500 in Mississippi.

Fig. 9

Per Capita Personal Income U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5

16th Highest

10 15

2003

20

Rank 25

2008 2013

30 35 40 45 50

CO

GA

TX

AZ

NM

UT

Higher incomes discourage companies with lower-paying jobs from relocating to or expanding in a state. Even though Colorado’s rank declined from 12th to 16th from 2008 to 2013, per capita personal income increased about 7.4 percent over the period. Colorado continues to have higher per capita personal income ($46,600) than all of its competitors.

Fig. 10

Per Capita Personal Income U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 44 15 37 48 8 7 1 13 21 26 22 41 9 32 33 28 40 45 34 4 3 18 10 50 31 46 25 14 6 2 47 5 30 38 24 42 23 16 17 39 36 35 27 43 29 12 11 49 20 19

2001 44 14 37 48 8 6 1 9 19 27 26 40 10 31 34 24 42 46 35 4 3 21 12 50 30 47 22 15 7 2 45 5 32 39 28 38 29 17 16 41 33 36 25 43 23 11 13 49 20 18

2002 43 13 37 48 10 8 1 7 20 26 22 40 11 33 31 25 42 46 32 4 3 24 12 50 30 47 21 17 6 2 45 5 36 38 27 39 28 16 15 41 35 34 29 44 23 9 14 49 19 18

2003 40 12 38 48 9 11 1 8 21 28 23 41 13 35 33 26 43 45 30 4 3 24 10 50 29 44 19 17 6 2 46 5 37 34 27 39 31 18 15 42 25 36 32 47 22 7 14 49 20 16

2004 41 14 37 48 9 12 1 8 19 32 20 40 13 35 25 27 43 46 29 4 3 26 10 50 30 42 22 15 6 2 47 5 36 38 28 39 31 18 17 44 24 34 33 45 21 7 11 49 23 16

2005 40 16 33 48 9 11 1 12 18 27 20 41 14 38 28 25 46 44 35 4 3 29 13 49 31 42 21 10 7 2 47 5 34 37 30 39 32 19 17 45 24 36 26 43 22 6 15 50 23 8

2006 43 16 26 48 9 10 1 11 18 30 20 41 12 39 28 24 46 37 32 4 3 34 15 50 31 44 23 14 8 2 47 5 35 40 29 36 27 19 17 45 33 38 25 42 21 7 13 49 22 6

2007 44 13 29 48 9 12 1 15 20 34 18 43 11 40 27 23 47 31 35 5 3 37 14 49 30 42 22 16 8 2 46 4 36 28 33 38 32 19 17 45 25 39 26 41 21 7 10 50 24 6

2008 43 7 35 48 11 12 1 16 25 36 17 47 13 40 27 20 46 29 33 4 3 38 14 50 31 41 21 24 9 2 44 5 37 19 34 30 32 18 15 45 22 39 26 42 23 8 10 49 28 6

2009 42 6 39 47 11 13 1 17 26 37 14 47 12 40 24 23 46 30 29 4 2 38 16 50 31 41 21 28 8 3 43 5 34 19 33 35 32 18 15 45 22 36 27 44 20 7 10 49 25 9

2010 42 6 41 48 14 16 1 19 26 40 18 47 15 39 23 24 44 28 29 4 2 37 12 50 31 38 22 30 8 3 43 5 35 10 32 33 34 17 11 45 20 36 27 46 21 9 13 49 25 7

2011 42 7 41 47 13 16 1 22 27 39 20 49 17 40 23 24 44 31 29 4 2 36 11 50 32 37 19 34 8 3 43 5 38 9 30 28 33 18 14 45 12 35 25 46 21 10 15 48 26 6

2012 42 8 41 45 12 16 1 22 27 40 20 49 15 38 23 24 44 30 29 5 2 36 11 50 33 35 19 37 9 3 43 6 39 4 30 28 32 18 14 48 17 34 25 46 21 10 13 47 26 7

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2013 42 9 41 46 12 16 1 23 27 40 20 49 15 38 22 24 45 31 29 5 3 35 11 50 33 36 17 37 8 4 43 6 39 2 30 28 32 18 14 48 21 34 25 44 19 10 13 47 26 7

Economic Outlook American Legislative Exchange Council

0 5 10 15

22nd Best

20 Rank 25

2008 2014

30 35 40

45 50

UT

SD

TN

WY

VA

CO

ME

OH

NJ

NY

VT

Economically competitive states are projected to have higher levels of in-migration, employment growth, and personal income due to their competitive tax environments, fiscal health, and strong legal systems. Colorado’s rank has declined since 2008 due to an increasing property tax burden and the progressivity of the state’s personal income tax since it is tied to the federal tax structure.

Fig. 11

Economic Outlook American Legislative Exchange Council

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5

22nd Best

10 15 20

Rank 25

2008

30

2014

35

40 45 50

UT

AZ

GA

CO

TX

NM

Colorado ranked well in 2014 for low personal and corporate income tax rates, other tax burdens, and low workers compensation costs. However, the state ranked poorly for its commercial tax burden, sales tax burden, public debt service costs, and high minimum wage. The economic outlook for all the competitor states except New Mexico surpassed Colorado in 2013 and 2014.

Fig. 12

Economic Outlook American Legislative Exchange Council

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2008 15 37 6 11 42 9 40 31 16 8 41 10 43 12 23 29 44 24 46 28 22 17 39 19 25 32 34 7 26 48 27 49 21 18 47 14 35 36 45 20 2 3 13 1 50 5 30 38 33 4

2009 16 38 3 12 43 2 32 31 11 8 41 14 44 17 35 24 36 18 47 28 26 34 40 19 23 30 29 7 37 46 25 50 21 13 45 15 39 42 48 20 5 9 10 1 49 4 22 33 27 6

2010 17 22 3 13 46 2 36 37 5 9 39 7 47 20 28 25 40 16 44 29 32 26 38 18 15 33 34 11 30 48 35 50 21 12 42 14 41 43 45 31 4 10 19 1 49 8 24 27 23 6

2011 20 29 12 13 47 6 35 34 10 11 46 5 44 16 23 27 40 15 48 21 24 25 37 19 9 36 32 17 28 45 39 50 26 7 38 14 43 41 42 22 2 8 18 1 49 3 33 31 30 4

2012 21 29 9 11 38 8 44 34 13 10 46 6 48 24 22 26 39 19 47 20 25 17 41 15 7 36 31 18 28 42 35 50 23 5 37 14 45 40 43 27 2 12 16 1 49 3 33 30 32 4

2013 17 21 6 24 47 16 43 30 9 8 40 7 48 14 25 11 38 28 41 35 29 20 46 10 23 42 37 13 27 39 33 49 22 2 26 19 44 34 45 31 3 18 12 1 50 5 36 32 15 4

2014 20 18 7 26 47 22 44 27 16 9 36 5 48 3 25 15 39 29 40 34 28 12 46 14 24 43 35 8 32 45 37 50 6 4 23 21 42 33 41 31 2 19 13 1 49 11 38 30 17 10

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Innovation

State Innovation Index

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration 5th Best

0 5 10 15 Rank

20 2013

25 30 35 40 45 50

MA

CA

ID

WA

CO

KY

LA

AR

MS

WV

The State Innovation Index is based on four component indices that score each state in the areas of human capital, economic dynamics, productivity and employment, and economic wellbeing. Colorado ranks as one of the top states in all innovation measures.

Fig. 13

State Innovation Index

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration

0

5th Best

Colorado vs. Competitors

5 10 15 20 Rank 25

2013

30 35 40 45 50

CO

UT

AZ

TX

NM

GA

Utah is Colorado’s top-ranked competitor in the innovation index and the state is one of Colorado’s top competitors in several other innovation measures including new businesses, venture capital investments, IPO activity, NASA prime contract awards, R&D spending, patents, and high-tech employment. Georgia is the only competitor state that does not rank among the top 25 states.

Fig. 14

State Innovation Index

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2010 42 29 23 46 2 8 3 5 31 34 36 9 15 39 25 28 48 47 41 7 1 19 10 49 33 37 30 24 11 6 21 12 22 40 27 38 17 18 20 43 45 44 16 13 32 14 4 50 25 35

2012 41 23 18 46 2 7 4 6 26 31 30 13 19 40 32 24 48 47 42 5 1 36 11 49 33 34 25 29 8 9 21 14 19 38 37 38 15 17 16 45 42 44 21 10 27 12 3 50 34 28

2013 44 32 14 48 2 5 13 11 30 27 38 3 19 43 26 29 46 47 45 15 1 20 7 49 36 35 33 27 10 9 25 16 22 37 31 40 8 24 21 39 41 42 18 12 6 17 4 50 23 34

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Entrepreneurial Activity Index Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation 5th Best

0 5 10 15

Rank

20

2003

25

2008

30

2013

35 40 45 50

MT

NM

AK

TX

ND

CO

MA

RI

DE

CT

AL

The Entrepreneurial Activity Index measures the percentage of the adult, non-business owner population that start new businesses. Colorado has 380 entrepreneurs per 100,000 adults compared with 610 in Montana (1st) and 110 in Iowa (50th). Entrepreneurial activity is a key measure of innovation.

Fig. 15

Entrepreneurial Activity Index Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation

Colorado vs. Competitors 5th Best

0

5 10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2013

35

40 45 50

NM

TX

CO

AZ

GA

UT

Entrepreneurial activity decreased in the majority of states from 2012 to 2013 as wage and salary employment increased. In fact, Colorado was the only competitor state to post an increase in the number of entrepreneurs from 2012 to 2013. Colorado and Texas are the only competitor states to maintain rankings in the top 15 since 2008.

Fig. 16

Entrepreneurial Activity Index Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 35 1 8 15 26 15 45 28 20 27 32 5 32 22 10 28 42 24 15 24 49 28 42 12 32 2 15 40 37 37 3 20 22 6 40 37 8 48 50 42 13 28 19 14 10 45 35 45 3 7

2001 31 3 1 6 21 2 7 48 22 31 28 3 22 31 16 12 12 38 25 35 46 35 38 10 35 17 12 38 25 31 17 25 22 43 38 20 12 44 47 45 7 48 5 28 17 38 9 50 30 10

2002 42 1 18 44 3 4 44 49 18 39 15 16 35 35 41 14 21 28 30 9 42 30 9 40 26 2 11 26 30 35 7 16 5 30 44 5 23 48 49 28 11 21 7 18 23 30 38 47 23 11

2003 50 3 14 20 8 6 49 48 23 14 41 11 37 37 12 37 24 6 24 10 43 24 30 43 42 1 19 24 24 30 2 37 34 5 43 20 9 43 47 30 17 24 4 20 17 34 14 34 30 12

2004 22 4 19 9 11 15 41 50 22 13 36 4 28 41 36 34 29 29 10 25 47 47 26 12 41 1 16 29 45 36 2 36 29 44 34 3 20 49 20 36 22 29 13 16 6 26 6 46 16 6

2005 48 10 20 5 20 2 31 50 28 18 16 5 34 27 16 35 46 20 13 8 38 38 24 11 45 3 38 14 28 26 7 28 38 20 31 9 18 46 37 35 24 38 14 12 1 44 38 48 31 4

2006 34 34 20 10 12 27 23 45 15 3 7 10 47 42 19 40 38 20 5 31 12 50 23 2 34 1 27 16 42 38 12 16 44 23 40 4 8 49 27 47 6 34 20 23 8 27 31 45 31 18

2007 49 10 1 14 7 14 43 48 11 7 43 1 37 37 31 34 18 3 30 18 37 25 21 23 37 7 21 23 29 31 34 12 18 34 46 14 12 47 43 31 25 3 25 14 6 41 41 50 25 5

2008 41 5 4 10 5 7 20 43 13 1 40 13 33 23 45 35 17 33 11 38 23 23 41 17 49 3 28 11 28 23 2 8 38 23 45 20 13 50 35 35 20 19 13 8 28 43 28 47 47 28

2009 47 19 3 15 10 11 29 26 6 6 33 4 40 31 43 43 38 8 19 29 22 26 46 50 33 1 48 11 31 22 37 19 38 25 33 1 11 48 40 43 8 15 4 15 14 33 40 18 26 22

2010 32 8 19 14 3 5 37 43 10 1 37 12 31 46 24 17 28 4 28 37 20 32 45 7 28 12 24 1 32 32 20 16 17 24 24 20 20 48 32 42 46 9 10 14 5 37 37 50 48 43

2011 32 5 1 15 2 4 15 27 9 14 48 9 45 45 37 27 11 15 13 20 32 41 38 32 6 18 23 7 27 27 35 11 23 23 27 44 35 49 41 20 19 20 2 23 7 45 38 50 38 41

2012 36 4 19 26 6 12 23 27 14 27 8 6 38 31 40 36 11 8 17 33 27 47 50 4 17 1 49 10 21 40 2 19 31 12 46 24 38 43 43 14 27 34 14 21 2 43 25 40 47 34

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2013 28 2 34 36 4 5 22 22 8 30 8 14 38 47 50 44 7 14 19 25 28 19 47 30 34 1 14 33 38 42 8 19 11 42 38 17 36 38 49 26 3 17 11 11 26 30 45 22 45 6

Proprietors as Percentage of Total Employment U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 4th Best

0 5 10 15

Rank

20

2003

25

2008

30

2013

35 40 45 50

MT

ID

OK

VT

SD

CO

OH

PA

SC

RI

DE

The number of proprietors tends to increase during recessionary times when wage and salary jobs are in short supply. Ideally, these innovative individuals continue to grow and operate their small businesses even after the economy recovers. Currently, one in four individuals in Colorado’s workforce may be classified as a proprietor, compared with 22 percent nationally.

Fig. 17

Proprietors as Percentage of Total Employment U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Colorado vs. Competitors 4th Best

0

5 10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2013

35

40 45 50

CO

TX

UT

NM

AZ

GA

The share of proprietors employment increased between 2008 and 2013 in Colorado and all of its competitors, except the increase was not enough to raise the relative rank of Utah and New Mexico. Proprietors represented 25 percent of the total employment in Colorado in 2013 compared with 21.3 percent in New Mexico and 24.7 percent in Texas.

Fig. 18

Proprietors as Percentage of Total Employment U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 33 8 27 20 15 10 28 50 31 38 26 4 39 40 11 13 24 35 9 32 37 44 25 30 22 1 14 34 19 47 17 42 36 3 45 6 12 43 48 49 2 18 16 21 7 46 23 29 41 5

2001 33 8 26 20 15 9 28 50 30 37 29 4 42 38 11 14 23 35 10 32 39 43 24 27 22 1 17 36 19 47 18 40 34 3 44 7 12 45 49 48 2 16 13 21 6 46 25 31 41 5

2002 33 10 25 20 14 8 28 50 27 36 30 2 42 43 13 16 26 35 9 31 38 40 23 29 22 1 19 34 15 46 21 39 37 7 44 6 11 47 49 48 3 17 12 18 4 45 24 32 41 5

2003 33 12 23 19 11 6 24 50 27 31 32 2 41 45 15 16 28 37 9 30 38 39 25 29 21 1 22 34 13 43 20 40 36 8 46 3 14 47 49 48 5 17 10 18 4 44 26 35 42 7

2004 33 13 23 20 11 5 22 50 25 29 32 2 41 47 17 18 31 39 8 28 36 37 27 30 19 1 24 35 12 42 21 38 34 10 45 4 14 48 49 46 6 16 9 15 3 44 26 40 43 7

2005 31 16 25 21 10 5 19 50 24 23 32 2 39 47 17 18 34 42 7 26 37 35 30 28 20 1 27 36 11 40 22 38 33 12 46 4 15 48 49 44 6 14 9 13 3 45 29 41 43 8

2006 32 16 26 23 10 5 18 50 21 19 35 2 41 47 20 17 36 30 6 24 38 33 29 27 22 1 28 37 11 40 25 39 34 12 46 4 15 48 49 43 7 13 8 14 3 45 31 42 44 9

2007 30 18 25 23 10 4 16 50 19 17 28 2 41 48 22 21 37 35 6 20 40 32 31 27 26 1 33 36 11 39 24 38 34 14 46 5 15 47 49 42 8 12 9 13 3 44 29 43 45 7

2008 31 21 19 26 10 4 17 50 14 18 30 2 41 49 25 22 40 28 8 20 39 29 33 24 27 1 35 32 11 36 23 38 37 16 45 5 15 47 48 42 9 13 6 12 3 44 34 43 46 7

2009 30 31 17 28 7 4 18 50 12 16 32 2 39 46 25 21 41 29 11 22 40 24 35 23 26 1 37 19 14 33 27 38 34 20 43 5 15 49 47 42 8 13 6 10 3 44 36 48 45 9

2010 28 32 15 30 6 3 17 50 9 14 33 2 39 49 27 20 40 22 13 23 42 25 37 21 26 1 38 19 18 31 29 34 35 24 43 5 16 47 48 41 10 11 7 12 4 44 36 46 45 8

2011 22 39 14 27 4 3 16 47 7 9 35 2 36 49 30 21 41 23 15 24 42 28 38 19 26 1 37 17 20 25 31 29 33 32 43 6 18 48 45 34 11 12 5 13 8 44 40 50 46 10

2012 24 35 15 26 5 3 16 47 7 10 33 2 37 50 31 22 40 21 13 23 42 29 39 17 28 1 36 18 20 25 30 27 32 38 43 4 19 46 45 34 11 12 6 14 8 44 41 49 48 9

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2013 24 33 16 26 8 4 14 49 5 11 34 2 36 50 31 22 38 20 12 23 42 30 39 15 28 1 37 18 21 25 29 27 32 40 44 3 19 45 46 35 10 13 6 17 7 43 41 47 48 9

Number of New Businesses per 1,000 Employees U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

0

WK +LJKHVW

5 10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2013

35 40 45 50

MT

ID

FL

UT

CO

KY

IA

IN

OH

WI

Colorado’s highly educated workforce and entrepreneurial environment continue to attract established companies and support new business creation. The state ranked seventh with about eight new business establishments per 1,000 workers in 2013 compared with four in 50th-ranked Ohio.

Fig. 19

Number of New Businesses per 1,000 Employees U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Colorado vs. Competitors WK +LJKHVW

0 5 10 15 Rank

20

2003

25

2008

30

2013

35 40 45

50

UT

CO

NM

GA

AZ

TX

Colorado (8 establishments) is rivaled only by Utah (8.6 establishments) among its competitors in the number of new business establishments per 1,000 workers. Texas ranked lowest among the competitors with 5.2 new business establishments per 1,000 workers in 2013.

Fig. 20

Number of New Businesses per 1,000 Employees U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 40 18 19 24 20 3 32 7 6 10 27 2 43 48 45 21 47 30 17 25 31 36 33 39 44 4 41 12 8 9 15 13 35 42 49 28 11 37 14 26 23 46 38 5 22 34 16 29 50 1

2001 29 10 23 21 16 4 36 18 3 9 26 6 46 45 48 34 35 33 13 19 38 43 47 40 44 1 41 8 7 20 15 14 39 37 49 22 12 31 11 25 24 42 27 5 30 28 17 32 50 2

2002 39 13 21 23 19 5 43 14 2 10 38 6 46 48 45 28 44 35 15 24 33 37 32 36 30 1 42 7 8 11 18 20 16 41 49 26 9 40 12 25 27 47 29 4 22 34 17 31 50 3

2003 34 13 26 19 18 5 44 12 3 17 31 2 43 48 47 27 46 38 15 22 37 39 35 36 42 1 40 8 9 7 16 23 29 32 49 25 10 45 11 24 20 41 30 4 21 33 14 28 50 6

2004 32 16 29 18 22 5 45 7 1 9 38 3 43 48 47 28 41 30 13 20 36 37 42 33 39 2 40 8 10 14 17 21 34 35 49 23 11 44 12 25 24 46 31 4 15 27 19 26 50 6

2005 34 17 9 25 18 5 43 16 1 12 40 2 32 46 47 36 44 39 15 19 38 42 48 37 29 3 41 7 8 10 13 21 35 26 50 24 11 28 14 30 23 45 31 4 27 22 20 33 49 6

2006 33 25 9 7 22 6 41 15 3 12 39 1 37 48 47 40 45 23 19 26 43 44 46 30 32 4 38 13 8 11 16 21 14 29 50 20 10 35 17 18 27 42 31 2 28 34 24 36 49 5

2007 34 27 15 18 23 6 39 16 1 9 36 4 45 48 46 35 41 26 12 29 42 43 19 31 47 2 37 7 10 11 13 22 17 30 49 28 8 44 14 25 32 40 33 5 21 20 24 38 50 3

2008 41 19 18 8 23 4 42 11 1 14 37 5 33 43 47 31 45 30 10 22 46 39 48 38 40 3 36 13 7 15 16 20 26 29 50 25 12 34 17 27 28 44 32 6 24 9 21 35 49 2

2009 40 15 8 19 23 3 44 16 1 13 41 4 31 49 47 34 42 32 12 25 46 30 45 38 39 2 36 10 11 7 20 18 26 28 48 22 9 35 14 29 24 43 33 6 21 17 27 37 50 5

2010 37 25 19 23 20 5 41 11 1 12 35 3 32 44 50 38 47 29 16 26 45 40 46 34 43 4 36 9 8 13 18 15 24 17 48 21 7 33 10 30 27 42 31 6 22 14 28 39 49 2

2011 38 23 20 8 19 7 44 14 1 16 42 4 37 45 48 33 46 31 15 26 35 41 28 40 43 2 39 12 9 13 24 18 22 3 49 27 10 36 11 30 25 47 32 6 21 17 29 34 50 5

2012 39 23 17 20 18 5 42 13 1 11 43 4 38 49 33 30 37 36 19 22 41 46 40 44 35 3 31 9 10 12 28 16 24 2 50 34 14 26 8 29 27 45 32 6 21 15 25 47 48 7

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2013 39 22 18 21 10 7 41 9 1 14 40 5 42 49 37 31 36 38 20 26 34 48 43 44 32 3 23 11 13 12 27 17 28 2 50 33 15 29 6 35 25 46 30 4 24 16 19 45 47 8

Venture Capital Investments per $1,000 of State GDP PricewaterhouseCoopers MoneyTree Report 9th Highest

0 5 10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

2013

30 35 40 45 50

MA

CA

NH

CO

NJ

DE

AK

IA

MT

WY

Venture capital investments are often highest in states with a strong culture of innovation and entrepreneurship. However, venture capital activity declined during both recent recessions and has not yet reached the 2007 peak. With 82 completed deals in 2013, venture capital investment in Colorado was about $448 million.

Fig. 21

Venture Capital Investments per $1,000 of State GDP PricewaterhouseCoopers MoneyTree Report

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 15 20 Rank 25 30 35 40 45 50

9th Highest

2003 2008 2013

CO

TX

UT

GA

AZ

NM

Colorado ($1.52) and Utah ($2.24) are the only competitor states ranking in the top-10 states in 2013 for venture capital investments per $1,000 of state GDP. Both states have consistently ranked in the top 10 since 2003.

Fig. 22

Venture Capital Investments per $1,000 of State GDP PricewaterhouseCoopers MoneyTree Report

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 32 47 21 39 2 3 9 25 17 13 19 45 20 35 46 26 33 37 22 7 1 36 18 43 24 38 27 41 4 10 42 12 16 44 29 40 15 14 28 23 49 30 11 8 31 5 6 48 34 50

2001 28 49 22 40 2 3 10 36 20 13 26 45 19 38 43 32 27 37 42 6 1 34 15 33 23 24 21 35 4 7 39 16 18 47 29 41 17 14 11 44 46 25 8 12 30 9 5 48 31 49

2002 25 47 17 39 2 4 18 26 20 10 42 35 24 38 46 43 41 40 27 5 1 33 12 44 28 47 34 29 3 6 37 19 9 47 22 32 15 16 7 30 21 23 13 11 45 14 8 31 36 47

2003 31 47 24 43 2 4 13 46 22 18 27 12 20 36 47 29 41 44 39 9 1 33 17 45 26 47 38 32 3 5 40 19 14 21 23 28 16 15 7 37 35 25 8 10 42 11 6 30 34 47

2004 23 49 28 47 2 8 14 46 19 10 33 43 26 32 45 22 27 44 21 5 1 29 9 42 36 49 48 24 6 7 30 18 16 39 34 20 15 13 11 38 40 25 12 4 35 17 3 37 31 41

2005 32 48 23 45 2 3 17 36 28 21 33 37 26 27 43 44 34 47 42 6 1 35 13 41 24 19 39 25 8 7 15 14 18 48 31 22 20 16 9 46 48 29 12 5 11 10 4 38 30 40

2006 38 47 16 43 2 4 13 40 25 18 23 26 22 37 46 29 34 44 20 5 1 27 15 33 30 47 41 36 6 9 24 12 17 47 32 39 21 8 10 45 47 35 11 7 19 14 3 42 28 31

2007 32 50 20 44 2 4 17 38 21 18 42 29 23 31 34 19 27 43 37 6 1 30 11 46 33 40 47 36 5 16 9 15 13 49 26 45 12 7 41 24 39 25 14 8 22 10 3 35 28 48

2008 36 48 19 48 2 4 18 10 31 17 41 29 21 33 27 26 37 45 42 7 1 22 8 48 30 28 39 44 3 11 24 13 15 38 23 43 20 12 32 40 47 34 16 6 9 14 5 25 35 46

2009 29 47 21 47 2 4 13 26 23 14 37 28 25 11 18 41 35 40 32 7 1 22 9 46 38 24 47 36 12 8 39 10 17 34 30 44 31 15 16 43 45 27 19 6 3 20 5 42 33 47

2010 47 48 25 45 1 3 19 20 28 17 36 37 10 30 27 29 38 42 41 5 2 24 21 48 26 44 46 34 14 12 35 9 11 39 23 40 18 15 8 32 48 31 16 6 7 13 4 43 22 33

2011 44 47 13 47 2 3 23 27 26 14 46 39 10 24 35 29 42 40 21 7 1 33 11 45 25 41 47 32 12 16 20 4 22 37 30 36 19 17 18 31 38 28 9 5 15 8 6 43 34 47

2012 38 48 10 43 2 5 16 34 28 18 47 29 13 27 45 25 37 44 30 8 1 20 12 39 40 36 46 41 9 14 23 7 22 42 21 33 19 11 6 31 48 26 15 3 35 17 4 32 24 48

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2013 45 49 28 18 2 9 16 11 24 12 44 37 20 40 35 34 39 42 25 6 1 33 13 47 31 48 38 41 8 21 30 5 23 27 22 43 19 15 7 26 32 29 14 4 17 10 3 46 36 49

Initial Public Offerings

Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation

(Top Five States) 0

4th Highest

5 10 15 20

2002 2008 2014

Rank 25 30

35 40 45 50

WA

MA

CA

CO

IL

This measure ranks states based on the number and value of initial public offerings (IPOs) as a share of total worker earnings. Many states tie for last place in this ranking with no IPOs issued in the measured years. Colorado companies are among the top creators of IPOs in the country behind Texas, California, and Massachusetts.

Fig. 23

Initial Public Offerings

Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation

Colorado vs. Competitors 4th Highest

0 5 10 15 20 Rank 25

2002 2008 2014

30 35 40 45 50

CO

GA

TX

AZ

UT

NM

Colorado, Texas, and Utah are the top-ranked competitors. Texas surpassed Colorado for the first time in 2012 and Utah’s rank has improved significantly since the early part of the last decade. New Mexico—with no IPO activity—ties several states ranking in last place.

Fig. 24

Initial Public Offerings

Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2002 34 34 18 34 3 4 9 34 19 15 34 34 5 19 11 34 31 25 22 7 2 32 13 34 10 34 28 30 27 14 34 17 26 34 33 8 23 12 34 34 34 24 16 21 34 6 1 34 29 34

2007 21 43 40 39 3 2 15 28 24 31 33 12 10 22 38 42 29 26 16 11 5 30 17 36 27 20 35 1 43 14 43 9 24 43 32 3 37 18 43 33 7 19 6 13 43 8 22 43 41 43

2008 25 41 28 38 8 4 7 41 21 30 33 12 17 26 40 41 33 27 15 13 2 32 16 35 36 41 41 3 41 11 41 10 19 17 37 1 41 22 22 41 8 24 5 6 41 20 31 29 39 14

2010 32 32 19 32 4 5 8 32 25 16 32 32 22 24 29 32 32 32 32 21 3 30 19 32 32 32 32 17 14 7 32 10 23 6 30 2 32 27 13 32 32 12 9 11 32 15 26 17 28 1

2012 32 32 30 32 8 9 5 32 21 13 32 32 19 15 22 32 29 32 32 14 3 7 26 32 31 12 32 25 32 18 32 16 17 32 28 4 32 19 32 32 11 2 6 10 32 27 23 32 23 1

2014 36 36 16 36 2 4 18 36 19 21 36 22 15 12 29 10 36 31 36 11 3 33 27 36 32 36 27 24 25 5 36 13 7 36 34 6 35 17 36 30 9 8 1 14 36 23 26 36 20 36

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Small Business Innovation Research Grants per Worker U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

0 5 10

5th Highest

15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2013

35 40 45 50

MA

MD

CO

NH

VA

MS

MO

NE

LA

KY

Awards received from the SBA’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant program are often used to measure innovation and entrepreneurship. Colorado has historically ranked among the most successful states for high-dollar value of SBIR grants per worker, about $25.82 compared with $0.33 in bottom-ranked North Dakota, which posted a large decline from 2012.

Fig. 25

Small Business Innovation Research Grants per Worker U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 5th Highest

Colorado vs. Competitors

0 5 10 15 Rank

20

2003

25

2008

30

2013

35 40 45 50

CO

NM

UT

AZ

TX

GA

Colorado’s strong research and development sector is a major contributor to its high ranking in SBIR awards per worker, $25.82 compared with $7.33 in Texas and $7.11 in Georgia. In 2013, Utah ($15.04) achieved its highest rank of the past 10 years after ranking as low as 31st in 2010.

Fig. 26

Small Business Innovation Research Grants U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 10 38 13 42 8 3 12 9 30 36 15 44 33 47 50 40 48 49 25 5 1 29 24 32 41 7 35 45 4 19 2 26 34 14 17 46 22 23 20 39 43 28 27 16 11 6 18 37 31 21

2001 20 41 12 49 8 3 10 9 34 35 23 37 36 45 46 38 44 47 22 4 1 26 24 50 48 7 39 33 5 18 2 27 32 28 15 42 16 21 17 40 43 31 29 13 14 6 11 25 30 19

2002 9 50 11 48 7 2 13 25 36 40 26 23 43 41 34 37 45 49 33 4 1 31 19 42 44 8 46 24 3 16 5 22 27 32 18 38 15 20 17 35 28 39 29 12 21 6 10 47 30 14

2003 10 36 20 45 7 3 9 22 32 40 26 34 37 39 41 42 50 49 28 2 1 23 19 46 47 11 48 33 4 21 6 24 31 30 15 44 18 16 13 35 38 43 27 12 8 5 14 17 29 25

2004 12 50 22 39 7 4 9 19 36 37 8 35 38 40 47 42 44 48 15 2 1 29 28 45 41 13 33 26 3 16 5 23 34 30 18 32 17 20 10 46 49 43 25 24 14 6 11 21 31 27

2005 9 49 17 34 6 3 10 16 36 38 24 26 39 35 50 44 48 43 29 2 1 22 21 40 46 8 45 41 7 20 5 23 25 30 15 31 12 19 18 37 47 42 27 14 13 4 11 33 32 28

2006 7 49 17 30 8 2 25 12 32 37 19 34 36 31 38 35 47 45 10 5 1 22 26 48 40 9 41 33 3 23 4 27 28 42 15 44 11 13 18 46 50 39 29 20 14 6 16 43 24 21

2007 11 48 23 37 8 2 12 14 32 36 19 25 33 35 46 42 45 43 30 5 1 22 26 50 39 9 49 44 3 20 4 24 31 47 16 29 15 18 7 40 41 34 28 17 13 6 10 38 27 21

2008 9 37 24 32 7 3 11 10 29 34 14 41 35 30 46 42 31 45 26 5 1 22 20 49 48 12 40 47 2 21 6 23 19 39 17 36 18 16 27 43 50 33 28 15 8 4 13 44 25 38

2009 8 44 16 28 7 2 12 20 33 34 25 46 30 32 47 45 40 49 35 3 1 24 23 50 39 15 41 48 5 18 4 14 21 31 19 38 10 22 9 36 43 42 29 17 11 6 13 37 26 27

2010 12 50 18 34 7 3 10 9 29 36 16 33 26 25 45 47 35 46 27 2 1 17 24 48 37 13 40 30 4 15 5 22 23 38 14 44 11 19 32 41 49 42 28 31 8 6 20 43 21 39

2011 10 50 11 42 7 3 14 8 30 38 23 25 32 34 45 46 40 48 27 5 1 16 29 49 43 17 39 44 2 19 6 20 18 33 15 35 9 12 28 41 47 36 31 21 26 4 13 37 22 24

2012 13 48 18 30 8 5 17 19 32 33 15 28 34 41 43 44 38 50 25 3 1 27 24 49 37 11 29 42 2 21 4 23 22 39 12 36 10 16 9 46 45 40 31 20 7 6 14 47 26 35

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2013 9 48 20 34 6 5 12 7 31 28 15 44 30 29 46 36 33 43 35 3 1 23 24 47 40 18 49 32 2 19 8 22 16 50 17 39 13 21 11 45 41 38 26 10 25 4 14 42 27 37

NASA Prime Contract Awards National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

0

4th Highest

5 10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2013

35 40 45 50

TX

CA

MD

FL

VA

CO

ME

AR

VT

WY

SD

Colorado businesses, nonprofits, and educational institutions received over $1.7 billion in NASA prime contracts in 2013, earning the state a No. 4 ranking nationally. Award recipients included Lockheed Martin, Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., and the University of Colorado, which received the fifthlargest amount of research funding among educational and nonprofit institutions in 2013.

Fig. 27

NASA Prime Contract Awards National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

4th Highest

5

10 15 20 Rank 25 30

2003

35

2013

2008

40 45 50

TX

UT

CO

AZ

NM

GA

Colorado received a higher amount of NASA Prime Contract Awards in 2013 ($1.7 billion) than all of its competitors except Texas ($1.8 billion). Texas’ share of awards has declined and Colorado’s has increased over the years. In 2003, Texas captured 34 percent of the contract awards, declining to under 14 percent in 2013. Colorado has increased from 2.3 percent to 13.4 percent over the same time.

Fig. 28

NASA Prime Contract Awards National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 5 30 15 45 2 10 13 39 4 26 27 49 23 18 34 37 40 8 46 3 11 25 35 12 21 36 44 42 31 14 16 17 28 43 9 33 32 19 38 41 48 24 1 7 47 6 22 20 29 50

2001 5 30 14 49 2 10 13 42 4 26 25 40 27 18 36 38 45 8 46 3 11 29 35 12 22 32 44 43 31 16 15 17 24 41 9 33 34 20 39 37 48 23 1 7 47 6 21 19 28 50

2002 5 30 15 50 2 10 13 40 4 25 22 38 31 20 33 37 43 8 47 3 11 27 34 12 26 36 46 45 29 17 16 14 21 41 9 32 35 19 39 42 49 24 1 7 44 6 23 18 28 48

2003 6 34 14 47 2 9 13 44 4 20 28 41 27 21 35 43 39 8 46 3 11 29 33 12 30 38 45 42 23 18 15 16 22 40 10 24 36 19 37 31 50 25 1 7 48 5 32 17 26 49

2004 6 36 14 48 2 9 13 43 4 23 28 42 27 20 34 37 44 8 41 3 11 26 31 12 30 35 45 40 22 16 15 17 24 47 10 33 32 19 39 38 46 25 1 7 50 5 21 18 29 49

2005 6 34 18 49 1 9 12 42 4 25 21 37 26 16 35 38 40 8 46 3 10 27 36 13 29 33 47 43 23 19 17 15 30 44 11 31 32 20 41 39 48 24 2 7 45 5 22 14 28 50

2006 6 30 16 46 2 5 13 39 4 26 31 38 25 14 37 45 41 9 42 3 12 27 33 10 23 32 48 44 29 19 18 15 34 35 11 22 36 24 40 43 49 20 1 8 47 7 21 17 28 50

2007 5 29 15 45 2 8 13 35 4 22 27 44 24 14 32 46 47 9 43 3 12 25 28 10 30 37 50 49 26 18 23 17 36 40 11 34 33 20 38 39 48 16 1 6 42 7 19 21 31 41

2008 6 27 13 49 2 5 14 32 4 25 29 47 23 16 37 48 43 9 42 3 12 26 30 10 28 36 40 41 24 17 15 18 35 39 11 33 34 19 38 45 46 21 1 8 44 7 22 20 31 50

2009 6 24 13 47 2 4 16 35 5 26 27 48 22 14 29 41 46 10 44 3 12 25 36 9 30 37 45 49 28 20 15 17 33 39 11 32 34 19 38 43 42 21 1 7 40 8 23 18 31 50

2010 5 22 15 50 2 4 13 38 6 30 25 37 26 16 39 49 43 11 44 3 12 23 31 10 28 35 41 45 24 27 14 17 32 36 9 33 34 19 40 42 46 20 1 8 48 7 21 18 29 47

2011 6 25 12 47 1 4 18 37 5 29 28 45 27 13 39 41 46 14 44 3 11 21 36 10 22 32 43 26 24 30 16 15 34 40 9 31 35 19 38 49 42 20 2 8 48 7 23 17 33 50

2012 5 27 11 45 1 3 19 42 6 26 23 43 30 14 37 38 50 13 46 4 12 20 32 8 28 36 48 31 25 24 16 15 33 44 10 35 34 18 41 40 39 21 2 9 49 7 22 17 29 47

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2013 5 30 14 47 1 4 21 37 6 20 25 48 26 12 32 38 44 13 43 2 11 17 34 8 28 39 45 29 23 31 16 15 35 49 9 36 33 18 41 42 40 22 3 10 50 7 24 19 27 46

Total R&D Spending at Academic Institutions per Capita National Science Foundation

0

10th Highest

5 10 15

20 Rank 25

2003

30

2012

2008

35 40 45 50

MD MA

AK

ND

NH

CO

NV

AR

WV

SD

ME

Colorado is one of the nation’s centers of academic R&D spending with about $240 per capita. This is possibly due to the state’s strong entrepreneurial economy and substantial federal investments in Colorado universities, particularly in aerospace, bioscience, and energy programs. Nevada ranked last among the states in 2012 with $54 per capita and Maryland ($560 per capita) ranked first.

Fig. 29

Total R&D Spending at Academic Institutions per Capita National Science Foundation

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

10th Highest

5 10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2012

35

40 45 50

NM

UT

CO

GA

TX

AZ

Colorado has higher academic R&D spending per capita ($240 per capita) than its competitors, including its closest competitor Utah ($210) and the lowest ranked competitor Arizona ($150). New Mexico’s smaller population and high concentration of federal laboratories contribute to its high ranking, although its rank has declined consistently since 2007.

Fig. 30

Total R&D Spending at Academic Institutions per Capita National Science Foundation

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 28 3 32 47 17 11 5 26 45 18 8 44 30 35 4 29 42 31 48 1 2 24 34 38 20 19 15 46 14 43 7 16 9 23 36 40 25 10 12 39 50 41 27 6 22 37 21 49 13 33

2001 29 3 33 48 17 16 8 28 45 23 18 44 27 32 5 30 43 31 47 1 2 24 34 35 20 21 9 46 4 41 6 15 10 14 37 42 26 11 12 36 50 40 25 7 19 38 22 49 13 39

2002 27 3 35 49 18 17 8 30 45 22 19 44 26 32 6 28 41 31 47 1 2 24 34 33 23 20 11 46 4 43 7 16 12 5 36 42 29 9 13 37 50 39 25 10 15 38 21 48 14 40

2003 29 3 35 47 19 18 9 26 45 24 20 44 25 31 10 32 41 33 50 1 2 23 40 34 22 17 7 46 5 42 12 16 11 4 36 43 28 14 6 38 49 39 27 13 8 37 21 48 15 30

2004 30 4 36 50 17 18 9 26 47 24 6 43 27 28 10 32 41 31 46 1 2 25 40 33 21 19 8 49 5 42 20 13 16 3 35 44 23 12 11 39 45 38 29 15 7 37 22 48 14 34

2005 31 4 34 48 19 18 7 28 46 26 14 44 27 37 15 32 41 33 50 1 2 24 40 35 22 16 6 49 5 42 12 11 8 3 30 45 23 9 13 39 43 36 29 20 10 38 25 47 17 21

2006 31 4 35 46 18 19 10 29 45 28 11 50 26 32 14 33 41 36 44 1 2 25 40 34 23 17 8 49 5 42 6 9 15 3 27 47 24 13 7 39 43 38 30 21 12 37 22 48 16 20

2007 32 4 36 46 16 19 12 29 47 27 7 49 28 37 13 34 41 33 42 1 2 25 40 31 20 17 11 50 5 44 10 8 9 3 22 48 23 14 6 35 43 39 30 21 18 38 24 45 15 26

2008 30 18 38 48 14 16 12 29 47 23 8 49 27 32 19 33 41 31 44 1 2 22 37 34 20 15 7 50 4 43 9 10 6 3 25 46 26 11 5 39 42 40 28 24 17 36 21 45 13 35

2009 29 17 37 48 15 12 14 32 47 26 7 49 24 31 18 30 42 33 44 1 2 21 34 35 22 19 8 50 6 43 11 9 5 3 25 46 23 10 4 39 41 40 28 20 16 38 27 45 13 36

2010 24 17 38 48 15 12 7 23 46 31 9 49 28 29 11 30 41 35 47 1 2 21 34 37 32 18 22 50 10 42 19 6 5 3 26 43 25 8 4 40 33 39 27 16 14 36 20 44 13 45

2011 23 21 37 48 18 10 8 20 45 30 11 49 27 28 13 32 40 38 47 1 2 19 33 39 31 24 16 50 7 41 22 6 5 4 25 43 26 9 3 42 34 36 29 14 15 35 17 44 12 46

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2012 31 22 35 47 16 10 8 19 45 29 11 48 24 25 13 32 40 39 49 1 2 17 34 38 26 23 14 50 5 41 21 7 6 4 27 44 28 9 3 42 37 36 30 15 20 33 18 46 12 43

Ratio of Total R&D Expenditures to State GDP National Science Foundation

0

5 10

18th Highest

15 20 Rank 25

2003

30

2011

2008

35 40 45 50

NM MA MD WA

MI

CO

AR

NV

LA

SD

WY

A strong entrepreneurial economy and substantial public and private R&D investment contribute to Colorado’s high ranking. Total R&D spending—including industrial, federal, nonfederal, academic, and nonprofit expenditures—represents 2.6 percent of Colorado’s state GDP compared with 8.1 percent in New Mexico and 0.3 percent in Wyoming.

Fig. 31

Ratio of Total R&D Expenditures to State GDP National Science Foundation

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5

18th Highest

10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2011

35 40 45 50

NM

CO

UT

AZ

TX

GA

Colorado ranks higher (2.6 percent) than all of its competitors except New Mexico (8.1 percent) and Utah (2.7 percent) in R&D expenditures relative to state GDP. New Mexico’s high concentration of federal labs and R&D facilities contribute to its top ranking.

Fig. 32

Ratio of Total R&D Expenditures to State GDP National Science Foundation

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 29 44 18 46 8 14 11 6 34 36 45 9 12 24 32 25 42 48 37 4 5 1 16 41 29 39 39 47 26 10 2 23 21 38 17 43 22 15 7 34 49 31 27 19 13 20 3 33 28 50

2001 26 39 25 46 8 16 12 11 35 37 44 9 21 19 31 27 45 48 39 2 3 4 15 42 33 38 41 48 10 13 1 29 23 17 18 43 6 14 7 34 47 32 30 22 20 24 5 36 27 50

2002 26 40 15 48 8 16 7 12 39 35 40 9 21 20 31 22 44 46 37 4 2 6 13 42 34 43 38 46 11 10 1 29 28 30 19 45 14 17 5 32 49 33 27 18 24 23 3 36 25 50

2003 27 39 26 46 7 15 8 13 43 36 41 11 19 23 33 19 45 48 43 3 2 5 14 22 34 40 38 47 9 10 1 31 24 30 21 41 12 18 6 35 49 32 29 25 17 16 3 37 28 50

2004 24 43 27 46 8 11 7 17 40 35 39 18 22 20 33 21 44 48 40 2 3 4 13 42 32 37 37 46 9 10 1 31 23 15 26 45 12 16 5 34 49 30 29 24 14 19 6 35 27 50

2005 24 44 24 46 8 14 5 11 41 38 42 21 19 17 32 18 43 49 35 2 3 4 11 40 28 38 36 47 10 9 1 31 23 34 24 45 13 15 6 30 48 33 29 22 20 16 7 37 27 50

2006 22 44 25 47 8 13 7 12 42 35 43 26 18 17 32 19 40 49 39 3 2 4 11 41 28 38 36 46 9 10 1 31 23 34 20 45 15 16 6 30 48 32 29 24 20 14 5 37 27 50

2007 25 44 26 47 7 11 5 12 40 37 42 24 20 18 33 33 41 49 39 3 2 6 10 43 28 15 38 48 9 7 1 31 17 35 23 46 13 14 18 32 45 30 29 22 21 16 4 35 26 50

2008 10 49 14 44 7 20 4 13 42 36 40 17 26 19 31 28 41 48 39 2 3 9 16 43 29 38 37 45 7 6 1 33 24 29 23 46 12 18 15 35 47 32 27 21 22 11 5 34 25 50

2009 20 48 14 42 6 17 5 9 43 33 39 11 25 15 27 30 41 49 34 2 4 8 10 44 28 40 37 47 24 7 1 32 26 36 22 45 12 16 19 35 46 31 29 18 21 13 3 38 23 50

2010 22 45 23 48 5 18 11 9 36 34 38 12 17 20 27 29 41 49 40 2 3 6 15 43 7 37 39 44 10 8 1 32 26 35 25 47 14 21 13 33 46 31 29 16 28 19 4 41 24 50

2011 15 44 20 48 5 18 7 10 36 34 38 12 21 22 27 30 42 49 40 2 3 6 16 43 8 37 39 44 11 9 1 32 26 35 25 47 14 23 13 33 46 31 29 17 28 18 4 41 24 50

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Patents Granted per One Million Residents U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

0

10th Highest

5 10 15 20

2003 2008 2013

Rank 25 30 35 40 45 50

ID

VT

MA

MN

CA

CO

WV

HI

AK

AR

MS

Colorado’s high concentration of tech workers and strong research universities create an environment conducive to new inventions. With over 600 patents granted per one million residents in Colorado, the state vastly outranks states such as Mississippi (60) but is surpassed by top-ranked California (1,020).

Fig. 33

Patents Granted per One Million Residents U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 15 20 Rank 25 30 35 40 45 50

10th Highest

2003 2008 2013

CO

AZ

UT

TX

NM

GA

Colorado consistently outranks its competitors for patent activity. Colorado’s 600 patents awarded per one million residents in 2013 compares with 490 in Utah and 230 in New Mexico.

Fig. 34

Patents Granted per One Million Residents U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 47 46 20 45 6 10 3 8 28 30 49 1 16 24 26 33 43 42 44 23 5 12 4 50 35 37 34 27 7 9 29 14 25 39 17 32 11 21 15 38 41 36 22 18 2 31 19 48 13 40

2001 45 46 19 49 4 10 5 8 28 29 48 1 18 26 24 39 40 41 42 23 3 12 6 50 34 31 38 33 7 9 27 15 25 35 17 30 11 22 21 37 44 36 20 16 2 32 14 47 13 43

2002 45 48 18 47 3 11 6 10 33 29 49 1 19 24 26 28 42 44 40 20 4 12 5 50 34 36 38 35 7 9 27 15 25 39 16 37 8 21 23 31 43 32 22 17 2 30 14 46 13 41

2003 43 48 18 49 5 9 7 11 29 31 47 1 17 24 26 30 41 44 40 23 3 12 4 50 35 39 38 28 6 10 27 15 25 45 16 36 8 22 20 37 42 34 21 19 2 32 13 46 14 33

2004 44 46 18 49 4 8 9 10 30 31 47 1 20 26 24 29 40 45 42 23 3 11 5 50 33 35 38 27 7 13 28 15 25 43 19 36 6 22 16 37 39 34 21 17 2 32 12 48 14 41

2005 44 47 17 46 3 8 7 10 30 29 49 1 19 26 23 28 42 45 38 22 4 12 6 50 34 33 40 27 9 13 31 16 24 36 21 37 5 25 15 35 43 39 20 18 2 32 11 48 14 41

2006 44 47 19 48 3 10 8 11 31 28 46 1 17 26 25 27 41 45 40 22 5 13 6 50 35 36 37 29 9 12 30 15 24 39 21 32 4 23 16 34 43 38 20 18 2 33 7 49 14 42

2007 44 50 17 49 3 10 9 11 30 29 48 1 19 26 24 27 40 45 42 22 6 12 7 47 33 37 35 28 8 13 31 16 25 36 20 34 4 23 14 39 43 38 21 18 2 32 5 46 15 41

2008 45 50 16 47 4 11 8 10 30 29 42 2 18 27 25 26 40 46 41 22 5 13 7 49 33 37 36 28 9 12 32 15 23 39 19 34 6 24 17 38 44 35 21 20 1 31 3 48 14 43

2009 43 44 19 49 4 10 8 11 31 28 45 3 18 26 25 27 40 46 41 22 5 13 6 50 33 42 36 30 9 12 29 15 23 34 20 38 7 24 17 35 47 37 21 16 1 32 2 48 14 39

2010 43 50 19 47 3 11 9 12 32 29 44 6 18 26 25 27 40 46 35 24 4 13 5 49 33 42 41 28 8 10 30 14 23 34 17 38 7 22 20 39 45 36 21 15 1 31 2 48 16 37

2011 45 50 18 47 3 12 9 10 31 29 44 6 17 27 26 25 42 46 36 24 2 13 4 49 35 43 39 28 8 11 32 15 22 38 19 37 7 23 20 33 41 34 21 14 1 30 5 48 16 40

2012 44 49 20 47 2 10 6 11 30 29 46 8 18 26 27 19 40 45 37 28 1 13 5 50 35 43 36 24 9 12 33 15 23 41 21 42 7 25 17 34 39 38 22 14 4 31 3 48 16 32

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2013 44 49 22 48 1 10 8 13 31 29 45 9 17 26 27 19 42 46 36 28 2 12 4 50 34 43 37 23 7 11 33 15 24 38 20 41 6 25 18 35 40 39 21 14 5 30 3 47 16 32

State Technology and Science Index Milken Institute

0 5

10

4th Highest

15 Rank

20

2004

25

2008 2012

30 35 40 45 50

MA

CA

CO

MD

VA

WV

SD

KY

AR

MS

Colorado ranks highly for its R&D inputs, risk capital and entrepreneurial activity, human capital investments, and strong science and technology workforce. The report also notes that Colorado’s high ranking is due in part to a large amount of National Science Foundation (NSF) funding in the state, earning Colorado a first-place ranking in both of the STSI NSF indicators.

Fig. 35

State Technology and Science Index Milken Institute

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5

10 15

4th Highest

20

2004

Rank 25

2008

30

2012

35

40 45 50

CO

UT

NM

AZ

GA

TX

Colorado and Utah have both ranked in the top-10 states since 2004. The Milken Institute notes that the gap continues to widen between the top states and the rest of the nation, making it more difficult to break into the top 10. The top states experienced stronger economic recoveries than the other states, contributing to their higher STSI scores.

Fig. 36

State Technology and Science Index Milken Institute

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2002 32 38 18 50 3 2 8 11 29 15 43 26 19 30 35 22 46 44 36 4 1 24 10 49 28 34 32 42 13 7 20 12 17 45 27 37 23 16 21 41 47 40 14 9 31 5 6 48 25 38

2004 36 40 17 49 2 3 10 13 32 18 39 30 21 29 37 26 48 42 33 4 1 25 8 50 31 38 28 43 12 7 14 15 20 45 24 35 19 16 11 44 47 34 23 9 22 5 6 46 27 41

2008 29 44 17 48 4 3 7 14 37 25 28 27 21 33 35 24 47 46 39 2 1 26 11 50 30 32 34 45 9 12 16 15 18 31 36 38 23 13 10 42 41 40 20 8 19 6 5 49 22 43

2010 31 37 15 50 4 3 9 10 40 25 36 27 20 28 32 23 47 45 42 2 1 26 12 48 30 35 34 46 7 11 18 16 13 33 29 39 21 14 22 43 38 41 19 5 17 8 6 49 24 44

2012 30 41 16 49 3 4 9 8 38 26 36 34 18 27 31 24 45 44 39 2 1 23 12 50 29 37 33 47 10 15 22 13 21 32 28 40 20 11 17 43 42 35 19 7 14 6 5 48 25 46

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

High-Tech Employment per 1,000 Workers TechAmerica

3rd Highest

0 5 10 15 20 Rank 25

2003

30

2012

2008

35 40 45 50

CO

VA

MA

MD

NM

IN

WV

LA

WY

Colorado’s favorable wage structure, high quality of life, and diverse technology-based industries give the state one of the highest concentrations of high-tech employees in the country with 87 per 1,000 workers. Wyoming (22 per 1,000) ranks last.

MS Fig. 37

High-Tech Employment per 1,000 Workers TechAmerica

3rd Highest

Colorado vs. Competitors

0 5 10 15 Rank

20

2003

25

2008

30

2012

35 40 45 50

CO

NM

TX

AZ

UT

GA

Colorado and its competitors have consistently ranked in the top 25 states for high-tech worker concentration. According to TechAmerica’s Cyberstates 2013 report, Colorado has 87 high-tech employees for every 1,000 private sector workers. Georgia (53 per 1,000) is the lowest-ranking competitor.

Fig. 38

High-Tech Employment per 1,000 Workers TechAmerica

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 30 38 15 42 4 1 16 40 26 18 46 6 22 37 28 25 39 49 35 11 3 36 7 47 29 48 19 43 2 10 21 20 23 33 31 32 8 24 27 41 17 44 13 14 9 5 12 45 34 50

2001 29 38 15 43 5 1 16 41 27 17 46 9 22 40 34 19 37 48 33 11 2 36 10 49 25 44 20 45 3 12 21 18 23 32 31 30 6 26 28 39 24 42 13 14 7 4 8 47 35 50

2002 28 30 16 46 6 1 20 17 29 18 43 7 22 45 37 19 40 48 35 5 2 21 14 50 31 38 25 41 9 12 4 23 24 32 34 33 11 27 26 44 39 42 13 15 10 3 8 47 36 49

2003 22 30 14 44 6 1 20 17 28 19 42 7 26 46 36 18 40 48 38 4 3 21 16 50 31 37 29 41 9 11 5 24 25 32 34 33 12 27 23 43 39 45 13 15 10 2 8 47 35 49

2004 23 30 15 39 7 1 21 17 29 19 42 6 27 44 36 18 41 48 37 4 3 20 14 50 31 38 28 46 8 11 5 24 25 32 34 33 10 26 22 43 40 45 13 16 12 2 9 47 35 49

2005 23 29 16 39 7 3 21 17 28 18 41 6 27 44 35 19 40 45 37 4 2 20 14 50 31 38 30 47 8 11 5 25 24 32 34 36 10 26 22 42 43 46 15 13 12 1 9 48 33 49

2006 23 28 16 41 6 3 21 18 29 19 40 9 27 45 35 17 42 43 37 4 2 20 14 49 31 38 30 47 7 10 5 25 24 32 34 36 11 26 22 39 44 46 15 13 12 1 8 48 33 50

2007 23 27 18 43 7 3 20 21 30 17 41 10 28 44 35 16 42 45 37 5 2 19 14 50 29 37 31 47 8 9 4 25 24 31 34 36 12 26 22 37 40 46 15 13 11 1 6 48 33 49

2008 22 26 16 46 7 3 20 18 25 19 42 9 27 43 35 17 40 45 39 4 2 21 14 49 30 38 31 47 8 10 5 29 24 32 33 36 12 27 23 37 41 44 15 13 11 1 6 48 34 50

2010 19 29 16 47 7 3 22 18 25 17 40 11 27 41 36 23 38 45 43 4 2 21 14 49 30 37 31 46 8 10 5 28 24 33 32 38 12 26 20 35 44 42 15 9 13 1 6 46 34 50

2012 22 26 17 47 7 3 23 13 29 18 39 12 27 40 35 24 38 46 44 4 2 19 15 49 30 37 32 45 8 10 6 25 21 36 31 41 11 28 20 34 43 42 16 9 14 1 5 48 33 50

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Average High-Tech Worker Wage TechAmerica

6th Highest

0 5 10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2012

35 40 45 50

WA

CA

MA

NJ

DE

CO

ND

MT

MS

WY

In 2012, Colorado had the sixth-highest high-tech worker wage. Colorado’s 2012 average annual high-tech wage ($97,100) was 98 percent higher than the private-sector average. California ($123,900) ranked first in 2012 while South Dakota ($54,100) ranked last.

SD Fig. 39

Average High-Tech Worker Wage TechAmerica

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

6th Highest

5 10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2012

35 40

45 50

CO

TX

GA

AZ

NM

UT

High-tech worker wages increased an average of 7.5 percent in the competitor states from 2010 to 2012. Colorado ($97,100) had the highest wage among the competitor states and Utah ($71,300) had the lowest.

Fig. 40

Average High-Tech Worker Wage TechAmerica

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 35 24 16 41 2 6 7 17 25 12 26 13 11 37 47 19 45 44 42 15 3 22 20 46 29 49 34 30 14 5 31 9 18 50 27 38 8 21 23 40 43 33 10 32 28 4 1 48 36 39

2001 33 26 18 43 2 8 7 6 28 15 25 27 14 37 42 31 40 39 41 11 3 12 20 45 24 48 36 23 16 5 30 10 17 50 29 44 13 19 21 38 49 35 9 32 22 4 1 46 34 47

2002 32 27 19 44 2 7 8 5 28 15 26 24 14 37 42 29 41 40 39 9 3 13 20 46 25 47 36 23 12 4 31 10 18 49 30 43 16 17 21 38 50 35 11 33 22 6 1 45 34 48

2003 30 32 20 44 2 7 8 5 31 16 25 26 15 37 41 27 39 42 38 9 3 12 17 48 24 47 36 22 11 4 28 10 18 46 29 43 14 19 21 40 50 35 13 34 23 6 1 45 33 49

2004 31 32 21 43 1 7 9 4 29 16 26 27 15 37 41 23 38 42 39 8 2 14 18 49 24 47 36 22 13 3 28 10 17 45 30 44 12 20 19 40 50 34 11 35 25 6 5 46 33 48

2005 32 31 22 42 1 7 10 6 28 16 26 27 12 37 39 24 41 43 40 8 2 14 20 48 23 45 35 17 13 3 29 9 18 46 30 44 15 19 21 38 49 36 11 33 25 5 4 47 34 50

2006 31 32 18 43 1 5 12 7 29 14 25 27 13 38 39 24 41 42 40 10 2 17 21 48 26 47 35 22 11 3 28 9 19 44 30 45 15 20 16 37 50 34 8 36 23 6 4 46 33 49

2007 33 31 18 43 1 5 10 7 30 14 26 28 15 38 39 22 42 40 41 9 2 16 20 49 21 48 32 24 12 4 23 8 19 45 29 44 13 17 25 37 50 34 11 36 27 6 3 47 35 46

2008 31 26 17 40 1 6 9 10 32 16 25 30 15 38 42 23 43 39 41 8 2 14 19 49 21 45 37 24 12 4 22 7 20 48 28 44 13 18 27 36 50 33 11 34 29 5 3 47 35 46

2010 30 25 14 42 1 7 10 13 31 17 29 28 18 40 41 23 45 39 37 8 2 22 19 49 20 48 38 26 11 4 21 6 16 43 32 46 9 15 24 35 50 33 12 34 27 5 3 44 36 47

2012 31 30 13 43 1 6 12 9 28 17 29 23 15 38 41 24 45 37 40 8 2 21 18 49 20 46 39 26 14 4 22 7 19 42 33 44 10 16 25 36 50 32 11 34 27 5 3 47 35 48

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Clean Tech Leadership Index Clean Edge, Inc.

0

4th Best

5 10 15 20 Rank 25

2011 2014

30 35 40 45 50

CA

OR

MA

NY

CO

NE

AR

AL

MS

WV

The Clean Tech Leadership Index uses more than 70 indicators in three categories (technology, policy, and capital) to measure states’ clean-energy sectors. The indicators include clean electricity, clean transportation, green building, regulations, incentives, financial capital, and human capital. Colorado has maintained a top-five ranking since the index introduction in 2011.

Fig. 41

Clean Tech Leadership Index Clean Edge, Inc.

4th Best

Colorado vs. Competitors

0 5 10 15 20 Rank 25

2011 2014

30 35 40 45 50

CO

NM

TX

AZ

UT

GA

Colorado’s ambitious energy policies, national lab network, and substantial private and government funding gives the state an edge among the competitor states. The index also notes that Colorado offers a vibrant ecosystem for cleantech startups. Colorado’s rank improved to fourth in 2014 from fifth in 2011 to 2013.

Fig. 42

Clean Energy Leadership Index Clean Edge, Inc.

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2011 48 43 24 47 1 5 9 17 31 35 16 32 12 33 19 34 39 45 23 25 3 14 7 49 37 26 46 20 11 13 7 4 27 44 30 41 2 22 21 36 38 40 18 29 10 28 6 50 15 42

2012 46 42 25 48 1 5 11 21 29 34 14 31 7 35 17 33 40 43 16 17 3 12 10 50 39 30 45 23 15 17 8 6 28 47 31 41 2 24 20 37 38 36 13 26 9 27 4 49 21 44

2013 41 46 16 47 1 5 10 25 34 29 10 26 8 33 18 38 40 44 26 21 2 12 9 50 45 31 42 20 14 13 7 4 24 48 30 39 3 23 17 37 36 35 22 32 15 28 6 49 19 43

2014 43 48 22 44 1 4 10 21 30 25 12 36 8 32 23 34 40 42 29 20 2 14 15 50 41 33 46 17 16 10 6 5 23 47 28 37 3 26 13 35 39 38 18 31 9 27 7 49 19 45

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Taxes

Lowest State Tax Revenue per Capita U.S. Census Bureau, Government Finance Series 11th Lowest

0 5 10 15 Rank

20

2003

25

2008

30

2012

35

40 45 50

TX

SD

AL

CO

TN

VT

DE

CT

MN

HI

Colorado has a decentralized tax structure with low levels of state government taxation. Colorado ranked 11th in 2012 with an average of $1,980 per person received in state tax revenue. Georgia ($1,670) ranked first for the third-consecutive year while Alaska ($9,640) ranked last for the sixthstraight year due to its high level of energy-related tax revenues.

Fig. 43

Lowest State Tax Revenue per Capita U.S. Census Bureau, Government Finance Series

Colorado vs. Competitors 11th Lowest

0 5 10 15 20 Rank 25

2003 2008

30

2012

35 40 45 50

TX

CO

GA

AZ

UT

NM

With the exception of New Mexico ($2,440), all of the competitor states have low state tax burdens. Georgia ($1,670), Texas ($1,870), Colorado ($1,980), Arizona ($1,980), and Utah ($2,040) all ranked in the top-15 states.

Fig. 44

Lowest State Tax Revenue per Capita U.S. Census Bureau, Government Finance Series

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 5 41 10 24 45 12 50 48 8 13 49 28 27 15 20 23 32 6 37 35 46 42 47 14 7 9 19 30 4 39 36 40 31 25 17 16 18 26 33 11 1 3 2 21 44 22 38 29 43 34

2001 5 40 8 28 45 15 50 46 6 16 49 32 27 11 18 26 31 10 34 33 47 39 48 13 7 12 19 22 3 41 38 43 30 24 17 23 14 25 36 9 1 4 2 20 44 21 35 29 37 42

2002 4 19 11 31 43 10 47 49 8 13 50 17 27 16 20 26 32 14 37 35 45 41 48 15 9 12 21 29 7 39 33 44 30 24 25 22 5 28 36 6 1 3 2 18 46 23 38 34 40 42

2003 3 19 10 30 41 4 48 47 11 9 50 18 21 24 15 25 35 14 36 34 45 42 49 20 6 13 32 26 7 43 31 39 29 27 23 17 12 28 37 8 2 5 1 16 46 22 38 33 40 44

2004 5 29 10 27 42 3 48 46 16 9 50 19 26 21 14 23 30 12 35 36 44 39 47 17 6 15 33 28 4 43 34 41 25 22 24 18 11 31 37 8 2 7 1 13 45 20 38 32 40 49

2005 7 43 11 34 42 4 47 46 14 9 49 21 22 20 17 19 28 15 32 37 44 33 45 12 5 18 27 23 3 41 31 40 26 30 24 16 10 29 39 8 1 6 2 13 50 25 35 36 38 48

2006 8 47 19 32 43 7 46 44 17 9 48 13 20 14 10 25 26 24 39 37 41 29 45 11 4 21 22 30 3 42 38 40 27 34 18 16 12 28 36 6 1 5 2 15 49 23 35 33 31 50

2007 6 50 19 33 40 7 46 43 11 8 48 21 22 14 12 28 18 30 39 35 41 23 45 13 4 24 17 26 2 44 38 42 29 36 15 16 10 27 34 9 1 5 3 20 49 25 37 31 32 47

2008 8 50 12 33 39 10 47 40 9 7 46 24 21 22 15 30 20 26 38 37 42 27 43 16 3 28 23 18 2 44 31 41 25 45 13 14 11 29 32 5 1 4 6 17 48 19 36 35 34 49

2009 9 50 11 35 39 10 45 42 7 5 46 14 18 27 26 28 23 24 37 38 40 25 43 20 8 31 22 16 1 41 29 44 19 47 15 21 12 30 32 4 3 2 6 13 48 17 33 36 34 49

2010 11 50 4 36 39 10 45 42 8 1 46 13 17 23 27 29 26 16 37 38 41 30 43 22 6 25 20 24 9 40 21 44 28 48 18 14 15 31 33 3 5 7 2 12 49 19 32 35 34 47

2011 10 50 3 35 40 11 46 41 7 1 44 15 21 22 27 28 26 12 37 36 42 29 45 20 5 23 19 25 9 39 30 43 24 49 18 14 16 31 33 2 4 8 6 13 47 17 32 38 34 48

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2012 9 50 12 34 39 11 46 42 4 1 45 14 35 23 28 30 22 10 36 38 41 24 44 20 5 26 21 27 2 40 25 43 19 49 17 18 16 31 32 3 6 7 8 13 47 15 29 37 33 48

State Business Tax Climate Index The Tax Foundation

0 5 10 15

20th Best

20

2003 2008 2014

Rank25 30

35 40 45 50

WY

SD

AK

NV

FL

CO

MN

OH

NJ

RI

NY

The State Business Tax Climate Index consists of five components. Despite favorable rankings on the Corporate Tax (#12) and Individual Income Tax (#16) components, Colorado’s rank on the overall index (#20) was pulled down by low rankings on the Sales Tax (#43) and Unemployment Insurance Tax (#35) components. Colorado ranked 22nd on the Property Tax component.

Fig. 45

State Business Tax Climate Index The Tax Foundation

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5

20th Best

10 15 20

2003 2008 2014

Rank 25 30 35 40 45 50

TX

CO

UT

GA

NM

AZ

Colorado’s business tax climate index rank shows the state has a more favorable tax climate than each of its competitors except Texas and Utah. The Tax Foundation notes that top-10 states usually don’t levy one of the major taxes. Utah is one of two exceptions, with each of the major taxes levied, Utah ranks highly because of its low rates and broad tax base.

Fig. 46

State Business Tax Climate Index The Tax Foundation

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2003 17 3 34 33 43 11 40 10 5 24 22 31 19 8 45 29 31 38 35 22 26 26 45 21 17 13 42 3 7 48 29 50 43 39 47 20 9 28 49 25 2 15 6 16 41 14 12 36 37 1

2004 18 3 31 35 39 12 41 8 5 22 21 28 25 10 43 32 28 36 38 24 34 28 42 18 16 13 45 4 7 47 25 50 44 37 48 20 9 27 49 23 2 17 6 14 46 15 11 33 40 1

2005 16 3 29 35 42 13 41 9 5 20 24 30 26 12 44 33 38 32 42 25 35 28 39 19 14 8 45 4 6 48 23 49 40 31 47 21 10 22 50 27 2 17 7 15 46 17 11 34 37 1

2006 22 4 29 36 48 11 39 8 5 21 16 25 31 12 45 35 28 33 36 24 33 23 43 19 15 6 41 3 7 50 25 46 42 32 47 20 9 29 49 27 2 17 10 18 44 14 13 38 40 1

2007 23 3 25 37 49 10 38 9 5 28 18 21 24 13 46 31 27 34 35 47 33 17 42 21 16 6 40 4 7 50 29 45 41 32 48 19 8 30 44 25 2 20 11 12 43 15 13 36 39 1

2008 20 4 24 35 48 13 37 10 5 27 22 29 23 14 44 31 34 33 40 45 32 20 41 19 16 6 42 3 7 50 26 49 39 30 47 18 8 28 46 25 1 17 9 11 43 15 11 36 38 1

2009 19 2 28 40 48 13 38 8 5 28 24 18 28 12 46 32 20 35 34 45 36 17 43 21 16 6 33 4 7 50 23 49 39 25 47 31 14 26 44 26 1 22 11 10 41 15 9 36 42 2

2010 21 3 26 32 49 17 40 12 5 35 34 22 16 11 42 25 24 31 38 43 28 19 44 18 14 7 30 4 6 50 37 48 46 33 39 29 15 20 47 36 2 13 9 10 45 23 8 27 41 1

2011 25 4 26 31 48 17 40 13 5 34 33 18 29 11 39 24 22 32 37 42 20 27 44 16 15 6 35 3 7 50 38 49 45 28 43 30 12 21 46 36 2 14 9 8 47 23 10 19 41 1

2012 26 4 27 33 48 19 42 14 5 36 31 18 30 10 39 25 21 32 29 40 23 13 45 17 16 6 34 3 7 49 38 50 44 28 43 35 12 22 47 37 2 15 9 8 46 24 11 20 41 1

2013 25 4 22 37 48 20 41 14 5 35 30 18 29 8 39 19 24 32 28 40 23 13 47 17 16 6 34 3 7 50 38 49 44 27 42 33 12 31 45 36 2 15 10 9 46 26 11 21 43 1

2014 28 4 23 39 48 20 42 14 5 36 30 19 31 8 41 22 26 35 33 40 24 13 47 18 17 6 29 3 7 50 38 49 16 25 44 32 12 34 45 37 2 15 10 9 46 27 11 21 43 1

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

State Business Tax Climate Index: Corporate Tax Index The Tax Foundation

0 12th Best

5 10 15 20

2003 2008 2014

Rank 25 30 35 40 45 50

NV

SD

WY

VA

UT

CO

CA

DE

MI

NJ

NH

Colorado’s flat corporate tax benefits larger corporations. In addition, the single-factor apportionment method implemented in 2009 allows companies to pay taxes based solely on sales in Colorado. States with no corporate tax rank highest. Michigan’s rank jumped to the top 10 in 2012 with the implementation of major corporate tax reform and the elimination of a gross receipts tax.

Fig. 47

State Business Tax Climate Index: Corporate Tax Index The Tax Foundation

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

12th Best

5 10 15 Rank

20

2003 2008 2014

25 30 35 40 45 50

UT

GA

CO

TX

AZ

NM

States that scored well on the Corporate Tax Index combined low, flat tax rates with fair, efficient, and impartial tax laws. Colorado’s rank improved considerably in 2014 with the expiration of a temporary limit on the amount of net operating loss deductions that a business can carry forward, from 20th in 2013 to 12th in 2014.

Fig. 48

State Business Tax Climate Index: Corporate Tax Index The Tax Foundation

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2003 20 28 29 38 46 15 25 47 13 6 9 22 16 21 42 40 24 19 41 7 45 48 43 8 10 14 34 1 50 49 38 26 27 35 37 12 22 44 35 11 1 17 18 5 31 4 33 30 32 1

2004 27 29 23 37 46 15 23 47 13 6 9 20 16 23 41 39 22 18 40 7 44 48 42 8 10 14 34 3 50 49 37 26 28 45 36 12 20 43 35 11 1 18 17 5 30 4 32 33 31 1

2005 22 28 25 37 40 15 18 47 14 6 9 20 30 23 43 39 33 19 42 7 45 49 44 8 10 16 35 1 48 50 38 24 26 29 46 13 21 41 36 11 1 12 17 5 30 4 34 26 32 1

2006 21 27 24 36 40 15 28 48 14 6 9 19 30 22 46 38 43 18 44 7 47 49 45 8 10 16 34 1 50 40 37 23 25 29 39 13 20 42 35 11 1 12 17 4 30 5 33 25 32 1

2007 21 26 23 34 45 16 18 48 14 9 12 17 28 22 46 37 39 18 43 7 47 49 44 9 5 15 31 1 50 40 34 23 25 30 36 8 18 41 33 11 1 13 41 6 32 4 37 27 29 1

2008 19 27 24 34 45 14 18 49 13 8 11 17 28 23 46 37 38 20 43 15 47 48 44 10 5 16 32 1 50 39 35 22 25 29 33 7 20 41 40 9 1 12 42 6 31 4 36 25 29 1

2009 23 26 22 39 34 12 18 49 15 8 10 17 27 21 45 40 42 19 43 14 47 48 44 13 5 16 34 3 50 40 32 20 24 29 38 7 31 36 36 9 1 11 46 6 28 4 33 24 29 1

2010 24 27 29 35 44 14 19 50 15 8 10 18 28 22 48 36 25 17 47 13 37 49 45 11 6 16 33 1 46 40 34 21 25 30 20 7 39 38 41 9 1 12 43 4 41 5 32 23 30 1

2011 22 26 27 36 43 18 31 50 12 9 5 17 45 24 48 35 25 16 47 14 34 49 42 10 4 15 33 1 46 39 38 21 28 19 20 8 30 44 40 11 1 13 37 6 41 7 23 29 32 1

2012 24 29 23 37 44 19 35 50 13 9 5 18 47 27 49 36 28 17 45 15 33 8 43 10 4 16 34 1 48 40 39 22 30 20 21 11 31 46 41 12 1 14 38 6 42 7 25 26 32 1

2013 27 29 25 40 32 20 31 50 13 7 8 17 47 23 49 38 28 18 45 15 35 9 44 10 4 16 37 1 48 41 36 24 30 21 22 11 33 46 43 12 1 14 39 5 42 6 26 19 34 1

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2014 27 30 24 40 34 12 32 50 14 8 9 21 47 22 49 38 29 23 45 16 37 10 44 11 4 18 31 1 48 41 35 20 25 19 26 7 36 46 43 13 1 15 39 5 42 6 28 17 33 1

Lowest State and Local Tax Burdens on New Investment Council on State Taxation

0

5 18th Lowest

10 15 Rank

20 2011

25 30 35 40 45 50

ME

OR

OH

WI

IL

CO

HI

LA

KS

RI

NM

According to the Council on State Taxation, Colorado’s state and local effective tax rate (6.8 percent) for new investment is below the U.S. average rate of 7.9 percent. Effective tax rates were weighted for each state according to the amount of investments in headquarters, R&D facilities, durable and nondurable manufacturing facilities, offices, and call centers.

Fig. 49

Lowest State and Local Tax Burdens on New Investment Council on State Taxation

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5

18th Lowest

10 15 20

2011

Rank 25

30 35

40 45

50

GA

UT

CO

TX

AZ

NM

New Mexico (16.6 percent) imposes the highest burden on new investment of any state. New Mexico’s corporate income apportionment system, high corporate tax rate, and gross receipts tax all contributed to the state’s poor ranking and its burden on new investments.

Fig. 50

Lowest State and Local Tax Burdens on New Investment Council on State Taxation State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2011 42 24 39 36 29 18 36 8 27 16 46 29 5 18 13 48 15 47 1 12 32 24 10 44 21 11 40 32 6 28 50 21 34 26 3 35 2 21 49 36 13 45 20 17 31 6 40 42 4 9

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Small Business Policy Index Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

0 5

14th Best

10 15 Rank

20 25

2008

30

2013

35 40 45 50

SD

NV

WY

FL

WA

CO

MN

RI

ME

CA

NJ

The Small Business Policy Index uses 47 factors including policies, taxes, and costs that affect small businesses to determine which states have the best public policy climates for entrepreneurship and small business growth. Colorado ranked as the 14 th-best state in 2013.

Fig. 51

Small Business Policy Index Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 14th Best

5 10 15

20 Rank 25

2008 2013

30 35 40 45 50

TX

CO

GA

AZ

UT

NM

Texas, Colorado, Arizona, and Utah outrank Georgia and New Mexico in the Small Business Policy Index. While Colorado ranked behind only Texas in 2008, Colorado was the fourth-highest ranked competitor in 2013. New Mexico is the only competitor that ranked in the bottom half of the nation.

Fig. 52

Small Business Survival Index Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2008 8 16 13 30 49 10 37 34 4 12 41 35 24 20 42 31 23 27 48 38 44 19 46 17 14 33 36 2 28 50 29 45 39 22 18 21 32 25 47 7 1 11 6 15 43 9 5 40 26 3

2011 6 21 15 18 46 9 44 31 8 16 39 27 40 20 41 23 22 26 45 38 42 29 43 12 17 30 36 2 33 49 28 50 37 13 7 19 34 35 47 5 1 25 3 14 48 10 11 32 24 4

2013 7 20 13 36 50 14 41 34 5 22 46 32 35 8 43 23 30 21 44 37 38 11 45 16 26 33 39 2 19 49 27 47 31 12 9 24 42 25 40 17 1 18 3 10 48 15 6 28 29 4

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Business Tax Index Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council 9th Best

0 5 10 15 20

2008

Rank 25

2014

30 35 40 45 50

SD

NV

WY

WA

FL

CO

ME

IA

CA

MN

NJ

The Business Tax Index utilizes 21 measures to analyze the effect of state tax systems on small businesses and entrepreneurship. Colorado ranks as a top-10 state for its low corporate income tax rate, low top corporate capital gains tax rate, and low unemployment taxes. Colorado ranked ninth overall.

Fig. 53

Business Tax Index Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

Colorado vs. Competitors 9th Best

0 5 10 15 Rank

20

2008

25

2014

30 35 40

45 50

TX

CO

AZ

GA

NM

UT

Colorado and Texas are top-10 ranked states in the Business Tax Index. Georgia ranks in the bottom half of the states while New Mexico ranks in the bottom five. New Mexico’s top corporate income tax rate and its higher sales, gross receipts, and excise tax burdens are challenges for the state.

Fig. 54

Business Tax Index

Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2008 9 6 17 24 48 8 33 22 5 18 40 41 19 21 47 35 27 29 46 30 43 20 49 10 13 31 38 2 26 50 23 44 37 34 14 16 36 28 45 11 1 12 7 25 42 15 4 39 32 3

2010 7 8 17 20 48 10 38 30 6 21 40 39 18 19 45 32 22 24 46 31 42 29 49 11 16 28 36 3 34 50 25 47 37 27 9 14 43 26 41 12 1 13 2 23 44 15 5 35 33 4

2012 8 7 17 23 45 10 42 33 6 20 43 36 39 27 47 29 26 22 46 32 35 12 50 11 15 30 37 3 25 49 24 48 38 21 9 18 40 28 41 13 1 14 2 19 44 16 5 31 34 4

2013 7 10 13 36 50 8 41 35 6 26 49 37 33 19 47 25 29 16 45 34 31 11 43 14 21 30 40 3 20 48 27 44 38 24 9 22 42 23 39 17 2 15 1 12 46 18 5 28 32 4

2014 7 10 13 35 50 9 41 36 6 27 47 38 34 11 46 26 32 21 44 33 31 12 49 16 23 30 40 1 45 18 48 28 22 14 8 24 42 25 39 19 2 17 3 15 43 20 5 29 37 4

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Workers’ Compensation Rates Oregon Department of Consumer & Business Services

0

8th Lowest

5 10 15 Rank

20

2004

25

2008

30

2012

35 40 45 50

ND

IN

AZ

AR

VA

CO OH

HI

FL

AK

CA

Colorado’s average workers’ compensation rate of $1.42 per $100 of payroll in 2012 was nearly 50 percent lower than it had been in 2000. Colorado’s average rate has declined steadily since reform measures were introduced in 1991-1992.

Fig. 55

Lowest Workers’ Compensation Rates Oregon Department of Consumer & Business Services

Colorado vs. Competitors 8th Lowest

0 5 10

15 20 Rank 25

2004 2008

30

2012

35 40 45

50

AZ

UT

GA

CO

NM

TX

Colorado’s workers’ compensation rates declined by 50 percent throughout the 2000 decade, leading to a consistent improvement in the state’s ranking. Among the competitor states, the average rate per $100 of payroll ranges from $1.88 in New Mexico to $1.35 in Utah.

Fig. 56

Lowest Workers’ Compensation Rates Oregon Department of Consumer & Business Services

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 34 24 14 12 48 38 35 35 50 31 43 23 37 2 10 4 28 49 33 5 14 29 29 21 26 40 7 46 32 25 10 44 9 17 42 41 18 27 47 3 8 21 44 5 19 1 14 39 20 13

2002 40 36 6 5 50 32 39 47 49 25 48 26 32 2 9 11 36 44 23 11 15 21 31 19 27 42 13 41 35 21 16 43 18 1 38 34 17 30 45 10 4 23 45 8 28 3 7 29 20 14

2004 33 49 3 4 50 21 41 44 48 15 47 18 29 2 9 8 45 42 38 12 7 22 31 16 30 43 14 26 40 23 25 34 20 1 46 37 10 32 36 13 10 27 38 6 35 4 17 28 19 24

2006 42 50 6 4 49 23 37 48 45 11 36 20 31 2 7 9 47 40 43 12 5 13 31 20 27 46 19 22 33 29 25 41 15 1 39 38 10 34 30 27 8 26 35 14 44 3 15 18 17 23

2008 43 50 7 5 38 9 31 44 23 26 16 18 41 2 11 10 44 40 46 8 3 20 27 27 23 49 20 33 37 35 20 32 29 1 48 42 13 36 25 39 16 30 34 6 47 4 14 11 18 15

2010 41 49 13 3 46 4 45 17 11 27 11 22 48 2 15 8 36 26 43 9 7 28 35 20 18 50 21 30 41 44 19 38 28 1 34 47 10 37 23 39 23 31 39 6 33 4 25 16 32 14

2012 30 50 14 3 48 8 49 21 22 24 16 32 47 2 26 10 29 36 41 17 7 19 34 9 15 43 18 5 42 44 24 46 26 1 23 45 12 39 31 35 28 32 13 6 37 4 38 11 39 20

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest State Sales Tax Rates The Sales Tax Institute 6th Lowest

0 5 10 15 20 Rank 25

2008 2014

30 35

40 45 50

AK

DE

MT

NH

OR

CO

IN

MS

NJ

RI

TN

The state sales tax rate in Colorado (2.9 percent) is among the lowest in the country. States ranked higher than Colorado charge no sales tax. States ranked in the bottom six have rates of 7 percent or higher. California ranks last in 2014 with a 7.5 percent rate.

Fig. 57

Lowest State Sales Tax Rates The Sales Tax Institute

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

6th Lowest

5 10 15 Rank

20

2008

25

2014

30 35 40 45 50

CO

GA

UT

NM

AZ

TX

The majority of sales taxes in Colorado are levied by city governments. While the state sales tax rate in Colorado has dropped since the 1980s, residents in many areas of the state have voted to increase sales taxes at the local level. Combined state and local sales tax rates range from 3.25 percent to 9.25 percent in the seven-county Metro Denver region.

Fig. 58

Lowest State Sales Tax Rates The Sales Tax Institute

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2006 7 1 30 31 41 6 31 1 31 7 7 31 41 31 19 27 31 7 19 19 19 31 44 47 15 1 28 44 1 47 19 7 16 19 28 17 1 31 47 19 7 47 41 18 31 7 44 31 19 7

2007 7 1 29 30 41 6 30 1 30 7 7 30 41 30 19 26 30 7 19 19 19 30 44 47 15 1 27 44 1 47 19 7 16 19 27 17 1 30 47 30 7 47 41 18 30 7 44 30 19 7

2008 7 1 27 28 40 6 28 1 28 7 7 28 40 46 28 24 28 7 19 28 19 28 43 46 15 1 25 43 1 46 19 7 16 19 25 17 1 28 46 28 7 46 40 18 28 7 43 28 19 7

2009 7 1 27 28 50 6 28 1 28 7 7 28 40 45 28 24 28 7 19 28 19 28 42 45 15 1 25 42 1 45 19 7 16 19 25 16 1 28 45 28 7 45 40 18 28 7 42 28 19 7

2010 7 1 42 25 50 6 25 1 25 7 7 25 37 45 25 40 25 7 18 25 37 25 44 45 15 1 22 43 1 45 21 7 24 18 22 16 1 25 45 25 7 45 37 17 25 7 41 25 18 7

2011 7 1 43 25 36 6 41 1 25 7 7 25 36 46 25 40 25 7 19 25 36 25 45 46 15 1 23 44 1 46 22 7 18 19 23 16 1 25 46 25 7 46 36 17 25 7 42 25 19 7

2012 7 1 43 25 36 6 41 1 25 7 7 25 36 46 25 40 25 7 19 25 36 25 45 46 15 1 23 44 1 46 22 7 18 19 23 16 1 25 46 25 7 46 36 17 25 7 42 25 19 7

2013 7 1 25 41 50 6 40 1 26 7 7 26 37 45 26 36 26 7 19 26 37 26 44 45 14 1 23 43 1 45 22 7 18 19 23 16 1 26 45 26 7 45 37 17 26 15 41 26 19 7

2014 7 1 24 41 50 6 40 1 26 7 7 26 37 45 26 36 26 7 22 26 37 26 44 45 14 1 22 43 1 45 21 7 18 19 25 16 1 26 45 26 7 45 37 17 26 15 41 26 19 7

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Residential Property Tax Rate in Largest City in Each State District of Columbia, Office of the Chief Financial Officer

0 5 10

5th Lowest

15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2012

35 40

45 50

HI

CO

WY

AL

WV

TX

PA

NJ

CT

RI

Passed in 1982, the Gallagher Amendment has kept the assessment ratio of residential property in Colorado low. As a result, Colorado has the fifth-lowest residential property tax rate in the nation. The effective rate in Colorado of $0.70 per $100 of property value is only 20 percent of the effective rate in Ohio ($3.57 per $100 of value), the lowest-ranked state in 2012.

Fig. 59

Lowest Residential Property Tax Rate in Largest City in Each State District of Columbia, Office of the Chief Financial Officer

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

5th Lowest

5 10 15 20 Rank 25

2003 2008

30

2012

35 40 45 50

CO

AZ

NM

UT

GA

TX

Colorado has lower residential property taxes than any of its competitors, averaging $0.70 per $100 of property value. Texas’ tax structure is more reliant on property tax than other types of taxes such as income tax, making the state’s property tax rate average $2.53 per $100 of value.

Fig. 60

Lowest Residential Property Tax Rate in Largest City in Each State District of Columbia, Office of the Chief Financial Officer

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 2 31 8 17 10 3 50 19 38 36 1 33 7 37 43 18 20 32 41 42 21 35 16 29 23 26 34 9 47 48 14 5 13 40 29 15 23 45 49 25 27 28 44 22 39 11 11 6 46 3

2003 4 26 14 21 7 2 49 23 38 34 1 31 28 41 41 17 15 31 36 31 43 18 12 19 28 26 39 8 45 48 16 10 11 40 23 12 34 47 50 22 25 30 46 20 37 9 6 5 44 3

2004 4 28 19 20 15 2 47 21 38 30 1 31 33 48 41 17 9 33 40 43 14 36 17 29 12 26 39 8 45 42 16 11 10 37 23 12 22 45 49 35 27 31 50 24 25 7 6 5 44 3

2005 4 27 20 19 10 2 47 22 34 29 1 33 24 50 41 18 17 32 27 42 13 36 15 30 25 26 37 9 46 38 15 3 12 39 23 11 13 44 48 30 40 35 49 21 45 7 8 6 43 5

2006 4 25 9 22 11 2 48 24 30 32 1 20 28 50 41 21 18 32 26 43 10 38 16 30 14 27 37 12 46 39 19 3 15 40 32 16 13 44 49 35 23 36 47 28 45 7 8 6 42 5

2007 5 29 10 27 13 2 50 31 33 35 1 18 5 49 43 24 23 25 32 46 13 41 16 38 17 28 40 15 19 34 30 3 22 41 36 21 12 48 45 11 26 39 47 19 36 9 7 7 44 4

2008 6 35 9 27 16 2 49 30 31 33 1 25 4 50 42 28 22 24 32 44 12 43 17 35 20 3 39 18 34 29 26 11 15 41 40 21 12 48 45 14 23 37 47 19 38 10 7 8 46 4

2009 9 30 11 26 15 3 49 29 35 23 1 31 2 50 43 24 21 25 38 45 13 42 19 33 28 7 41 16 36 32 27 4 14 33 37 20 16 48 44 12 22 39 46 16 40 6 8 10 47 5

2010 6 23 10 22 11 3 47 33 35 29 1 28 2 48 25 20 49 20 35 40 14 45 16 25 24 33 39 12 30 30 19 4 12 25 44 17 15 46 50 37 18 32 41 42 38 7 9 8 42 5

2011 6 26 10 17 11 3 45 28 28 23 1 31 2 48 41 17 43 22 32 40 16 46 19 25 20 28 38 12 27 39 21 5 13 24 50 14 14 47 49 34 34 32 42 36 37 8 9 7 44 4

2012 5 30 15 20 13 5 44 31 32 27 2 1 3 47 42 21 41 26 34 40 18 45 23 29 24 11 37 14 38 39 25 7 16 28 50 17 19 46 49 35 22 33 43 7 36 10 12 9 48 4

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Tax Burden for Family with $50,000 Annual Income in Largest City District of Columbia, Office of the Chief Financial Officer

0

11th Lowest

5 10 15 Rank

20

2003 2008 2012

25 30 35

40 45

50

FL

WY

AK

NV

SD

CO

NY

RI

PA

NJ

CT

This tax burden measure includes sales, auto, income, and property taxes. While tax burdens vary widely across income levels, Colorado’s tax burden ($3,830) tends to be one of the lowest among the 50 states. Connecticut’s burden ($9,640) was the highest in the nation in 2012.

Fig. 61

Lowest Tax Burden for Family with $50,000 Annual Income in Largest City District of Columbia, Office of the Chief Financial Officer

0

11th Lowest

5 10 15 20

2003 2008 2012

Rank 25 30 35 40 45 50

TX

AZ

CO

NM

UT

GA

In 2012, the tax burden for a family with annual income of $50,000 in Denver ($3,830) was the lowest among the competitor states. Denver’s rank surpassed Houston ($4,310) in 2012 and Phoenix ($4,710) in 2010. Albuquerque ($5,110) had the highest tax burden in 2012 of the competitors.

Fig. 62

Lowest Tax Burden for Family with Annual Income of $50,000 in Largest City District of Columbia, Office of the Chief Financial Officer

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 30 2 8 24 32 9 50 15 4 22 36 17 29 20 39 12 43 11 46 45 40 41 33 19 37 13 16 3 38 48 18 44 31 14 35 25 27 49 47 26 5 6 7 34 23 27 10 21 42 1

2003 26 3 8 22 30 12 50 15 1 39 21 20 40 36 32 10 41 16 34 44 38 43 27 17 31 7 29 4 13 49 18 46 28 14 37 24 45 48 47 22 5 9 6 35 33 25 11 18 42 2

2004 22 3 9 24 36 11 47 12 2 39 23 18 38 42 32 10 37 16 40 46 34 43 28 19 31 5 30 4 13 48 20 49 29 15 35 27 44 50 45 17 6 7 8 33 26 25 14 21 41 1

2005 17 4 18 20 37 13 50 19 3 29 1 23 41 45 38 8 34 15 32 39 44 43 33 28 30 5 27 7 46 47 14 35 25 11 36 16 26 49 48 9 12 6 10 21 42 22 31 24 40 2

2006 17 3 12 23 38 14 50 24 2 36 5 18 42 45 37 11 34 15 29 39 41 44 32 31 27 10 30 8 47 48 19 33 28 7 40 16 25 49 46 13 4 6 9 22 43 20 26 21 35 1

2007 27 2 10 36 8 12 46 21 7 35 9 14 11 47 44 28 42 15 29 49 16 48 20 38 40 6 41 5 1 24 31 22 37 30 43 34 19 50 39 23 13 26 25 18 33 17 4 32 45 3

2008 26 6 7 22 42 14 50 27 3 35 4 11 48 43 40 15 39 12 33 38 41 47 30 34 28 1 31 13 21 46 25 36 32 8 45 18 19 49 37 16 5 9 10 17 29 20 23 24 44 2

2009 23 2 12 21 41 13 50 27 3 29 11 14 44 26 46 18 39 10 40 48 36 47 35 32 37 5 28 9 19 45 24 38 42 6 30 22 31 49 34 15 4 7 8 20 33 24 17 16 43 1

2010 32 2 15 19 43 14 50 27 3 38 9 12 40 30 29 13 48 11 36 35 41 47 34 26 39 6 25 10 21 46 23 33 31 5 45 18 24 49 44 17 4 8 7 37 28 16 22 20 42 1

2011 29 7 19 13 46 11 50 34 5 27 9 16 45 28 33 22 44 2 36 40 41 38 35 20 31 3 25 12 21 49 24 37 30 8 47 14 18 48 43 10 15 6 4 26 42 23 32 17 39 1

2012 10 4 26 25 39 11 50 41 5 27 6 13 42 37 38 20 43 34 40 47 30 45 22 36 28 1 29 3 19 35 31 32 33 15 46 23 21 49 44 7 8 24 18 14 12 17 9 16 48 2

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Total State Expenditures per Capita U.S. Census Bureau, Government Finance Series

0

11th Lowest

5 10 15

20

2003 2008 2012

Rank 25 30 35 40 45 50

FL

TX

NV

AZ

TN

CO

HI

VT

WY

NY

AK

State spending in Colorado ($5,440 per capita) tends to be one of the lowest in the nation, with the state consistently ranking in the top 15 since 2003. State expenditures increased in most states from 2008 to 2012 as economic conditions improved, with Colorado’s spending per person increasing 16 percent. Per capita expenditures range from $4,120 in Florida to $16,040 in Alaska.

Fig. 63

Lowest Total State Expenditures per Capita U.S. Census Bureau, Government Finance Series

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

11th Lowest

5 10 15 Rank

20

2003 2008 2012

25 30 35 40 45 50

TX

AZ

GA

CO

UT

NM

Colorado’s state government spends less per capita ($5,440) than governments in Utah ($5,990) and New Mexico ($8,160). New Mexico is the ninth-highest-spending state in the country.

Fig. 64

Lowest Total State Expenditures per Capita U.S. Census Bureau, Government Finance Series

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 18 50 8 19 37 10 44 48 1 5 49 16 11 12 27 14 25 22 34 20 41 35 42 24 7 30 13 4 17 31 43 45 21 39 28 6 40 26 38 29 9 3 2 23 47 15 36 32 33 46

2001 16 50 5 21 40 10 44 46 2 6 48 17 13 9 25 18 28 14 31 22 43 36 39 24 7 32 12 4 8 29 42 49 19 33 27 20 37 26 41 30 11 3 1 23 47 15 35 38 34 45

2002 19 50 4 21 40 13 46 45 1 9 48 15 16 6 23 14 27 18 31 22 37 33 41 25 8 28 10 3 11 34 43 49 17 30 29 20 38 26 42 32 7 5 2 24 44 12 36 39 35 47

2003 17 50 4 22 43 10 45 44 1 7 46 13 16 6 23 14 26 19 36 24 35 34 42 27 8 28 11 3 18 37 41 49 15 29 30 20 33 25 40 32 9 5 2 21 47 12 38 39 31 48

2004 17 50 6 24 41 9 39 47 1 8 45 14 16 12 22 13 26 21 38 23 44 33 40 28 5 29 10 3 19 36 42 48 18 27 31 15 35 25 43 30 7 4 2 20 46 11 34 37 32 49

2005 17 50 9 23 40 7 38 46 3 4 45 13 15 10 22 12 25 21 37 24 41 28 39 26 5 27 8 2 18 42 44 47 20 36 32 16 35 29 43 34 11 6 1 19 48 14 31 33 30 49

2006 18 50 11 21 41 8 39 48 6 3 45 9 12 7 22 14 26 35 37 23 40 25 38 34 5 31 10 4 17 42 44 47 16 33 36 19 32 24 43 29 13 2 1 20 46 15 27 28 30 49

2007 20 50 12 22 40 7 36 46 2 8 44 11 13 9 21 18 28 41 35 29 43 23 37 38 5 32 6 4 15 39 45 47 14 34 33 19 25 27 42 30 10 3 1 17 48 16 31 26 24 49

2008 17 50 11 21 40 8 38 46 2 5 45 15 13 10 22 19 29 43 33 30 41 23 37 36 6 35 9 1 14 39 44 48 12 34 27 18 28 26 42 32 7 4 3 20 47 16 31 24 25 49

2009 17 50 8 18 37 9 41 44 1 2 45 14 16 7 23 19 25 43 35 28 42 22 38 33 6 31 10 5 13 40 46 47 12 36 24 21 32 30 39 27 11 4 3 20 48 15 34 26 29 49

2010 15 50 7 21 34 14 40 45 1 2 44 10 19 13 23 16 28 38 31 25 43 24 37 29 6 36 8 5 17 41 46 47 12 39 26 20 35 33 42 22 11 3 4 18 48 9 32 27 30 49

2011 18 50 6 23 38 14 40 46 1 2 44 12 16 9 25 17 26 37 29 24 42 22 36 28 8 34 7 4 15 39 45 48 11 43 30 19 33 35 41 21 10 3 5 20 47 13 27 32 31 49

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2012 17 50 3 27 35 11 40 46 1 2 43 8 15 12 26 18 28 32 30 34 44 22 38 29 9 36 7 6 14 39 42 47 13 45 25 20 33 31 41 19 10 5 4 21 48 16 24 37 23

Lowest per Capita State and Local Government Expenditures for Public Welfare Programs U.S. Census Bureau, Government Finance Series

0 5 2nd Lowest

10 15 20

2003-2004

Rank 25

2007-2008

30

2010-2011

35 40

45 50

NV

CO

TX

VA

MT

MN

ME

RI

AK

NY

Colorado’s low spending on public welfare ($970 per capita) reflects a combination of high percapita personal income and strict tax and spending controls. New York ($2,590 per capita) has consistently ranked last among the states.

Fig. 65

Lowest per Capita State and Local Government Expenditures for Public Welfare Programs U.S. Census Bureau, Government Finance Series

2nd Lowest

Colorado vs. Competitors

0 5 10

15 Rank

20

2003-2004

25

2007-2008

30

2010-2011

35 40 45 50

CO

TX

UT

AZ

GA

NM

New Mexico has one of the nation’s lowest per-capita personal income levels. As a result, the state spends high amounts on welfare-related programs ($2,130 per capita), compared with Colorado ($970 per capita).

Fig. 66

Lowest per Capita State and Local Government Expenditures for Public Welfare Programs State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

U.S. Census Bureau, Government Finance Series 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 25 26 24 24 23 12 6 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 5 7 7 15 12 14 16 21 27 28 29 31 32 32 35 32 31 31 32 33 35 10 2 2 2 2 2 3 40 31 34 32 37 36 40 17 19 35 38 40 41 42 7 10 14 11 10 11 10 14 20 17 12 5 9 7 33 25 27 27 21 23 21 8 12 8 10 11 10 11 19 14 11 16 19 22 25 18 17 13 7 13 20 29 23 22 25 22 30 27 27 3 9 10 14 15 16 15 43 43 38 37 38 37 36 15 4 9 9 18 19 28 48 46 47 45 47 45 44 22 18 22 19 29 31 26 42 21 44 44 45 47 46 27 29 23 13 9 18 17 47 47 46 46 44 44 45 26 40 41 40 36 38 37 20 28 18 23 14 8 12 9 8 5 4 4 5 4 28 30 29 28 27 24 19 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 38 16 33 33 26 26 24 16 13 15 36 39 39 39 30 39 42 42 42 42 43 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 24 24 21 26 22 15 14 39 35 30 25 25 21 23 31 37 39 39 41 40 38 1 23 20 18 28 29 31 37 41 16 17 17 13 13 44 42 43 43 43 43 41 45 48 48 48 48 46 48 34 36 32 30 20 28 20 12 15 12 8 8 6 8 32 38 40 41 33 30 30 4 6 3 3 3 4 5 13 5 6 6 6 3 2 46 45 45 47 46 48 47 11 3 4 5 7 7 9 36 34 26 21 16 17 18 41 44 37 35 34 34 34 29 33 36 34 35 35 33 6 11 19 20 24 25 22

2009 9 48 19 25 31 2 39 41 6 4 23 10 28 15 30 12 38 27 47 33 44 18 46 40 13 20 14 1 32 34 43 50 11 21 35 29 16 42 45 26 8 24 5 3 49 7 17 36 37 22

2010 13 49 20 28 25 2 34 41 8 4 30 6 24 14 31 9 38 26 46 33 43 18 47 39 12 21 15 1 32 35 45 50 7 17 36 27 19 42 44 22 11 29 5 3 48 10 16 37 40 23

2011 10 49 22 27 40 2 35 41 9 4 28 18 24 15 30 11 34 19 45 33 44 17 47 36 13 21 7 1 31 32 43 50 5 20 39 23 26 42 46 25 6 29 8 3 48 12 14 37 38 16

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

State Fiscal Condition Mercatus Center

0 5 10 15

24th Best

20 Rank 25

2012

30 35 40 45 50

AK

SD

ND

NE

WY

CO

CA

MA

IL

CT

NJ

A new study from the Mercatus Center of George Mason University indicated Colorado ranked in the middle of the states for its overall fiscal condition. The study used four indexes to measure fiscal conditions including cash solvency, budget solvency, long-run solvency, and service-level solvency. Alaska ranked best, while New Jersey ranked last.

Fig. 67

State Fiscal Condition Mercatus Center

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10

24th Best

15 Rank

20 2012

25 30 35 40 45 50

UT

TX

CO

NM

GA

AZ

According to the State Fiscal Condition study, Colorado ranks among the top-15 states for longrun solvency and service-level solvency, reflecting the state’s ability to meet long-term financial obligations. However, the state ranks 35th for cash solvency, or its ability to meet short-term financial obligations. New Mexico, Georgia, and Arizona all rank among the bottom 25 states.

Fig. 68

State Fiscal Condition Mercatus Center

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2012 10 1 30 29 46 24 49 37 6 28 43 13 48 15 18 27 40 34 36 44 47 30 35 19 14 9 4 16 22 50 26 45 32 3 7 12 32 42 39 21 2 7 20 11 38 25 23 41 17 5

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Livability

Well-Being Index Gallup and Healthways

0 5

7th Best

10 15 20

2009

Rank 25

2013

30 35 40 45

50

HI

MT

UT

MN

AK

CO

NV

OH

AR

KY

WV

Gallup and Healthways interview more than 500 people each day across the nation to create a monthly Well-Being Index. An annualized state and congressional district report is published at the end of each year. The index measures life situations, emotional health, physical health, healthy behaviors, work environment, and access to healthy living.

Fig. 69

Well-Being Index Gallup and Healthways

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5

7th Best

10 15 20

2009

Rank 25

2013

30 35 40 45 50

UT

CO

AZ

TX

GA

NM

Colorado and Utah have the highest well-being of the competitor states. Colorado ranked among the top-five states for physical health and among the top-10 for life evaluation and healthy behaviors. Colorado’s lowest ranking was emotional health, which decreased to 14th from fifth in 2012. Colorado also posted a drop in work environment, which fell to 13th from 3rd.

Fig. 70

Well-Being Index Gallop and Healthways

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2009 44 5 22 48 20 9 20 36 36 24 1 9 28 42 7 11 49 41 15 15 18 33 4 44 36 2 24 46 12 29 31 33 32 8 47 39 26 30 40 33 19 42 23 2 6 12 15 50 26 12

2010 46 4 29 46 18 5 8 43 36 30 1 19 26 39 19 15 49 42 25 12 10 41 5 48 34 14 10 43 15 24 21 32 36 3 45 38 26 30 33 35 5 39 26 8 17 21 12 50 21 2

2011 45 4 26 44 17 6 19 47 42 28 1 21 32 38 14 6 49 36 25 13 14 37 3 48 43 10 8 40 9 29 24 33 30 2 46 38 20 31 35 33 11 40 27 4 12 14 17 50 21 21

2012 45 31 23 46 18 2 16 26 34 33 1 22 28 42 9 17 49 43 21 11 9 36 3 48 38 6 7 39 8 32 25 30 35 18 44 39 22 29 37 40 12 47 27 4 5 14 15 50 20 13

2013 47 16 19 45 17 7 31 28 30 27 8 29 22 40 10 20 49 41 15 18 13 37 4 48 43 5 3 26 11 23 33 35 32 1 46 42 25 36 39 38 2 44 21 12 6 24 9 50 14 34

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Annual Population Growth Rate U.S. Census Bureau

0

3rd Highest

5 10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2013

35 40 45 50

NV

AZ

FL

ID

TX

CO

IL

OH

NY

ND

MA

Population growth tends to be higher in states where jobs are perceived to be more readily available. Colorado has experienced strong in-migration from the Millennial generation. These educated, young professionals are attracted by the state’s diverse economy and outdoor recreational opportunities. Strong population growth (1.6 percent) in Colorado is also linked to an inflow of baby boomer parents.

Fig. 71

Annual Population Growth Rate U.S. Census Bureau

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

3rd Highest

5 10 15 Rank

20

2003

25

2008

30

2013

35 40 45 50

AZ

TX

UT

GA

NM

CO

With the exception of New Mexico, all of Colorado’s competitors have had relatively strong population growth since 2003. Texas and Utah have ranked in the top 10 each year since 2003. Colorado’s growth rate softened from 2003 to 2005 due to the lingering effects of the 2001 recession, but has remained in the top quintile since 2006.

Fig. 72

Annual Population Growth Rate U.S. Census Bureau

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 43 41 2 20 13 3 29 11 8 4 45 6 36 26 44 37 28 46 25 18 34 38 15 32 24 33 39 1 12 22 30 35 9 50 47 42 19 48 21 14 31 17 5 7 23 10 16 49 27 40

2001 40 20 3 31 10 2 25 15 4 5 17 9 33 28 47 41 32 45 23 14 30 36 19 44 27 38 39 1 13 22 29 35 8 50 43 37 16 46 24 18 42 21 6 7 34 11 12 49 26 48

2002 42 10 2 32 16 8 25 11 3 6 17 7 40 36 49 38 31 37 23 15 39 45 26 47 30 34 35 1 20 28 13 41 9 50 48 29 12 44 22 21 43 24 5 4 33 14 18 46 27 19

2003 35 16 2 25 12 21 24 7 3 8 17 4 46 29 44 42 28 34 23 14 50 45 26 43 31 19 32 1 22 33 9 48 10 49 47 38 15 41 36 13 37 18 5 6 39 11 20 40 30 27

2004 34 8 2 22 23 19 41 10 3 7 5 4 45 35 39 38 27 28 37 20 50 48 29 26 30 16 33 1 25 40 14 49 11 21 47 36 32 44 43 13 24 18 9 6 42 12 15 46 31 17

2005 23 18 2 19 27 16 40 8 4 6 10 3 45 26 38 36 22 35 37 24 48 47 32 33 25 20 28 1 31 44 11 49 7 42 46 29 17 39 50 12 30 14 9 5 43 13 15 41 34 21

2006 20 23 2 17 35 9 40 12 10 5 19 3 41 27 33 30 26 50 39 32 45 48 28 46 25 18 31 1 29 44 16 47 7 36 43 21 15 37 49 8 24 14 6 4 42 22 11 38 34 13

2007 23 30 5 22 31 10 43 12 19 7 37 3 39 29 34 28 24 11 44 36 41 49 25 26 27 17 32 1 42 45 15 47 6 35 46 18 16 38 50 9 20 13 8 2 48 21 14 40 33 4

2008 22 19 8 25 21 9 39 12 27 10 14 6 41 32 35 26 28 13 45 37 36 50 29 33 34 16 31 4 46 43 20 40 2 30 47 23 15 42 49 7 24 17 5 1 48 18 11 44 38 3

2009 26 5 19 28 21 4 40 24 31 13 17 10 43 35 36 25 33 12 48 27 30 50 32 44 34 29 23 15 47 37 11 39 7 16 45 9 18 41 49 8 20 22 3 2 46 14 6 42 38 1

2010 34 1 14 24 17 4 39 23 16 20 7 15 43 38 33 22 31 9 49 18 29 50 35 42 32 30 21 28 47 36 6 37 10 5 46 13 27 41 48 19 12 26 3 2 45 8 11 44 40 25

2011 36 4 16 29 12 5 39 13 6 9 8 17 43 34 33 35 32 24 46 15 26 49 21 40 42 20 22 28 45 37 25 31 11 2 48 27 19 41 50 18 14 23 1 3 44 10 7 47 38 30

2012 30 13 7 31 18 6 44 17 8 10 15 23 43 36 35 29 37 27 46 22 28 45 26 39 41 24 25 5 40 33 34 32 14 1 47 20 21 42 49 12 9 19 2 4 50 16 11 48 38 3

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2013 38 30 8 34 21 3 42 15 6 23 18 12 47 28 27 37 35 29 50 22 24 43 20 40 33 13 25 7 41 32 48 31 14 1 39 16 19 46 44 10 5 26 4 2 45 17 11 49 36 9

Volunteer Rate

Corporation for National & Community Service

0 13th Highest

5 10 15 20

2008

Rank 25

2012

30 35 40 45

50

UT

NE

IA

SD

MN

CO

NV

MS

LA

AR

NY

This measure is defined as the percentage of persons performing unpaid volunteer work. Colorado’s rate of 32.8 percent in 2012 compared with 43.8 percent in top-ranked Utah and 20.4 percent in Louisiana (50th).

Fig. 73

Volunteer Rate

Corporation for National & Community Service

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

13th Highest

5

10 15 20

2008

Rank 25

2012

30 35 40 45 50

UT

CO

NM

AZ

GA

TX

Colorado (32.8 percent) and Utah (43.8 percent) were the only competitor states that ranked in the top half of the nation for the percentage of people performing unpaid volunteer work in 2012. Texas was the lowest ranked competitor with a rate of 24 percent.

Fig. 74

Volunteer Rate Corporation for National & Community Service State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2008 36 6 34 49 32 13 14 30 45 34 42 17 36 21 3 7 33 48 16 18 40 26 5 47 24 10 2 45 25 44 19 50 41 9 22 27 11 28 38 29 4 38 43 1 8 23 12 31 15 20

2009 37 5 43 44 40 16 17 34 46 36 41 14 30 19 2 8 31 46 15 22 33 24 3 45 25 9 4 49 23 48 28 50 37 12 21 20 11 27 41 28 6 31 39 1 7 26 10 35 13 18

2010 32 9 36 47 35 13 17 38 48 40 41 10 28 24 2 7 39 46 16 19 29 25 3 44 22 12 4 49 26 45 30 50 43 14 21 20 14 27 37 33 5 31 41 1 6 23 11 34 8 18

2011 31 12 36 45 35 14 18 37 47 42 44 5 26 27 2 7 42 48 13 23 28 25 3 33 19 15 5 49 21 46 34 50 37 16 24 20 11 28 37 31 4 30 40 1 9 21 10 40 8 17

2012 34 12 40 46 34 13 17 36 47 39 44 3 26 23 5 4 42 50 14 20 30 24 2 31 15 18 5 48 22 45 28 49 32 16 26 25 11 28 38 33 7 36 41 1 10 20 9 43 8 18

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Percentage of Children in Poverty The Annie E. Casey Foundation

0 5 10 15

17th Lowest

20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2012

35 40 45 50

NH

MN MD

CT

DE

CO

KY

WV NM

MS

LA

The percentage of children living in poverty in Colorado increased from 13 percent in 2003 to 18 percent in 2012. Nevada and Michigan experienced the largest increases in childhood poverty during this time, with both states posting a 9-percentage-point increase to 24 percent and 25 percent, respectively. The average increase in state rates was 4.4 percentage points.

Fig. 75

Lowest Percentage of Children in Poverty The Annie E. Casey Foundation

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5

17th Lowest

10 15

20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2012

35 40 45 50

UT

CO

GA

AZ

TX

NM

Colorado (18 percent) and Utah (15 percent) are the only competitor states to rank among the top 25 states for low childhood poverty. Of the competitor states, Utah, Texas, and New Mexico posted declines in their childhood poverty rates from 2011 to 2012. Georgia’s rate increased during the same time, while rates in Colorado and Arizona remained constant.

Fig. 76

Lowest Percentage of Children in Poverty The Annie E. Casey Foundation

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 42 12 45 46 40 3 7 8 35 33 12 19 24 19 12 8 43 50 8 12 19 19 2 47 28 32 3 12 1 3 47 35 35 24 28 35 33 24 28 35 19 40 43 3 12 12 28 47 8 24

2001 46 2 36 43 33 11 4 16 32 29 16 22 22 11 11 11 36 50 5 5 9 22 5 49 29 39 16 22 1 5 48 36 39 22 29 39 33 22 33 39 16 43 43 2 22 9 16 46 16 11

2002 46 2 37 43 34 8 2 5 34 33 12 24 24 20 12 24 41 48 24 5 8 24 8 50 29 37 12 29 1 5 48 34 41 11 29 43 29 20 20 37 12 37 43 12 2 12 20 47 12 12

2003 44 16 41 44 34 13 4 5 34 34 23 30 25 16 5 16 44 50 13 3 5 25 2 49 25 30 13 23 1 5 48 34 34 16 30 42 30 25 29 34 16 40 43 5 5 5 16 47 16 5

2004 42 3 34 47 30 18 1 14 27 36 14 34 23 18 6 6 46 49 23 3 10 27 3 50 21 30 10 30 1 6 48 36 41 21 27 36 30 23 36 42 18 36 42 10 6 10 23 45 14 14

2005 44 16 36 44 30 11 5 11 26 36 8 26 22 23 11 16 41 49 23 2 11 30 5 50 30 36 16 16 1 5 47 30 39 8 30 42 26 23 30 42 26 39 44 2 16 8 16 47 11 2

2006 41 16 36 44 30 21 3 21 24 36 3 16 24 30 13 21 41 49 30 1 5 30 5 50 34 24 13 13 1 5 48 36 36 11 34 44 24 24 16 40 24 41 44 5 11 5 16 47 16 5

2007 45 4 37 48 25 22 4 16 25 37 2 22 25 25 14 16 45 49 16 2 11 34 7 50 32 32 16 16 1 7 47 34 37 11 34 41 25 22 25 40 25 42 42 4 7 11 16 42 14 7

2008 40 4 38 48 27 18 7 14 27 36 2 23 25 27 14 18 43 48 23 2 7 32 4 50 32 38 10 18 1 10 47 32 36 18 32 43 27 25 18 40 27 40 43 4 10 14 14 43 10 7

2009 46 5 38 49 29 18 2 15 32 35 11 23 26 29 15 23 48 41 18 2 5 38 11 50 32 32 14 23 1 5 46 29 38 5 35 35 26 18 18 41 26 41 41 2 5 11 15 41 18 5

2010 47 2 37 47 30 14 2 16 34 38 5 22 22 30 11 16 42 46 16 2 5 34 10 50 28 27 16 30 1 5 49 28 38 11 34 38 30 22 22 42 16 42 42 11 14 5 16 38 22 5

2011 45 3 42 45 30 16 3 13 36 38 13 23 26 30 13 21 42 48 21 2 3 36 3 50 26 23 16 26 1 3 49 30 38 3 34 30 34 23 26 45 16 38 42 11 3 3 16 38 16 11

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2012 42 2 42 48 32 17 4 13 36 42 13 25 25 28 11 20 42 47 25 2 4 36 4 50 29 23 17 32 11 4 48 29 39 1 32 32 29 23 20 42 13 39 39 4 4 4 20 36 17 13

Lowest Total Crime Rate per 100,000 Population

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation

0 5 10 15

23rd Lowest

20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2012

35 40 45 50

ND

SD

NH

VT

ME CO

TX

FL

SC

HI

AZ

Colorado’s total crime rate (2,994 crimes per 100,000 population) has decreased by 33 percent since peaking in 2005, leading to an improved ranking. Idaho (2,191) ranked first in 2012 while South Carolina (4,381) ranked last.

Fig. 77

Lowest Total Crime Rate per 100,000 Population

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation

Colorado vs. Competitors

0 5

10 15

23rd Lowest

20

2003

Rank 25 30

2008 2012

35 40 45 50

CO

UT

GA

NM

TX

AZ

Colorado (2,994 crimes per 100,000 population) has a lower crime rate than all of its competitors. Georgia (3,790), New Mexico (4,160), and Arizona (3,968) rank among the bottom10 states in the nation. Utah’s rate remained about the same in 2012 after declining steadily from 2003 to 2011.

Fig. 78

Lowest Total Crime Rate per 100,000 Population U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 36 29 50 28 21 23 15 34 49 38 45 13 31 22 16 32 6 47 5 39 9 27 19 24 35 20 26 30 3 12 48 11 42 1 25 37 40 8 18 46 2 41 43 33 7 10 44 4 14 17

2002 34 31 50 28 24 32 10 23 48 36 49 14 25 21 16 26 9 44 6 40 12 22 18 29 37 17 30 35 1 11 43 7 38 3 27 39 41 8 20 47 2 42 46 33 5 13 45 4 15 19

2003 34 31 50 29 26 30 10 27 47 37 49 15 23 21 16 32 11 42 5 36 13 22 18 28 35 19 25 41 3 9 39 7 38 1 24 40 44 8 17 48 2 43 46 33 4 12 45 6 14 20

2005 34 31 50 39 27 35 10 25 42 40 47 15 22 26 17 30 8 33 5 32 9 23 18 21 36 20 24 43 1 7 44 6 37 3 28 38 41 11 16 48 2 46 45 29 4 14 49 12 13 19

2006 37 35 50 40 24 28 10 31 45 36 39 8 22 27 17 34 11 44 6 33 13 26 20 21 38 16 23 47 2 7 41 5 42 3 30 32 29 14 12 49 1 48 43 25 4 9 46 15 18 19

2007 40 32 49 41 25 21 9 33 47 39 42 6 23 27 16 35 13 46 8 34 14 26 20 24 36 17 22 43 2 7 38 4 44 3 29 31 30 11 15 50 1 48 45 28 5 10 37 12 19 18

2008 45 29 47 40 25 22 10 39 49 43 33 4 26 30 9 32 16 41 6 36 14 24 20 23 37 15 21 38 3 7 46 5 44 2 31 34 27 12 19 50 1 48 42 28 8 11 35 13 18 17

2009 43 30 37 44 23 21 11 38 48 42 36 3 25 28 10 32 15 46 7 34 14 27 20 26 35 13 22 33 4 6 45 5 40 2 31 41 24 9 17 50 1 47 49 29 8 12 39 16 18 19

2010 38 32 40 44 23 22 8 45 46 43 35 3 24 28 9 31 16 47 13 33 20 25 17 26 36 19 21 30 5 6 42 4 37 1 34 39 27 10 18 50 2 49 48 29 7 11 41 12 15 14

2011 44 28 41 48 22 20 5 42 45 43 34 3 25 33 12 32 21 49 15 30 17 24 18 29 36 13 23 26 9 8 46 4 39 2 35 37 31 11 19 50 1 47 40 27 6 7 38 14 16 10

2012 43 30 45 48 26 23 7 42 37 40 29 1 22 31 11 35 17 47 14 28 13 21 18 25 38 20 24 32 9 4 49 3 36 2 33 41 34 10 19 50 6 46 39 27 12 5 44 15 16 8

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Percentage of State Land Area Devoted to the National Forest System U.S. Forest Service; U.S. Census Bureau

0 5 10

4th Highest

15 Rank

20

2013

25 30 35 40 45 50

ID

OR

WA

CO

CA

ME

KS

NY

CT

HI

Access to recreation and the outdoors is important to a healthy, active lifestyle. Colorado’s vast national forest land (nearly 22 percent of the state’s land area), plus numerous state parks and open space areas, contribute to the state’s outstanding quality of life. Note: Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have no national forest system lands.

Fig. 79

Percentage of State Land Area Devoted to the National Forest System U.S. Forest Service; U.S. Census Bureau

0

4th Highest

Colorado vs. Competitors

5 10 15 20

2013

Rank 25

30 35

40 45

50

CO

UT

AZ

NM

GA

TX

Nearly 22 percent of Colorado’s land area is devoted to the National Forest System compared to just 15.6 percent in Utah, Colorado’s closest ranking competitor. Only 0.5 percent of the land in Texas is part of the National Forest System.

Fig. 80

Percentage of State Land Area Devoted to the National Forest System U.S. Forest Service; U.S. Census Bureau

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2008 32 18 8 14 5 3 43 45 24 30 44 1 37 36 45 41 28 31 40 45 45 13 19 23 25 6 38 12 10 45 11 42 22 29 34 35 2 33 45 26 21 27 39 7 16 17 4 15 20 9

2009 32 18 8 14 5 3 43 45 24 30 44 1 37 36 45 41 27 31 40 45 45 13 19 23 25 6 38 12 10 45 11 42 22 29 34 35 2 33 45 26 21 28 39 7 16 17 4 15 20 9

2010 32 18 8 14 5 3 43 45 24 30 44 1 37 36 45 41 27 31 40 45 45 13 19 23 25 6 38 12 10 45 11 42 22 29 34 35 2 33 45 26 21 28 39 7 16 17 4 15 20 9

2011 32 18 8 14 5 3 43 45 24 30 44 1 37 36 45 41 27 31 40 45 45 13 19 23 25 6 38 12 10 45 11 42 22 29 34 35 2 33 45 26 21 28 39 7 15 17 4 16 20 9

2012 32 18 8 14 5 3 43 45 24 30 44 1 37 36 45 41 27 31 40 45 45 13 19 23 25 6 38 12 10 45 11 42 22 29 34 35 2 33 45 26 21 28 39 7 15 17 4 16 20 9

2013 32 18 8 14 5 4 43 44 24 30 44 1 37 36 44 41 27 31 40 44 44 13 19 23 25 6 38 12 10 44 11 42 22 29 34 35 2 33 44 26 21 28 39 7 15 17 3 16 20 9

*Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have no national forest system lands. GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

State Parks and Recreation Areas per Capita U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract

0 5 10 15

19th Highest

20 2003 2007 2010

Rank 25 30 35 40 45 50 AK

WY

SD

VT

WV CO

GA

LA

MS

VA

RI

Colorado has about 225,000 acres of state park areas as of 2010. Colorado does not rank as high as some other states in this measure as much of the public outdoor space in the state is owned by federal and local governments.

Fig. 81

State Parks and Recreation Areas per Capita U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 19th Highest

5 10

15 20 Rank

2003 2007 2010

25 30 35 40 45 50

CO

UT

NM

TX

AZ

GA

In addition to having large amounts of state land area devoted to the National Forest System, Colorado also makes state parks and natural areas a priority.

Fig. 82

State Parks and Recreation Areas per Capita U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 44 1 43 40 20 6 12 29 23 47 35 24 31 27 36 42 45 50 8 17 18 22 14 49 32 9 7 10 11 21 16 13 39 25 41 37 28 34 48 38 4 30 26 15 3 46 19 5 33 2

2001 43 1 44 40 21 6 13 29 23 46 35 24 34 26 36 42 45 50 8 17 18 22 14 49 31 9 7 10 11 20 16 12 38 25 41 37 28 33 48 39 3 30 27 15 4 47 19 5 32 2

2002 43 1 44 40 21 6 13 27 22 46 35 23 32 25 36 42 45 48 8 17 18 26 14 50 31 9 7 11 10 19 16 12 38 29 41 37 28 34 49 39 3 30 24 15 4 47 20 5 33 2

2003 44 1 43 40 21 7 13 25 22 46 35 23 31 26 36 42 45 47 10 15 17 27 19 48 32 9 8 12 11 18 16 6 38 28 41 37 29 34 50 39 3 30 24 14 4 49 20 5 33 2

2004 45 1 44 39 20 7 13 26 22 46 32 25 23 27 36 43 42 47 10 15 17 30 18 49 24 11 9 14 3 19 16 8 37 31 41 38 28 35 50 40 4 34 29 12 5 48 21 6 33 2

2005 45 1 44 38 18 7 13 24 20 46 36 23 21 25 34 43 42 47 9 30 15 27 19 49 22 12 8 14 3 17 16 10 35 26 41 37 28 33 50 39 4 32 29 11 5 48 40 6 31 2

2006 45 1 44 39 19 7 12 24 21 47 32 23 20 26 35 43 42 46 9 31 15 27 14 50 22 13 8 16 3 17 18 10 36 25 41 37 28 34 49 38 4 33 29 11 5 48 40 6 30 2

2007 45 1 44 38 19 7 11 24 21 47 30 23 20 27 35 42 43 46 8 33 16 28 14 50 22 13 9 15 3 17 18 10 36 26 41 37 29 34 49 39 4 25 31 12 5 48 40 6 32 2

2010 44 1 45 38 20 19 10 27 22 48 31 25 21 29 35 42 43 46 8 33 14 26 13 50 23 18 7 12 3 16 17 9 36 24 41 37 30 34 47 39 4 28 32 11 5 49 40 6 15 2

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

K-12 Education

Per Student Expenditures for Public K-12 Schools National Education Association

0 5

20th Highest

10 15 Rank

20

2003-2004

25

2007-2008

30

2012-2013

35 40 45

50

NJ

NY CT MA VT CO MS AR OK AZ

UT

Colorado’s rank has consistently improved after dropping to No. 32 during 2008-2009. The most recent data shows that Colorado now spends $10,880 per student in the public schools, earning the state a 20th-place ranking . Vermont ($19,750) ranked first in 2012-2013, while Arizona ranked last ($6,950).

Fig. 83

Per Student Expenditures for Public K-12 Schools National Education Association

Colorado vs. Competitors

0 5 10

20th Highest

15 Rank

20

2003-2004 2007-2008 2012-2013

25 30 35 40 45 50

CO

GA

NM

TX

AZ

UT

Expenditures per pupil consistently increased in Colorado from $8,860 in 2005-2006 to $10,880 in 2012-2013, returning the state to a position in the top half in the nation. Colorado ranks significantly higher than Texas ($8,280), Utah ($7,220), and Arizona ($6,950). Georgia’s rank has fallen since 2007-2008, whereas Utah and Arizona remain at the bottom.

Fig. 84

Per Student Expenditures for Public K-12 Schools National Education Association

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2003 40 9 49 48 25 24 2 5 43 20 22 42 8 23 36 26 27 37 10 15 4 21 18 47 35 28 34 46 19 3 29 1 39 41 17 45 31 13 7 30 38 44 33 50 6 16 32 14 12 11

2004 42 9 49 47 26 22 3 6 41 24 20 45 14 21 33 32 29 34 8 18 4 12 19 46 37 28 31 44 15 1 25 2 38 40 16 48 27 10 7 39 36 43 35 50 5 23 30 17 13 11

2005 43 11 49 30 29 17 3 6 42 23 21 45 18 22 35 32 28 34 7 19 5 13 20 48 39 27 36 46 15 1 25 2 38 40 14 47 26 10 8 31 37 44 41 50 4 24 33 16 12 9

2006 41 12 49 29 28 23 5 6 40 26 17 45 20 22 38 31 33 27 8 18 3 16 19 44 37 32 36 48 11 1 25 2 42 38 13 47 24 10 9 30 35 46 43 50 4 21 34 15 14 7

2007 36 16 50 28 23 29 5 7 33 21 12 46 15 22 40 26 32 27 8 10 6 14 18 48 39 30 37 47 13 1 25 2 42 38 31 45 24 11 9 35 41 44 43 49 3 19 34 20 17 4

2008 31 16 50 24 40 28 7 9 33 25 10 46 14 27 35 26 30 21 8 13 6 15 18 48 42 34 38 47 11 2 23 3 39 37 36 45 22 12 1 32 41 44 43 49 5 19 29 20 17 4

2009 38 18 50 22 35 32 7 10 40 25 11 45 17 28 36 27 34 21 8 9 6 14 16 48 41 33 37 47 12 1 24 2 42 23 31 46 26 13 5 30 39 44 43 49 3 19 29 20 15 4

2010 38 4 50 18 37 28 8 11 40 31 20 46 17 23 33 30 41 21 9 10 7 14 15 44 36 29 26 47 12 1 24 2 42 43 27 48 25 13 5 35 34 45 39 49 3 22 32 19 16 6

2011 40 4 50 28 32 25 8 9 38 36 15 46 19 20 34 33 30 21 22 10 7 13 17 43 35 24 39 47 11 2 27 1 44 18 29 48 26 12 6 42 37 45 41 49 3 23 31 16 14 5

2012 40 4 50 34 33 21 7 11 43 37 15 44 14 19 31 32 26 25 23 9 8 13 17 46 29 24 36 47 10 3 20 1 42 39 27 48 28 12 5 35 38 41 45 49 2 22 30 16 18 6

2013 38 4 50 35 37 20 6 11 41 34 16 42 14 47 33 31 27 24 22 10 8 13 17 44 26 23 32 43 9 3 19 2 45 40 28 48 25 12 5 30 36 39 46 49 1 21 29 15 18 7

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Percentage of Public School Fourth Graders Proficient or Better in Reading National Center for Education Statistics

0 9th Highest

5 10 15 20

2003 2009 2013

Rank 25 30 35 40 45 50

CT

MA

NH

NJ

MN

CO

CA

NV

LA

NM

MS

Colorado has a high percentage of proficient fourth-grade readers (40.6 percent) and exceeds all other western states in the percentage of fourth graders who read at advanced levels. A proficient reader has demonstrated competence over challenging subject matter and has solid academic performance. Most students are in the “basic” achievement category, which is below proficient.

Fig. 85

Percentage of Public School Fourth Graders Proficient or Better in Reading National Center for Education Statistics

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

9th Highest

5

10 15 20

2003 2009 2013

Rank 25

30 35 40 45

50

CO

UT

GA

TX

AZ

NM

Colorado’s competitors have struggled to increase their students’ reading proficiency. Colorado (40.6 percent) is the only state among its competitors to consistently rank among the top states, ranking in the top 10 each test year (except 2007) since 2003. New Mexico (21.5 percent) ranked 49th in the nation in 2013.

Fig. 86

Percent of Public School Fourth Graders Proficient or Better in Reading National Center for Education Statistics

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2003 44 37 43 36 46 7 1 19 29 38 45 33 30 20 11 23 31 48 8 25 2 26 5 50 12 10 24 47 3 4 49 14 21 27 13 41 32 18 34 42 16 40 39 28 6 9 17 35 22 15

2005 45 37 43 32 46 8 4 16 30 39 44 23 33 29 21 25 28 49 13 26 1 27 5 50 24 10 18 47 2 6 48 19 35 12 15 42 34 9 31 40 22 38 36 17 3 7 11 41 20 14

2007 35 36 46 37 48 13 3 25 23 39 44 21 30 28 15 14 27 49 18 17 1 29 9 50 31 7 22 45 4 2 47 16 34 20 12 42 38 6 32 43 26 41 33 24 5 8 11 40 19 10

2009 37 42 45 36 47 6 2 18 13 35 44 29 30 24 23 19 11 50 17 9 1 34 8 48 15 22 21 46 4 5 49 12 31 20 14 39 33 10 16 41 26 38 40 32 3 7 25 43 27 28

2011 33 45 43 37 47 9 5 11 17 31 40 30 27 29 28 12 15 48 32 4 1 35 16 49 22 14 10 46 3 2 50 19 24 13 23 42 36 6 18 38 34 44 39 26 7 8 20 41 25 21

2013 37 44 43 36 47 9 5 13 12 30 39 34 32 15 14 16 24 48 23 2 1 38 8 50 26 28 19 45 3 7 49 21 25 29 18 40 33 10 17 42 35 31 41 22 6 4 11 46 27 20

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Average Fourth-Grade Reading Scores National Center for Education Statistics

0

10th Highest

5 10 15 20 Rank 25

2003 2009 2013

30 35 40 45 50

CT

NH

MA

VT

NJ

CO

NV

CA

MS

LA

NM

The average fourth-grade reading score in Colorado of 227 on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) earned the state a 10th-place ranking in 2013. Average fourthgrade reading scores in Colorado consistently rank among the top-20 states since 2003. In 2013, Massachusetts (232) ranked first and New Mexico (206) ranked last.

Fig. 87

Average Fourth-Grade Reading Scores National Center for Education Statistics

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

10th Highest

5 10 15 20

2003 2009 2013

Rank 25 30 35 40 45 50

CO

UT

TX

GA

AZ

NM

Fourth-grade reading scores have remained relatively consistent for each of Colorado’s competitors. The largest increase in scores was in Georgia which posted a 3.9 percent increase in its average score from 2003 to 2013.

Fig. 88

Average Fourth-Grade Reading Scores National Center for Education Statistics

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2003 45 42 43 38 47 8 1 6 32 39 44 31 35 23 10 24 27 49 7 30 3 28 12 48 14 11 22 46 2 5 50 15 19 18 17 40 33 29 34 37 13 41 36 25 4 9 20 26 21 16

2005 45 42 47 33 49 11 6 4 28 38 43 19 35 31 24 25 27 44 9 26 1 30 7 50 22 10 20 46 2 13 48 16 32 8 17 40 34 15 36 41 18 39 29 21 3 5 12 37 23 14

2007 38 42 47 36 48 20 5 13 21 33 44 22 32 27 15 17 26 50 11 16 1 30 14 49 29 7 25 46 3 2 45 19 35 9 10 37 41 8 34 43 23 39 31 28 4 6 18 40 24 12

2009 39 44 47 40 48 9 4 12 10 36 45 28 32 22 26 16 11 50 18 7 1 34 20 46 17 13 24 43 3 2 49 15 30 8 14 37 35 19 21 41 25 38 33 31 5 6 27 42 29 23

2011 32 50 45 37 46 17 5 12 13 26 43 25 34 27 28 16 11 47 22 3 1 35 21 48 31 10 18 44 4 2 49 19 23 9 15 39 38 6 20 40 33 41 36 30 7 8 29 42 24 14

2013 34 48 45 36 46 10 4 13 8 29 41 32 35 14 20 22 17 47 16 2 1 38 9 49 27 24 23 43 3 5 50 21 28 18 19 39 33 11 25 44 37 31 40 26 7 6 15 42 30 12

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Percentage of Public School Eighth Graders Proficient or Better in Reading National Center for Education Statistics

0 5 10

11th Highest

15 20

2003 2009 2013

Rank 25

30

35 40 45 50

MA

NH

SD

VT

ND

CO

LA

HI

MS

NV

NM

Colorado’s eighth-grade reading rankings have not been as consistent as its fourth-grade rankings. However, 2013 marked the second-consecutive assessment year in which Colorado ranked among the top-12 states. The state’s percentage of eighth graders proficient or better in reading increased from 32.4 percent in 2009 to 39.8 percent in 2013. A proficient reader has demonstrated competence over challenging subject matter.

Fig. 89

Percentage of Public School Eighth Graders Proficient or Better in Reading National Center for Education Statistics

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5

11th Highest

10

15 20

Rank 25

2003 2009 2013

30 35 40 45 50

CO

UT

GA

TX

AZ

NM

Similar to fourth-grade reading proficiency, Colorado’s competitors generally rank low for eighth-grade reading proficiency. The percentage proficient or better in Colorado (39.8 percent) in 2013 was much higher than the percentage in New Mexico (22.2 percent). The percentage in Utah increased from 32.9 percent in 2009 to 39.2 percent in 2013, resulting in its rank increase.

Fig. 90

Percentage of Public School Eighth Graders Proficient or Better in Reading National Center for Education Statistics

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2003 45 36 42 35 44 12 8 30 37 38 47 28 18 25 14 16 22 46 10 31 1 27 6 48 19 7 17 49 2 9 50 15 34 5 20 33 23 29 32 43 3 39 40 26 4 13 24 41 11 21

2005 45 34 42 37 46 23 19 27 39 40 50 22 24 32 18 15 26 47 2 28 1 31 6 49 25 7 16 43 3 4 48 20 33 8 12 38 21 9 29 41 13 35 36 30 5 10 17 44 14 11

2007 46 36 42 40 45 15 6 27 31 38 47 24 29 25 12 13 33 48 7 21 1 30 9 49 26 4 14 44 5 3 50 22 32 23 11 37 17 10 35 41 8 39 34 28 2 18 16 43 19 20

2009 43 37 39 40 46 26 2 31 30 38 47 24 25 29 27 22 21 49 14 12 1 32 7 50 16 8 13 44 6 3 48 19 33 17 10 41 20 5 35 42 9 34 36 23 4 28 11 45 18 15

2011 45 34 36 37 47 6 3 28 35 38 44 25 26 32 29 17 15 48 10 7 1 31 9 50 20 5 23 43 8 2 49 21 33 24 14 40 30 11 27 41 19 39 42 18 4 16 13 46 22 12

2013 47 37 45 40 42 11 3 31 32 36 44 14 23 29 19 25 16 48 15 6 1 34 9 50 26 10 20 39 5 2 49 28 35 30 13 43 18 7 24 41 27 33 38 12 4 22 8 46 21 17

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Average Eighth-Grade Reading Scores National Center for Education Statistics

0 5 10

11th Highest

15 20

2003 2009 2013

Rank 25 30 35 40 45

50

MA

NH

VT

SD

MT

CO

AL

NV

NM

HI

CA

The eighth-grade average reading score in Colorado of 271 has increased by about three points since 2003. Massachusetts has consistently ranked at the top, with a 2013 average score of 277 compared with an average score of 253 in 50th-ranked Mississippi. The U.S. average score in 2013 was 268.

Fig. 91

Average Eighth-Grade Reading Scores National Center for Education Statistics

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5

11th Highest

10 15 20

2003 2009 2013

Rank 25

30 35 40 45

50

CO

UT

TX

GA

AZ

NM

Average eighth-grade reading scores in Colorado have consistently ranked in the top half of the country. Of the competitor states, only Utah managed to achieve and maintain a top-half ranking beginning in 2009. New Mexico has consistently ranked among the bottom-five states in the nation.

Fig. 92

Average Eighth-Grade Reading Scores National Center for Education Statistics

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2003 46 42 43 39 50 11 14 24 41 40 49 26 18 23 12 21 20 45 7 33 1 27 10 44 13 5 19 47 2 9 48 22 32 6 16 31 30 29 34 38 4 37 36 28 3 8 25 35 17 15

2005 46 35 43 38 49 20 24 18 41 40 50 23 26 30 13 14 25 45 3 32 1 29 9 48 21 6 12 44 4 5 47 19 37 2 16 33 27 15 31 39 8 34 36 28 7 11 22 42 17 10

2007 46 37 43 40 48 17 14 23 33 38 47 22 28 25 12 13 30 44 5 20 1 32 8 50 27 3 15 45 6 4 49 26 36 9 10 34 19 11 39 41 7 35 31 29 2 16 21 42 24 18

2009 43 39 41 40 49 24 4 26 30 35 45 28 29 21 27 19 18 48 13 14 1 32 9 50 17 7 15 47 5 2 46 31 37 10 11 38 25 6 36 42 8 33 34 23 3 22 16 44 20 12

2011 43 37 39 42 48 8 3 25 35 34 45 16 27 30 31 20 13 49 10 7 1 28 9 50 24 5 18 44 6 2 47 26 33 14 15 40 32 17 29 38 12 41 36 23 4 21 19 46 22 11

2013 46 43 44 38 41 11 3 31 33 35 45 13 27 25 19 28 15 48 17 6 1 32 10 50 26 9 16 40 5 2 49 30 36 22 18 39 20 7 29 42 21 34 37 14 4 23 8 47 24 12

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Highest AP Exam Scores (3+) per 1,000 High School Juniors and Seniors NCHEMS Information Center, College Board

0 5 10

15th Highest

15 20

2003

Rank 25

2009

30

2013

35 40 45 50

MD

VA

NY

CT

MA

CO

WY

ND

NE

LA

MS

Colorado consistently ranks among the top-15 states for advanced placement (AP) scores. In 2013, 284 per 1,000 high school juniors and seniors had scores of three or above on AP tests. These tests allow college-bound students to earn college credit for classes taken in high school.

Fig. 93

Highest AP Exam Scores (3+) per 1,000 High School Juniors and Seniors NCHEMS Information Center, College Board

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

15th Highest

5 10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2009

30

2013

35

40 45 50

UT

CO

TX

GA

AZ

NM

Colorado surpassed all of the competitor states in this measure in 2007 and maintained the lead until 2011. With 28.4 percent of its high school juniors and seniors with scores of three or above on AP tests, Colorado is second among the competitor states. Georgia (29 percent) is the highest ranking competitor, while New Mexico ranks last at 11.5 percent.

Fig. 94

Highest AP Exam Scores (3+) per 1,000 High School Juniors and Seniors NCHEMS Information Center, College Board

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 41 20 31 44 8 12 3 11 9 16 14 38 12 37 42 45 33 47 22 4 5 25 28 50 40 35 47 27 19 6 34 2 10 46 28 32 36 23 18 17 39 26 15 6 23 1 30 42 21 47

2001 42 25 31 41 7 13 4 11 9 16 14 35 12 37 44 44 32 48 22 3 5 24 27 50 39 38 48 27 18 6 34 2 10 47 30 32 35 23 20 17 40 26 14 7 19 1 29 43 20 46

2002 42 23 30 41 7 13 4 10 11 17 12 38 15 34 43 43 33 49 22 1 6 25 27 49 38 32 48 40 24 5 36 3 9 46 29 31 34 20 18 16 37 28 14 7 21 2 26 45 18 47

2003 43 28 32 41 9 12 4 11 10 16 13 36 15 35 42 45 32 49 20 1 5 22 29 50 38 37 48 25 23 6 34 3 8 47 30 30 39 21 23 17 40 27 14 7 18 2 26 43 19 46

2005 42 22 33 35 8 12 3 8 11 16 24 33 13 35 42 44 32 50 19 1 5 26 26 49 41 39 47 22 30 7 40 4 6 46 28 31 37 21 29 17 37 25 14 10 14 2 20 45 18 47

2007 42 23 40 35 8 8 3 7 11 16 29 38 13 37 43 44 30 50 18 1 3 25 21 49 40 36 48 25 28 8 39 5 6 44 27 34 30 22 24 19 33 32 14 14 12 2 20 46 16 47

2009 41 34 36 35 9 12 3 7 11 15 16 38 14 31 44 43 28 49 13 1 4 25 22 50 40 39 45 29 17 6 42 5 10 48 26 37 32 27 21 24 33 30 18 20 8 2 23 46 19 47

2010 41 33 36 31 7 12 2 10 9 15 16 34 14 32 43 42 29 49 11 1 4 25 21 50 40 37 45 26 19 6 44 5 8 47 28 38 35 23 18 27 39 30 17 24 13 3 22 46 20 48

2011 41 33 35 30 8 14 2 9 7 13 17 38 11 31 44 43 25 49 12 1 4 28 22 50 40 37 46 29 16 6 42 5 10 48 26 39 34 24 19 27 36 32 21 20 15 3 23 45 18 47

2012 39 40 34 30 9 15 2 12 7 14 20 36 10 31 44 42 25 48 11 1 4 27 18 50 37 38 43 29 21 5 45 6 13 49 26 41 33 24 17 28 35 32 19 23 8 3 22 46 16 47

2013 35 41 33 30 9 15 2 11 10 13 20 38 8 29 42 44 26 49 14 1 3 27 22 50 37 40 43 31 23 5 46 6 12 47 18 36 34 21 17 28 39 32 19 24 7 4 25 45 16 48

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Average SAT Scores The College Board

0

13th Highest

5 10

15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2013

35 40 45 50

ND

IA

IL

WI

SD

CO

NC

FL

TX

SC

GA

States with low percentages of students that take the SAT test tend to rank among the top states. Colorado, with 14 percent of its students participating in the SAT in 2013, ranked 13th among the states. Participation in the state has fallen since 2007 when 24 percent of graduates took the SAT. In general, states in New England have higher percentages of SAT test takers.

Fig. 95

Average SAT Scores The College Board

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

13th Highest

5 10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2013

35 40 45 50

UT

CO

NM

AZ

TX

GA

Colorado outranked Utah and New Mexico in 2013 despite having a higher percentage of test takers in the state, which generally lowers the average scores. Arizona (35 percent), Texas (59 percent), and Georgia (75 percent) all have higher percentages of test participants and lower score rankings.

Fig. 96

Average SAT Scores College Board

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 16 30 27 14 36 24 34 44 44 49 39 22 6 43 2 6 18 13 41 35 32 11 4 17 8 21 10 31 28 37 19 42 48 1 23 12 25 46 40 50 4 15 47 9 33 38 25 29 3 20

2003 17 30 27 15 37 19 34 43 47 50 43 23 3 41 2 8 18 14 41 35 29 10 6 16 7 22 9 32 28 38 21 39 46 1 24 11 26 43 39 49 5 12 48 13 32 35 25 31 3 20

2007 19 33 28 11 35 18 31 43 46 46 48 24 2 38 1 7 15 14 50 37 28 13 3 17 4 22 9 39 26 36 21 44 39 7 23 12 27 45 39 49 6 10 42 20 30 34 25 32 5 16

2008 19 32 30 12 34 17 31 39 44 47 49 24 7 41 1 9 15 16 50 37 27 8 2 14 3 22 9 42 26 36 21 45 38 5 23 12 27 43 40 48 5 11 45 20 29 33 25 35 4 18

2013 22 35 26 15 34 13 30 50 42 45 44 49 1 39 7 9 10 19 48 36 25 3 4 18 5 23 11 43 24 32 21 41 38 2 20 16 28 37 40 47 8 14 46 17 27 31 29 33 6 12

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Public High School Graduation Rates www.postsecondary.org

0 5 10

20th Highest

15

Rank

20

2003

25

2008

30

2010

35 40 45 50

NJ

MN

UT

ND

NE

CO

NV

TN

FL

GA

SC

The north-central states continue to graduate the largest shares of high school students. Colorado’s rank has increased from 28th highest in 2003 and 2008 to 20th in 2010. Colorado’s graduation rate was 76.2 percent in 2010, the latest year of data available for all states.

Fig. 97

Public High School Graduation Rates www.postsecondary.org

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10

20th Highest

15 Rank

20

2003

25

2008

30

2010

35 40 45 50

UT

AZ

CO

TX

NM

GA

Colorado’s graduation rate in 2010 (76.2 percent) is encouraging for the state, with fewer dropouts and resulting in a more highly educated workforce. The Annie E. Casey Foundation marked what may be a corresponding decrease in Colorado for the percentage of teens not in school and not graduates. Utah is the only competitor state to surpass Colorado’s rank.

Fig. 98

Public High School Graduation Rates www.postsecondary.org (Percent)

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 58.9 62.3 59.3 73.6 68.7 70.5 77.0 60.7 55.2 52.3 64.2 76.9 71.1 68.2 83.0 74.4 65.8 56.2 76.6 73.3 74.8 68.7 83.7 56.0 73.0 78.1 83.8 68.8 73.9 86.1 60.3 58.6 58.7 84.1 69.6 72.8 67.4 74.9 69.5 51.0 74.2 54.8 61.9 83.9 78.7 73.9 70.8 74.8 78.0 75.0

2001 58.2 63.8 70.5 73.2 68.7 69.3 72.9 64.5 54.6 51.4 61.0 78.0 70.9 67.9 82.8 74.5 64.2 58.5 76.1 74.4 75.3 74.7 82.3 56.9 72.5 77.3 80.0 68.6 75.3 88.3 61.0 57.8 59.4 84.0 70.9 73.4 66.2 75.3 69.6 48.0 71.9 55.3 61.9 83.3 77.7 74.8 65.9 73.4 78.2 72.9

2002 59.4 59.3 66.4 73.9 69.7 70.6 75.6 63.1 56.0 53.2 62.9 78.3 72.7 68.3 82.4 75.9 62.3 59.2 75.9 73.5 74.4 78.7 84.7 58.5 73.1 77.9 81.6 68.2 75.3 90.6 59.8 58.4 60.8 83.9 71.4 72.5 68.8 77.9 71.2 49.4 79.2 58.5 62.5 83.9 78.1 73.8 67.5 71.1 78.6 73.3

2003 63.6 62.5 77.6 74.4 71.0 72.6 77.6 65.8 56.5 54.2 64.2 79.0 73.5 71.0 81.8 76.2 65.4 60.4 77.1 74.7 73.0 77.5 85.8 60.3 75.4 79.1 81.9 60.1 76.3 95.1 61.7 60.5 62.4 83.4 74.4 72.4 70.7 77.7 73.8 52.0 81.5 57.9 65.0 84.3 80.2 75.3 69.4 71.9 79.6 73.6

2004 60.3 62.5 64.3 75.3 70.7 73.2 75.9 65.4 55.0 54.1 64.9 79.6 75.5 70.1 84.5 77.0 64.8 68.6 77.5 73.7 74.6 69.1 83.6 60.3 77.2 78.6 83.8 50.7 75.7 91.3 61.8 62.5 64.2 84.7 76.0 74.1 72.4 78.4 72.2 52.1 81.5 63.0 67.7 85.1 82.6 73.2 70.2 73.1 78.0 75.1

2005 61.4 58.9 81.6 74.2 71.1 71.0 76.2 65.4 53.6 55.0 67.4 79.1 74.4 70.2 84.3 78.6 71.3 63.0 78.3 73.9 74.2 69.7 84.5 61.1 77.0 79.0 83.6 49.1 78.0 87.6 60.2 62.4 65.7 84.8 74.9 73.9 72.3 78.0 73.0 52.0 80.8 64.5 65.3 86.4 83.2 73.2 70.5 73.4 81.3 75.5

2006 61.5 62.0 67.8 79.1 65.8 70.4 77.3 69.9 53.9 55.9 67.7 78.7 75.0 70.1 85.4 76.6 71.8 57.5 76.0 74.3 74.7 66.9 85.1 60.9 77.2 79.3 82.2 50.5 78.6 86.3 61.8 64.4 65.2 79.1 74.3 74.7 71.2 78.9 72.9 56.5 82.0 66.9 64.1 78.9 79.9 68.3 68.6 72.7 81.3 74.6

2007 62.0 64.9 63.9 72.8 67.5 72.1 77.2 65.4 56.1 57.6 67.2 78.2 74.7 70.4 84.3 77.9 71.4 58.6 77.9 73.2 76.3 72.8 85.3 61.2 78.1 78.4 81.5 49.3 79.0 85.7 54.1 65.4 62.1 80.0 73.1 74.9 72.4 79.3 73.2 50.6 80.4 68.8 63.8 78.5 86.9 69.1 70.7 73.4 82.2 74.1

2008 64.0 65.8 67.1 75.0 68.2 71.5 78.1 65.7 59.6 58.8 68.4 77.6 75.8 70.5 83.9 78.2 69.1 58.1 78.7 72.8 77.0 72.5 85.4 61.7 78.4 78.8 79.5 47.6 80.6 85.2 60.6 67.1 65.9 81.9 72.9 75.2 74.8 79.5 70.9 53.9 82.7 71.1 65.3 74.0 86.6 70.7 68.6 72.3 85.6 74.7

2009 64.5 70.2 63.0 72.0 68.1 74.4 71.3 67.4 61.1 59.3 67.0 77.9 72.4 70.4 82.6 77.5 71.7 67.1 87.6 73.1 78.8 71.1 86.2 59.5 78.2 78.9 78.2 50.5 80.8 86.4 59.7 70.1 66.1 85.2 72.2 74.3 73.5 79.1 70.7 58.8 78.8 74.2 66.9 78.6 86.6 71.3 68.7 71.6 85.3 73.2

2010 66.5 72.7 72.7 72.6 74.2 76.2 71.0 69.0 65.0 62.8 67.0 81.5 77.0 74.4 85.9 82.3 74.5 62.2 87.9 74.9 78.3 72.9 86.7 60.7 78.4 78.4 79.2 50.8 82.2 88.6 62.2 73.4 68.8 86.4 74.9 75.4 75.1 79.5 71.1 60.5 78.7 75.8 70.4 80.5 88.1 75.0 73.2 72.5 85.9 79.3

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Public High School Graduation Rates www.postsecondary.org (Rank)

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 42 37 41 21 31 27 10 39 47 49 36 11 25 33 6 17 35 45 12 22 15 31 5 46 23 8 4 30 19 1 40 44 43 2 28 24 34 14 29 50 18 48 38 3 7 19 26 15 9 13

2001 44 38 28 21 31 30 22 36 48 49 40 8 26 33 4 17 37 43 11 18 12 16 5 46 24 10 6 32 12 1 40 45 42 2 26 19 34 12 29 50 25 47 39 3 9 15 35 19 7 22

2002 42 43 35 19 30 29 16 36 48 49 37 10 24 32 5 14 39 44 14 21 18 8 2 45 23 12 6 33 17 1 41 47 40 3 26 25 31 12 27 50 7 45 38 3 11 20 34 28 9 22

2003 39 40 13 22 31 28 13 35 48 49 38 11 26 31 6 18 36 44 16 21 27 15 2 45 19 10 5 46 17 1 42 43 41 4 22 29 33 12 24 50 7 47 37 3 8 20 34 30 9 25

2004 45 42 39 20 30 25 17 36 47 48 37 9 19 32 4 15 38 34 13 24 22 33 6 45 14 10 5 50 18 1 44 42 40 3 16 23 28 11 29 49 8 41 35 2 7 25 31 27 12 21

2005 43 46 8 22 31 32 18 38 48 47 36 11 21 34 5 13 30 41 14 24 22 35 4 44 17 12 6 50 15 1 45 42 37 3 20 24 29 15 28 49 10 40 39 2 7 27 33 26 9 19

2006 44 42 34 9 38 29 15 31 49 48 35 13 19 30 2 17 27 46 18 23 20 36 3 45 16 8 4 50 14 1 43 40 39 9 23 20 28 11 25 47 5 36 41 11 7 33 32 26 6 22

2007 43 39 40 26 35 29 17 37 47 46 36 13 20 32 4 15 30 45 16 24 18 27 3 44 14 12 6 50 10 2 48 38 42 8 25 19 28 9 23 49 7 34 41 11 1 33 31 22 5 21

2008 43 40 37 20 36 28 15 41 46 47 35 16 18 32 5 14 33 48 12 25 17 26 3 44 13 11 10 50 8 4 45 37 39 7 24 19 21 9 30 49 6 29 42 23 1 31 34 27 2 22

2009 43 34 44 26 37 18 29 38 45 48 40 16 24 33 7 17 27 39 1 23 11 31 4 47 14 10 14 50 8 3 46 35 42 6 25 19 21 9 32 49 11 20 41 13 2 29 36 28 5 22

2010 43 33 34 35 29 20 38 40 44 45 42 10 19 28 7 8 27 47 3 25 18 32 4 48 17 16 14 50 9 1 46 30 41 5 26 22 23 12 37 49 15 21 39 11 2 24 31 36 6 13

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Percentage of Teens Ages 16 to 19 Not Attending School and Not Working The Annie E. Casey Foundation

0 5 19th Lowest

10 15 20 Rank 25

2008 2012

30 35 40 45 50

IA

MN

NE

NH

KS

CO

AZ

GA

LA

NV

AR

The Annie E. Casey Foundation notes in the 2014 Kids Count Data Book that idle teens are at high risk of negative outcomes in adulthood. Eight percent of the teens in Colorado are not working or attending school compared with 4 percent in South Dakota and 12 percent in New Mexico, which were the highest and lowest ranked states in 2012.

Fig. 99

Lowest Percentage of Teens Ages 16 to 19 Not Attending School and Not Working The Annie E. Casey Foundation

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5

19th Lowest

10 15

20

Rank 25

2008 2012

30 35 40

45 50

UT

CO

TX

NM

AZ

GA

Eight percent of the teens aged 16 to 19 in Colorado and Utah are neither attending school nor working. Texas (9 percent), Arizona and Georgia (both 11 percent), and New Mexico (12 percent) report higher percentages of idle teens.

Fig. 100

Lowest Percentage of Teens Ages 16 to 19 Not Attending School and Not Working The Annie E. Casey Foundation

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 43 20 47 43 20 6 20 26 20 48 32 35 26 32 6 6 43 49 1 26 6 26 1 35 26 13 4 50 4 13 35 26 35 1 13 35 32 13 13 43 6 35 35 20 13 13 20 35 6 6

2001 44 44 38 29 29 22 7 29 22 38 48 29 22 14 2 7 38 44 7 22 4 14 2 48 29 29 14 48 1 5 38 29 38 7 14 44 29 14 14 22 5 22 29 7 7 14 22 38 7 14

2002 49 35 41 35 22 22 10 10 22 41 45 35 10 30 2 10 45 49 35 10 2 5 2 35 30 35 5 41 5 10 45 22 30 1 10 10 10 22 5 30 22 30 45 10 10 22 22 41 10 5

2003 39 48 39 29 16 29 11 6 16 39 48 16 16 16 11 16 46 50 4 16 16 11 1 46 16 34 11 39 6 4 34 29 34 6 16 39 29 11 29 16 16 39 34 16 1 6 34 39 1 6

2004 18 46 34 18 18 27 18 12 27 42 34 12 18 34 3 5 42 50 12 12 27 18 5 46 34 46 5 42 1 12 46 27 34 1 18 27 18 5 27 34 3 42 34 5 5 18 27 34 12 5

2005 40 40 31 31 19 9 1 31 31 45 19 9 19 19 6 9 45 40 9 19 1 19 1 45 31 19 1 31 6 9 45 19 31 1 19 40 19 9 19 40 19 45 31 6 9 9 31 45 9 9

2006 46 27 36 36 27 27 2 18 36 36 9 9 18 27 2 9 43 48 2 27 2 27 2 48 18 27 9 46 1 18 48 18 27 2 18 36 27 18 18 43 9 36 36 9 2 9 18 43 9 9

2007 44 44 44 44 23 16 7 23 40 44 31 23 23 23 7 7 31 49 7 23 7 16 1 40 31 40 3 50 3 16 23 16 31 1 7 31 31 16 7 31 16 31 31 7 3 16 23 40 3 7

2008 39 45 45 50 21 21 8 34 39 45 34 21 14 21 1 5 39 45 21 21 5 21 1 34 21 39 1 45 1 14 39 14 21 8 14 21 34 8 14 21 8 34 21 8 8 14 21 39 5 14

2009 33 45 40 33 16 16 2 16 40 45 45 23 23 23 2 8 33 40 8 16 2 23 2 45 23 40 2 49 1 8 40 16 33 8 8 23 23 16 16 33 8 33 33 23 8 8 23 50 2 23

2010 38 38 42 42 16 11 3 25 34 42 42 38 16 16 8 8 38 48 11 16 3 25 3 47 25 25 1 50 8 16 42 16 34 3 16 25 34 11 3 25 16 34 25 25 1 11 16 48 11 25

2011 38 38 42 38 28 20 12 20 28 42 42 28 20 28 6 6 20 48 6 20 2 28 2 48 20 12 2 50 6 12 42 20 38 12 12 28 28 12 12 42 2 28 28 20 6 12 28 42 6 1

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2012 39 39 45 45 19 19 3 19 30 45 30 30 13 19 3 13 30 45 19 19 3 19 3 49 19 39 8 39 8 8 49 19 30 3 13 39 30 13 8 39 1 30 30 19 1 13 19 30 8 13

Lowest Percentage of Teens Not in School and Not High School Graduates The Annie E. Casey Foundation

0

5

12th Lowest

10 15

Rank

20

2008 2012

25

30 35 40 45 50

IA

MN

NH

MA

NE

CO

MT

AK

LA

NV

NM

Western states tend to have higher percentages of teens that are not in school and are not high school graduates. Colorado’s rate peaked at 9 percent in 2006, falling to 4 percent in 2012. Correspondingly, Colorado’s dropout rate peaked in 2005-2006 and has been trending downward, according to data from the Colorado Department of Education.

Fig. 101

Lowest Percentage of Teens Not in School and Not High School Graduates The Annie E. Casey Foundation

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 12th Lowest

10

15 Rank

20

2008 2012

25 30 35 40 45 50

TX

UT

CO

GA

AZ

NM

Colorado’s competitors all rank in the bottom half of the nation for the percentage of teens not in school and not high school graduates. Colorado’s position has also generally ranked in the bottom half of the nation but has improved over the past few years, reaching 4 percent in 2012. New Mexico was the lowest-ranked state with an 8 percent dropout rate.

Fig. 102

Lowest Percentage of Teens Not in School and Not High School Graduates The Annie E. Casey Foundation

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 40 12 50 37 22 30 30 37 37 46 2 22 17 40 2 22 22 30 2 30 12 22 9 45 30 9 5 46 17 12 46 17 46 1 22 42 30 9 22 42 12 30 42 5 5 17 17 12 5 22

2001 41 30 45 7 30 45 7 41 37 45 14 30 30 45 1 7 30 37 7 23 2 14 2 50 41 7 7 30 2 2 23 23 45 6 14 44 14 14 23 23 14 30 37 14 14 7 23 23 14 37

2002 49 5 43 33 18 39 5 33 30 47 18 30 18 47 3 9 39 43 18 18 5 9 3 43 33 18 9 43 9 2 49 18 33 1 9 39 5 30 9 39 18 33 33 9 18 18 18 18 9 9

2003 39 39 49 10 15 15 30 15 30 45 4 15 30 45 15 4 37 49 15 10 4 10 15 45 30 39 15 39 15 1 39 15 45 1 15 15 30 30 15 15 15 30 37 10 4 4 10 39 1 4

2004 20 7 45 20 13 32 3 32 32 48 3 13 13 50 1 20 41 41 7 20 32 20 7 41 20 37 13 45 20 7 48 32 37 1 13 13 13 7 37 41 3 45 37 7 3 20 20 20 20 20

2005 36 36 36 27 16 27 2 36 27 47 1 36 16 36 4 9 36 27 16 16 4 16 2 36 27 16 4 50 9 9 47 9 36 4 9 47 16 16 27 36 16 27 27 16 4 9 16 36 9 27

2006 41 27 41 15 15 41 2 27 36 41 15 27 15 36 2 2 41 50 2 15 2 15 2 47 15 41 10 47 2 10 47 15 27 1 10 36 27 15 27 36 27 15 27 15 2 10 15 36 10 27

2007 46 23 46 23 23 23 3 43 43 46 3 36 19 23 3 3 36 46 11 23 11 11 2 36 23 23 3 50 3 11 36 11 36 1 11 36 23 19 19 43 19 23 36 11 3 11 23 23 3 23

2008 36 47 44 44 15 36 10 25 25 36 36 15 15 36 1 10 25 47 15 15 4 15 1 25 25 44 4 47 1 4 47 10 36 25 10 36 15 10 15 25 15 25 25 25 4 4 25 36 4 15

2009 29 9 42 29 9 42 3 22 29 29 29 22 22 29 9 9 29 42 3 9 3 22 3 29 29 47 9 50 1 1 47 9 29 9 9 42 22 9 29 29 22 9 29 9 9 3 22 47 3 42

2010 44 27 44 44 15 15 5 27 27 38 5 15 15 38 5 5 27 49 15 27 5 15 5 47 27 27 2 47 2 5 49 15 38 5 15 38 27 15 5 27 38 15 27 15 1 2 15 27 5 38

2011 34 42 42 9 9 34 9 42 34 42 9 9 24 34 9 9 9 42 9 9 2 24 2 34 24 42 2 42 2 2 50 24 24 24 9 34 24 9 24 42 24 9 34 2 2 9 24 34 9 1

2012 38 29 38 38 12 12 3 38 29 38 12 12 12 38 12 29 12 47 3 12 3 12 3 38 29 38 12 47 1 3 50 12 29 3 12 47 12 12 29 38 3 12 29 29 1 3 12 29 3 12

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Population 25+ Completing High School U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey

0 5

14th Highest

10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2013

35 40 45 50

AK

MN MT WY

UT

CO

AL

KY

WV

TX

MS

Nearly 91 percent of Colorado’s population aged 25 and over have completed high school as of 2013, earning the state a 14th-place ranking. This compares with 93.5 percent in top-ranked Wyoming and 81.7 percent in bottom-ranked California.

Fig. 103

Population 25+ Completing High School U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

14th Highest

5 10 15 Rank

20

2003

25

2008

30

2013

35 40 45 50

UT

CO

AZ

GA

NM

TX

Colorado (90.5 percent) and Utah (91.5 percent) are the only states among the competitors that rank in the top third of the nation for high school graduates. Texas (81.9 percent) struggles in this comparison and has ranked in the bottom-five states since 2002.

Fig. 104

Population 25+ Completing High School U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 47 6 34 44 40 9 20 22 32 42 12 14 27 33 5 9 49 46 22 25 15 21 2 50 31 18 4 28 8 26 38 35 42 18 24 36 17 29 37 39 13 40 45 1 11 30 3 48 16 7

2002 45 4 33 39 43 17 20 25 31 36 14 20 29 33 8 12 49 48 19 23 13 23 3 50 28 7 5 32 10 22 40 33 40 15 26 40 16 26 37 38 11 43 47 2 9 30 6 46 17 1

2003 46 1 33 44 42 15 20 24 31 40 17 16 29 32 9 10 47 45 14 23 18 21 2 50 27 3 6 36 8 28 41 35 43 13 24 34 18 26 37 38 11 39 49 5 11 30 6 48 21 4

2004 46 1 34 44 42 17 12 28 31 39 19 18 29 32 5 6 49 45 13 21 15 23 2 50 25 4 6 36 13 26 43 33 39 16 24 35 19 27 37 38 6 41 48 10 10 30 6 47 21 2

2005 46 2 35 44 47 13 19 28 32 37 17 23 27 30 7 13 48 45 10 21 18 21 3 50 31 4 8 37 6 25 40 33 39 16 25 33 20 23 36 41 15 42 49 5 8 29 11 42 11 1

2006 45 7 36 44 45 17 17 27 32 38 9 21 30 29 11 13 47 48 12 23 19 22 1 50 31 4 8 35 5 26 40 34 39 16 24 33 20 24 37 41 15 43 49 2 6 28 9 42 14 2

2007 45 3 36 44 46 16 20 22 32 39 10 17 30 29 8 13 47 48 10 22 17 22 2 50 31 7 8 35 3 26 40 34 37 14 25 33 20 27 37 41 19 42 49 6 5 28 12 43 14 1

2008 45 2 36 44 48 17 19 27 33 35 8 23 30 29 8 16 46 47 12 22 18 21 2 49 28 4 11 39 4 26 42 34 38 13 24 32 19 25 37 40 8 41 50 7 6 30 13 43 13 1

2009 46 3 37 44 48 17 20 26 33 38 8 21 31 29 7 15 47 45 10 22 19 23 2 49 28 6 13 38 4 26 42 34 36 11 25 32 18 23 34 40 12 41 50 8 5 29 15 42 13 1

2010 45 5 33 44 49 15 21 27 34 38 13 23 29 28 7 17 46 46 10 24 18 20 2 48 29 3 9 36 4 26 42 35 36 10 24 32 19 22 41 39 16 40 49 7 5 31 14 43 12 1

2011 46 4 34 43 48 15 20 31 33 38 10 23 30 29 10 17 45 47 8 21 19 22 2 48 28 1 7 42 6 26 44 35 37 9 25 32 18 23 36 39 10 39 48 14 4 27 16 39 13 2

2012 45 3 35 42 49 12 18 26 33 39 15 20 30 30 8 17 46 47 8 23 21 22 2 48 28 1 13 40 4 27 44 36 37 5 25 32 18 24 34 40 13 38 50 10 5 29 15 43 11 5

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2013 43 6 34 44 50 14 19 29 32 40 12 21 30 31 6 16 46 47 5 24 18 21 4 48 26 3 15 41 2 27 45 37 36 9 25 33 19 23 34 37 6 37 49 9 9 28 16 42 13 1

Higher Education

Population 25+ with Bachelor’s Degree or Higher U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2nd Highest

0 5 10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2013

35 40 45 50

MA

CO

CT

MD

VA

NV

AR

MS

KY

WV

Colorado, with 37.8 percent of its population over 25 with a bachelor’s degree or higher, continues to hold its place among the top-five states in college-educated adults. Massachusetts has held the top position since 2000 whereas Connecticut, Maryland, and Colorado jockey between the second, third, and fourth positions.

Fig. 105

Population 25+ with Bachelor’s Degree or Higher U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

2nd Highest

5 10 15 Rank

20

2003

25

2008

30

2013

35 40

45 50

CO

UT

GA

TX

AZ

NM

One of Colorado’s major advantages against its competitors is its highly-educated residents. While 37.8 percent of Colorado’s population over 25 have a bachelor’s degree or higher, only 26.4 percent have a bachelor’s degree or higher in New Mexico.

Fig. 106

Population 25+ with Bachelor’s Degree or Higher U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 43 17 36 49 12 3 2 20 27 29 12 39 14 44 37 15 48 45 30 4 1 30 11 46 30 21 22 47 6 5 23 10 38 30 41 42 18 34 19 27 25 40 25 16 9 7 8 50 35 24

2002 43 14 35 46 12 2 4 21 26 25 15 38 13 43 39 17 47 45 27 3 1 30 9 49 28 22 22 48 8 6 19 11 33 29 40 42 19 30 17 37 30 41 24 16 7 5 10 50 35 33

2003 44 18 28 47 12 2 3 17 25 23 15 33 16 45 40 14 49 43 21 4 1 28 8 48 32 22 24 46 9 6 35 11 28 25 39 41 19 31 12 37 38 42 27 20 7 5 10 50 34 35

2004 43 21 28 49 12 4 3 16 26 24 13 37 13 44 36 15 47 44 23 2 1 30 11 48 33 20 22 46 7 5 38 10 30 35 39 41 19 28 16 30 40 41 24 18 8 6 9 50 34 27

2005 43 20 25 48 12 2 3 19 28 22 16 37 14 44 36 15 47 45 25 4 1 33 10 49 35 23 20 45 8 5 28 9 28 27 37 41 18 24 13 40 33 42 28 16 7 6 11 50 32 39

2006 44 21 26 49 14 3 4 20 28 23 12 37 15 42 36 16 47 46 24 2 1 34 11 48 35 19 21 45 8 5 28 9 31 25 38 41 18 27 13 39 31 42 33 16 7 6 10 50 30 39

2007 45 24 30 48 13 3 4 23 25 20 15 35 13 42 37 16 47 46 22 2 1 34 10 49 35 21 19 43 8 5 33 9 28 27 38 41 18 25 12 39 32 43 31 17 6 6 11 50 29 40

2008 44 21 31 49 14 2 2 19 27 19 16 38 13 41 36 14 47 46 29 4 1 34 10 48 33 22 22 45 7 5 34 9 26 24 37 43 18 25 12 39 31 41 30 16 8 6 11 50 28 40

2009 44 24 29 49 14 2 4 18 31 20 15 39 12 43 34 16 47 46 23 3 1 36 10 48 33 21 21 45 9 5 31 8 25 27 38 42 17 26 13 37 34 41 30 19 7 6 11 50 28 40

2010 44 21 30 48 14 2 4 22 32 24 16 39 12 43 36 15 47 46 26 3 1 34 10 48 33 18 20 45 8 5 35 9 27 23 37 42 18 25 13 38 28 41 30 17 7 6 11 50 28 40

2011 45 28 26 48 14 3 4 19 33 23 18 37 13 43 33 15 46 46 20 2 1 35 10 49 32 21 22 44 8 6 35 9 25 30 38 41 17 24 12 40 30 42 28 16 5 7 11 50 27 38

2012 44 23 28 48 14 2 3 19 30 22 17 37 12 43 33 16 47 46 23 4 1 36 10 49 32 20 21 45 8 5 35 9 27 25 38 42 18 26 13 39 33 41 31 15 6 7 11 50 29 40

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2013 44 26 29 48 17 2 4 19 30 24 15 38 13 42 36 16 45 46 25 3 1 33 10 49 32 21 20 46 8 5 36 9 23 31 39 42 18 22 12 39 34 41 28 14 7 6 11 50 27 34

Science & Engineering Graduate Students per 1,000 Individuals 25-34 Years Old National Science Foundation

0

9th Highest

5 10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2009

30

2011

35 40

45 50

MA

ND

KS

CT

NM

CO

MS

AR

SC

NV

ME

Colorado’s research laboratories, universities, and technology-based economy attract graduate students from around the world. There were 16.5 S&E graduate students per 1,000 individuals 25 to 34 years old in Colorado, compared with 30.5 in Massachusetts and 5.2 in Maine.

Fig. 107

Science & Engineering Graduate Students per 1,000 Individuals 25-34 Years Old National Science Foundation

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

9th Highest

5 10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2009

30

2011

35 40 45 50

NM

CO

UT

TX

AZ

GA

Universities such as the Colorado School of Mines, the University of Colorado, and Colorado State University, all offer competitive science and engineering doctorate programs and research facilities. Colorado (16.5 graduate students) surpassed New Mexico (14.8 graduate students) in 2009 and maintained its lead in 2011.

Fig. 108

Science & Engineering Graduate Students per 1,000 Individuals 25-34 Years Old National Science Foundation State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2001 32 44 29 47 23 9 3 7 40 41 36 29 8 24 10 2 41 26 50 12 1 18 25 45 35 13 21 49 37 27 6 5 34 4 20 28 38 14 16 47 21 41 32 15 39 16 45 29 19 11

2002 30 39 36 48 23 8 3 6 39 43 30 30 10 25 10 2 42 27 50 8 1 16 24 45 34 14 19 49 36 28 7 5 34 4 21 29 38 13 15 47 22 44 33 16 39 18 46 26 19 12

2003 33 37 39 47 22 10 4 6 38 45 27 24 15 25 11 3 43 26 50 8 1 16 29 46 35 13 20 49 34 27 5 6 36 2 21 32 40 12 14 47 23 42 31 19 41 17 44 30 18 9

2006 28 38 42 47 22 16 3 7 39 44 27 26 15 24 11 3 41 42 50 8 1 21 5 40 32 13 17 49 34 25 9 5 29 2 17 36 37 14 10 48 30 44 32 19 35 22 46 31 20 12

2005 29 36 39 47 23 13 2 6 39 43 26 35 12 24 10 7 42 32 50 8 1 21 2 44 27 15 16 49 30 25 9 5 27 4 17 39 38 13 10 48 30 45 32 17 37 19 46 32 21 20

2007 28 40 38 47 17 14 2 6 35 40 27 38 11 24 12 8 44 34 50 7 1 20 4 42 30 17 19 48 30 21 10 5 26 3 16 33 42 12 9 49 35 45 29 25 37 14 46 32 21 21

2009 29 35 41 46 22 10 3 6 36 43 30 39 12 20 11 9 47 38 50 6 1 18 4 42 28 24 13 49 32 24 16 5 26 2 19 33 40 15 8 48 13 45 31 27 36 17 44 33 20 23

2011 20 35 34 48 23 9 3 7 36 42 31 37 11 15 16 10 46 41 50 8 1 12 4 44 31 26 16 49 33 30 13 6 23 2 16 27 39 13 4 47 28 45 29 22 37 19 43 39 25 21

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Science & Engineering Doctorate Holders as a Percentage of the Workforce National Science Foundation

0 5

7th Highest

10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2010

35 40 45 50

NM

MA

MD

DE

RI

CO

SD

WY

AR

FL

NV

Colorado’s research laboratories, universities, and technology-based economy attract scientists and engineers from around the world. About 0.6 percent of the workforce in Colorado are S&E doctorate holders compared with 1.2 percent in top-ranked Massachusetts and 0.2 percent in bottom-ranked Arkansas.

Fig. 109

Science & Engineering Doctorate Holders as a Percentage of the Workforce National Science Foundation

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5

7th Highest

10

15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2010

35 40

45 50

NM

CO

UT

TX

AZ

GA

New Mexico has many federal laboratories and Ph.D.s in science and engineering. The rate in New Mexico (0.9 percent) is about three times that of Arizona (0.3 percent).

Fig. 110

Science & Engineering Doctorate Holders as a Percentage of the Workforce National Science Foundation

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2001 43 20 37 48 10 9 5 3 49 37 14 25 22 29 39 35 45 39 31 4 2 22 18 43 29 31 31 50 21 6 1 10 16 26 22 42 18 14 10 39 45 26 26 16 6 13 8 45 35 31

2002 41 28 38 48 9 8 5 4 50 38 16 22 23 32 34 36 44 38 26 3 1 23 19 42 32 19 34 49 28 13 2 9 17 21 25 42 15 13 6 36 47 26 30 17 12 9 7 44 30 44

2003 36 24 36 48 7 10 6 4 49 36 13 21 21 29 33 33 44 36 29 3 2 24 18 45 29 19 33 50 19 13 1 10 17 27 21 36 16 15 5 42 45 29 28 24 7 10 7 43 36 45

2006 41 29 37 48 8 8 5 4 49 39 16 22 22 31 35 35 44 39 26 3 1 24 18 41 31 20 31 49 27 13 2 10 17 21 25 43 15 14 6 37 47 27 30 18 12 10 7 44 31 46

2008 40 27 36 50 6 13 5 4 48 36 12 22 22 32 34 36 46 44 29 2 1 24 18 42 29 19 40 48 21 13 3 7 17 24 24 42 16 15 10 34 36 29 27 20 10 7 7 44 32 47

2010 36 24 39 50 6 7 5 4 48 34 17 28 21 30 34 43 44 44 33 2 1 21 17 44 29 15 37 48 21 12 3 10 17 24 26 41 15 13 9 37 40 26 30 20 13 11 7 41 30 44

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

State Engineering Degree Production per 1,000 Workers 0

National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

5

13th Highest

10 15 20

2003 2008 2012

Rank 25

30 35

40 45

50

ND

MT

UT

MI

SD

CO

KY

CT

NV

AK

HI

Colorado has three universities with robust engineering programs including the University of Colorado, the Colorado School of Mines, and Colorado State University. These universities accounted for over 87 percent of the state’s bachelor’s degrees in engineering in 2012.

Fig. 111

State Engineering Degree Production per 1,000 Workers National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

13th Highest

5 10 15 Rank

20 2003

25

2008

30

2012

35

40 45

50

UT

CO

NM

AZ

TX

GA

Colorado produced about 0.8 engineering degrees per 1,000 workers in the state. Utah (0.9 degrees) is the highest ranking competitor while Georgia (0.5 degrees) is ranked the lowest at 38th.

Fig. 112

State Engineering Tech Degree Production per 1,000 Workers National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 14 29 6 44 37 40 43 25 39 46 10 17 30 3 34 42 21 15 36 50 35 19 41 18 12 7 20 48 32 49 5 31 33 2 16 38 8 9 1 45 26 24 27 23 11 28 22 4 13 47

2003 38 39 18 42 41 37 45 21 43 47 1 27 29 2 19 40 23 12 26 49 31 7 36 15 9 16 5 50 35 48 11 34 33 4 17 20 13 10 3 44 8 32 25 28 14 22 30 6 24 46

2005 42 27 32 40 45 39 44 36 41 46 10 33 30 1 20 31 22 13 17 49 34 5 29 14 18 19 8 50 25 47 12 38 26 2 9 15 28 11 3 43 7 35 21 37 6 24 23 4 16 48

2006 42 21 37 36 47 26 44 40 41 45 18 39 30 2 24 31 14 19 10 49 29 4 34 11 20 16 8 48 28 46 13 35 27 1 6 7 38 9 3 43 5 25 23 32 15 22 33 12 17 50

2007 41 18 37 40 49 16 43 35 42 47 26 38 33 3 27 32 14 13 12 48 30 5 34 15 25 21 9 50 19 45 20 22 23 1 7 8 39 11 2 44 4 31 28 36 10 24 29 6 17 46

2009 32 21 33 37 50 25 43 39 40 45 20 38 41 3 30 27 16 9 10 49 36 5 26 15 17 18 8 48 24 47 22 35 19 1 7 6 42 11 2 44 4 31 29 28 13 34 23 14 12 46

2010 11 14 43 34 48 33 46 25 42 44 28 37 41 3 26 22 17 8 12 49 38 4 31 9 15 21 10 50 29 45 20 30 19 1 5 6 39 13 2 40 7 27 23 36 24 32 35 18 16 47

2011 9 11 40 21 49 37 46 33 41 45 31 36 42 3 24 29 15 7 17 48 43 5 32 13 14 12 23 50 34 47 18 26 16 1 8 6 35 20 2 38 4 22 28 39 30 27 25 19 10 44

2012 9 26 39 33 49 38 46 35 44 45 32 25 42 3 23 27 17 6 10 50 43 4 34 12 13 11 22 47 31 48 19 28 16 1 7 8 29 18 5 40 2 20 30 37 36 24 21 15 14 41

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

State Computer Science Degree Production per 1,000 Workers National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

0 5

18th Highest

10 15 20 Rank 25

2003 2008 2012

30 35 40 45 50

UT

RI

MD

NY

MO

CO

KY

ME

AK

NV

WY

Colorado ranks in the top half of the nation for the number of bachelor’s degrees in computer science awarded per 1,000 workers in the state. Computer and information sciences are key occupations in nearly every industry.

Fig. 113

State Computer Science Degree Production per 1,000 Workers National Center for Education Statistics; Bureau of Labor Statistics

Colorado vs. Competitors

0 5

18th Highest

10

15 Rank

20

2003

25

2008

30

2012

35 40 45 50

UT

AZ

GA

CO

NM

TX

Colorado’s computer science degree production peaked in 2006 (0.6 degrees) and dropped by about half by 2010 (0.3 degrees) before rebounding slightly to 0.4 degrees by 2012. Utah and Arizona have consistently been the top-ranked competitor states, with the popularity of online computer science degrees through the University of Phoenix supporting the Arizona ranking.

Fig. 114

State Computer Science Degree Production per 1,000 Occupations National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 16 49 24 27 31 23 45 21 35 13 7 29 18 25 14 12 47 30 46 5 10 41 19 34 6 22 17 50 8 20 26 4 33 9 32 28 39 15 1 42 11 44 38 2 37 3 43 40 36 48

2003 29 48 7 28 17 16 45 32 34 8 20 30 10 22 26 13 46 24 47 3 14 19 21 43 5 36 27 49 12 15 18 4 35 6 31 42 40 11 2 38 9 44 41 1 37 25 39 23 33 50

2005 27 48 1 34 24 10 43 40 30 11 19 14 6 15 25 23 49 29 47 2 12 22 18 44 7 41 16 45 13 20 21 9 32 17 37 36 38 8 5 33 4 46 42 3 35 26 28 39 31 50

2006 19 47 1 35 29 5 45 32 26 12 22 14 6 16 25 23 49 34 48 3 15 20 18 42 9 40 13 46 17 28 24 10 37 11 36 41 39 8 7 38 4 44 43 2 21 27 30 31 33 50

2007 18 49 1 33 31 5 43 40 25 19 37 14 7 13 12 28 46 30 45 3 17 22 21 44 9 41 10 47 20 34 15 11 39 16 32 38 36 8 4 35 6 42 48 2 23 29 27 24 26 50

2008 30 47 1 34 27 5 45 33 21 19 37 23 9 14 10 25 46 32 49 3 16 20 17 42 13 40 8 44 26 35 22 15 38 18 31 39 36 6 4 43 7 41 48 2 12 24 28 11 29 50

2009 30 47 1 35 34 7 48 26 21 22 29 16 11 20 12 24 44 40 49 3 17 18 15 45 14 38 8 43 27 39 23 13 36 9 33 41 32 5 6 37 10 42 46 2 4 25 28 19 31 50

2010 24 49 1 40 28 22 48 29 23 21 41 12 8 19 7 34 43 42 46 4 17 15 20 45 16 47 9 39 27 38 30 18 31 10 33 37 32 5 6 35 14 36 44 2 3 11 26 13 25 50

2011 26 44 1 36 32 17 47 21 24 22 42 18 10 15 4 25 45 40 49 3 16 13 19 48 14 46 12 41 30 39 29 20 31 23 34 37 35 9 7 33 11 38 43 2 5 6 28 8 27 50

2012 24 49 1 34 33 18 47 25 23 19 38 17 12 10 4 22 40 44 48 3 14 16 20 45 15 46 13 43 29 37 42 21 30 26 32 31 35 9 7 39 11 36 41 2 6 5 27 8 28 50

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Percentage of Family Income Needed to Pay for a Public Four-Year College NCHEMS Information Center

0 5 10

23rd Lowest

15 20 Rank

2007

25

2009

30 35 40 45 50

WY

LA

TN

GA

UT

CO

OR

DE

VT

PA

OH

College affordability for each state depends on the cost of tuition, room and board, and federal, state, and institutional aid. About 16 percent of the median family income in Colorado was needed to pay for a public college in 2009. This compares to Wyoming at 9.3 percent and Pennsylvania, the lowest ranked state, at 23.2 percent.

Fig. 115

Lowest Percentage of Family Income Needed to Pay for a Public Four-Year College NCHEMS Information Center

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10

23rd Lowest

15

20

Rank 25

2007

30

2009

35 40 45 50

GA

UT

AZ

NM

CO

TX

A greater share of family income is needed to fund college costs in Colorado (16.1 percent) than all of the other competitor states. Utah (11.4 percent) ranked first among the competitors.

Fig. 116

Lowest Percentage of Family Income Needed to Pay for a Public Four-Year College NCHEMS Information Center

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2007 43 10 14 6 27 18 18 47 7 4 8 18 44 40 35 13 30 2 44 16 23 40 30 9 28 38 16 24 39 42 15 24 12 33 50 21 44 49 36 37 10 3 29 5 48 21 34 30 26 1

2009 38 7 20 9 34 23 23 45 12 6 10 15 46 39 22 17 28 2 49 11 23 47 35 16 27 23 19 36 44 40 5 31 8 18 47 13 43 50 41 37 14 4 21 3 42 33 28 28 32 1

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

State Higher Education Grant Aid Targeted to Low-Income Families www.postsecondary.org

0 5 10 15 20

25th Highest

Rank 25

2003 2008

30

2011

35 40

45 50

VT

PA

NY

IL

MN

CO WY

LA

GA

AK

SD

States that can help lower-income students access post-secondary education increase the quality and diversity of the workforce. The value of grant aid provided in Colorado represented 16.2 percent of the value of federal Pell grant aid awarded to residents of the state in 2011, compared with 51.9 percent in top-ranked Vermont and zero in Georgia, New Hampshire, and South Dakota. From 2007 to 2011, 45 states posted a decrease in the percentage covered.

Fig. 117

State Higher Education Grant Aid Targeted to Low-Income Families www.postsecondary.org

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 15

25th Highest

20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2011

35 40 45 50

TX

CO

NM

UT

AZ

GA

Texas (24.5 percent) and Colorado (16.2 percent) are the only states among the competitors that ranked among the top 25 states for grant aid targeted to low-income families in 2011. Colorado’s state need-based grant aid peaked in 2008, declining by 4.9 percent by 2011. Texas is the only competitor to increase its amount of grant aid since the recession.

Fig. 118

State Higher Education Grant Aid Targeted to Low-Income Families www.postsecondary.org

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 44 47 41 22 16 15 6 36 34 47 43 42 1 9 12 33 18 46 20 17 5 13 3 45 30 38 35 26 37 7 27 8 23 40 19 32 28 2 25 21 47 29 31 39 4 14 10 24 11 47

2003 42 49 43 32 13 22 12 9 33 48 45 44 4 7 16 36 17 47 25 19 11 23 5 38 37 39 35 28 34 6 29 3 21 41 20 30 31 2 15 26 49 27 18 40 1 10 8 24 14 46

2007 42 44 43 36 13 21 9 10 32 49 47 45 8 6 17 35 20 41 25 12 18 33 7 46 27 39 34 26 37 4 31 5 11 38 24 23 30 2 19 29 50 28 15 40 1 16 3 22 14 48

2008 43 38 42 36 13 18 10 11 34 50 45 46 7 5 14 35 22 37 26 17 19 32 9 47 25 39 33 29 41 3 31 4 8 40 24 20 21 6 27 28 49 30 23 44 1 16 2 15 12 48

2011 42 36 44 43 7 25 17 18 35 48 41 46 9 8 20 37 21 39 27 22 23 34 10 47 32 40 31 24 48 5 30 3 13 19 38 16 29 4 26 33 48 28 12 45 1 15 2 11 14 6

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Health

America’s Health Rankings United Health Federation; American Public Health Association

0 5

8th Best

10 15 20

2009

Rank 25

2013

30 35 40 45

50

VT

UT

MA

HI

NH

CO

SC

LA

AL

OK

MS

America’s Health Rankings provides a holistic approach to ranking health and healthcare by scoring states across a broad range of health determinants and outcomes including behavior, community and environment, public and health policies, and clinical care. Higher ranking states have good quality determinants and better overall health.

Fig. 119

America’s Health Rankings United Health Federation; American Public Health Association

Colorado vs. Competitors 8th Best

0 5

10 15 20

2009

Rank 25

2013

30 35 40 45 50

UT

CO

AZ

NM

TX

GA

Colorado and Utah are the only competitors that rank among the top-25 states. Colorado ranks well in low obesity rates, high physical activity, and preventable hospitalizations. Utah has secured a top10 ranking each year from 2009 to 2013, whereas Colorado dropped below that mark in 2010 and 2012.

Fig. 120

America’s Health Rankings

United Health Federation; American Public Health Association

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2009 48 34 27 40 23 8 7 32 36 43 4 14 29 35 15 24 41 47 9 21 3 30 6 50 38 26 16 45 5 18 31 25 37 17 33 49 13 28 10 46 20 44 39 2 1 21 11 42 12 19

2010 45 28 31 48 26 13 4 32 37 36 5 9 29 38 14 23 44 49 8 21 2 30 6 50 39 25 11 47 3 17 33 24 35 16 34 46 15 27 10 41 20 42 40 7 1 22 11 43 18 19

2011 46 35 29 47 24 9 3 30 33 37 4 19 28 38 17 26 43 49 8 22 5 30 6 50 40 25 16 42 2 11 34 18 32 12 36 48 14 26 10 45 23 39 44 7 1 20 15 41 13 21

2012 45 28 25 48 22 11 6 31 34 36 2 17 30 41 20 24 44 49 9 19 4 37 5 49 42 29 15 38 3 8 32 18 33 12 35 43 13 26 10 46 27 39 40 7 1 21 13 47 16 23

2013 47 25 28 49 21 8 7 31 33 38 1 12 30 41 18 27 45 48 16 24 4 34 3 50 39 23 11 37 5 10 32 15 35 9 40 44 13 29 18 43 22 42 36 6 2 26 14 46 20 17

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Obesity Prevalence Among Adults Trust for America’s Health, The State of Obesity

1st Lowest

0 5 10 15 20 Rank 25

2003

30

2013

2008

35 40 45 50

CO

HI

MA

RI

MT

KY

IN

WV

MS

AL

Colorado (21.3 percent) has the lowest adult obesity rate in the nation, while West Virginia and Mississippi have the highest at 35.1 percent. Colorado has ranked first every year since 2003. The publication notes Colorado also has the fourth-lowest percentage of obese children 10 to 17 years of age and has among the lowest levels of physical inactivity, diabetes, and hypertension.

Fig. 121

Lowest Obesity Prevalence Among Adults Trust for America’s Health, The State of Obesity 1st Lowest

Colorado vs. Competitors

0 5 10 15

20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2013

35 40 45 50

CO

AZ

NM

UT

TX

GA

Coloradans continue to be the thinnest people in the nation, with only 21.3 percent of the population classified as obese. While this is good news, it is discouraging that all states now have obesity rates over 20 percent. Georgia (30.3 percent) and Texas (30.9 percent) have the highest obesity prevalence of the competitors.

Fig. 122

Lowest Obesity Prevalence Among Adults Trust for America’s Health, The State of Obesity State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2003 50 29 10 43 27 1 6 35 8 43 2 22 27 47 33 24 46 40 8 23 3 43 26 49 30 5 33 18 13 10 13 16 35 31 41 37 19 32 4 38 25 42 39 15 7 20 20 48 16 10

2004 48 31 10 39 19 1 4 23 13 38 N/A 14 26 41 29 26 42 46 17 20 2 42 24 49 32 5 29 17 8 10 12 16 32 32 37 36 15 35 3 40 24 45 42 7 5 26 20 47 22 9

2005 49 35 8 44 21 1 6 22 16 39 2 19 28 42 30 25 46 47 17 27 3 40 24 50 37 7 31 10 13 12 11 13 34 33 35 38 18 32 4 42 29 45 41 8 4 26 19 48 23 13

2006 48 35 9 43 15 1 4 22 17 37 4 19 25 40 30 24 44 47 18 25 2 40 23 50 38 7 33 14 12 11 10 12 34 32 36 40 21 27 6 45 30 45 38 8 3 27 19 49 29 16

2007 48 37 11 42 10 1 3 29 11 39 2 20 25 39 32 28 44 47 17 23 4 41 21 50 38 7 33 15 15 9 11 14 35 29 34 42 22 27 6 46 31 45 36 8 5 23 19 49 26 18

2008 49 32 17 40 10 1 3 34 11 36 5 17 24 35 27 32 44 43 16 25 2 42 20 50 38 8 30 19 11 9 15 14 39 27 40 45 21 27 4 46 30 47 36 7 6 21 21 48 25 13

2009 48 26 21 43 10 1 2 31 13 32 4 13 24 32 29 35 44 46 21 24 3 40 17 50 39 8 28 20 16 9 17 13 40 30 37 45 11 32 6 42 36 48 37 7 5 17 23 47 26 11

2010 49 20 14 42 11 1 2 29 22 33 4 19 28 36 31 35 45 46 24 25 3 41 13 50 40 7 27 12 17 8 17 10 37 29 38 44 14 32 9 43 33 47 39 5 6 20 23 48 26 14

2011 47 23 11 44 5 1 7 32 19 27 2 21 22 42 33 37 40 49 25 29 3 46 15 50 39 10 30 7 16 4 17 7 34 25 37 45 20 31 13 42 28 35 40 6 13 35 18 48 24 12

2012 46 13 16 48 10 1 12 20 11 30 3 18 26 43 39 37 42 50 28 25 2 40 13 49 33 6 29 17 22 8 21 3 33 35 38 45 22 30 13 44 26 40 32 6 5 24 18 47 35 8

2013 43 23 17 48 4 1 8 38 13 33 2 27 25 42 39 31 46 45 24 22 3 40 10 49 34 6 27 11 16 12 13 9 25 37 34 44 15 31 20 41 30 47 36 4 7 18 18 49 29 21

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Participation in Physical Activities Kaiser State Health Facts

0

1st Highest

5

10 15 20

2009

Rank 25

2011

30 35 40 45 50

AK

MT

VT

UT

ID

CO

LA

AL

MS

TN

WV

Colorado ranks as the most physically active state with 62 percent of adults reporting they participate in moderate to vigorous physical activity each week. Colorado residents take advantage of a four-season climate and enjoy an active outdoor lifestyle.

Fig. 123

Participation in Physical Activities Kaiser State Health Facts

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 15 20 Rank 25 30 35 40 45 50

1st Highest

2009 2011

UT

CO

NM

AZ

TX

GA

Colorado (62 percent) and Utah (56 percent) have the most active citizens of any of the competitor states. Arizona and New Mexico (both 52 percent) also rank in the top-25 states in the country.

Fig. 124

Participation in Physical Activities Kaiser State Health Facts

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2005 44 11 19 45 26 2 9 22 37 40 8 12 30 37 28 27 47 50 15 20 22 17 1 48 29 16 25 36 12 43 22 39 30 21 30 45 5 33 34 35 17 49 41 4 7 10 3 42 6 14

2007 46 1 15 42 22 10 15 36 39 33 19 8 30 38 32 31 45 50 7 33 18 20 26 48 29 2 17 26 11 35 13 26 47 14 23 44 5 21 24 40 37 49 40 6 3 25 12 42 9 4

2009 47 1 27 39 22 7 10 25 37 42 13 5 20 36 30 33 43 46 9 31 15 19 17 48 29 2 24 21 12 38 13 26 41 18 32 40 8 28 34 44 45 49 35 4 3 22 11 50 16 6

2011 47 6 23 44 5 1 20 35 19 28 4 8 25 43 37 41 39 48 9 34 10 16 15 49 30 13 32 20 11 17 24 27 39 38 25 45 2 31 33 29 42 50 36 12 3 22 14 46 7 18

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Adult Cigarette Smoking Rate Kaiser State Health Facts; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

0 5 10 15 20 Rank

2003

15th Lowest

25

2008 2012

30 35 40 45 50

UT

CA

HI

CO

CT

AK

LA

MO

WV

KY

Colorado’s adult smoking rate (17.7 percent) ranked 15th among the states in 2012. Smoking rates have declined in most of the states over the last 10 years. Utah had the lowest rate in 2012 with a rate of 10.6 percent while Kentucky ranked 50th with a rate of 28 percent.

Fig. 125

Lowest Adult Cigarette Smoking Rate Kaiser State Health Facts; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5

15th Lowest

10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2012

35 40 45 50

UT

CO

AZ

NM

TX

GA

Utah, Arizona, and Colorado are the top-ranked competitors. Since 2008, Colorado’s adult smoking rate has generally fluctuated between 17 and 18 percent, down from the 20-percent range typical in the early part of the last decade. Georgia (20.4 percent) was the lowest-ranked competitor state in 2012 and the only competitor to rank in the bottom half of the nation.

Fig. 126

Lowest Adult Cigarette Smoking Rate State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

Kaiser State Health Facts; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 41 29 34 39 42 44 41 40 41 44 39 44 49 46 41 45 45 37 40 39 3 11 29 15 5 21 13 25 7 11 40 39 39 34 44 41 44 39 43 40 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 9 18 6 4 13 14 9 15 20 16 7 8 5 4 4 3 4 3 7 7 23 37 37 22 39 25 34 16 21 28 24 20 16 32 17 32 30 19 17 16 29 27 25 29 13 34 23 21 31 22 5 6 8 3 N/A 4 6 8 5 7 21 4 7 6 3 7 3 18 14 12 21 27 23 30 31 17 27 29 38 29 47 46 46 44 42 49 46 45 49 45 24 13 25 21 24 22 31 26 28 19 13 15 17 13 10 6 24 13 22 23 50 50 50 50 49 50 50 50 48 49 34 36 32 47 36 37 43 41 35 43 32 31 30 31 26 28 29 29 23 20 10 9 15 12 9 11 7 10 4 6 7 3 3 7 5 9 8 4 9 4 34 40 33 44 35 33 38 34 35 33 6 15 14 17 23 18 15 5 17 14 29 38 45 42 40 42 47 44 44 47 48 42 41 48 37 40 41 47 47 45 4 12 10 11 21 12 19 23 26 14 15 5 22 18 18 29 17 28 25 13 49 45 38 37 34 39 36 35 41 41 42 33 25 18 28 22 17 21 15 9 13 9 4 8 7 8 11 11 3 9 31 29 10 23 18 31 25 31 29 24 18 25 18 20 11 24 13 16 12 27 44 41 39 34 33 37 35 42 37 36 24 13 12 14 11 20 22 33 23 29 46 47 42 37 45 35 38 43 34 36 27 49 42 36 46 46 47 48 46 48 11 6 19 16 13 10 16 7 10 24 37 35 35 40 32 42 32 32 38 35 28 31 19 27 27 14 20 8 16 5 38 43 42 41 38 36 37 36 33 38 19 18 21 28 18 14 26 26 17 21 43 34 47 42 47 47 40 46 45 41 19 20 24 26 22 18 9 19 26 24 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 20 9 9 13 13 11 12 12 16 16 23 36 23 24 25 21 14 11 32 11 23 12 9 8 5 5 6 6 3 44 48 48 49 48 47 49 49 50 49 34 26 28 23 30 27 28 24 32 31 32 15 31 33 28 29 33 37 29 34

2010 43 38 8 46 2 18 3 25 23 27 6 15 20 41 19 22 49 44 28 10 4 33 7 46 40 32 24 42 20 5 30 14 36 26 45 48 9 29 15 39 12 37 17 1 12 30 10 50 34 35

2011 41 34 14 48 2 10 5 27 16 25 3 6 22 44 21 30 50 45 33 11 9 40 11 46 42 31 19 34 17 3 26 8 27 29 43 47 18 32 19 39 36 36 14 1 11 22 7 49 22 36

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2012 42 32 10 48 2 15 4 26 15 30 3 7 21 44 18 25 50 46 29 5 7 39 22 44 43 26 26 18 11 13 24 5 33 34 39 39 17 35 14 38 37 47 20 1 9 23 11 49 30 36

Fewest Retail Prescriptions Filled per Capita Kaiser State Health Facts

6th Fewest

0

5 10 15 20

2008

Rank 25

2013

30 35 40 45 50

AK

CO

NM

CA

HI

TN

AL

SC

AR

WV

With low rates of obesity, cancer, diabetes, and other diseases, Colorado residents require among the fewest amounts of drug prescriptions in the nation with 10.3 prescriptions filled per capita.

Fig. 127

Fewest Retail Prescriptions Filled per Capita Kaiser State Health Facts

6th Fewest

Colorado vs. Competitors

0 5

10 15 20

2008

Rank 25

2013

30 35

40 45 50

CO

NM

UT

AZ

TX

GA

Low numbers of retail prescriptions are characteristic of all of Colorado’s competitors except Georgia. Colorado had 10.3 prescriptions filled per capita in 2013 compared with 12.3 in Georgia.

Fig. 128

Fewest Retail Prescriptions Filled per Capita Kaiser State Health Facts

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2005 45 1 11 40 3 5 35 30 42 30 2 8 18 36 43 36 48 44 25 16 38 13 18 46 41 13 28 4 22 18 6 22 39 11 25 33 10 28 32 46 24 48 16 9 27 18 6 48 34 15

2006 47 1 7 43 2 5 32 28 28 21 3 10 24 39 41 39 46 44 36 12 33 19 14 42 49 21 37 6 25 17 4 20 38 16 26 33 10 28 27 45 18 48 13 9 35 21 7 50 28 15

2007 49 1 6 46 3 2 33 30 34 22 5 10 24 39 41 36 44 43 27 9 36 17 13 42 45 21 38 12 25 17 4 20 40 28 22 30 10 28 30 48 15 47 14 8 35 19 7 50 26 15

2008 47 1 13 49 4 2 33 29 32 22 5 10 25 38 41 35 44 43 26 8 40 18 12 42 45 17 39 9 28 20 3 24 37 21 27 31 11 30 36 48 16 46 14 6 34 19 7 50 23 15

2009 48 1 6 46 4 2 31 27 23 22 14 11 21 26 43 25 47 40 39 10 38 20 12 44 41 16 37 7 35 17 3 30 34 29 28 32 13 33 36 45 24 49 9 5 42 18 8 50 19 15

2011 46 1 15 38 8 3 11 42 29 22 25 27 24 13 44 23 50 40 43 7 10 26 21 45 31 19 37 9 35 28 6 33 4 36 41 14 34 39 20 18 30 48 2 5 47 12 16 49 32 17

2013 47 1 13 43 11 6 5 39 22 24 21 19 22 30 41 27 50 36 44 6 9 25 12 46 29 17 36 10 36 13 3 27 4 34 42 15 39 35 18 31 32 48 2 8 45 15 26 49 19 33

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Fewest Deaths per 100,000 Population Kaiser State Health Facts

0

7th Fewest

5 10 15 Rank

20

2004

25

2008

30

2010

35 40

45 50

HI

MN ND CT

IA

CO TN WV LA

AL MS

The combination of a young population, strong population growth, and healthy lifestyles contributes to Colorado’s low mortality rate of 680 deaths per 100,000 population. Mississippi, the lowest-ranked state, posted 960 deaths per 100,000 people.

Fig. 129

Fewest Deaths per 100,000 Population Kaiser State Health Facts

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

7th Fewest

5 10 15 Rank

20

2004

25

2008

30

2010

35 40 45 CO

AZ

UT

NM

TX

GA

Colorado (680 deaths per 100,000), Arizona (690 deaths), and Utah (700 deaths) have the fewest deaths of the competitor states.

Fig. 130

Fewest Deaths per 100,000 Population Kaiser State Health Facts

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2004 46 14 17 39 N/A 8 4 31 20 39 1 16 N/A 34 5 25 41 45 26 27 11 29 2 47 35 23 12 37 19 N/A 22 7 36 3 33 42 21 30 10 38 13 43 32 18 6 28 9 44 15 24

2005 48 18 21 43 5 13 3 34 16 42 1 20 25 37 12 29 44 49 31 24 7 30 2 50 38 26 17 40 10 14 23 6 39 4 36 47 22 32 15 41 19 45 33 9 8 27 11 46 35 28

2006 49 23 12 43 3 8 7 29 6 41 1 21 27 39 15 32 45 47 25 31 9 34 2 50 40 28 16 36 13 17 22 4 38 14 37 46 24 33 20 42 18 44 30 5 10 26 11 48 19 35

2007 48 23 5 43 3 11 9 28 6 41 1 19 25 37 13 32 45 47 28 31 12 36 2 49 38 27 20 35 16 15 24 7 40 4 39 46 22 33 21 42 8 44 30 10 17 26 14 50 18 34

2008 47 20 2 44 4 11 8 31 7 38 1 16 27 39 21 32 45 46 26 28 9 36 5 49 42 33 19 35 12 14 24 6 37 13 41 48 22 34 23 40 10 43 30 3 15 25 17 50 18 29

2010 49 32 11 44 2 7 3 31 12 41 1 23 24 40 19 29 46 45 27 22 6 35 4 50 39 28 16 36 8 9 26 5 37 14 38 47 21 30 19 42 15 43 33 13 17 25 10 48 18 34

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Fewest Cancer Deaths per 100,000 Population Kaiser State Health Facts; United Health Foundation 3rd Fewest

0 5 10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2010

35 40 45 50

UT

HI

NM

CO

AZ

WV

MS

TN

LA

KY

Western states—including Colorado—have the lowest incidence of cancer deaths in the nation. Colorado’s rate of 150 deaths per 100,000 population compares with 208 per 100,000 in Kentucky. The cancer death rate has declined in every state except Vermont since 2003.

Fig. 131

Fewest Cancer Deaths per 100,000 Population Kaiser State Health Facts; United Health Foundation

Colorado vs. Competitors 3rd Fewest

0 5 10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2010

35 40 45 50

UT

NM

CO

AZ

TX

GA

All of Colorado’s competitors in the West are among the states with the lowest incidence of cancer deaths in the nation. Utah (134 deaths per 100,000) ranked first in the nation while Georgia (175 deaths) ranked 29th.

Fig. 132

Fewest Cancer Deaths per 100,000 Population Kaiser State Health Facts; United Health Foundation

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2002 41 17 4 44 8 6 14 24 12 31 2 3 36 43 19 18 50 49 46 34 32 28 13 48 38 22 14 37 30 25 5 11 33 7 42 40 26 34 27 39 10 45 23 1 16 29 21 47 20 9

2003 45 21 5 43 6 4 15 37 11 33 2 13 32 44 19 17 50 49 41 29 27 27 10 47 38 12 7 39 25 30 3 9 31 7 42 36 26 35 23 40 22 48 18 1 14 34 24 46 16 20

2004 43 22 7 47 6 3 19 44 15 34 2 8 32 39 18 21 49 50 41 26 27 28 14 46 40 16 10 31 30 23 4 11 36 5 41 38 29 35 33 37 13 45 17 1 12 25 20 48 24 9

2005 43 9 4 45 6 3 17 41 16 24 2 12 33 42 20 26 50 48 44 32 25 35 7 46 39 23 14 31 29 22 5 10 33 11 40 38 27 36 27 37 19 49 15 1 13 30 18 47 21 8

2006 43 17 3 41 6 4 18 36 12 21 2 7 33 43 19 22 50 46 39 32 31 35 9 49 42 19 16 28 27 26 5 8 37 28 45 40 24 34 25 38 11 47 14 1 10 30 13 48 23 15

2007 42 24 3 47 6 4 13 41 9 29 2 8 32 40 18 25 50 45 39 28 23 34 11 47 38 15 17 26 31 27 5 10 37 7 43 44 21 35 22 33 14 45 12 1 36 30 18 49 20 16

2008 45 30 3 46 5 4 14 42 12 16 2 11 34 43 24 18 50 49 37 32 27 35 17 48 39 8 15 29 26 21 7 9 33 20 41 40 23 36 31 38 10 44 13 1 22 25 19 47 28 6

2009 44 38 3 47 7 5 14 31 13 23 2 8 35 42 22 25 49 46 40 33 26 36 18 48 39 12 15 29 20 19 4 10 32 9 43 41 24 37 28 34 6 45 11 1 17 30 26 50 21 16

2010 44 30 5 45 6 3 11 39 12 29 2 8 32 42 23 21 50 47 41 20 21 35 14 49 38 9 15 27 16 17 4 10 33 7 40 43 26 34 31 37 19 46 13 1 36 24 18 48 28 25

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Fewest Diabetes Deaths per 100,000 Population Kaiser State Health Facts

0

3rd Fewest

5 10 15

20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2010

35 40

45 50

HI

NV

CT

CO

IA

TX

TN

NM

WV

LA

Colorado’s low obesity rate is reflected in the low number of diabetes deaths (15 deaths per 100,000). In 2010, Maine (13 deaths) ranked first and West Virginia (33 deaths)–one of the nation’s most-obese states–ranked last.

Fig. 133

Fewest Diabetes Deaths per 100,000 Population Kaiser State Health Facts

3rd Fewest

Colorado vs. Competitors

0 5 10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2010

35 40 45 50

CO

AZ

GA

UT

TX

NM

Colorado (15 deaths per 100,000) and Arizona (20 deaths) rank more favorably than the other competitors for low diabetes death rates. The death rates in Georgia (23 deaths) and Texas (22 deaths) correlate with their high levels of obesity. New Mexico (30 deaths) was the lowest ranked competitor.

Fig. 134

Fewest Diabetes Deaths per 100,000 Population Kaiser State Health Facts

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2003 41 32 8 40 12 4 3 38 11 19 1 35 20 33 5 16 45 50 25 36 5 25 22 18 29 23 10 2 17 28 48 8 39 27 43 42 29 21 7 37 15 47 45 44 31 14 24 49 13 33

2004 45 15 9 39 15 3 5 26 11 17 1 31 27 33 7 23 42 50 28 33 4 41 10 24 24 19 8 2 22 37 48 6 35 31 43 46 38 21 13 36 30 47 44 40 17 19 29 49 12 13

2005 43 12 6 34 21 4 8 32 12 14 1 10 22 36 7 22 40 50 25 29 3 39 20 16 24 34 19 2 16 38 47 5 31 33 46 48 41 16 11 37 29 44 41 44 27 14 26 49 9 28

2006 45 33 7 41 19 4 8 10 16 11 5 23 15 34 18 29 35 50 13 22 2 40 13 27 25 23 19 1 12 35 48 6 30 39 46 47 44 21 3 32 42 42 37 37 30 17 28 49 9 26

2007 37 27 5 42 16 4 2 27 15 10 8 22 16 27 14 23 32 49 19 27 3 41 11 16 21 24 26 1 13 33 48 6 27 45 46 47 43 20 9 38 36 38 35 44 33 12 25 50 7 38

2008 44 24 6 47 18 7 2 25 16 7 9 33 21 39 13 28 43 49 18 22 1 41 11 38 14 26 30 4 15 31 46 5 29 40 45 48 34 17 3 32 22 42 37 26 18 12 34 50 10 36

2009 37 10 4 44 20 7 2 25 18 11 20 37 25 36 14 24 48 45 29 28 1 39 9 49 18 16 32 3 11 22 46 6 30 41 41 47 40 23 5 33 27 43 33 31 15 17 35 50 8 11

2010 42 17 22 43 18 3 4 15 21 37 7 33 11 35 16 23 45 46 31 19 1 39 9 49 27 14 30 2 6 26 48 8 23 32 43 47 38 20 5 34 40 41 28 35 25 13 28 50 9 11

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Fewest Heart Disease Deaths per 100,000 Population 2nd Fewest

0

Kaiser State Health Facts

5 10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2010

35 40 45 50

MN

HI

CO

OR

AK

KY

AL

WV

OK

MS

Healthy lifestyles and low obesity rates contribute to Colorado’s low frequency of heart diseaserelated deaths (133 deaths per 100,000). Southern states such as Mississippi (251 deaths) dominate the rankings for high heart disease death rates.

Fig. 135

Fewest Heart Disease Deaths per 100,000 Population Kaiser State Health Facts

2nd Fewest

Colorado vs. Competitors

0 5 10 15 Rank

20

2003

25

2008

30

2010

35 40 45 50

CO

UT

NM

AZ

TX

GA

Colorado posted 133 deaths per 100,000 population due to heart disease. Three of Colorado’s primary competitors, Utah (143 deaths), Arizona (147 deaths), and New Mexico (151 deaths), have similarly low rankings for heart disease deaths.

Fig. 136

Fewest Heart Disease Deaths per 100,000 Population Kaiser State Health Facts

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2003 47 5 12 41 26 3 18 36 24 39 2 11 31 37 21 23 46 45 17 32 13 40 1 50 42 8 10 35 22 30 9 43 28 14 38 49 4 34 27 29 20 44 33 6 15 25 7 48 19 16

2004 48 2 15 43 24 3 11 37 25 40 4 13 31 35 21 22 44 45 18 27 12 38 1 50 42 6 14 39 23 28 10 41 29 9 36 49 5 33 30 32 17 46 34 8 16 26 7 47 20 19

2005 49 4 19 43 25 3 9 36 24 39 2 14 31 35 23 22 47 46 17 29 8 38 1 50 40 7 13 42 15 27 18 41 28 12 36 48 6 32 30 33 16 45 34 4 10 26 11 44 20 21

2006 49 9 6 43 26 3 18 32 15 36 2 11 33 38 23 22 46 42 14 34 12 41 1 50 39 10 7 40 19 31 13 44 27 21 37 48 5 35 30 29 17 45 28 4 16 25 8 47 20 24

2007 48 4 6 44 23 3 18 34 11 36 2 13 30 36 21 25 42 47 20 35 16 43 1 50 40 12 15 33 22 28 9 45 27 13 39 49 7 32 38 31 8 41 28 5 10 26 17 46 19 24

2008 48 5 6 45 21 3 22 26 10 31 3 9 33 37 27 24 41 47 17 35 15 44 1 50 40 20 12 36 16 32 8 42 29 11 39 49 7 38 34 30 13 43 28 2 18 25 14 46 23 19

2009 49 16 5 46 21 3 20 28 11 37 6 13 33 38 26 18 42 47 17 38 15 41 1 50 40 10 9 35 8 31 7 44 29 22 34 48 4 36 27 32 23 43 30 2 14 24 11 45 19 25

2010 49 10 6 46 20 2 17 29 21 38 3 19 31 36 27 22 43 47 8 33 7 42 1 50 41 14 14 39 12 32 9 40 28 18 37 48 4 34 24 35 16 45 30 5 13 25 10 44 23 26

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Fewest Stroke Deaths per 100,000 Population Kaiser State Health Facts

0 13th Fewest

5 10 15 20 Rank 25

2003 2008

30

2010

35 40 45 50

NY

NH

RI

NJ

FL

CO

NC

OK

TN

SC

AR

High rates of stroke death are concentrated in the South. Colorado’s rate of 36 stroke deaths per 100,000 population compares with 28 deaths in New York and 54 in Arkansas.

Fig. 137

Fewest Stroke Deaths per 100,000 Population Kaiser State Health Facts

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 13th Fewest

5

10 15 Rank

20

2003 2008 2010

25 30 35 40 45 50

NM

AZ

CO

UT

TX

GA

Colorado (36 deaths per 100,000) outranks Texas (44 deaths) and Georgia (46 deaths) for its rate of stroke death. Arizona (32 deaths) ranked highest among the competitor states.

Fig. 138

Fewest Stroke Deaths per 100,000 Population Kaiser State Health Facts

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2003 44 40 8 50 29 14 6 12 5 43 22 34 25 33 21 29 38 38 15 20 10 19 11 42 32 26 22 31 2 4 7 1 46 27 28 47 45 16 3 49 13 48 36 22 9 35 41 37 17 18

2006 49 32 3 50 27 12 7 17 4 41 21 44 29 37 18 31 40 42 15 23 9 26 13 46 39 15 24 14 5 6 9 1 45 38 28 46 34 22 2 43 18 48 35 8 11 36 18 33 25 29

2007 49 32 2 50 24 16 5 18 4 42 20 29 31 36 23 37 38 43 21 26 8 32 11 45 39 13 28 12 6 7 17 1 44 9 35 47 30 27 3 46 14 48 41 15 10 34 22 40 25 19

2008 50 30 2 49 19 13 5 11 3 40 17 23 28 36 29 42 37 38 24 25 8 33 15 48 43 20 22 18 6 4 9 1 45 10 35 47 34 27 7 44 14 46 39 12 16 31 25 40 21 31

2010 49 30 5 50 19 13 2 29 6 43 12 33 23 40 18 31 38 42 10 22 3 25 13 48 37 32 28 7 9 7 20 1 41 36 35 47 27 24 4 45 26 46 39 16 11 34 15 44 21 17

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Ratio of Pre-Term Births to Live Births Kaiser State Health Facts

0 14th Lowest

5 10 15 Rank

20

2004

25

2008

30

2012

35 40 45 50

VT

CT

NH

OR WA CO

TN

SC

LA

AL

MS

Pre-term births are one measure of the extent and quality of prenatal care. Southern states with lower educational levels and fewer doctors have the highest number of pre-term births with rates reaching as high as 17 percent in states such as Mississippi compared with 8.7 percent in Vermont.

Fig. 139

Lowest Ratio of Pre-Term Births to Live Births Kaiser State Health Facts

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

14th Lowest

5 10 15

20

2004

Rank 25

2008

30

2012

35

40 45 50

UT

CO

NM

GA

AZ

TX

Colorado (10.4 percent) and Utah (10.2 percent) are the only competitor states that ranked among the top-25 states in 2012. Georgia (12.7 percent) was the lowest-ranked competitor.

Fig. 140

Lowest Ratio of Pre-Term Births to Live Births Kaiser State Health Facts

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2004 49 6 38 34 9 25 2 34 40 32 23 11 34 37 18 18 45 48 8 38 14 25 6 50 33 15 18 41 2 27 30 17 41 27 29 31 2 18 18 47 12 46 43 10 1 23 5 44 12 15

2005 48 10 9 44 8 11 28 35 29 17 12 1 43 33 20 25 38 49 4 41 22 38 3 49 35 22 12 15 1 45 27 34 35 19 40 26 6 29 22 45 12 47 29 4 15 32 6 42 17 20

2006 49 9 30 38 6 21 4 37 39 43 19 14 32 31 13 15 46 48 8 34 10 24 5 50 28 17 23 44 3 29 42 22 35 20 33 40 2 16 25 47 26 45 36 12 1 18 7 41 11 27

2007 49 5 29 42 10 22 6 45 39 40 24 7 33 32 16 14 46 48 9 36 13 25 4 50 26 18 19 44 2 30 31 23 35 15 34 37 3 17 20 47 27 43 38 11 1 21 8 41 12 28

2008 49 6 34 41 9 19 8 34 45 39 33 3 31 28 20 15 46 48 6 37 11 31 4 50 26 20 23 41 2 29 26 25 34 13 30 39 5 22 15 47 24 41 38 12 1 18 10 44 13 15

2009 49 15 35 40 8 18 7 33 42 44 34 5 31 25 18 16 43 48 3 35 11 31 5 50 27 11 23 44 3 26 29 27 38 10 29 44 2 23 21 47 11 38 40 18 1 21 8 37 11 16

2010 49 3 31 36 5 13 9 39 42 44 31 9 31 26 23 11 43 48 3 36 12 31 7 50 29 28 19 45 2 23 27 22 36 16 31 45 5 19 13 47 19 40 41 16 1 23 7 29 13 18

2012 48 3 29 45 6 14 7 37 46 41 35 13 32 20 27 21 41 49 4 35 10 31 11 50 30 24 23 43 5 24 27 16 32 8 34 43 2 18 21 46 16 40 38 11 1 26 8 38 15 18

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Fewest Infant Deaths per 1,000 Live Births Kaiser State Health Facts ; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

0 5 10 15

22nd Fewest

20

2003

Rank 25

2008 2010

30

35 40 45 50

NH

MA

VT

MN

UT

CO

AL

TN

DE

LA

MS

High incomes, healthy mothers, and prenatal care are key elements in reducing infant deaths. Colorado’s rate of 6.1 deaths per 1,000 live births compares with 4.2 in top-ranked New Hampshire and 9.9 in last-ranked Mississippi. *Data reflects a three-year average. For example, 2010 data is a three-year average from 2008-2010.

Fig. 141

Fewest Infant Deaths per 1,000 Live Births Kaiser State Health Facts ; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5

22nd Fewest

10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2010

35 40 45 50

UT

CO

NM

TX

AZ

GA

With the exception of Georgia (7.2 deaths per 1,000), Colorado (6.1 deaths) and its competitors generally rank among the top-25 states for lowest infant death rates. *Data reflects a three-year average. For example, 2010 data is a three-year average from 2008-2010.

Fig. 142

Fewest Infant Deaths per 1,000 Live Births Kaiser State Health Facts; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2002 46 9 20 41 8 14 21 43 32 45 29 15 29 36 6 27 27 50 2 34 4 38 6 49 42 32 25 15 5 11 15 1 38 18 37 40 11 34 26 47 22 47 18 9 3 29 13 44 24 22

2003 46 23 21 43 7 14 13 48 31 44 27 18 34 35 8 28 21 49 6 40 2 41 4 50 38 29 20 11 1 12 17 14 42 32 37 36 8 30 26 45 25 47 19 5 3 33 10 38 24 16

2004 45 19 25 43 6 15 12 46 31 44 27 17 34 36 8 29 26 49 5 40 2 40 3 50 37 22 18 13 4 10 15 14 42 24 35 37 9 32 21 47 30 48 20 7 1 33 10 39 23 28

2005 46 21 25 42 5 19 10 46 30 43 25 16 33 38 6 29 27 49 12 40 2 40 1 50 35 21 12 12 4 6 16 15 44 21 37 38 11 32 18 46 30 45 21 2 6 33 6 36 19 28

2006 48 25 26 43 5 19 11 45 28 42 17 23 33 40 6 30 27 49 21 39 1 36 3 50 35 15 13 20 9 7 18 12 44 13 38 41 10 33 16 47 29 46 24 2 8 31 4 37 22 32

2007 48 23 26 41 4 14 16 44 31 42 18 24 30 39 7 36 29 49 22 38 3 37 6 50 33 20 12 15 8 5 13 9 45 21 40 43 10 34 25 47 27 46 17 2 11 32 1 35 19 28

2008 49 24 24 41 5 14 19 44 31 43 14 21 29 35 9 36 27 48 14 42 1 38 10 50 33 22 13 17 4 7 12 11 45 20 39 40 8 37 22 46 30 47 18 1 5 32 3 34 26 28

2009 49 24 21 37 4 19 17 45 30 42 17 16 29 35 7 36 27 48 14 39 2 39 10 50 32 25 14 13 1 7 12 11 46 25 39 42 6 33 21 44 30 46 19 2 7 33 4 37 21 27

2010 49 14 21 39 3 22 18 46 30 34 19 12 33 40 9 29 28 48 16 36 2 37 8 50 31 26 13 17 1 10 14 11 45 25 44 42 6 34 24 41 37 47 20 4 6 32 5 43 23 27

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Active Physicians per 100,000 Population

U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States

0 5 10 15

25th Highest

20 Rank 25

2003

30

2012

2008

35 40 45 50

MA

MD

NY

VT

CT

CO

IA

NV

MS

OK

ID

Southern states and more rural western states have the lowest number of physicians per 100,000 people. Colorado had about 250 active physicians per 100,000 population in 2012 compared with 450 in Massachusetts and 170 in Idaho.

Fig. 143

Active Physicians per 100,000 Population

U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 15

25th Highest

20

Rank 25

2003

30

2012

2008

35 40 45

50

CO

NM

GA

UT

TX

AZ

Colorado has more active physicians per 100,000 residents (250 physicians) than any of its competitors. Whether this results in more expensive healthcare or better quality healthcare is unclear. Utah ranked last among the competitors with 200 physicians per 100,000 population.

Fig. 144

Active Physicians per 100,000 Population U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2003 40 35 43 44 18 21 5 23 25 36 8 50 12 38 46 37 33 15 13 2 1 30 10 48 28 34 26 47 16 7 29 3 22 27 20 49 17 9 6 32 39 19 42 41 4 11 14 31 24 45

2004 40 34 43 44 20 21 4 24 25 37 7 50 11 39 46 36 31 15 13 2 1 27 10 48 29 35 30 47 19 8 28 3 23 26 18 49 16 9 6 32 38 17 41 42 5 12 14 33 22 45

2005 39 34 42 44 19 20 4 24 25 38 7 50 11 40 47 36 32 22 13 2 1 26 10 48 27 35 30 45 17 8 29 3 23 28 18 49 14 9 6 33 37 16 41 43 5 12 15 31 21 46

2006 39 31 43 44 20 21 4 24 27 38 7 50 11 40 45 35 32 15 13 2 1 25 10 48 29 36 28 46 19 8 30 3 23 26 17 49 12 9 5 34 37 18 42 41 6 14 16 33 22 47

2007 38 34 42 44 17 21 4 24 26 39 7 50 11 40 45 35 31 20 12 2 1 25 10 48 27 36 28 46 13 8 30 3 23 29 18 49 15 9 5 33 37 19 41 43 6 14 16 32 22 47

2008 38 35 42 44 17 21 4 27 25 39 8 50 12 40 45 34 32 19 15 2 1 24 10 48 29 37 26 47 11 7 30 3 23 28 18 49 13 9 5 33 36 20 41 43 6 14 16 31 22 46

2009 38 35 42 44 18 22 5 29 25 40 7 50 12 39 45 33 32 19 15 2 1 23 10 48 28 37 26 46 11 8 30 3 24 27 17 49 13 9 4 34 36 20 41 43 6 14 16 31 21 47

2012 41 35 31 46 23 25 4 11 27 40 24 50 16 37 34 38 32 26 9 5 1 8 12 47 14 44 28 48 15 13 33 3 29 30 10 42 19 6 2 39 36 21 43 45 7 22 17 20 18 49

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Average Employer-Based Insurance Premium for an Individual Kaiser State Health Facts

0 5 10

21st Highest

15 Rank

20

2012

25 30 35 40

45 50

ID

AR MS OK NV CO WV CT NY MA AK

Employer-based insurance accounts for about 48 percent of the market in the United States. The average premium for an individual in Colorado ($5,280) ranks in the middle of the states but is still lower than the national average of $5,380.

Fig. 145

Lowest Average Employer-Based Insurance Premium for an Individual Kaiser State Health Facts

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10

21st Highest

15 20

2012

Rank 25 30 35 40 45 50

NM

TX

GA

UT

AZ

CO

The average employer-based insurance premium for an individual in Colorado ($5,280) was highest of the competitor states in 2012. The average in New Mexico ($5,040) was the lowest of the competitors.

Fig. 146

Lowest Average Employer-Based Insurance Premium for an Individual Kaiser State Health Facts State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2011 9 50 12 1 32 27 42 43 28 21 11 3 36 22 6 15 19 5 39 29 48 20 37 10 16 41 14 2 47 44 26 45 30 24 17 8 18 31 49 33 35 7 25 4 40 13 23 46 38 34

2012 6 50 20 2 33 21 47 37 19 17 10 1 31 35 15 7 30 28 41 22 49 25 24 3 16 38 13 5 40 43 8 48 39 27 11 4 34 29 45 12 32 9 14 18 36 23 26 46 42 44

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Infrastructure

Infrastructure Index Beacon Hill Institute

5th Best

0

5 10 15

Rank

20

2003

25

2008

30

2013

35

40 45 50

AK

HI

CO

UT

MN

LA

WV

AR

AL

MS

Beacon Hill Institute’s infrastructure index is a sub-index of the State Competitiveness Report. The index is comprised of the concentration of mobile phones, access to high-speed broadband, air travel, worker commute times, and access to an affordable cost of living. While the index components have changed over time, Colorado consistently ranks well for its infrastructure.

Fig. 147

Infrastructure Index Beacon Hill Institute

5th Best

0

Colorado vs. Competitors

5 10 15 Rank

20

2003

25

2008

30

2013

35 40 45 50

CO

UT

AZ

TX

GA

NM

Colorado’s competitive advantages in infrastructure include its concentration of mobile phones, high-speed lines, and air passengers per capita. Colorado’s disadvantages are its longer worker commute times and higher apartment rents. In New Mexico, access to information networks are the state’s biggest disadvantages.

Fig. 148

Infrastructure Index Beacon Hill Institute

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2001 42 1 25 49 33 3 20 11 34 44 8 16 47 30 9 12 31 46 13 35 36 27 7 50 18 10 15 19 4 40 41 48 37 14 29 45 6 28 26 43 21 32 38 2 22 23 17 39 24 5

2003 49 1 29 48 13 3 14 33 34 38 2 19 42 35 11 17 39 46 10 28 25 31 5 50 18 23 15 7 6 24 41 44 43 30 22 45 9 32 16 40 20 37 36 4 12 21 8 47 27 26

2006 40 12 28 31 44 14 36 45 34 35 38 10 42 33 15 8 32 36 25 43 49 23 6 48 19 13 7 9 39 47 46 50 16 1 17 25 5 22 27 30 2 21 40 3 20 29 11 24 18 3

2007 46 15 22 39 45 8 41 48 38 30 34 13 37 32 12 11 17 33 27 47 41 29 3 49 16 10 9 14 40 43 34 50 25 1 19 24 6 21 25 44 4 20 36 2 23 28 6 31 18 5

2008 28 16 27 32 48 9 38 33 47 20 43 3 40 18 6 11 15 29 35 49 41 17 8 44 34 2 23 1 36 46 22 50 13 7 10 23 5 37 45 26 14 19 42 11 31 23 39 30 21 4

2011 35 6 33 28 46 2 43 32 21 13 36 27 22 37 25 7 26 24 45 44 29 31 10 47 17 14 5 3 48 42 37 41 15 1 20 18 11 30 34 40 9 12 16 19 50 23 8 49 39 4

2012 32 17 35 10 46 4 43 30 24 12 39 25 19 34 29 7 27 3 48 45 33 21 9 41 12 8 15 2 48 44 37 42 22 1 14 23 19 31 35 40 6 15 17 25 50 28 11 47 38 5

2013 34 15 38 29 46 5 28 33 41 26 49 17 30 43 13 6 25 12 32 48 36 24 8 27 14 9 7 2 39 47 42 50 22 1 18 20 11 23 21 40 3 44 18 16 35 37 10 45 31 4

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

State Broadband Internet Speeds Communications Workers of America, Speed Matters

0 5

10

21st Highest

15 20 Rank 25

2009

30

2010

35 40 45 50

RI

DE

NJ

NY

MA

CO WY

AR

MT

AK

VT

High-speed Internet contributes to productivity and a better quality of life. Colorado’s ranking improved from 2009 to 2010, and the state now ranks among the top-25 states with over half of Colorado residents having broadband access that meets or exceeds the FCC speed standard of four megabits per second.

Fig. 149

State Broadband Internet Speeds Communications Workers of America, Speed Matters

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

5 10

21st Highest

15 Rank

20

2009

25

2010

30 35 40 45 50

AZ

GA

CO

TX

NM

UT

Over half of Colorado residents have broadband access that meets or exceeds the FCC speed standard of four megabits per second with a median download speed of 4.4 megabits per second. New Mexico (2.6 megabits) and Utah (three megabits) continue to lag behind the other competitor states in this measure.

Fig. 150

State Broadband Internet Speeds Communications Workers of America, Speed Matters State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2009 24 49 16 47 20 28 9 2 11 19 38 44 26 22 32 17 27 7 31 6 5 25 33 35 37 48 36 18 12 3 41 4 15 39 34 30 42 23 1 40 43 14 29 45 50 10 13 8 21 46

2010 20 50 10 47 13 21 14 1 12 18 31 43 25 23 28 9 35 11 42 4 2 30 32 46 36 49 16 33 8 3 44 5 38 34 41 40 22 29 6 37 24 19 26 39 45 17 15 7 26 48

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Percentage of Electricity Generated through Renewable Sources U.S. Energy Information Administration

0 15th Highest

5 10 15

Rank

20

2003

25

2008

30

2012

35 40 45 50

ID

WA

OR

SD

ME

CO

MO

OH

IL

IN

DE

Increased private- and public-sector interest and a 30 percent Renewable Energy Standard for investor-owned utilities have improved Colorado’s ranking. Colorado’s percentage of electricity generated through renewable resources rose from 3.1 percent in 2003 to 14.6 percent in 2012. Colorado’s rank remained at 15th for the second-consecutive year in 2012.

Fig. 151

Percentage of Electricity Generated through Renewable Sources U.S. Energy Information Administration

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

15th Highest

5 10 15 Rank

20

2003

25

2008

30

2012

35 40 45

50

AZ

GA

CO

UT

TX

NM

In recent years, Texas (8.1 percent), Colorado (14.6 percent), and New Mexico (7.6 percent) have adopted aggressive renewable energy programs. Texas and New Mexico continue to improve in rank. Arizona generates almost all of its renewable energy from hydroelectric power.

Fig. 152

Percentage of Electricity Generated through Renewable Sources U.S. Energy Information Administration

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 18 11 13 14 7 33 17 49 35 25 15 1 47 48 32 50 37 31 5 24 16 28 21 26 43 6 23 12 10 40 46 9 29 20 44 27 3 38 41 34 4 19 45 39 8 30 2 42 22 36

2001 13 9 15 14 7 32 25 50 37 21 18 1 48 47 30 49 24 26 5 33 20 31 17 35 42 6 27 12 11 40 45 10 29 23 46 22 3 39 41 36 4 16 44 38 8 28 2 43 19 34

2002 14 9 16 13 7 33 30 50 38 17 26 1 47 49 23 45 22 28 6 24 19 32 21 36 40 5 31 12 11 42 46 10 25 20 48 29 3 37 41 34 4 15 43 39 8 27 2 44 18 35

2003 12 9 16 14 7 34 28 50 37 19 21 1 48 49 29 45 27 30 5 18 26 33 23 36 46 6 31 15 13 40 44 10 17 20 47 32 3 35 39 24 4 11 43 41 8 22 2 42 25 38

2004 13 9 16 12 7 35 31 50 38 22 21 1 48 49 25 46 28 30 5 18 27 33 26 32 41 6 34 15 14 44 40 10 20 19 47 17 3 37 39 29 4 11 45 42 8 24 2 43 23 36

2005 14 9 17 13 7 28 31 50 40 22 20 1 47 48 18 45 32 30 5 29 25 35 16 33 44 6 36 15 11 43 37 10 19 24 46 21 3 39 49 27 4 12 42 38 8 23 2 41 26 34

2006 14 10 17 19 7 23 31 50 43 27 18 1 48 47 15 41 37 28 5 22 21 35 16 36 49 6 30 11 12 45 29 9 26 20 46 33 3 39 38 32 4 13 42 40 8 24 2 44 25 34

2007 22 9 20 13 7 21 32 48 41 29 16 1 47 50 15 37 39 28 5 25 27 34 14 35 46 6 42 12 11 45 24 8 30 19 49 17 3 40 38 31 4 18 36 43 10 23 2 44 26 33

2008 21 10 22 13 8 14 29 42 44 34 19 1 47 49 15 33 39 30 4 24 23 35 12 37 38 6 45 16 11 48 25 9 31 17 50 18 3 40 41 36 5 20 28 43 7 27 2 46 26 32

2009 17 10 27 19 8 18 34 44 45 31 21 1 48 47 11 25 35 36 5 28 23 37 12 40 42 6 43 16 13 49 32 9 26 15 50 20 3 41 46 33 4 14 29 39 7 30 2 38 24 22

2010 22 10 26 20 7 17 38 46 47 33 21 1 45 40 11 23 39 37 5 30 29 35 13 43 44 6 32 14 15 49 27 9 28 12 50 18 4 41 48 34 3 16 25 36 8 31 2 42 24 19

2011 28 12 21 26 7 15 36 46 47 34 20 1 38 41 11 22 39 40 5 23 30 35 13 44 45 6 25 14 16 49 29 9 32 10 50 19 3 43 48 37 4 17 27 31 8 33 2 42 24 18

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2012 29 10 26 30 7 15 44 49 46 35 21 1 36 39 8 18 42 40 5 28 24 34 13 43 45 6 25 14 16 47 23 11 31 12 48 17 3 41 50 38 4 19 22 33 9 32 2 37 27 20

Percentage of Electricity Generated through Non-Hydro Renewable Sources U.S. Energy Information Administration

0 5

10th Highest

10

15 20

2003 2008 2012

Rank 25 30 35 40 45 50

ME

CA

VT

ID

HI

CO

IN

AK

AZ

MO

DE

Sources of non-hydroelectric renewable energy include biomass, geothermal, solar, and wind. Colorado’s percentage of non-hydro renewable energy increased from 6.1 percent in 2008 to 11.8 percent in 2012, but the state rank still dropped two places. Wind is the primary source of renewable energy in the state.

Fig. 153

Percentage of Electricity Generated through Non-Hydro Renewable Sources U.S. Energy Information Administration

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

10th Highest

5 10 15

20

Rank 25

2003 2008 2012

30 35 40 45 50

GA

TX

NM

UT

CO

AZ

Several large wind projects were developed in Colorado in 2007. These projects enabled Colorado to outrank its competitors in the percentage of electricity generated through non-hydro renewable sources in 2008. The state has continued to outrank them through 2012.

Fig. 154

Percent of Electricity Generated through Non Hydro Renewable Sources U.S. Energy Information Administration

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 13 48 47 12 2 42 5 36 15 18 3 9 32 40 26 48 46 14 1 23 7 17 10 8 39 38 41 11 4 19 44 20 25 43 35 37 28 29 22 24 48 30 33 34 6 16 27 45 21 31

2001 10 46 43 11 2 38 13 50 18 15 6 5 35 39 23 40 49 12 1 31 9 17 7 14 48 37 41 8 4 24 42 26 21 44 36 34 20 28 25 27 47 29 32 33 3 16 22 45 19 30

2002 13 40 46 9 2 38 15 50 20 6 10 5 37 42 16 32 36 12 1 28 11 19 8 18 48 39 44 7 4 25 45 26 23 49 41 35 17 31 24 27 43 33 29 34 3 14 22 47 21 30

2003 12 47 48 8 2 39 13 50 21 16 5 4 38 46 14 33 40 9 1 28 15 18 6 17 49 43 41 10 7 24 34 27 25 44 42 37 19 30 23 26 35 31 29 36 3 11 20 45 22 32

2004 13 46 48 7 2 38 17 50 22 16 5 4 41 47 14 36 40 12 1 32 15 20 10 8 49 44 43 9 6 27 26 28 30 37 42 31 19 34 23 25 21 35 33 39 3 11 18 45 24 29

2005 16 45 46 9 2 27 20 49 23 18 6 4 41 47 7 35 40 14 1 33 15 22 5 10 48 43 39 13 8 29 19 31 30 37 42 26 11 34 49 25 17 36 32 38 3 12 21 44 24 28

2006 18 47 48 14 2 32 22 50 28 20 6 7 43 46 5 23 42 15 1 36 17 24 4 13 49 30 39 8 11 34 10 31 35 37 44 16 9 38 19 29 25 40 27 41 3 12 21 45 26 33

2007 18 48 49 16 2 21 25 42 32 23 5 7 41 47 6 24 43 14 1 37 19 30 4 15 50 28 40 10 8 35 11 33 36 29 45 17 9 38 26 31 22 39 20 44 3 13 12 46 27 34

2008 27 50 49 23 2 8 24 29 34 33 5 6 37 47 4 16 44 20 1 39 19 28 3 21 48 25 42 14 11 38 12 26 36 10 46 18 9 40 30 35 31 41 15 43 7 17 13 45 22 32

2009 32 49 50 26 4 8 30 28 33 31 9 7 35 40 2 10 48 27 1 42 24 29 3 25 46 22 41 17 11 38 18 23 37 5 47 20 6 39 34 36 14 43 13 44 12 21 16 45 19 15

2010 40 50 49 26 4 11 33 30 34 32 12 8 28 27 2 10 48 31 1 42 24 29 5 25 46 22 41 15 18 43 19 21 39 6 47 17 7 36 37 38 3 44 14 35 9 23 16 45 20 13

2011 40 50 48 29 6 8 39 32 35 31 12 7 23 27 3 11 49 34 1 38 25 30 4 28 45 21 26 14 19 43 18 22 37 5 47 13 10 41 42 36 2 46 15 33 17 24 16 44 20 9

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2012 41 49 43 32 6 10 40 44 37 31 12 5 23 28 2 9 50 34 1 33 20 26 4 30 45 22 24 14 16 39 19 25 35 7 46 11 8 38 47 36 3 48 15 29 17 27 18 42 21 13

Total Wind Energy Net Generation U.S. Energy Information Administration

Top 10 States and Colorado

0

9th Highest

5 10

Rank

2003

15

2008

20

2012

25 30 35

CA

TX

IA

MN

WA

OR

WY

KS

NM

WV

CO

Only 11 states reported energy generated from wind in 2000. In 2012, 39 states generated energy from wind resources. Colorado generated nearly 6 billion kilowatt hours of electricity from wind in 2012, earning the state a 9th-place ranking.

Fig. 155

Total Wind Energy Net Generation U.S. Energy Information Administration

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

9th Highest

5 10

2003

Rank 15

2008

20

2012

25 30 35

TX

NM

CO

AZ

GA

UT

Data from 2012 suggests Georgia does not generate significant amounts of wind power. Arizona (532 million kilowatt hours) started generating wind energy in 2009. Texas is the largest generator of wind energy in the nation with 32.2 billion kilowatt hours in 2012.

Fig. 156

Total Wind Energy Net Generation U.S. Energy Information Administration

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 7 #N/A #N/A #N/A 3 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 9 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 6 10 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 4 #N/A 8 #N/A #N/A #N/A 11 5

2001 #N/A 15 #N/A #N/A 1 8 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 14 #N/A #N/A #N/A 4 9 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 17 3 #N/A #N/A #N/A 13 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 10 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 6 12 #N/A #N/A 16 #N/A 2 #N/A 11 #N/A #N/A #N/A 7 5

2002 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 9 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 18 #N/A #N/A #N/A 3 5 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 19 4 #N/A #N/A #N/A 15 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 10 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 8 11 #N/A #N/A 16 17 2 #N/A 13 #N/A 7 14 12 6

2003 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 11 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 23 #N/A 19 #N/A 3 8 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 22 4 #N/A #N/A #N/A 18 #N/A #N/A #N/A 9 17 #N/A 14 #N/A 15 6 12 #N/A #N/A 16 21 2 #N/A 20 #N/A 5 10 13 7

2004 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 12 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 21 #N/A 18 #N/A 3 10 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 23 4 #N/A #N/A #N/A 19 #N/A #N/A #N/A 9 16 #N/A 13 #N/A 8 6 11 #N/A #N/A 15 22 2 #N/A 20 #N/A 5 14 17 7

2005 #N/A 25 #N/A #N/A 1 7 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 22 #N/A 16 #N/A 3 11 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 24 4 #N/A #N/A #N/A 18 #N/A #N/A #N/A 6 17 #N/A 13 20 5 8 12 #N/A #N/A 14 23 2 #N/A 21 #N/A 10 15 19 9

2006 #N/A 28 #N/A #N/A 2 10 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 22 19 17 #N/A 3 8 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 27 4 #N/A #N/A 13 16 #N/A #N/A 24 6 12 #N/A 14 25 5 9 15 #N/A #N/A 20 23 1 #N/A 26 #N/A 7 18 21 11

2007 #N/A 29 #N/A #N/A 2 8 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 17 19 13 #N/A 3 10 #N/A #N/A 23 #N/A #N/A 28 4 #N/A #N/A 15 18 #N/A #N/A 25 7 11 #N/A 14 26 6 9 16 #N/A #N/A 21 24 1 #N/A 27 #N/A 5 20 22 12

2008 #N/A 34 #N/A #N/A 2 6 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 19 22 9 20 4 10 #N/A #N/A 26 #N/A 33 25 3 #N/A 23 16 21 #N/A 31 29 12 13 #N/A 11 30 8 7 15 #N/A #N/A 24 27 1 28 32 #N/A 5 18 17 14

2009 #N/A 34 30 #N/A 3 7 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 26 23 10 15 2 9 #N/A #N/A 25 #N/A 35 24 4 #N/A 20 18 22 #N/A 28 31 14 12 #N/A 8 32 11 6 16 #N/A #N/A 21 29 1 27 33 #N/A 5 19 17 13

2010 #N/A 34 28 #N/A 3 10 #N/A 37 #N/A #N/A 27 24 6 13 2 11 #N/A #N/A 22 38 31 26 4 #N/A 21 20 25 #N/A 29 33 16 14 #N/A 7 35 9 8 15 36 #N/A 17 30 1 23 32 #N/A 5 19 18 12

2011 #N/A 35 29 #N/A 3 9 #N/A 37 #N/A #N/A 27 18 6 13 2 12 #N/A #N/A 24 28 32 26 4 #N/A 21 19 23 #N/A 31 36 16 14 #N/A 8 30 7 10 17 38 #N/A 15 33 1 25 34 #N/A 5 22 20 11

2012 40 36 28 40 3 9 40 38 40 40 29 18 5 13 2 11 40 40 26 30 34 24 6 40 23 22 21 32 31 37 16 14 40 10 25 4 8 17 39 40 15 35 1 27 33 40 7 20 19 12

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Total Wind Energy Installed Capacity American Wind Energy Association

Top 10 States

0

10th Highest

5

10

Rank

2008

15

2014 20 25 30

TX

IA

CA

MN

WA

CO

OR

IL

NY

OK

Data on installed wind-energy capacity is more timely than net generation data and indicates which states might see their net generation rankings increase. Colorado had 2,330 megawatts of installed capacity as of second quarter 2014. Colorado’s rank has declined since 2007 despite doubling its wind capacity as other states have implemented aggressive wind-energy initiatives. *2014 data represent 2Q14 capacity. 2008 data represents total capacity at the end of the calendar year.

Fig. 157

Total Wind Energy Installed Capacity American Wind Energy Association

Colorado vs. Competitors 10th Highest

0 5 10 15

Rank

20

2008

25

2014

30 35 40 45 50

TX

CO

NM

UT

AZ

GA

Colorado added about 1,090 megawatts of installed capacity from 2010 to 2014. Texas had 12,750 megawatts of installed wind capacity as of the second quarter of 2014, whereas Georgia still has insignificant amounts of wind capacity. *2014 data represent 2Q14 capacity. 2008 data represents total capacity at the end of the calendar year.

Fig. 158

Total Wind Energy Installed Capacity American Wind Energy Association

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming x x x

2006 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 11 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 15 #N/A 3 10 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 4 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 7 9 #N/A 14 #N/A 6 8 13 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 5 #N/A #N/A 12

2007 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 2 6 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 8 #N/A 4 12 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 3 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 10 11 #N/A 13 #N/A 9 7 14 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 1 #N/A #N/A #N/A 5 #N/A #N/A 15

2008 #N/A 34 #N/A #N/A 3 6 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 25 23 8 21 2 11 #N/A #N/A 26 #N/A 33 22 4 #N/A 20 18 24 #N/A 28 30 14 9 #N/A 12 31 10 7 16 35 #N/A 19 27 1 29 32 #N/A 5 17 15 13

2009 #N/A 31 26 #N/A 3 8 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 26 23 9 16 2 10 #N/A #N/A 25 #N/A 35 24 4 #N/A 19 21 22 #N/A 29 31 14 7 #N/A 13 33 12 5 15 36 #N/A 20 28 1 30 34 #N/A 6 18 17 11

2010 #N/A 32 27 #N/A 3 9 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 27 25 6 13 2 14 #N/A #N/A 23 #N/A 31 26 7 #N/A 21 18 24 #N/A 30 33 16 8 #N/A 10 33 11 4 15 36 #N/A 20 29 1 22 35 #N/A 5 19 17 12

2011 41 34 27 42 2 8 39 37 42 42 30 18 7 12 3 14 42 42 23 28 31 26 4 42 20 22 25 42 33 35 17 13 39 9 29 10 5 16 38 42 15 32 1 24 36 42 6 21 19 11

2012 42 37 26 43 2 9 40 38 43 43 31 17 6 19 3 13 43 43 23 30 33 20 5 43 22 24 25 27 28 36 16 12 40 10 32 7 4 14 39 43 15 35 1 29 34 43 8 21 18 11

2013 40 35 28 40 2 10 40 39 40 40 29 17 4 13 3 9 40 40 25 32 34 16 7 40 23 21 23 31 30 37 19 12 40 11 26 6 5 15 37 40 18 36 1 27 33 40 8 22 20 14

2014 40 35 28 40 2 10 40 39 40 40 29 17 4 13 3 8 40 40 26 32 34 16 7 40 24 21 20 31 30 37 18 11 40 12 25 6 5 15 37 40 19 36 1 27 33 40 9 23 22 14

2009 and 2010 figures are mid-year capacities reported by AWEA on its website on 7/7/10. 2011 and 2012 data from Xcel Energy through SNL Financial Operating Dataset. 2014 data from AWEA 2Q market report.

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Total Solar Energy Installed Capacity SNL Financial Operating Capacity Dataset

Top 10 States

0

6th Highest

5 10

2009 2012

Rank 15 20 25 30

CA

NV

TX

CO

NJ

AZ

OR

NC

PA

HI

Large-scale solar operations are still new in the United States and require significant amounts of land and sunshine. In 2012, 30 states had quantifiable solar operations. Colorado had 130 megawatts of installed solar capacity as of the summer of 2012.

Fig. 159

Total Solar Energy Installed Capacity SNL Financial Operating Capacity Dataset

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

6th Highest

5 10 2009 2012

Rank 15 20 25

30

TX

CO

AZ

GA

NM

UT

Solar activity depends on the amount of sunshine, the availability of state incentives, and industry-friendly policies. Colorado added over 70 megawatts of installed solar capacity from 2011 (59 MW) to 2012 (130 MW). However, large developments in New Mexico and Arizona contributed to them outranking Colorado in 2012.

Fig. 160

Total Solar Energy Installed Capacity SNL Financial Operating Capacity Dataset State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2009 23 23 6 23 1 4 13 23 17 18 10 23 14 23 23 23 23 23 23 11 12 23 23 23 23 23 23 2 23 5 19 23 8 23 19 23 7 9 21 21 23 23 3 23 23 23 15 23 16 23

2010 28 28 8 28 1 6 17 28 3 24 12 28 10 28 28 28 28 28 28 15 16 23 21 28 28 28 28 2 28 4 14 19 5 28 9 28 11 18 26 26 28 28 7 22 25 28 20 28 13 28

2011 30 30 8 30 1 4 20 23 5 21 16 30 12 30 30 30 30 30 30 13 14 27 22 30 30 30 30 2 30 3 7 24 6 30 9 30 15 11 28 28 30 18 10 26 17 30 25 30 19 30

2012 31 31 5 31 1 6 24 16 12 21 19 31 15 31 31 31 23 31 31 18 11 28 25 31 31 31 31 2 31 3 4 9 7 31 10 31 14 13 29 29 31 17 8 27 20 31 26 31 22 31

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

International Strengths

Where Colorado Outperforms Other Countries

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per Capita 0

Central Intelligence Agency; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2nd Highest

5 10 15

2003

Rank 20

2008 2013

25 30 35 CO USA CAN JPN GBR DEU MEX RUS BRA CHN IND

GDP is one of the broadest measures of economic activity and productivity. Colorado’s GDP per capita ($55,900) is higher than the United States ($52,800), which is about 23 percent higher than Canada ($43,100). Even though China’s GDP per capita has nearly doubled since 2003, growing from $5,000 per capita to $9,800 in 2013, it remains in 38th place, just above India ($4,000).

Fig. 161

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Per Capita Central Intelligence Agency; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Country/State Brazil Canada China Colorado Germany India Japan Mexico Russian Federation United Kingdom United States

2000 37 10 38 1 14 39 9 33 35 17 3

2003 36 9 38 2 16 39 14 34 35 15 3

2006 37 8 38 3 17 39 13 35 34 18 5

2007 37 10 38 3 17 39 19 35 33 16 5

2008 37 10 38 3 17 39 19 35 33 16 4

2013 37 7 38 2 13 39 17 35 34 16 5

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Employment Growth Rate

International Labour Organization; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

0 5

11th Highest

10

15

2003

Rank 20

2008 2012

25

30 35 RUS CAN CO BRA GBR USA MEX CHN JPN DEU IND Colorado’s rank improved from 27th in 2008 to 11th in 2012. Israel had the highest employment growth rate among the OECD and BRIC countries with 11.1 percent growth. Israel has consistently ranked among the top-10 countries in this measure. Mexico has also performed well, posting one of the lowest rates of decline in 2009 (-0.4 percent) and growing at 4.5 percent in 2012. *No data for India. Growth rates in Brazil were averaged from 2007 to 2009 and from 2009 to 2011.

Fig. 162

Employment Growth Rate of Labor Force International Labour Organization, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Country/State Brazil Canada China Colorado Germany India Japan Mexico Russian United Kingdom United States

2003 13 7 21 12 32 N/A 26 19 3 17 18

2004 1 13 21 10 36 N/A 24 5 34 20 17

2005 8 20 29 11 12 N/A 30 27 7 19 16

2006 14 18 36 7 16 N/A 37 8 6 30 22

2007 23 15 34 24 16 N/A 33 22 14 31 29

2008 23 15 31 27 18 N/A 34 7 4 25 35

2009 4 26 10 33 12 N/A 24 15 30 22 34

2010 16 10 17 29 12 N/A 24 4 32 20 26

2011 24 12 26 19 6 N/A 21 5 31 22 20

2012 12 14 24 11 19 N/A 30 3 22 13 7

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Venture Capital as a Percentage of GDP

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; PricewaterhouseCoopers, MoneyTree Report

0

2nd Highest

5

10 Rank 15

2000-2003 2008 2012

20 25 30 CO USA CAN GBR DEU JPN RUS BRA CHN IND MEX

Colorado has the second-highest level of venture capital as a percentage of GDP of all the OECD and BRIC countries, behind Israel. The OECD notes that Israel and the U.S. are notable for their high levels of venture capital as a percentage of GDP. Fourth-ranked Canada has only 46 percent of the U.S. rate. *2012 ranking is for 31 countries. No data for Brazil, China, India, and Mexico. No data for Russia for 2000-2003 and 2008.

Fig. 163

Venture Capital as Percentage of GDP Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; PricewaterhouseCoopers, MoneyTree Report

Country/State Brazil Canada China Colorado Germany India Japan Mexico Russian Federation United Kingdom United States

2000-2003 N/A 4 N/A 1 17 N/A 27 N/A N/A 7 3

2005 N/A 10 N/A 4 17 N/A 23 N/A N/A 3 6

2008 N/A 16 N/A 1 18 N/A 26 N/A N/A 6 12

2012 N/A 4 N/A 2 20 N/A 16 N/A 22 10 3

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Ratio of Total R&D Expenditures to GDP National Science Foundation

0 5

10th Highest

10 15 Rank 20

2003* 2008

25

2011

30 35 JPN CO USA DEU CAN GBR RUS CHN BRA MEX IND

R&D spending represented 2.6 percent of Colorado’s GDP in 2011 compared with 3.4 percent in Japan and 0.4 percent in Mexico, the lowest ranked international partner. China has rapidly increased its rate of R&D investment, from 1.1 percent in 2003 to 1.8 percent in 2011. *Data is for either 2003 or 2004 depending on availability. Most recent data for India is 2007.

Fig. 164

Ratio of R&D Expenditures as Percent of GDP National Science Foundation

Country/State Brazil Canada China Colorado Germany India Japan Mexico Russian Federation United Kingdom United States

2003 28 15 25 7 9 #N/A 4 37 23 18 8

2009 30 15 21 11 9 32 5 35 27 17 7

2011 28 19 17 10 7 #N/A 4 33 29 18 8

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Taxes as a Percentage of GDP

Heritage Foundation; U.S. Census Bureau; U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; Internal Revenue Service

0

5th Lowest

5 10 15 Rank 20

2010 2011

25 30 35 IND MEX CHN CO USA RUS JPN CAN BRA GBR DEU This measure compares local, state, and national tax burdens as a percentage of GDP for each country. Colorado ranks fifth with a tax burden of about 23.3 percent of state GDP compared with top-ranked India (7 percent) and bottom-ranked Denmark (48.1 percent).

Fig. 165

Lowest Taxes as Percentage of GDP

Heritage Foundation, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Internal Revenue Services, U.S. Census Bureau

Country/State Brazil Canada China Colorado Germany India Japan Mexico Russian Federation United Kingdom United States

2010 22 16 4 6 27 1 13 2 10 25 7

2011 23 15 4 5 29 1 10 2 14 25 7

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Annual Population Growth Rate U.S. Census Bureau

0

1st Highest

5 10

15

2003

Rank 20

2008 2013

25

30 35 IND MEX BRA USA CO CAN CHN GBR JPN DEU RUS Colorado’s strong population growth reflects the state’s attractiveness for job seekers within the United States. Colorado’s 1.6 percent growth rate in 2013 compared with 1.5 percent in Israel (2nd highest) and -0.7 percent in Estonia. Among the partners, Japan, Germany, and Russia all experienced negative population growth in 2013, long-term trends that will present unique challenges to each country.

Fig. 166

Annual Population Growth Rate U.S. Census Bureau

Country/State Brazil Canada China Colorado Germany India Japan Mexico Russian Federation United Kingdom United States

2000 5 13 18 2 32 3 29 8 38 23 12

2001 5 15 19 1 32 3 27 7 38 23 13

2002 8 15 20 6 32 2 29 10 38 23 14

2003 9 15 18 14 33 4 31 7 38 24 13

2004 8 15 19 11 35 4 32 6 38 20 14

2005 9 15 20 8 35 4 33 6 38 18 14

2006 10 15 20 2 36 5 33 8 38 18 12

2007 10 15 23 3 37 5 33 7 38 19 13

2008 12 17 23 2 38 5 33 6 34 21 15

2009 11 17 23 2 38 3 35 4 33 21 14

2010 12 16 21 2 38 4 35 3 33 18 15

2011 12 14 21 4 38 3 35 2 33 18 16

2012 13 14 21 2 38 4 35 3 33 19 15

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2013 13 15 21 1 37 3 35 4 33 19 14

Eighth-Grade Math Achievement National Center for Education Statistics, TIMSS

0 5th Best

5

Rank

2011

10

15

CHN JPN RUS CO CAN USA GBR BRA DEU IND MEX

While Colorado ranked fifth among the 19 OECD and BRIC nations evaluated for eighth-grade achievement in math, the average score in the state (518) is significantly lower than both China (609) and Japan (570). South Korea (613) ranked first and Chile (416) ranked last. *No data for Brazil, Germany, India, and Mexico. TIMSS report included 19 OECD and BRIC countries.

Fig. 167

Eighth-Grade Math Achievement National Center for Education Statistics, TIMSS

Country/State Brazil Canada China Colorado Germany India Japan Mexico Russian Federation United Kingdom United States

2007 N/A 4 1 N/A N/A N/A 3 N/A 7 6 8

2011 N/A 8 2 5 N/A N/A 3 N/A 4 10 9

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Eighth-Grade Science Achievement National Center for Education Statistics, TIMSS

0 6th Best

5

Rank

2011

10

15

CHN JPN CO RUS GBR USA CAN BRA DEU IND MEX

While Colorado ranked sixth among the 19 areas with data measuring eighth-grade achievement in science, the average score in the state (542) is lower than both China (564) and Japan (558). Canada was the lowest-ranked international partner with an average score of 521. *No data for Brazil, Germany, India, and Mexico. TIMSS report included 19 OECD and BRIC countries.

Fig. 168

Eighth-Grade Science Achievement National Center for Education Statistics, TIMSS

Country/State Brazil Canada China Colorado Germany India Japan Mexico Russian United Kingdom United States

2007 #N/A 8 1 #N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A 7 4 9

2011 #N/A 11 1 6 N/A N/A 3 N/A 6 8 9

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Population 25-64 Completing High School National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Census Bureau

0

4th Highest

5 10 15 Rank 20

2009 2011

25 30 35 CO USA CAN DEU JPN GBR BRA MEX CHN IND RUS About 91 percent of Colorado’s adult population has completed high school, ranking it fourth among the OECD and BRIC countries. Russia ranked first (94.1 percent) and Turkey ranked last (32.1 percent). *No data for China and India. Most recent year of data for Russia is 2011 and 2001 for Japan.

Fig. 169

Population 25-64 Completing High School National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Census Bureau

Country/State Brazil Canada China Colorado Germany India Japan Mexico Russian Federation United Kingdom United States

2009 33 7 N/A 3 10 N/A 12 34 N/A 21 5

2011 33 8 N/A 4 10 N/A N/A 34 1 21 5

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Population 25-64 with a College Degree Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; U.S. Census Bureau

0

3rd Highest

5 10 15 Rank

2011

20 25 30 35 RUS CAN CO JPN USA GBR DEU MEX BRA CHN IND

About 47 percent of Colorado’s adult population has earned an associate’s or higher-level degree, compared with 54 percent in Russia and 4.6 percent in China. *No data for India. Most recent year of data for China is 2009. Data is for tertiary degrees.

Fig. 170

Percentage of Adult Population (25-64) Holding College Degree Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, U.S. Census Bureau Country/State Brazil Canada China Colorado Germany India Japan Mexico Russian Federation United Kingdom United States

2011 37 2 38 3 25 N/A 4 33 1 8 6

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Population 25-34 with a College Degree Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; U.S. Census Bureau

0 5

10th Highest

10 15 Rank

20

2011

25 30 35 JPN CAN RUS GBR CO USA DEU MEX BRA CHN IND While Colorado ranks well among its international competitors for college degrees among all adults (25 to 64 years), the state (45.5 percent) ranks lower in degrees for a younger cohort, those aged 25 to 34 years. At number one, 58.7 percent of adults aged 25 to 34 years in Japan have a tertiary degree compared with lowest ranked China (6.1 percent). *No data for India. Most recent year of data for China is 2009. Data is for tertiary degrees.

Fig. 171

Population 25-34 Holding College Degree Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development; U.S. Census Bureau

Country/State Brazil Canada China Colorado Germany India Japan Mexico Russian Federation United Kingdom United States

2011 37 3 38 10 29 N/A 2 33 4 6 13

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Adult Male Cigarette Smoking Rate World Lung Foundation; Centers for Disease Control

0

4th Lowest

5 10 15 Rank 20

2002 2009

25 30 35 CO USA CAN GBR IND BRA DEU MEX JPN RUS CHN

Male smoking rates declined in all but 10 of the OECD and BRIC countries between 2002 and 2009. In 2009, Colorado had the fourth-lowest rate (19.5 percent) compared with top-ranked India (10.7 percent) and bottom-ranked Greece (63 percent).

Fig. 172

Lowest Adult Male Cigarette Smoking Rate World Lung Foundation; Centers for Disease Control

Country/State Brazil Canada China Colorado Germany India Japan Mexico Russian United Kingdom United States

2002 23 8 39 3 25 11 34 33 37 8 6

2009 6 3 37 4 23 1 29 9 38 8 6

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Adult Female Cigarette Smoking Rate World Lung Foundation; Centers for Disease Control

0 5

9th Lowest

10 15 Rank 20

2002 2009

25 30 35 IND CHN RUS JPN MEX CO USA CAN GBR BRA DEU

The adult cigarette smoking rate among women in Colorado was about 14.6 percent in 2009. While this rate is lower than the adult men’s rate and the rate in the United States, Colorado lags nations like India (1.1 percent) and China (2.1 percent) where the rates are much lower. Austria ranked worst in 2009 with a rate of 45.1 percent.

Fig. 173

Lowest Adult Female Cigarette Smoking Rate World Lung Foundation; Centers for Disease Control

Country/State Brazil Canada China Colorado Germany India Japan Mexico Russian Federation United Kingdom United States

2002 34 20 2 13 37 1 6 10 5 26 17

2009 7 11 2 9 31 1 5 4 27 19 14

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Obesity Prevalence Among Adult Males World Health Organization; Centers for Disease Control

0 5 10

15th Lowest

15 Rank

2008

20 25 30 35 IND CHN JPN BRA RUS CO DEU GBR CAN MEX USA Colorado’s 19.8 percent rate of obesity among adult males compares with 1.3 percent in India. The United States as a whole has one of the highest rates of obese men at 30.2 percent, just ahead of last ranked Czech Republic (30.5 percent). For both male and female obesity rates, the Asian countries tend to rank better than the western countries.

Fig. 174

Lowest Obesity Prevalence Among Adult Males World Health Organization; Centers for Disease Control

Country/State Brazil Canada China Colorado Germany India Japan Mexico Russian Federation United Kingdom United States

2008 6 29 2 15 23 1 3 36 11 26 38

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Obesity Prevalence Among Adult Females World Health Organization; Centers for Disease Control

0 5 10

16th Lowest

15 Rank

2008

20 25 30 35 IND JPN CHN CO DEU BRA CAN GBR RUS USA MEX While the Asian countries tend to have the thinnest populations, Colorado’s obesity prevalence among adult females ranks well compared with the OECD and BRIC countries. Colorado’s obesity rate of 18.4 percent compares with 2.5 percent in India, 33.2 percent in the United States, and 38.4 percent in Mexico.

Fig. 175

Lowest Obesity Prevalence Among Adult Females World Health Organization; Centers for Disease Control

Country/State Brazil Canada China Colorado Germany India Japan Mexico Russian United Kingdom United States

2008 20 27 3 16 18 1 2 39 35 30 36

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Fewest Cancer Deaths per 100,000 Population World Health Organization; Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

0

7th Fewest

5 10 15 Rank

2008

20 25 30 35 MEX IND JPN CO CAN BRA USA GBR DEU CHN RUS

For adults ages 30 to 70 years, Colorado (122 deaths) has one of the lowest cancer death rates among the OECD and BRIC countries. Mexico (94 deaths) ranks best in this measure with the fewest deaths while Hungary (262 deaths) has the highest rate.

Fig. 176

Fewest Cancer Deaths per 100,000 Population World Health Organization; Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

Country/State Brazil Canada China Colorado Germany India Japan Mexico Russian United Kingdom United States

2008 19 16 33 7 24 2 4 1 34 23 22

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Fewest Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes Deaths per 100,000 Population World Health Organization; Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

0 5

11th Fewest

10 15 Rank

2008

20 25 30 35 JPN CO CAN GBR DEU USA CHN MEX BRA IND RUS

For adults ages 30 to 70 years, Colorado (79 deaths) ranks among the lowest OECD and BRIC countries for cardiovascular disease and diabetes death rates. Switzerland (59 deaths) ranks best in this measure with the fewest deaths while Russia (517 deaths) has the highest rate.

Fig. 177

Fewest Cardiovascular and Diabetes Deaths per 100,000 Population World Health Organization, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

Country/State Brazil Canada China Colorado Germany India Japan Mexico Russian United Kingdom United States

2008 34 14 30 11 24 38 6 31 39 19 28

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Where Colorado is Challenged States in Stronger Positions than Colorado

Economic Vitality

Lowest Unemployment Rate U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

0 5 10 15 26th Lowest

20 Rank 25

2003

30

2013

2008

35 40 45 50

SD

ND

HI

NE

VA

CO

CA

MI

WA

AK

OR

While Colorado’s annualized unemployment rate of 6.8 percent in 2013 ranked in the middle of the states, it remained slightly lower than the national average of 7.4 percent. North Dakota has had the lowest rate for the past five years (2.9 percent in 2013) and Nevada has had the highest rate for the past four years (9.8 percent in 2013).

Fig. 178

Lowest Unemployment Rate U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 26th Lowest

15

2003

Rank 20 25

2008 2013

30 35 40 45

GA

AZ

UT

NM

CO

TX

Colorado’s unemployment rate in 2013 of 6.8 percent ranked in the middle of the competitor states. The competitor states’ unemployment rates ranged from 4.4 percent in Utah to 8.2 percent in Georgia. Unemployment rates have been volatile throughout the 11-year period, with Colorado’s rate ranging from 3.8 percent in 2007 to 9 percent in 2010.

Fig. 179

Lowest Unemployment Rate U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 32 50 28 33 43 3 1 14 25 19 28 41 38 10 8 25 33 44 14 20 3 22 12 49 14 42 8 38 3 22 44 38 22 10 28 12 47 33 33 20 3 28 37 17 3 1 44 48 17 25

2001 28 48 28 28 43 13 2 9 28 16 18 34 43 18 6 20 38 43 10 17 10 38 13 46 25 25 2 42 8 20 34 34 46 1 22 10 50 33 25 38 2 28 37 22 6 5 48 38 22 15

2002 26 48 39 22 46 30 10 5 30 16 5 26 44 20 4 18 30 37 10 12 22 41 12 46 20 12 3 30 12 35 28 41 45 2 30 16 50 29 18 39 1 22 43 35 5 8 49 37 22 8

2003 20 49 27 31 46 36 22 6 18 13 3 16 43 18 8 23 39 37 15 9 31 47 14 40 23 7 4 16 9 33 33 40 42 2 37 23 50 27 20 43 1 27 43 27 9 5 48 35 23 9

2004 21 50 21 35 43 35 19 6 17 17 1 13 43 28 13 32 35 32 13 11 26 48 13 46 38 10 6 12 6 19 38 38 32 2 42 21 49 30 26 47 3 30 41 25 3 3 43 28 21 6

2005 10 49 21 29 36 29 24 13 10 33 1 7 42 36 17 29 44 46 24 14 22 47 16 50 36 5 12 18 5 18 33 27 35 2 43 18 45 27 29 47 7 41 36 14 3 3 40 24 22 7

2006 11 48 18 43 37 23 24 11 10 31 1 3 28 40 14 24 46 17 31 16 34 50 18 49 34 7 3 22 11 28 18 28 34 7 45 18 43 26 41 47 6 42 37 2 14 3 37 26 31 7

2007 9 48 15 43 44 16 28 12 20 28 2 5 40 28 16 21 45 16 33 9 27 50 33 49 39 9 5 33 12 24 12 28 36 7 45 21 41 25 41 45 4 36 25 1 19 7 28 23 36 3

2008 23 39 35 26 48 18 32 21 36 36 10 18 39 33 8 13 42 13 26 12 24 50 26 45 34 15 4 47 7 31 15 26 36 2 42 6 41 24 49 45 1 42 21 4 15 8 26 11 18 2

2009 35 20 37 17 47 25 27 22 42 35 10 15 38 40 6 14 40 8 25 15 27 50 24 34 33 4 2 49 5 31 11 29 42 1 39 9 46 22 45 48 3 44 17 21 11 13 32 19 30 6

2010 30 17 40 15 48 29 31 17 46 38 7 28 41 36 5 11 38 13 21 15 23 49 13 42 31 7 2 50 4 33 17 27 43 1 36 9 43 24 47 45 3 34 21 20 6 11 34 24 24 10

2011 29 20 38 25 49 29 34 18 44 42 10 28 40 33 6 10 39 15 22 16 16 46 10 47 29 10 2 50 4 36 20 27 43 1 32 7 40 25 48 44 3 36 24 14 5 9 35 23 19 8

2012 22 18 35 29 49 30 35 22 39 42 11 27 41 32 5 12 35 15 25 18 16 44 10 45 21 14 2 50 9 47 22 38 45 1 28 6 39 31 48 42 3 34 16 6 4 13 32 25 18 6

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2013 18 18 39 33 47 26 38 23 30 41 8 15 48 33 6 11 44 15 23 22 29 46 9 45 18 14 3 50 10 41 27 36 39 1 31 11 36 31 49 35 2 41 17 4 4 13 28 18 23 6

Export Dollars per Capita U.S. Office of Trade and Economic Analysis

0 5 10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2013

35 40

4th Lowest

45 50

WA

TX

VT

AK

LA

CO

MS

SD

OK

MT

HI

Coastal states and states with large concentrations of natural resources or manufacturing typically rank high in this comparison. With $1,620 in exports of commodities and merchandise exports per capita, Colorado’s relatively small manufacturing base, inland location, and higher concentration of services employment contribute to its lower ranking.

Fig. 180

Export Dollars per Capita U.S. Office of Trade and Economic Analysis

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 15 Rank

20

2003

25

2008

30

2013

4th Lowest

35 40 45 50

TX

AZ

GA

UT

CO

NM

Texas has significantly higher manufacturing employment than Colorado and generated $10,570 in exports per capita in 2013. Colorado’s manufacturing employment concentration has decreased from 14 percent in the 1980s to 5.7 percent in 2013. A boom in primary metals exports and manufacturing has bolstered Utah’s ranking in recent years with $5,550 in exports per capita in 2013.

Fig. 181

Export Dollars per Capita U.S. Office of Trade and Economic Analysis

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 30 4 11 43 6 33 16 10 28 27 50 12 13 14 32 26 15 5 36 47 9 7 22 44 39 49 34 48 25 20 37 18 19 42 17 46 8 31 40 21 45 23 3 35 1 29 2 38 24 41

2001 27 4 15 42 7 36 10 11 28 26 50 30 13 16 31 25 18 5 35 44 8 6 20 38 41 49 32 48 24 17 47 19 21 37 14 46 9 34 40 12 45 22 3 33 2 29 1 39 23 43

2002 24 5 16 43 8 38 14 11 32 27 50 33 18 13 28 25 9 4 29 44 10 6 17 41 39 49 34 48 31 20 47 21 26 35 12 46 7 36 42 15 45 19 2 23 3 30 1 37 22 40

2003 25 4 14 43 10 35 15 16 34 24 50 31 19 11 26 29 12 5 28 45 8 6 17 46 39 49 30 44 32 22 40 21 23 36 13 48 7 38 42 9 47 18 2 27 3 33 1 37 20 41

2004 27 4 19 41 11 38 17 16 33 22 50 26 18 12 24 30 9 5 29 47 7 6 15 44 35 49 40 42 32 23 46 20 25 34 13 48 10 37 43 8 45 14 3 28 2 36 1 31 21 39

2005 26 4 21 41 12 40 18 15 31 27 49 28 17 9 22 24 7 5 35 45 8 6 16 42 33 50 37 38 30 25 43 19 29 32 14 47 10 34 48 11 46 13 3 23 1 39 2 36 20 44

2006 24 4 23 44 13 40 14 6 34 30 50 27 15 11 25 19 8 5 37 47 10 9 17 42 31 49 36 32 33 18 45 21 28 29 16 48 7 35 46 20 43 12 2 26 3 38 1 39 22 41

2007 27 5 26 42 16 45 12 7 31 30 50 25 13 10 23 18 6 3 39 43 11 8 21 41 34 49 32 36 35 19 47 15 29 24 17 48 9 33 44 14 40 20 2 28 4 37 1 38 22 46

2008 26 6 28 42 21 46 13 5 31 32 50 27 16 17 19 10 9 1 39 43 11 8 24 36 40 47 30 38 33 18 48 14 35 15 20 49 7 34 45 12 41 23 3 22 4 37 2 29 25 44

2009 28 6 35 39 17 47 8 5 29 31 50 30 16 13 22 19 7 2 40 42 11 14 25 36 43 48 26 37 32 20 49 21 33 15 23 46 9 34 44 12 45 18 3 10 4 38 1 27 24 41

2010 29 5 36 42 17 48 10 6 32 31 50 28 16 12 22 26 11 1 37 43 15 9 23 33 39 47 30 38 27 19 49 21 35 18 20 46 8 34 41 13 45 14 2 7 4 40 3 25 24 44

2011 29 4 37 43 21 48 17 7 32 31 50 28 10 11 19 24 16 1 38 44 22 9 26 30 39 47 23 35 33 20 49 18 36 12 25 46 14 34 41 8 45 15 2 6 5 40 3 13 27 42

2012 23 6 36 38 19 47 18 10 33 32 50 30 12 13 16 24 14 1 41 44 29 9 28 27 40 48 26 31 37 21 49 22 35 7 20 46 17 34 42 11 45 15 3 4 5 43 2 8 25 39

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

2013 27 5 37 38 21 47 17 7 34 30 50 31 13 11 18 22 8 1 43 44 26 6 29 23 41 48 28 35 33 24 49 19 36 12 20 46 15 32 42 10 45 14 3 9 4 40 2 16 25 39

Taxes

Lowest Local Government Tax Revenue per Capita U.S. Census Bureau, State and Local Government Finances

0 5

10 15

Rank

20

2003-2004 2007-2008 2010-2011

25 30 35

5th Highest

40

45 50

AR

WV

MS

KY

DE

CO

IL

MD

CT

NJ

States with low levels of state tax revenue generally compensate with higher levels of local government tax revenue; Colorado is no exception, with $2,410 in local revenue per capita. Maryland ($2,230), Connecticut ($2,610), New Jersey ($2,940), and New York ($3,950) all rank among the states with the highest taxing local governments and these states have some of the highest state taxes as well.

Fig. 182

Lowest Local Government Tax Revenue per Capita U.S. Census Bureau, State and Local Government Finances

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

5 10 15 Rank

20

2003-2004

25

2007-2008

30

5th Highest

35

2010-2011

40 45 50

NM

UT

AZ

GA

TX

CO

Colorado collects higher volumes of local tax revenue ($2,410 per capita) than all of its competitors. New Mexico ranks the best among the competitors ($1,140 per capita).

Fig. 183

Lowest Local Government Tax Revenue per Capita U.S. Census Bureau, State and Local Government Finances

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 9 45 23 1 30 46 48 6 29 36 7 11 44 25 21 26 5 19 40 47 39 17 20 2 24 14 35 28 41 49 4 50 12 18 42 10 22 34 43 13 31 15 37 16 8 38 27 3 33 32

2002 8 44 22 1 32 46 48 4 30 31 5 11 45 23 25 29 7 20 43 47 41 14 19 3 24 10 37 28 36 49 6 50 13 18 40 12 21 34 39 15 27 16 38 17 9 35 26 2 33 42

2004 8 40 22 1 30 44 48 5 29 27 6 9 46 20 28 35 4 21 43 47 41 19 13 3 26 12 39 31 42 49 7 50 15 18 37 11 24 32 45 17 25 14 38 16 10 34 23 2 33 36

2005 9 40 21 2 27 42 48 6 31 25 8 10 46 32 26 30 5 20 39 47 41 19 13 4 28 11 37 29 45 49 7 50 14 18 35 12 22 34 43 16 24 15 38 17 1 36 23 3 33 44

2006 7 40 21 2 28 43 48 6 34 32 12 8 45 29 24 30 5 26 37 47 41 19 13 4 25 9 36 27 44 49 10 50 14 18 35 11 20 33 42 15 22 16 38 17 1 39 23 3 31 46

2007 10 40 24 2 39 44 48 6 41 30 13 5 45 14 25 32 7 26 28 46 38 20 15 4 23 9 34 31 43 49 8 50 12 19 35 11 21 33 42 16 22 18 36 17 1 37 27 3 29 47

2008 10 40 23 2 39 44 48 6 42 29 14 4 43 16 25 31 7 26 27 46 38 19 17 3 24 8 37 32 45 49 9 50 12 20 35 11 21 34 41 13 22 15 33 18 1 36 28 5 30 47

2009 8 41 23 2 37 42 48 6 40 26 16 4 45 20 27 31 7 28 29 43 39 18 17 3 22 11 36 30 46 49 9 50 12 19 34 10 21 33 44 14 24 13 35 15 1 38 25 5 32 47

2010 8 45 21 1 35 46 48 4 36 25 17 3 42 20 29 31 7 28 33 44 40 18 19 5 23 10 39 27 43 49 9 50 13 15 30 11 22 34 41 16 24 14 38 12 2 37 26 6 32 47

2011 8 47 21 1 35 46 48 3 29 23 14 5 44 15 32 30 7 28 33 43 40 17 22 4 25 10 39 20 45 49 11 50 12 19 31 9 24 37 42 18 26 13 38 16 2 36 27 6 34 41

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest State and Local Tax Revenue per Capita U.S. Census Bureau, State and Local Government Finances

0 5 10 15 20 Rank

2003-2004

32nd Lowest

25

2007-2008 2010-2011

30 35 40 45 50

AL

MS

TN

AR

MT

CO

MA

WY

NJ

CT

NY

While Colorado has one of the lowest levels of state tax revenue per capita, its ranking declines when both state and local tax revenue are considered. Colorado ranked 32nd lowest among the states with $4,260 in state and local revenue per capita.

Fig. 184

Lowest State and Local Tax Revenue per Capita U.S. Census Bureau, State and Local Government Finances

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 15 Rank

32nd Lowest

20 25

2003-2004 2007-2008

30

2010-2011

35 40 45

50

UT

NM

TX

AZ

GA

CO

Because of its decentralized tax structure, Colorado ranks in the bottom half of the nation when both state and local tax revenues are considered. Colorado collects $4,260 per capita compared with $3,170 in Georgia and $3,220 in Utah. Georgia’s tax revenues have grown at one of the slowest rates in the nation since 2003-2004 even though its population increased steadily.

Fig. 185

Lowest State and Local Tax Revenue per Capita U.S. Census Bureau, State and Local Government Finances

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2002 1 35 16 5 42 32 49 38 17 23 41 8 37 22 25 26 14 18 43 45 47 30 46 3 15 4 31 27 24 48 13 50 20 19 33 9 10 29 39 6 7 2 21 12 34 28 36 11 40 44

2004 1 35 17 4 40 26 49 36 24 19 41 9 34 22 23 29 12 15 42 45 46 27 43 2 13 5 37 30 25 48 14 50 18 21 31 8 20 32 44 7 6 3 16 11 38 28 33 10 39 47

2005 1 45 19 7 40 25 49 37 24 16 44 9 36 27 21 26 10 17 38 43 46 28 39 2 12 8 34 33 23 47 20 50 18 22 29 6 15 32 42 5 4 3 13 11 41 30 31 14 35 48

2006 1 46 15 7 42 25 48 37 27 18 44 6 36 23 19 29 11 26 39 43 45 22 38 2 9 10 31 30 20 47 21 50 16 24 28 8 17 33 40 4 5 3 13 14 41 32 34 12 35 49

2007 1 50 23 8 43 24 48 35 25 17 44 6 38 12 20 31 7 29 37 42 45 21 40 2 10 13 30 28 19 46 22 49 18 27 26 9 14 32 39 5 3 4 15 16 41 34 36 11 33 47

2008 2 50 19 7 44 26 47 31 24 15 43 6 37 18 22 32 8 27 36 42 45 21 40 4 10 14 30 25 20 46 23 49 17 41 28 11 9 33 38 1 5 3 16 13 39 29 35 12 34 48

2009 1 50 11 10 40 23 47 30 21 13 43 4 37 22 28 32 8 27 35 42 44 20 39 5 9 19 33 24 25 46 16 48 15 45 26 14 12 34 38 3 6 2 18 7 41 29 31 17 36 49

2010 2 50 8 15 40 33 47 30 20 9 42 1 35 22 28 31 12 21 37 43 44 23 39 6 10 14 32 24 26 46 13 49 17 45 25 7 16 34 38 3 11 4 18 5 41 27 29 19 36 48

2011 1 50 12 13 40 32 46 35 14 7 38 3 37 19 29 28 11 20 36 41 44 22 43 5 9 15 31 23 27 45 16 49 17 48 25 6 21 33 39 2 10 4 18 8 42 26 30 24 34 47

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Sales Tax Index The Tax Foundation

0 5

10 15 20 Rank 25

2009 2014

30

8th Worst

35 40

45 50

NH

DE

MT

OR

AK

CO

NJ

NC

WA

LA

AZ

Colorado has one of the lowest state sales tax rates, but the state relies more heavily on local sales taxes, which pushes the combined state and local rate into the top half of the nation. According to the Tax Foundation, local jurisdictions in Colorado add an average of 4.51 percent in local sales taxes, the third highest percentage behind Louisiana (4.91 percent) and Alabama (4.85 percent).

Fig. 186

Sales Tax Index The Tax Foundation

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 15

Rank

20

2009

25

2014

30

8th Worst

35 40 45 50

GA

UT

CO

TX

NM

AZ

Colorado, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona have combined state and local sales tax rates that rank among the highest in the nation. The states’ taxation of certain agriculture or manufacturing equipment, business-to-business transactions, and other business inputs also contributes to their low overall rankings.

Fig. 187

Sales Tax Index The Tax Foundation

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2003 33 3 46 28 44 10 35 1 21 20 18 36 25 7 16 22 15 48 12 8 13 17 40 42 29 4 41 45 1 24 37 49 43 33 31 32 5 30 38 14 39 47 25 27 9 6 50 19 23 11

2004 28 5 44 36 39 14 32 2 20 19 21 34 33 7 16 27 9 47 11 8 10 15 36 40 23 3 46 45 1 22 36 49 42 31 43 30 4 28 35 12 40 48 24 26 17 6 50 18 24 12

2005 21 1 42 39 37 24 34 3 18 6 25 35 26 13 19 31 10 45 14 8 12 15 40 37 11 5 44 49 2 29 46 48 41 21 43 30 4 26 36 9 31 47 33 23 16 7 50 20 26 17

2006 27 5 47 39 44 7 34 2 21 19 12 17 36 15 22 26 6 48 8 11 13 10 42 37 24 3 31 45 1 46 43 32 41 33 38 35 4 27 16 20 40 49 30 29 18 9 50 23 25 13

2007 34 5 46 38 44 10 29 2 24 19 11 15 35 22 30 20 6 47 7 13 12 9 42 35 26 3 25 45 1 43 48 37 41 31 39 33 4 28 14 16 40 49 32 27 18 8 50 23 21 16

2008 34 5 46 38 44 10 29 2 24 19 11 15 35 22 30 20 6 47 7 13 12 9 42 35 26 3 25 45 1 43 48 37 41 31 39 33 4 28 14 16 40 49 32 27 18 8 50 23 21 16

2009 25 5 46 43 48 31 27 1 32 23 10 12 41 20 33 24 7 47 6 10 26 9 40 35 16 3 17 44 1 38 42 36 34 21 37 45 4 29 13 18 30 49 39 28 14 8 50 22 19 15

2010 36 5 50 40 44 43 28 2 25 15 33 24 34 11 29 23 8 47 10 9 17 7 38 30 13 3 25 41 1 46 45 39 49 16 31 37 4 22 27 21 32 42 35 18 14 6 48 20 18 12

2011 39 5 50 37 42 43 30 2 18 14 31 23 33 11 24 32 8 49 10 8 17 7 36 28 26 3 27 41 1 46 44 40 47 15 29 38 4 21 25 20 34 45 35 22 13 6 48 19 16 12

2012 37 5 50 39 40 43 31 2 18 14 30 23 34 11 24 32 9 49 10 8 17 7 35 28 27 3 26 41 1 46 44 42 47 16 29 38 4 20 25 20 33 45 36 22 13 6 48 19 15 12

2013 37 5 49 42 41 43 32 2 17 16 14 23 33 11 24 31 10 50 9 8 18 7 35 28 26 3 29 39 1 46 44 40 47 21 30 38 4 19 27 22 34 45 36 20 12 6 48 25 15 13

2014 41 5 49 44 42 43 31 1 12 17 15 22 34 10 23 30 11 50 9 8 21 7 37 28 29 3 27 39 2 48 45 40 33 20 32 38 4 24 26 18 35 47 36 19 16 6 46 25 14 13

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest State and Local Business Tax Burden Council on State Taxation

0 5 10

15 Rank

20 25

2003

30th Lowest

30

2008 2013

35 40 45 50

OR NC

UT

MA

VA

CO WV WY MT ME

AK

Colorado’s state and local business taxes were about 5 percent of State GDP in 2013. Oregon had the lowest burden (3.3 percent) and Alaska had the highest (12 percent). Colorado’s state and local business tax collections increased by 4.9 percent from fiscal year 2012 to 2013 compared with 4.3 percent in the U.S. overall.

Fig. 188

Lowest State and Local Business Tax Burden Council on State Taxation

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 15 20 Rank 25

30th Lowest

2003 2008

30

2013

35 40 45 50

UT

CO

GA

TX

AZ

NM

Utah was the highest-ranked competitor state with a business tax burden of 3.7 percent. New Mexico was the lowest-ranked competitor with a burden of 6.6 percent. Estimating a state’s effective business tax rate (business taxes as a percentage of State GDP) is one of many facets of a state’s tax competitiveness.

Fig. 189

Lowest State and Local Business Tax Burdens Council on State Taxation

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2003 13 50 30 23 12 6 10 13 33 6 34 17 30 8 25 25 19 38 49 10 4 30 17 41 8 48 29 19 38 27 40 36 2 45 19 34 1 19 42 13 36 13 27 3 43 4 44 46 24 46

2006 10 49 28 16 28 7 1 1 31 7 33 12 30 22 12 37 22 40 46 12 11 16 26 41 6 44 36 16 26 20 42 39 1 48 16 33 1 24 37 20 31 12 33 7 45 1 42 47 24 50

2007 14 50 28 14 19 7 4 1 21 7 32 14 28 4 20 38 24 43 48 7 12 28 14 40 10 43 32 21 32 21 40 42 3 47 12 36 2 28 38 24 35 14 24 10 45 4 36 46 24 49

2008 13 50 22 13 17 10 2 4 31 7 36 22 25 27 17 39 13 31 47 8 10 27 12 42 8 45 30 17 36 27 42 41 1 48 17 34 2 25 39 22 31 13 34 5 42 5 38 46 17 49

2009 16 50 25 16 22 7 5 1 36 10 36 12 16 10 16 39 25 33 46 12 8 30 15 42 8 44 33 27 30 22 43 40 1 48 33 30 1 16 41 22 27 12 27 5 44 4 36 47 16 49

2010 19 50 29 11 33 15 1 2 44 9 37 11 29 8 19 37 26 35 46 2 11 19 15 41 9 40 26 33 15 26 41 43 2 49 19 29 5 24 37 24 11 18 32 6 47 7 36 45 19 48

2011 25 50 25 14 34 14 3 5 43 8 39 18 23 8 21 36 30 14 45 6 11 12 14 41 8 40 25 34 18 30 44 41 1 49 23 30 1 28 38 28 18 12 30 3 47 7 36 45 21 48

2012 27 50 33 16 16 28 2 2 38 6 43 16 28 12 23 36 28 20 46 9 11 9 20 41 8 40 25 32 12 25 45 41 1 49 14 38 2 23 33 28 20 14 33 2 47 6 36 44 16 48

2013 18 50 35 14 18 30 2 15 40 5 43 22 32 5 26 26 26 8 44 8 12 8 22 44 4 38 15 38 17 35 46 41 2 49 13 26 1 22 37 30 18 22 32 5 48 8 32 42 18 47

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Urban Commercial Property Taxes on $1 Million Property Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence

0

5 10 15

Rank

20

2004

32nd Lowest

25

2008 2013

30 35 40 45 50

WY

HI

DE

WA

NV

CO

IL

RI

IA

NY

MI

The Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence measures the tax burden for a hypothetical commercial property valued at $1 million with $200,000 of fixtures for the largest metro area in each state. Colorado’s effective tax rate (2.4 percent) increased from 1.9 percent in 2008, leading to a general decline in the state’s rank.

Fig. 190

Lowest Urban Commercial Property Taxes on $1 Million Property Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10

15 Rank

20

32nd Lowest

25

2004 2008

30

2013

35 40

45 50

NM

UT

GA

CO

TX

AZ

Commercial property tax rates in Colorado (2.4 percent), Texas (2.4 percent), and Arizona (2.5 percent) tend to be higher than the other competitors, yielding a ranking in the bottom half of the states. New Mexico’s rate of 1.5 percent ranked it 16th in the country.

Fig. 191

Lowest Urban Commercial Property Taxes on $1 Million Property Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 10 18 47 14 7 25 48 3 38 15 1 20 50 46 41 43 22 42 32 21 27 49 40 29 39 9 23 4 19 33 8 36 6 11 28 16 26 35 44 37 17 31 45 13 34 12 5 30 24 2

2005 13 25 45 20 10 24 40 2 23 26 1 19 35 42 39 47 5 44 33 18 26 49 34 37 41 22 28 7 6 16 14 43 8 15 32 21 31 12 46 50 11 38 48 17 29 9 4 30 36 3

2006 15 18 47 24 11 27 35 1 25 28 2 23 35 43 39 41 6 45 34 26 29 50 30 46 42 19 32 10 7 13 12 44 9 14 37 19 16 33 38 49 8 40 48 17 21 3 5 31 22 4

2009 17 20 45 26 11 29 38 1 25 31 4 9 36 44 39 40 5 47 22 16 28 49 33 46 43 21 32 10 7 13 18 42 12 15 33 24 19 37 30 50 8 41 48 14 27 2 6 35 23 3

2010 17 19 40 30 13 34 41 1 23 32 3 10 31 44 43 46 5 38 27 18 24 49 33 47 45 14 35 11 8 9 22 37 15 16 25 26 21 39 29 50 7 42 48 12 28 2 4 36 20 6

2011 16 21 35 28 12 31 38 1 23 33 4 15 30 44 43 45 6 40 27 25 24 49 36 47 46 18 34 9 10 8 20 39 11 13 17 29 19 41 32 50 7 42 48 14 26 2 3 37 22 5

2012 16 31 35 28 13 32 20 1 26 36 3 24 17 46 45 33 6 43 30 27 23 49 38 47 44 12 36 9 14 11 15 40 10 7 21 29 19 41 39 50 8 42 48 18 22 2 5 34 25 4

2013 15 31 38 26 10 32 28 2 22 35 3 30 23 45 40 34 5 44 11 27 24 49 41 46 43 17 36 9 13 16 14 39 12 7 21 29 37 18 42 50 8 48 47 19 20 1 6 33 25 4

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Urban Industrial Property Taxes on $1 Million Property Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence

0

5 10 15

Rank

20

2004

17th Highest

25

2008 2013

30 35 40 45 50

HI

DE

WY

WA

KY

CO

RI

KS

TX

MI

SC

The Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence measures the tax burden for a hypothetical industrial property valued at $1 million with another $1 million of personal property for the largest metro area in each state. Due to the combination of real and personal property tax levied in Colorado, the state’s effective tax rate (1.9 percent) is 17th highest.

Fig. 192

Lowest Urban Industrial Property Taxes on $1 Million Property Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 15

Rank

20

17th Highest

25

2004 2008

30

2013

35 40 45

50

NM

UT

CO

GA

AZ

TX

The average mill levy in Denver has increased from around 67 mills in 2004 to over 87 mills in 2013, partially explaining Colorado’s drop in rank for this measure. The effective tax rate in Denver, Colorado (1.9 percent) compares with 1.2 percent in Albuquerque, New Mexico and 2.6 percent in Houston, Texas.

Fig. 193

Lowest Urban Industrial Property Taxes on $1 Million Property Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 10 18 47 14 7 25 48 3 38 15 1 20 50 46 41 43 22 42 32 21 27 49 40 29 39 9 23 4 19 33 8 36 6 11 28 16 26 35 44 37 17 31 45 13 34 12 5 30 24 2

2004 13 25 45 20 10 24 40 2 23 26 1 19 35 42 39 47 5 44 33 18 26 49 34 37 41 22 28 7 6 16 14 43 8 15 32 21 31 12 46 50 11 38 48 17 29 9 4 30 36 3

2005 15 18 47 24 11 27 35 1 25 28 2 23 35 43 39 41 6 45 34 26 29 50 30 46 42 19 32 10 7 13 12 44 9 14 37 19 16 33 38 49 8 40 48 17 21 3 5 31 22 4

2006 17 20 45 26 11 29 38 1 25 31 4 9 36 44 39 40 5 47 22 16 28 49 33 46 43 21 32 10 7 13 18 42 12 15 33 24 19 37 30 50 8 41 48 14 27 2 6 35 23 3

2008 17 19 40 30 13 34 41 1 23 32 3 10 31 44 43 46 5 38 27 18 24 49 33 47 45 14 35 11 8 9 22 37 15 16 25 26 21 39 29 50 7 42 48 12 28 2 4 36 20 6

2009 16 21 35 28 12 31 38 1 23 33 4 15 30 44 43 45 6 40 27 25 24 49 36 47 46 18 34 9 10 8 20 39 11 13 17 29 19 41 32 50 7 42 48 14 26 2 3 37 22 5

2010 16 31 35 28 13 32 20 1 26 36 3 24 17 46 45 33 6 43 30 27 23 49 38 47 44 12 36 9 14 11 15 40 10 7 21 29 19 41 39 50 8 42 48 18 22 2 5 34 25 4

2011 15 31 38 26 10 32 28 2 22 35 3 30 23 45 40 34 5 44 11 27 24 49 41 46 43 17 36 9 13 16 14 39 12 7 21 29 37 18 42 50 8 48 47 19 20 1 6 33 25 4

2012 13 26 37 23 11 32 29 4 21 33 2 28 41 42 47 29 6 40 12 22 27 49 39 46 44 17 34 9 14 16 15 38 10 7 20 24 35 36 43 50 8 48 45 19 18 1 5 31 25 3

2013 14 25 38 21 10 34 36 4 23 30 2 20 39 43 50 31 6 41 12 19 26 48 40 46 42 17 32 9 16 13 15 37 11 5 28 22 33 44 35 49 8 47 45 18 24 1 6 29 27 3

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Rural Industrial Property Taxes on $1 Million Property Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence

0 5 10 15

Rank

20 2009 2013

25

30 35

7th Highest

40 45 50

DE

HI

WA

KY

AL

CO

IN

TX

MS

KS

SC

Colorado’s rural industrial tax burden was high partly because of the location chosen by the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence. While some rural counties have average mill levies that compare to the rate for Walsenburg, Colorado (about 72 mills), an average rate in rural counties in Colorado is closer to around 53 mills.

Fig. 194

Lowest Rural Industrial Property Taxes on $1 Million Property Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

5 10 15

Rank

20

2009 2013

25 30

7th Highest

35 40 45 50

UT

NM

GA

AZ

CO

TX

Rural communities chosen by the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence for this analysis included Santa Rosa (New Mexico), Richfield (Utah), Fitzgerald (Georgia), Safford (Arizona), Walsenburg (Colorado), and Fort Stockton (Texas). On-going property tax reforms account for the improvement in Arizona’s rank.

Fig. 195

Lowest Rural Industrial Property Taxes on $1 Million Property Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 12 42 38 8 10 39 41 1 40 35 2 25 26 45 28 50 18 37 23 5 13 44 43 29 30 22 31 16 15 27 4 35 6 19 32 9 33 7 48 47 34 11 46 21 49 17 20 24 14 3

2005 3 17 42 5 13 32 47 1 41 30 2 34 29 44 40 50 15 38 20 12 11 46 37 45 36 33 39 18 6 31 4 43 16 25 35 10 26 14 19 49 23 9 48 22 27 8 21 24 28 7

2006 3 17 35 12 15 42 34 1 41 29 2 25 38 44 48 50 4 37 31 13 10 46 33 36 39 32 40 19 6 27 7 45 16 22 30 14 18 20 5 49 28 8 47 21 43 11 23 24 26 9

2009 5 11 36 12 16 43 39 1 40 32 2 25 31 46 45 49 4 35 33 14 27 44 34 48 38 37 42 24 21 19 18 41 7 29 6 20 9 22 15 50 23 10 47 17 30 8 3 26 28 13

2010 5 16 26 12 13 44 38 1 41 35 2 28 33 48 42 46 6 36 37 14 19 45 34 49 39 32 43 21 20 23 18 40 10 24 3 22 9 25 15 50 29 7 47 17 30 8 4 27 30 11

2011 3 16 6 7 12 41 15 1 44 36 2 29 34 46 43 49 4 37 25 14 19 45 38 48 39 35 42 20 23 26 11 40 10 22 21 24 17 30 27 50 28 13 47 18 31 9 5 32 33 7

2012 3 11 19 6 10 38 13 1 42 37 2 27 35 48 43 46 4 36 25 17 26 45 44 49 39 28 41 23 34 24 12 40 9 20 14 22 16 30 29 50 20 15 47 18 31 8 5 33 32 6

2013 5 16 26 12 13 44 38 1 41 35 2 28 33 48 42 46 6 36 37 14 19 45 34 49 39 32 43 21 20 23 18 40 24 10 3 22 9 25 15 50 29 7 47 17 30 8 4 27 30 11

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Livability

Lowest Single-Family Median Home Price in Largest Metro Area* National Association of REALTORS

0 5 10 15 20 Rank 25

2003 2008 2013

6th Highest

30 35 40 45

OK

AR

ND

MS

WV

CO

RI

NY

CA

MA

HI

Only Arkansas reported a decrease in median home price in 2013. The median price increased 11.2 percent in Metro Denver from 2012 to 2013, rising to $280,600. Metro Denver’s price increase ranked 14th highest while Atlanta’s price increased 37.6 percent, the highest increase posted. *Ranking based on data available for the largest metro areas in 46 states in 2013.

Fig. 196

Lowest Single-Family Median Home Price in Largest Metro Area* National Association of REALTORS

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 15

Rank

20

2003 2008 2013

25 30 35

6th Highest

40 45

NM

TX

UT

GA

AZ

CO

The median home price jumped sharply in Atlanta (37.6 percent) after falling by about 43 percent from 2007 to 2011. However, Atlanta ($139,500) continues to have one of the lowest median prices in the nation. Colorado ($280,600) continues to have the highest median home price of the competitor states, although Utah’s rank continues to decline. *Ranking based on data available for the largest metro area in 46 states in 2013.

Fig. 197

Lowest Single-Family Median Home Price in Largest Metro Area* National Association of REALTORS

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2003 18 50 26 2 43 39 35 11 38 25 45 13 37 6 16 22 15 14 33 30 44 27 34 4 7 50 10 29 50 36 19 42 24 3 16 1 32 28 41 9 8 12 19 23 50 21 40 5 31 50

2004 19 50 27 1 44 36 34 21 41 22 45 12 37 6 16 20 11 14 33 31 43 24 32 5 8 50 10 38 50 35 17 42 26 4 13 3 30 28 39 7 9 17 15 23 50 25 40 2 29 50

2005 18 50 33 3 44 32 34 24 41 21 45 15 36 4 14 17 9 19 31 37 42 7 29 6 13 50 11 39 50 35 22 43 25 5 12 1 30 27 38 8 9 20 16 23 50 26 40 2 28 50

2006 17 50 31 4 42 29 30 23 39 18 43 50 32 1 11 16 7 19 28 33 40 15 27 12 13 50 9 37 50 35 20 41 21 6 5 3 34 26 35 10 8 50 14 22 50 24 38 2 25 50

2007 18 50 31 3 43 30 32 23 39 19 44 22 33 1 13 16 6 17 29 34 41 9 25 8 11 50 7 37 50 38 20 42 21 15 4 5 36 28 35 12 10 50 14 27 50 26 40 2 24 50

2008 16 50 20 6 43 26 34 24 39 14 45 19 33 2 15 11 7 18 29 37 42 50 23 5 8 50 9 28 32 40 21 44 22 17 1 4 38 31 36 12 10 50 13 30 35 27 41 3 25 50

2009 17 50 10 7 44 35 37 27 31 3 46 20 28 2 19 15 6 22 29 40 43 50 23 9 5 50 8 16 36 41 24 45 25 21 1 13 39 32 34 11 11 18 13 33 38 30 42 4 26 50

2010 15 50 12 6 43 36 37 27 28 2 46 9 26 3 19 13 8 21 33 39 44 50 23 7 5 50 10 11 35 40 24 45 25 22 1 18 38 32 34 14 16 20 17 31 41 29 42 4 30 50

2011 15 50 5 9 43 39 37 26 28 2 46 4 27 7 20 12 11 22 34 38 44 1 23 14 6 50 13 8 33 40 25 45 50 24 3 18 36 32 35 17 16 21 19 29 41 30 42 9 31 50

2012 17 50 15 8 42 39 36 25 30 1 45 9 25 4 21 12 7 19 35 31 43 50 24 13 3 50 10 6 32 38 23 44 20 29 2 14 37 33 34 11 16 18 22 50 40 28 41 5 27 50

2013 16 50 24 5 45 41 31 23 36 6 46 14 25 4 17 12 6 15 32 37 43 50 27 10 3 50 8 18 33 38 20 44 19 29 1 11 39 30 35 9 13 22 21 34 40 26 42 2 28 50

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Charitable Contributions as a Percentage of Income Internal Revenue Service

0

5 10

15

27th Highest

20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2012

35 40 45 50

UT

GA

SC

AL

MD

CO

VT

NH

SD

ND

WV

Residents in Colorado contributed 2 percent of their income to charitable causes in 2012, compared with 4.8 percent in Utah and 1.2 percent in bottom-ranked New Hampshire. Wyoming ranked first in 2012 due to a strong inflow of generous households with incomes over $1 million. Indeed, Wyoming now ranks first in billionaires per capita.

Fig. 198

Charitable Contributions as a Percentage of Income Internal Revenue Service

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10

27th Highest

15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2012

35 40 45 50

UT

GA

CO

AZ

TX

NM

Utah (4.8 percent) and Georgia (3.1 percent) are renowned for their personal and corporate philanthropy. Colorado’s charitable contributions have declined from a high of 2.5 percent in 2005 to 2 percent in 2012.

Fig. 199

Charitable Contributions as a Percentage of Income Internal Revenue Service

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 3 47 20 13 14 20 26 20 20 3 30 5 30 26 30 17 26 30 43 5 26 20 17 10 20 30 10 30 48 30 43 10 9 48 30 5 14 30 43 5 41 14 30 1 43 17 30 50 41 2

2002 3 43 18 11 14 18 33 18 24 2 33 7 24 29 33 18 24 33 45 6 40 18 18 7 24 24 14 29 47 29 40 10 7 47 33 3 14 33 43 3 45 12 29 1 47 14 33 50 40 12

2003 4 45 22 11 16 15 31 21 26 2 35 8 27 32 40 18 28 36 44 5 39 23 20 10 24 33 17 25 47 29 42 9 7 49 37 6 14 38 43 3 48 12 30 1 46 19 34 50 41 13

2004 3 45 23 10 15 18 31 25 24 2 40 8 28 34 39 19 27 38 46 4 35 20 16 11 26 32 22 21 47 33 42 9 7 49 37 6 14 36 43 5 44 12 30 1 48 17 29 50 41 13

2005 5 48 18 3 15 16 31 28 25 4 42 6 29 32 38 17 27 35 44 9 36 24 21 8 23 34 14 22 45 40 43 13 11 49 39 2 19 37 46 10 30 12 26 1 47 20 33 50 41 7

2006 4 47 26 11 16 21 35 20 23 3 29 9 30 31 37 14 24 34 43 6 36 22 19 7 25 32 15 41 48 40 42 13 8 49 38 2 18 39 44 5 45 12 27 1 46 17 33 50 28 10

2007 4 44 28 8 19 21 32 27 20 3 31 12 33 30 36 15 24 38 47 10 37 23 22 6 25 29 16 42 48 41 43 13 9 49 39 2 17 35 45 5 14 11 26 1 46 18 34 50 40 7

2008 3 46 24 11 28 23 34 30 25 4 41 7 31 32 36 16 22 29 47 9 43 26 19 5 27 15 14 35 50 40 42 18 8 48 37 2 20 38 45 6 17 10 21 1 44 12 33 49 39 13

2009 3 45 28 12 29 21 30 27 26 2 43 6 32 33 35 11 22 31 48 9 40 23 24 5 20 15 17 37 50 41 42 13 8 49 36 7 18 38 46 4 14 10 25 1 47 16 34 44 39 19

2010 4 45 30 13 23 19 25 29 28 2 42 5 33 32 35 14 20 31 46 11 36 24 26 7 21 15 16 37 50 43 41 12 10 49 38 9 18 40 44 6 27 8 22 1 47 17 34 48 39 3

2011 3 45 29 12 23 18 35 34 28 2 42 5 30 31 33 13 22 32 47 9 40 26 27 4 21 14 15 25 50 43 41 17 8 49 38 10 16 39 46 6 24 11 19 1 44 20 36 48 37 7

2012 4 46 30 13 19 27 23 37 24 3 42 6 29 34 36 11 25 33 47 9 35 32 31 5 21 17 15 28 50 43 38 14 10 49 40 7 16 39 45 8 18 12 20 2 44 22 26 48 41 1

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Percentage of Population in Non-Attainment Air Quality Areas Office of the Forecast Council, State of Washington

Colorado vs. Competitors

0 5

10 15

20

2003 2008 2012

Rank 25

30

11th Highest

35

40 45

50

NM

CO

GA

TX

UT

AZ

Non-attainment areas fail to meet federal standards for ambient air quality due to their levels of carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. In 2012, New Mexico (0.1 percent) had the lowest percentage of its population living in non-attainment areas, aside from the 15 states with zero percent.

Fig. 200

Lowest Percentage of Population in Non-Attainment Air Quality Areas Office of the Forecast Council, State of Washington

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 26 37 42 1 46 39 44 27 1 35 1 30 43 1 1 1 28 24 40 36 49 17 22 1 33 25 16 45 34 20 18 50 1 1 31 1 23 48 47 1 1 1 38 41 1 1 29 21 32 19

2001 27 37 42 1 46 39 44 28 1 35 1 30 43 1 1 1 29 25 40 36 49 1 22 1 33 26 1 45 34 20 18 50 1 1 31 1 24 48 47 1 1 1 38 41 1 1 23 21 32 19

2002 28 37 42 1 47 39 44 29 1 35 1 30 43 1 1 1 1 26 40 36 49 1 23 1 33 27 1 46 34 21 19 50 1 1 31 1 25 45 48 1 1 1 38 41 1 1 24 22 32 20

2003 30 38 42 1 45 23 44 31 1 36 1 32 43 1 1 1 1 28 40 37 49 1 1 1 20 29 1 47 35 24 21 50 1 1 33 1 27 46 48 1 1 1 39 41 1 1 26 25 34 22

2004 22 28 39 1 46 40 42 23 1 33 1 18 41 31 1 1 24 19 38 32 48 43 1 1 30 20 1 45 21 15 13 50 35 1 44 1 16 49 47 25 1 37 34 36 1 27 17 29 26 14

2005 33 35 43 1 48 44 38 1 1 41 1 30 45 39 1 1 34 31 36 40 49 46 1 1 37 32 1 47 1 1 29 50 42 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2006 23 26 40 1 46 41 31 1 1 35 1 19 42 32 1 1 24 21 29 34 48 43 1 1 30 22 1 45 1 1 17 50 37 1 44 1 20 49 47 25 1 38 36 39 1 28 1 33 27 18

2007 25 29 42 1 46 43 33 1 1 38 1 21 44 27 1 1 26 23 1 37 48 35 1 1 32 24 1 45 39 1 1 50 28 1 40 1 22 47 48 1 1 30 36 41 1 1 1 34 31 20

2008 25 29 41 1 46 42 34 1 1 38 1 21 44 27 1 1 26 23 1 37 48 35 1 1 33 24 1 45 39 1 19 50 28 1 43 1 22 47 48 1 1 30 36 40 1 1 1 32 31 20

2009 26 32 40 1 45 41 34 1 1 39 1 21 43 29 1 1 28 24 1 38 46 35 1 1 33 25 1 46 1 1 19 46 30 1 42 1 22 46 46 1 1 27 37 44 1 1 23 35 31 20

2010 27 32 40 1 46 41 34 1 1 39 1 21 43 29 1 1 28 24 1 38 47 35 18 1 33 25 1 44 1 1 19 47 30 1 42 1 22 47 47 1 1 26 36 45 1 1 23 37 31 20

2011 27 33 41 1 46 43 34 1 1 39 1 23 42 30 21 1 29 1 1 37 47 35 20 1 32 26 1 44 1 1 19 47 1 1 36 1 24 47 47 1 1 28 38 45 1 1 25 40 31 22

2012 26 33 41 23 46 40 34 1 1 39 1 19 43 29 18 1 28 25 1 38 47 35 17 1 32 24 1 45 1 1 16 47 27 1 42 1 21 47 47 1 1 31 37 44 1 1 22 36 30 20

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

K-12 Education

Pre-K Resources per Child* National Institute for Early Education Research

0 5 10 15 2003-2004

Rank 20

2007-2008

25

2012-2013

5th Lowest

30 35 40

NJ

OR

CT

MN

WA

MD

CO

KS

NE

SC

Early childhood education is an essential part of long-term student success. Colorado ($2,160) ranks in the bottom-five states for resources devoted to Pre-K education. Pre-K resources per child in top-ranked New Jersey totaled $12,070 in the 2012-2013 school year. *Rankings based on the 40 states with programs.

Fig. 201

Pre-K Resources per Child* National Institute for Early Education Research

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 Rank

15

2003-2004

20

2007-2008

25

2012-2013

5th Lowest

30 35 40

GA

TX

NM

AZ

CO

UT

Colorado ranks below the national average in resources devoted to Pre-K education. Georgia ($3,600), Texas ($3,310), and New Mexico ($3,600) all provided more resources than Colorado ($2,160) in the 2012-2013 school year. Utah does not have a Pre-K program. *Rankings based on the 40 states with programs.

Fig. 202

Pre-K Resources per Child* National Institute for Early Education Research

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2002 13 N/A 28 29 21 32 3 7 N/A 12 N/A N/A 20 N/A 16 30 25 11 33 31 9 17 4 N/A 27 N/A 24 22 N/A 2 36 14 6 N/A 8 26 1 N/A N/A 34 N/A 5 23 N/A 35 18 10 19 15 N/A

2003 14 N/A 26 20 16 33 3 6 N/A 12 N/A N/A 22 N/A 21 32 25 11 30 31 10 18 4 N/A 28 N/A 29 13 N/A 1 34 15 7 N/A 9 27 2 N/A N/A 35 N/A 8 24 N/A 36 19 5 17 23 N/A

2004 14 N/A 27 13 17 33 3 6 N/A 12 N/A N/A 19 N/A 22 34 28 10 31 32 7 15 4 N/A 30 N/A 35 21 N/A 1 26 16 11 N/A 8 23 2 N/A N/A 36 N/A 18 25 N/A 29 20 5 9 24 N/A

2005 16 N/A 30 9 20 34 3 5 N/A 13 N/A N/A 23 N/A 21 36 29 10 32 35 8 17 7 N/A 31 N/A 33 25 N/A 1 27 14 12 N/A 4 18 2 24 N/A 37 N/A 19 26 N/A 28 15 6 11 22 N/A

2006 10 N/A 32 8 20 35 3 4 34 12 N/A N/A 21 N/A 24 27 30 7 36 37 15 13 6 N/A 26 N/A 28 22 N/A 1 33 17 14 N/A 31 19 2 16 N/A 38 N/A 11 25 N/A 29 18 5 9 23 N/A

2007 8 N/A 33 11 18 36 3 4 34 14 N/A N/A 22 N/A 26 29 19 7 37 27 16 13 6 N/A 31 N/A 35 23 N/A 1 25 20 9 N/A 32 21 2 15 N/A 38 N/A 12 28 N/A 30 17 5 10 24 N/A

2008 14 N/A 34 11 20 36 4 6 33 15 N/A N/A 24 N/A 28 30 23 8 38 19 29 16 7 N/A 32 N/A 31 26 N/A 1 27 18 10 N/A 3 17 2 9 N/A 37 N/A 13 21 N/A 35 22 5 12 25 N/A

2009 14 N/A 35 10 22 36 2 7 34 17 N/A N/A 26 N/A 29 30 24 12 38 21 8 16 4 N/A 32 N/A 33 31 N/A 1 27 23 11 N/A 5 18 3 9 N/A 37 N/A 15 20 N/A 25 19 6 13 28 N/A

2010 15 3 40 11 12 36 2 7 34 20 N/A N/A 28 N/A 31 35 30 14 37 21 24 18 5 N/A 32 N/A 39 33 N/A 1 27 26 13 N/A 23 16 4 8 9 38 N/A 17 25 N/A 22 19 6 10 29 N/A

2011 16 5 N/A 12 13 36 2 6 35 19 N/A N/A 28 N/A 30 33 29 14 37 18 23 17 4 N/A 32 N/A 38 34 N/A 1 25 24 11 N/A 20 27 3 10 9 39 N/A 15 22 N/A 31 21 7 8 26 N/A

2012 12 4 32 10 16 38 3 6 35 25 N/A N/A 30 N/A 26 37 24 14 36 23 17 15 5 N/A 33 N/A 40 34 N/A 1 31 21 11 N/A 18 22 2 9 27 39 N/A 13 29 N/A 20 19 7 8 28 N/A

2013 13 6 38 11 16 36 2 7 34 27 N/A N/A 30 N/A 31 35 23 14 33 18 19 17 5 N/A 37 N/A 40 32 N/A 1 26 25 12 N/A 20 24 4 10 3 39 N/A 15 29 N/A 21 22 8 9 28 N/A

*Rankings based on 40 states with programs. GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Spending on K-12 Public Schools as a Percentage of Personal Income U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; National Center for Education Statistics

0 5 10 15

Rank

20

2003

25

2008

30

2011

35

7th Lowest

40 45

50

AK

VT

MI

WV

NM

CO

NC

MD

NV

FL

Colorado’s comparatively high personal income partly explains its lower ranking. The percentage of income spent in Colorado—3.9 percent in 2011—compares with 7 percent in Alaska. Bottomranked Florida spent 3.6 percent of personal income on public schools.

Fig. 203

Spending on K-12 Public Schools as a Percentage of Personal Income U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; National Center for Education Statistics

Colorado vs. Competitors

0 5 10 15

Rank

20

2003

25

2008

30

7th Lowest

35

2011

40 45 50

NM

TX

GA

UT

AZ

CO

Colorado spends 3.9 percent of personal income on K-12 education while New Mexico, the highest-ranked competitor state, spends 5 percent. All of the competitor states except Arizona receive larger portions of their revenues from federal sources compared with Colorado. Nearly every state had a declining share of personal income spent on K-12 from 2010 to 2011.

Fig. 204

Spending on K-12 Public Schools as a Percent of Personal Income U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; National Center for Education Statistics

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 27 1 40 31 37 50 34 21 47 15 49 22 33 13 20 32 41 26 6 39 48 4 19 30 36 12 23 43 46 14 5 10 38 35 16 24 29 28 17 7 25 45 9 18 3 42 44 2 11 8

2001 37 1 36 21 31 49 32 27 50 14 47 22 26 18 20 29 39 25 8 40 46 2 16 38 30 13 17 42 43 15 6 10 41 33 11 34 24 28 23 7 35 48 9 19 4 45 44 3 12 5

2002 38 1 35 19 27 47 24 29 50 13 42 23 26 16 21 31 40 25 9 44 43 2 20 30 32 14 17 48 37 11 7 6 45 33 10 39 34 28 18 12 36 49 8 22 4 46 41 3 15 5

2003 37 1 36 15 25 45 19 27 49 13 38 29 30 14 22 31 39 24 9 47 40 3 28 23 34 17 26 48 32 6 5 7 46 33 10 41 35 20 16 12 42 50 11 21 2 44 43 4 18 8

2005 38 1 44 12 28 41 19 22 50 16 46 37 29 10 26 31 20 30 11 45 34 2 23 27 36 25 24 49 33 4 5 8 47 35 9 39 21 18 17 14 40 48 13 32 3 43 42 6 7 15

2006 29 1 41 7 32 42 20 18 49 14 39 38 35 11 25 28 22 34 12 43 30 2 23 21 33 26 24 48 31 4 9 5 44 27 8 45 37 19 16 10 46 50 13 36 3 40 47 6 15 17

2007 24 1 37 10 29 47 20 19 43 11 32 35 36 16 27 25 21 33 13 38 42 3 26 22 30 28 23 44 31 4 14 6 46 45 9 41 39 18 15 7 49 50 12 34 2 40 48 8 17 5

2008 18 1 26 14 28 43 22 19 39 5 40 29 32 24 38 35 21 27 13 36 44 6 31 25 34 30 23 42 37 2 10 7 45 49 8 47 33 20 15 9 50 48 12 17 3 41 46 11 16 4

2009 25 1 32 14 36 46 18 22 47 9 43 34 19 21 35 28 30 23 15 40 39 6 16 27 33 29 26 38 37 7 5 4 45 50 11 41 31 24 17 10 48 49 8 13 3 44 42 12 20 2

2010 32 1 34 8 39 41 21 25 50 13 44 37 15 17 26 27 23 24 14 36 38 7 30 28 31 29 20 40 33 6 11 4 47 46 10 42 35 22 19 12 48 49 9 18 3 45 43 5 16 2

2011 32 1 35 6 39 44 22 24 50 20 43 40 17 25 29 19 23 21 10 34 38 8 30 31 33 28 26 37 27 7 11 3 46 48 9 45 36 15 14 13 49 42 12 18 4 47 41 5 16 2

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Student-Teacher Ratio in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools National Education Association

0 5 10 15

Rank

20

2003-2004 2007-2008 2012-2013

25 30 9th Highest

35 40 45 50

VT

RI

VA

NY

NJ

CO

WA

OR

CA

AZ

UT

With an average of 17.6 students per teacher throughout the state, Colorado has one of the 10 highest student-teacher ratios in the country. The national average has increased in the past few years from 15.3 students per teacher in 2009-2010 to 15.9 in 2012-2013.

Fig. 205

Lowest Student-Teacher Ratio in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools National Education Association

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 15

Rank

20

2003-2004 2007-2008 2012-2013

25 30

9th Highest

35 40 45 50

GA

TX

NM

CO

AZ

UT

Of Colorado’s competitors, only Utah (21.9) had a higher pupil-teacher ratio during the 20122013 school year. While Colorado’s rate dropped slightly from 2011-2012 (17.8) to the 20122013 school year (17.6), the state remained ranked at no. 42.

Fig. 206

Lowest Student-Teacher Ratio in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools National Education Association

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2004 32 41 49 15 48 39 9 26 42 20 38 43 32 39 13 17 36 17 6 28 23 44 37 32 10 17 10 45 10 5 23 4 28 8 28 35 47 27 2 23 13 28 22 50 1 3 46 15 20 7

2005 31 40 49 12 48 42 10 25 39 22 37 43 34 41 12 17 34 22 3 29 20 44 36 33 12 17 12 46 9 5 27 5 22 8 38 30 47 28 2 21 10 31 25 50 1 4 45 16 19 5

2006 25 40 50 11 48 42 11 33 39 23 36 44 36 43 16 19 35 23 4 25 8 41 38 31 14 17 14 45 10 5 25 3 20 7 33 30 47 29 2 20 11 32 25 49 1 8 46 17 22 5

2008 33 40 49 10 48 42 10 31 33 18 35 44 35 41 16 17 35 18 3 18 13 43 35 28 13 13 12 47 8 5 30 9 24 5 39 31 46 27 2 22 22 24 24 50 1 4 45 21 28 7

2009 36 31 48 10 49 40 12 31 37 19 35 44 26 40 17 13 39 20 3 21 15 43 37 23 11 15 13 45 9 5 31 5 26 7 42 34 46 29 1 23 18 23 26 50 2 4 47 22 30 8

2010 39 31 47 8 49 41 11 24 38 24 34 44 31 40 18 17 37 20 2 22 16 42 35 19 12 13 13 45 8 5 31 4 28 6 42 36 46 20 10 28 13 27 26 50 1 3 48 22 28 7

2011 34 34 46 24 50 43 15 22 32 24 39 44 38 40 19 16 36 18 2 21 14 41 30 29 13 11 3 44 7 7 33 4 24 4 42 37 48 16 10 30 11 28 22 49 1 4 47 19 24 7

2012 38 30 43 25 50 42 13 19 34 26 33 44 39 40 19 17 36 16 3 22 15 46 35 22 12 11 2 44 6 4 32 10 26 6 41 37 48 19 9 26 14 24 29 49 1 5 47 17 30 8

2013 36 12 41 25 50 42 10 19 33 32 33 44 36 46 19 17 33 15 8 24 17 45 36 29 10 13 2 43 5 3 25 3 28 6 40 39 49 23 13 19 15 25 30 48 1 7 47 19 31 8

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Average Salaries for Public School Teachers National Education Association

0

5 10 15 Rank

20 29th Highest

25 30

2003-2004 2007-2008 2012-2013

35 40

45 50

CT CA

MI

NJ

NY CO MT MS ND OK SD

The average teacher salary in Colorado ($49,840) ranks in the middle of teacher salaries nationwide. The highest teacher salaries are found along the East and West Coasts such as in California ($69,320) and New York ($75,280), which are areas with relatively high costs of living.

Fig. 207

Average Salaries for Public School Teachers National Education Association

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 15

29th Highest

20

2003-2004

Rank 25

2007-2008

30

2012-2013

35 40 45 50

GA

CO

AZ

TX

UT

NM

Average salaries for public school teachers in Arizona ($49,890) surpassed Colorado ($49,840) in the 2012-2013 school year for the first time since 2005-2006. Utah’s rank has improved significantly from the 2007-2008 school year when it ranked 48th. New Mexico is the lowest ranked competitor state with an average teacher salary of $45,450.

Fig. 208

Average Salaries for Public School Teachers National Education Association

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2003 38 10 27 40 1 21 2 12 29 14 19 30 7 16 33 42 34 44 36 11 6 4 18 48 43 46 41 25 24 3 45 5 23 49 15 47 13 9 8 28 50 32 31 39 26 22 17 37 20 35

2004 42 10 26 36 2 20 1 12 30 15 17 29 6 16 40 38 33 44 34 11 7 3 19 47 43 46 41 24 23 4 45 5 21 48 14 49 13 8 9 28 50 32 31 37 25 27 18 39 22 35

2005 47 10 26 35 2 22 1 12 30 17 18 33 3 16 41 40 32 43 36 11 6 7 15 46 42 44 37 24 23 4 39 5 25 49 13 48 14 9 8 28 50 29 31 37 20 27 19 45 21 34

2006 43 12 23 31 1 24 2 10 28 17 15 37 3 18 38 36 32 44 39 9 6 7 16 40 41 46 42 25 22 4 35 5 26 49 13 47 14 11 8 30 50 33 34 45 19 27 21 48 20 29

2007 35 12 30 31 1 24 2 11 27 17 14 39 6 21 37 36 34 38 42 7 5 9 18 48 44 45 43 28 22 3 40 4 23 49 13 41 15 10 8 32 50 33 29 46 26 25 20 47 19 16

2008 30 9 34 33 1 24 4 12 28 17 14 40 6 20 36 39 26 27 43 7 3 10 18 47 44 45 41 23 22 5 37 2 25 49 13 42 16 11 8 35 50 38 32 48 31 29 19 46 21 15

2009 34 9 35 39 3 26 4 12 33 17 13 41 7 23 24 36 30 25 43 6 2 11 19 45 47 46 42 22 21 5 38 1 27 49 14 48 16 10 8 31 50 40 32 37 29 28 18 44 20 15

2010 31 9 33 42 4 26 3 12 35 17 16 38 8 23 24 36 25 28 41 6 2 7 19 49 45 43 40 20 21 5 39 1 34 48 13 47 15 11 10 32 50 44 29 37 27 30 18 46 22 14

2011 31 9 32 42 4 26 3 12 44 21 16 33 6 23 25 41 28 27 35 7 2 8 18 49 45 36 34 19 22 5 39 1 40 46 13 47 14 11 10 37 50 43 30 38 24 29 20 48 17 15

2012 35 7 29 43 4 28 3 11 41 21 19 30 12 24 25 40 27 26 38 6 2 10 16 49 42 36 33 17 18 5 46 1 45 44 15 48 13 9 8 37 50 39 31 32 23 34 22 47 20 14

2013 38 6 28 43 4 29 3 11 44 21 19 30 12 27 25 41 26 24 36 7 2 10 16 49 40 33 32 17 18 5 46 1 45 42 15 48 13 9 8 37 50 39 34 31 22 35 23 46 20 14

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Average ACT Composite Scores ACT, Inc.

0 5 10

15 20

2003

33rd Highest

Rank 25

2008

30

2014

35 40 45 50

OR ME

VT

WA MA CO

NC

GA

LA

SC

MS

Colorado was one of 12 states in 2014 that required 100 percent of its 11th-grade students to take the ACT test. In 2003, only Colorado and Illinois required that all students take the ACT, However, Colorado’s rank continues to improve as more states require all students to take the test. Among state’s with 100 percent testing, Colorado had the third-highest average score.

Fig. 209

Average ACT Composite Scores ACT, Inc.

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 15 20

2003

33rd Highest

Rank 25

2008

30

2014

35 40 45 50

AZ

UT

CO

TX

NM

GA

Among the competitor states, Colorado and Utah are the only states to require 100 percent of students take the ACT test. Despite this requirement, students in Colorado (20.6) and Utah (20.8) scored higher than New Mexico (19.9) and Arizona (19.7). Texas was the top ranked competitor with students achieving an average score of 20.9.

Fig. 210

Average ACT Test Scores ACT, Inc.

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 41 29 17 39 23 17 29 36 36 46 13 23 17 23 7 13 43 47 9 34 9 29 7 50 13 11 12 17 2 34 43 4 48 23 23 33 1 23 32 49 17 45 39 17 4 38 3 41 4 13

2003 42 31 20 38 17 42 9 32 35 47 12 29 40 16 10 17 40 48 2 33 5 25 10 50 20 13 13 25 7 29 45 5 45 25 20 35 1 17 13 49 20 37 42 25 2 34 2 38 7 20

2007 44 34 21 40 13 43 2 23 48 44 9 32 40 15 9 18 36 47 7 25 1 29 7 50 25 18 13 29 4 12 46 4 35 25 25 36 15 15 21 49 18 36 40 23 6 32 3 39 9 29

2008 44 32 21 41 13 43 2 9 48 41 26 29 36 16 11 16 35 45 6 16 1 49 9 50 26 16 15 30 3 6 45 3 30 26 25 36 32 13 21 47 16 36 36 23 6 23 3 36 12 34

2013 36 28 44 39 15 36 2 9 44 31 40 16 33 22 16 20 44 47 4 14 1 41 6 49 23 26 24 26 3 6 41 5 50 35 20 30 24 11 11 36 19 47 29 31 6 13 10 33 16 43

2014 33 27 45 38 16 33 2 6 46 29 50 15 31 21 18 18 42 47 4 14 1 40 10 48 23 37 24 26 2 8 42 5 49 33 18 31 25 13 10 38 21 44 28 29 6 12 9 33 17 40

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Higher Education

State and Local Public Higher Education Support per Full-Time Student NCHEMS Information Center

0 5

10 15

20 Rank

2003 2008 2011

25 30 35 3rd Lowest

40 45 50

AK

CT

WY

HI

NJ

SD

MT

CO

NH

VT

Colorado continues to offer one of the lowest levels of support per full-time higher education student ($3,770). The highest level of support was in Alaska ($14,840) in 2011. Lowest ranked Vermont spent $3,030 per student.

Fig. 211

State and Local Public Higher Education Support per Full-Time Student NCHEMS Information Center

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 15 20

2003

Rank 25

2008

30

2011

35

3rd Lowest

40 45 50

NM

GA

AZ

TX

UT

CO

Colorado’s competitors continue to provide greater support per student for higher education. The level of support in Colorado ($3,770) is much lower than in New Mexico ($7,790) or Georgia ($6,790).

Fig. 212

State and Local Public Higher Education Support per Full-Time Student NCHEMS Information Center

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 40 1 28 34 25 46 3 26 29 2 5 10 11 33 15 21 13 44 18 37 6 17 12 19 16 48 38 24 49 7 8 14 9 42 32 27 39 22 23 43 45 41 35 36 50 31 30 47 20 4

2001 42 1 30 39 23 46 2 24 25 5 4 6 8 36 18 20 12 43 15 11 3 14 16 32 17 49 38 28 48 7 21 13 10 44 33 29 34 26 19 41 47 40 35 37 50 27 31 45 22 9

2002 44 1 25 40 20 47 2 14 26 8 3 4 7 41 29 21 12 36 17 10 5 18 16 38 31 48 30 23 49 9 13 15 11 42 37 33 39 24 19 46 45 35 27 34 50 28 32 43 22 6

2003 43 1 25 38 19 48 2 31 21 9 4 7 11 37 28 24 17 34 18 8 12 14 25 39 27 47 23 20 49 5 6 10 13 44 42 30 40 29 15 22 46 35 33 36 50 41 32 45 16 3

2004 41 1 24 31 20 49 4 16 26 8 2 9 12 33 32 19 14 35 22 10 17 21 25 38 23 47 28 7 48 5 6 13 11 44 40 39 42 30 15 37 45 34 29 36 50 43 27 46 18 3

2005 40 1 25 37 24 48 4 16 17 8 3 9 12 34 35 18 23 36 21 22 11 28 30 39 19 47 25 7 49 6 5 10 13 44 42 41 43 29 14 33 45 15 31 32 50 38 27 46 20 2

2006 38 1 24 31 15 48 4 18 19 8 3 12 16 39 32 33 14 34 26 22 10 27 30 41 25 46 13 7 49 6 5 9 11 43 44 37 42 36 17 35 45 20 23 29 50 40 21 47 28 2

2007 25 1 21 32 19 48 4 17 14 10 3 11 16 41 35 37 18 24 30 13 9 34 36 40 28 47 15 5 49 12 7 6 8 43 44 23 42 39 26 33 45 20 27 29 50 38 22 46 31 2

2008 16 1 18 32 25 48 4 22 23 11 2 9 20 45 34 36 17 14 28 15 10 38 29 31 33 47 13 8 49 12 5 7 6 42 46 24 43 40 37 35 44 19 21 26 50 41 27 39 30 3

2009 37 1 17 30 26 48 4 20 32 14 3 6 12 39 28 33 19 11 27 21 15 35 31 34 25 47 10 7 49 13 9 5 8 40 46 18 41 36 43 42 45 16 22 29 50 38 23 44 24 2

2010 36 1 24 32 30 48 4 19 33 15 3 11 7 40 31 34 20 21 25 13 18 38 29 23 27 44 10 9 49 12 14 6 5 22 47 17 46 37 45 41 42 16 8 35 50 39 28 43 26 2

2011 34 1 26 27 17 48 4 29 32 14 3 24 8 43 40 30 20 12 22 13 15 39 36 31 25 44 9 11 49 10 7 6 5 19 45 23 46 38 37 47 42 21 16 33 50 35 28 41 18 2

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

State and Local Public Higher Education Support per Capita NCHEMS Information Center

0 5 10 15 20

Rank

2003 2008 2011

25

30 35 2nd Lowest

40 45

50

WY

NM

AK

ND

NE

NV

MO

CO

VT

NH

Higher education in Colorado absorbed large budget reductions during the Great Recession. As of 2011, Colorado ($130 per capita) provided just 22 percent of the support provided in Wyoming ($610 per capita), the top-ranked state.

Fig. 213

State and Local Public Higher Education Support per Capita NCHEMS Information Center

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

5 10 15 Rank

20

2003

25

2008

30

2011

35

2nd Lowest

40 45 50

NM

GA

UT

TX

AZ

CO

New Mexico ($400 per capita) consistently ranks near the top of the country while Arizona ($170 per capita) and Colorado ($130 per capita) rank the lowest among the competitor states.

Fig. 214

State and Local Public Higher Education Support per Capita NCHEMS Information Center

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 11 8 39 18 15 43 28 20 40 14 5 19 27 29 6 12 17 22 41 32 42 24 10 2 36 44 9 46 50 34 4 33 7 3 35 16 47 45 48 31 37 38 21 13 49 26 25 23 30 1

2001 16 2 42 21 11 45 32 20 34 9 8 15 28 31 5 13 14 24 41 19 40 25 10 7 39 47 6 48 50 33 12 43 3 4 35 18 36 44 46 30 38 37 26 17 49 23 27 22 29 1

2002 18 3 41 23 9 46 30 26 36 10 6 11 24 33 12 14 13 17 37 21 43 27 7 15 48 44 4 47 50 31 8 40 5 2 38 22 39 45 42 32 34 35 19 16 49 25 28 20 29 1

2003 15 3 41 23 9 48 28 25 35 8 6 19 29 31 12 18 14 10 39 26 44 30 11 16 47 45 5 46 50 32 2 37 7 4 38 21 40 43 42 17 33 36 22 13 49 34 24 20 27 1

2004 12 3 43 19 17 48 27 21 35 9 4 18 28 25 16 15 10 8 39 29 47 34 14 11 45 44 6 30 50 32 2 40 7 5 37 26 42 46 41 24 33 36 20 13 49 38 23 22 31 1

2005 10 3 42 20 15 48 25 19 34 9 5 18 30 23 16 11 14 8 40 31 45 38 17 13 47 43 7 33 50 29 2 36 4 6 39 28 44 46 41 22 32 27 26 12 49 37 24 21 35 1

2006 8 3 44 15 12 48 25 19 33 10 4 21 35 29 18 13 11 9 40 28 43 37 17 16 47 42 7 31 50 26 2 32 5 6 39 20 45 46 41 24 34 30 22 14 49 36 23 27 38 1

2007 6 3 40 16 10 48 21 20 30 12 4 25 36 32 19 15 13 8 41 22 39 38 18 11 47 44 7 33 50 34 2 31 5 9 42 14 45 46 43 23 35 27 28 17 49 29 24 26 37 1

2008 5 3 38 14 11 48 20 22 32 12 4 25 36 33 21 19 13 8 41 23 39 40 18 10 47 42 9 35 50 34 2 29 6 7 43 17 44 46 45 26 30 27 28 16 49 31 24 15 37 1

2009 9 3 44 11 25 49 15 22 36 13 4 24 31 28 12 18 14 7 41 20 43 40 17 10 42 39 8 33 50 35 2 26 5 6 37 16 45 46 47 38 32 27 29 21 48 30 23 19 34 1

2010 11 2 41 9 18 50 10 23 37 16 6 32 21 27 24 20 14 12 36 15 46 38 17 8 43 39 7 48 49 31 4 26 5 3 40 13 42 44 45 35 30 28 22 25 47 34 29 19 33 1

2011 12 2 43 9 13 49 10 28 37 11 6 33 22 27 23 19 15 14 36 17 40 38 21 8 45 42 7 35 50 31 5 26 4 3 41 16 44 46 47 39 32 20 25 24 48 34 29 18 30 1

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Percentage of Graduates Attending College Directly from High School www.postsecondary.org

0 5 10 15 Rank

20

2004

32nd Highest

25

2008

30

2010

35

40 45 50

NY

SD

ND

SC

MN

CO

AK

VT

CA

WA

UT

In Colorado, 61.2 percent of graduates attend college directly from high school. For comparison, 78.8 percent of graduates attended college directly from high school in Mississippi, the current, top-ranked state, and 45.1 percent in Idaho, the lowest-ranked state.

Fig. 215

Percentage of Graduates Attending College Directly from High School www.postsecondary.org

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 15 Rank

20

32nd Highest

25

2004 2008

30

2010

35

40 45 50

GA

NM

CO

TX

AZ

UT

Several states with low percentages of high school graduates such as Georgia and New Mexico have high percentages of those graduates who attend college. The percentage in Colorado has increased from 53 percent in 2000 to 61 percent in 2010. Texas and Arizona are challenged in both high school graduation rates and high school graduates who directly attend college.

Fig. 216

Percentage of Graduates Attending College Directly from High School www.postsecondary.org

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 26 48 42 36 44 37 14 18 27 16 19 46 20 17 7 3 25 22 33 30 2 31 10 12 34 32 21 49 23 11 24 9 6 1 29 43 41 15 5 4 8 13 38 50 45 35 47 39 28 40

2002 22 44 47 23 39 18 10 49 30 16 41 45 19 11 6 31 17 21 38 27 3 28 4 5 35 32 14 50 26 9 24 2 7 1 25 40 42 13 36 15 12 8 37 43 46 33 48 34 20 29

2004 20 46 43 28 48 21 29 33 35 7 40 44 30 10 11 13 23 32 41 17 8 19 5 14 38 27 15 31 26 9 12 1 6 3 37 36 45 16 25 4 2 42 39 50 47 22 49 34 24 18

2006 25 48 50 40 41 24 7 21 32 11 34 49 31 23 30 13 28 16 19 14 5 17 10 1 39 36 20 44 18 8 6 2 15 3 33 35 46 26 27 9 4 22 43 47 42 12 45 38 29 37

2008 14 50 45 28 20 27 10 15 38 7 29 47 40 17 22 19 32 21 31 25 2 34 8 1 33 44 18 43 24 5 11 3 16 12 26 42 49 23 13 6 4 30 41 39 48 9 46 37 36 35

2010 24 49 40 16 29 32 2 48 25 11 23 50 39 14 13 17 26 18 41 20 3 28 6 1 31 34 7 45 19 9 4 8 21 12 30 36 47 33 15 10 5 27 42 44 43 22 46 38 37 35

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Percentage of HS Grads Entering Same-State Public College within 12 Months of Graduation 0

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics

5 10 15

Rank

20 25

2004

35th Highest

30

2008 2012

35

40 45 50

MS

NC

UT

AL

LA

CO

AK

CT

NJ

NH

VT

Colorado high school graduates entered in-state colleges and universities at lower rates (75 percent) than students in more than half of the states. This might correspond to Colorado colleges becoming less affordable. In Mississippi, 93 percent of the high school grads that continue on to college enter an in-state college.

Fig. 217

Percentage of HS Grads Entering Same-State Public College within 12 Months of Graduation U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics

Colorado vs. Competitors

0 5 10 15 20

Rank

35th Highest

25 30

2004 2008 2012

35 40

45 50

UT

TX

AZ

NM

GA

CO

Colorado high school grads entered in-state colleges and universities at lower rates than students in any of the competitor states. In 2012, 75 percent of Colorado college-bound high school grads entered an in-state institution compared to 91 percent of Utah college-bound high school grads staying in state.

Fig. 218

Percentage of HS Grads Entering Same-State Public College within 12 Months of Graduation U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 7 48 12 11 3 29 47 41 10 22 39 36 30 16 17 13 15 6 46 44 40 8 33 1 23 37 25 35 49 45 32 28 2 34 18 14 31 20 43 9 38 21 5 4 50 26 27 19 24 42

2002 12 46 11 10 2 29 47 48 8 22 41 35 34 13 16 18 7 5 44 42 39 9 33 1 20 37 25 32 49 45 27 26 4 36 19 14 31 21 43 15 40 23 6 3 50 28 30 17 24 38

2004 4 46 14 6 9 30 47 42 10 21 41 36 33 16 18 17 11 5 45 44 40 7 34 1 23 37 28 24 49 48 19 26 2 35 20 13 32 22 43 8 38 31 12 3 50 27 29 15 25 39

2006 5 47 15 12 4 29 48 41 11 22 44 38 35 16 17 18 10 9 42 43 40 6 36 1 21 34 24 32 49 46 28 27 3 39 20 8 33 23 45 7 31 19 13 2 50 26 30 14 25 37

2008 4 47 8 9 3 32 48 42 14 22 43 39 38 15 18 19 12 5 40 45 41 10 36 1 23 30 26 35 49 46 17 28 7 37 21 13 34 24 44 6 31 20 16 2 50 25 29 11 27 33

2010 4 45 9 3 8 34 49 47 14 22 40 39 38 16 17 20 11 5 42 43 41 12 37 1 23 29 24 35 48 46 18 28 10 36 19 6 31 25 44 7 32 21 15 2 50 26 33 13 27 30

2012 6 45 13 3 15 35 48 37 14 23 41 38 40 16 18 19 9 4 42 46 43 7 39 1 22 29 26 33 49 47 17 28 11 36 20 8 32 27 44 5 31 21 12 2 50 24 34 10 25 30

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

State Engineering Tech Degree Production per 1,000 Workers 0

National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

5

10 15 Rank

20

2003 2009 2012

25 38th Highest

30 35 40 45 50

HI

IN

RI

ND

NE

CO

WY

GA

NJ

MD

NV

Engineering technicians are an important resource for Colorado’s aerospace, cleantech, and information technology industry clusters. Colorado’s share of engineering tech degree recipients (0.33 per 1,000 workers) ranks in the bottom half of the United States.

Fig. 219

State Engineering Tech Degree Production per 1,000 Workers National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 15

20

2003

Rank 25

38th Highest

30 35

2009 2012

40 45 50

NM

AZ

TX

UT

CO

GA

New Mexico (0.5 degrees per 1,000 workers) ranks the highest among the competitor states. Colorado’s rank (0.33 degrees) is comparable to that of Utah (0.33 degrees) and Arizona (0.33 degrees), but is higher than Georgia (0.24 degrees).

Fig. 220

State Engineering Tech Degree Production per 1,000 Workers National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 14 29 6 44 37 40 43 25 39 46 10 17 30 3 34 42 21 15 36 50 35 19 41 18 12 7 20 48 32 49 5 31 33 2 16 38 8 9 1 45 26 24 27 23 11 28 22 4 13 47

2003 38 39 18 42 41 37 45 21 43 47 1 27 29 2 19 40 23 12 26 49 31 7 36 15 9 16 5 50 35 48 11 34 33 4 17 20 13 10 3 44 8 32 25 28 14 22 30 6 24 46

2005 42 27 32 40 45 39 44 36 41 46 10 33 30 1 20 31 22 13 17 49 34 5 29 14 18 19 8 50 25 47 12 38 26 2 9 15 28 11 3 43 7 35 21 37 6 24 23 4 16 48

2006 42 21 37 36 47 26 44 40 41 45 18 39 30 2 24 31 14 19 10 49 29 4 34 11 20 16 8 48 28 46 13 35 27 1 6 7 38 9 3 43 5 25 23 32 15 22 33 12 17 50

2007 41 18 37 40 49 16 43 35 42 47 26 38 33 3 27 32 14 13 12 48 30 5 34 15 25 21 9 50 19 45 20 22 23 1 7 8 39 11 2 44 4 31 28 36 10 24 29 6 17 46

2009 32 21 33 37 50 25 43 39 40 45 20 38 41 3 30 27 16 9 10 49 36 5 26 15 17 18 8 48 24 47 22 35 19 1 7 6 42 11 2 44 4 31 29 28 13 34 23 14 12 46

2010 11 14 43 34 48 33 46 25 42 44 28 37 41 3 26 22 17 8 12 49 38 4 31 9 15 21 10 50 29 45 20 30 19 1 5 6 39 13 2 40 7 27 23 36 24 32 35 18 16 47

2011 9 11 40 21 49 37 46 33 41 45 31 36 42 3 24 29 15 7 17 48 43 5 32 13 14 12 23 50 34 47 18 26 16 1 8 6 35 20 2 38 4 22 28 39 30 27 25 19 10 44

2012 9 26 39 33 49 38 46 35 44 45 32 25 42 3 23 27 17 6 10 50 43 4 34 12 13 11 22 47 31 48 19 28 16 1 7 8 29 18 5 40 2 20 30 37 36 24 21 15 14 41

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

State Nursing Degree Production per 1,000 Workers National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

0 5 10 15 20 Rank 25 30

2003 2009 2012

10th Lowest

35 40 45 50

WV

MS

AL

IA

UT

CO

CT

NJ

AK

CA

NV

As the population ages and health insurance eligibility grows, demand for nursing will increase dramatically. Colorado’s production of nurses (one degree per 1,000 workers) increased from 2007 to 2012 but not as much as other states. Top-ranked Arizona produces about 3 times more nursing graduates than Colorado.

Fig. 221

State Nursing Degree Production per 1,000 Workers National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Colorado vs. Competitors

0 5 10 15

Rank

20 2003

25 30

2009

10th Lowest

35

2012

40 45 50

UT

NM

TX

AZ

CO

GA

Utah (2.5 degrees), New Mexico (1.5 degrees), and Arizona (2.8 degrees) have made educating nurses a high priority. The number of registered nursing degrees awarded in Arizona more than quintupled since 2003. Online degrees from the University of Phoenix comprised about 32 percent of the total in Arizona in 2012.

Fig. 222

State Nursing Degree Production per 1,000 Workers National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 1 49 43 14 48 45 46 6 30 44 40 26 31 15 4 17 8 13 20 21 39 29 24 3 18 27 12 50 36 47 5 33 28 16 38 7 42 35 10 22 19 25 37 9 34 32 41 2 23 11

2003 3 48 37 21 49 44 46 7 31 45 34 8 39 16 4 24 20 23 22 26 42 32 19 2 13 25 11 50 35 47 15 41 18 6 33 10 38 28 14 17 12 29 36 5 43 40 30 1 27 9

2005 4 49 19 26 48 41 47 9 35 45 44 17 40 13 5 25 6 20 8 31 32 29 12 3 23 22 14 50 30 46 16 36 27 11 33 10 43 24 38 21 1 28 42 7 34 39 37 2 18 15

2006 5 46 11 24 50 37 45 14 33 48 42 19 41 12 4 30 6 20 13 32 36 34 22 3 16 21 10 49 40 47 17 35 26 7 28 9 44 15 27 29 1 23 43 18 31 39 38 2 25 8

2007 4 47 6 19 49 42 44 18 34 48 40 27 38 11 3 25 7 13 15 35 33 32 22 5 14 28 12 50 39 45 17 20 31 8 29 9 46 23 21 30 2 26 43 10 36 41 37 1 24 16

2009 4 49 1 19 45 38 47 14 32 43 39 12 37 9 6 21 11 29 27 36 34 24 22 5 7 35 17 50 44 48 28 23 30 15 10 8 46 18 13 20 2 25 42 16 41 40 33 3 31 26

2010 2 50 1 19 46 41 48 32 27 43 42 8 37 7 11 15 10 22 28 35 33 18 26 6 4 40 16 49 36 47 17 20 30 23 13 9 45 29 25 21 3 24 39 12 34 44 38 5 31 14

2011 4 50 1 17 47 44 46 27 26 43 42 14 40 9 7 16 11 23 32 31 35 19 20 8 2 41 18 49 39 48 15 24 30 28 10 12 45 29 22 21 3 25 38 6 33 36 37 5 34 13

2012 5 50 1 16 49 41 45 24 18 42 44 12 39 9 7 13 10 27 40 29 35 23 21 6 2 32 11 47 43 46 20 26 38 33 8 22 48 30 15 25 4 19 31 3 37 36 34 17 28 14

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

State Education Degree Production per 1,000 Workers National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

0

5 10 15 Rank

20

2003 2009 2012

25 30 35

Last Place

40 45 50

ND

UT

MT

WV

IA

OR

VA

TX

CA

CO

While Colorado ranks as the lowest producer of teachers (0.1 degrees per 1,000 workers), other well-educated states such as Connecticut and Virginia also rank poorly. Top-ranked Utah produces about 2.5 bachelor’s degrees in education per 1,000 workers in the state.

Fig. 223

State Education Degree Production per 1,000 Workers National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Colorado vs. Competitors

0 5

10 15 20

2003 2009 2012

Rank 25 30 35

Last Place

40 45 50

UT

NM

AZ

GA

TX

CO

Arizona and Georgia have increased their production of teachers in recent years, whereas Texas and Colorado must import them from other states. While Utah (2.5 degrees per 1,000 workers) ranks highly in education degree production, it has one of the highest pupil-teacher ratios and some of the lowest teacher salaries in the nation.

Fig. 224

State Education Degree Production per 1,000 Workers National Center for Education Statistics; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 5 37 25 16 48 50 47 20 35 28 41 12 26 11 6 19 23 18 27 43 40 33 22 8 21 3 7 38 34 42 9 32 36 1 24 10 45 17 13 29 2 44 46 4 30 49 39 14 31 15

2005 12 44 28 27 49 50 45 14 36 33 43 9 21 10 5 15 22 23 26 38 39 24 20 7 18 3 8 37 34 42 17 29 35 1 19 11 46 16 13 31 6 40 48 2 32 47 41 4 30 25

2006 14 48 28 25 49 50 45 12 36 32 42 4 26 9 6 15 18 30 17 40 44 21 23 10 19 7 5 41 35 38 22 33 34 1 16 11 43 20 13 31 8 39 46 2 27 47 37 3 29 24

2007 14 47 24 23 49 50 44 9 36 33 37 3 26 5 11 21 15 30 20 40 43 17 27 7 19 6 8 41 35 38 18 32 34 2 16 13 45 22 12 28 10 39 48 1 31 46 42 4 29 25

2009 18 46 26 16 49 50 45 14 36 31 37 3 24 8 12 15 21 32 11 39 43 17 28 4 20 7 5 42 35 40 22 34 33 2 19 10 44 23 9 27 13 38 48 1 30 47 41 6 25 29

2010 9 46 30 17 49 50 42 12 35 22 38 2 25 6 14 13 8 33 18 40 44 21 29 4 15 20 5 43 36 39 11 34 28 3 24 16 45 23 10 27 19 37 48 1 26 47 41 7 31 32

2011 7 47 29 19 49 50 44 12 36 23 42 2 22 6 10 9 13 34 18 40 43 26 32 3 11 17 8 41 35 38 21 33 25 4 27 14 45 24 5 20 15 37 48 1 30 46 39 16 28 31

2012 6 47 17 16 49 50 44 15 36 21 38 2 23 11 3 7 14 33 27 39 43 30 29 4 12 13 5 41 37 40 22 34 28 9 25 20 45 24 8 19 10 35 48 1 31 46 42 18 26 32

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Health

Health Policy Cost Index Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

0 5

10 15 Rank

20 25

2008

34th Lowest

2011

30 35 40 45

50

ID

UT

IA

MI

OH CO VT

CT ME WA MA

Colorado’s health costs rank among the highest in the nation. The Health Policy Cost Index is based on actual costs for publicly funded health care as well as the presence of health care policies that influence higher or lower costs. Colorado ranked well for lower Medicaid costs, but was adversely affected by its higher level of mandated insurance benefits.

Fig. 225

Health Policy Cost Index Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 15 Rank

20

34th Lowest

25 30

2008 2011

35 40 45 50

UT

GA

AZ

NM

TX

CO

Colorado had the highest health care policy costs among its competitors. Utah ranked well for having the second-lowest Medicaid costs per capita in the nation as well as for a lower number of insurance benefit mandates.

Fig. 226

Health Policy Cost Index Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2008 17 6 28 22 45 43 47 26 40 22 34 1 19 35 3 15 12 25 48 44 50 4 36 28 17 19 10 31 37 42 30 41 38 13 4 14 24 9 38 7 8 19 32 2 46 27 48 16 32 10

2010 10 2 22 16 39 42 43 35 41 29 24 20 17 4 3 14 21 25 50 37 49 38 32 18 14 8 6 32 32 46 28 47 35 11 26 8 40 30 48 1 5 12 27 13 45 30 44 18 23 7

2011 9 14 24 19 40 34 43 40 34 26 22 17 16 3 2 13 22 29 49 34 48 37 39 21 18 8 5 27 31 45 32 50 33 11 28 12 42 38 47 1 3 15 25 6 46 30 44 20 10 7

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Percentage of Population with Health Insurance Kaiser State Health Facts

0 5 10 15 29th Highest

20 Rank 25

2007-2008 2011-2012

30 35 40 45 50

MA

HI

MN

WI

IA

CO

LA

AK

FL

NM

TX

The percentage of the population without health insurance has decreased in Colorado from 17 percent in 2005-2006 to 14.7 percent in 2011-2012, leading to an improved rank. Massachusetts maintains its first place ranking with 96 percent of its residents having health insurance, whereas only 76 percent of Texas residents have coverage.

Fig. 227

Percentage of Population with Health Insurance Kaiser State Health Facts

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 15 Rank

29th Highest

20

2007-2008

25

2011-2012

30 35 40 45 50

UT

CO

GA

AZ

NM

TX

Colorado’s competitors also have relatively large numbers of people without health insurance. Only 76 percent of Texas residents have health insurance, ranking it as the worst in the nation. This measure has typically been a challenge for Colorado except a slight bump in rank from 2009-2010 when the state ranked 24th. Nonetheless, Colorado’s position has improved since the 2007-2008 data year.

Fig. 228

Percentage of Population with Health Insurance Kaiser State Health Facts

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2006 29 39 47 41 44 37 9 18 48 40 2 31 26 21 4 14 27 46 5 24 5 10 1 45 19 33 14 42 11 30 49 23 35 16 12 43 36 7 8 34 17 24 50 37 13 22 20 32 3 28

2007 22 40 45 39 43 36 6 17 48 40 2 31 24 16 9 19 30 47 5 25 1 12 4 46 21 35 20 42 12 33 49 22 37 15 11 43 38 8 7 34 12 27 50 32 10 28 17 25 3 28

2008 19 47 45 40 44 38 7 12 48 41 2 31 25 17 5 20 32 46 6 23 1 16 3 43 22 34 21 42 10 33 49 26 36 11 15 35 39 8 13 37 14 30 50 24 9 28 18 29 4 27

2009 26 43 46 42 45 33 10 14 48 44 2 32 23 22 8 17 35 41 6 21 1 15 3 40 24 34 12 47 7 30 49 27 38 11 19 36 39 9 13 37 20 31 50 25 5 18 16 28 4 29

2010 32 40 43 42 45 24 9 13 48 46 2 36 27 21 10 15 31 37 6 18 1 16 3 44 26 34 14 47 7 30 49 28 38 12 23 39 35 8 11 41 17 29 50 25 5 20 19 22 4 33

2011 19 42 39 39 43 25 5 8 44 44 2 35 19 15 8 19 30 48 5 17 1 15 5 39 28 35 17 49 11 33 44 25 33 13 19 35 31 8 12 44 13 25 50 32 4 28 19 19 3 35

2012 24 44 40 41 43 29 5 10 47 45 2 39 27 21 7 20 31 46 6 19 1 13 4 33 25 42 16 49 15 30 48 11 37 8 17 38 32 12 14 36 23 22 50 28 3 18 26 34 9 35

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Average Hospital Expenses per Inpatient Day 0

Kaiser State Health Facts

5 10 15 Rank

20

2003

25

30 35

2008 8th Highest

2011

40 45 50

MT SD ND MS WY CO CT CA WA OR AK

The average hospital expenses incurred per inpatient day in Colorado ($2,270) rank eighth highest in the nation and partly explain the state’s higher cost of health care. The average hospital expenses per inpatient day range from $1,100 in Wyoming to $2,970 in Oregon.

Fig. 229

Lowest Average Hospital Expenses per Inpatient Day Kaiser State Health Facts

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 15 Rank

20

2003

25

2008

8th Highest

30

2011

35 40 45 50

GA

TX

CO

NM

AZ

UT

Hospital expenses are a challenge for each of Colorado’s competitors except Georgia. The average of $2,270 per inpatient day in Colorado compares with $1,350 in Georgia and $2,240 in Utah.

Fig 230

Lowest Average Hospital Expenses per Inpatient Day Kaiser State Health Facts

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 15 49 39 12 46 36 43 39 29 14 24 16 35 27 5 8 13 21 28 42 48 33 11 4 30 2 6 37 32 38 45 26 20 7 31 17 47 23 41 25 1 22 34 44 10 19 50 9 18 3

2003 15 50 39 13 47 37 46 36 28 10 24 20 34 25 6 6 11 16 32 40 44 27 12 4 31 1 9 42 29 43 38 30 19 3 35 16 49 23 41 26 2 18 33 45 14 21 48 8 22 5

2007 11 45 44 12 48 42 41 31 26 10 20 25 32 35 6 5 13 15 29 46 46 24 19 8 30 4 9 37 36 43 38 27 17 3 34 16 50 23 39 21 1 14 33 40 18 22 49 7 28 2

2010 10 46 42 12 47 43 38 40 23 9 18 25 30 36 6 7 14 16 28 45 48 29 20 5 32 4 13 37 33 44 34 27 19 2 35 17 50 22 41 26 1 11 31 39 15 21 49 8 24 3

2011 10 34 40 12 48 42 38 43 24 8 22 21 33 31 5 6 15 16 36 46 47 30 19 3 32 4 14 26 39 41 35 25 17 9 37 13 50 27 45 23 2 11 28 44 18 20 49 7 29 1

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Registered Nurses per 100,000 Population Kaiser State Health Facts

0 5

10 15 Rank

20

2008

25

2011

16th Lowest

30

35 40 45 50

SD

MA

RI

MN ME CO

CA

UT

NV

NM

AZ

As large numbers of Colorado’s baby boomers enter retirement and more residents become eligible for healthcare assistance programs, Colorado’s continuing shortage of nurses (830 per 100,000)–coupled with the state’s low production of nurses–will result in significant future shortages. South Dakota (1,350 per 100,000) ranked first in 2011.

Fig. 231

Registered Nurses per 100,000 Population Kaiser State Health Facts

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 15 Rank

20 25

2008

16th Lowest

2011

30 35 40

45 50

CO

TX

GA

UT

NM

AZ

Colorado and its competitors could face significant challenges in the search for nurses to care for their aging populations. Georgia (670 per 100,000) ranked the lowest among the competitors in 2011.

Fig. 232

Registered Nurses per 100,000 Population Kaiser State Health Facts

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2005 28 36 50 38 47 41 8 16 32 43 39 44 30 26 4 14 17 22 4 20 1 29 9 19 15 31 10 48 11 13 48 25 27 3 12 42 34 6 7 37 2 21 45 46 18 40 35 23 24 33

2007 17 38 50 35 46 37 10 12 31 44 39 45 32 28 11 26 16 17 4 24 1 29 6 24 14 41 7 49 13 21 48 27 23 3 8 42 34 5 8 33 1 22 43 47 17 40 36 15 20 30

2008 25 38 50 33 46 34 10 7 35 45 43 42 30 26 11 24 16 23 5 22 2 29 4 19 9 39 6 48 13 27 49 28 21 15 12 41 37 8 3 31 1 14 44 47 17 40 36 18 20 32

2010 25 41 48 37 49 35 15 6 34 45 43 44 22 23 9 16 11 26 5 29 2 31 8 21 4 32 13 50 10 30 46 28 20 14 7 40 36 12 3 27 1 17 42 47 18 39 38 19 24 33

2011 24 40 46 36 49 35 16 5 32 48 42 44 21 25 8 20 14 29 7 33 2 27 10 17 6 31 12 50 11 30 43 28 23 3 9 41 37 13 4 26 1 22 45 47 15 39 38 19 18 34

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Infrastructure

Federal Highway Funding per Capita Federal Highway Administration; U.S. Census Bureau

0 5

10 15 Rank

20

2008 2013

25 30 7th Lowest

35 40 45

50

AK

WY

MT

ND

SD

CO

IL

WA

CA

MA

NY

Colorado’s low federal highway funding contributes to its low ranking in highway performance. Colorado’s funding ($100 per capita) was much lower than states such as Alaska ($665 per capita) that have low population densities and large land areas.

Fig. 233

Federal Highway Funding per Capita Federal Highway Administration; U.S. Census Bureau

Colorado vs. Competitors 0

5 10 15

Rank

20

2008 2013

25 30

7th Lowest

35 40 45 50

NM

GA

TX

AZ

CO

UT

Each of Colorado’s competitors receives greater per-capita federal funding for roads, although federal highway funding is a challenge for each of Colorado’s competitors except for New Mexico ($170 per capita).

Fig. 234

Federal Highway Funding per Capita Federal Highway Administration; U.S. Census Bureau

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2006 13 1 40 12 48 44 20 10 47 22 25 9 49 23 23 21 17 31 18 43 45 38 38 16 18 3 14 42 28 41 11 50 35 4 37 15 34 25 8 25 5 28 32 36 6 33 46 7 30 2

2007 13 1 37 12 49 43 20 10 43 21 33 8 45 17 25 22 16 27 32 41 48 37 35 17 19 3 15 47 30 39 9 50 34 4 36 14 39 24 11 23 5 26 27 41 6 30 46 7 27 2

2008 13 1 33 12 48 43 22 11 41 20 36 8 46 16 21 25 18 26 32 42 49 40 35 17 19 3 15 44 31 39 9 50 37 4 34 14 38 27 10 23 5 24 29 45 6 30 47 7 28 2

2009 16 1 39 12 48 43 22 9 46 26 34 10 41 21 17 28 20 19 23 45 49 44 36 14 18 3 15 25 35 40 11 50 42 4 38 13 29 31 8 24 5 27 33 37 6 32 47 7 30 2

2010 15 1 39 12 48 44 22 9 46 26 35 10 41 21 18 29 20 19 23 45 49 43 36 14 17 3 16 25 33 40 11 50 42 4 37 13 30 31 8 24 5 27 34 38 6 32 47 7 28 2

2011 15 1 40 12 48 44 22 9 46 29 34 10 41 21 17 28 20 19 23 45 49 43 36 14 16 3 18 25 33 39 11 50 42 4 37 13 30 31 8 24 5 26 35 38 6 32 47 7 27 2

2012 15 1 40 12 48 44 22 9 46 28 34 10 41 21 18 26 20 19 23 45 49 43 36 14 16 3 17 25 32 39 11 50 42 4 37 13 31 30 8 24 5 27 35 38 6 33 47 7 29 2

2013 15 1 40 12 48 44 22 9 47 29 34 10 41 21 17 26 20 19 23 45 49 42 35 14 16 3 18 27 32 38 11 50 43 4 37 13 31 30 8 24 5 28 36 39 6 33 46 7 25 2

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Highway Performance The Reason Foundation

0 5

10 15 Rank

20

2003 2008 2012

18th Lowest

25 30 35 40

45 50

ND

WY

SC

GA

NM

CO

HI

NY

CA

MA

NJ

This ranking is a cost effectiveness index that measures each state’s highway budget per mile compared to each system’s quality and performance. Performance indicators include pavement condition, freeway congestion, bridge deficiency, and fatality rates. High ranking states such as top-ranked Wyoming achieve better performance for less. Hawaii ranked 50th in 2012.

Fig. 235

Highway Performance The Reason Foundation

Colorado vs. Competitors 0 5 10 15 Rank

20

18th Lowest

25

30

2003 2008 2012

35 40 45

50

GA

NM

TX

UT

AZ

CO

Each of the competitor states has outranked Colorado in highway performance since 2003. According to the rankings, Colorado’s biggest challenges were for maintenance disbursements, rural interstate pavement conditions, and congestion on urban interstate highways.

Fig. 236

Highway Performance The Reason Foundation

State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

2000 11 40 28 46 45 19 44 41 38 4 48 9 35 17 23 6 10 42 15 34 49 43 12 21 39 5 29 13 26 50 27 47 25 2 22 31 7 33 36 3 30 20 8 24 37 14 18 32 16 1

2001 10 30 32 47 44 24 42 40 38 4 48 5 34 31 26 11 9 41 12 39 49 46 15 16 35 8 19 6 27 50 14 45 20 1 22 33 7 36 43 3 23 21 13 29 37 18 25 28 17 2

2002 12 14 31 44 46 41 43 29 40 3 48 10 30 16 34 15 9 33 18 38 49 45 13 26 25 7 21 4 27 50 11 47 36 1 20 35 5 37 42 22 6 24 8 32 39 17 23 28 19 2

2003 13 12 28 41 48 45 42 39 44 4 46 11 32 19 31 10 15 38 27 37 49 43 14 26 34 7 18 16 25 50 5 47 36 1 17 30 9 33 40 3 8 22 6 20 35 21 29 24 23 2

2004 39 44 37 31 48 36 41 30 45 6 43 8 35 25 29 3 7 33 17 42 49 40 16 26 28 13 15 22 19 50 4 47 27 1 23 20 5 32 46 2 12 24 9 34 18 11 38 14 21 10

2005 43 49 27 28 44 29 39 40 41 6 46 10 33 14 35 3 12 30 23 38 45 42 13 25 17 5 19 9 34 50 4 48 31 1 16 24 8 36 47 2 11 20 15 21 37 18 32 26 22 7

2006 29 49 26 27 44 31 35 28 41 10 47 14 34 15 32 5 9 40 22 37 43 42 18 38 13 2 8 20 46 50 3 45 23 1 17 33 11 36 48 6 7 19 12 25 30 16 39 24 21 4

2007 26 50 25 32 48 33 37 11 40 9 46 14 36 22 30 3 10 43 29 41 44 31 15 28 24 5 7 18 39 47 2 45 20 1 13 34 23 38 49 4 8 19 17 16 42 12 35 27 21 6

2008 19 49 26 29 48 33 40 10 39 9 47 17 40 23 31 3 14 36 32 43 44 35 25 16 8 2 5 15 28 45 4 46 21 1 24 37 11 38 50 6 12 20 13 22 42 18 34 30 27 7

2009 27 50 23 36 47 41 44 20 37 12 48 17 34 22 33 2 14 35 29 40 43 30 42 10 8 5 6 16 18 46 4 45 19 1 25 38 13 39 49 7 9 21 11 26 28 15 24 32 31 3

2012 21 49 19 35 45 33 44 37 31 13 50 30 27 36 18 5 10 40 16 39 46 32 28 8 12 9 2 24 23 48 7 43 20 6 14 22 26 41 47 4 3 17 11 29 38 25 42 34 15 1

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Percentage of State Funding for Transportation (1980 vs. 2014) Colorado Joint Budget Committee

1980 Transportation Funding: 12.7%

Transportation Funding Other State Funding

2014 Transportation Funding: 5.2%

Transportation Funding Other State Funding

Fig. 237

International Challenges Countries in Stronger Positions than Colorado

Lowest Unemployment Rate

International Labour Organization; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

0 5 10 15

22nd Lowest

2003

Rank 20

2008 2012

25 30 35 MEX GBR JPN USA CO CAN RUS BRA DEU CHN IND While Colorado’s unemployment rate has ranked as high as eighth since 2003 among the OECD and BRIC countries, as of 2012 the state ranks among the bottom half. Norway (3.1 percent), South Korea (3.2 percent), Switzerland (4.2 percent), and Austria (4.3 percent) have consistently ranked among the best. Spain, Greece, Portugal, and Ireland were among the worst in 2012. *No data for China and India. Data for Brazil labeled as 2008 in these rankings is for 2009.

Fig. 238

Lowest Unemployment Rate

International Labour Organization, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Country/State Brazil Canada China Colorado Germany India Japan Mexico Russian Federation United Kingdom United States

2003 29 23 N/A 19 30 N/A 12 1 25 9 17

2008 34 20 N/A 14 29 N/A 9 7 23 17 18

2012 14 18 N/A 22 10 N/A 5 6 10 23 25

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Business Tax Burden in Major Cities 0

5

KPMG

8th Lowest

Rank 2012

10

15

IND CAN MEX CHN RUS GBR CO USA DEU BRA JPN The KPMG Competitive Alternatives report analyzes the burden of corporate income tax, capital taxes, sales tax, property tax, local business taxes, and statutory labor costs in 113 major world cities in 14 countries. India and Canada had the lowest burdens while Italy, Japan, and France ranked among the highest. *Cities included Amsterdam, Denver, Frankfurt, London, Mexico City, Moscow, Mumbai, New York City, Paris, Rome, Sao Paulo, Shanghai, Sydney, Tokyo, and Toronto.

Fig. 239

Lowest Business Tax Burdens in Major World Cities KPMG

Country/State Brazil Canada China Colorado Germany India Japan Mexico Russian Federation United Kingdom United States

2012 10 2 4 7 9 1 11 3 5 6 8

2014 N/A 1 N/A 5 8 N/A 9 2 N/A 4 6

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Effective Corporate Income Tax Rate 0

KPMG

5 10th Lowest

Rank

2012

10

15

CAN CHN GBR RUS IND MEX CO USA DEU JPN BRA

Colorado (27.5 percent) has the 10th-lowest effective corporate income tax rate when compared with the 14 nations included in the KPMG study. Canada (7.3 percent) has the lowest rate and Italy (37.6 percent) has the highest. Effective corporate income tax rates take into account the total cost of taxes relative to net corporate income. *Countries included Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Russian Federation, United Kingdom, and United States.

Fig. 240

Lowest Effective Corporate Income Tax Rates KPMG

Country/State Brazil Canada China Colorado Germany India Japan Mexico Russian Federation United Kingdom United States

2012 11 1 2 7 9 5 10 6 4 3 8

2014 N/A 1 N/A 6 9 N/A 10 10 N/A 3 7

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Fewest Infant Deaths per 1,000 Live Births Central Intelligence Agency; Kaiser State Health Facts

0 5 10 15 Rank 20

28th Fewest

25

2004

2009 2010

30 35 JPN DEU CAN GBR CO USA RUS MEX CHN BRA IND Most of Colorado’s international partners rank in the bottom half of the OECD and BRIC countries for infant mortality rates. Sweden had the lowest rate with 2.7 deaths and Japan ranked second (2.8 deaths). China (16.5 deaths), Mexico (17.8 deaths), Brazil (21.9 deaths), and India (49.1 deaths) all ranked among the bottom-five countries.

Fig. 241

Fewest Infant Deaths per 1,000 Live Births Central Intelligence Agency; Kaiser State Health Facts

Country/State Brazil Canada China Colorado Germany India Japan Mexico Russian United Kingdom United States

2004 37 16 36 25 7 39 2 35 34 20 26

2009 37 23 36 27 8 39 2 35 34 21 28

2010 37 24 35 28 10 39 2 36 34 21 29

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

Lowest Health Expenditures as a Percentage of GDP 0

Central Intelligence Agency

5 10 15 2009

Rank 20

2011

25 30

Not Ranked

35 IND CHN RUS MEX DEU BRA JPN GBR CAN USA CO While comparable data for Colorado is not available, health expenditures in the state are likely similar to the United States (17.9 percent) where spending comprises the second-highest percentage of GDP in the world behind the Marshall Islands. While the 3.9 percent of GDP spent on health care in India is not ideal, health expenditures in the United States are vastly higher than other nations, including the closest ranked OECD and BRIC country, the Netherlands (12 percent).

Fig. 242

Lowest Health Expenditures as a Percentage of GDP Central Intelligence Agency

Country/State Brazil Canada China Colorado Germany India Japan Mexico Russian Federation United Kingdom United States

2009 22 32 6 N/A 17 1 24 9 8 24 38

2011 13 30 2 N/A 29 1 19 N/A 4 19 34

GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data. See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.