larimer county indicators report 2013

United Way of Larimer County

Larimer County Human Services Department

2013

Community Indicators Report

Larimer County, Colorado

Economic

Social

Environmental

1

Larimer County Indicators Report

Past, Present and Future

Introduction

Welcome to the third edition of the Larimer County Indicators Report. This report is a supplement to the

COMPASS of Larimer County website, a collaborative effort between United Way of Larimer County and

Larimer County Department of Human Services.

Eight broad categories were chosen for this report representing a cross section of areas important to the

quality of life for Larimer County residents: Demographics, Economy, Housing, Education & Early

Childhood, Health, Natural Resources, Public Safety, and Travel & Transportation.

The good news is there are several positive trends included in this report: foreclosures have declined 49%

since the high in 2009 and building permits are trending upwards. Tobacco use is down and progress has

been made in the top three causes of death (heart disease, cancer, and stroke).

Crime rates are down and property crime is at the lowest in ten years. We’ve also made improvements in

both alcohol-related vehicle deaths and motor vehicle accident deaths in general. Although the County

has lost roughly 4,700 high-paying manufacturing jobs in the last ten years, 51% of the nearly 21,000

jobs gained have been in health care and professional services, both of which pay above average wages.

Now the bad news. Average wages in Larimer County, when adjusted for inflation, are 18% less than 10

years ago and the median family income dropped 3.6% between 2007 and 2011. Infant child care in a

center-based facility is more than double the cost of freshman tuition at CSU and childhood poverty rates

have increased 85% since 2000. Households needing food stamps have increased 90% in just the last 5

years and more than 10,000 households are currently receiving benefits. More than 27,000 residents

receive Medicaid and 14,000 children are receiving free/reduced school lunches. In addition, the number

of children and seniors living in poverty has doubled since 2000.

Diabetes and obesity continue at unhealthy levels and Chlamydia rates are on the rise. And finally, the

suicide rate of 17.5 per 100,000 residents is significantly higher than the recommended Healthy People

2020 objective of 10.2.

For most of us, Larimer County is a wonderful place to live, work, and raise a family. Yet it is clear from

this report that many of our fellow citizens aren’t as fortunate.

Intr

oducti

on

Legend

Throughout this document you will find up, down, and sideways arrows denoting whether an indicator

trend is upwards, downwards, or steady. In addition, the arrow may be colored black, if the trend is

neutral, green, if the trend is positive, or red, if the trend is negative.

http://www.larimer.org/compass

2

Table of Contents

Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1

County Profile ....................................................................................................... 6

Demographics ....................................................................................................... 8

Age ..................................................................................................................... 9

Diversity .......................................................................................................... 10

Population and Migration ................................................................................. 11

Economy ............................................................................................................. 12

Gross Domestic Product ....................................................................................13

Labor Force ...................................................................................................... 15

Wages ............................................................................................................... 17

Businesses ....................................................................................................... 19

Unemployment Rate ........................................................................................ 20

National Rankings ........................................................................................... 21

Assessed Valuations ......................................................................................... 22

Economy .......................................................................................................... 23

Childcare Costs ................................................................................................ 26

Public Assistance ............................................................................................. 29

Free or Reduced School Lunch ......................................................................... 30

Food Bank .........................................................................................................31

Housing .............................................................................................................. 32

Affordability .................................................................................................... 33

Housing Foreclosures ...................................................................................... 35

Building Permits .............................................................................................. 36

3

Median Sales Price – Single Family Homes ...................................................... 37

Education & Early Childhood .............................................................................. 38

CSAP/TCAP Scores ........................................................................................... 39

ACT Scores ....................................................................................................... 40

High School Graduation Rates ......................................................................... 41

Educational Attainment ................................................................................... 42

Libraries .......................................................................................................... 43

Preschool Attendance ...................................................................................... 44

Health ................................................................................................................. 46

Health Insurance Coverage .............................................................................. 47

Tobacco Use ..................................................................................................... 48

Sexually Transmitted Diseases – Chlamydia .................................................... 49

Chronic Disease ............................................................................................... 50

Diabetes ............................................................................................................ 51

Obesity ............................................................................................................. 52

Physical Activity ............................................................................................... 53

Mental Health .................................................................................................. 54

Child Abuse ...................................................................................................... 55

Unintentional Injuries ..................................................................................... 56

Natural Resources .............................................................................................. 58

Water Resources .............................................................................................. 59

Air Quality ....................................................................................................... 60

Managed Waste ................................................................................................ 61

Public Safety ....................................................................................................... 62

Crime Rate ....................................................................................................... 63

4

Juvenile Crime ................................................................................................. 64

Larimer County Jail ......................................................................................... 65

Impaired Driving ............................................................................................. 66

Travel & Transportation ...................................................................................... 68

Commuting ...................................................................................................... 69

Public Transportation ...................................................................................... 70

Motor Vehicle Mortality Rates .......................................................................... 71

5

[page left intentionally blank]

6

Larimer County is located in Northern Colorado, with Boulder County to the

south, Jackson and Grand Counties to the west, Weld County to the east, and

Wyoming to the north. It is the sixth most populous county in the state and

consists of eight incorporated communities and several unincorporated areas.

County Profile

Larimer County Profile 2007-2011 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates

Total population 296,107

Child population under 18 21.4%

Senior population 65 and over 11.6%

Median age 35.1

White, not Hispanic 84.6%

Hispanic or Latino 10.4%

HS graduate or higher those 25 and older 93.9%

Bachelor's degree or higher those 25 and older 43.1%

Veterans 22,395

Mean commute time (minutes) 22

Total housing units 131,821

Homeownership rate 67.0%

Number of households 118,791

Persons per household 2.42

Households with children under 18 27.7%

Median household income $57,215

Median family income $74,089

Median non-family income $33,247

Overall poverty rate 13.4%

Children under 18 poverty rate 12.7%

Single mother w/children under 18 poverty rate 31.7%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

7


8

Key Findings

In Larimer County:

The population over the age of 65 is increasing and is expected to account for

more than 18% of total population by 2040, compared to 13% in 2013;

Although the county is not racially diverse, the Hispanic population

increased nearly 52% between 2000 (20,811) and 2010 (31,628);

Overall, the population of the county is increasing, with more people moving

in than leaving.

See COMPASS of Larimer County for more information on Larimer County

demographics.

Demographics

http://larimer.org/compass/sub_demographics.htm

9

Age

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at the changing

composition of the demographics within Larimer and

Weld Counties.

Why is this important? Understanding the demographic composition of the

County helps community leaders and decision makers

plan for future needs and allocation of resources.

How is Larimer County doing?

Age

The median age in Larimer County went from 34.6 in

2007 to 35.7 in 2011, a 3.2% increase.

In 2010 there was a smaller percentage of school age

children in Larimer County than ten years ago, while the

population 65 and older continues to grow. In 2013,

those 65 and older accounted for just over 13% of the

population but will likely account for more than 18% by

2040.

Dem

ogra

phic

s

According to the Colorado State Demography Office, those 65 and older accounted

for just over 13% of the total population in 2013 but will likely account for more

than 18% by 2040.

10

Diversity

Diversity

Population by Race/Ethnicity - 2010

% of Total

Larimer County

White 84.5%

Hispanic 10.6%

Black/African American 0.8%

American Indian 0.7%

Asian 1.9%

Two or More Races 2.6%

Weld County

White 67.6%

Hispanic 28.4%

Black/African American 1.0%

American Indian 1.1%

Asian 1.2%

Two or More Races 2.9%

Source: U.S. Census

Larimer County remains predominantly White.

Although the overall population increased 19%

between the 2000 and 2010 Censuses, the White,

not Hispanic population increased 15%,

compared to an increase of 52% in the Hispanic

population.

The percentage of Hispanic students enrolled in

the public schools in Larimer County has grown

over the last decade: Park (53.1%), Thompson

(62.9%) and Poudre (27.3%).

Dem

ogra

phic

s

Although Larimer and Weld Counties are predominantly White, the

Hispanic populations are steadily increasing.

11

Population and Migration

Migration The Colorado State Demography Office estimates the population of Weld County will be greater than Larimer County by

2030 and will continue to outpace Larimer County through 2040. Over the last decade, more people have moved into

Larimer and Weld Counties than have moved out of the area.

Dem

ogra

phic

s

The populations of Larimer and Weld Counties continue increasing as

more people are moving into the area than are leaving.

12

Key Findings

According to the Milkin Institute, in 2012, Fort Collins-Loveland ranked 12th in the nation,

higher in overall economic performance than Boulder, Colorado Springs, Denver or

Greeley. In 2011, Fort Collins-Loveland ranked 3rd in the country.

When adjusted for inflation, Larimer County saw a larger decline in average wages (17.7%)

between 2002 and 2011 compared to Weld County (12.2%).

More than 75% of businesses in Larimer County employ 10 or fewer employees.

Over the last 10 years, the unemployment rate in Larimer County has been below the rate in

Colorado and the United States.

Full-time center-based infant child care now costs more than resident tuition at Colorado

State University.

The number of children and seniors living in poverty in Larimer County has doubled since

2000.

An increasing number of County residents now require some sort of public assistance to

make ends meet.

See COMPASS of Larimer County for more information on the economy in Larimer County.

Economy

http://larimer.org/compass/sub_business.htm

http://larimer.org/compass/sub_individual.htm

13

Gross Domestic Product

Description of Indicator Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the total market value of all final goods and services produced in a specific area in a given

year, equal to total consumer, investment and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports.

In 2011, real GDP (in 2005 dollars) in the Fort Collins-Loveland MSA was $10,847,000.

Why is this important? GDP is a good indicator of whether the local economy is growing, shrinking or holding steady.

How is Larimer County doing? Real GDP, or GDP adjusted for inflation, increased more than 16% between 2002 and 2011. Because of the national

recession, real GDP in Larimer County decreased slightly in 2009 (2.3%), but rebounded by 2.9% in 2010. For individual

sectors, Manufacturing produced the highest percentage of the county’s GDP (22%), followed by Government (14%).

Manufacturing, Professional & Business Services, and Healthcare all increased productivity since 2002, whereas

Government, Real Estate, and Construction all decreased.

Econom

y

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increased every year in the Fort

Collins-Loveland Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) since 2002

with the exception of 2009.

14

Gross Domestic Product - continued

Of the 366 Metropolitan Service Areas (MSAs) in the United States, Fort Collins-Loveland ranked 55 in 2011 for

year-over-year growth. This was better than all other Colorado MSAs, with the exception of Boulder.

Colorado MSA

U.S. Ranking

by % Growth

2010 to 2011 % Growth in Real GDP

Boulder 33 3.55%

Colorado Springs 107 1.92%

Fort Collins-Loveland 55 2.82%

Greeley 78 2.32%

Denver-Aurora-Broomfield 88 2.18%

Pueblo 95 2.07%

Grand Junction 145 1.24%

Econom

y

15

Labor Force

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at the total number of jobs available, the type of jobs, and the average wage for those jobs in

Larimer and Weld Counties.

Why is this important? The health of the economy depends on providing a sufficient number of living wage jobs for the workforce.

How is Larimer County doing? No one sector employed more than 15% of the County’s workforce in 2011:

The Government sector employed the largest percentage of workers in Larimer County (15.0%).

In Larimer County, Retail Trade employed 11.1%, followed by Health Services (10.5%), Professional & Business Services

(8.9%), and Accommodation & Food Services (8.3%).

Number of Jobs per Sector

Larimer County Weld County

2002 2011 2002 2011 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 527 583 1,114 982

Mining 650 1,414 1,614 5,112

Utilities 230 253 232 286

Construction 14,787 11,695 9,680 9,794

Manufacturing 16,842 12,113 11,189 118,835

Wholesale Trade 3,558 3,811 3,698 4,149

Retail Trade 20,398 21,254 10,757 10,968

Transportation & Warehousing 3,074 2,923 3,125 3,666

Information 3,012 3,337 1,215 1,091

Finance & Insurance 6,044 9,187 4,768 6,302

Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 8,065 11,056 3,609 5,382

Professional & Business Services 12,328 16,947 3,714 4,873

Management of Companies & Enterprises 234 744 758 1,745

Administrative & Waste Services 9,675 11,685 5,610 6,428

Educational Services 2,127 2,993 625 1,096

Health Care & Social Assistance 14,167 20,187 8,407 9,864

Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 3,805 5,077 1,472 2,010

Accommodation & Food Services 14,168 15,826 5,649 6,523

Other Services (exc. Public Administration) 8,701 9,635 5,328 5,882

Government 26,264 28,764 13,456 16,100

Total employment 170,650 191,480 101,617 120,143

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

Econom

y

The total number of jobs in Larimer and Weld Counties has increased,

however a large number of high paying manufacturing jobs have been

lost.

16

Labor Force – continued

Larimer County had a net gain of 20,830 jobs between 2002 and 2011:

The majority of those jobs (66%) were in the Health Care, Professional & Business Services and Finance & Insurance sectors, all

of which pay above average wages.

Three sectors lost jobs – Transportation & Warehousing, Construction and Manufacturing. Historically, the Manufacturing

sector has paid the highest wages.

Weld County gained a total of 18,526 jobs during this same time, the majority of which (51%) were in the Mining, Government, Real

Estate and Finance & Insurance sectors.

Weld County lost jobs in the Agriculture and Information sectors, but not nearly as many jobs were lost in Weld County as in

Larimer County.

Econom

y

17

Wages

When adjusted for inflation, Larimer County saw a larger decline in average wages (17.7%) between 2002 and 2011

compared to Weld County (12.2%):

The Professional & Business Services (31%) and Management of Companies (46%) sectors saw the largest percentage

increase in average wages between 2002 and 2011. The Retail Trade sector saw the largest (12%) percentage loss.

Just over one-half of the sectors listed above paid more than the average wage in 2011. Of those 11 sectors, Health Care

and Professional & Business Services employed nearly 20% of the County’s workforce.

Average Wage per Job by Industry Adjusted to 2011 Dollars


2002 2011 2002 2011 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting $27,438 $27,352 $28,348 $32,240 Mining $44,018 $49,192 $59,947 $74,568 Utilities n/a $65,832 n/a $76,128 Construction $46,098 $46,852 $44,343 $47,788 Manufacturing $77,372 $79,300 $50,714 $41,704 Wholesale Trade $50,064 $55,900 $50,519 $55,952 Retail Trade $27,308 $23,920 $28,738 $26,624 Transportation & Warehousing $36,735 $37,180 $41,417 $45,032 Information $48,894 $52,832 $49,284 $44,460 Finance & Insurance $52,080 $52,260 $50,649 $52,312 Real Estate, Rental & Leasing $32,704 $32,500 $32,639 $35,308 Professional & Business Services $54,941 $71,708 $47,464 $51,740 Management of Companies & Enterprises $51,560 $75,036 $100,779 $127,556 Administrative & Waste Services $29,518 $29,588 $26,007 $29,380 Educational Services $27,763 $27,716 $28,283 $24,336 Health Care & Social Assistance $42,002 $43,784 $39,726 $40,872 Arts, Entertainment & Recreation $16,190 $16,900 $15,149 $15,860 Accommodation & Food Services $14,239 $15,080 $12,289 $13,416 Other Services (exc. Public Administration) $29,063 $28,860 $26,918 $27,352 Government $49,089 $46,384 $38,816 $37,128

Average for All Industries $51,170 $42,120 $46,293 $40,664

Source: Colorado Department of Labor

Econom

y

When adjusted for inflation, wages in Larimer County decreased

17.7% since 2002 compared to a 12.2% decrease in Weld County.

18

Wages – continued

Only four employment sectors in Larimer County (Professional & Business Services, Manufacturing, Management of Companies,

and Utilities paid an average wage high enough to provide self-sufficiency for a family of four. Those four sectors, combined,

employed an estimated 16% of the total Larimer County workforce in 2011.

Econom

y

Highest/Lowest Average Wage in 2011

19

Businesses

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at the total number of

businesses by employee size, and the number of

financial institutions and their holdings.

Why is this important? The more diverse the economy, the better the County is

able to weather downturns. The number of financial

institutions and the value of their deposits are a

leading indicator of a community’s economic activity

and strength.

How is Larimer County doing? In 2010, the large majority of businesses in Larimer

County

employed 10 or fewer employees:

Nearly 77% of businesses in the County

employed 10 employees or less in 2010.

There was a gain of 17 businesses in 2010 over 2009.

In the last decade, Larimer County added and lost several financial institutions and increased total bank deposits by nearly

27% when adjusted for inflation.

In comparison, Weld County’s financial institutions increased total bank deposits by 18.5% when adjusted for inflation.

Deposits of All FDIC-Insured Institutions

Larimer County

Weld County

Number of Institutions

Bank deposits

Year-to- year growth

Number of Institutions

Bank deposits

Year-to- year growth

FY2003

27

$3,363,641

9.2%

28

$2,015,692

9.2%

FY2004

27

$3,446,943

2.5%

27

$2,236,438

11.0%

FY2005

32

$3,718,050

7.9%

29

$2,604,410

16.5%

FY2006

30

$3,958,649

6.5%

28

$2,989,000

14.8%

FY2007

33

$4,229,735

6.8%

28

$3,603,905

20.6%

FY2008

34

$4,412,234

4.3%

28

$3,856,448

7.0%

FY2009

33

$4,655,907

5.5%

27

$3,043,274

-21.1%

FY2010

32

$4,673,402

0.4%

26

$2,916,331

-4.2%

FY2011

29

$4,848,438

3.7%

25

$2,930,857

0.5%

FY2012

28

$5,323,772

9.8%

26

$2,980,902

1.7%

Source: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

Econom

y

The number of businesses in Larimer and Weld Counties continues

to increase, with the majority employing 10 or fewer employees.

20

Unemployment Rate

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the annual

unemployment rate in Colorado compared to Larimer

and Weld Counties.

Why is this important? Family well-being is dependent on gainful employment.

The unemployment rate is a good measure of the local

economy’s ability to provide employment opportunities

to those who are able and willing to work. Additionally,

an increased demand for social services often goes hand

in hand with higher unemployment rates.

How is Larimer County doing? Larimer County’s unemployment rate has been

consistently lower than the rate in Weld County and

Colorado over the last decade:

Colorado’s unemployment rate was 8.0% in 2012,

compared to 6.4% in Larimer County and 8.7%

in Weld County.

When comparing Larimer County’s rate with 10 comparable communities around the country, only 3 communities had lower

rates in 2012: Amarillo, TX, Boulder, CO, and Lincoln, NE.

Historical Annual Unemployment Rates

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Amarillo, TX 4.8 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.6 5.2 5.6 5.4 4.8

Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX 8.7 8.2 7.6 5.9 5.3 6.5 9.4 10.7 11.0 10.2

Boulder, CO 5.8 4.9 4.5 3.7 3.3 4.1 6.8 6.9 6.2 6.0

Corpus Christi, TX 6.7 6.4 5.6 4.9 4.4 4.7 6.9 8.1 7.9 6.4

Eugene-Springfield, OR 8.0 7.3 6.2 5.4 5.2 6.7 12.1 11.0 9.5 8.5

Fort Collins-Loveland, CO 5.1 4.7 4.5 3.9 3.4 4.2 7.0 7.4 6.8 6.4

Fort Smith, AR 5.5 5.2 4.5 4.9 5.2 5.0 8.1 8.2 8.6 8.0

Gainesville, FL 3.7 3.4 2.9 2.6 2.9 4.3 7.1 8.0 7.8 6.8

Greeley, CO 5.9 5.7 5.6 4.7 4.1 5.2 9.1 10.2 9.3 8.7

Green Bay, WI 5.5 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 8.3 7.8 7.1 6.4

Lincoln, NE 3.7 3.5 3.6 2.8 2.8 3.0 4.3 4.2 4.0 3.5

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Econom

y

The unemployment rate has begun declining. Larimer County’s

unemployment rate has been consistently lower than the rate in

Colorado and Weld County.

21

National Rankings

The Milkin Institute is a non-profit, independent economic think tank that publishes the annual “Best

Performing Cities: Where America’s Jobs are Created and Sustained.” This report ranks cities by their

success in job creation and retention, the quality of those jobs, as well as their overall economic

performance.

The table above shows where the largest metropolitan areas in Colorado ranked out of the 200 largest

areas in the United States. The Fort Collins-Loveland area ranked in the top 75 for all years shown, with

2011 being the best ranking at 3rd place. Of the Colorado cities shown, only Fort Collins-Loveland was

ranked lower in 2012 than in 2011.

Milkin Institute National Rankings Best Performing Cities Index

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Boulder 93 95 44 56 59 15

Fort Collins-Loveland 75 48 22 50 3 12

Colorado Springs 96 111 101 99 81 57

Denver 106 44 55 63 44 30

Greeley 29 20 20 101 62 42

Source: Milkin Institute

Econom

y

In 2012, Fort Collins-Loveland was ranked as the 12th best performing

city according to the Milkin Institute. Colorado Springs ranked the

lowest of the five Colorado cities ranked. In 2011, Fort Collins-

Loveland was ranked 3rd.

22

Assessed Valuations

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the diversity of county-level tax assessments and the ability of the County to raise sufficient

operating funds.

Why is this important? The more diverse the County’s tax assessments, the more likely it is to weather fluctuations in the economy.

How is Larimer County doing? In 2011, the average mill levy in Larimer County was higher than in Weld County:

In Larimer County, the majority of property taxes were derived from residential taxes (53%).

Education collects the largest share of property taxes in Larimer and Weld Counties (53.7% and 48.5%, respectively).

Assessed Valuations by Property Class, 2011


$4,111,602,863 Total Assessed Value $5,421,862,840 Total Assessed Value $361,665,245 Total Revenue $383,330,046 Total Revenue

87.962 Average Mill Levy 70.701 Average Mill Levy

Property Tax by Taxing Authority Property Tax by Taxing Authority

School Districts $194,056,935 53.7% School Districts $157,177,452 41.0% Junior Colleges $1,730 0.0% Junior Colleges $28,635,007 7.5% County Government $92,395,940 25.5% County Government $91,108,983 23.8% City/Town Government $29,659,970 8.2% City/Town Government $29,820,568 7.8% Special Districts $45,550,650 12.6% Special Districts $76,588,036 19.0% Total $361,665,245 100.0% Total $383,330,046 100.0%

Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs

Econom

y

In 2011, the average mill levy in Larimer County was 87.962. The majority

of taxes collected in Larimer County (53.7%) are used for education.

23

Income Distribution

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at family income distribution. Median Family Income (MFI) is the point at which one-half of

incomes fall below that point and one-half are above that point. The Gini Index measures the degree of income inequality,

where 0 corresponds to perfect equality (everyone has the same income) and 1 corresponds to perfect inequality (one person

has all the income). Per Capita Income is calculated by dividing the total population by the total income of an area. A higher

Gini Index will often skew Per Capita Income.

Why is this important? Median Family Income is a commonly used indicator of determining the socioeconomic status of a community because it

depicts pooled resources. It is also commonly used to determine housing affordability. As for income inequality, it’s likely to

affect workers’ health and productivity the larger the gap grows.

How is Larimer County doing? According to the 2011 American Community Survey, the median family income in Larimer County was $70,682, compared

to $33,952 for the median non-family income:

Historically, Larimer County’s MFI has been higher than the MFI in Mesa, Pueblo, and Weld Counties.

When adjusted for inflation, Larimer County’s MFI decreased 3.5% between 2007 and 2011.

MFI in Larimer County was 15% higher than in the United States ($61,455) in 2011.

Median Family Income - 2011 Inflation Adjusted Dollars

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Boulder $91,801 $94,157 $89,864 $88,851 $93,017

Larimer $73,221 $75,736 $75,977 $73,563 $70,682

Mesa $66,546 $68,843 $65,585 $59,550 $59,447

Pueblo $53,583 $50,716 $51,685 $49,534 $53,227

Weld $65,634 $66,874 $68,032 $64,713 $59,610


Econom

y

When adjusted for inflation, Larimer County’s Median Family

Income (MFI) decreased 3.5% between 2007 and 2011

compared to a 9.2% decrease in Weld County.

24

Income Distribution - continued

Between 2009 and 2011, 31% of Larimer County families earned less than $50,000, compared to 37% of Weld County families. In

Larimer County, this equates to more than 23,000 families earning less than $50,000, with more than 12,000 of them earning

less than $30,000 a year.

Generally speaking, income inequality in Larimer County is similar to that of the state and country (see table below). Income

inequality in the United States has been increasing over the last several decades and is considered quite high among other

industrialized societies. As a comparison, according to the United Nations, Sweden has the greatest income equality (23.0) and

Namibia has the greatest income inequality (70.7).

Caution should be taken when considering the Gini Index presented below because of the relatively high margin of error. For

example, in 2009, the Gini Index in Larimer County was reported as 44.6, yet when considering the margin of error, it could have

been anywhere between 43.0 and 46.2.

Gini Index

United States Colorado Larimer Weld

2007 46.7 45.2 44.6 42.9

2008 46.9 45.7 47.0 40.9

2009 46.9 45.3 44.6 42.4

2010 46.9 45.7 44.3 42.0

2011 47.5 45.9 43.1 43.7


Econom

y

25

Income Distribution – continued

In 2011, per capita income in Larimer County was less than in the U.S. and Colorado:

Per capita income in Larimer County declined slightly between 2000 and 2011 (-1.2%); however there was a 10.2%

decrease in Weld County during this time period.

When adjusted for inflation, Larimer County saw a larger percentage increase in per capita income between 1970 and 2011

(111.0%) than the United States (75.5%), Colorado (88.1%) or Weld County (45.0%).

Econom

y

26

Childcare Costs

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the cost of childcare allowing parents to work.

Why is this important? Without affordable childcare, parents are unable to work full-time in order to support their families.

How is Larimer County doing? As childcare costs in Larimer County have risen over the last decade, the number of children helped by the Child Care Assistance

Program (CCAP) has decreased:

In 2003, an average of 1,397 children per month was provided with child care assistance through the CCAP program. In 2012,

that number decreased to 941, a 33% decrease.

In 2003, the average CCAP cost per household was $540 per month compared to $523 per month in 2012. When adjusted for

inflation, households received 22% less in 2012 than in 2003.

CCAP funding over the last decade has varied, but the current trend indicates that income thresholds for eligibility are being

lowered. As of January 2013, eligibility is limited to those with family incomes at or below 150% of the Federal Poverty Level.

Larimer County Childcare Cost, 2013

Full-time cost in child care centers

Age Minimum Weekly

Maximum Weekly

Average Weekly

0-12 months $199 $341 $277

1-2 years $175 $341 $245

2-5 years $131 $341 $210 6+ years before/after school $100 $183 $127

Full-time cost in family child care homes

Age Minimum Weekly

Maximum Weekly

Average Weekly

0-12 months $125 $300 $173

1-2 years $125 $250 $170

2-5 years $115 $250 $163 6+ years before/after school $50 $175 $88

Source: Early Childhood Council of Larimer County

Econom

y

In 2013, average annual childcare costs for an infant in center-based

childcare ($14,404) was more than double the cost of resident tuition

at Colorado State University ($6,875).

27

Poverty Rates

Description of Indicators The following indicators describe the percentage/number of residents living below the poverty level and those being aided by

social safety nets in Larimer County.

Why is this important? The overall health of the economy is often ascertained by the number of people requiring social services assistance. In 2012,

a family of four with a household income of $23,050 or less was considered to be living in poverty.

Federal Poverty Guidelines for 48 Contiguous States and D.C.

Persons in Family

Unit 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

1 $10,400 $10,830 $10,830 $10,890 $11,170

2 $14,000 $14,570 $14,570 $14,710 $15,130

3 $17,600 $18,310 $18,310 $18,530 $19,090

4 $21,200 $22,050 $22,050 $22,350 $23,050

5 $24,800 $25,790 $25,790 $26,170 $27,010

6 $28,400 $29,530 $29,530 $29,990 $30,970

7 $32,000 $33,270 $33,270 $33,810 $34,930

8 $35,600 $37,010 $37,010 $37,630 $38,890

Each additional person, add $3,600 $3,740 $3,740 $3,820 $3,960

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Econom

y

In 2000, 9.2% of Larimer County residents were living in poverty. By

2009-2011, an estimated 15.3% of residents were living in poverty,

and more than 20,000 County residents lived on less than $8,000 for

a family of 2.

28

Poverty Rates - continued

How is Larimer County doing? Poverty rates in Larimer County have increased over the

last decade:

A 14.2% poverty rate translates to nearly 42,000

Larimer County residents living in poverty.

Since 2000, the number of children under the age of 18

living in poverty has increased 100%, and the number

of seniors 65 and older living in poverty has increased

99%.

As of 2009-2011, an estimated average of more than

8,500 children and 2,000 seniors were living in poverty

in Larimer County.

Children (0-17) Living in Poverty

Seniors (65+) Living in Poverty

2000 2009-2011

2000 2009-2011

United States 16.6% 21.4%

United States 9.9% 9.3%

Colorado 11.3% 17.5%

Colorado 7.4% 8.1%

Larimer County 7.3% 13.5%

Larimer County 4.4% 5.8%



Econom

y

29

Public Assistance

Larimer County Public Assistance

Average Monthly Number of Households Receiving Assistance

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Food Stamps 5,324 7,028 8,592 9,587 10,124

TANF 247 366 496 519 556

Source: Larimer County Dept. of Human Services

Average Monthly Number of Unique Clients

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Medicaid 19,684 19,596 24,173 27,656 27,433

Source: Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing

The number of households receiving public assistance increased

substantially in Larimer County since the recession deepened in

2008.

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a

refundable tax credit primarily for workers

with qualifying children.

In 2000, 8.3% of tax returns filed by

Larimer County residents received an

EITC, compared to 13.3% in 2010.

The average EITC for Larimer County

residents increased 7.2% between 2000

and 2010.

Public Assistance

In Larimer County, the average number

of households receiving Food Stamps

increased 90% in the last 5 years.

In the last 5 years, the average number

of individuals on Medicaid increased

39%.

Econom

y

30

Free or Reduced School Lunch

The number of students who qualify for the free and reduced school lunch program is a good indicator of the economic health of the

community because eligibility is based on family income:

Historically, the school districts in Larimer County have had a lower percentage of students qualifying for the free and reduced

school lunch program than the state.

Nearly a third (32%) of students attending school districts in Larimer County qualified for the free and reduced school lunch

program in 2012-13.

The percentage of students qualifying for the free and reduced school lunch program in Larimer County increased much faster

than the state average between 2003-04 and 2012-13.

Park School District saw the greatest percentage increase (52.2%) in students qualifying for the program between 2003-04 and

2012-13, followed by Poudre (50.0%) and Thompson (44.0%). All three districts had higher percentage increases over the last

decade than Colorado (36.5%).

The number of students receiving free or reduced school lunches

has steadily increased over the past decade.

Econom

y

31

Food Bank

The number of individuals served by the Food Bank for Larimer County increased 24.5% between 2008 and 2012.

The number of children being served meals at the Kids Café sites in the County increased 25.4% during this same period.

According to the Food Bank for Larimer County, 1.4 million pounds of food was distributed to 69 partner agencies in

FYE2012.

The number of residents utilizing the Food Bank for Larimer

County has steadily increased since 2008.

Econom

y

32

Key Findings

According to the 2009-2011 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, more

than half of Larimer County renting households (54.5%) paid in excess of 30% of

their income for housing.

Between 2003 and 2009, foreclosure filings increased nearly 226% in Larimer

County. Since 2009, foreclosure filings declined nearly 49% and have dropped to

below the number filed in 2006.

In 2003, 3,003 building permits were issued in Larimer County compared to 451 in

2009. The good news is that there were 1,864 permits issued in 2012, a 313%

increase over 2009.

Over the last decade, median sales prices in Estes Park exceeded inflation 70% of

the time, compared to 60% in Loveland and 50% in Fort Collins.

See COMPASS of Larimer County for more information on housing in Larimer

County.

Housing

http://larimer.org/compass/sub_cd_housing.htm

33

Affordability

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at the affordability of

housing in Larimer County, whether it’s home ownership

or renting.

Why is this important? Affordable housing, whether it’s home ownership or

renting, is key to raising a family and providing stability

for the economy.

How is Larimer County doing? The Housing Opportunity Index (HOI) is a standard

established by the National Association of Realtors that

gauges the ability to afford a home based on the median

family income (MFI). The HOI represents the percentage

of homes sold that are affordable to a family earning the

MFI, so the higher the percentage, the better.

Since 2006, housing in Fort Collins-Loveland and

Greeley has been more affordable than the nation as a whole.

Generally speaking, housing in Loveland and Fort Collins has become more affordable between 2006 and 2012.

Between 2009 and 2011, nearly 55% of renters in Larimer County paid in excess of 30% of their income for housing.

Housi

ng

Between 2009 and 2011, nearly 55% of Larimer County renters

paid in excess of 30% of their income for housing.

34

Affordability – continued

As vacancy rates decline, rents normally increase. Although the trend is not as clear with the average affordable rents and

vacancy rates shown above, a clear trend is visible with traditional rental housing shown below. Between 2003 and 2012,

vacancy rates peaked in 2003 at 16.1% and dropped 81% to a 10-year low of 3.0% in 2012. Rents peaked in 2012 at $1,002 a

month, a 34.9% increase since 2003. (Unfortunately, the Colorado Division of Housing is no longer collecting data on

affordable rents and vacancy rates.)

Housin

g

35

Housing Foreclosures

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the number of foreclosure filings in Larimer County.

Why is this important? High foreclosure rates often correlate with high unemployment rates and low wages. Foreclosures also negatively affect new

home construction, weaken the real estate market and decrease the value of home prices, which in turn, lowers the amount

collected in property taxes.


Between 2003 and 2009, foreclosure filings rose nearly 226%.

Since 2009, foreclosure filings have decreased nearly 49% and have dropped to below the number filed in 2006.

Housi

ng

Between 2003 and 2009, foreclosure filings steadily increased. Between

2009 and 2012, foreclosure filings have decreased 48.7%

36

Building Permits

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at the number

and type of building permits issued in Larimer

and Weld Counties.

Why is this important? Building permits, in conjunction with housing

starts, is a leading economic indicator and is

often seen as a gauge for future real estate

supply levels. Growing economies are often

accompanied by an increase in the number of

building permits issued.

How is Larimer County doing? Over the last decade, the trend in the number

of building permits issued has been

downward:

Between 2003 and 2009, the number of

building permits issued in Larimer County

decreased 85%.

In 2003, a total of 3,003 permits were issued, compared to 451 in 2009.

In 2012, the number of permits issued increased to 1,864, a 313% increase since the low in 2009.

Housin

g

The trend over the past decade has been a decrease in the number

of building permits issued, although the County has seen an

increase in permits issued since 2009.

37

Median Sales Price – Single Family Homes

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the median sales

price for a single family home in Larimer County.

The median sales price represents the point where

half the sales are of lower value and half the sales

are of higher value. In general, the median sales

price is less biased than the average sales price

because it is less influenced by a few sales of very

expensive homes.

Why is this important? The median sales price of single family homes

often indicates if housing in the community is

keeping up or doing better than inflation. If real

estate is seen as doing better than inflation, real

estate is viewed as a good investment. However, if

prices rise too quickly, too many potential

homeowners may be priced out of the market.

How is Larimer County doing? Median sales prices in the County have generally trended upward over the last decade:

In 7 of the last 10 years, median sales prices in Estes Park exceeded inflation.

In the Loveland-Berthoud area, prices didn’t do quite as well and exceeded inflation only 60% of the time.

The Fort Collins area saw the least amount of growth in that prices exceeded inflation in just 5 of the last 10 years.

Median Sales Price Increase vs. Inflation Rate

Estes Park

Fort Collins

Loveland/ Berthoud

Inflation Rate

2002 2.6%

4.6%

5.1%

1.59%

2003 4.8%

2.6%

2.9%

2.27%

2004 3.1%

0.2%

10.2%

2.68%

2005 1.8%

4.3%

5.6%

3.24%

2006 10.1%

0.0%

2.8%

3.39%

2007 -1.5%

2.2%

-4.9%

2.85%

2008 7.6%

-0.9%

-4.7%

3.85%

2009 -11.5%

-3.0%

-5.5%

-0.34%

2010 5.0%

2.7%

4.9%

1.64%

2011 -4.10%

0.9%

0.0%

3.16%

2012 4.3%

3.8%

6.8%

2.07%

Source: InflationData.com

Housi

ng

Over the last 10 years, median sales prices in Estes Park exceeded

inflation 70% of the time, compared to 60% in Loveland and 50% in

Fort Collins.

38

Key Findings

Students in Larimer County generally score higher than the state average on

standardized tests.

Since 2006, the general trend has been fewer Thompson and Park School District

students graduating from high school. Only Poudre School District has seen an

increase in high school graduation rates.

According to the 2011 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates,

approximately 43% of Larimer County residents held a bachelor’s degree or higher.

On average, 53% of Larimer County’s 3- and 4-year olds attended preschool

between 2006 and 2011, compared to 46% of Colorado’s 3- and 4-year olds and 47%

of the nation’s 3- and 4-year olds.

See COMPASS of Larimer County for more information on education in Larimer

County.

Education & Early Childhood


39

CSAP/TCAP Scores

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at how students in Larimer County school districts score on standardized tests. The first CSAP

tests were given in 1996-97 and have been given every year since to students in grades 3 through 10. The tests are subject-

based (reading, writing, mathematics, and science) and all four tests are given to 5th-, 8th-, and 10th-grade students only. In

the remaining grades, students are tested in math, reading and writing only.

Colorado public schools began administering

the Transitional Colorado Assessment

Program (TCAP) tests in 2011-12. New

academic standards were adopted in

December 2009 and August 2011 requiring a

change to the standardized testing program.

The TCAP tests were designed to help

teachers and students transition to these new

standards and will be given for two years only

– 2011-12 and 2012-13. More information on

the TCAP is available at the Colorado

Department of Education website.

Why is this important? Preparing today’s students for the future is an

important investment made by the community

and is funded with taxpayer dollars.

Standardized testing provides a mechanism for

evaluating the efficacy of the school districts’

curriculums. Critics of standardized testing

point out that this type of testing doesn’t

measure creativity, initiative, imagination, and a

host of other valuable attributes.

How is Larimer County doing? Students in all three school districts within

Larimer County historically score higher than

the state average on the CSAP/TCAP tests:

Third grade students attending schools in the

Poudre School District often scored higher on

the reading test than students in the other

districts.

Over the last five years, there was more

variability in scores in the Park School District. This is often attributed to the smaller class size and the larger number of

students entering and leaving the district.

On average, Larimer County 10th graders score significantly higher on the math test than the state average (31%); however

62% of Larimer County 10th graders are unable to meet the state’s math standards.

CSAP/TCAP (Achievement Scores)

Percent of Students Meeting/Exceeding Standards

3rd Grade Reading

Colorado Poudre Thompson Park

2008 70% 81% 73% 80%

2009 73% 81% 75% 56%

2010 70% 81% 76% 61%

2011 73% 84% 78% 64%

2012 74% 82% 77% 76%

Average 72% 82% 76% 67%

Percent of Students Meeting/Exceeding Standards

10th Grade Math

Colorado Poudre Thompson Park

2008 30% 39% 37% 37%

2009 30% 42% 38% 37%

2010 30% 38% 36% 41%

2011 32% 43% 40% 48%

2012 33% 44% 37% 41%

Average 31% 41% 38% 41%

Source: Colorado Department of Education

Educati

on &

Earl

y C

hildhood

Students in Larimer County tend to score higher on Colorado’s

standardized tests than the state average.

http://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/CoAssess-About.asp

http://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/CoAssess-About.asp

40

ACT Scores

As of 2000-01, all 11th-grade students in Larimer

County are required to take the ACT tests in

English, reading, mathematics, and science

reasoning:

Larimer County students scored higher than

the state average on the ACT reading test,

although students didn’t consistently score

high enough to meet the ACT Benchmark.

In the last five years, Larimer County

students scored higher on the ACT math test

than those in the state with the one exception

of Thompson School District in 2008.

ACT math scores have been significantly

lower than the ACT Benchmark throughout

the state and county over the last five years,

although Poudre School District students

missed the benchmark in 2012 by 0.1.

Educatio

n &

Early

Child

hood

Larimer County students score higher than the state average in

reading and math. Some school districts failed to meet the ACT

Reading Benchmark and none of the districts met the ACT Math

Benchmark for the years shown.

41

High School Graduation Rates

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the percentage of high school students in Larimer County who graduate from high school. As

of 2005-06, the method used to calculate graduation rates changed. Prior to 2005, students who dropped out of school to

pursue a GED certificate did not affect the graduation rate. Starting in 2005, students who are pursuing a GED certificate are

considered dropouts, thus lowering the graduation rate.

Why is this important? High school dropouts are more likely to require public assistance, to get in trouble legally, to suffer more negative health

effects, and will earn significantly less income throughout their lives. In today’s society, a good education is a necessity to

becoming a productive member of the community.

How is Larimer County doing? Graduation rates in all three school districts within Larimer County have been higher than the state average over the last

seven years:

On average, Park School District has the highest graduation rates in Larimer County.

In the last seven years, Thompson School District has seen the most variability in graduation rates, from a high of 88.1 in

2006 to a low of 77.3 in 2012.

Graduation rates in Thompson and Park School Districts have trended downward since 2006.

Educati

on &

Earl

y C

hildhood

Although all three school districts located in Larimer County have

higher high school graduation rates than the state average, only

Poudre School District’s trend is upwards.

42

Educational Attainment

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the

educational level of adults 25 and older in

Larimer and Weld Counties.

Why is this important? A highly educated workforce is a major draw

for businesses that are considering relocating

to Larimer County. An educated workforce

often means higher wages and a higher

standard of living for the community.

How is Larimer County doing? Since 1990, a larger percentage of Larimer

County residents are more educated:

The number of residents without a HS

diploma has decreased 52% since 1990.

The number of residents whose education

ended with high school declined by 28%

since 1990.

Those residents earning an associate degree,

bachelor’s degree or graduate/

professional degree increased by 36%, 35%

and 29%, respectively, between 1990 and 2011.

Educatio

n &

Early

Child

hood

In 2011, nearly 43% of Larimer County residents held a bachelor’s

degree or higher, compared to 25% of Weld County residents. This

represents an increase since 1990 of 33% and 34%, respectively.

43

Libraries

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at library

use within Larimer County. The number

of materials circulated per capita is often

a factor of the funding available to

purchase a wide range of materials.

Why is this important? Public libraries are often viewed as

societal equalizers. They provide

Internet access to those looking for jobs,

they introduce the world of learning to

young people, and they provide a place

for the community to gather and

socialize.

How is Larimer County

doing? According to the Institute of Museum

and Library Services, in fiscal year 2010,

the average number of materials

circulated per capita was 8.3 and the

average number of library visits per

capita was 5.3:

Loveland Public Library, Poudre

River Library District (Fort Collins)

and Estes Valley Public Library

District met or exceeded the national

average of 8.3 circulations per capita

in 2010.

Poudre River Library District (Fort

Collins) and Estes Valley Public

Library District saw the highest

circulations per capita in 2011. They

also receive the highest funding of

libraries within Larimer County.

All Larimer County libraries, with the

exception of Berthoud, met or

exceeded the national average of 5.3

library visits per capita in 2010. Estes

Valley Public Library saw the most

use in 2010 with 18.2 visits per capita.

Educati

on &

Earl

y C

hildhood

Only Estes Valley Public Library District and Poudre River

Library District saw both an increase in materials circulated

and visits per capita in 2011 over 2007.

44

Preschool Attendance

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the percentage of 3- and 4-year old children in Larimer County who were attending preschool in

March of the years shown.

Why is this important? According to the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), "children who attend high-quality preschool enter

kindergarten with better pre-reading skills, richer vocabularies, and stronger basic math skills than those who do not." Many child

development professionals believe the first five years of a child’s life are crucial to success later in life and preschool attendance

often puts children on a lifelong path to academic and personal achievement.

How is Larimer County doing? Overall, the general trend is more 3- and 4-year olds are attending preschool in Larimer County. Over the last six years, an average

of 53% of Larimer County’s 3- and 4-year olds attended preschool, compared to 46% of Colorado’s 3- and 4-year olds and 47% of the

nation’s 3- and 4-year olds.

According to Qualistar Colorado, there are 62 preschools in Larimer County. The majority of preschools (35) are located in Fort

Collins, followed by Loveland (16). Berthoud and Wellington each have 4, Estes Park has 3, and Timnath, Laporte, and Red Feather

Lakes each have 1.

Educatio

n &

Early

Child

hood

On average, approximately 53% of 3- and 4-year olds in Larimer County

attended a preschool program between 2006 and 2011. That number is

expected to drop when the economy is poor and one or both parents are

without employment.

45


46

Key Findings

The percentage of Larimer County residents who use tobacco has been declining since 2002, but remains

above the Healthy People 2010/2020 objective of 12%.

The mortality rates for the top 3 causes of death in Larimer County (cancer, heart disease, and stroke) have

been steadily decreasing since 2000.

The nationwide diabetes epidemic has arrived in Larimer County and is well above the Healthy People

2010/2020 objective of 2.5%.

In 2011, roughly 39,000 or 17% of Larimer County adults 20 and older were considered obese.

See COMPASS of Larimer County for more information on health in Larimer County.

Health


47

Health Insurance Coverage

Description of Indicator This indicator measures the percentage of

residents estimated to be without any

health insurance coverage.

Why is this important? Those lacking health insurance coverage

are vulnerable to a wide variety of health

and financial crises, putting a strain on

Larimer County resources.

How is Larimer County doing? In all age groups, Larimer County has a

lower percentage of residents without

health insurance than the Colorado

average. Working adults -- those

between the ages of 18 and 64 – are the

least likely age group to be covered by

health insurance.

Percent With No Health Insurance Coverage by Age Group

2009 2010 2011

Colorado Larimer Colorado Larimer Colorado Larimer

Under 18 10.2% 7.7% 10.1% 6.4% 9.4% 6.3%

18 to 64 20.3% 18.3% 20.7% 16.5% 19.8% 16.3%

65+ 1.0% 0.0% 0.6% 0.2% 0.6% 0.3%

Total Population 15.8% 14.0% 15.9% 12.4% 15.1% 12.3%


Healt

h

Over the last four years, approximately 12.6% of Larimer

County residents were without health insurance coverage.

48

Tobacco Use

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the percentage of adults over the age of 18 who smoke cigarettes on a regular basis.

Why is this important? According to the Centers for Disease Control, smoking harms nearly every organ in the body, causes many diseases, and reduces the

health of smokers in general. In Colorado, tobacco use continues to be the leading preventable cause of death and the single greatest

driver of health care costs. In Colorado, an estimated $1.31 billion will be spent annually on health care directly caused by smoking.

How is Larimer County doing? One of the Healthy People 2010/2020 objectives was to limit the percentage of chronic smokers in a population to 12% or less.

Although the overall trend in Larimer County over the last decade has been a reduction in the percentage of smokers, 2008 was the

only year Larimer County met the Healthy People 2010/2020 objective.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommends that Colorado spend $54.4 million on tobacco prevention programs. For

FY2013, Colorado will spend $22.6 million of the $295 million tobacco-generated revenue (or 41.5% of the CDC’s recommended

amount) on tobacco prevention programs. (Source: Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids)

Health

The Healthy People 2010/2020 objective of 12% was achieved in

2008, but was exceeded in all other years represented.

What is Healthy People 2010/2020? Healthy People 2010/2020 is a national health promotion

and disease prevention initiative establishing national

objectives to improve the health of all Americans, to

eliminate disparities, and to increase the years and quality

of life. Objectives established for 2010 have been reviewed,

modified, and in some cases, eliminated when updated for

2020.

49

Sexually Transmitted Diseases – Chlamydia

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the number of individuals, per 100,000 residents, diagnosed with Chlamydia each year.

Why is this important? According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Chlamydia is the most frequently reported bacterial sexually

transmitted disease in the United States, and if left untreated, often leads to serious reproductive health problems, including

infertility. Chlamydia is more common in women under the age of 25. It is unclear whether the rise in diagnosed Chlamydia

cases is due to increased testing, a rise in the actual number of infections, or a combination of the two.

How is Larimer County doing? The chlamydia rate in Larimer County has been significantly lower than in Colorado and the United States over the last five

years depicted below. In Larimer County, the average rate over the last five years has been 251.8 per 100,000 residents, or

approximately 750 residents, compared to 393.3 in Colorado and 410.4 in the United States.

Healt

h

Although Larimer County’s Chlamydia rate is considerably lower

than both the U.S. and Colorado, it has increased nearly 24% over

the last five years.

50

Chronic Disease

Description of Indicator The following indicator compares the top ten causes of death in Colorado and Larimer County.

Why is this important? Of the top ten causes of death in 2011 in Larimer County, all but three (unintentional injuries, suicide and influenza/pneumonia)

were chronic diseases.

How is Larimer County doing? A higher percentage of Larimer County residents died from cerebrovascular disease (stroke), suicide, and other respiratory diseases

in 2011 than the state average.

Health

In 2000, the mortality rates for the top three causes of death in

Larimer County were: heart disease (184.8), cancer (165.2), and

cerebrovascular diseases (59.3). All three have dropped

significantly by 2011.

51

Diabetes

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the percentage of Larimer County adults living with diabetes and compares it to the Healthy

People 2010 objective.

Why is this important? Diabetes, one of the leading causes of death in Larimer County, is associated with a large number of other serious chronic

health problems, such as heart disease, stroke, blindness, kidney failure, and lower extremity amputations.

How is Larimer County doing? The incidence of diabetes in Larimer County adults is increasing and over the last six years has been well above the Healthy

People objective of 2.5% of the adult population. The Healthy People 2020 objectives do not include a diabetes objective

comparable to the one included in Healthy People 2010.

Healt

h

The incidence of diabetes in Larimer County adults is on the

rise and well above the Healthy People 2010 objective of 2.5%.







2020.

What is Healthy People 2010? Healthy People 2010 is a national health promotion and

disease prevention initiative establishing national



52

Obesity

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the percentage of Larimer County obese adults 20 and older and compares that with the Healthy

People 2010/2020 objective.

Why is this important? Obesity often increases the risks for many of the leading causes of death, such as heart disease, diabetes, cancer and stroke. An

increase in chronic diseases also increases the community’s overall health care costs and often leads to a reduction in productivity.

How is Larimer County doing? Larimer County last met the Healthy People 2010 objective of 15% of the population categorized as obese in 2005. The Healthy

People 2020 objective more than doubled the target to 30.5%, thus allowing Larimer County to meet the objective for the first time

since 2005.

Health

The Healthy People 2010 objective on obesity called for limiting the

percentage of residents who were obese to 15%. The Healthy People

2020 objective more than doubled that target to 30.5%.







2020.

53

Physical Activity

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the percentage of County residents who are regularly physically active and compares it to the

Healthy People 2010/2020 objective. The percentages below represent those who practice regular, moderate physical

activity at least 5 times per week for a minimum of 30 minutes or those who performed vigorous exercise 3 or more times per

week for at least 20 minutes.

Why is this important?

Being physically active improves overall health and reduces the risks of obesity and its associated illnesses such as

heart disease, diabetes and some types of cancers (breast and colon, for example).

How is Larimer County doing? The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment surveys Colorado residents every other year with respect to the

amount of physical exercise they received. Since 2005, a significantly higher percentage of County residents met the

minimum requirements for physical activity as outlined under the “Description of Indicator” above.

Healt

h

The percentage of Larimer County adults who are regularly physically

active is on the rise and is well above the Healthy People 2010

objective of 30%. The Healthy People 2020 objective was raised to

47.9%.







2020.

54

Mental Health

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at the number of

County suicides per 100,000 residents as well

as the number of residents seeking mental

health treatment.

Why is this important? Mental health problems, including suicide,

have a lasting affect on a community and

family members. According to the Centers for

Disease Control, men are more likely to

commit suicide, whereas women more often

attempt suicide, but are unsuccessful.

How is Larimer County doing? Over the last decade, suicides in Larimer

County have been between two and three times

higher than the Healthy People 2010 objective

of 5.0 per 100,000 residents. In half of the last

ten years, the suicide rate in Larimer County has been equal to or higher than the state of Colorado’s rate.

Of those seeking help at Touchstone Health Partners in 2012, more than 81% were being treated for mental health issues.

Health

The number of residents committing suicide has been consistently

higher than the Healthy People 2010 objective of 5 suicides per

100,000 residents. The Healthy People 2020 objective was more

than doubled to 10.2 suicides per 100,000.







2020.

55

Child Abuse

Description of Indicator The following indicator compares the rates (per 100,000 children) of reported child abuse cases with those chosen for

investigation and, of those investigated, the number of substantiated reports of child abuse.

Why is this important? Child abuse and neglect can have long-ranging, devastating effects on families and society. Some of the problems associated

with child abuse/neglect include impaired brain development, poor physical health, poor mental and emotional health,

cognitive and social difficulties, juvenile delinquency, and alcohol and drug abuse. In 2012, Prevent Child Abuse America

estimated the nation’s indirect costs of child abuse/neglect at $80 billion per year.

How is Larimer County doing? Although the rate (per 100,000 children) for initial reports has vacillated over the last six years, the rate of investigations

and substantiated cases has decreased. In 2012, approximately 7.5% of initial reports resulted in substantiated child abuse,

compared to 13.4% in 2007. Of those reports deemed worthy of investigation, 20.6% of cases in 2012 resulted in

substantiated child abuse, compared to 23.6% in 2007.

Healt

h

The rate of substantiated child abuse cases per 100,000

children has declined nearly 43% since 2007.

56

Unintentional Injuries

Description of Indicator The following indicator tracks the number of

accidental deaths per 100,000 Larimer County

residents over the last decade and compares it to

the Healthy People 2010/2020 objective.

Why is this important? Accidental deaths negatively affect the community

and can create lasting emotional, physical, and

financial problems.

How is Larimer County doing? The unintentional injury mortality rate in Larimer

County has been lower than the rate in Colorado

over the last decade, but has been higher than the

Healthy People 2010 objective of 17.5 deaths per

100,000 residents until the Healthy People 2020

objective was raised to 53.3 per 100,000 residents.

Unintentional Injuries in Larimer County

per 100,000 Residents

Fatal Non-fatal

2002 36.3

530.8

2003 36.7

514.9

2004 38.0

513.5

2005 35.5

531.6

2006 36.4

535.4

2007 35.5

574.4

2008 35.8

586.5

2009 32.9

509.4

2010 33.3

468.8

2011 37.0

369.2

Source: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

Unintentional Injury Rates in Larimer County have averaged 35.7 per

100,000 residents over the last decade, well above the Healthy People

2010 objective of 17.5 per 100,000. Larimer County first met the

target when the Healthy People 2020 objective was raised to 53.3.







2020.

Health

57


58

Key Findings

Less solid waste is entering the Larimer County landfill and more waste is being recycled.

Air quality (fine particulate) is good and has met the EPA standard since 2002.

See COMPASS of Larimer County for more information on the environment.

Natural Resources


59

Water Resources

Description of Indicator Precipitation acidity (pH) is considered normal when it

falls between 4.5 and 5.6 with an average value of 5.0.

(The lower the reading, the more acidic the moisture.)

The burning of coal and fossil fuels is often associated

with acid rain.

Why is this important? Acidic precipitation or “Acid Rain” is known to negatively

affect soil quality, aquatic life and vegetation.

How is Larimer County doing? Acid pH levels recorded in Rocky Mountain National

Park have ranged between 5.2 and 5.5 over the last ten

years. These levels are within the normal range given

above.

Precipitation

Annual precipitation amounts varied widely in Larimer

County over the past two decades. The driest year in Fort

Collins occurred in 2002 (9.2”) compared to the wettest

year when 25.2” fell in 1997. Loveland’s wettest year was

also 1997 when 20.0” of precipitation was recorded,

compared to the driest year when only 8.8” of

precipitation fell in 2000.

Over the last 20 years, the average precipitation level

recorded in Fort Collins was 16.2”, compared to 15.1” in

Loveland.

NOTE: Loveland’s average of 15.1” was calculated using

17 years of data because data were unavailable for 2001,

2002, and 2003.

Natu

ral R

eso

urc

es

Over the last decade, acid pH levels in moisture at Rocky Mountain

National Park have been within the normal range of between 4.5

and 5.6. Over the last two decades, annual rainfall has varied

between a low of 8.8” in 2000 (Loveland) and a high of 25.2” in

1997 (Fort Collins).

60

Air Quality

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at the air quality in

Larimer County. PM2.5 measures fine particulates

(those 2.5 micrometers or smaller) suspended in

the air and is measured at 251 Edison Drive in Fort

Collins. Readings that fall at the 98th percentile and

higher are selected and averaged over a 3-year

period.

Why is this important? According to the EPA, health studies have shown

an association between exposure to fine

particulates and an increase in death from heart

and lung disease.

How is Larimer County doing? The amount of toxic chemicals released or disposed

of in Larimer County over the last decade has

averaged over 721,000 pounds.

Since 2007, Larimer County’s air quality has been well below the EPA standards for fine particulates.

Air Quality PM2.5 Monitoring Results

2007-09 2008-10 2009-11 2010-12

24-hr. 98th Percentile in Micrograms/Cubic Meter (3-year averages) 17.9 17.7 16.7 20.0

EPA Standard 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0

Source: EPA

Natu

ral R

eso

urc

es

The amount of toxic chemicals released/disposed in Larimer County

has varied from a low in 2005 of 650,615 pounds to a high of 766,110

pounds in 2004. Air quality in Larimer County, as measured by fine

particulate levels (PM2.5) has been below the EPA standard since

2007, but reached an average high of 20.0 between 2010 and 2012.

61

Managed Waste

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at the

amount of waste entering the Larimer

County landfill: hazardous, solid, and

recycled.

Why is this important? Diverting recyclables and yard waste

reduces the amount of solid waste

entering the landfill. This, in turn, extends

the life of the landfill and reduces the need

for expensive alternatives while reducing

the environmental impact. Removing

household hazardous waste from the

waste stream also helps protect public

health and the environment.

How is Larimer County doing? Over the last decade, an average of 914

tons of hazardous waste has been collected

at the Larimer County landfill each year.

Over this same time period, there has been

a 46% increase in the amount of recycled waste

diverted from the landfill and a 9% reduction

in the amount of solid waste added to the landfill.

Natu

ral R

eso

urc

es

The general trend for solid waste entering the landfill is declining,

whereas more waste is being recycled.

62

Key Findings

The property crime rate in Larimer County dropped nearly 23% between 2004 and

2011.

Since 2004, the violent crime rate in Larimer County has varied from a low in 2004

of 214.0 per 100,000 residents to a high of 270.7 per 100,000 residents in 2009.

Between 2002 and 2011, the juvenile arrest rate has declined more than 23% in

Larimer County.

Nearly 5,900 offenders in Larimer County participated in one of four alternative

sentencing programs in 2011. The majority of those offenders (62.5%) were

sentenced to community service.

Over the last decade, Larimer County met or exceeded the Health People

2010/2020 objectives of 4.0/7.0 alcohol-related fatalities per 100,000 residents in

all but one year – 2003.

See COMPASS of Larimer County for more information on public safety in Larimer

County.

Public Safety


63

Crime Rate

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the number of

violent and property crimes committed in

Larimer County per 100,000 residents.

Why is this important? The crime rate can have both a perceived and

real effect on community safety and can have a

negative effect on business investment if the

rate is considered too high.

How is Larimer County doing? Property crimes have decreased nearly 23%

between 2004 and 2011, whereas violent crimes

have averaged 242.1 per 100,000 residents.

Public S

afe

ty

Since 2004, the property crime rate in Larimer County has

dropped nearly 23%. The violent crime has fluctuated between

a high in 2009 of 270.7 per 100,000 residents and a low of

214.0 in 2004.

64

In six of the ten years shown, the juvenile

arrest rate has been lower than the ten-

year average of 70.1 arrests per 1,000

youth.

Since the shootings at Columbine High

School in 1999, the zero tolerance policy

adopted in Colorado was likely

responsible for many of the expulsions in

Larimer County schools. Individual

school districts will have more discretion

in deciding when to involve police in

disciplinary actions starting with the

2012-13 school year.

Juvenile Crime

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at the number of juveniles

arrested per 1,000 youth ages 10 t0 18 and the number

of students expelled from school per 1,000 student

enrollment.

Why is this important? Although juvenile arrests constitute a small percentage

of overall arrests, criminal justice experts believe early

intervention of at-risk youths will often reduce criminal

activity in their adulthood.


School Crime

Students are often expelled from school for violent or dangerous behavior, or for drug or firearm violations on school property. The zero tolerance policy put into effect following the Columbine shootings in 1999 was amended in 2012 allowing more discretion for when to involve the police.

Expulsions per 1,000 Enrolled Students

in Larimer County Schools

2004-05 1.3

2005-06 1.7

2006-07 2.6

2007-08 1.9

2008-09 1.8

2009-10 1.8

2010-11 2.6

2011-12 1.5

Source: Colorado Department of Education

Public

Safe

ty

Between 2002 and 2005, the juvenile arrest rate declined 28%. Since

2005, the average juvenile arrest rate has been 65.3 arrests per 1,000

youths.

65

Larimer County Jail

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at the

total number of offenders in the

alternative sentencing program and

the breakdown by type of program.

Why is this important? The Larimer County Jail has been

operating at capacity since 2003

making it necessary to question who

should be incarcerated and who

should participate in alternative

sentencing.

How is Larimer County

doing? Offenders convicted of nonviolent

crimes are often sentenced to one of

four alternative sentences:

workender, work release, home

detention or community service.

Offenders sentenced to community

service or home detention are not

housed in the Jail. In 2012, nearly 63% of offenders receiving alternative sentences participated in the community service

program.

Public S

afe

ty

The total number of offenders participating in alternative

sentencing has varied from a low of 5,861 in 2012 to a high of 6,720

in 2010. In 2012, nearly 63% of offenders receiving alternative

sentences participated in the community service program.

66

Impaired Driving

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the rate of motor vehicle fatalities related to alcohol and compares it to the Healthy People

2010/2020 objective. The Healthy People 2010 alcohol-related fatalities objective was set at 4.0 per 100,000 residents and raised to

7.0 per 100,000 residents in the Healthy People 2020 initiative.

Why is this important? According to information provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in April 2012, more than

10,000 people died nationally in alcohol-related motor vehicle accidents – one every 51 minutes. The cost of such accidents is

estimated at $37 billion annually.

How is Larimer County doing? Larimer County has not met the Healthy People 2010/2020 objective of 4.0/7.0 alcohol-related fatalities per 100,000 residents

only once in the last ten years – in 2003.

Public

Safe

ty

The number of alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities has been

declining. Since 2004, Larimer County has met the Healthy People

2010 objective of 4.0 alcohol-related fatalities per 100,000 residents.

The Healthy People 2020 objective raised the target from 4.0

alcohol-related fatalities per 100,000 to 7.0 per 100,000.







2020.

67


68

Key Findings

In 2011, approximately 74% of Larimer County workers spent less than 30 minutes

getting to work and roughly 75% did not carpool.

Public transit use has steadily increased since 2003, especially as fuel prices have

increased.

For five of the last ten years, the motor vehicle mortality rate in Larimer County has

met the Healthy People 2010/2020 objective of 9.2/12.4 deaths per 100,000

residents.

See COMPASS of Larimer County for more information on transportation in

Larimer County.

Travel & Transportation


69

Commuting

Description of Indicators The following indicators look at how long it

takes to commute to and from work and the

number of commuters who carpool or work

from home.

Why is this important? Congestion on the roads is often cited as

contributing to a lower quality of life in a

community. In addition, the fewer people

who carpool or use an alternative means of

transportation, the greater the likelihood of

air pollution and damage to street pavement.

How is Larimer County doing? Although there were more Larimer County

residents with commute times under 30

minutes in 2009, by 2011 the percentage

(74%) dropped to less than 2000 levels

(76%).

An estimated three-quarters of commuters in

Larimer County (75%) did not carpool in 2011.

Tra

vel &

Tra

nsp

ort

ati

on

Approximately three-quarters (74%) of Larimer County commuters

had commute times under 30 minutes in 2011. An estimated 75% of

commuters drove to work alone, compared to 9% who carpooled.

70

Public Transportation

Description of Indicator The following indicator looks at the number and types of riders in Fort Collins who use public transportation.

Why is this important? As the price of gasoline continues to increase, more and more residents are looking to public transit as an alternative to get to work

and school. And as the population ages, an efficient and well-designed public transit system becomes increasingly important.

Increased public transit use also has the added benefits of reducing carbon emissions and reducing traffic congestion.

How is Larimer County doing? Since 2003, there has been a 104% increase in the number of general population rides on the Fort Collins public transit system. An

even larger increase (109%) was seen in the number of rides by seniors over the last decade.

Tra

vel &

Tra

nsp

orta

tion

As the price of gasoline has continued to increase, the number

of riders on public transit has also increased.

71

Motor Vehicle Mortality Rates

Description of Indicator The motor vehicle mortality rate represents the number of deaths caused by motor vehicle accidents per 100,000 residents.

A rate is used in order to compare from year to year in relation to a changing population.

Why is this important? According to the Centers for Disease Control, motor vehicle injury prevention was named as a public health issue that is a

“winnable battle”. In the United States, motor vehicle–related injuries are the leading cause of death for people ages 5–24,

and more than 4 million people sustain injuries that require an emergency room visit.

How is Larimer County doing? After peaking in 2003 at 17.1 deaths per 100,000 residents, the rate dropped significantly the following year to 11.0 per

100,000 residents and has been below the Healthy People 2010 target of 9.2 deaths per 100,000 since 2007. The Healthy

People 2020 initiative raised the objective from 9.2 deaths per 100,000 residents to 12.4 deaths per 100,000.

Tra

vel &

Tra

nsp

ort

ati

on

The motor vehicle mortality rate has been trending downwards.

Since 2007, the rate in Larimer County has been below the Healthy

People 2010/2020 objectives of 9.2/12.4 per 100,000 residents.







2020.

larimer county indicators report 2013

Documents

larimer county residents

county profile

indicator trend

crime rates

childhood poverty rates

health care

professional services

chlamydia rates