diversity hrc report
1
What Does Diversity Look Like in the
City of Boulder?
Prepared for:
City of Boulder Human Relations Commission
August 2012
2999 Tincup Circle, Boulder, Colorado 80305 voice: 303-499-1404 fax: 303-499-1550 e-mail: research@swgreenberg.com
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Table of Contents
Summary of Key Findings......................................................................................................................3
Why Take a Snapshot of Boulder’s Diversity?.......................................................................................5
What Do We Mean by Diversity?...........................................................................................................5
DataSources.........................................................................................................................................5
Study Limitations...................................................................................................................................5
Characteristics of Boulder’s Age Groups................................................................................................6
Race and Ethnicity in Boulder................................................................................................................8
Foreign Birth and Linguistic Isolation...................................................................................................10
Income and Poverty by Household Type.............................................................................................11
Income Inequality.................................................................................................................................12
Boulder’s Homeless Population...........................................................................................................13
People with Disabilities........................................................................................................................15
Boulder’s LGBTQ Population...............................................................................................................16
Appendix 1: Tables and Figures..........................................................................................................17
Age Groups......................................................................................................................................17
Race and Ethnicity...........................................................................................................................20
Foreign Birth and Linguistic Isolation................................................................................................24
Income and Povertyby Household Type..........................................................................................25
Income Inequality.............................................................................................................................26
Homelessness..................................................................................................................................27
People with Disabilities.....................................................................................................................31
Boulder’s LGBTQ Population...........................................................................................................33
Appendix 2: Description of U.S. Census Bureau Data Sources and Definitions of Census Terms Used
in This Report......................................................................................................................................34
2
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Summary of Key Findings
The purpose of this report is to provide a snapshot of what the many forms of diversity look like in the
City of Boulder, with an emphasis on living situations and economic status. The principal data sources
were the U.S. Census Bureau’s decennial census and American Community Survey.
Characteristics of Boulder’s Age Groups (Pages 6-7, Tables 1-8)
The elderly, those aged 75 and older, were the most likely of all age groups to live alone, nearly
60%. This finding may be cause for concern, especially when coupled with the fact that more than
half of the elderly hadat least one disability.
Although the median income of the city’s younger working-age households, aged 25 to 44,
increased by a substantial 31.4% between 2005 and 2010, households with a householder aged 45
to 64 had a 7.1% decrease and those aged 65 and over had a 12.7% decrease.
Both the oldest and the youngest age groups had the highest rates below 200% of poverty –39.1%
of those aged 75 and above and 34.7% of children.
Differences among age groups in rates of health insurance coverage were similar to poverty rates –
the oldest and the youngest had the highest rates in both cases. Overall, 9 in 10 Boulder residents
had either private or government-funded health insurance. The lowest percentages of insurance
coverage were in the working-age groups, especially those aged 25 to 44 (84.1%).
Race and Ethnicity in Boulder(Pages 8-9, Tables 9-22)
Compared to white non-Latinos, the Latino population was younger, more likely tolive in families,
and more likely to have children in the home. Elderly Latinos were less likely to live alone than were
elderly white non-Latinos.
A little more than half of Latino adults had completed high school/GED, compared to more than
98% of white non-Latino adults.
There was more than a three-fold difference in median income between Latino and white non-
Latino families in 2008-10: $29,393 for the former and $103,731 for the latter. The median income
of Latino families was less than 60% of the estimated income needed for self-sufficiencyin Boulder
County for a family of one adult and one preschooler.
The poverty rate was more than five times higher among Latino families than among white non-
Latino families –28.3% compared to 5.4%.
Latinos were far less likely than were white non-Latinos to have private or public health insurance in
every age group. Less than half of working-age Latinos, 25 to 64 years old, had health insurance.
Foreign Birth and Linguistic Isolation(Page 10, Tables 23-25)
One in 7 Boulder residents aged 5 and over were linguistically isolated (spoke a language other
than English at home andspokeEnglish less than “very well”), and one-third of those whose
household language was not English were linguistically isolated. One in 5 households where a
language other than English was spoken had no one aged 14 or over who spoke only English or
spoke English “very well”.
The Spanish-speaking population was the most linguistically isolated. Nearly half of those living in
Spanish-speaking homes were linguistically isolated, and more than one-quarter of Spanish-
speaking homes had no one aged 14 or over who spoke only English or spoke English “very well”.
Children were less likely to be linguistically isolated than were adults –22.9% of those aged 5 to 17
compared to 35.5% of the 18-to-64 age group.
Income and Poverty by Household Type(Page 11, Tables 26-28)
Married-couple families with children under age 18 had by far the highest median income of any
household type –an average of $121,343 between 2006 and 2010. Among families with children,
3
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
female-headed families had the lowest median income, $41,474.The median income among all
households was $51,779.
Married-couple families had the lowest poverty rate, 3.7%. In comparison, 1 in 4 female-headed
families with children were at that income level and 43.6% were below 185% of poverty.
Income Inequality (Page 12, Figure 1)
Income inequality was consistently higher in the City of Boulder than in Boulder County between
2006 and 2010.
Inequality was higherboth in Boulder and Boulder County after 2006, although the pattern was
more consistent in Boulder County.
Boulder’s Homeless Population (Pages 13-14, Tables 29-38, Figures 2-3)
Of the 1,970homeless people identified in Boulder County on the night of January 23, 2012, just
under 4 in 10(38.1%) spent that night in Boulder, a total of 750individuals in 406households.
White non-Latinos were underrepresented in Boulder’s homeless population, compared to the
generalpopulation, while Latinos, African-Americans, Native Americans, and those of two or more
races were overrepresented. Veterans were also overrepresented in the homeless population.
Forty percent ofhomeless households in Boulder had at least one person who had been employed
in the past month.
Halfas many homeless people, 13.6%, were chronically homeless as were newly homeless,
27.3%.
More than half of homeless people were in households with children under age 18. Almost 500
(479) children attending BVSD schools located in the City of Boulder, 3.5% of the total enrollment in
those schools, received services through the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Act
in the 2011-12 school year.
People with Disabilities (Page 15, Tables 39-45, Figure 4)
A total of 7.3% of Boulder’s population had one or moredisabilities.
Adults with disabilities were substantially less likely to work than were adults without disabilities,
and as a result,they earned less, were more likely to be poor, and inthe working-age population,
were somewhat less likely to have health insurance.
Boulder’s LGBTQ Population (Page 16, Tables 46-47)
One percent, 407, of the more than 41,000 households in Boulder were made up of same-sex
partners in 2010.
One percent, 131, of all children living in householdslived in same-sex partner households.
4
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Why Take a Snapshot of Boulder’s Diversity?
Boulder has the reputation of being young,physically fit, well educated, and welloff. To a certain
extent, statistics support thatimage. But dig a little deeper and you willfind a different reality, one that
also includes poverty, inequality, and homelessness.The purpose of this report is to provide a
snapshot of what the many forms of diversity look like in Boulder, with an emphasis on living situations
and economic status. The findings are intended to be used by the City of Boulder Human Relations
Commissionto:
Enhance its understanding of diversity within the community,
Help identify major issues that selectively confront specific groups, and
Serve as a resource in developing policies and promoting programs to foster mutual understanding
and respect within the community.
What Do We Mean by Diversity?
Although diversitycan take almost infinite forms, in this report it is defined primarily in demographic
terms and includes:
Age groups
Race/ethnicity
Linguistic status
Household types
Income status
Homelessness
Disability status
LGBTQ population
Data Sources
The principal data sources used in this report were the U.S. Census Bureau’s decennial census and
American Community Survey (ACS), an annual,nationwide survey of demographic, social, economic,
and housing data.Because numerically small “slices” of Boulder’s population were examined in this
report, the 3-year averagedACS estimates for 2008 to 2010 were usually used instead of the 2010
single-year estimates in order to reduce the size of the sampling error. Occasionally, the 2006-10 5-
year estimates were used, when the sampling errors in the 3-year averages were too high to yield
reliable estimates or when the Census Bureau did not release tables based on the 3-year averages due
to small sample sizes.
Thedecennial census and ACS are described in more detail in Appendix 2, along with definitions of
censusterms used in this report.Other data sources specific to topics were also used, and those are
described in the text.
All tables and graphs in this report appear in Appendix 1, organized by topic.
Study Limitations
This study defined diversity in demographic terms and did not include cultural or other qualitative
characteristics of the groups examined. The analysesrelied exclusively on existing data,and as a
result,it was not possible to customize the data to fit this specific project.
5
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Characteristics of Boulder’s Age Groups
The City of Boulder is home to a large concentration of young adults, many of whom are students
attending the University of Colorado, Naropa, Front Range Community College, and other institutions.
This characteristic of Boulder’s demographic profile permeates the social and economic fabric of the
city.
Nearly 1 in 3 (29.1%) Boulder residents were aged 18 to 24 in 2010, compared to 14.2% countywide
(Table 1). Boulder’s median age was 28.7 years, more than seven years younger than the county’s
median age of35.8. And unlike many communities across the country, Boulder’s population was
slightly younger in 2010 than in 2000, when the median age was 29.0. That difference was mostly the
resultof an increase in the percentage of young adults aged 18 to 24 (from 25.9% of the population to
29.1%) and a decrease in the population aged 25 to 34 (from 19.5% to 16.0%).
Except for young adults aged 18 to 24, Boulder’s residents don’t change houses very often. More than
three-quarters of all age groups other than 18 to 24 were in the same house in 2008-10 as they had
been the year before (Table 3).
About half (48.1%) of the population aged 15 and over livedin owner-occupied housing and half
(51.9%) livedin renter-occupied housing (Table 4). Two-thirds livedwith at least one other person and
a third livedalone.The elderly, those aged 75 and older, were the most likely of all age groups to live
by themselves, nearly 60% (57.3%). This finding may be cause for concern, especially when coupled
with the fact that more than half of the elderly hadat least one disability. (The characteristics of people
with disabilities are discussed in more detail in that section.)
Three-quartersof Boulder’s children under age 18 lived with both parents in married-couple families,
while15.2% lived with their mother onlyand 5.7% with their father only (Table 2). The remaining 4.2%
of children lived either with grandparents or other relatives (2.9%), with nonrelatives (e.g., foster
parents) (1.0%), or in non-household situations, such as college dormitories or group homes(0.3%).
The presence of CU and other educational institutions, the federal labs, and a large number of high-
tech companies both produces and attracts the city’s highly educated population. Seventy percent of
the population aged 25 and over had a college degree or higher, including 78% of those aged 35 to 44
(Table 5). Although the percentage of Boulder County’spopulation with at least a high school degree
(93.7%) was about the same as Boulder’s(94.9%), the county’s percentage with at least a college
degree was noticeably lower (57.9%).
Median household income was nearly level in Boulder between 2005 and 2010, increasing by 2.8%,
from $51,200 (in2010 inflation-adjusteddollars) to $52,618, during the 5-year period (Table 6).
Although the median income of the city’s younger working-age households, aged 25 to 44, increased
by a substantial 31.4%, households where the householder was aged 45 or older experienced a
decrease. Households with a householder aged 45 to 64 hada 7.1% decrease and those aged 65 and
over had a 12.7% decrease.
More than 1 in 5 city residents (21.1%) were below 100% of the federal poverty thresholdand nearly 4
in 10 (39.3%) were below 200% (Table 7).The 2010 poverty threshold was, for example, $11,139 for a
1-person household and $22,113 for a family of two adults and two children under 18 years old.
However, poverty rates were strongly affected by the large number of college students in the
community, many of whom received partial or full financial support from their familiesbut had little or no
6
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
1
earned incomeof their own.More than half (57.2%) of the 18-to-24 year old age group was below
poverty, and 82% were below 200% of poverty. When that age group was subtracted from the total
population, the overall poverty rate decreased from 21.1% to 11.0% and the percentage below 200% of
poverty decreased from 39.3% to 27.4%.
Boulder’s youngest and oldest residents were the most likely to be poor. Other than 18-to-24 year olds,
children had the highest poverty rate of any age group, 15.4%. Both the oldest and the youngest age
groups had the highest rates below 200% of poverty –39.1% of those aged 75 and above and 34.7%
of children.
Differences among age groups in rates of health insurance coverage were similar topoverty rates –the
oldest and the youngest had the highest rates in both cases.Overall, 9 in 10 (89.4%) Boulder residents
had either private or government-funded health insurance (Table 8). Virtually everyone aged 65 and
over had health insurance, the age at which Medicare eligibility begins. Ninety-four percent of children
younger than 6 had health care coverage, as did 91.1% of children aged 6 to 17. A similar percentage
of 18-to-24 yearolds (90.7%) were also insured.In addition to those whose employment offered health
insurance, some in this age groupwereincluded on their parents’ health plansand others remained
eligible for Medicaid and CHP+ until age 19. The lowest percentages of insurance coverage were in the
working-age groups,especially those aged 25 to 44 (84.1%). This lower rate reflects the fact that this
age group is largely dependent on employment for health insurance. Some jobs do not provide health
benefits, and job loss often leads to loss of health insurance.
1
The way in which the American Community Survey (ACS) defines income is likely to result in college students
and others who receive financial support from their families reporting only their own earned income, if any, in the
past 12 months. Lump-sum payments are not defined as income. See Appendix 2 for definitions of terms used in
the 2010 ACS.
7
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Race and Ethnicity in Boulder
In 2010, more than 8 in 10 (83.0%) Boulder residents were white non-Latino, and fewer than 5% were
in each of four non-white racial groups, “other” races, and two or more races (Table 9). A little less than
1 in 10 (8.7%) were Latino of any race. Boulder’s race/ethnic composition remained about the same
between 2000 and 2010. Boulder County had a slightly lower percentage of white non-Latinos (79.4%)
and a higher percentage of Latinos (13.3%) than did the City of Boulder.
Differences between Latinos and white non-Latinos living in Boulder cut across a wide range of
demographic, social, and economic characteristics. Somebasic demographic differences were:
More than a third (37.0%) of Latino residents of Boulder were foreign born compared to 5.2% of
white non-Latinos (Table 10).
The Latino population was younger than the white non-Latino population: nearly 1 in 3 (29.5%)
Latinos were under age 18 compared to a little more than 1 in 10 (11.5%) white non-Latinos. Five
times the percentage of white non-Latinos (10.5%) were 65 and over as were Latinos (2.1%) (Table
11).
Latinos usually lived in families (70.5%), while white non-Latinos were almost as likely to live in
households alone or with unrelated people (44.9%) as in families (55.1%)(Table 12). Latinos were
also more likely to live in female-headed families (14.6% versus 6.0% of white non-Latinos).
Latino families, especially married couples, were much more likely to have children in the home
than were white non-Latino families (Table 14). Almost three-quarters (73.1%) of Latino married
couples had children under age 18 compared to only 40.0% of white non-Latino couples, and nearly
half of Latino couples (46.4%) had children underage6 compared to fewer than 1 in 5 (18.5%)
white non-Latino couples.
Latino children were less likely to live with both parents (65.8% compared to 77.4% of white non-
Latino children) and were more likely to live with grandparents or other relatives (8.0% compared to
1.7% of white non-Latino children) (Table 13).
Older Latinos were less likely to live alone than were older white non-Latinos –27.1% compared to
34.3% (Table 15).
Much has been written about the educational achievement gap between white non-Latino and Latino
2
children in Boulder County, particularly in the Boulder Valley School District.Educational,
employment, and income differences between the city’s Latino and white non-Latino adult population
are all factors that help to cause and maintain thisgap. Reinforcing those differences, households in
which Spanish was the language spoken at home were the most likely to be linguistically isolated of all
households in which a language other than English was spoken. (SeeForeign Birth and Linguistic
Isolation section for more detail.)
Nearly all (98.4%) white non-Latinos aged 25 and over had at least a high school degree or GED, and
nearly three-quarters (73.4%) had a college degree or more (Table 17). In contrast, a little more than
half of Latino adults (55.7%) had completed high school/GED and one-fourth had at least a college
degree.
Similar percentages of white non-Latinos and Latinos aged 16 to 64 –about 9 in 10 --were employed
(Table 18). However, a higher percentage of Latinos in that age group were not in the labor force,
35.1% compared to 25.5% of white non-Latinos. Not being in the labor force means not being
employed and not actively looking for work in the past four weeks. There are a number of reasons for
not being in the labor force that apply disproportionately to Latinos, includingresidency status, lack of
2
Two recent reports that include this finding are: Stephanie W. Greenberg, The Status of Children in Boulder
County 2011 Report, Boulder, Colorado: Boulder CountyMovement for Children/YWCA of Boulder County;
Boulder County TRENDS 2011, Boulder, Colorado: The Community Foundation.
8
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
English proficiency, lack of relevant work skills, family responsibilities, and an inadequate supply of
affordable, conveniently located, or culturally appropriate child care.
There was more than a three-fold difference in median income between Latino and white non-Latino
3
families in 2008-10: $29,393 for the former and $103,731 for the latter (Table 19).
The median income
of Latino families was less than 60% ofthe incomeneeded for self-sufficiencyfor a family of one adult
and one preschooler, a relatively low-cost family type, as estimated by a 2011 study sponsored by the
Colorado Center on Law and Policy(Table 20). The income required in Boulder County for that family
type to meet basic expenses without public or private assistancewas an estimated $50,483 a year, and
far more income would beneeded for families with two adults and more children or younger children.
Those estimates also do not reflect the higher cost of living in the City of Boulder, especially for
housing, compared to many other communities in the county.
Consistent with differences in education, employment status, and median income, the poverty rate was
more than five times higher among Latino families than among white non-Latino families –28.3%
compared to 5.4% (Table 21). One in three families below poverty in Boulder were Latino, even though
Latinos were less than 10% of the population.
Latinos were far less likely than werewhite non-Latinos to have private or public health insurance in
every age group (Table 22). More than 90% (92.4%) of white non-Latinos had health insurance in
2008-10, compared to 62.6% of Latinos. Although it is true in both groups that the youngest and oldest
were most likely to have insurance, at least 90% of white non-Latinos in every age group had
insurance. Among Latinos, the rates ranged from 90.9% of people aged 65 andover to less than half
(46.8%) of working-age people, 25 to 64 years old. Health insurance for people in that age group is
most likely to be tied to employment, and 90.0% of white non-Latinos in the same age group had
insurance. A lower rate of labor force participation, employment in jobs that do not provide health
insurance, and lack of required citizenship or immigration documentation for Medicaid were likely to be
factors in the lower rate of health insurance among working-age Latinos.
3
Median income for families rather than for households or individuals was used in order to lessen the effect of
full-time students living in non-family households.
9
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Foreign Birth and Linguistic Isolation
Boulder is home to almost 11,000 foreign-born people, a little more than 1 in 10 (11.1%) of the total
population (Table 23). Asia is the most common place of foreign birth, accounting for 1 in 3 of the
foreign born, with Latin America and Europe following close behind. Mexico accounts for 80.1% of
Boulder residentsborn in Latin America and almost 1 in 4 (24.0%) of the city’sforeign born.
Nearly half (46.2%) of the foreign-born population came to the U.S. in 2000 or later. Asians came the
most recently, with 55.4% arriving in 2000 or later (Table 23). A little less than half of the population
from Mexico and other Latin American countries came during that period. Europeans have been in this
country the longest, nearly one-quarter (23.4%) arriving prior to 1980.
Linguistic isolation, defined as speaking a language other than English at home combined with
speaking English less than “very well”, can be a serious impediment to daily living and economic
sustainability, making it difficult to find housing, shopfor food and other necessities, and get a job. One
in 7 Boulder residents aged 5 and over were linguistically isolated, and one-third of those whose
household language was not English were linguistically isolated (Table 24). One in 5 households where
a language other than English was spoken had no one aged 14 or over who spoke only English or
spoke English “very well” (Table 25). In other words, those households had no one in the home who
could help other household members navigate in an English-speaking community.
The Spanish-speaking population was the most linguistically isolated. Nearly half (43.9%) of those
living in Spanish-speaking homes were linguistically isolated, and more than one-quarter(26.9%)of
Spanish-speaking homes had no one aged 14 or over who spoke only English or spoke English “very
well” (Tables 24 and 25).These rates were substantially higher than for any other non-English
household language.
Children were less likely to be linguistically isolated than were adults –22.9% of those aged 5 to 17
compared to 35.5% of the 18-to-64age group (Table 24). But in both age groups, people in Spanish-
speaking households were the most likely to be linguistically isolated.
10
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Income and Poverty by HouseholdType
The majority (59.6%) of Boulder’s householdswere non-familyin 2010, either single individuals living
alone or two or more unrelated people living together, although most people livedin family households
(Tables 12 and26). More than a third (35.8%) of all households were occupied by people living alone
(Table 26). About 1 in 18 households were female-headed families with no husband present, and about
half that number were male-headed families with no wife present. Nearly 1 in 5(18.8%)households
includedchildren under the age of 18. Between 2000 and 2010, there was a slight shift toward
nonfamily households(from 57.6% to 59.6% of households).
There were dramatic differences in median income among different household types. Married-couple
families with children under age 18 had by far the highest median income –an average of $121,343
between 2006 and 2010 (in 2010 inflation-adjusted dollars) (Table 27). People living alone had the
lowest median income, $27,825, although some of those individuals were full-time students receiving
family support. Among families with children, female-headed families had the lowest income, $41,474,
a third as high as married-couple families with children. The median income among all households was
$51,779.
4
One in 10(11.3%) Boulder households were below poverty in 2006-10 (Table 28).Married-couple
families had the lowest poverty rate, 3.7%. In comparison, 1in 4 (24.9%) female-headed families with
children were at that income level and 43.6% were below 185% of poverty, the income threshold for the
School Lunch Program, WIC, and other benefits programs.
4
In an effort to lessen the effect of full-time students on household poverty rates, householders in non-family
households who were under the age of 25 were omitted from the analysis.
11
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Income Inequality
The Census Bureau providesestimates of household income inequalityusing the Gini index. The Gini
index measures the amount of dispersion in income. The index ranges from 0.0, when all households
have equal shares of income, to 1.0, when one household has all of the income and the other
households have no income; the higher the index value the greater the income inequality. Trends in
the Gini index show increasing income inequality in the U.S. beginning in 1981, particularly in the South
5
and in more populous counties.
Income inequality was consistently higher in the City of Boulder than in Boulder County between 2006
and 2010, although the differences were not statistically significant (Figure 1). In addition, inequality
increased both in Boulder and Boulder County after 2006, with the Gini index being higher every year
6
from 2007 to 2010 than in 2006.
The pattern of increased inequality after 2006 was more consistent in
the county than in the city. Year-to-year differences and differences between 2006 and 2010 were not
statistically significant in either Boulder or the county.However, the combined trends of increased
income inequality after 2006 and the decline in median income between 2005 and 2010 in households
where the householder was aged 45 or over suggest that Boulder is becoming an increasingly
have/not-not communitywith a shrinking middle.
5
Adam Bee, “Household Income Inequality Within U.S. Counties: 2006-2010,” American Community Survey
Briefs, Issued February 2012, U.S. Census Bureau; Daniel H. Weinberg, “U.S. Neighborhood Income Inequality in
the 2005-2009 Period,” American Community Survey Briefs, Issued October 2011, U.S. Census Bureau.
6
The earliest year for which a measure of income inequality for counties and cities was published by the Census
Bureau was 2006.
12
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Boulder’s Homeless Population
We have all seen homeless people in downtown Boulder and perhaps assumed that homelessness is
limited to only a few, predominantly men, who chose that lifestyle. However, when we examine the
available data, it becomes clear that Boulder’s homeless population is larger and more diverse than we
may have believed.
The information used to describe Boulder’s homeless population is primarily from the point-in-time (PIT)
survey conducted by the Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative (MDHI), a coalition working with
agencies serving the homeless in the seven-county Denver metro area.MDHI’s most recent PIT survey
7
was conducted on the night of January 23, 2012in the seven metro counties.
MDHI defines homelessness as:
Sleeping in places not meant for human habitation, such as cars, parks, sidewalks, or
abandoned or condemned buildings,
Sleeping in an emergency shelter,
Spending a short time (30 consecutive days or less) in a hospital or other institution, but
ordinarily sleeping in the types of places mentioned above,
Living in transitional or supportivehousing but having come from streets or emergency
shelters,
Staying temporarily with family or friends while looking for a permanent place to live,
Staying temporarily in a hotel/motel while looking for shelter or housing,
Being evicted within a week froma private dwelling unit and having no subsequent
residence identified and lacking the resources and support networks needed to obtain
access to housing, or
Being discharged from an institution within seven days and having no subsequent
residence identified and lacking the resources and support networks needed to obtain
8
access to housing.
Of the 1,970homeless people identified in Boulder County on the night of January 23, 2012, just under
4 in 10(38.1%) spent that night in Boulder, a total of 750individuals in 406households (Tables29 and
31). Over 40%(43.7%) of Boulder’s homeless people spent the night in an emergency shelter and
22.2% spent the night temporarily with family or friends (Table 30). Mostof the remaining third either
spent the night in transitional housing (11.7%) or were unsheltered (9.4%).
Almost two-thirds (63.8%)of survey respondents were men and 35.7% were women(Table 31). The
great majority (84.9%) of survey respondents were aged 25to 64, and most of the other respondents
were young adults aged 18 to 24(11.6%).
7
Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative, Homelessness in the Denver Metropolitan Area, 2012 Homeless Point-
In-Time Study,http://mdhi.org/downloads/.The PIT surveys are the most detailed, comprehensive data source
available on homelessness in the metro area. However, it should be noted that PIT data are not as accurate or
reliable as Census data because the PIT surveys dependon the willingness and capacity of agencies serving the
homeless to distribute and collect the questionnaires.The number and types of agencies agreeing to distribute
the questionnaires and the number of completed questionnaires they contribute may differ among counties, as do
the agencies within a county that participate in the PIT from year to year. Therefore, results should not be
compared among geographic areasor over time in the same area.This issue is discussed in more detail in:
Stephanie W. Greenberg, Poverty and Homelessness in Boulder County, Prepared for Boulder County
Community Services, October 31, 2011.
8
Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative, Homelessness in the Denver Metropolitan Area, 2012 Homeless Point-
In-Time Study, p. 2, http://mdhi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/2012-Point-in-Time-Report.pdf.
13
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
White non-Latinos were underrepresented in Boulder’s homeless population –61% of the homeless
compared to 83% of the general population(Figure 2). Latinos, African-Americans, Native Americans,
and those of two or more races were overrepresented in the homeless population, in particular Latinos,
who comprised 19% of the homeless population and 9% of the general population
Veterans were overrepresented in Boulder’s homeless population. Fourteenpercent of PIT survey
respondents were veterans compared to 4.7% of the general population aged 18 and over (Table 32).
By far, the most common reason for homelessness was job loss/can’t find work(32.3% of homeless
households),even though 40.0% of Boulder’s homeless households had at least one person who had
been employed in the past month(Table 33). Other frequentreasons for homelessness were high
housing costs (20.2% of homeless households), relationship or family breakup (17.2%), and mental
illness or emotional problems (14.5%). Mental illness was a common disability among Boulder’s
homeless, present in nearly1 in 4 (23.4%) homeless households (Table 34). Drug and alcohol abuse
and physical illness were also common problems, present in about 1 in 5 homeless households, and
were a cause of homelessness in about 1 in 10 homeless households.
More than one-quarter(27.3%) of homeless people in Boulder were newly homeless, which MDHI
defined as homeless for the first time and for less than a year (Table 35). More than half(53.0%) of
Boulder’s homeless households were not new to homelessness, having been without a permanent
place to live two or more times in the past three years (Table 36). Half as many homeless people,
13.6%, were chronically homeless as were newly homeless (Table 35). HUD defined chronic
homelessness as, “An unaccompanied homeless individual (18 or older) with a disabling condition ora
familywith at least one adult member (18 or older) who has a disabling condition who has either been
continuously homeless for a year or more OR has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the
9
past three years.”
Children are very much a part of homelessness in Boulder. More than half(51.7%) of homeless people
were in households with children under age 18 (Table 37). Almost 500 (479) children attending BVSD
schools located in the City of Boulder, 3.5% of the total enrollment in those schools, received services
through the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Act in the 2011-12 school year (Table
10
38).
McKinney-Vento is the primary piece of federal legislation that addresses the education of
homeless children in public schools, mandating that each state educational agency guarantee that all
homeless children have equal access to the same public education, including a public preschool
education, as provided to other children. Nearly half (47.9%) of the children served in McKinney-Vento
lived in doubled-up housing situations, 22.8% lived in shelters or transitional housing, 22.1% lived in
inadequate housing (defined as substandard in construction or lacking in basic facilities), 3.9% lived in
hotels or motels, and 3.3% were unsheltered (lived in cars, parks, or other places not meant for human
habitation) (Figure 3).
9
Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative, Homelessness in the Denver Metropolitan Area, 2012 Homeless Point-
In-Time Study, p. 15,http://mdhi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/2012-Point-in-Time-Report.pdf.
10
Thanks go to Mim Campos,Boulder Valley School DistrictAssistant Director of Language, Culture, and Equity,
for providing the McKinney-Vento data used in this report. Any errorsin reporting or interpretation are the author’s
responsibility.
14
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
People with Disabilities
This report uses the Census Bureau’s definition of disability: “limitations of activities and restrictions to
full participation at school, at work, at home, or in the community”. Census surveys ask aboutsix types
of disability:
Hearing
Vision (even with glasses)
Cognitive: concentrating, remembering, or making decisions
Ambulatory: walking or climbing stairs
Self-care: dressing or bathing
Independent living: doing errands alone
For children under 5 years old, difficulties with hearing orvision are used to determine disability status.
For children between the ages of 5 and 14, disability status is determined from hearing, vision,
cognitive, ambulatory, and self-care difficulties.People aged 15 years and older are considered to have
a disability if they have difficulty with any one of the six disabilitytypes.
A total of 7.3% of Boulder’s population had a disability (Table 39). With increasing age,there was a
dramatically increased likelihood of disability –from 2.7% of the population under age 18 to 55.0% of
the population aged 75 and over. Veterans were also more likely to have a disability –26.2% versus
7.3% of nonveteran adults (Table 41).
In the adult population, the most common disabilities were ambulatory, independent living, and
cognitive disabilities, each found among a little more than 4 in 10 adults with disabilities, followed by
hearing, found among 1 in 3 adults with disabilities, and vision and self-care, each found among 1 in 6
adults with disabilities (Figure 4).
Adults with disabilities were substantially less likely to work than were adults without disabilities, and as
a result,they earned less, were more likely to be poor, and inthe working-age population, were less
likely to have health insurance. Fewerthan 1 in 4 (22.3%) adults with disabilities aged 18 to 64 worked
full-time compared to more than a third (36.4%) of working-age adults with no disabilities, and one-third
of working-age adults with disabilities did not work at all compared to 12.3% of working-age adults with
no disabilities (Table 42). Among those with earned income in the past year, the median income was
almost twice as high for people without disabilities as for people with disabilities(Table 43).Consistent
with the findings on work and income, adults with disabilities were more likely to be in poverty than
11
were adults without disabilities –16.4% compared to 6.2% (Table 44).The difference in poverty rates
wasgreater in the working-age population(25.4% compared to 6.7%) than in the population aged 65
and above..
There were no differences in the percentages of people with and without disabilities who had health
insurance –about 90% of the total population and nearly all of those aged 65 and over (Table 45). The
only exception was the working-age population, in which 82.7% of those with disabilities had insurance
compared to 88.0% of those without disabilities. This difference is probably a reflection of the lower
work force participation of working-age adults with disabilities.
11
The adult population below age 35 was omitted from this analysis to lessen the effect of full-time students. That
was not possible for work experience and median earned income.
15
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Boulder’s LGBTQ Population
One percent, a total of 407 of the more than 41,000 households in Boulder,were made up of same-sex
partners in 2010, 13.2% of all unmarried-partner households (Table 46). There were more female with
female partner households than male with male partner households and the former were more likely to
have children living in the household. One percent, 131, of all children living in householdslived in
same-sex partner households, with four times as many children living with female same-sex partners as
with male same-sex partners (Table 47).
16
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Appendix 1: Tables and Figures
Age Groups
Table 1.Age composition of City of Boulder, 2000 and 2010, and Boulder County, 2010
Age groupsCity of Boulder,2000City of Boulder,2010Boulder County,2010
Under 5 years old4.1%4.1%5.6%
5-148.2%7.6%12.1%
15-172.5%2.2%3.6%
18-2425.9%29.1%14.2%
25-3419.5%16.0%13.4%
35-6432.0%32.1%41.1%
65-743.7%4.6%5.7%
75 and over4.1%4.3%4.4%
Median age(years)29.028.735.8
Total population94,67397,385294,567
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and 2010 Census, Table QT-P1.
Table 2. Living situation of children under 18 years old, City of Boulder, 2010
With
parents in With female With male
married-parent/no parent/no
With With other With In non-
couple husband wife
familypresent present grandparentrelativesnonrelativeshouseholdsTotal
74.9%15.2%5.7%1.8%1.1%1.0%0.3%13,527
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census,Tables QT-P2 andQT-P12.
Table 3. Geographical mobility in past year by agegroup,City of Boulderand Boulder County Total,2008-
10
Moved within Moved from
Same house 1 Boulder different county Moved from Moved from
Age groupsyear agoCountywithin Coloradodifferent state abroadTotal
1-17 years old86.2%6.8%0.9%4.2%1.8%12,781
18-2423.1%38.2%16.7%20.0%2.0%28,433
25-6477.9%11.3%3.6%5.2%1.9%46,434
65 and over90.8%3.8%0.8%4.5%0.2%8,920
TotalCity64.1%17.9%6.9%9.4%1.8%96,568
Boulder County76.9%12.3%4.6%5.3%0.9%290,023
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey, Table B07001.
Table 4.Housing tenure and household size by age group of householder, City of Boulderand Boulder
County Total, 2008-10
Owner-occupied, Owner-occupied, Renter-occupied, Renter-occupied,
1 person 2+ person 1 person 2+ person Total
Age groups*householdhouseholdhouseholdhouseholdhouseholders
15-54 years old9.0%29.4%21.7%39.8%29,757
55-6423.0%55.5%14.6%6.9%5,780
65-7424.6%58.1%12.5%4.8%2,468
75 and over25.1%32.5%32.2%10.2%2,662
Total13.0%35.1%20.8%31.1%40,667
* Age of householder.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey, Table B25116.
17
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Table 5. Educational attainmentby age group, population aged 25 and over, City of Boulderand Boulder
County Total,2008-10
% high school % bachelor’s degree or
Age groupsgraduate/GED or higherhigher
25-34 years old92.4%67.6%
35-4496.0%78.0%
45-6496.1%68.1%
65 and over95.0%64.6%
Total City population aged 25 and over94.9%69.7%
Boulder County population aged 25 and over93.7%57.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey, TableS1501.
Table 6. Median household income in past 12 months by age group of householder, City of Boulderand
Boulder County Total,2005 and 2010
Age groups*2005**2010% Change
Under 25 years old$14,209$14,9955.5%
25-44$52,679$69,20331.4%
45-64$85,944$79,862-7.1%
65 and over$62,160$54,245-12.7%
All City households$51,200$52,6182.8%
Boulder County households$64,000$61,859-3.3%
* Age of householder.
**In 2010 inflation-adjusted dollars.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 and 2010 American Community Survey, Table B19049.
Table 7. Population below 100% and 200% of poverty*by agegroup,City of Boulderand Boulder County
Total,2010
Age groups< 100% poverty<200% poverty
Under 18 years old15.4%34.7%
18-2457.2%82.0%
25-448.4%25.6%
45-6412.8%24.6%
65-741.4%11.9%
75 and over13.1%39.1%
21.1%39.3%
Total City** (11.0%)(27.4%)
14.7%29.4%
Boulder County **(10.8%)(24.3%)
* The Census Bureau defined the 2010 Poverty Threshold, for example,for a one-person household as $11,139 and for a
family of two adults and two children under age 18 as $22,113. The denominator used in the computation of poverty rates was
the population for whom poverty status was known, which is slightly smaller than the total population.
** Percentages in parentheses are poverty rates for the total population minus the 18-to-24 age group.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey, TablesB17024and C17002.
18
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Table 8. Health insurance coverage by age group, City of Boulder,and Boulder County Total, 2008-10
Age groups%with health insurance*
Under 6years old93.9%
6-1791.1%
18-2490.7%
25-4484.1%
45-6488.4%
65-7499.0%
75 and over99.6%
Total City 89.4%
Boulder County 88.0%
* Includes both private and government-funded health insurance.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey, Table B27001.
19
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Race and Ethnicity
Table 9.Race/ethnic composition of City of Boulder, 2000 and 2010, and Boulder County, 2010
Race/ethnic groupCity of Boulder, 2000*City of Boulder, 2010*Boulder County, 2010*
White88.3%88.0%87.2%
White non-Latino(84.2%)*(83.0%)*(79.4%)*
Black/African American1.2%0.9%0.9%
American Indian/Alaska
Native0.5%0.4%0.6%
Asian4.0%4.7%4.1%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander0.1%0.1%0.1%
Other race3.5%3.2%4.5%
Two or more races2.4%2.6%2.7%
Latino8.2%8.7%13.3%
Mexican (5.9%)(6.1%)(10.3%)
Other(2.3%)(2.7%)(3.0%)
Total population94,67397,385294,567
* All percentages were computed usingthe total population as the denominator.Percentages in parentheses were sub-groups.
Percentages of race groups (not Latino origin) not in parentheses sum to 100%.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000and2010 Census, Table DP-1.
Table 10. Race/ethnicity of native and foreign-born population, City of Boulder, 2006-10
Where bornWhite Non-LatinoLatino (any race)Total population
% native born94.8%62.9%88.9%
% foreign born5.2%37.0%11.0%
% of total foreign born39.3%28.3%100.0%
Total81,0378,24997,050
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey, Table S0501.
Table 11. Age composition by race/ethnicity, City of Boulder, 2008-10
Age groupsWhite Non-LatinoLatino (any race)
Under 5 years old3.0%13.7%
5-178.5%15.8%
18-2429.8%23.3%
25-6448.2%45.0%
65 and over10.5%2.1%
Total population80,7129,091
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey, Tables B01001H and B01001I.
Table 12. Living situation of population in households* by race/ethnicity, City of Boulder, 2008-10
Household typeWhite Non-LatinoLatino (any race)
In married-couple family 45.0%50.9%
In female householder/no husband present
family6.0%14.6%
In male householder/no wife present family4.1%5.0%
In nonfamily household44.9%29.5%
Total population72,9487,813
* Does not include population in group quarters.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey, Tables B11002H and B11002I.
20
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Table 13. Living situation of children under 18 years old by race/ethnicity, City of Boulder, 2010
With
parents With
With male
in female
With
married-parent/no parent/no
Race/ethnic With With In group
couple husband wife other
groupfamilypresent present grandparentrelativesnonrelativesquarters*Total
White Non-
Latino77.4%13.8%5.9%1.3%0.4%0.9%0.3%9,588
Latino(any
race)65.8%19.4%5.1%4.2%3.8%1.1%0.5%2,506
* Either institutional or non-institutional group quarters.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, Tables P31H and P31I.
Table 14.Presence of children in families by race/ethnicity, City of Boulder, 2010
White Non-LatinoLatino (any race)
% % with % with
w/children % w/children children children
Family typeunder age 18under age 6under age18under age 6
Married-couple family 40.0%18.5%73.1%46.4%
Female householder/no husband present family58.4%14.2%71.4%29.6%
Male householder/no wife present family46.9%12.6%44.9%28.2%
All families42.8%17.6%69.6%40.8%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, Tables P38H and P38I.
Table 15. Percentage of population aged 65 years old and over livingaloneby race/ethnicity, City of
Boulder, 2010
Race/ethnic group%
White Non-Latino34.3%
Latino (any race)27.1%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, Tables 34H and 34I.
Table 16. Geographical mobility in past year by race/ethnicity, City of Boulder, 2008-10
Moved within Moved from
Race/ethnic Same house 1 Boulder different county Moved from Moved from
groupyear agoCountywithin Coloradodifferent stateabroadTotal
White Non-Latino64.5%17.9%6.3%9.9%1.4%80,099
Latino (any race)69.7%14.4%8.5%6.4%1.0%8,852
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey, Table S0701.
Table 17. Educational attainmentof population aged 25 and overby race/ethnicity, City of Boulder, 2008-
10
% high school % bachelor’s degree or
Race/ethnic groupgraduate/GED or higherhigher
White Non-Latino98.4%73.4%
Latino (any race)55.7%25.5%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey, Tables C15002H and C15002I.
21
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Table 18. Employment statusof population aged 16 to 64 by race/ethnicity, City of Boulder, 2008-10
In civilian labor force*
Total in civilian Not in labor
Race/ethnic groupEmployedUnemployedlabor force*force**
White Non-Latino92.4%7.6%46,33525.5%
Latino (any race)89.4%10.6%4,27435.1%
*Does not includepopulation in Armed Forces.
** Labor force includes both civilians and population in Armed Forces.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey, Tables C23002H and C23002I.
Table 19. Median familyincome in past 12 months by race/ethnicity, City of Boulder, 2008-10
Race/ethnic groupMedian familyincome*
White Non-Latino$103,731
Latino (any race)$29,393
*In 2010 inflation-adjusted dollars.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey, Tables B19113H and B19113I.
Table 20. 2011ColoradoSelf-Sufficiency Standard*for Boulder County and 2011Federal Poverty
Guidelines** by Household Size
Household size
OneTwoThreeFour
Self-Sufficiency Adult +
Standards, Preschooler:
Boulder County$24,527$50,483$43,416-$67,500$67,924-$89,474
Federal Poverty
Guidelines$10,890$14,710$18,530$22,350
* The Colorado Self-Sufficiency Standard is a measure of the income needed for families to meet basic needs without public or
private assistance. The income needed for self-sufficiency is dependent on the number of adults and the number and ages of
children in the household.For families of three or four,the incomes needed for self-sufficiency are presented as ranges for
selected family types and do not represent all family types. The self-sufficiency income for a two-person family is currently
available for only one family type.
** The Federal Poverty Guidelines are computed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to determine income
eligibility for programs such as Head Start, Food Stamps, the School Lunch Program, etc. The Poverty Thresholds,computed
by the Census Bureau, are similar to but not the same as the Poverty Guidelines and are used for purposes of statistical
classification of individuals and families.
The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Colorado 2011
Sources:Diana M. Pearce, Ph.D. ,prepared for the Colorado Center on Law
and Policy, October 2011; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2011 HHS Poverty Guidelines,
hhs.gov/poverty/10Poverty.shtml.
Table 21. Families below 100% of poverty* by race/ethnicity, City of Boulder, 2008-10
Race/ethnic group% of each group% of all families in poverty
White Non-Latino5.4%60.5%
Latino (any race)28.3%32.8%
* The Census Bureau defined the 2010 Poverty Threshold, for example, for a family of one adultand one childas $15,030,
and for a family of two adults and two children under age 18 as $22,113. The denominator used in the computation of poverty
rates was the population for whom poverty status was known, which is slightly smaller than the total population.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey, Table S1702.
22
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Table 22.Percentage of population with health insurance coverage by race/ethnicity and age group, City
of Boulder, 2008-10
Age groupsWhite Non-LatinoLatino (any race)
Under 6 years old97.9%84.5%
6-1796.1%62.6%
18-2492.2%74.8%
25-6490.0%46.8%
65 and over99.8%90.9%
Total92.4%62.6%
* Includes both private and government-funded health insurance.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey, TablesB27001H and B27001I.
23
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Foreign Birth and Linguistic Isolation
Table 23. Year of entry into U.S. of foreign-born populationby place of birth, City of Boulder, 2006-10
Year of entry into U.S.
Place of birth2000 or later1990-991980-89Before 1980Total
Europe37.5%28.9%10.1%23.4%3,153
Asia55.4%22.7%13.9%8.0%3,515
Mexico48.1%39.8%7.5%4.6%2,590
Other Latin America45.6%28.1%13.1%13.2%643
Other areas34.2%31.0%10.5%24.4%869
Allforeign born46.2%29.6%10.9%13.3%10,770
% of total Boulder population11.1%
* Does not include the native population born outside of the U.S.
Sources:U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey, TablesB05005and B05007.
Table 24.Among those who speak language other than English at home*Percentage who speak English
less than “very well” by language and age group, population aged 5 years and over, City of Boulder,
2006-10
Household languageofthose who
speak English less than “very well”Age 5-17Age 18-64Total**
Spanish30.0%48.0%43.9%
Other Indo-European languages8.6%19.1%19.8%
Asian/Pacific Island languages17.2%37.5%34.0%
Other languages0.0%6.9%5.5%
Total who speak English less than
“very well”22.9%35.5%33.4%
% of total Boulder populationaged 5 and over14.3%
* Includes both native born and foreign bornpopulation.
** Includes population aged 65 and over.That age group was not presented separately because of small sample sizes.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey, TablesB16004 and B16005.
Table 25: Among households where language other than English is spoken: Percentage where no one
aged 14 and over speaks English only or speaks English “very well” by household language, City of
Boulder, 2006-10
Household language in households were no one age 14 and over
speaks English only or speaks English “very well”%
Spanish26.9%
Other Indo-European languages14.0%
Asian/Pacific Island languages18.3%
Other languages4.4%
Total households: household language other than English + no one
aged14 and over speaks English only or speaks English “very well”20.2%
% of total Boulder households3.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey, TableB16002.
24
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Income and Povertyby Household Type
Table 26. Household types in City of Boulder, 2000 and 2010
Household type2000*2010*
Married-couple family 33.3%32.2%
With children < 18 years(14.8%)(14.0%)
Female householder/no husband present family6.5%5.5%
With children < 18 years(4.5%)(3.5%)
Male householder/no wife present family2.7%2.7%
With children < 18 years(1.3%)(1.3%)
Nonfamily household57.6%59.6%
Living alone(33.7%)(35.8%)
Total households39,59641,302
* All percentages were computed using total households as the denominator. Percentages in parentheses were sub-groups.
Percentages not in parentheses sum to 100%.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 and2010 Census, Table QT-P11.
Table 27. Median household income in past 12 months by household type, City of Boulder, 2006-10
Household type$*
Married-couple family $107,910
With children < 18 years$121,343
Female householder/no husband present family$45,326
With children < 18 years$41,474
Male householder/no wife present family$40,000
With children < 18 years$48,864
Nonfamily household$32,045
Living alone$27,825**
Total households$51,779
* In 2010 inflation-adjusted dollars.
**Median income=weighted meanof median incomes of male and female householders living alone in nonfamily households.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey, Tables S0901 andS1903.
Table 28. Households below 100% and 185%of poverty* by household type, City of Boulder, 2006-10
Household type< 100% of poverty<185% of poverty
Married-couple family 3.7%9.2%
With children < 18 years7.0%15.1%
Female householder/no husband present family21.6%36.0%
With children < 18 years24.9%43.6%
Male householder/no wife present family15.7%36.9%
With children < 18 years****
Nonfamily household(only householders aged 25
and over)15.9%Not available
Total households***11.3%Not available
* The Census Bureau defined the 2010 Poverty Threshold, for example,for afamily of one adultand one childas $15,030 and
for a family of two adults and two children under age 18 as $22,113. The denominator used in the computation of poverty rates
were householdsfor whom poverty status was known, which is slightly smaller than all households.
** Margin of error was too highto yield a reliable estimate.
*** Householders in non-family households who were under age 25 were omitted.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau,2008-2010 American Community Survey, Tables B17010, B17017, B17022, S1702.
25
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Income Inequality
Figure 1. Income inequality* in City of Boulder and Boulder County, 2006-10
0.580
0.559
0.557
0.550
0.560
0.545
0.540
0.522
0.520
0.493
City of Boulder
0.500
0.483
0.478
0.477
Boulder County
0.470
0.480
0.460
0.440
0.420
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
* The Gini index of household income inequality ranges from 0.0, when all households
have equal shares of income, to 1.0, when one household has all of the income and the
other households have no income.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009,
and2010, Table B19083.
26
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Homelessness
Table 29.Boulder County city/town where homeless population spent night of January 23, 2012
City/townwhere spent night of % of total homeless population in
survey# of homelessBoulder County
Boulder75038.1%
Longmont88344.8%
Otherplace in Boulder County33717.1%
Total1,970100.0%
Homelessness in the Denver Metropolitan Area, 2012Homeless Point-In-
Sources:Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative,
Time Study,
Reports for Boulder County, City of Boulder, and City of Longmont, http://mdhi.org/downloads/.
Table 30. Type of placewhere City of Boulder’s homeless population spent night of January 23, 2012
Where spent night of survey%
Emergency shelter43.7%
Temporarily with family or friends22.2%
Transitional housing11.7%
On the street, under a bridge, abandoned building, car, etc.9.4%
Own apartment or house4.7%
Domestic violence shelter3.1%
Hotel, motel paid for by self0.5%
Hotel, motel paid for by others, vouchers0.1%
Other4.6%
Total750
Homelessness in the Denver Metropolitan Area, 2012Homeless Point-In-
Source: Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative,
Time StudyCity of Boulder
-, http://mdhi.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2012-Point-in-Time-Report-City-of-Boulder-pdf.
Table 31. Age group and gender of City of Boulder homeless survey respondents
Respondent’s age group%
13-17 years old1.2%
18-2411.6%
25-6484.9%
65 and over2.2%
Respondent’s gender%
Male63.8%
Female35.7%
Transgender0.5%
# of respondents406
Homelessness in the Denver Metropolitan Area, 2012Homeless Point-In-
Source: Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative,
Time StudyCity of Boulder
-,http://mdhi.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2012-Point-in-Time-Report-City-of-Boulder-pdf.
27
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Figure 2.Race/ethnic composition of City of Boulder homeless survey respondents compared to general
population
100%
83%
80%
61%
60%
MDHI Survey
40%
Census
19%
20%
9%
7%
5% 5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
0%
Asian/Pacific Black Native Two+ races Non-Latino Latino
Islander American White
Homelessness in the Denver Metropolitan Area, 2012Homeless Point-In-
Sources:Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative,
Time StudyCity of Boulder
-,http://mdhi.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2012-Point-in-Time-Report-City-of-Boulder-pdf;U.S.
Census Bureau, 2010 Census, Table DP-1.
Table 32. Veteran status of City of Boulder homeless survey respondents compared to general
population aged 18 years old and over
%veterans
Homeless MDHI survey respondents14.3%
General population aged 18 years old and over4.7%
Homelessness in the Denver Metropolitan Area, 2012Homeless Point-In-
Sources:Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative,
Time StudyCity of Boulder
-, http://mdhi.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2012-Point-in-Time-Report-City-of-Boulder-pdf;U.S.
Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey, Table S2101.
Table 33. Why household became homeless and percent of households with anyone who had worked in
past month, City of Boulder(as reported by respondent)
Why did your household become homeless this time?%
Lostjob/can’t find work32.3%
Housing costs too high20.2%
Relationship or family break-up/death in family17.2%
Mental illness/emotional problems14.5%
Have work but wages too low11.6%
Medical problems including physical or developmental disability11.1%
Alcohol or drug abuse problems10.6%
Eviction/foreclosure9.9%
Abuse or violence in your home7.6%
Discharged from jail, prison, or halfway house7.4%
Utility costs too high4.9%
Runaway/throwaway/discharged from foster care0.7%
Sexual orientation0.5%
Other reason17.0%
Anyone in household received money from working in past month?40.0%
# of respondents406
Homelessness in the Denver Metropolitan Area, 2012Homeless Point-In-
Source: Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative,
Time StudyCity of Boulder
-, http://mdhi.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2012-Point-in-Time-Report-City-of-Boulder-pdf.
28
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Table 34. Disabling conditions among one or more adults aged 18 or over in homeless households, City
of Boulder (as reported by respondent)*
Disabling condition%
Serious mental illness23.4%
Serious medical or physical condition22.7%
Alcohol or drug abuse20.2%
Developmental disability3.7%
HIV-AIDS2.7%
Other5.9%
# of respondents406
*One or more than one adult in the household with the same disabling condition counted as a frequency of one for that
condition.
Homelessness in the Denver Metropolitan Area, 2012Homeless Point-In-
Source: Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative,
Time StudyCity of Boulder
-, http://mdhi.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2012-Point-in-Time-Report-City-of-Boulder-pdf.
Table 35. Newly homeless and chronically homeless,total homeless population, City of Boulder
% of total homeless population who were newly homeless*27.3%
% of total homeless population who were chronically homeless**13.6%
Total homeless750
* “Newly homeless” was defined by MDHI as homeless for less than one year and that was the first episode of homelessness.
Homelessness in the Denver Metropolitan Area,2012 Homeless Point-in-Time
(Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative,
Study
, p. 19,http://mdhi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/2012-Point-in-Time-Report.pdf.)
**“Chronic homelessness” was defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) as: “An
unaccompanied homeless individual (18 or older) with a disabling condition or a family with at least one adult member (18 or
older) who has a disabling condition who has either been continuously homeless for a year or more OR has had at least four
episodes of homelessness in the past three years.” HUD defined a disabling condition as “a diagnosable substance abuse
disorder, serious mental illness, developmental disability or chronic physical illness or disability.” A disabling condition limits an
individual’s ability to work or perform activities of daily living. Homelessness was defined as, “sleeping in a place not meant for
human habitation and/or in an emergency homeless shelter”. The 2011 point-in-time survey was the first time that HUD
included families in its definition of chronic homelessness. In previous years, chronic homelessness included only
unaccompanied single adults aged 18 or over. The criteria for chronic homelessness excluded youth under age 18 who
Homelessness in the Denver Metropolitan Area,2012
otherwise met those criteria. (Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative,
Homeless Point-In-Time Study,
p. 15, http://mdhi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/2012-Point-in-Time-Report.pdf.)
Homelessness in the Denver Metropolitan Area, 2012Homeless Point-In-
Source: Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative,
Time StudyCity of Boulder
-, http://mdhi.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2012-Point-in-Time-Report-City-of-Boulder-pdf.
Table 36. Number of times household was without a permanent place to live, past three years including
now, City of Boulder(as reported by respondent)
# times homeless in past 3 years, including now*%
One46.9%
Two20.5%
Three15.4%
Four or more17.1%
# of respondents406
*Respondents who indicated they were not homeless were omitted.
Homelessness in the Denver Metropolitan Area, 2012Homeless Point-In-
Source: Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative,
Time StudyCity of Boulder
-, http://mdhi.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2012-Point-in-Time-Report-City-of-Boulder-pdf.
29
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Table 37. Household type, total homeless population, City of Boulder
Household type%
Single individual36.7%
Single parent with children <18 25.3%
Couple with children <18 26.4%
Couple with no children <18 11.6%
Total homeless750
Homelessness in the Denver Metropolitan Area, 2012Homeless Point-In-
Source: Metropolitan Denver Homeless Initiative,
Time StudyCity of Boulder
-, http://mdhi.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2012-Point-in-Time-Report-City-of-Boulder-pdf.
Table 38. Number and percentage of students served by McKinney-Vento Programby school level, BVSD
schools located in City of Boulder, 2011-12 school year
% of enrolled
students
# served by Total #
served by
McKinney-enrolled McKinney-
VentostudentsVento
th
PreK-5grade2086,303*3.3%
thth
6-12grade2717,4233.7%
Total47913,7263.5%
* Includes Horizons K-8charter school.
Sources: Boulder Valley School District, McKinney-Vento Homeless Education AssistanceProgram; Boulder Valley School
District, 2011-2012 Special Programs by Locationreport.
Figure 3.Primary nighttime residence of students served in McKinney-
Vento Program, BVSD schoolslocatedin City of Boulder, 2011-12 school
year
0.6
47.9%
0.5
0.4
0.3
22.8%
22.1%
0.2
0.1
3.9%
3.3%
0
Doubled up Shelters, Inadequate Hotels/motels Unsheltered
transitional housing
housing
Source: Boulder Valley School District, McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance
Program.
30
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
People with Disabilities
Table 39.People with disabilitiesby age group, City of Boulder,2008-10
Age groups% with one or more disabilities
Under 18 years old2.7%
18-644.8%
65-7418.0%
75 and over55.0%
Total7.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey, Table B18101.
Table40.People with disabilitiesby race/ethnicity, City of Boulder, 2008-10
Race/ethnic group% with one or more disabilities
White Non-Latino7.9%
Latino (any race)5.3%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey, TablesB18101H and B18101I.
Figure 4. Types of disabilities among all people aged 18 years old and over
with one or more disability, City of Boulder, 2008-10*
50.0%
43.7%
41.3%
40.1%
40.0%
32.5%
30.0%
18.1%
16.4%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
* Percentages add to more than 100% because individuals can have more than one
disability.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey, Table B18131.
Table 41. Veteran status of population with disabilities aged 18 years old and over, City of Boulder, 2008-
10
Veteran status%with one or more disabilities
Veterans26.2%
Nonveterans7.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey, Table S2101.
31
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Table 42.Work experience by disability status, population aged 18 to 64 yearsold, City of Boulder, 2008-
10
Work experience% with one or more disabilities% with no disability
Worked full-time year round22.3%36.4%
Worked less than full-time year round44.9%51.3%
Did not work32.8%12.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010American Community Survey, Table B18121.
Table 43. Median individual earnings in past 12 months by disability status, population aged 16 years old
and over,* City of Boulder, 2008-10
Disability statusMedian earnings**
With a disability$11,078
No disability$20,625
* Population aged 16 years old and over with earnings in past 12 months.
** In 2010 inflation-adjusted dollars.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey, Table B18140.
Table 44. Population aged 35years old and over below poverty*by disability statusand age group, City of
Boulder, 2008-10
% below poverty with one or % below poverty with no
Age groupmore disabilitiesdisability
35-64 years old 25.4%6.7%
65 and over10.8%3.6%
Total aged 35 and over16.4%6.2%
*The Census Bureau defined the 2010 Poverty Threshold, for example,for a one-person household as $11,139 and for a
family of two adults and two children under age 18 as $22,113. The denominator used in the computation of poverty rates was
the population for whom poverty status was known, which is slightly smaller than the total population.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey, Table B18130.
Table 45.Health insurance coverage by disability status age group, City of Boulder, 2008-10
% w/health insurance with one % w/health insurance with
Age groupor more disabilitiesno disability
Under 18 years old94.1%92.0%
18-6482.7%88.0%
65 and over98.9%99.6%
Total90.4%89.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2008-2010 American Community Survey, Table B18135.
32
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Boulder’s LGBTQ Population
Table 46. Same-sex partner households and presence of children under age 18, 2010
% of all unmarried partner
Household typehouseholds*% of all households*
Male householder/male partner 4.8%0.4%
With children < 18 years(0.6%)(< 0.1%)
Female householder/ female partner8.4%0.6%
With children < 18 years(2.0%)(0.2%)
All same-sex partner households13.2%1.0%
With children < 18 years(2.6%)(0.2%)
Total households3,07941,302
* All percentages were computed using households as the denominator. Percentages in parentheses were sub-groups.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, Table PCT15.
Table47. Presence of children under age 18 in same-sex partner households, 2010
% of all children under 18 years in
Household typehouseholds*
In male householder/male partner household0.2%
In female householder/ female partnerhousehold0.8%
In all same-sex partner households1.0%
Total population < 18 in households13,470
* Excludes under-18 population that are householders, spouses, and unmarried partners.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census, Table PCT17.
33
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Appendix 2: Description of U.S. Census Bureau Data Sources and
Definitions of Census Terms Used in This Report
The Decennial Census
The decennial census provides the official counts every 10 years of the population and housing units
for the nation, states, counties,cities, and towns.It is based on efforts to achieve a100% count, not a
sample.
12
American Community Survey
The American Community Survey (ACS) is an annual nationwide survey of demographic, social,
economic, and housing data. It has an annual sample size of about 3 million housing-unit addresses
across the U.S. Since the 2005 ACS, annual estimates have been available for all geographic areas
with populations of 65,000 or more. Starting with 2005-2007, 3-year estimates have been available for
geographic areas with populations of 20,000 or more, and with 2005-09, 5-year estimates have been
available for all geographic areas. The purpose of providing multi-year estimates is to reduce sampling
error, especially in less populous geographic areas. Since 2006, the ACS has included group quarters.
13
Definitions of Census Terms Used in this Report
Ability to speak English
Respondents who reported speaking a language other than English were asked to indicate their
English-speaking ability based on one of the following categories: “Very well,” “Well,” “Not well,” or “Not
at all.” Those who answered “Well,” “Not well,” or “Not at all” are sometimes referred as "Less than 'very
well.'" Respondents were not instructed on how to interpret the response categories inthis question.
Disability status
Disability is defined as limitations of activities and restrictions to full participation at school, at work, at
home, or in the community. Six types: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty
(concentrating, remembering, or making decisions), ambulatory difficulty (walking or climbing stairs),
self-care difficulty (dressing or bathing), and independent living difficulty (doing errands alone such as
visiting a doctor’s office or shopping). For children under 5 years old, hearing and vision difficulty are
used to determine disability status. For children between the ages of 5 and 14, disability status is
determined from hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, and self-care difficulties. For people aged 15
years and older, they are considered to have a disability if they have difficulty with any one of the six
difficulty types. The universe is the civilian, noninstitutionalized population.
Family type
A family consists of a householder and one or more otherpeople living in the same household who are
related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption. All people in a household who are related to
the householder are regarded as members of his or her family. A family household may contain people
not related to the householder, but those people are not included as part of the householder’s family in
tabulations. Thus, the number of family households is equal to the number of families, but family
households may include more members than do families. A household can contain only one family for
purposes of tabulations. Family households and married-couple families do not include same-sex
married couples even if the marriage was performed in a state issuing marriage certificates for same-
12
From U.S. Census Bureau, “American Community Survey”,
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/methodology/methodology_main/.
13
These and the definitions of other 2010 ACS terms can be found at:
www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/SubjectDefinitions/2010_ACSSubjectDefinitions.pdf.
34
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
sex couples. Same sexcouple households are included in the family households category if there is at
least one additional person related to the householder by birth or adoption.
Not all households contain families since a household may be comprised of a group of unrelated people
or of one person living alone—these are called “nonfamily households.”
Foreign-born population
The foreign-born population includes anyone who was not a U.S. citizen or a U.S. national at birth. This
includes respondents who indicated they were a U.S. citizen by naturalization or not a U.S. citizen.
Group quarters
Group Quarters (GQs) are places where people live or stay, in a group living arrangement that is
owned or managed by an entity or organization providing housing and/or services for the residents.
These services may include custodial or medical care, as well as other types of assistance, and
residency is commonly restricted to those receiving these services. People living in GQs usually are not
related to each other. GQs include such places as college residence halls, residential treatment
centers, skilled nursing facilities, group homes, military barracks, correctional facilities, workers’
dormitories, and facilities for people experiencing homelessness.
Household
A household includes all the people who occupy a housing unit. (People not living in households are
classified as living in group quarters.) A housing unit is a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group
of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intended for occupancy) as separate living
quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live separately from any other
people in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or through a
common hall. The occupantsmay be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families
living together, or any other group of related or unrelated people who share living arrangements. In the
2010 Census data products, the count of households or householders equals the count of occupied
housing units.
Householder
One person in each household is designated as the householder. In most cases, this is the person, or
one of the people, in whose name the home is owned, being bought, or rented and who is listed on line
one of the survey questionnaire. If there is no such person in the household, any adult household
member 15 years old and over could be designated as the householder.
Income in the past 12 months
The data on income were derived from questionsasked of the population 15 years old and over. “Total
income” is the sum of the amounts reported separately for wage or salary income; net self-employment
income; interest, dividends, or net rental or royalty income or income from estates and trusts; Social
Security or Railroad Retirement income; Supplemental Security Income (SSI); public assistance or
welfare payments; retirement, survivor, or disability pensions; and all other income.
Receipts from the following sources are not included as income: capital gains, money received from the
sale of property (unless the recipient was engaged in the business of selling such property); the value
of income “in kind” from food stamps, public housing subsidies, medical care, employer contributions
for individuals, etc.; withdrawalof bank deposits; money borrowed; tax refunds; exchange of money
between relatives living in the same household; gifts and lump-sum inheritances, insurance payments,
and other types of lump-sum receipts.
35
What Does Diversity Look Like in the City of Boulder?
Native population
The native population includes anyone who was a U.S. citizen or a U.S. national at birth. This includes
respondents who indicated they were born in the United States, Puerto Rico, a U.S. Island Area (such
as Guam), or abroad of American (U.S. citizen) parent or parents.
Poverty Status
To determine a person's poverty status, one compares the person’s total family income in the last 12
months with the poverty threshold appropriate for that person's family size and composition. If the total
income of that person's family is less than the threshold appropriate for that family, then the person is
considered “below the poverty level,” together with every member of his or her family. If a person is not
living with anyone related by birth, marriage, or adoption, then the person's own income is compared
with his or her poverty threshold. The total number of people below the poverty level is the sum of
people in families and the number of unrelated individuals with incomes in the last 12 months below the
poverty threshold. The poverty thresholdsvary depending upon three criteria: size of family, number of
children, and, for one-and two-person families, age of the householder (under 65 years old and 65
years old and over).
Unemployed
All civilians 16 years old and over are classified as unemployed if they (1) were neither “at work” nor
“with a job but not at work” during the reference week, and (2) were actively looking for work during the
last 4 weeks, and (3) were available to start a job. Also included as unemployed are civilians who did
not work at all during the reference week, were waiting to be called back to a job from which they had
been laid off, and were available for work except for temporary illness.
36