Human Services Strategy 2017-2022Mapping
Our
Future
2017 – 2022
CITY COUNCIL
Suzanne Jones, Mayor
Andrew Shoemaker, Mayor Pro Tem
Matt Appelbaum
Aaron Brockett
Jan Burton
Lisa Morzel
Sam Weaver
Bob Yates
Mary Young
CITY OF BOULDER STAFF
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Tanya Ange, Deputy City Manager
Mary Ann Weideman, Deputy City Manager
Linda P. Cooke, Municipal Judge
Tom Carr, City Attorney
Jeff Arthur, Public Works for Utilities Director
Heather Bailey, Energy Strategy & Electric Utility Development ExeC. Director
Lynnette Beck, City Clerk
Yvette Bowden, Parks & Recreation Director
Michael Calderazzo, Fire Chief
James Cho, Municipal Court Administrator
Kady Doelling, Executive Budget Director
Bob Eichem, Chief Financial Advisor
David Farnan, Library & Arts Director
Michael Gardner-Sweeney, Director of Public Works for Transportation
Don Ingle, Chief Information Officer
Joyce Lira, Human Resources Director
Cheryl Pattelli, Chief Financial Officer
Karen Rahn, Human Services Director
Mauren Rait, Public Works Executive Director
Greg Testa, Police Chief
Patrick von Keyserling, Communications Director
Tracy Winfree, Open Space & Mountain Parks Director
Molly Winter, Community Vitality Executive Director
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION
Emilia Pollauf, Chairperson
Nikhil Mankekar, Deputy Chairperson
Josè Beteta
Art Figel
Lauren Gifford
COMMUNITY PARTNERS &
RESIDENTS
The city would like to thank
the more than 2,000
community members and
70 community organizations
that participated in the
development of the Human
Services Strategy. Fulfilling the
vision of human services for the
community requires significant
partnerships, participation and
expertise from the community.
CONSULTANTS
BBC Research and Consulting
Civic Canopy
Novak Consulting Group
One K Creative
Recommended by Human
Relations Commission on
May 22, 2017
Accepted by City Council on
July 18, 2017.
Homelessness Strategy
accepted by City Council on
June 20, 2017
HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Karen Rahn, Director
Betty Kilsdonk, Deputy Director
Carmen Atilano, Community Relations Manager
Tony Barkey, Project Manager
Allison Bayley, Youth Opportunity Program Coordinator
Clay Fong, Community Mediation Services Manager
Eitan Kantor, Project Manager
Barbara Long, Financial Manager
Eden Mayne, Senior Services Manager
Wanda Pelegrina-Caldas, Family Services Manager
Lindsay Parsons, Planner
Patrick Mulcrone, Project Manager Information Resources
Wendy Schwartz, Planning & Program Development Manager
Matt Sundeen, Strategic Initiatives Manager
YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES ADVISORY BOARD
Adela Aguirre Padron
Flor Arellano Martinez
Nicolas Bell
Austin Dahl
Mark Garcia
Foster Greer
Melina Iatridis
Lluvia Macias
Eva Sofia Martinex
Aisen Ngo
Evie Mathis
Cole Schoenberg
Jason Segovia-Garza
Angela Zhou
SENIOR COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Diane Curlette
Beth Gaffney
Mary Jo Manydeeds
William Marine
Minda Papson
Howard Sargent
Madelyn Wynne
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Message From The City Manager
The 2017 Human Services Strategy is the final product
developed through a comprehensive community effort
to reflect the current priorities and focus for the city’s
human services and initiatives. We are truly grateful
to the many Boulder residents and agencies who
contributed to this substantial endeavor. Through more
than 40 community engagement activities, over 2000
Boulder residents and community stakeholders voiced
their opinions about some of the city’s most urgent
challenges and identified opportunities to provide
solutions that continue to build a better community for
all residents. We endeavored to make sure the Strategy
genuinely reflects their thoughtful ideas and input and
believe we have captured the community’s highest
priorities and its passion for this important work in the
Strategy.
This document provides a five-year roadmap to address
six top human services goal areas: Aging Well, A Good
Start, Economic Mobility and Resilience, Health and
Well-being, Homelessness and Inclusive and Welcoming
Community. For each goal area, the Strategy details the
challenges confronting our community and identifies
long-term goals. It also identifies specific strategies
for the city through its role as a funder, direct service
provider and community partner, while prioritizing future
city human services investments.
We intend that the Strategy will be a useful tool that
reflects our shared community values and helps the city
achieve its goal to create a healthy, socially thriving, and
inclusive community by providing and supporting human
services to Boulder residents in need.
Sincerely,
Jane Brautigam, City Manager
Table of
Contents
Introduction
Human Services Legacy & Purpose
Roles in Community
Strategy Development
Guiding Frameworks & Principles
Community Changes & Challenges
Community Priorities
Goals & Priorities
Guiding Documents
Aligning Community Investments
Financial Framework
Strategy Implementation
Metrics & Evaluation
APPENDICES
Planning Process Timeline
Phase One Research Report
Phase Two Community Engagement
BBC Community Engagement Report
Facility Recommendation
Community Funding Report
Direct Services Assessment
Guiding Principles & Documents
Community Perception Report
Fee Study
City of Boulder Homelessness Strategy
City Ordinances
6
7
10
10
11
14
16
19
26
30
38
40
40
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
6
Boulder has a global reputation as an innovative
and socially progressive community that blends
entrepreneurship, education, arts, culture and
recreation to create a high quality of life for residents.
Boulder is known for its iconic scenery, abundant
open space, extensive trail networks, leading edge
climate initiatives, alternative transportation system,
federal research labs, world-class universities,
flourishing technology companies, natural foods
industries and walkable neighborhoods. These
features attract people to Boulder and make it a
highly desirable place to live, work and visit.
Less visible, but equally important, is the
community’s long-term, sustained commitment to
the welfare and social well-being of its residents.
The city’s commitment to social issues reflects the
values of the people who make up the community.
Investments in social programs is a shared belief that
investments in the welfare of all residents positively
impact the entire community.
Boulder’s commitment to investing in people is
as important today as it has been at any time.
Changing demographics and economic conditions
and changing federal and state policies create
complex social challenges for the city and
community. Increasingly, communities are being
challenged to find long-term, innovative and cost-
effective solutions to community problems. Social
investments help strengthen community resilience,
contribute to the city’s economic and cultural
vitality, improve community health, and advance the
aspirations of Boulder’s future residents, workers,
and leaders.
Mapping Our Future: The 2017-2022 Human
Services Strategy (Strategy) reflects the vision,
values, goals and priorities of residents, community
members and partners. It provides a strategic
blueprint for city investments in human services
that will support the social safety net and provide
opportunities for community members to enhance
their quality of life and realize their individual
potential.
The Strategy reflects a two-year effort to identify
Boulder’s most important human services issues,
needs and trends (Appendix A). It includes
background research on demographics and best
practices, information about other communities’
experiences and data collected from robust
community engagement. It anticipates shifting
demographics and community needs and shapes
the city response to both immediate and long-term
challenges. The Strategy aligns investments with
priorities through the appropriate city roles as a
service provider, funder, and community partner and
identifies the key human services goals and priorities
that will guide city investments over the next five
years.
In addition to its tangible components, the Strategy
also reflects Boulder’s values. It continues the
community’s vision that investment in the well-
being of residents and community members is an
investment in the health and well-being of the entire
community.
DEPARTMENT MISSION
Create a healthy,
socially thriving and
inclusive community
by providing and
supporting human
services to Boulder
residents in need.
INTRODUCTION
7
The city created a human services department by
ordinance in 1973, although public investments
in human services date back to the early 20th
century. In 1973, community leaders recognized the
connection between human services and overall
quality of life, and chose to include “social planning”
as a core function of local government. In creating
the department, then City Manager Archie Twitchell
noted that:
Cities have traditionally been judged by the
effectiveness of their utilization of natural and
technological resources, and activities in the area of
human services have been limited to Fire and Police
protection and Recreation and Library Services.
The altering of funding at the federal level has
made it necessary for city government to become
involved in planning for social services at the local
level. Although this puts an additional burden of
responsibility on local city and county governments,
it offers an opportunity for us to respond to the
particular social conditions in our unique community.
The fulfillment of the potential within our human
resources is paramount to meeting our goal of a high
quality of life in Boulder.
Forty-four years later, the importance of planning for
human services at the local level continues as a
central theme in the 2017-2022 Human Services
Strategy.
The city created the Human Services Department
to “research and evaluate social problems and
conditions in the community, develop and implement
programs to respond to such social problems
1980 POPULATION:76,685
Medicare,
Medicaid
enacted
1965
Community
Mediation
Services added
to departmente
Prevention/
Intervention
Program
established
1987
Housing, Senior,
and Children
Services added to
department
1980
West Senior
Center built
1979
Human Relations
Commission
established
1964
Human Services
Department established
1973
Human
Rights
Ordinance
adopted
1972
Penfield Tate II elected as
Boulder’s first African
American Mayor
1974
Boulder County
issues Same-
sex Marriage
License
1975
1960 POPULATION:37,718
HUMAN SERVICES LEGACY & PURPOSE
and conditions, and coordinate city, state, federal
and private agency efforts to improve such social
conditions and solve such social problems.”
This fundamental purpose has not changed. As
community social challenges have evolved, the
department has remained focused on creating a
healthy, socially thriving and inclusive community by
providing and supporting human services to Boulder
residents in need.
7
8
Americans with Disabilities
Act enacted
1990
1992
East Boulder Senior Center built
Family Resource Schools established
0.15% Sales Tax approved by voters (48%
to create Human Services Fund and Youth
Opportunity Fund)
1st Human Service
Master Plan accepted
1st Human Services
Fund Grants distributed
Education Excise
Tax passed by voters
1994
1996
Boulder Domestic Partner
Registry established
2000
Comprehensive
Housing Strategy
approved
Colorado Amendment 2 (that
prevented cities from recognizing
Sexual Orientation as a protected
class) declared unconstitutional
by US Supreme Court
1996
1990 POPULATION:83,312
8
9
Non-electors
approved
by voters to
serve on City
Boards and
Commissions
2011
2006
Sentence Enhancement
Ordinance adopted
(for Bias-motivated crimes)
2010
Affordable
Care Act
(ACA)
enacted
2nd Housing and
Human Services
Master Plan
accepted
2005
Failure to Pay
Wages Ordinance
adopted
2007
2015
US Supreme
Court
legalizes
same-sex
marriage
2016
Substance Education
& Awareness
Grants Distributed
Sugar-Sweetened
Beverage Product
Distribution Tax
passed by voters
Recreational
Marijuana
Tax passed
by voters
2015
Community
Health
Equity grants
distributed
2017
Living Wage
Resolution
Approved
2003
2016 POPULATION:108,090
9
10
ROLES IN THE COMMUNITY
The Strategy reflects a two-year effort to identify the city’s goals and priorities for community investments
in human services. It accounts for changing demographics and new social and economic conditions and
includes extensive background research on community needs, trends and best practices (Appendix
B). It also incorporates information gathered through robust community engagement with residents,
stakeholders and community organizations (Appendix C). The process yielded goals and priorities in six
key human services issue areas.Research Comm un ity E n g a g ement
G
oals
&
Pr
i
ori
ties StrategiesImpl
eme
n
tation Principl e s C ity Roles STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
Healthy, Socially
Thriving Community
The Human Services Department functions in
three primary roles in the community:
FUNDER The city annually distributes more than
$2.5 million in competitive grants for human
services programs to community organizations.
In addition, the city contracts annually for
community services for approximately
$500,000 (Appendix F). As a funder, the city
collaborates with other community funders to
maximize outcomes and minimize duplication.
DIRECT SERVICE PROVIDER The city limits
its role as a service provider to circumstances
where:
• There is an expressed desire of City Council
or the community
• A demonstrated need cannot be met through
other sectors
• The nature of the service requires a broad
community collaborative effort or institutional
capacity that is best met by the city
PARTNER/LEADER The city achieves its
human services goals through collaboration
and partnerships with other jurisdictions and
community organizations. As a community
partner and leader, the city:
• Evaluates social problems and conditions
and responds to needs; and
• Coordinates with other entities in planning,
service delivery and funding to ensure
community needs are addressed, services
are effectively and efficiently delivered, and
resources are leveraged.
11
1. Upstream Investments
A focus on strategic, upstream investments
that target root causes of complex social
issues, reducing the future demand for and
investment in costlier crisis interventions.
2. Data-Driven
Decision-Making
Decisions informed by data that drive
continuous improvement and refinement
of services to meet intended community
outcomes.
3. System Integration
Integrated, coordinated, client-centered
service systems that maximize resources.
• access to health care;
• housing status;
• social support networks and engagement; and
• physical environment.
The Two-generation model for mitigating social
welfare issues proposes investing in programs and
services that assist multiple generations including
children, parents and grandparents. This approach
recognizes that social and economic conditions
such as poverty, may impact one generation
but simultaneously influence the ability of other
generations to overcome the same condition. The
Two-generation approach emphasizes integrated
efforts to address issues for the entire family to
overcome intergenerational barriers to success.
The Collective Impact model proposes coordination
among multiple community stakeholders to solve
shared community concerns. Collective Impact,
and similar models, emphasize coordination and
integration of multiple stakeholders and systems to
solve significant social issues, including a common
agenda and shared infrastructure, data systems,
resources, and mutually reinforcing activities, among
all partners.
Together, these human services models, inform a
framework for an effective human services delivery
system.
The Strategy is influenced by key models, grounded
in social science research, for developing effective
policies to address complex social issues.
Human-Centered Design (HCD) focuses on user
and stakeholder needs and preferences. It uses
behavioral science to provide insights about
interactions between people and their environments.
HCD also uses impact evaluation, through testing
of new and innovative ideas, to improve information
about solutions that can affect the desired outcomes.
Analysis in the HCD model starts with stakeholders,
tests ideas and implements solutions. Core HCD
principles include:
• focus on users and their needs;
• focus on solutions rather than the problems;
• greater investment in innovation; and
• greater tolerance for risk and failure to test new
ideas.
Social Determinants of Health (SDOH) is a widely-
used model for addressing health inequities, and
emphasizes addressing the root economic and
social factors that impact health and well-being.
This model recognizes that efforts to improve
population health require comprehensive approaches
that address social, economic and environmental
issues. Although specific SDOH models may vary
by country, geographic location and other variables,
key determinants of social health identified in most
models include:
• early childhood development;
• educational attainment;
• economic stability;
• employment status;
• income and wages;
• food security; GUIDING FRAMEWORKS & PRINCIPLES 3 CORE PRINCIPLES
12
A SINGLE ADULT
A FAMILY OF FOUR
1. Income & Poverty (includes % of population at or below)
1. Income & Poverty (includes % of population at or below)
2. Average Annual Costs
2. Average Annual Costs
3. Eligibility
for Assistance
Programs
$12,060
$24,600
$19,344
$38, 688
$28,209
$75,906
$68,800
0
0
$10,000
$10,000
$20,000
$20,000
$30,000
$30,000
$40,000
$40,000
$50,000
$50,000
$60,000
$60,000 $80,000
$80,000$70,000
$70,000 $100,000
$100,000
$90,000
$90,000
Federal Poverty
Guideline (FPG) 9%
Colorado Minimum
Wage 18%
Self-Sufficiency Std
34%
Area Median Income
43%
Federal Poverty
Guideline (FPG) 9%
Colorado Minimum
Wage 18%
Self-Sufficiency Std
34%
Area Median Income
43%
Food $3,540
Transportation $3,348
Health Care $1,752
Housing $16,020
Food $11,112
Transportation $6,528
Health Care $5,820
Housing $16,788
Child Care $19,848
Head Start $24,600
(100% FPG) School
Readiness for
Children Under Five
NSLP $31,980
(130% FPG)
National Free School
Lunch Program
SNAP $31,980
(130% FPG) Food
Assistance
Medicaid $33,948
(138% FPG) Health
Coverage
LIHEAP $39,852
(165% FPG)
Low-Income Home
Energy Assistance
Program
WIC $45,510
(185% FPG)
Supplemental foods,
health care for
Women, Infants &
Children
CCAP $54,804
(222% FPG)
Childcare
Assistance Program
$98,200
TOTAL $24,660
TOTAL $60,096
13
POVERTY IN BOULDER
Poverty is an important issues in Boulder and relates to all of the key human
services issues identified in the Strategy. No single formula, however, can
completely define poverty. Many variables, including income, geographic
location, household size and composition, and living expenses affect whether
an individual or family is considered in poverty or self-sufficient. Government
programs that service indigent populations use different income thresholds
and criteria to determine eligibility.
To gain a better understanding about what poverty means in Boulder, the Poverty
chart identifies multiple data points excluding the percentage of Boulder’s
population living at or below several poverty and income measures, average
annual expenses and eligibility thresholds for different government programs
and disparities in academic achievement and household income, which impact
affordability.
Recognizing the multi-dimensional nature of poverty, the Strategy does not
attempt to specifically define poverty, but to highlight the methods by which
poverty is measured and the impacts on affordability. By whatever measures are
used, the Strategy identifies poverty as a root cause of many social welfare issues
and addresses it through multiple goals and strategies.
EDUCATION
ADDITIONAL STATISTICS
$80,000$70,000 $100,000$90,000
1. Average Annual Income by Level of Education (includes % of population at or below)2. Average Annual Costs
1. Annual Median Income
*Source: Self-Sufficiency Standard for Boulder County, CO 2015 | **Family of Four=2 adults, 1 preschool aged child, 1 school-aged child
2. Hispanic Latino 3. Children
$58,559
$41, 257
$28,811
$20,978
0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000
Graduate or Prof.
Degree 76% | 35%
Some College
16% | 17%
High School Graduate
7% | 17%
Less than High School
1% | 31%
Food $3,540
Transportation $3,348
Health Care $1,752
Housing $16,020
Married Couples $144,166
Single Female Household with Children $40,000
Living at or below $15,075
(125% FPG) is $51%, White is 24%
Living in poverty 10%
TOTAL $24,660
White Hispanic/Latino
14
2000 2015 2040
BOULDER DEMOGRAPHICS
WHITE
HISPANIC/LATINO
1000
BOULDER
RESIDENTS
ASIAN
AFRICAN AMERICAN
0-1920-6465+*The 2040 estimates for the City of Boulder are based on current population estimates through the Census and projections for the overall population in Boulder County provided by the State Demography Office.
COMMUNITY CHANGES &
CHALLENGES
Boulder ranks as Colorado’s 11th most populous
community and the 296th largest city in the United
States. More than 107,000 people call Boulder home,
up from 93,000 in 2006. While Boulder is not a large
municipality, many of the same complex human services
challenges found in large urban areas are evident.
Looking toward the future, several emerging social trends
will challenge the community.
CHALLENGE: POVERTY
Demographically, Boulder is more affluent than the
statewide and national average. In 2015, Boulder’s
median family income was $105,034 compared to the
$74,826 statewide median family income. Median
household income (including families and single-person
households) across the state was $60,629 and $58,484
in Boulder. By multiple measures, however, many
residents live in or near poverty.
• Excluding college students, approximately 7,000
residents live in households earning under the Federal
Poverty Guidelines (FPG), i.e., obtain a total annual
family income of approximately $24,600 or less for a
family of four.
• Nearly 50 percent of Boulder families live in
households earning less than $74,000 annually
15
200020152040
BOULDER DEMOGRAPHICS
WHITE
HISPANIC/LATINO
1000
BOULDER
RESIDENTS
ASIAN
AFRICAN AMERICAN
0-1920-6465+*The 2040 estimates for the City of Boulder are based on current population estimates through the Census and projections for the overall population in Boulder County provided by the State Demography Office.
overall. However, this special population continues
to have great needs for sustained services and policy
attention.
• Nearly 10 percent of children live in households
with an annual income income at or below
$24,600.
• Almost one quarter (24.5 percent) of Boulder’s
children live in income-constrained households
earning below $74,000 annually.
• During the 2016-2017 school year, approximately
21 percent of children accessed the Free and
Reduced Lunch (FRL) program
Investments in early childhood programs for
disadvantaged children is approximately 10 percent
per year through improved child outcomes in
education, health, economic productivity and
reduced interface with the justice system.
CHALLENGE: AGING
Like much of Colorado, Boulder’s population is aging.
Residents age 60 and older comprise Boulder’s
fastest growing demographic. The Colorado state
demographer predicts that Boulder County’s older
adult population will grow six times faster than the
rest of the county’s population over the next decade.
• By 2040, residents age 60 and over will account
for 28 percent of the county’s population,
residents between the ages of 70-79 will double
while ages 80-89 will triple.
• Almost 40 percent of Boulder adults age 65 and
older lived below 50 percent of area median
income in 2014 ($32,850 per year for a single
person). In 2015, about 38 percent of Boulder
homeowners age 65 and older were housing cost-
burdened.
• Approximately 22 percent of Boulder’s older
residents report living with a disability.
Poverty disproportionately affects Boulder’s
Hispanic/Latino residents especially children:
• According to five-year American Community
Survey estimates taken between 2011 - 2015,
the median household income for Latino/
Hispanic families is $31,056, which is almost half
the median income for white-only households
($63,282).
• Approximately 36 percent of Hispanic/Latino
residents live in households earning at or below
$24,600. In comparison, only 21 percent of white
residents live in households at or below $24,600.
• Hispanic/Latino children are four times more
likely to live in poverty than white children.
High rates of poverty and economic inequality also
plagues women and their families. Single female
heads of households in Boulder earn less income
annually than their male household counterparts and
significantly less than married couples. For every
$1 earned by a full time female worker in Boulder, a
male worker in the city earns approximately $1.30.
• Median family income for female heads of
households (no spouse) with children is $46,256.
• Median family income for married-couple families
is $122,101.
• Median income of women who worked full-time,
year-round over the past 5 years (2011-2015) was
$48,754. During the same period, full-time, year-
round male workers earned about 23% more, or
$62,917.
CHALLENGE: CHILDREN
Children have unique needs and vulnerabilities when
it comes to securing adequate healthcare, food,
housing and education. Although the number of
children in Boulder has slowly increased over the last
decade, children are now a smaller percentage of the
Older adults in Boulder possess deep work
experience and expertise. Nationally, seniors
contribute more than 3.3 billion hours of volunteer
service in their communities (with an economic value
of $75 billion). Boulder’s older residents are:
• Predominately female (55 percent), less likely to
identify as Hispanic/Latino (3 percent) and more
likely to own their home (76 percent).
• More likely to make charitable contributions per
capita than any other age group.
• Represented in the workforce: over 22 percent
of Boulder residents age 65 and older are still
working.
CHALLENGE: EQUITY, INCLUSION &
ACHIEVEMENT
As reported in May 2017, Boulder Community
Perception Assessment (CPA), community members
reported that they consider the overall quality of life
in Boulder to be quite good (Appendix I). However,
non-majority community members and newcomers
reported a small but persistent lack of inclusion,
highlighting a local lack of exposure to diversity and
micro-aggressions. Others expressed feelings of
exclusion related to political or religious beliefs. The
CPA identified the lack of affordable housing, access
to necessities and representation in local government
as factors creating perceptions of inequities within
the community.
• In 2016, 59 percent of Boulder Community Survey
participants rated “openness and acceptance
of the community toward people of diverse
backgrounds” as “excellent” or “good.”
• Discrimination based on national origin was the
most common basis cited for inquiries related to
potential violations of the city’s Human Rights.
16
The poverty experienced by much of Boulders mi-
nority communities also correlates with disparities
in educational achievement. Differences between
white and Hispanic/Latino students are evident at
early ages and persist through graduation.
• Fewer than 35 percent of Hispanic/Latino adults
have attained a Bachelor’s degree or higher
compared to 76 percent of white adults.
• More than 31 percent of Hispanic/Latino adults
earned less than a high school diploma compared
to only 1.3 percent of white not Hispanic/Latino
adults.
CHALLENGE: HEALTHCARE & DISPARITIES
While significant reductions in the medically unin-
sured through expanded Medicaid, Child Health Plan
Plus enrollments and the Affordable Care Act has
been achieved, gaps still exist for many vulnerable
city populations in healthcare coverage and access
as well as quality physical and dental care.
• Approximately 14 percent of Hispanic/Latino
Boulder residents do not have health insurance
coverage compared to only 3 percent of white, not
Hispanic/Latino residents.
• In 2015 Boulder County ranked 1st in state for per
capita enrollment in Connect for Colorado Health
coverage; Boulder County’s uninsured population
was 8 percent compared to the national average
of 13 percent.
Moreover, food insecurity, poor health outcomes
like obesity and insufficient access to mental health
services affect wide swaths of the population.
• Food insecurity affects 12.8 percent of Boulder
residents.
• Obesity rates among adults over 18 years is 15.9
percent (Centers for Disease Control, 2016).
• Approximately 11 percent of Boulder County
adults report that they are in poor mental health.
Among the county’s Medicare population,
approximately 14 percent report they are
depressed.
CHALLENGE: HOMELESSNESS
Homelessness remains one of Boulder’s most visible
human services challenges. Many factors contribute
to homelessness. Chronically high housing costs in
Boulder coupled with insufficient wage growth for
many workers can mean that a variety of life events,
including the sudden loss of job, acute health crisis
or destabilizing family separation quickly make many
residents vulnerable to housing crisis. Single parent
households are often more susceptible to economic
hardships, and people fleeing domestic abuse often
have limited housing options.
• Currently, over 400 or more people are estimated
to be homeless in Boulder. The homeless include
individuals, youth and families.
• Top reasons reported for being homeless by
families include inability to pay rent/mortgage
(58 percent), being asked to leave (40 percent),
relationship problems or family break-up (27
percent) and abuse or violence in the home (27
percent).
• In 2015, 62 percent of renters in Boulder were
cost-burdened and paid more than 30 percent of
their income on rent.
For children who experiencing homelessness, the
results are particularly punishing. Children who
experience homelessness are less likely to succeed
in school and are more likely to experience lifelong
poverty. Those who are homeless are more likely to
die at a younger age.
• Nearly 300 students in Boulder Valley School
District (BVSD) schools in the City of Boulder
accessed McKinney-Vento services for homeless
students in the 2015-2016 school year.
• The average life expectancy in the homeless
population is between 42 and 52 years; young
homeless women, however, are four to 31 times
as likely to die early compared to their housed
counterparts.
Homelessness significantly affects the use of public
resources. The city pays for many homelessness-
related services and programs including health care,
law enforcement, courts, open space management,
environmental clean-up and emergency services.
• Homelessness impacts a variety of emergency
and public safety services including hospital
emergency rooms, law enforcement and court
systems. The city of Boulder has estimated that
it spends approximately $2.2 million annually
mitigating impacts from homelessness.
• Investments in permanent housing solutions such
as Housing First for the chronically homeless
results in reduced police calls, emergency
room visits; increased housing retention and
independent living skills.
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES &
THEMES
The goals and priorities presented in the Human
Services Strategy were identified through a robust
community engagement process. Engagement
included telephone, online and paper surveys,
focus groups, community meetings and curbside
conversations. Through the engagement process,
more than 2,000 Boulder residents and 70
community organizations participated (Appendix C
and Appendix D).
17
Community engagement confirmed that Boulder
residents are concerned about the social issues
identified through research. Public feedback helped
identify the level of community concern and potential
solutions that could be incorporated into the
Strategy.
Findings included that race, ethnicity, age and
income often affect perceptions about Boulder’s key
social issues. The areas below represent core areas
of community concern and prioritization.
PRIORITY: INCLUSION & EQUITY
• Expand community events and activities that
encourage interaction among residents
• Expand access to services and resources that
recognize Boulder’s cultural, racial and social
diversity
• Support academic achievement for all residents,
including access to materials in other languages
and tutoring
• Develop multi-generational community centers
rather than age-specific centers
PRIORITY: HEALTHCARE
• Expand access to mental health, physical health,
dental care
• Expand access to affordable substance use and
addiction treatment, prevention and education
• Expand access to affordable insurance
• Expand access to healthy, nutritious food
PRIORITY: ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
Support diverse employment, expand workforce and
training programs
Housing-Cost Burdened Rental
Households City of Boulder, 2015
< 30% of income
toward rent
30-34.9% of
income toward rent
> 35% of income
toward rent
< 30% of income toward rent
30-34.9% of income toward rent
> 35% of income toward rent
PRIORITY: FAMILY, YOUTH & CHILDREN
• Provide programs and services for children and
families
• Support efforts for school readiness for young
children
• Expand opportunities for workplace readiness
for young adults who are transitioning from high
school
• Support safe spaces for youth to socialize after
school or out-of-school
PRIORITY: HOUSING
• Expand options to purchase or rent an affordable
home (especially for Seniors and young families)
• Support housing and services for homeless
families and children
• Support the provision of permanent, affordable
housing
• Support the provision of basic safety net services
including emergency shelter
• Prioritize services for those who have long term
connections to the community
PRIORITY: GENERAL THEMES
• Affordability- Broad concerns about the cost of
housing, health care and child care.
• Social Equity- Race, ethnicity and income factored
into feedback about access to affordable goods
and services, lack of economic opportunities and
inclusion in Boulder.
• Transportation- Affordable and accessible
transportation, particularly for older adults and
low-income residents.
Community
Engagement
June 2015-April 2017
41
Community Events
70
Organizations
2000+
Individuals
< $75,000 (51%)
$75,000 - $150,000 (32%)
$150,000+ (17%)
Household Income
18-24 (19%)
25-64 (65%)
65+ (16%)
Age
White Only (79%)
Non-White, Non-Hispanic
Latino (10%)
Hispanic/Latino (11%)
Race/Ethnicity
18
Strategy Process
Service Provider
Funder
Partner
ROLES
Upstream Investment
Data-Driven Outcomes
System Integration
Evidence-based Practices
PRINCIPLES
Programs & Services
Community Partnerships
STRATEGIES
Guiding Documents
Community Trends & Assessments
Services Assessments
Community Engagement
RESEARCH
GOALS & PRIORITIES
A Good Start
Aging Well
Economic Mobility
& Resilience
Health & Well-being
Homelessness
Inclusive &
Welcoming Community
19
GOAL 1
Children are healthy and socially, emotionally and
cognitively ready to start school.
Strategy 1
Support accessible, affordable, quality infant, toddler
and preschool care. Examples of programs include:
• expand capacity for affordable, quality,
culturally appropriate child and preschool
care; and
• quality improvement training for family, friend
and neighbor care;
GOAL 2
Children and Youth are healthy and successful
in school and have the skills necessary for self-
sufficiency and success as an adult.
Strategy 2
Reduce barriers to successful school achievement
and graduation. Examples of programs includ
• programs that connect students and families
to community support services;
• family support and wrap-around services for
children, youth and families;
• mentoring and tutoring programs for children
and youth; and
• youth civic engagement and leadership
development.
The Strategy identifies goals and priorities to address
community needs for six key human services issues:
A Good Start, Aging Well, Economic Mobility and
Resilience, Health and Well-being, Homelessness
and Inclusive and Welcoming Community. Specific
strategies are intended to address concerns and
themes identified in research and community
engagement and will be used to guide city human
service investments for the next five years.
GOALS & PRIORITIES
Strategy 3
Support successful transition from school to college
or employment. Examples of programs include:
• internship and apprenticeship programs;
• employment skills and development; and
• employment programs for adolescents and
young adults.
Strategy 4
Support healthy lifestyle choices and the reduce of
risky behaviors. Examples of programs include:
• substance use prevention programs;
• youth mentoring and tutoring programs;
• pro-social, out-of-school and after-school
activities;
• access to mental health programs and
services; and
• out-of-school and after school educational,
social and cultural enrichment.
HUMAN SERVICE AREA
A GOOD START
A good start early in a child’s life provides
a solid foundation for positive, life-long
outcomes and success.
Service Provider
Funder
Partner
ROLES
Upstream Investment
Data-Driven Outcomes
System Integration
Evidence-based Practices
PRINCIPLES
Programs & Services
Community Partnerships
STRATEGIES
Guiding Documents
Community Trends & Assessments
Services Assessments
Community Engagement
RESEARCH
GOALS & PRIORITIES
A Good Start
Aging Well
Economic Mobility
& Resilience
Health & Well-being
Homelessness
Inclusive &
Welcoming Community
20
HUMAN SERVICE AREA
AGING WELL
Over the next two decades, Boulder’s growing
and diverse older population will require more
varied and individualized services to meet
social and economic needs, and community
planning to be ready to meet those needs
into future years. An age-friendly community
values older adults and makes aging well a
community priority. Four key areas vital to all
such communities are basic needs (housing,
safety, food, access to essential services,
and transportation), personal connections
and community involvement (paid work and
volunteer opportunities, participation in civic
life, and connection to friends and family),
health and wellness (access to affordable
health care and fitness programs), and aging in
community (systems and a built environment
that support an individual’s choice to live at
home).
Strategy 1
Support a continuum of age and ability appropriate
services for older adults.
• financial and retirement education and
planning programs;
• educational and social programs for older
adults, caregivers and family members;
• case management and referral services for
older adults to address quality of life needs
such as health care, retirement, and financial
planning; and
• services that help older adults stay in their
home including home care, home repair and
maintenance and support services.
Strategy 2
Expand opportunities to stay engaged in the labor
force as long as desired.
• education, training and support for
workforce readiness, entrepreneurship, and
volunteerism; and
• employment retraining and placement
programs.
Strategy 3
Improve community readiness to address the needs
of older adults.
• partnerships and programs that address the
growing aging demographic and future needs;
and
• partnerships and programs that address
community impacts of demographic shifts.
GOAL
Older residents can remain and thrive in the
community as they age.
21
HUMAN SERVICE AREA
ECONOMIC MOBILITY
& RESILIENCE
Most of Boulder’s human services challenges
strongly correlate with issues related to
poverty and affordability. High costs for
housing, child care, food, transportation and
health care make it difficult for low-income
residents to thrive or improve their economic
circumstances. Poverty destabilizes families,
making it difficult for children to succeed in
school, is a significant factor contributing to
homelessness, and negatively impacts health
and well-being.
Because poverty and affordability are
core issues impacting many other welfare
issues, the Strategy emphasizes this goal
for future expanded efforts as new funding
and resources allow. By addressing poverty,
the city can improve resilience to economic
downturns, expand opportunities for
residents to become more economically
mobile, reduce reliance on safety net services
and improve the quality of life for residents.
Strategy 1
Strengthen access to pathways and opportunities to
improve employment situation.
• programs that promote personal
entrepreneurship and small business
development;
• skills training and re-training to meet labor
market demands;
• regional partnerships to align education and
workforce opportunities with employer needs;
• programs that train or hire hard-to-employ
residents;
• internship and apprenticeship programs; and
• green jobs training programs.
Strategy 2
Expand financial support that enhance family
economic stability.
• subsidies for low-wage workers to help meet
basic needs including:
• food tax rebates for older adults, families with
low incomes, and people with disabilities;
• child care subsidies; and
• housing rental subsidies.
Strategy 3
Improve financial literacy, education and investment.
• financial education programs;
• programs that assist residents to build assets
and establish bank accounts;
• consumer counseling, credit and bill payment
programs; and
• programs that protect residents from
predatory lending practices.
Through the community engagement process, feedback
consistently identified poverty and affordability as top
community concerns. The Strategy identifies an expanded focus
on economic mobility and resilience as a key driver of many
other social welfare issues. Poverty destabilizes families and
negatively impacts child development and readiness to learn
and succeed. It is the driver of homelessness. Older adults,
particularly those with low fixed incomes, may be unable to
continue living in the community as they age.
Best practice and social science research indicate that by
reducing poverty, improving resilience to economic downturns,
and expanding opportunities to become economically mobile,
communities can significantly improve the quality of life for
residents, lessen demand on crisis intervention services, reduce
need for public subsidies and safety net services, and realize
tangible economic benefits for individuals and the community.
The Strategy identifies increasing investments in economic
mobility and resilience to leverage investments in other goals.
GOAL
Residents have equitable opportunities to improve their
economic condition and create intergenerational stability.
22
HUMAN SERVICE AREA
HEALTH & WELLBEING
Many factors contribute to individual health
and well-being including nutrition, physical
activity, home and outdoor environment and
early and regular physical, oral and behavioral
health care. Although the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act (ACA) substantially
improved public and private health insurance
coverage and benefits, cost and availability
continue to limit access to the services
essential for good health. Significant insurance
coverage gaps persist particularly among
Boulder’s Hispanic and Latino residents.
Those utilizing public insurance plans often
have fewer provider and coverage options.
Health care providers may also limit intake of
Medicaid clients. As a consequence, Boulder
residents covered by public insurance often
have fewer health care choices, particularly for
oral, mental and addiction treatment.
Strategy 1
Support access to quality, affordable services that
address physical and oral health needs.
• physical health care prevention and treatment
services; and
• dental health prevention and treatment
services.
Strategy 2
Support access to quality, affordable services that
address mental health and substance abuse.
• mental health treatment and recovery
programs;
• substance use disorder treatment and
recovery support services; and
• substance use prevention services.
Strategy 3
Support access to nutritious food and programs that
reduce health risk factors.
• programs that improve food security and
provide healthy food options for children,
families and older adults; and
• programs that help children, families and older
adults remain healthy.
Service
Excellence
for an
Inspired
Future
—CITY OF BOULDER
MISSION STATEMENT
GOAL
Residents can access resources to optimize their
physical, mental and social well-being.
23
HUMAN SERVICE AREA
HOMELESSNESS
Homelessness is one of the most visible and
significant human service challenges and
affects individuals, families and impacts
the entire community. At the core of
homelessness is poverty. For individuals,
homelessness is traumatic and a significant
safety issue. Homelessness in childhood
can have lifelong consequences including
poor academic achievement, developmental
delays and impacts on social, emotional
and physical health. The longer one stays
homeless, the more difficult it is to get out of
homelessness. Community-wide, Boulder’s
homelessness challenge affects the demand
for public services and heightens concerns
about public health and public safety.
Homelessness is the most visible evidence of poverty
and lack of economic resilience and significantly
impacts every area of social, mental and physical
health and well-being for individuals and families.
As such, the city has focused significant resources
to address homelessness through a separate,
comprehensive Homelessness Strategy (Appendix K).
Economic Mobility and Resilience and Homelessness
are two goal areas identified for expanded focus in
the Human Services Strategy over the next five years.
The Homelessness Strategy identifies a new system of
services focused on a coordinated entry, assessment
and service delivery system which prioritizes client
need and permanent housing for better long-term
outcomes, while continuing to insure safety net
services are available.
Strategy 1
Expand pathways to permanent housing and
retention.
• programs that facilitate or support creation of
housing to address homelessness;
• maximizing housing opportunities through
regional partnerships; and
• maximizing access to existing housing in the
City of Boulder.
Strategy 2
Expand access to programs and services to reduce or
prevent homelessness.
• evidence-based services and programs that
focus on long-term poverty reduction and
prevention.
Strategy 3
Support an efficient and effective services system
based on evidence and
data driven results.
• programs that prioritize support for services to
target populations and individuals;
• implementation of best practice system tools,
including coordinated entry and assessment,
navigation services, and integrated data and
metrics; and
• programs that leverage and maximize regional
systems resources, such as OneHome, and
regional coordinated housing planning and
acquisition.
A separate, comprehensive city Homelessness Strategy articulates specific goals and strategies to address the complex issue of
reducing homelessness in the community (Appendix K).
Strategy 4
Support access to a continuum of services as part of
a pathway to self-sufficiency and stability.
• emergency response system re-design,
including coordinated entry and intake and
prioritizing resources and services to those
most in need;
• programs that improve access to substance
abuse treatment and mental health services;
and
• advance affordable transportation.
Strategy 5
Support access to public information about
homelessness and community solutions.
• homelessness communications plan.
Strategy 6
Create public spaces that are welcoming and safe for
residents and visitors.
• justice system partnerships.
GOAL
Residents have opportunities to achieve and maintain a
safe, stable home in the community.
24
HUMAN SERVICE AREA
INCLUSIVE & WELCOMING
COMMUNITY
Although most in the community feel that
Boulder is an inclusive and welcoming
community, those in under-represented
communities often have a different experience,
particularly feeling welcomed and included in
civic life and affordability of basic needs and
housing.
Strategy 1
Expand access to culturally appropriate services and
programs that recognize diverse community needs.
• support for events that celebrate community
diversity;
• education and awareness of social and cultural
diversity; and
• support programs that expand the availability
of goods, products and services that meet the
needs of a culturally diverse population
Strategy 2
Support access to and availability of resources,
services and programs that advance social equity.
• support civic and social integration of
immigrant and refugee residents;
• foster partnerships with community
organizations to expand awareness and
engagement of diverse populations; and
• assess and mitigate potential disproportionate
impacts of policies and programs on
underrepresented populations.
Strategy 3
Strengthen city protections related to discrimination
and bias.
• expand protections from discrimination in the
city’s Human Rights Ordinance; and
• expand community outreach and education
related to human and civil rights protections.
Strategy 4
Encourage and facilitate positive community
relations.
• mitigate and reduce community conflict and
support and encourage community cohesion;
• expand education and awareness about
inclusion and diversity; and
• expand civic engagement of underrepresented
communities.
GOAL
Community members and visitors feel safe, welcomed,
and included in social, civic, and economic life.
25
HEALTH &
WELL-BEING
AGING WELL
HOMELESSNESS
ECONOMIC MOBILITY
A GOOD STARTINCLUSIVE &
WELCOMING
26
GUIDING DOCUMENTS
The Strategy aligns with the goals and policy
direction contained in other city guiding documents,
including the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan,
Sustainability Framework, Housing Strategy and
Resilience Strategy.
BOULDER VALLEY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
All city master and strategic plans align overall policy
direction with the BVCP. Policy guidance for the
Human Services Strategy is found in the following key
sections of the 2010 BVCP.
Core Values
• A welcoming and inclusive community
• Culture of creativity and innovation
• Strong city and county cooperation
• A vibrant economy based on Boulder’s quality
of life and economic strengths
• A diversity of housing types and price ranges
• Physical health and well-being
Principles Of Social Sustainability
Promote a healthy community and address social and
cultural inequities by:
• Respecting and valuing cultural and social
diversity;
• Ensuring the basic health and safety needs of
all residents are met; and
• Providing infrastructure and services that will
encourage culturally and socially diverse
• communities to both prosper within and
connect to the larger community.
Collaboration In Service Delivery
Support consolidation and collaboration among
service providers to reduce duplication of efforts,
maximize economic and resource efficiencies and
provide the public with reliable and equitable levels
of service.
Populations With Special Needs
Encourage development of housing for populations
with special needs.
Community Well-Being
• Promote the physical health and welfare of
the community and civil and human rights.
Anticipate and plan for emerging demographic
trends and social issues, including:
• Needs of a growing older adult population and
their family caregivers;
• Healthy child and youth development and
opportunities to be contributing members of
the community;
• Support and inclusion of immigrants into the
community;
• Ongoing support of services and facilities for
basic needs such as food, health care, shelter,
child care, elder care, and education and
training;
• Support for community non-profits; and
• Accessible and affordable basic health and
human services.
RESILIENCE STRATEGY
The 2016 Resilience Strategy identifies core themes
to plan for social, economic and ecological resilience
that allows the community to adapt and thrive in
the face of natural events and other community
disruptions. The goal of the Resilience Strategy is to
weave resilience into the daily life and function of the
community and government.
Resilience is the underlying theme throughout the
Human Services Strategy and is articulated in the
human services frameworks, guiding principles, goals
and strategies.
HOUSING STRATEGY
Affordable housing directly affects many of the
populations and goal areas addressed by the Strategy
and closely aligns with the city’s Comprehensive
Housing Strategy and Affordable Housing Goals.
Collectively, the city’s housing strategies, themes and
goals define a comprehensive approach to creating
and preserving housing choices for low and middle
income Boulder households. Specific city housing
themes that closely relate to the Human Services
Strategy are:
• hold and gain ground on support for low
income and very low income residents;
• keep moderate income workers in Boulder;
and
• help seniors and special populations including
chronically mentally ill, homeless and families.
Housing goals adopted by City Council in 2014 that
relate to the HS Strategy include:
• diverse housing choices;
• enable aging in place; and
• create 15 minute neighborhoods.
Potential housing program tools that align with
• buy and preserve existing units;
• protect mobile home parks;
• expand housing choice voucher options;
• encourage new affordable senior, mixed age
27
CITY OF BOULDER SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK
The Sustainability Framework identifies the city’s community priorities and aligns investments
with those priorities. The chart below identifies the Strategy goals and alignment with the
Sustainability Framework.
housing and co-housing;
• encourage universal (accessible) design in all
new housing; and
• use affordable housing funds to create housing
for people with special needs and other
populations not served by the market.
Housing goals and themes that closely align with the
following human services strategies:
• strengthen economic mobility and resilience;
• addresses poverty, cost and affordability;
• address homelessness;
• help older adults age in the community; and
• promote inclusion and diversity.
HEALTHY & SOCIALLY
THRIVING COMMUNITY
LIVABLE
COMMUNITY
GOOD
GOVERNANCE
SAFE
COMMUNITY
ACCESSIBLE &
CONNECTED COMMUNITY
ECONOMICALLY
VITAL COMMUNITY
ENVIRONMENTALLY
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY
BOULDER VALLEY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PRIORITY-BASED
BUDGETING
OPERATING
BUDGET
DEPARTMENT STRATEGIC/
MASTER PLANS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM
SUBCOMMUNITY &
AREA PLANS
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
AND ZONING
28
Human Services Strategies & Sustainability Framework
Support access to quality, affordable services
that address physical and oral health needs
Support access to quality, affordable services
that address mental healthand substance
abuse
Support access to nutritious food and
programs that reduce health risk factors
HEALTH & WELL-BEING
Expand access to culturally appropriate
services and programs that recognize diverse
community needs
Support access to and availability of resources,
services and programs that advance social
equity
Strengthen city protections related to
discrimination and bias
Encourage and facilitate positive community
relations
INCLUSIVE & WELCOMING
COMMUNITY
Expand pathways to permanent housing and
retention
Expand access to programs and services to
reduce or prevent homelessness
Support an efficient and effective services
system based on evidence and data-driven
results
Support access to a continuum of services
as part of a pathway to self-sufficiency and
stability
Support access to public information about
homelessness and community solutions
Create public spaces that are welcoming and
safe for residents and visitors
HOMELESSNESS
Support a continuum of age and ability
appropriate services for older adults
Expand opportunities to stay engaged in the
labor force as long as desired
Improve community readiness to address the
needs of older adults
AGING WELL
Strengthen access to pathways and
opportunities to improve employment
situation
Expand financial support programs that
enhance family economic stability
Improve financial literacy, education and
investment
ECONOMIC MOBILITY &
RESILIENCE
Support accessible, affordable, quality infant,
toddler and preschool care
Reduce barriers to successful school
achievement and graduation
Support successful transition from school to
college or employment
Support healthy lifestyle choices and the
reduction of risky behaviors
A GOOD START
29
• Cultivates a wide-range of recreational, cultural,
educational, and social opportunities
• Supports the physical and mental well-being of its
community members and actively partners with
others to improve the welfare of those in need
• Fosters inclusion, embraces diversity and respects
human rights
• Enhances multi-generational community
enrichment and community engagement
HEALTHY & SOCIALLY
THRIVING COMMUNITY
• Promotes and sustains a safe, clean and attractive
place to live, work and play
• Facilitates housing options to accommodate a
diverse community
• Provides safe and well-maintained public
infrastructure, and provides adequate and
appropriate regulation of public/ private
development and resources
• Encourages sustainable development supported by
reliable and affordable city services
• Supports and enhances neighborhood livability for
all members of the community
LIVABLE COMMUNITY
• Models stewardship and sustainability of the city’s
financial, human, information and physical assets
• Supports strategic decision-making with timely,
reliable and accurate data and analysis
• Enhances and facilitates transparency, accuracy,
efficiency, effectiveness and quality customer
service in all city business
• Supports, develops and enhances relationships
between the city and community/ regional
partners
• Provides assurance of regulatory and policy
compliance
GOOD GOVERNANCE
• Enforces the law, taking into account the needs
of individuals and community values
• Plans for and provides timely and effective
response to emergencies and natural disasters
• Fosters a climate of safety for individuals in homes,
businesses, neighborhoods and public places
• Encourages shared responsibility, provides
education on personal and community safety
and fosters an environment that is welcoming
and inclusive
SAFE COMMUNITY
• Offers and encourages a variety of safe, accessible
and sustainable mobility options
• Plans, designs and maintains effective
infrastructure networks
• Supports strong regional multimodal connections
• Provides open access to information, encourages
innovation, enhances communication and
promotes community engagement
• Supports a balanced transportation system that
reflects effective land use and reduces congestion
ACCESSIBLE &
CONNECTED COMMUNITY
• Supports an environment for creativity and
innovation
• Promotes a qualified and diversified work force
that meets employers’ needs and supports broad-
based economic diversity
• Fosters regional and public / private collaboration
with key institutions and organizations that
contribute to economic sustainability
• Invests in infrastructure and amenities that
attract, sustain and retain diverse businesses,
entrepreneurs and the associated primary jobs
ECONOMICALLY VITAL
COMMUNITY
• Supports and sustains natural resource and energy
conservation
• Promotes and regulates an ecologically balanced
community
• Mitigates and abates threats to the environment
ENVIRONMENTALLY
SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY
30
Aligning Community
Investments
$3,328,092
2017 TOTAL COMMUNITY FUNDING
Human Services Fund
$2,106,188
Substance Education &
Awareness
$250,000
$764,430
Other Contracted
Services
Youth Opportunity
Program
$176,443
Human Relations
Commission
$31,031
ANNUAL FUNDING
31
PROGRAMS
The city funds many community organizations to
advance its human services objectives. Currently,
the city distributes community funding through
five competitive funding processes that support
community nonprofits and organizations:
The Human Services Fund (HSF) provides
approximately $2.1 million to community agencies for
programs and services to Boulder residents. Funding
awards align with the six Human Services Strategy
goals and strategies.
The Youth Opportunities Fund (YOF) provides
approximately $176,000 in funding to support
positive youth development programming in the
city. YOF annual grants are dedicated for cultural,
educational and recreational opportunities, primarily
for under-represented and low-income middle and
high school-age youth. Funding emphasizes pro-
social activities, youth leadership development and
youth engagement.
The Substance Education and Awareness (SEA)
grant program provides approximately $250,000
annually from recreational marijuana tax revenues
for substance use awareness, education, and
prevention focused on children, youth, and families.
Funding is currently allocated to the Boulder County
Healthy Futures Coalition five-year project.
The Health Equity Fund was established with
revenue from the Sugar Sweetened Beverage Product
Distribution Tax, approved by voters in Nov., 2016.
Revenues from this excise tax designated for health
promotion, general wellness programs and chronic
disease prevention in the City of Boulder that
improve health equity, such as access to safe and
clean drinking water, healthy foods, nutrition and
food education, physical activity, and other health
COMMUNITY FUNDING programs especially for residents with low income
and those most affected by chronic disease linked
to sugary drink consumption. The Health Equity
Fund will allocate initial funding from tax collections
beginning July 1 in mid-late to 2017.
The Human Relations Commission (HRC), distributes
approximately $31,000 annually to support
community events and initiatives that celebrate and
appreciate diverse communities and advance mutual
respect and understanding.
Other funded community programs and services:
• The Double Up Food Bucks (DUFB) program
provides $15,000 annually in matching funds to
residents eligible for federal nutrition benefits
available under the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP), in partnership with
Boulder County and Boulder County Farmers
Markets. Matching funds increase availability of
fresh fruits and vegetables for participants.
• In partnership with Meals on Wheels of Boulder,
the city provides $75,000 annually to support
delivered meals for home-bound, elderly and
those with disabilities and congregate meals at
the West Senior Center.
• In a twenty-five-year partnership with BVSD
and Mental Health Partners (MHP), $121,000
is allocated annually for the Family Resource
Schools program in Boulder elementary schools.
The program provides comprehensive child
and family support services to help children
succeed in school and overcome academic and
non -academic barriers to successful school
achievement.
• The Early Diversion Get Engaged (EDGE) program
is a partnership with Boulder Police Department
and MHP. Mental health professionals work out of
the police department and respond to calls with
officers to provide direct intervention services to
community members who are in need of mental
health support services. In 2017, $142,000 is
allocated for this program.
• In a thirty-year partnership with BVSD Boulder
County and MHP, approximately $148,430
is allocated annually for the Prevention and
Intervention Program in Boulder middle and high
schools. The program provides assessments,
support groups, consultations, prevention
education, counseling and crisis intervention
services for youth and school communities.
Services are free for the students and families.
• The Keep Families Housed pilot project provides
$263,000 for the Emergency Family Assistance
Association (EFAA) to provide short-term rental
assistance for families with children at high risk
for housing insecurity.
HUMAN SERVICES FUND
The HSF provides approximately $2.1 million annually
to community agencies providing direct services
to Boulder residents. Awards are made through
a competitive process based on alignment with
city human services priorities, goals and desired
outcomes. HSF awards provide operating support
for community programs. Funds are not allocated for
capital projects or one-time events.
A five-member Human Services Fund Advisory
Committee (HSFAC), appointed by the city manager,
makes funding recommendations that are approved
by the city manager and affirmed by City Council.
HSF FUNDING ALLOCATION
The HSF provides support for programs consistent
with the guiding principles and goals identified in the
Strategy. Allocations for each goal area are not fixed
and are fluid to meet ongoing community needs.
32
Funding awards for 2017 align with the six
Strategy goal areas in approximately the following
percentages of the total amount available: 49 percent
to community health and well-being programs; 24
percent to homelessness programs; 20 percent to
children and youth programs; 4 percent to inclusive
and welcoming programs; 2 percent to economic
mobility and resilience; and 1 percent to older adult
programs. See Figure 1.
As new resources become available for the HSF, they
will be allocated to all goal areas, with a greater focus
on expanding Economic Mobility and Resilience,
as the key driver of other social welfare issues and
Homelessness as a high priority area of community
investment. The Homelessness Strategy anticipates
a significant shift in how services are provided in the
community beginning in the fall, 2017. Additional
resources from all funders will be needed to
implement the new system of services. As the real-
time data is available with implementation, resource
allocation can be adjusted to meet needs.
New Resources: As new resources become available
for the HSF, they would be allocated approximately
as follows:
• 40 percent to Homelessness to fund the new
system of services;
• 23 percent to Economic Mobility and Resilience;
• 37 percent to the other four goal areas (Good Start,
Aging Well, Health and Well-being, Inclusive and
Welcoming Community)
Figure 2 provides an example of how new resources
over time could be distributed in this formula, using
additions of $300,000, $500,000 and $1,000,000,
HUMAN SERVICES FUND & YOUTH
OPPORTUNITIES FUND RESERVE
The department maintains a reserve fund for both
funds in the event high priority community needs
$117,500
$177,500
$275,000
$495,688
$900,000
$1,090,500
Aging Well
Inclusive & Welcoming
Community
Economic Mobility
& Resilience
A Good Start
Homelessness
Health & Well-being
Current Increase by $300K Increase by $500K Increase by $1M
Aging Well
Inclusive & Welcoming
Community
Economic Mobility
& Resilience
A Good Start
Homelessness
Health & Well-being
$25,000
$45,000
$85,000
$403,188
$500,000
$998,000
FIGURE 1: 2017 Human Services Fund Awards by Human Services Strategy Goals
FIGURE 2: Current Human Services Fund Resources and New Resources
33
Upstream Investment
Upstream investment focuses on interventions
that target the root cause of social problems.
Upstream investments focus on outcome-
based programs and policies designed to
address problems before they become more
critical and costly. In an upstream investment
model, funded programs also demonstrate
evidence-based, promising practices or
innovative practices.
Data-driven Decision-making
Outcome performance measures which
inform future funding decisions that drive
toward desired outcomes. Meaningful
indicators measure client outcomes rather
than simply the number of services provided
or clients served.
System Integration
Approaches that provide a client-centric, no-
wrong-door approach to accessing services
and emphasize funding partnerships over
funder/grantee contracting relationship.
System integration emphasizes a coordinated,
seamless social safety net that is more
efficient and effective for clients. Funders and
service providers commit to common goals
and outcomes.
arise outside of the annual fund round or funding is
needed for a significant unplanned community event.
or events arise outside of the annual funds rounds.
A reserve of 50 percent of the Human Services
Fund and Youth Opportunities Fund is recommended
on an ongoing basis, consistent with city guidelines.
In 2017, the balance of Human Services Fund
and Youth Opportunity Fund reserves is
$1,174,500—approximately 50 percent of both
annual fund appropriations ($2,100,00 and
$176,000 respectively).
SUGAR SWEETENED BEVERAGE PRODUCT
DISTRIBUTION TAX
The source of funding for the HSF is the city General
Fund. Opportunities to leverage General Fund dollars
allocated to the Human Services Fund to support
community programs related to the Strategy goal of
Health and Well-being include the Sugar Sweetened
Beverage Product Distribution Tax. Revenues from
this tax are designated for health promotion, general
wellness programs and chronic disease prevention
in the City of Boulder particularly for residents with
low income and those most affected by chronic
disease linked to sugary drink consumption. The
city has established the Health Equity Fund, to fund
community programs aligned with the purpose of the
tax. Community agencies addressing health equity
issues currently funded by the Human Services Fund
may also be eligible for Health Equity funds.
CORE PRINCIPLES & FUNDING
Core Principles and Funding
The three Strategy core principles will also guide
community funding decisions:
• resources will focus more on upstream
investments;
• resources will focus more on integrated and
coordinated services for greater effectiveness
and efficiencies; and
• data will drive decisions for resource allocation
based on outcomes.
Other factors that are considered in funding
decisions include:
• the strength of connection to specific goals and
strategies;
• the degree of collaboration with other entities
to work collectively on targeted strategies and
shared programs; and
• use of evidence-based, promising and innovative
practices.
HSF PROCESS ENHANCEMENTS
Future funding will be awarded through a Request
for Proposal (RFP) process conducted every four
years, rather than one-year cycles. Four-year grants
will allow greater focus on long-term outcomes
and reduce administrative burdens on the funded
agencies and the city. Funding is contingent on
annual city budget approval.
Strengthened partnership relationships with agencies
to meet community goals and outcomes through
regular planning to innovate and reduce barriers to
success.
Fund off cycle opportunities that arise between the
four-year funding cycle. Off cycle funding will be
available annually between fund rounds through the
HSF Opportunity Fund for new, innovative programs
and collaborations or to meet an emerging need.
Annually convene funded agencies, in partnership
with other funders, to provide opportunities
for greater collaboration, shared learning and
opportunities for new ideas and innovation.
Allows funding to be used for data collection, metric
development and evaluation, in alignment with goals
and outcomes.
34
“FRS helped my family with
counseling services. Thanks
to them, my child does better
in school and feels more
secure.”
—FRS CLIENT
“FRS is extremely valuable
and positive in every aspect.
We are happy and grateful to
have someone at school that
understands and supports
us.”
—FRS CLIENT
DIRECT SERVICES
The department limits its role in providing direct
services to the community (services provided
directly to residents, rather than through non-profits
or other entities). The department provides a direct
service in circumstances involving an expressed
desire of City Council or the community, a service
need that cannot be met through other sectors, or a
service that requires such a broad collaborative effort
or institutional capacity that it is appropriate for
the city to provide. The department delivers direct
services in three key human services areas: Family
Services, Senior Services and Community Relations
(Appendix G).
All direct services provided by the department offer
bi-lingual or bi-cultural assistance to the community.
Programs have a strong focus on customer service,
providing culturally sensitive and appropriate
services, and fostering inclusion.
FAMILY SERVICES
The Family Resource Schools Program (FRS)
provides a range of academic and non-academic
support services for children and families to help
children succeed in school. The program is a 25-
year community partnership with the BVSD in
five Boulder elementary schools: University Hill,
Creekside, Whittier, Crest View and Columbine.
FRS primarily serves low-income, ESL (English as
a Second Language), and free-and reduced lunch
eligible children and families. Child and family
support services include individual and group
counseling, parent support classes, after-school
enrichment and tutoring classes,, and referral and
financial support for basic needs and transportation
assistance. Most programs are free for school
families and children.
SENIOR SERVICES
Senior Services provide programs that engage older
adults in a variety of services and activities, with the
goal of improving the health and well-being of older
adults. Senior Services provides information and
referral, case management, health and wellness and
social and cultural enrichment programming through
extensive community partnerships
Programs for older adults are provided at the East
and West Senior Centers. Programming includes:
Social, educational, cultural enrichment and lifelong
learning programs; life skills classes; social and
educational trips; case management and referral
services with a focus on low-income seniors;
basic needs and financial assistance; health and
wellness classes; and fitness classes in partnership
with Parks and Recreation Department, including
SilverSneakers®. The centers host activities and
events, community gatherings, and provides
community rental space. The West Senior Center
hosts the Meals on Wheels congregate and home-
delivered meal program.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
The work of Community Relations is to protect civil
and human rights, facilitate positive community
relations and promote social equity policy. This work
is provided through two programs:
Office of Human Rights (OHR)
The Office of Human Rights enforces the city’s
Human Rights (HRO) and Failure to Pay Wages
(FTPW) ordinances (Appendix L). The city
investigates formal complaints filed with OHR.
Complaints may be addressed through mediation
or through a quasi-judicial hearing in front of the
Human Relations Commission. OHR works closely
with the Police Department and City Attorney’s
Office in enforcing the city’s HRO and FTPWO.
35
Community Mediation Services
Community Mediation Services provides community
conflict resolution and mediation services for city
residents, organizations and businesses including
landlord-tenant and neighborhood disputes and
restorative justice in partnership with the Boulder
Municipal Court and the District Attorney’s Office.
The goal of mediation is to avoid costly and lengthy
court proceedings and the emotional toll on parties
involved.
YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM (YOP)
The YOP provides social, educational and cultural
opportunities for youth and encourages civic
participation and volunteer work. A significant
number of youth served by YOP are low income and
people of color. The city manager-appointed Youth
Opportunities Advisory Board (YOAB), advises
the city and community on youth-related issues,
promotes youth leadership, implements community
projects to help address youth needs, and oversees
the distribution of approximately $130,000 annually
to local youth programs through grant making
processes. The YOP also awards approximately
$20,000 annually in small grants to individual youth
for cultural, educational or recreational activities in
return for volunteer service.
SUBSIDY PROGRAMS
In addition to direct service programs, the city
also provides two subsidy programs: The Food Tax
Rebate Program (FTRP) and the Child Care Subsidy
Program.
The FTRP reimburses qualified low-income families,
older adults and those with a disability for city sales
taxes paid on food. In 2016 rebates totaled $89,492.
The Child Care Subsidy Program provides child care
subsidies to low-income Boulder families who are not
eligible for the state Colorado Child Care Assistance
Program (CCCAP) because they are just over
the income threshold of 225% of federal poverty
guidelines (FPG) or are ineligible due to residency
status. In 2016, $165,200 was allocated for child care
subsidies for city of Boulder residents.
DIRECT SERVICES PROGRAM ALIGNMENT
WITH STRATEGY
To address emerging and future human services
needs, direct services provided by the department
will align with the Strategy goals and guiding
principles, including the following:
Family Services
• Integrate partnerships with Family Resource
Schools, Boulder County Family Resource Center
and EFAA for more integrated and coordinated
community family support programs to avoid
duplication and leverage existing and future
resources
• Integrate partnerships with Boulder County and
Early Childhood Council of Boulder County to
provide child care quality programs
Senior Services
• Expand case management to keep pace with the
anticipated increase in the older adult population
and identified needs
• Realign social programs with a greater focus
on educational and cultural programs and
community engagement
• Expand enrichment programs that enhance skills
of older adults including those that focus on
technology and employment
“Serving on the Youth
Opportunities Advisory
Board (YOAB) taught
me to examine issues from
all different perspectives,
a skill that has helped
me as I pursue my degree
in politics. YOAB also
taught me how to
express disagreement
in a professional way,
thereby opening up tough
conversations instead
of shutting them down.”
—MALIE MINTON
YOAB 2012-2016
36
• Realign health and well-being programs to focus
on the specific needs of older adults as they age
through later years
• Expand partnerships with county-wide
organizations and Boulder County to identify
emerging issues and plan for future aging services
Community Relations & Office of Human Rights
• Expand and strengthen city protections against
bias and discrimination
• Expand opportunities for diverse cultural
programs and events
• Expand community outreach and education on
culture, inclusion, and human rights
Subsidy Programs
• Expand the Food Tax Rebate Program for eligible
residents to support economic mobility and
resilience
• Expand the Child Care Subsidy Program to
support economic mobility and resilience for low
income families
Access to Services
Particularly for under-represented communities,
access to affordable, appropriate services and
resources was identified as an issue. All direct
services provided to the community have a strong
focus on customer service and foster inclusion
through culturally sensitive and appropriate services
and hiring of bi-lingual and bi-cultural staff.
The Strategy anticipates expanding access by:
• reducing barriers to getting information on line or
registering or applying for programs and services
electronically
• expanding access points for information such as
community kiosks
• providing on site services during certain hours
and days at other facilities such as recreation
centers, Fire stations or other community based
program locations.
PARTNERSHIPS
The city relies significantly on partnerships to
address community needs. Partnerships range from
coordinating the provision of direct services, funding
to community agencies to provide community
services and partnering with other organizations,
governments and community members to plan for
emerging social needs. Community partners include
local and regional non-profits, other governments,
business and faith communities, local school
districts and educational institutions, residents
and community members. The Strategy identifies
continued expanding community partnerships
for service integration and planning, in alignment
with the Strategy core principles. Specific future
partnership expansion includes:
CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILY PROGRAMS
For over thirty years the city has provided direct
services in early childhood, youth and family
support programs, largely the result of identified
community needs and innovative opportunities.
The city has partnered with Boulder County and
the city of Longmont and non-profit organizations
over decades to fill gaps, meet emerging needs or
transition programs to the community when capacity
is created. The city will continue to integrate and
coordinate programs and services where appropriate
with other local governments and non-profits. The
Strategy anticipates expanded collaboration with
other city departments in provided services and
programs for children, youth and families including
Parks and Recreation, Library, and Fire Department.
“Since I do not have family,
Boulder Senior Services has
proven to be a resource for
me that has allowed me to
feel cared for and supported.
They provide services that
for individuals like myself are
empowering, compassionate
and supportive. I cannot
emphasive enough how
important they are to this
community. Thank you!”
—SENIOR SERVICES CLIENT
37
HOMELESSNESS
The city will strengthen partnerships with services
providers and the community to address the needs
of homeless residents and expand partnerships with
the business and faith communities, residents and
those with lived homelessness experience. The city
will continue to strengthen partnerships in local and
regional initiatives that address long-term housing
solutions for homelessness, including other local
jurisdictions and the Denver metro region. The
department will continue to expand coordinated
efforts with the Police Department, Municipal
Court and Housing Division to implement the city’s
Homelessness Strategy.
AGING SERVICES
The Strategy anticipates expanding opportunities
to collaborate with other local government and
community agencies to improve services for
Boulder’s growing population of older residents.
In collaboration with Boulder County and the
Department of Community Vitality, create
opportunities to expand re-careering for older
residents; coordinate with the Transportation
Division to support efforts to adapt to the needs of
older adults and improve community readiness for
an aging population; coordinate programming with
Boulder County Area Agency on Aging and the many
non-profits and community organization that provide
programs offered through Senior Services.
EMPLOYMENT & WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
The Strategy anticipates a new focus on creating
pathways to improve resident employment
situations, including skills training and re-training,
aligning education and workforce opportunities and
programs that assist hard-to-employ and low-wage
workers. New efforts will require new partnerships
with the Community Vitality Department, Workforce
Boulder County, area employers, community
nonprofits and local educational institutions.
INCLUSIVE & WELCOMING COMMUNITY
The Strategy identifies an expanded focus on
creating an inclusive and welcoming community for
all residents and community members. In addition
to the partnership with the city’s Human Relations
Commission and community non-profits, expanded
education and community dialogue with all sectors
of the community will be needed to advance
community understanding and social equity. Creating
an inclusive and welcoming community is a high
priority city goal and the department anticipates city-
wide collaborative efforts with other departments to
advance this goal.
Boulder Day Nursery
For over 100 years,
the City of Boulder
has been investing in
Human Services.
1917 Civic Committee of the Woman’s Club
of Boulder voted to establish Boulder Day
Nursery.
38
“The guidance I received from
everyone involved in ‘I Have a
Dream’ was key to my pursuit
of higher education. When
I lost motivation, they were
there pushing me. When I
needed help, they were there
again with a helping hand.
They understood my struggle.
Thanks to ‘I Have a Dream,’ I
was the first of my family to
graduate from high school,
and the first to graduate from
college.”
FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK
SUSTAINABILITYFRAMEWORK
The City has a disciplined and layered approach to
budgeting that aligns the financial framework for
the Human Services Strategy with the Sustainability
Framework, Budget Operating Principles, and Priority
Based Budgeting. The Strategy aligns goals and
priorities with these guiding documents.
The Strategy guiding principles and Financial
Framework align with the Good Governance goal in
the Sustainability Framework:
• Models stewardship and sustainability of the
city’s financial, human, information and physical
assets
• Supports strategic decision making with timely
reliable and accurate data and analysis
• Enhances and facilitates transparency, accuracy,
efficiency, effectiveness and quality customer
service in all city business
• Supports, develops and enhances relationships
between city and community/regional partners
• Provides assurance of regulatory and policy
compliance
ANNUAL BUDGET
Figure 3 shows the Human Services Department
budgets from 2014 – 2017, by funding source.
Recreational Marijuana (RMJ) funds were added
in 2015 to fund the Substance Education and
Awareness grant program. In 2017, the approved
budget included $805,000 in one-time funds -
$663,000 to address homelessness and $142,000
to support the Police Department’s Early Diversion
Get Engaged (EDGE) program which provides crisis
response mental health services. Total department
FTE is shown on the next page.
Figure 4 shows the Human Services Department
total approved budget by use of funds. These
budgets include ongoing and one-time funds.
PRIORITY-BASED BUDGETING SCENARIOS
Current Funding Investment
Reflects investments limited to existing to support
existing mix of programs and services aligned with
the Strategy goals and priorities. This scenario
assumes that current levels of department funding
will continue at 2017 levels, less $805,000 of one-
time 2017 funds. Without additional resources,
enhancements in one area would require reductions
in other areas.
Action Investment to Meet Next Level of
Strategic Priorities
Reflects investments in next level of strategic
priorities in the Human Services and Homelessness
Strategies. This scenario assumes additional funds
to meet the next tier of priorities identified in the
Human Services and Homelessness Strategies,
including increased funding to the Human Services
Fund for community programs, expanding child
care subsidies for low-income residents, expanding
resources for inclusive and welcoming community
work plan, and funding new initiatives identified in
the Homelessness Strategy.
Vision Investment to Grow with the Community
Reflects a complete investment in goals and priorities
identified in the Strategy. The Vision investment
assumes the Action investment with added
investments to address the next tier of Strategy
priorities, including expanding Food Tax Rebate and
child care subsidies, and expanding resources for
senior programming to meet anticipated needs for
the growing aging population.
—DREAMER I HAVE A DREAM
FOUNDATION OF BOULDER
COUNTY
39
FEES & REDUCED RATE PROGRAMS
The department provides reduced rate
programming for low-income residents to
support residents’ access to city programs and
services. The department completed a Fee Study
(Appendix J) to assess sustainability of programs
and determined cost recovery rates for fee-
based programs. Current fees and practices for
establishing program fees were assessed. The
results of the fee study align program fees with
the city fee policy by determining the appropriate
level of cost recovery for each program. To ensure
consistent pricing, standardized costing templates
were developed for determining program fees,
which incorporate the desired level of cost recovery
for a variety of programs.
FIGURE 3: Source of Funds
General Fund-
Recreational Marijuana
Community Development
Block Grants
Grants
General Fund
$6,763,686 $6,978,264 $7,097,022 $7,773,615
2017
35.05
2016
37.15
2015
37.19
2014
37.41Full-time Equivalents
FIGURE 5: Human Services Budget - Action & Visions Scenarios Table
Human Services Fund Increase
Community Relations / HRC Grants
Homeless Services
Child Care Subsidy
TOTAL ACTION PLAN
$87,000
$40,000
$127,000
$663,000
$20,000
$750,000
$1,183,000
Address Community Priorities - All Goals
Inclusive & Welcoming Community
Homeless Strategy Implementation
Economic Mobility & Resilience, A Good Start
ACTION PLAN - ONGOING Direct Services Community Funding Description
Senior Services
Food Tax Rebate Subsidies
Child Care Subsidies
TOTAL VISION PLAN
$130,000
$10,000
$80,000
$220,000 $0
Aging Well - Expand Programs for Seniors
Economic Mobility & Resilience
Economic Mobility & Resilience, A Good Start
VISION PLAN - ONGOING Direct Services Community Funding Description
FIGURE 4: Human Services Use of Funds
Community Funding & Projects
Senior Services
Community Relations
Family Services
Administration
$6,763,686 $6,978,264 $7,097,022 $7,773,615
2014 2015 2016 2017
40
STRATEGY
IMPLEMENTATION
Moving to fulfilling the community vision of the
Strategy requires string community partnerships and
annual action plans to meet goals and objectives.
Annual action plans are developed focused on
implementation priorities, including:
• aligning community funding resources with
identified goals and priorities;
• aligning direct services with priorities and guiding
principles;
• aligning annual budget development with Strategy
goals and priorities;
• developing metrics, data collection and evaluation
plan for community funding programs and direct
services; and
• implementing identified expanded community
partnerships
METRICS & EVALUATION
Current metrics collected from direct service
programs and community funded agencies focus
heavily on outputs, such as number of clients
served and services provided and demographic
information on clients. Fundamental to evaluating
the effectiveness of the Strategy goals and objectives
and community impact is the development of
outcome focused metrics, and the right data
collection and evaluation systems to effectively
measure progress. A comprehensive data and
analytics work plan will be developed to address:
• metrics for direct services and community
funding programs;
• process, infrastructure and tools needed to
accomplish goals; and
• partnerships and resources needed to implement.
The department will partner with the city’s Chief
Innovation and Analytics Officer and Information
Technology Department to identify, collect and
report metrics in alignment with the city’s Innovation
and Analytics Framework.
Boulder is one of 77 cities across the country
participating in What Works Cities (WWC), a
Bloomberg Philanthropies initiative that partners
with 100 U.S. cities to build capacity for using data-
and evidence-driven governance. With technical
assistance from the Harvard Kennedy School
Government Performance Lab, the department is
piloting the development of metrics and outcomes
and performance based contracting for homeless
services. The pilot will inform the expansion of
metrics development and performance based
contracting for the larger human services system.
The department is partnering with Boulder County
Housing and Human Services to leverage and
integrate data collection and reporting through the
county data platform and client case management
system to track client services and outcomes.
The platform and data collection system is being
FIGURE 6: Human Services Budget - Investment Scenarios
Community Funding & Projects
Senior Services
Community Relations
Family Services
Administration
2017 Constrained Action Vision
$7,773,615
$6,968,615
$8,630,615 $8,850,615
41
developed for use by other funders and community
agencies to integrate countywide client data and
standardize reporting on common community goals.
In addition to reporting on community outcomes
to determine whether community investments are
resulting in positive community change, effective
data and analytics are tools to drive innovative social
financing partnerships for human services.
FACILITIES
The department provides community services at
three facilities: The East Boulder Community Center,
the West Senior Center (WSC) and the Family
Services Building located at 2160 Spruce Street.
City-wide planning efforts currently underway offer
potential opportunities to align human services with
Strategy goals and priorities and create efficient and
effective city services, including:
• The Alpine-Balsam project, a multi-year effort
to redevelop the former Boulder Community
Hospital over the next 10-20 years. Relocation
at this site would align with the site’s vision of a
“vibrant, multi-generational hub for community
life and city services” and foster synergies with
other city, county and community programs.
• The West Senior Center is part of the Civic
Area’s West End planning, with opportunities
for enhanced indoor and outdoor functions
and improved amenities such as parking and
transportation. The June 2016 revised Civic Area
Master Plan calls for creation of a senior center
consistent with best practices and providing
a wider range of services in a “one stop shop”
human services model. West End design and
development is currently scheduled for 2018-
2020.
Human Services Strategy community engagement
process provide feedback on community preferences
for a Human Services and Senior Center facility:
• community members support facilities that
provide a “one-stop shop” with multiple family
services;
• community members support facilities serving
multiple generations, with a preference for
defined spaces for older adults and youth; and
• community members generally prefer that the
West Senior Center remain at its current location
at 909 Arapahoe Avenue. If the center were to
relocate, the preference was senior services move
to the Alpine-Balsam site.
The Facility Recommendation can be found in
Appendix E.
42
APPENDIX A
Phases: Engagement Approval
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Study Sessions
Public Hearing
IP Memo 4/28 10/27 2/14 5/10 7/18
Focus Groups
Surveys
Open Houses 5/16 8/24
Human Services Strategy Benchmarks & Timeline
Human Services
Strategy Process
Stakeholder
Engagement
ImplementationPlanning Edit and Re‐Engagement
Council
2015 2016 2017
Phase I: Background and Research (continued from 2013 onward)
Draft
Strategy Implementation
Underserved Populations
Phase II: Analysis and Policy Options
Phase III: Plan Development
Council Approval
We are here
Final
Strategy
Boards & Commissions
City Departments
Community & Stakeholder Engagement
Phone
Online and Paper
PLANNING PROCESS TIMELINE
This timeline can be found at:
https://bouldercolorado.gov/links/fetch/42822
43
APPENDIX B
PHASE ONE RESEARCH REPORT
This full report can be found at:
https://bouldercolorado.gov/links/fetch/42823
During the Human Services Strategy update, the
department examined:
• changes in demographics and indicators since the
start of the department’s previous Master Plan in
2006;
• emerging local and national issues; and
• best practices for human services goals.
Six key human services issues emerged from the
initial research. They are:
Aging Well: addresses the continuum of needs of
Boulder’s older adults while anticipating emerging
needs as the older adult population increases.
A Good Start: addresses the needs of Boulder’s
children, youth and young adults age 0-18, and
acknowledges that investments in childhood and
adolescence can pay dividends later in life.
Economic Mobility and Resilience: addresses the
impact of poverty, income and affordability as core
issues for Boulder residents.
Health and Well-being: addresses the physical,
mental and oral health and substance use services,
including prevention and treatment, for Boulder
residents.
Homelessness: addresses the needs of Boulder’s
homeless population, and the value of coordinated
programs and services.
Inclusive and Welcoming Community: addresses
the value of cultural and civic inclusion, and
the protection of Boulder’s residents against
discrimination.
KEY CHARACTERISTICS OF BOULDER’S
POPULATION
Over the last decade, the city’s population grew
by nearly 15,000 from 92,474 in 2006 to 107,342
in 2015. Population counts include those seeking
undergraduate or graduate education which ranged
from 27,000 to 30,000 during that time period.
Although city-level population projections are not
available for Boulder beyond 2015, the Colorado
State Demography Office predicts that Boulder
County’s population will grow to nearly 400,000 by
2040. See Figure 1.
Race and Ethnicity
Data show that Boulder’s population identifies
as predominantly white, not Hispanic or Latino.
According to the 2015 Census, Boulder residents
identified as:
• 8.6 percent Hispanic or Latino,
• 82.4 percent white, not Hispanic or Latino,
• 5 percent Asian, not Hispanic or Latino, and
• 1 percent black or African-American, not Hispanic
or Latino.
Approximately 10 percent of Boulder residents are
foreign-born.
More than 6,000 residents in Boulder speak Spanish
at home. Among Boulder’s Spanish speakers, 29
percent report that they speak English less than “very
well.” More than 42 percent of Spanish speakers age
65 and over report that they speak English less than
“very well.”
Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 52 percent of
Boulder residents identify as male and 48 percent
FIGURE 1: Boulder County Population Growth, 2010-2040
44
identify as female. Although exact data for Boulder’s
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer (LGBTQ)
population is not available, the Williams Institute
estimated that in 2010, 385 same-sex couples lived
in Boulder, or 9.33 same-sex couples per 1,000
households. A 2013 Gallup survey found that 3.2
percent of Coloradans identify as lesbian, gay,
bisexual or transgender (LGBT).
Level of Education and Median Earnings
According to 2015 census estimates, more than 72
percent of Boulder’s residents age 25 and over have
earned at least a bachelor’s degree. Education is
closely linked to earnings. Median income in Boulder
is $58,484 for all households, which is higher
than surrounding communities. Median earnings
for individuals whose education is less than high
school graduate or high school graduate are lower at
$20,978 and $21,031, respectively.
Households
There are 42,165 households in Boulder with
varying configurations. There are 24,564 nonfamily
households and 17,601 family households. Among
family households, 14,314 are married-couple
families, 2,188 have a female householder with no
husband present and 1,099 have a male householder
with no wife present. Nearly half of family
households (7,863) include children under 18 years
old.
AGING WELL
The department identified the needs of older adults
as a key human services challenge for the city. Res-
idents age 60 and older comprise Boulder’s fastest
growing demographic. An increase in life expectancy
in the U.S., as well as the aging of Baby Boomers,
means that many older adults will be living longer.
The demographic shift is already reshaping Colorado
and will affect the economy, transportation and the
workforce. The oldest baby boomers started turning
60 in 2006 at the beginning of the department’s pre-
vious Master Plan. In 2006, approximately 11 percent
of Boulder’s population was age 60 or older. By 2015,
Boulder’s 60+ population increased to 16 percent of
the total population. See Figure 2. Over the next 25
years, Boulder County’s older adult population will
continue to increase.
The State Demographer’s Office does not provide a
population projection for the City of Boulder; howev-
er, they do predict that 28 percent of Boulder County
residents will be at least 60 years old by 2030. The
proportion of Boulder’s population under age 60 is
expected to decline during the same time period. See
Figure 3 and Figure 4.
The projected growth in Boulder’s older population
will have implications for the demand and delivery
of human services. Although individual needs can
vary, the growth in the number of older residents will
place a demand on health care and in-home services
as well as other supports that allow older adults to
thrive in the community as they age.
Key Characteristics of Boulder’s Older Residents
Several key demographic characteristics distinguish
Boulder’s older residents from the overall city pop-
ulation including a greater proportion of females, a
higher rate of living with a disability and higher rates
of home ownership. See Figure 5. The needs of an
older demographic vary from the overall population
as functional limitations increase.
Aging in Community
In a 2014 survey, 96 percent of Boulder’s older adults
rated Boulder County as a good or excellent place
to live, but only 76 percent rated Boulder County as
a good or excellent place to retire. This discrepancy
speaks to the challenges facing older adults who are
no longer in the workforce but want to remain in their
homes or their community as they age. Many older
FIGURE 2: City of Boulder Population by Age
Group, 2006-2015
FIGURE 3: Boulder County Population Projection b
y Age 2010 to 2040
FIGURE 4: Projection of Boulder County Population
Over 60, 2010 to 2040
FIGURE 5: Demographic Characteristic
Comparison of Boulder’s Population Age 60+
45
adults in Boulder gave low ratings to services and
community characteristics that enhance livability in
the community. See Figure 6.
Affordability of the community may have a negative
effect on those retiring locally. Older adults choosing
to downsize may find it difficult in Boulder due to
multiple factors, including a limited available housing
stock and rising home values. Housing-cost burden
is a consistent issue for both older adult homeown-
ers and renters and can impact the ability to pay for
other daily living costs or emergency expenses. See
Figure 7.
Volunteer Impact
In a 2014 survey, 97 percent of Boulder’s older adults
rated opportunities to volunteer as good or excellent
in Boulder County. Many of Boulder’s older adults,
41 percent, spend at least one hour each week
volunteering their time to some group or activity
within the county. About one-tenth (12 percent) of
Boulder’s older adults reported finding meaningful
volunteer work at least a minor problem. Nationally,
older adults annually contribute more than 3.3 billion
hours of volunteer service in their communities val-
ued at $75 billion.
Income and Savings for Medicare Beneficiaries
Health care is a large expense for Boulder’s older
adult population. Medicare does not eliminate out-
of-pocket expenses for enrollees. Issues surrounding
the cost of medical expenses are compounded by
decreased earnings, limited assets or liquidating hard
assets to pay for care. Median income among all
Medicare beneficiaries is $26,200, and the average
income decreases for several subpopulations. See
Figure 8. The same subpopulations also have fewer
assets, such as savings. On average, Medicare bene-
ficiaries had savings below $74,450 per person, and
had home equity below $70,950 per person in 2016.
FIGURE 6: Boulder Older Adult Perceptions of Livability in Boulder County
FIGURE 7: Housing Tenure and Cost Burden on Boulder’s Older Adults
(60+)
FIGURE 8: Median Per Capita Income Among All Medicare Beneficiaries
46
Economic Impact of Aging Population
As Boulder residents age and retire, there may
be implications for the city budget. Older adults
tend to spend more on services than on goods,
and overall spend less than younger adults. The
Colorado Futures Center at CSU estimates the aging
of Colorado’s population could slow the rate of total
revenue growth in the state and place increased
expenditure pressure on the state budget. According
to the Center, local jurisdictions could be similarly
affected. This could impact the revenue from sales
and use taxes, which account for 50 percent of the
City of Boulder’s revenue when utilities revenue is
excluded.
Income and Poverty
By several measures, a significant number of
Boulder residents age 65 and older live in or near
poverty (below 300 percent of the Federal Poverty
Guidelines (FPG)). Based on the national standard,
5.8 percent of residents age 65 and older live in
households that earn 100 percent of the FPG or
less annually. See Figure 9. More than 32 percent of
adults age 65 and older live in households that earn
less than 300 percent FPG annually. Boulder’s older
adults are also more likely to be employed and have
higher earnings than the national average.
Boulder’s older adults are less likely to be on food
assistance when compared to older adults in the
U.S. Approximately three percent of the older adult
population participates in the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP) and two percent
participate in cash assistance programs. Nearly half
of Boulder’s older adult households have retirement
income and more than 85 percent have Social
Security income. Older adults with low incomes
depend primarily on Social Security income. Social
Security income accounts for 82.5% of total income
for people in the lowest income quintile versus 16.1
percent for those in the highest income quintile.
Addressing the Needs of an Aging Population
Addressing the needs of older adults with
appropriate services can create or improve financial
stability, improve health outcomes and lengthen
the time older adults are able to age in community.
, Multiple agencies in Colorado at the state, county
and local level are working to address issues related
to Colorado’s growing older adult population. The
Colorado Dept. of Human Services’ State Unit on
Aging, Colorado’s Strategic Action Planning Group
on Aging and the Boulder County Area Agency on
Aging (BCAAA) have plans that serve as roadmaps
for addressing the issues of an aging population. To
provide opportunities for older adults of all abilities
to fully participate and thrive in Boulder, Age Well
Boulder County, a strategic plan shared between the
county, participant municipalities and community
partners, focuses on issues such as affordability,
isolation, transportation and housing through a
continuum of services. Based on this work, Boulder
County was inducted into the AARP/World Health
Organization’s
Network of Age-Friendly Communities in 2016. The
outcomes of focusing on services for older adults
include better transportation options that support
older adults with mobility issues, improved health,
increased social connection and cost-savings.
FIGURE 9: Population 65+ in Boulder by Ratio of Income to Poverty Level, 2015
A GOOD START
Staff identified key needs for children age 0-5,
school-age children and children transitioning from
school to employment or college. The challenges
faced by Boulder’s children have remained consistent
over time. However, the demographics of Boulder’s
youngest residents have shifted since the city
adopted the Human Services Master Plan in 2006.
Residents under age 18 are decreasing as a
percentage of Boulder’s overall population. This
trend is expected to continue through 2040. See
Figure 10.
Children Living in or Near Poverty
By multiple measures, many of Boulder’s children
live in or near poverty. Nearly 10 percent of Boulder’s
children live in households with income at 100
percent of the FPG or under, and 24.5 percent live
in households with income between 100 and 299
percent FPG. See Figure 11. In 2015-2016, 298
students in Boulder schools accessed McKinney-
Vento services available for homeless families.
In the 2016-2017 school year, approximately 21
percent of Boulder’s children accessed the Free and
Reduced Lunch (FRL) program available to families
earning 185 percent FPG (reduced) or less than 130
percent FPG (free).
47
FIGURE 10: Population Under 18 Years Old in Boulder FIGURE 11: Population Under 18 in Boulder by Poverty Level, 2015
Poverty disproportionally affects Boulder’s Hispanic/
Latino children. Hispanic/Latino children comprise
16.4 percent of Boulder’s under 18 population.
Nearly half of the estimated 1,300 children in Boulder
living in households earning under 100 percent FPG
are Hispanic/Latino. , Boulder’s Hispanic/Latino
children are four times more likely to live in poverty
than white, not Hispanic/Latino children.
Early Childhood Development and Education in
Boulder
A child’s early years have a profound impact on his or
her future. Providing children with safe, stimulating
environments has been linked to numerous
successful outcomes including the increased ability
to navigate adversity. Other components of early
childhood development include providing the
emotional, social and physical foundations needed
for success through adulthood. Exposure to adverse
events such as toxic stress, extreme poverty,
repeated abuse or severe maternal depression during
the early years can damage the developing brain. By
age three, children from families accessing public
assistance are exposed to 30 million fewer words
than children in high-income families. When low-
income children start school they are already behind,
and this deficit can compound over time.
Center-based child care can enhance a child’s early
development, but affordable center-based care can
be difficult to find and access in Boulder. Beginning
in 2004, infant and toddler care capacity in Boulder
generally flattened. At the same time, child care
costs grew and are now prohibitive for many families.
In Boulder, the average annual cost for pre-school
care in a center is $15,668. Costs for center-based
infant care average $17,423 per year.
To avoid the high costs of center-based care, many
families often seek less expensive alternatives in
home-based settings or from friends and family.
Home-based settings can vary dramatically,
however, and may not always enhance a child’s
development.
Full-Day Kindergarten
Full-day kindergarten programs provide structured
opportunities for children to develop social, physical
and cognitive skills. The importance of full-day
kindergarten is increased for children who did
not attend a pre-school program. Boulder Valley
School District (BVSD) offers full-day kindergarten
opportunities across the district. In Boulder, BVSD
offers full-day kindergarten at four schools with high
concentrations of low-income students and one
tuition-based school. According to BVSD, 32 percent
of kindergartners were enrolled in full-day programs
in 2015.
48
FIGURE 12: Percent of Kindergarten through Third
Grade Students Meeting Spring Literacy Benchmark
FIGURE 13: BVSD 3rd Graders Who Met End-of-
Grade Literacy Targets, 2015
FIGURE 14: Average ACT Scores for BVSD High School Students
FIGURE 15: 2015 BVSD High School Students – Selected Protective Factors
The Achievement Gap
Academic achievement disparities linked to poverty,
race and ethnicity are evident among Boulder’s
children in early childhood and persist through
graduation. Gaps exist for English language learners,
free and reduced lunch recipients and Latino
students. See Figure 12.
Third grade literacy targets, for example, show
a clear division of success based on a student’s
poverty level and primary language spoken at home.
See Figure 13.
Gaps persist for at-risk students throughout
their time in school and can affect their level of
educational attainment and earning potential. See
Figure 14.
Protective Factors
Some BVSD students do not have access to the
same supportive network that is available to other
students. A protective factor is something that
decreases the potential harmful effect of a risk factor.
Hispanic and gay, lesbian or bisexual (GLB) BVSD
students have less access than other students to
some important protective factors. See Figure 15.
49
FIGURE 16: Boulder and State Graduation Rates by Selected Characteristics, 2015-2016
Graduation Rates
The disparities by race and ethnicity demonstrated
at third grade carry over into high school. Graduation
rates in Boulder high schools differ significantly
between white, not Hispanic/Latino and Hispanic/
Latino students. See Figure 16.
Investing in Children and Youth
Investments in early childhood improve long-term
outcomes later in life. The American Academy of
Pediatrics recommends developmentally appropriate
childcare which supports social, emotional, and
cognitive development. Such care positively affects
academic readiness and long-term performance.
Subsidy programs help families pay for quality
childcare. Additionally, children and youth with
access to adequate and safe shelter and nutritious
food have improved concentration, better behavior
and fewer health issues. Research suggests that
multi-generational approaches are important to
a child’s development and family stability. The
Colorado Department of Education Performance
Plan focuses on early education for children, meeting
and exceeding testing standards and ensuring
young Coloradans are ready for college and careers.
Research demonstrates that adolescents with
more developmental assets, such as positive family
communication, caring school climate and sense of
purpose, have reduced morbidity and better health
outcomes.
ECONOMIC MOBILITY & RESILIENCE
Many Boulder residents struggle daily with
affordability of the community. The effects of
poverty can be intergenerational and present
throughout a lifetime. Poverty can impact a person’s
level of education and ability to retire well, and can
exclude some from the community.
Definitions of Poverty
Analysts use multiple tools and formulas to assess
poverty. The most common measurement, the
Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPG), creates a uniform
standard for poverty in the 48 contiguous states
and helps determine eligibility for more than 30
federal programs and multiple state and local
services. The U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) uses the guidelines for programs
such as Head Start, Medicaid and the Low-Income
Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). The
Department of Agriculture uses these guidelines to
determine eligibility for SNAP, WIC and the national
School Lunch Program. See Figure 17.
FIGURE 17: Income Eligibility for Federal Assistance Programs, Family of
Four - 2017
50
Using FPG to understand poverty has several
limitations. First, FPG does not fully account for
variations in the cost of living associated with family
structure differences. Second, FPG is not adjusted for
regional cost-of-living variation. Boulder has a high
cost of living, which contributes to the inadequacy of
FPG as a measure of self-sufficiency. See Figure 18.
The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Colorado (SSS) is
another tool used to assess livability and standard
of living. The SSS defines the amount of income
necessary to meet basic needs without public
subsidies such as public housing, food stamps,
Medicaid or child care, and without private or
informal assistance. This type of private assistance
can include free child care by a relative or friend, food
provided by local food banks, or shared housing. The
SSS differs depending on family size, family type and
region, making it a better indicator of family financial
conditions than FPG. The estimated SSS for a family
of four in Boulder County is approximately 300
percent of FPG. See Figure 19.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) calculates Area Median
Income (AMI) for households by region each year.
This calculation is used to determine eligibility for
HUD-assisted housing programs such as Section 8
vouchers. The Boulder County income range for the
Section 8 program is 50 percent AMI and below, the
range considered by HUD to be “very low income.”
For a family of four, the income limit for a Section 8
voucher is $49,100. See Figure 20. Availability of this
type of housing is limited, with approximate turnover
of 100 vouchers each year.
Several earnings benchmarks can be used to inform
policy and are set nationally, at the state level and in
Boulder. See Figure 21.
Based on FPG, SSS and AMI, a growing number of
people in Boulder are living in or near poverty. Over
the last decade, Boulder experienced a significant
economic recession followed by sustained economic
growth. Boulder experienced an increase in the
number of high and low earners and a decrease in
middle-income residents. According to 2015 census
estimates, 48 percent of Boulder residents live in
households making less than 300 percent FPG. See
Figure 22. Excluding college students, approximately
10 percent, or nearly 7,000 Boulder residents, live in
households with income under 100 percent FPG.
Based on FPG, SSS and AMI, a growing number of
people in Boulder are living in or near poverty. Over
the last decade, Boulder experienced a significant
economic recession followed by sustained economic
growth. Boulder experienced an increase in the
number of high and low earners and a decrease in
middle-income residents. According to 2015 census
estimates, 48 percent of Boulder residents live in
households making less than 300 percent FPG. See
Figure 22. Excluding college students, approximately
10 percent, or nearly 7,000 Boulder residents, live in
households with income under 100 percent FPG.
Poverty and Income Disparities
Poverty disproportionately affects Boulder’s
Hispanic/Latino residents. According to five-
year census estimates, median family income for
Boulder’s Hispanic/Latino families ($33,810) is 30
percent of median income for white, not Hispanic/
Latino families ($113,920). Approximately 36
percent of Boulder’s Hispanic/Latino residents live in
households earning at or below 100 percent FPG. In
comparison, only 21 percent of white, not Hispanic/
Latino residents live at or below 100 percent FPG.
Approximately 50 percent of Boulder’s Hispanic/
Latino residents live at or below 125 percent FPG. In
comparison, approximately 24 percent of Boulder’s
white, not Hispanic/Latino residents earn 125
percent FPG or below.
Median family income for female householders with
children is $40,000. In comparison, median family
income for married couples with children in Boulder
is $141,166. Female-led family households with no
husband present make up nearly 1,300 households
in Boulder. Among Hispanic/Latino households,
more than 27 percent are female-led with no
husband present. Among white, not Hispanic/Latino
households fewer than 11 percent are female-led.
The median income of women who worked full-
time, year-round in the past 12 months is $50,561,
77 percent of the median annual income for Boulder
men ($65,480).
Housing
Boulder’s increasing housing costs are making home
ownership and rental housing unaffordable for many
residents. The average single-family home price in
Boulder for 2016 was $1,066,674.
The average monthly rent in Boulder is over $1,700.
Renters occupy slightly more than half of Boulder’s
housing units. Approximately 62 percent of Boulder’s
rental units are occupied by tenants who spend at
least 30 percent of their income on rent.
There is a stark difference in the percentage of
Hispanic/Latino and white householders who
own their homes. In Boulder, 51 percent of white
householders own their home while 32 percent
of Boulder’s Hispanic/Latino households own
their home. Median net worth is much greater for
homeowners than renters, at $195,400 and $5,400
respectively.
Transportation
Transportation is a significant expense for many
Boulder households. A Boulder family making
median income spends, on average, around 17
percent of their income on transportation. Lower-
income households are further burdened as they
tend to spend the same amount as higher earners
with lower overall income to allocate. Although
51
FIGURE 18: HHS Poverty Guidelines for 2017 FIGURE 21: Annual Earnings Benchmarks
*Monthly costs and annual credits included in these calculations are housing,
child care, food, transportation, health care, miscellaneous, taxes, earned
income tax credit (EITC), child care tax credit, and child tax credit, where
applicable.
*At 100% FPG, for families/households with more than 8 persons, add $4,180
for each additional person.
FIGURE 19: 2015 Self-Sufficiency Standard for Boulder County, CO as
Compared to 2017 100 Percent Federal Poverty Guidelines for Various
Family Structures
FIGURE 20: Fiscal Year 2017 Income Limits for Boulder County
FIGURE 22: Boulder Population by Ratio of Income to Poverty Level
*This chart includes the higher education student population.
52
transportation is outside the scope of the Human
Services Department, it is important to note that
the city’s Transportation Master Plan addresses
potential public transportation solutions including
development of a community-wide EcoPass within
Transportation Demand Management.
Economic Mobility and Children
A parent’s income can significantly affect a child’s
economic mobility. According to the Pew Charitable
Trusts, 43 percent of children born into households
where the parents’ income is in the bottom quintile
were likely to remain in the bottom quintile as adults.
Only 27 percent manage to move into the next
highest income quintile in adulthood. See Figure
23. Low-income children are less likely to attend
preschool, less likely to meet or exceed academic
achievement milestones and less likely to graduate
high school.
Education, Jobs and Earnings
The potential for multi-generational effects from
poverty and lack of educational achievement are
particularly evident among Boulder’s Hispanic/
Latino residents. Overall, more than 70 percent of
Boulder’s residents age 25 and older had attained a
bachelor’s degree or higher, but a disparity exists in
level of education for Hispanic/Latino residents. See
Figure 24.
A disparity exists for the community’s Hispanic/
Latino population around earnings as well. Median
earnings for Boulder’s Hispanic/Latino residents are
half of what white, not Hispanic/Latino residents
earn at $31,056 and $63,282, respectively.
Residents with a lower level of education may lack
the training and knowledge to fill well-paid local
jobs. A bachelor’s degree was the minimum required
education level on 41 percent of job openings
advertised online in Boulder County in April 2017.
Income is a determinant of health and well-being.
Those with lower incomes are more likely to suffer
chronic conditions, to require the use of health
services and to experience mental health issues.
Initiatives and Programs to Address Poverty
Poverty and affordability are core issues that
have an impact on all aspects of daily life. At the
federal level, key initiatives and programs such as
the Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid and the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program have
been instrumental in providing a safety net. These
programs have demonstrated value in helping
improve employment rates for parents, which in turn
has long term benefits for their children including
better school performance and higher earnings as
adults. Additional research supports the premise
that simple programs that provide direct cash in the
hands of individuals and families can provide positive
outcomes with low administrative costs. Beyond
providing financial assistance, best practices to assist
those living in or near poverty include employment
assistance and education programs. Improving
an individual or family’s financial outlook can have
positive impacts by reducing intergenerational
poverty, increasing resilience and preventing a costly
slide into homelessness.
FIGURE 23: Economic Mobility of Children Based on Parent Earnings
FIGURE 24: Level of Education by Hispanic/Latino Origin in the City of Boulder
53
FIGURE 25: Public Insurance Rates in Boulder by Age Group, 2010-2015
FIGURE 26: Health Coverage in White and Hispanic/Latino Populations in Boulder
FIGURE 27: Uninsured Rates for Boulder Residents at Different Income Levels
FIGURE 28: Medicaid Member Caseload, Boulder County
HEALTH & WELL-BEING
The department identified specific issues related
to individual and community health and well-being
which includes access and affordability of healthcare,
including physical, mental, and oral healthcare
services as well as appropriate insurance coverage,
substance use services, availability of nutritious food
and physical activity.
Health Insurance Coverage
Since the enactment of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010, health insurance
coverage has expanded dramatically in Boulder, with
public insurance accounting for much of the increase.
Colorado was one of 32 states, along with the
District of Columbia, to expand Medicaid coverage.
Now more than 30 percent of Boulder’s children and
youth and approximately 9 percent of adults age 18-
64 are covered by CHP+ or Medicaid. See Figure 25.
Nearly 98 percent of Boulder’s residents have some
insurance coverage. A disproportionate number
of those who remain uninsured are Hispanic/
Latino. See Figure 26. Additionally, Boulder
residents earning between 138 and 199 percent FPG
are uninsured at higher rates than other income
brackets. See Figure 27.
People with lower incomes search out low-cost
insurance plans, which often have higher deductibles
and limited coverage. These types of insurance
plans mean more out-of-pocket spending resulting
in higher underinsurance rates. The Colorado Health
Institute estimates that 15.9 percent of residents in
Boulder and Broomfield counties are underinsured. ,
Before the ACA, single adults and parents earning at
or below 138 percent FPG were ineligible for public
insurance. In January 2014, Colorado expanded
Medicaid coverage through the ACA to include
more adults and former foster kids up to age 26. See
Figure 28.
54
While Medicaid enrollment increased, the number
of providers accepting Medicaid did not increase
proportionally with enrollment. Residents with
insurance coverage could have difficulty seeing
a provider. As of June 2017, 35 family practice
physicians were accepting Medicaid and only 25
were accepting new patients. None of the 25 family
practice physicians accepting new patients listed
Spanish as a language option.
Oral Health
Poor oral health care has been linked to many chronic
diseases including diabetes and heart disease.
According to the Colorado Health Access Survey,
approximately 35 percent of Boulder and Broomfield
County residents do not have dental insurance. Only
75.9 percent of respondents report visiting a dentist
in the 12 months prior to the survey and 9.4 percent
reported that their oral health was poor or fair.
Boulder residents who rely upon public health
insurance coverage can still be limited in access to
dental care services by cost and limited provider
options. The limit on the annual dental benefit
through Health First Colorado is $1,000 and
enrollees may be responsible for any additional
charge above the coverage cap. As of April 2017,
only 29 dentists accepted Medicaid in Boulder and
only 14 dentists were accepting new patients. Only
one practice of the 14 accepting new patients listed
Spanish as a language option.
Substance Use
Substance use during childhood or adolescence
poses a greater risk of long-term health issues.
Youth who start using marijuana, alcohol or other
drugs may be more likely to continue using later in
life. In 2015, 3.9 percent of all BVSD high school
students, including 5.5 percent of male students and
7.5 percent of Hispanic students, reported trying
marijuana before the age of 13. More than 22 percent
of BVSD high school students reported that they
had participated in binge drinking (consuming five or
more drinks in a row) in the previous 30 days. Many
students reported engaging in risky decision-making
involving alcohol or drug use, including operating
vehicles following drug or alcohol consumption, or
riding in vehicles driven by people who had used
substances. See Figure 29.
Perceptions of harm for marijuana use decrease as
students age: 69.5 percent of 9th grade students
but only 32.7 percent of 12th grade students think
people who use marijuana regularly have moderate
or great risk of harming themselves. Youth who
use marijuana regularly are more likely to have a
challenging time learning, problems remembering
and lower math and reading scores.
Many young adults in Boulder also struggle with
challenges around substance use. The second largest
group of Boulder County residents who are IV drug
users seeking substance use treatment are those
aged 17 to 24.
In addition to concerns about youth and young
adults, substance use in Boulder is concerning
because of the types of substances being used.
Although city-specific data is unavailable, the
Colorado Office of Behavioral Health reported that
heroin eclipsed marijuana and methamphetamine as
the second highest drug of choice for Boulder County
residents admitted for substance use disorder
treatment in fiscal years (FY) 2014 and 2015.
Alcohol was the primary drug for 62.3 percent of
Boulder County residents who sought treatment for
substance use in 2015.
Among Boulder County residents who sought
treatment in FY 2014-2015, most admissions were
men (65.1 percent) and most were between 18-34
years of age (59.3 percent). Methamphetamine and
heroin use trend slightly more toward younger age
groups, with 67.5 percent of methamphetamine
users and 83.3 percent of heroin users under age 35.
Most IV drug users are 25-34 years old.
Since 2000, the rate of death from drug overdoses
in the U.S. has increased 137 percent, including a
200 percent increase in the rate of overdose deaths
involving opioids. Heroin-related deaths more than
tripled between 2010 and 2015, with 12,989 heroin
deaths in 2015. In Boulder County 75 deaths were
either alcohol- or drug-induced in 2015. See Figure
30.
FIGURE 29: BVSD High School Students Alcohol and Marijuana Use While Driving, 2015
FIGURE 30: Drug- or Alcohol-Induced Deaths in Boulder County, 2015
55
Substance use disorder treatment can be provided
in inpatient or outpatient settings, depending on
the specific needs of the individual and variables
such as the type of substance used, severity of
the disorder, co-occurring conditions and the
preferences of the individual. For example, some
detoxification programs can be as short as three days
and methadone maintenance can last up to a year
or longer. Treatment usually involves a combination
of interventions including the use of medications,
counseling and recovery support systems such as
community recovery groups.
In Boulder, several facilities offer a variety of
outpatient services, but inpatient services are limited
to only two locations. Benefits of inpatient treatment
include a stable environment, around the clock
support and reduced risk of relapse.
Cost is another variable that impacts treatment.
Exact costs are difficult to pin down, because the
level of services provided can vary dramatically.
At one end of the scale are minimum outpatient
programs where an individual sees a patient a few
times a week, and at the other end are “luxury”
centers. Costs for outpatient services range from
$1,000 to $10,000. Residential programs range
from a few thousand dollars to more than $80,000.
, For each dollar spent on treatment, an average of
$7 is saved in benefits (decreased crime, increased
employment, and fewer medical expenses).
Treatment and recovery are at the far end of the
substance use care continuum. Prevention efforts
are the most cost-effective solution for substance
use. Effective prevention programs use the following
principles: enhance protective factors, reduce risk
factors, address all forms of drug abuse, and address
risks specific to populations to improve program
effectiveness.
Mental Health
Mental health is a significant concern for Boulder
residents who face many of the same challenges as
residents of other cities with access, affordability and
disparities. A significant number of BVSD high school
students reported that their mental health was not
good on one or more days during the previous 30
days.
• 68.4 percent reported that their mental health was
not good on one or more days during the previous
30 days.
• 98.2 percent of GLB students reported that their
mental health was not good on one or more days.
Mental health is also a concern for Boulder’s adult
population. Eleven percent of Boulder County adults
reported being in poor mental health, while 13
percent of Boulder County’s Medicare population
reported having depression.
For those seeking treatment in Boulder County, the
top two mental health diagnoses are mood disorders
(depressive and bipolar) at 28.1 percent and PTSD
at 11.7 percent. When mental health issues are left
untreated, one outcome can be suicide. Boulder
County reported a rate of 16 suicide deaths/100,000
residents. See Figure 31.
With an increase in Medicaid enrollees locally, there
continues to be a community shortage of providers
and prescribers. In addition, inflexible insurance
plans with limited coverage, limited provider
availability and lack of substance use treatment
increase the difficulty of accessing treatment. A
community mental health assessment identified
gaps and barriers including incarceration instead
of treatment and transitions, difficulty accessing
services in a timely manner, high costs of services,
limited support and curriculum in schools and
stigma.
Addressing Access and Affordability
The U.S. Office of Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion has recommended access to health care
to achieve health equity. Access and affordability of
health services, substance use treatment, nutritious
food and physical activity can impact an individual’s
health. A considerable number of people in Boulder
remain uninsured post-ACA. Best practices around
health and well-being include increasing access to
physical, mental and oral health and substance
use services, including prevention and treatment.
Addressing basic health needs, like food access,
is a building block of long-term health. Programs
that focus on the causes of health inequities are a
best practice to serve those who may not typically
have sufficient access due to low income and other
barriers.
FIGURE 31: Suicide Deaths in Boulder County, 2015
56
HOMELESSNESS
Homelessness continues to be one of Boulder’s most
visible and important human services challenges.
Homelessness is fundamentally an issue of poverty
and lack of ability to remain financially self-sufficient.
Many in Boulder struggling with affordability need
assistance to have their basic needs met and reach
self-sufficiency.
Estimates of Those Experiencing Homelessness
According to Point-in-Time (PIT) estimates,
approximately 500 people experience homelessness
in Boulder on any given night. Homeless population
counts are difficult, however, and the exact number
of people experiencing homelessness in Boulder is
unknown. See Figure 32.
A number of populations experience homelessness
in Boulder. There may be some overlap between
populations displayed in Figure 33.
Reported Reasons for Homelessness
According to 2016 PIT data, the inability to pay
rent or mortgage was the most frequently reported
reason for homelessness. See Figure 34.
Risk Factors
Risk factors associated with homelessness for
children and adults can be used to predict and
prevent homelessness. For families, extreme
poverty is the strongest predictor of homelessness.
Female-headed households and teen parent family
structures are at significant risk of homelessness.
For adults, risk factors include race, being extremely
low-income, aged 50-64, disruptive events in
youth, substance use, psychiatric disorders, prior
history of homelessness and physical health. Lack
of affordable housing is another contributing risk
factor, especially for families spending more than 50
percent of their income on housing.
Demographic Information for Homeless Defendants
Boulder’s Municipal Court extracted data for
citations issued to homeless defendants from Jan.
1, 2010, through Mar. 13, 2017. Most homeless
defendants were between 20 and 29 years of age
and most were male. Over 50 percent of homeless
violators aged 30 and over were Colorado residents.
For those under 30, only 32 percent of the homeless
violators were Colorado residents. Camping citations
were highest in the summer months when local
emergency sheltering options were not available.
FIGURE 32: Yearly and Average Homeless Count – All Homeless, City of Boulder
FIGURE 33: Homeless Population, City of Boulder
Those aged 20 to 29 years received the greatest
proportion of camping violations.
Service Utilization
In 2016, approximately one-fifth of single adults
experiencing homelessness in Boulder were
moderate or heavy users of local day shelter. The
moderate and heavy users accounted for nearly 80
percent of all interactions. Similar trends were seen in
night shelter data. See Figures 35 and 36.
57
FIGURE 35: Number of Clients by Level of Service Utilization – Day Shelter (DS) and
Community Table (CT) 2016
FIGURE 36: Boulder Night Shelter Data Trends – 2015
FIGURE 37: Resource Center Service Utilization, 2015 to 2016
FIGURE 34: Top Reported Reasons for Homelessness, City of Boulder, 2016 Light users, which constituted 77 percent of the
single adult homeless clients at Boulder night
shelters, spent an average of eight nights each in
2015. See Figure 36.
While service utilization is not a measure of need
or residency, it is a proxy for these characteristics.
This information suggests that approximately 400-
500 single adults have higher support needs to exit
homelessness, and are more likely to be long-term
Boulder residents. Some light users may have higher
needs, but seldom interact with the service system.
Service integration improved locally with
the formation of Boulder Homeless Services
Collaborative (BHSC), a partnership between
Boulder Shelter for the Homeless, Bridge House
and Boulder Outreach for Homeless Overflow in
2016. Collaboration between BHSC, the city and the
county has led to progress on system goals. Progress
achieved included service provider data integration
and an increased number of clients moving beyond
emergency shelter to engagement in long-term,
sustainable services. See Figure 37.
Adverse Effects
Childhood homelessness can have lifelong
consequences. A quarter of homeless children
have witnessed violence and 22 percent have
been separated from their families. Half of school-
age homeless children experience problems with
depression and anxiety. Homeless children are twice
as likely to have a learning disability, repeat a grade
or be suspended from school.
Preventing and Addressing Homelessness
Homelessness prevention focuses on housing
retention through subsidies and rapid rehousing.
Homeless or at-risk individuals and families may
have vastly different experiences; therefore,
a continuum of services is recommended to
58
address homelessness and the varying needs
of those experiencing it. Coordinated entry, as
part of a homeless service system, improves
outcomes by increasing efficiency and avoiding
duplication of services. National best practices
and policy focus on key themes of housing, support
services and system improvements. The United
States Interagency Council on Homelessness
recommends a comprehensive response to the issue
of homelessness to be effective in preventing or
shortening the duration of episodes of homelessness.
Permanent housing is a key component of programs
that successfully address homelessness. Permanent
supportive housing (PSH) gives those who are
chronically homeless an opportunity to move into
housing without meeting some requirements for
entry, including sobriety. Local data show an average
cost-savings of $31,545 over two years when a
chronically homeless individual moved to PSH.
Approximately 68 percent of chronically homeless
individuals placed in PSH programs locally remain in
housing after two years.
INCLUSIVE & WELCOMING COMMUNITY
Fostering an inclusive and welcoming community
in Boulder is important because the community
benefits when people with diverse experiences
have a voice at the table. The City of Boulder has
demonstrated this as a community value through
the establishment of the Human Rights Ordinance
in 1972 and the continued strengthening of the
language in subsequent years to increase civic
inclusion and protect against discrimination. Data
show there is room for improvement, as residents’
feelings of inclusion differ based on several factors
including race and ethnicity, income level, sexual
orientation and physical and mental ability. Real or
perceived discrimination is connected to and can
influence a person’s health, economic status and
ability and desire to age in the community.
Boulder is more affluent and less racially and
ethnically diverse than statewide averages. See
Figure 38. In 2015, Boulder’s median family income
was $105,034, while Colorado’s was $74,826.
Residents Living with a Disability
Nationally, discrimination based on a disability has
imposed significant economic and social costs.
Numerous studies link living with a disability to
educational and health disparities, which can lead
to lower earning potential, poverty and decreased
work opportunities. This cycle can ultimately lead to
homelessness. Approximately 7 percent of Boulder’s
residents report that they are living with a disability.
The figure increases with age: 16 percent of residents
age 65 to 74 and 44 percent of those age 75 years
and older are living with a disability.
Many residents living with disabilities struggle
financially. Among Boulder residents age 20 to 64
who report living with a disability, 39 percent report
annual income at 100 percent FPG or below. This
is nearly 14 points higher than the portion of the
population 20 to 64 that does not have a disability.
Many factors affect the health and livelihood of those
living with a disability at higher rates than those
without disabilities. See Figure 39.
Inclusiveness for Youth
Many youth in BVSD schools report not feeling
welcomed and included. Data show that students
are more likely to be teased or name-called based on
their sexual orientation, race or ethnic background.
See Figures 40 and 41.
Disparities in protective factors and attempted
suicide are present in Hispanic and GLB high school
students in BVSD schools. See Figure 42.
FIGURE 38: Race and Ethnicity in Boulder, 2015
FIGURE 39: Factors Affecting the Health of People with Disabilities
and without Disabilities
59
Community Perceptions
Data shows that many Boulder residents don’t
perceive Boulder as an inclusive and welcoming
community. In 2016, 59 percent of Boulder
Community Survey participants rated “openness
and acceptance of the community toward people of
diverse backgrounds” as “excellent” or “good.” A
similar measure from the 2014 survey, “community
acceptance of all people in Boulder,” received
an average rating of 65 out of 100 from survey
participants. Data on race and ethnic relations were
not collected in the 2016 survey. Race and ethnic
relations received a rating of 58 out of 100 in the
2014 survey.
A county-wide survey conducted in 2014 further
explored perceptions of specific populations:
• 76 percent open to the gay and lesbian community;
• 67 percent open to families with young children;
• 60 percent open to senior citizens;
• 49 percent open to immigrants from other
countries; and
• 41 percent open to racial and ethnic minorities.
Participants in several recent forums have reported
that Boulder is not accepting of all people equally,
especially those from other countries and racial and
ethnic minorities. A majority of respondents to the
2013 Boulder County Latino Community Assessment
FIGURE 40: Percentage of BVSD High School
Students Who Have Been Teased or Name-Called
Because of Their Race or Ethnic Background
FIGURE 41: Percentage of BVSD High School
Students Who Have Been Teased or Name-Called
Because of Their Perceived Sexual Orientation
FIGURE 42: Characteristics of BVSD High School
Students and Disparities Between Racial/Ethnic
and Sexual Orientation
indicated they were discriminated against in their
community because they are Latino. The survey
report stated, “one of the most concerning issues…
is the evidence of the many underlying problems
related to poverty, white privilege and institutional
racism in Boulder County.”
The 2016/17 Community Perceptions Assessment
revealed that nearly all phone (96 percent) and
web survey (82 percent) respondents generally felt
somewhat or very safe in the Boulder community.
When asked if they had ever felt unsafe in the
Boulder community during the past year, 22 percent
of phone survey and 54 percent of web survey
respondents indicated they had felt unsafe. Those
who do not feel safe commonly cited public spaces,
stores and city council meetings as locations where
they felt unwelcome. Common reasons people
reported for feeling unwelcome include being treated
with less respect than others, comments made by
others and being ignored or dismissed.
Affordability, lack of diversity and lack of services
were the biggest challenges identified about
living in Boulder. A predominant theme from the
Community Perceptions Assessment stakeholder
interviews was a lack of awareness in the Boulder
community of the discrimination and exclusion that
many individuals experience. Stakeholders also
mentioned affordability as a major concern and felt
that residents were excluded based on their income
level. Listening sessions supported the interview
findings. Inclusivity and belonging were associated
with income inequality and affordability as well as
lack of diversity.
Human Rights Protection
Boulder’s Human Rights Ordinance protects
against discrimination in the areas of housing,
employment and public accommodations. In 2016,
the city processed 241 inquiries related to potential
violations of the city’s Human Rights Ordinance,
60
including 52 related to employment, 79 related to
housing and 12 related to public accommodations.
The most common basis for discrimination cited
in these inquiries was national origin. In addition
to the 241 inquiries processed in 2016, the city
processed 12 formal complaints under the Human
Rights Ordinance. Among the 12 formal complaints,
disability was the most frequently cited basis for
discrimination. See Figure 43.
Boulder’s Failure to Pay Wages ordinance protects
people from non-payment of wages owed to them
for work performed within Boulder’s city limits. The
most recent year of complete data is 2015 because
several 2016 cases are still pending. In 2015, the
city processed 41 Failure to Pay Wages Ordinance
inquiries. A total of eight Failure to Pay Wages
ordinance complaints were filed in 2015, and $17,375
in unpaid wages was recovered.
Opportunities
The City of Boulder has demonstrated the goal
of creating a welcome and inclusive community
through a variety of actions, including the Human
Rights Ordinance, but there is more work to be done.
Embracing diversity involves making people feel
welcome, giving a voice to minority populations,
ensuring protection of human rights, enhancing
connections between demographic groups and
providing culturally appropriate services. Some
populations in Boulder, including racial and ethnic
minorities and those with a lower socioeconomic
status, continue to highlight issues around inclusivity
through measures at the city and county level.
Research suggests that acknowledging and valuing
diversity has substantial benefits for the community.
These benefits include increased academic success
for children that attend more inclusive schools and
higher profits for businesses that hire more minority
employees.
FIGURE 43: Human Rights Ordinance Cases and Formal Complaints, 2011-2016
61
FIGURE 1: Community Engagement Summary FIGURE 2: Comparison of Collected Survey Responses to Boulder Census Data
APPENDIX C
PHASE TWO COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
This full report can be found at:
https://bouldercolorado.gov/links/fetch/42824
Purpose
To inform the Human Services Strategy, the
department engaged in a robust, two-year process
to collect and distill feedback representative of the
diverse views of Boulder residents and stakeholders.
Community feedback helped identify and confirm
key human services issues, defined specific concerns
and provided an enhanced understanding of
community priorities.
Process
The city used multiple methods to collect
representative feedback from the community. With
assistance from two consultants, BBC Research
and Consulting and Civic Canopy, the department
conducted 41 different activities from June 2015
through April 2017. The city received feedback from
71 different organizations and over 2,000 individuals.
See Figure 1. A matrix of all community engagement
activities and full list of partners is included after the
staff summary. A final report by BBC Research and
Consulting that provides a more robust account of
community engagement is located in Appendix D.
The community engagement process provided
numerous opportunities for residents to provide
feedback about the Human Services Strategy. The
department engaged residents and stakeholders with
surveys, open house events, focus groups, partner
meetings and open conversations at public events.
Each method included a variety of ways for the
public to interact. Surveys were available in English
and Spanish, via the telephone, on the computer
and offered in person in paper form with and
without assistance. Similarly, focus groups and open
house events were designed to remove barriers to
participation by providing food, child care, translation
services and flexible scheduling. The variety of
events helped capture feedback from traditionally
underrepresented audiences.
Community Engagement Participants
The goal of the community engagement process
was to seek input from Boulder residents to identify
issues important to them and develop strategies
to address issues and concerns. In the process of
these efforts, Boulder Human Services oversampled
subpopulations that utilize existing services
impacted by the Human Services Strategy.
Surveys provided the most accurate demographic
information about community engagement
participants. The percentage of participants aligned
with census estimates, which supports engagement
findings being representative of all of Boulder.
More importantly, the final numbers matched or
exceeded expectations for reaching traditionally
under-represented populations in Boulder. Active
outreach efforts were used and included a variety
of tools such as a purposely shortened “outreach
survey,” presentations at back-to-school nights,
parent-teacher conferences and Family Learning
Center parent meetings. Outreach survey responses
exceeded census estimates, with 76 percent of
households reporting income below $75,000 and a
majority (51 percent) self-identifying race or ethnicity
as other than white. The combined outreach, phone
and online survey results provide an overall view of
the demographics. See Figure 2.
62
Focus groups were the primary tool used to
reach Boulder’s under-represented populations.
The format made it easier to remove barriers to
participation and offered an environment that was
more accommodating to special needs. In total, eight
facilitated focus groups provided the opportunity to
speak to lower-income families, Latino older adults
and youth leaders. The remaining groups either
focused on community members using services (e.g.,
homeless adults) or with partners and subject matter
experts who work directly with the community.
Limitations
Only the phone survey was a random, statistically
valid sample. Results of other feedback methods
were representative of those who chose to
participate, and do not statistically represent the
views of Boulder’s population as a whole. For that
reason, the phone survey results serve as the Boulder
community baseline, and other targeted methods
were employed to discern the critical needs of
underrepresented populations.
In addition, overall survey demographics skewed
older than the census target. This result was
anticipated for two reasons: outreach included an
older adult 55+ survey and outreach did not target
students at local colleges and universities, many of
whom are provided with similar services and are
part-time residents.
Finally, a few survey questions evolved over the
community engagement period, which hampered
direct response comparisons. As an example, a
question that community members found confusing
was reworded for clarity. While the intent of the
question remained the same, it is possible that
the change impacted how it was perceived by the
respondent.
Findings
Community engagement findings supported the key
human services issues identified through Phase One
research
Staff and consultants analyzed results from the
community engagement process and determined
that most community priorities fit within one of the
six key human services issues identified during Phase
One research. Several community engagement
examples supported this connection.
In the statistically valid phone survey, 401 Boulder
residents were asked: “Now that you have additional
background on the planning and the process, what
are your top three priorities for social welfare issues
that the City of Boulder should focus on over the next
five years?”
• This question prompted over 1,200 responses,
85 percent of which fit within one of the six key
human services issue identified by staff.
• Other answers either aligned with the
responsibilities of other departments or were
outside the scope of city authority.
Additional validation came from a companion online
survey. The survey asked whether there were “Any
additional priority areas missing?”
• Of the more than 230 responses received,
approximately 64 percent fit within one of the
six key human services issues identified through
research.
In “curbside discussions” conducted at the Boulder
County Farmers Market, staff asked residents
an open-ended question: “What should the city
prioritize over the next five years?”
• Approximately 90 percent of responses fit within
one of the six key human services issues.
Findings from community engagement mirrored Phase
One research
Two key concerns that emerged during both research
and community engagement were the affordability
of Boulder and the disproportionate challenges
facing residents of color. See Figure 3 for consistent
concerns across engagement methods and
demographics.
An individual’s race and/or ethnicity most
significantly affected results. See Figure 4. To lesser
degrees, age, income and gender also influenced
responses:
• Race and ethnicity:
• Hispanic, Latino and non-white respondents
identified an inclusive and welcoming
community as a higher priority than white, not
Hispanic/Latino respondents.
• Hispanic or Latino respondents identified
physical health care and substance abuse and
addiction as higher priority needs than all other
races and ethnicities. White, not Hispanic/
Latino respondents identified mental health as a
more significant concern.
• Household income:
• Lower-income respondents identified an
inclusive and welcoming community as a
more significant concern than higher-income
respondents.
• Age:
• Older adults generally rated rent and mortgage
costs as less significant concerns than other age
groups.
AGING WELL
Aging Well was near the bottom of the six key
human services issues. However, older adults (65+)
were more supportive of older adult programs and
services than younger age groups. Throughout
the community engagement process, the primary
community concern was the ability to age in the
63
FIGURE 3: Key Community Concerns
FIGURE 4: Key Community Concerns
community (place). To achieve this goal, residents
also consistently cited needs for:
• assistance with basic needs such as food, housing
and health care;
• support with transportation; and
• long-term case management.
Surveys
In the phone and online surveys, older adults also
emphasized their support for caregivers. Within the
same question, residents were asked their support
for centers that serve older adults only or centers
that serve multiple generations. The community
preference was for centers that serve multiple
generations.
In the outreach survey, another question asked about
preference for older adult programs and services,
and the top overall answer was the desire to age in
the community and have the resources to remain
independent.
• Non-white respondents still supported aging in
place as the top choice, but placed increased
emphasis on:
• health and wellness programs;
• resources for caregivers; and
• help understanding available resources for food
and medical care.
When asked the biggest barrier to aging in place, the
top overall answer by a wide margin was the cost of
in-home support services.
• Older adults emphasized this barrier more than
younger residents; and
• Asian and Hispanic/Latino residents prioritized
in-home support as the top barrier, but placed
increased emphasis on high medical expenses as
an issue.
64
The older adult survey was completed by adults and/
or caregivers over 55 years of age. Residents wanted
a continuum of programs to serve their needs. Health
and wellness, social services and resources were the
most popular choices. Another question addressed
the desire for older adult-only facilities, or ones
that serve multiple generations. In alignment with
the phone and online surveys, 69 percent of older
adults preferred space that served mixed ages in one
space either completely integrated or with space
separations in the same building.
Two additional surveys collected feedback from
older adult residents. The first asked about the
types of programs and services that the community
wanted. Findings aligned with previous surveys:
Community members wanted a continuum of
services with increased focus on programs that
enhanced educational and cultural learning. Fitness
opportunities, health screenings, day travel and
other services and resources that support aging in
community were also among the top responses.
The second survey primarily asked questions about
facility preference. When asked the type of facility
they preferred, 62 percent of residents supported
a multi-generational facility either completely
integrated, or with shared space and separate
defined spaces for older adults. Residents were
also asked where they would like the center to be
located and what factors influenced their decision.
The majority, 53 percent, wanted the location to
remain in the current West Senior Center space,
while 20 percent wanted it to move and 28 percent
had no preference. Parking and proximity to public
transportation were the two biggest amenities
desired for an older adult center.
Focus Groups and Open Feedback
Focus groups and other open feedback confirmed
findings from the surveys. Older adults and partners
that primarily serve older adults reinforced the
need for a continuum of services, and emphasized
that two adults of the same age could have vastly
different abilities and needs. Beyond just having
services, residents felt it was important to have
long-term case management to help navigate
existing community resources. Case management
was emphasized, because of the flexibility to help
a little or a lot depending on an individual’s needs.
Another key theme was the need to keep older
adults connected to the community to prevent social
isolation. Potential strategies shared by the groups
were to:
• increase volunteer opportunities (both for older
adults helping younger residents and younger
residents helping older adults);
• connect residents to opportunities through the
older adult centers; and
• create better natural neighborhood connections.
A GOOD START
key human services issue of A Good Start was near
the top of the community’s concerns. Within the
issue, programs for younger children and families
with children were favored over programs for older
children or young adults.
Surveys
The phone and online surveys both had strong
support, regardless of demographics characteristics,
for programs and services for children. Both asked
participants to restate their top three priorities at the
end of the survey and issues related to A Good Start
were second to only Economic Mobility & Resilience.
The online survey had a question that asked what
was important for the city to focus on for youth
through high school graduation. The top choices
were:
• employment/volunteer opportunities at 33%
• increasing youth civic engagement at 17 percent;
• after-school programs at 15 percent; and
• substance abuse prevention at 14 percent.
The outreach survey asked more detailed questions
about programs for children and young adults. When
asked about the top priorities for middle and high
school students, the community responded that
substance abuse education was the top choice. A
similar question was posed for children age zero
to five, and the top answer was programs that help
children prepare for starting school. This result was
also consistent with the ranking exercise at the first
Mapping our Future Open House that had school
readiness as the top overall choice within A Good
Start.
Differences occurred in responses from white, not
Hispanic/Latino residents and Asian residents. See
Figure 5.
Focus Groups and Open Feedback
Focus groups helped confirm the finding that
transitions (starting school, adolescence, high
school graduation) were important areas for the
department to address. Focus groups were also
the only opportunity to speak directly with high
school students. College readiness and support
was a consistent theme from students. In addition,
students emphasized:
• increasing access to mental health services;
• the desire for additional comprehensive health
education; and
• the pressures of being a teenager without always
having the appropriate outlet or knowledge of all
community resources.
ECONOMIC MOBILITY & RESILIENCE
The issue of Economic Mobility & Resilience (EM&R)
65
FIGURE 5: Key Community Concerns
was the top overall issue for Boulder residents.
Residents with lower household incomes were
most supportive of helping people in poverty. In
other key human services issues, an individual’s
race and ethnicity were most likely to influence
their responses. However, in an EM&R household,
income was the stronger predictor of an individual’s
response.
Surveys
Both the online and phone survey featured a question
that illustrated income’s impact. As a respondent’s
income increased, the level of difficulty meeting
basic needs decreased. See Figure 6.
Survey respondents, near the end of the phone
survey and online survey, reflected on their answers
and provided their top priorities and/or any missing
priorities, and in both instances EM&R was the top
overall choice. The specific concerns related to:
• affordability in general;
• affordable housing; and
• affordable public transportation.
The outreach survey confirmed the finding that
EM&R was the top community priority by asking
respondents to choose which audience the city
should focus on with programs and services.
Respondents chose low-income families as the top
answer with 51 percent of the responses. The next
closest were older adults with 19 percent, low-
income adults at 8 percent and immigrants at 8
percent. When asked, “What the city should focus
on to help families in need,” the top answers were:
• access to affordable housing with 42 percent;
• access to affordable child care with 18 percent;
• assistance with basic needs with 13 percent;
• assistance with securing health care with 13
percent; and
• employment and training at 12 percent.
Focus Groups and Open Feedback
Other forms of feedback produced the same results,
with EM&R as the top community concern. For
example, at the Boulder County Farmers Market, had
affordable housing been treated as its own issue,
it would have been the third overall choice behind
health and well-being and homelessness. Through
several focus groups, residents voiced concerns that
the cost of living in Boulder was having an impact on
their daily lives.
Focus groups and open-ended feedback also
provided additional information on potential
strategies including:
• increasing employment opportunities;
• providing a living wage to all employees; and
• increasing access and availability of education and
training programs.
HEALTH & WELL-BEING
Health & Well-Being was an issue area that many
residents felt was important, but residents varied in
their prioritization.
Surveys
The phone and online surveys both had mental
health programs and services at the top of the
responses in the overall results, while physical health
was at the middle or bottom third. Physical health
was significantly more supported by Hispanic and
Latino residents.
• In the phone survey, physical health was rated
most important by 80 percent of Hispanic and
Latino residents, making it the top overall choice
by a large margin.
Hispanic and Latino residents also experienced more
difficulty than white, not Hispanic/Latino residents in
making ends meet for:
• health insurance;
• mental health care;
66
• physical health care; and
• medication.
Non-white and non-Hispanic/Latino residents also
experienced similar difficulty, especially for physical
health and medication costs.
The outreach survey featured more in-depth
questions that addressed some of the barriers to
healthcare. White, not Hispanic/Latino residents
were more likely to have insurance but still identified
issues with the cost of healthcare, while Hispanic and
Latino residents identified having no insurance at all,
or insurance that did not cover necessary services.
Having to pay completely out-of-pocket for care
may help explain why Hispanic and Latino residents
prioritized physical health across the community
engagement process.
Focus Groups and Open Feedback
Focus group participants and open-ended responses
also identified healthcare as an issue in Boulder.
Mental health access was identified as a key concern
for homeless individuals, families and lower-
income families. City boards and commissions and
funding partners also prioritized mental health as
a community need. Healthcare access was also
mentioned as a barrier for specific populations,
including:
• members of the undocumented community;
• adults with children eligible for health services;
• Boulder’s gay community members; and
• adults with children eligible/utilizing public health
services mentioned dental care as their largest
unmet need.
HOMELESSNESS
The key human services issue of Homelessness was
a top area of concern for the community, with strong
feelings for continuing or expanding current services
and conversely equally strong feelings that there is
too much being done already, or that doing more will
create a bigger community issue.
Surveys
In the phone and online surveys, a similar question
asked residents to share their concerns. See Figure 7.
Emergency shelter and long-term housing were the
fourth and fifth choices in the online survey.
A second question asked about the support for a
year-round overnight shelter. Respondents in the
phone survey supported a year-round shelter at a
rate of 66 percent while the online survey had the
support of 55 percent. A key point that may explain
the differences between the results is the timing
of the surveys. The online survey was open longer
and had potential to be impacted by current events.
Further supporting this notion is that early online
results matched the phone survey more closely.
The outreach survey featured several questions on
the key human services issue of homelessness. In the
first question, residents were asked about their top
concern related to the topic. The top answers were:
• availability of affordable housing at 30 percent;
• providing basic needs and resources at 23 percent;
and
• public spaces are safe and accommodating for all
residents at 19 percent.
• The second question asked residents to look at
the draft goals of the proposed Homelessness
Strategy and determine what they wanted the city
to address first. The top answers were:
• support services (including basic needs) that
provide stability for homeless individuals and
families at 34 percent;
• programs that prevent homelessness at 30
percent; and
• develop pathways to long-term housing and
retention at 22 percent.
Focus Groups and Open Feedback
Open-ended feedback and focus group meetings
also helped explain differences between surveys.
Unlike the other key human services issues,
homelessness support was not as dependent on
a person’s demographic characteristics, but was
more influenced by a person’s role/interaction
with homelessness. Homeless families remained
a top concern regardless of the audience. Groups
representing current or former homeless service
utilizers were more interested in immediate support
such as food or access to shelter and showers
while community providers supported longer-term
solutions such as setting housing goal targets or
supporting a more coordinated regional system.
FIGURE 7: Top Three Community Concerns for
Homelessness
67
A concept that was not emphasized in the prompted
survey responses was the linkage between mental
health and substance abuse and homelessness.
Current or former homeless individuals stated both
as barriers to service entry. Partners and boards and
commissions also discussed this topic as an area
of focus for increased partnership. Lastly, open-
ended feedback solidified that respondents were
significantly more in favor of helping residents versus
someone that might be passing through. There
were also comments that pushed for stronger law
enforcement efforts and programs to make Boulder
less attractive to the Homeless population from a
service perspective.
Inclusive and Welcoming Community
An Inclusive and Welcoming community was at
the bottom of the community’s list of key human
services issues. However, when looking at the
results by demographic characteristics, it was clear
that traditionally underrepresented populations felt
differently.
Surveys
Both the phone and online survey asked about the
importance of a variety of programs and services as
well as populations to serve. The markers of creating
a welcoming community and support for local
human rights protection were the most relevant to
the key issue. Support for local human rights was in
the bottom third of choices and creating a welcoming
community was at the bottom of the response list.
As income level increased, support for both generally
decreased. Support also was affected by race and
ethnicity. All non-white residents, but especially
Hispanic/Latino residents supported both at higher
rates than white residents.
The outreach survey had one specific question
that asked for potential strategies to address the
issue of openness in the community. All residents
were in support of organizing more community
events to improve residential interaction. White, not
Hispanic/Latino residents were more supportive
of expanding community education about invisible
populations and communities of color, while Asian
and Hispanic/Latino residents felt it was more
important to have resources in other languages and
more culturally appropriate services. In the same
question respondents had the ability to choose,
“making people feel more welcome in Boulder is not
a concern.”
• A total of 17 percent of white, not Hispanic/Latino
respondents chose this option.
• No Hispanic/Latino residents chose this option.
• A total of 32 percent of adults over 65 chose this
option.
• A total of 7 percent of residents below 65 chose
this option.
Focus Groups and Open Feedback
Focus group and feedback session participants
reiterated that Boulder is an expensive community,
and that there is a feeling of the haves versus the
have nots. Feedback from marginalized members
emphasized:
• stronger support for more basic services;
• helping residents that are not eligible for all
services such as undocumented individuals; and
• support for those making too much to qualify for
assistance programs.
Healthcare was another issue mentioned by several
groups as being a barrier. In some instances, their
children could access services such as dental
care, but this was not readily available to parents.
Another concern was the lack of overall diversity in
Boulder. Several community members wanted to
see more inclusive activities, and a government that
represented all of Boulder’s residents.
Sample Open-Ended Responses
“Is there any other group or issue that is important
for the City of Boulder to support?” Examples
include:
• affordability and diversity;
• bringing down the price of living for students,
creating diversity and supporting groups of people
who are not white;
• diversity should be a major issue;
• ethnic diversity, LGBTQ not a lot diversity; and
• we need more support to enhance and support
diversity in our community.
On the other side of the conversation, open-ended
feedback in several instances was negative. Several
comments talked about the city focusing less on
Hispanic/Latino residents and more on white,
not Hispanic/Latino residents. Other comments
suggested that there is not a need for the city to
be diverse or that the city is better off without an
inclusive and diverse community.
Sample Open-Ended Responses
“When you moved here what helped you feel
welcomed into the community?” Examples include:
• no diversity, therefore safe and clean;
• I was not welcomed... very elitist city;
• honestly, I don’t feel very welcome. I’ve lived in
Colorado for my whole life, and Boulder for years,
but I can barely, barely afford to pay rent and
childcare; and
• take care of white middle class current residents.
68
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MATRIX
Community and stakeholder feedback provided
critical input used to develop the Human Services
Strategy. The Community Engagement Matrix
describes each public engagement activity including
the type of activity, intended audience, number of
attendees or participants and available demographic
information about respondents.
Public engagement reached diverse stakeholders
and utilized multiple mechanisms including focus
groups, community partner organization meetings,
board and committee feedback sessions, open house
events, curbside conversations and surveys. Through
the engagement process, the city provided 41 unique
community feedback opportunities and engaged
2,098 Boulder residents and stakeholders. Although
many of the city’s community engagement activities
were not conducive to collecting demographic
data, staff collected information about the age,
income and race or ethnicity of respondents from
four community surveys. Summary demographic
information from the three all-ages surveys is
charted below. See Figure 8. The department also
conducted three older adult and caregiver focused
surveys. Almost all the respondents were greater
than 65 (84 percent) and nearly half were above
the age of 75 (47 percent). Most respondents, 66
percent, had a household income below $75,000.
The department shared research and community
engagement findings with key community
stakeholders and partners that either directly serve
or support Boulder residents. Stakeholders attended
issue area-specific sessions that featured short
presentations by staff followed by an open period for
questions and feedback.
Several consistent themes emerged across all
community engagement methodologies.
• Affordability was regularly identified as a top
community concern.
• Affordable housing was identified as a specific
concern, although respondents often defined the
challenge differently.
• Programs supporting families were generally
emphasized over programs that support
individuals.
• The needs and programs for children were
emphasized over adults.
• Healthcare access and affordability were identified
as a top concern.
• Within the Aging Well key human services issue,
respondents identified transportation, basic needs
and aging in place or community as top concerns.
• Homelessness was identified as a top issue, but
specific community concerns varied.
This matrix describes each specific engagement tool
and event. See Figure 9.
FIGURE 8: Top Three Community Concerns for
Homelessness
69
FIGURE 9: Community Engagement Opportunities Categorized by Outreach Mechanism
70
71
72
73
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PARTNERS LIST
Across 41 community engagement events and
opportunities, a total of 70 organizations have
provided feedback as of 6-1-17:
• Adult Care Management Inc.
• Alternatives for Youth
• Alzheimer’s Association
• Association for Community Living
• Attention Homes
• Audio Information Network of Colorado, Inc.
• Blue Sky Bridge
• Boulder Chamber of Commerce
• Boulder County (Area Agency on Aging,
Community Services, Head Start, Health and
Human Services, Public Health, Women Infants
and Children)
• Boulder County Aids Project
• Boulder County CareConnect
• Boulder County Legal Services
• Boulder Day Nursery Association
• Boulder Food Rescue
• Boulder Housing Partners
• Boulder Jewish Family Service
• Boulder Outreach for Homeless Overflow
• Boulder Rights Watch
• Boulder Shelter for the Homeless
• Boulder Valley Christian
• Boulder Valley School District (Teen Parent
Program)
• Boulder Valley Women’s Health Center
• Bridge House
• Center for People with Disabilities
• Children First of the Rockies
• Children’s House Preschool
• Circle of Care
• City of Longmont
• Clinica Campesina Family Health Services
• Colorado Legal Services
• Community Action Development Corporation
• Community Food Share
• Congregation Har HaShem
• Cornerstone Church of Boulder Valley
• Crestview Church
• Dental Aid
• Downtown Boulder Inc.
• Early Childhood Council of Boulder County
• Emergency Family Assistance Association
• Executive Funders Committee (not included in the
count as individual members were counted)
• Family Resource Schools
• Foothills United Way
• Frasier Meadows Retirement Community
• Global Service Office
• Habitat for Humanity St. Vrain Valley
• Hope for Longmont
• Human Services Alliance of Boulder County (not
included in the count as individual members were
counted)
• I Have a Dream Foundation
• Immigrant Legal Center of Boulder County
• Intercambio de Comunidades
• Latino Task Force of Boulder County
• Meals on Wheels of Boulder
• Mental Health Partners
• Mother House, Inc.
• New Horizons Cooperative Preschool
• Out Boulder County
• Pine Street Church
• Programs for All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly
• Project YES
• Sacred Heart of Mary Church
• Safe Shelter of St. Vrain Valley
• Safehouse Progressive Alliance for Nonviolence
Inc.
• Saint Aidan’s Episcopal Church
• San Juan Del Centro
• Sister Carmen Community Center
• The Center for People with Disabilities
• The Reverence Movement
• Thistle Community Housing (Worthy Cause)
• TLC Learning Center
• TRU Community Care
• Via Mobility Services
• YWCA of Boulder County
74
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
BBC COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT REPORT
This full report can be found at:
https://bouldercolorado.gov/links/fetch/42825
FACILITY RECOMMENDATION
This full report can be found at:
https://bouldercolorado.gov/links/fetch/42826
Recommendations for the Human Services West
Senior Center (WSC) facility were guided by a
combination of staff feedback, community input
and research. Feedback from the community was
collected in 2016 and 2017 through five surveys,
one focus group, one community partner meeting
and two advisory board/committee meetings.
Community input was also collected in coordination
with the Boulder County Area Agency on Aging
during the engagement phase of the Age Well
Boulder County Master Plan in 2014. Research
efforts focused on relevant city-wide planning
projects to ensure alignment with the overall
development goals and vision.
Key Results
• Community members support facilities that
provide a “one-stop shop” of multiple services;
• Community members support facilities serving
multiple generations, with a preference for defined
spaces, e.g., for older adults and youth; and
• Community members prefer that the WSC remain
at its current location at 909 Arapahoe Avenue.
If it were to relocate, community members prefer
that senior services move to the Alpine-Balsam
site.
Survey Feedback
Human Services conducted a total of five community
surveys which included facility questions during July
2016 to April 2017. See Figure 1.
Results of Surveys 1 (random sample phone survey)
and 2 (non-random online survey) indicated support
by all audiences for centers for multiple human
services purposes and serving multiple generations
over single-purpose facilities for older adults only.
See Figure 2.
Surveys 3 and 5 asked a similar question in a
multiple-choice format. See Figure 3.
Survey participants were also asked about the
location of the facility. In both Survey 3 (the general
older adult survey) and Survey 5 (the older adult
facility survey), residents were asked if they preferred
that the WSC stay at its current location, or relocate
to another space. In both surveys, most respondents
wanted the center to remain at its current location at
909 Arapahoe Avenue. See Figure 4.
Residents who chose “prefer if it move” or “no
preference” were prompted to choose a new
relocation site. The most popular choice in both
surveys for a potential relocation was the Alpine-
Balsam site. The Alpine-Balsam site was listed in a
randomized set of choices in Survey 3 and as a sole
choice with the option to write in additional sites in
Survey 5.
Survey 4 (older adult programs survey) did not
feature questions specifically on facility location, but
did ask about programs, services and logistics that
impact facility location. Most respondents preferred
that the center remain open during the current
week day hours. Around 22 percent of respondents
wanted later evening hours (5-7 p.m.), and would
be more likely to visit if Saturday (33 percent) or
Sunday (22 percent) hours were available. When
asked about wellness programs, fitness was the top
overall choice with 55 percent. Offering expanded
fitness would likely require space modifications at
the current West Senior Center.
Focus Group, Partner Meeting, Board and
Commission Meetings, and Open-Ended Feedback
Open-ended responses in the surveys, as well as
anecdotes collected through facilitated focus groups
and board and commission meetings were consistent
with the survey findings.
In the facility survey, respondents were asked to
describe the types of spaces and services they would
like to see in an integrated center.
• The responses ranged from having informal space
or services to more specific recommendations like
having child care centers where the older adults
FIGURE 1: Summary of Surveys with Questions about the West Senior Center
75
FIGURE 2: (Survey 1 & 2) On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not important
and 5 is very important, how important to you is it that the City of
Boulder supports the following programs and services for older adults.
FIGURE 4: (Surveys 3 and 5) Do you prefer that the West Senior
Center stay at its current location near the main library, or do you
think it should relocate?
FIGURE 3: (Surveys 3 and 5) What is your preference for the type
of facility the city provides for older adult programs and services?
Please choose the one option that is your top choice.
can help support the younger children.
• One resident commented that mixed generation
activities with grandchildren is important because
“there seems to be a loss of connection of the
family.”
• One focus group, one partner meeting and two
advisory committees were queried about Human
Service facilities. A summary of the results is as
follows:
• Partners in the Aging Well subject matter expert
meeting stressed the importance of keeping older
adults engaged to prevent depression. They also
talked about how there is a “general sense that
senior services [in Boulder] are fractured and hard
to navigate without a one-stop shop.”
• Participants in the Aging Well focus group talked
about transportation as a barrier to services.
Having to travel from one site to the other for
exercise and services is difficult. They also
mentioned the need for intergenerational activities,
but still having senior only space too.
• The Senior Community Advisory Committee
supported the survey findings, and preferred a
center that had integrated services and space
with separate areas for older adults. For them,
one of the biggest barriers at the existing site was
parking.
• The Youth Opportunity Advisory Board also
supported an integrated facility with separate
defined spaces for youth and adults. They cited
the enhanced collaboration of youth and adult
programs and better sense of community made
possible by integrated services. Board members
preferred separate space for youth to feel safe,
and rooms/activities geared towards their specific
needs.
Age Well Boulder County – City-Specific Feedback
In the summer of 2014, the city partnered with the
76
county on four meetings to collect community input for
the Boulder County Age Well Master Plan. Each meeting
was comprised of survey and discussion, and included
Boulder Human Services-specific facility questions. Three
were open to the general public and one was focused on
the Latino community.
Two questions addressed the type of facility that
residents preferred. The results for both questions show
a clear preference for combining facilities and near-
even support for a multi-generational service center
versus an older adult-only service center. See Figures 5
and 6. Though not provided as an explicit choice, most
comments mentioned that residents wanted a facility
that combined older adult-only space with a center that
served multiple generations. Several participants talked
about a stronger nexus with the library and a preference
for combining multiple services such as exercise
and senior services, as is found at the East Boulder
Community Center/East Boulder Senior Center site.
In addition to the survey responses, participants also
provided written comments. The biggest barrier cited
for the WSC was the lack of parking. Transportation was
also mentioned by several residents as a need in the
community and as a barrier to attending programs and
services. Latino respondents voiced many of the same
concerns and emphasized low-cost transportation and
translation as barriers. Several Latino residents also
expressed a desire for more informal gathering space.
Staff Feedback
Staff from Public Works and Facilities and Maintenance
provided input on the future of the WSC. During the
facilitated discussion, staff considered the pros and cons
of the current location and of the Alpine-Balsam space
to best serve the needs of Boulder’s residents. Ideas that
informed consideration included a space with co-located
services, community gathering space and ways to access
information and services such as kiosks. See Figures 7
and 8.
FIGURE 5: Do you think Boulder should continue to offer stand-
alone senior centers, or provide services to older adults in
combination with other facilities, such as libraries, community
centers, and rec centers?
FIGURE 6: Do you like the idea of providing a range of services for
families, including older adults, at one location? Or do you prefer
an older adults-specific service center?
FIGURE 7: Location – Current (909 Arapahoe Avenue)
77
Research
Staff performed a literature review of relevant
city-wide planning projects to determine alignment
with the overall goals and council direction. Plans
reviewed were:
• Civic Area Master Plan
o Goal of consistent design and building feel
o Creating a downtown hub for a signature
inclusive space
o Direct mention of WSC
o Calls for any new senior center to be consistent
with best practices and models providing a wider
range of access for older adults to resources,
socialization and continuous leaning enrichment
o Implores the city to explore co-location of the
center with other services either at the current
location (with redevelopment) or elsewhere close
to other services and amenities
• Alpine-Balsam Vision Plan
o Goal of consistent design and building feel
o Creating a hub for a signature inclusive space
o Describes an emphasis on affordable housing
and a “15 minute” neighborhood
• Facilities and Maintenance Master Plan
FIGURE 8: Location - Alpine-Balsam (8.8-acre site of the former
Boulder Community Health Hospital)
o Maintenance-focused and provides details of
needed improvements
o Describes the flood plain and that the WSC is in
the 100-year conveyance zone
o Calls for improvements for environmental
sustainability
o Attachments to the plan provide additional detail
on WSC
• Facilities Strategic Plan
o Direct mention of WSC
o Maintenance focused and provides details of
needed improvements
o Describes the flood plan and that the WSC is in
the 100-year conveyance zone
The data and planning reports support the co-
location of services for multiple generations, but
renovations to the current WSC will be necessary
to accommodate public need and maintain a central
design theme.
Recommendations
Council guidance, community engagement results
and research efforts support exploration of an
integrated Human Services center for multiple ages
and services, with some defined areas such as for
older adults and youth.
Specific recommendations for consideration are:
1. Provide a multi-generational, multipurpose Human
Services center for multiple ages and services.
This includes Human Services community funding,
homelessness planning and administration, children
and family services, community mediation services,
youth opportunity programs, and older adult
services. Include some defined areas such as for
older adults and youth.
2. In addition to space for programs, meetings and
offices, there is a need for the facility to serve as a
community gathering space. Examples of community
gathering space needs include older adult, children
and family programs and events; Office of Human
Rights and Community Relations work group and
Human Relations Commission-related events such
as cultural grants and festivals; programs related to
the Inclusive and Welcoming Community work plan;
gathering related to immigrant issues; mediations
involving multiple parties over a period of time;
Youth Opportunity Program gathering spaces for
youth; and other Human Services-related community
engagement programs.
3. In conjunction with Alpine-Balsam and Civic Area
citywide planning efforts, determine location/s of
services.
4. If services co-locate at 909 Arapahoe site,
redevelop, renovate, remodel or rebuild facility
to accommodate public need, address structural
deficiencies and align with the Civic Area flood
assessments and facility assessments. Conduct a
space study to inform optimal use of the current
facility footprint.
5. Include a welcoming entry and non-bureaucratic
atmosphere where people feel safe. Examples would
be the undocumented immigrant community, older
adults, people who may be afraid of or intimidated by
government.
78
6. Pursue ways for community to access information
and services without physically being on site, such as
online and via community kiosks.
7. If services co-locate, repurpose the Human
Services building located at 2160 Spruce Street to
the highest and best city use.
APPENDIX F
COMMUNITY FUNDING
This full report can be found at:
https://bouldercolorado.gov/links/fetch/42828
Framework for Community Funding
Priorities and Guiding Principles of the City of
Boulder Human Services Strategy (Strategy) form
the foundational framework for the city’s community
funding methodology.
Priority on Economic Mobility and Resilience and
Homelessness
Economic Mobility and Resilience and Homelessness
are two goal areas identified for expanded focus in
the Human Services and Homelessness Strategies
over the next five years. The Homelessness Strategy
identifies a new system of services focused on a
coordinated entry, assessment and service delivery
system, which prioritizes client need and permanent
housing for better long-term outcomes, while
continuing to ensure safety net services are available.
Boulder residents consistently identified poverty
and affordability as top community concerns during
public engagement. Poverty factors significantly
influence other human services challenges and are
a root cause to many long-term, downstream social
welfare issues.
National research data suggests that by reducing
poverty, improving resilience to economic
downturns and expanding opportunities to become
economically mobile, communities can significantly
improve the quality of life for residents and, over
time, reduce the demand on emergency and crisis
services. By prioritizing goals related to economic
mobility and resilience, the city can positively affect
multiple populations and community needs.
Core Principles
Consistent with the Strategy, three core principles
will influence future human services community
funding decisions:
• focus more resources on upstream investment;
• data-driven decision making based on outcomes;
and
• focus more resources on integrated and
coordinated services for greater effectiveness and
efficiencies.
These principles will be used as criteria to evaluate
funding applications. Program proposals will be
eligible for higher scores for incorporating one or
more of the core principles described below.
The core funding principles will not be a required
element of every proposal for community funding.
Instead, the principles are factors that will be
considered in evaluating proposals and funding
decisions. Other factors that will affect funding
include:
• The strength of connection to specific goals
and strategies. Proposals more strongly linked
to specific strategies will be considered more
favorably.
• The degree of collaboration. The department
encourages organizations to apply for funding with
partner organizations and to work collectively on
targeted strategies and shared programs.
• Use of evidence-based, promising and innovative
practices. The department encourages programs
that feature established practices that are well
grounded in academic and empirical research. The
department also encourages use of innovative or
promising practices that may help the city find new
solutions for human services challenges.
Upstream investment – Community funding will
support early interventions that target the root
causes of social problems. Upstream investment
focuses on outcome-based programs and policies
designed to address problems before they become
more critical and expensive. More downstream
interventions should identify how programs and
services are connected to prevention and upstream
programs. In the upstream investment model,
programs may also be prioritized for funding
based on: evidence-based, promising practices
or innovative practices. Service providers are
encouraged to adopt one of these practices. An
example of evidence-based programs and their
definitions can be found at SAMHSA’s National
Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices.
Data-driven outcomes – The city will use outcome
performance measures to drive funding decisions
and services. Meaningful indicators will measure
client outcomes rather than outputs – such as the
number of services provided or clients served.
System integration – Community funding will support
approaches that provide a client-centric, no-wrong-
door access to services and emphasize funding
partnerships over a funder/grantee contracting
relationship. System integration emphasizes a
seamless social safety net that is more efficient
and effective for both service delivery agencies
and clients. Funders and agencies will commit
to common goals and outcomes and create
mechanisms for accountability, particularly regarding
data and performance measurement.
79
Current Community Funding Mechanisms
Human Services Fund ($2.1 million annually)
The City of Boulder’s Human Services Fund (HSF)
provides approximately $2.1 million annually to
community agencies providing direct services to
Boulder residents in support of the current Human
Services Master Plan. Awards are made through a
competitive process based on alignment with City of
Boulder priorities, goals and outcomes.
Utilizing the regional grants management system
(GMS) e-CImpact, nonprofit, government and
educational agencies target and report on human
service community indicators and outcomes. The
GMS is shared by Boulder County, and the cities
of Boulder and Longmont. It provides a common
application and standard impact areas, outcomes
and indicators.
HSF awards are made for ongoing operating support
of human services programs. Capital projects, one-
time events, technical assistance and general agency
operating expenses currently are not eligible for HSF.
Funding recommendations are determined by a five-
member Human Services Fund Advisory Committee
(HSFAC) and are approved by the city manager
and City Council. Funded agencies provide a mid-
year and year-end report on selected outcomes
and indicators. For additional information about
the funding process and the committee and to see
a list of currently funded agencies, see the Human
Services Fund website.
The current HSF impact areas roughly translate into
the six new human service goals proposed for the
updated Human Services Strategy.
In 2016, HSF funds were distributed as follows:
• Approximately 49 percent for community health
and well-being;
• 24 percent for homelessness;
• 20 percent for children;
• 4 percent for inclusive and welcoming programs;
• 2 percent to economic mobility and resilience; and
• 1 percent for older adults.
See Figure F-1 for funding applied to each of the six
goals.
The HSF’s 2016 funding priorities and system
includes some challenges that affect the new
Strategy.
• Community priorities have shifted since the
previous Master Plan was approved in 2006. This
includes the new Strategy focus on economic
mobility and resilience and homelessness. Funding
strategies for the city need to reflect these
changes.
• Many current indicators and program-level data
received from agencies funded through the HSF
are not as informative as needed to assess impact
FIGURE F-1: 2016 Human Service Fund Awards by Human Services
Strategy Goals
and broader community outcomes.
• Current HSF allocations are spread broadly across
many organizations and are not focused on a deep
community investment strategy.
Human Relations Commission (HRC) - Human
Relations Fund ($30,575 in 2016)
The HRC Human Relations Fund supports events
and initiatives that celebrate and appreciate
diversity and inclusion in Boulder. Objectives are to
support Boulder’s diverse communities to celebrate
cultural events, support education and outreach
initiatives and promote inclusion and diversity in the
community. The HRC supports community initiated
activities that raise awareness on emerging civil
rights issues in Boulder, facilitates interaction and
understanding between communities, encourages
collaboration among diverse communities,
strengthens civic participation among Boulder’s
diverse communities, and promotes an inclusive
society. The HRC encourages funding requests that
80
address or provide leadership development, youth
involvement and collaborations with other groups to
promote inclusivity and respect for diversity.
Youth Opportunities Fund ($20,000 Individual Fund,
$35,000 Group Activities Grants, $115,000 Annual
Grants in 2016)
The City of Boulder established the Youth
Opportunities Program (YOP) in 1994 to provide
cultural, educational and recreational opportunities
for youth in the city. The program supports positive
youth development programming that uses a
strengths-based approach with special emphasis
on meeting the needs of under-served youth. The
Youth Opportunities Fund (YOF) is divided into
allocations for annual grants, group activities grants,
and individual grants for youth in exchange for
community service. The middle and high school
members of the Youth Opportunities Advisory Board
(YOAB) oversee the allocation of the Annual Grants
fund, including providing funding recommendations
to the city manager.
Substance Education and Awareness (SEA) -
$250,000 in 2016
The SEA program is funded through recreational
marijuana tax revenues that City Council has
designated for substance use prevention, treatment,
and education programming with an emphasis on
children and youth. In April 2016, a six-member
review panel recommended allocation of $193,000
in funding to Boulder County Community Services
Healthy Futures Coalition (HFC) as part of a
competitive RFP process. Consistent with City
Council direction on Nov. 17, 2015, the SEA contract
with HFC was designed for a term of five years, with
funding contingent on annual budget approval by
City Council and achievement of annual program
benchmarks and outcomes.
SEA is a community collective impact effort, with
multiple partners implementing shared messaging,
goals and measurement. A formal evaluation plan
was developed by an independent evaluator hired
by the city through a competitive RFP process. As
a funder and a partner, city staff engage in regular
meetings, progress check-ins, planning and course
corrections with the HFC. This project is an early step
into a community funding partnership incorporating
the core principles from the new Strategy. The longer
funding time-frame is aligned with an emphasis on
long-term community outcomes, including changed
perceptions of risk for substance use among youth.
Double Up Food Bucks (DUFB) - $15,000 in 2017
The Double Up Food Bucks (formerly called Double
SNAP) program is a collaboration between the City
of Boulder, Boulder County Public Health (BCPH)
and Boulder County Farmers Markets (BCFM).
Program partners seek to increase health equity by
improving access to fresh, local fruits and vegetables
for Boulder’s low-income, Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP)-eligible residents, and
by promoting local food production. The program
provides a match of up to $20 on federal nutrition
benefits available to SNAP participants for purchase
of produce at the market.
The pilot program began in 2014 and continued in
2015. DUFB became part of LiveWell Colorado’s
“Double Up Colorado” program in July 2016.
LiveWell Colorado is a statewide nonprofit
organization committed to preventing and reducing
the barriers to healthy eating and active living in
Colorado communities that face inequity.
Keep Families Housed Pilot - $263,000 in 2017
The Emergency Family Assistance Association
(EFAA) Keep Families Housed Pilot provides short-
term rental assistance for families with children
at extreme risk for housing insecurity. The pilot
expands an existing rental assistance program that
provides one month rent (up to $500) to reach
additional families and provide for a second and in
some instances a third monthly payment for up to
200 families. The second and third payments are
conditional on a set of accountability measures
aimed at ensuring that key children and adult
outcomes are achieved (e.g., medical and dental
check-up in the last year, enrollment in SNAP
food assistance and other programs if eligible,
school attendance). The pilot leverages public and
private funding as well, and will be evaluated by an
independent, third-party evaluator.
Changes to City of Boulder Community Funding in
Human Services
Several changes are proposed to the city’s
community funding process to implement HS
Strategy goals.
Human Services Fund Recommendations
At the Feb. 14, 2017 City Council study session on the
Strategy, staff recommended significantly increasing
funding to the Economic Mobility and Resilience
(EMR) goal as a top priority area in the Strategy.
A shift to EMR without additional resources would
have resulted in significant funding reductions for
other human services goals, particularly the Health
and Well-Being goal, which currently comprises half
of HSF funding. Council indicated support for more
focus on EMR, but not at the expense of health or
other goals.
Proposed HSF allocations and processes under the
new HS Strategy are described below in two different
scenarios.
Scenario 1 - Total funding allocated to HSF remains
unchanged.
Scenario 2 - Total funding allocated to HSF is
increased.
In either scenario, several common themes will apply.
81
• Under both scenarios, HSF funding will be
targeted to specific strategies identified for
each of the six human services goals. Although
funding for programs depends on alignment with
goals, strategies, key principles and quality of
proposals, an initial analysis of currently funded
programs suggests that nearly all would continue
to be eligible to apply for funding in new goals
and strategies. Some new strategies create
opportunities for additional programs to be funded,
including Economic Mobility and Resilience, Aging
Well and Homelessness.
• Funding will be competitively awarded through
a Request for Proposal (RFP) process conducted
every four years. Options for funding in interim
years are included below.
• Four-year grants will focus on long-term outcomes
and consist of a funder/partner approach. City
and program staff will regularly meet to assess
progress toward goals and make recommendations
regarding program adjustments and advancement.
This funder/partner role redirects some staff time
from annual fund rounds to partnership check-
ins and dialogue on what’s working or change
recommendations. Longer funding terms are a
national trend as more cities choose to focus on
long-term strategies and outcomes. Four-year
terms are dependent on appropriations and
appropriate progress on program metrics and
milestones. The city recognizes that four years
may not be enough time to capture many long-
term outcomes; however, this longer funding time-
frame offers more opportunity to capture changes
over time than previous one- and two-year cycles.
• The HSFAC will evaluate proposals and make
funding recommendations to the city manager.
• Funded programs will report regularly on metrics
and outcomes that are closely aligned with
demonstrated results. Annually, each goal area
will have a summit, where all funded programs
communicate about their outcomes and learnings.
The summit will provide an opportunity to share
information with city agencies, similar programs
and other community partners. For example, all
programs funded in the Health and Well-being goal
area would meet with staff and other Health and
Well-being agencies to present on their program’s
outcomes project learning. The summits will be
in conjunction with other funders. The summits
would also provide an opportunity for cross-
pollination and idea generation for new programs,
program enhancements, or new partnerships. This
is different from individual agency mid-year and
year-end reports currently submitted as part of
one-year cycles, with a deeper commitment to,
and action on, results-driven contracting.
As part of the Homelessness Strategy and
Homelessness Working Group recommendations,
a new adult homeless services system is being
launched in October 2017. This will require new
contract structures with adult homeless services
providers and re-allocation of some funding
previously provided for adult homeless services
through the HSF competitive fund round to a
contracting process outside of the HSF competitive
round.
Scenario One: Total funding allocated to HSF remains
the same
In this scenario, HSF funds would be allocated by
strategies within each of the six goals and would
likely result in a funding scenario similar to the 2016
fund round (See Figure F-1).
FIGURE F-2: 2016 Human Service Fund Awards by Percentage
FIGURE F-1: 2016 HSF Funding Allocations
82
The funding allocation by percentages are shown in
Figure F-2 below.
As part of HS Strategy implementation, staff
will work with partners to advance EMR and
Homelessness goals across the community
through partnerships and community funding.
However, without additional funding to target EMR
or Homelessness, proposals are likely to fall into
historical patterns and the department is unlikely to
reach goals for these areas.
The Scenario One funding process would include the
following elements:
• The RFP would request proposals for programs
targeted to strategies within each goal.
• Proposals within each strategy will be ranked
higher (more points) if they incorporate core
funding principles including upstream investment,
system integration and data-driven service
delivery.
• The RFP would encourage collaborative proposals
involving
• Multiple organizations that apply jointly and work
collectively on a program with shared metrics
within a targeted strategy.
• Proposals that demonstrate evidence-based or
evidence-informed practices will be rated higher.
Scenario Two: Funding allocated to HSF is increased
In scenario two, as new resources become available
for the HSF, they will be allocated to all goal areas,
with a greater focus on expanding Economic Mobility
and Resilience as the key driver of other social
welfare issues and Homelessness as a high priority
area of community investment. As the real-time
data is available with implementation, resource
allocation can be adjusted to meet needs. Target
percentages for additional funding are described
below. In developing target percentages, a variety
of factors were considered, including: priorities in
the HS Strategy, other sources of funding, current
level of funding for existing programs and promising
pilot programs. These targets are guidelines and
have flexibility based on potential for innovative/
cross-cutting programs, and changing community
conditions. Table F-2 below presents priority areas
targeted for additional funding.
Using the proportional allocation for new resources
of $300,000, $500,000 and $1M, as examples, the
Department can roughly estimate the total funding
allocations by goal: (See Figure F-2).
If the city receives too few proposals targeting EMR,
it could convene and re-engage community partners
to build community capacity to address the deficit.
Other regional funding partners share this intention
to build community capacity for EMR programming
and there is potential for regional collaboration
moving forward. This partnership is described in
“Funding Partnerships” below.
A benefit in this scenario is that no single goal will
experience a funding decrease and destabilize the
human service safety net. However, the city currently
supports few programs that have Economic Mobility
and Resiliency as their primary mission; additionally,
community capacity to augment EMR programming
may be limited.
The Scenario Two funding process would include the
following:
• RFP that prioritizes programs which measurably
target goals and their related strategies.
• Proposals will also be ranked higher if:
• The proposal is collaborative with multiple
organizations applying and working collectively on
metrics within a targeted strategy area.
• The proposal demonstrates upstream
investment through evidence-based, promising
practices or innovative practices identified in
national literature.
A reasonable outcome of early competitive
procurement process with new goals may be fewer
EMR proposals initially than there is available funding
designated for that goal. Therefore, in Years One
and Two, staff recommends that EMR resources
build upon the principles of upstream investment
- convening funders and community agencies to
commit to common goals and outcomes and create
mechanisms for accountability, particularly around
data and performance measurement, specifically
with the objective of strengthening the city’s
Economic Mobility infrastructure.
One example of this concept is to convene Economic
Mobility and Resiliency learning labs, with the
following elements:
• Community partners are invited to submit a
one-page description of their current or intended
Economic Mobility work.
• Invited attendees are placed in working groups
dependent on a mix of existing, experienced
programs and forming or new programs.
• Participants conduct a data walk and hear from
policy makers on trends and findings related to
EMR.
• Participants hear from (or visit) an existing,
local example of a successful Economic Mobility
partnership.
• Groups create action plans and commitments
based on their program goals.
• Agencies having attended a learning lab and
completed an action plan may apply for additional
Economic Mobility funding.
Although this example involves more staff time and
commitment to capacity building than currently
may be resourced at the city, there is excellent
83
FIGURE F-2: Proportional Allocation of New HSF Resources
FIGURE F-2: Proportional Allocation of New HSF Resources
opportunity to collaborate with regional funding
partners; some are already involved in community
capacity-building. Some options in this area are
included in the “Funding Partnerships” section below.
Youth Opportunity Fund Recommendations
Annual grants from the YOF are used to fund
community youth programs in amounts up to
$15,000. In addition, the city recently implemented
the Substance Education and Awareness (SEA)
program, providing dedicated community funding of
up to $250,000 annually to support drug and alcohol
education and prevention for children, youth, and
families. The awards have potential to overlap with
HSF funding targeted to youth.
Recommendations
To clarify the differences between YOP and HSF
funds and eliminate overlap between these funds and
SEA, the following criteria are recommended:
• YOP annual grants are primarily used for cultural,
educational and recreational programs that meet a
community need, provide pro-social opportunities,
develop youth leadership and engage youth as
partners in their planning and implementation with a
concentration on underrepresented middle and high
school age youth. YOP educational focus in areas
such as peer education, substance use prevention
and programs helping students learn about college
and careers. Examples include:
o High school age peer educators participate in
a leadership program and teach their classmates
about healthy eating through interactive
workshops.
o Mentoring program where college students
introduce underrepresented high school students
to STEM careers through field trips and mentoring.
o High school youth plan ecological restoration
and environmental education projects for middle
84
school students.
o A community center offers free sports
programming on weekend evenings for high school
age students.
• HSF funding for youth programs is leveraged
primarily for basic needs, social welfare and
educational services directly aligned with academic
outcomes such as tutoring or academic case
management, and substance treatment programs.
Examples include:
o Provide academic case management and tutoring
assistance for students living in affordable housing.
o Providing a social worker to address mental
health needs at a youth shelter.
• SEA funding (marijuana sales and use tax dollars) is
leveraged for substance abuse education, prevention
and limited treatment programming for youth.
Overall, changes recommended for YOP and HSF
funding eligibility for youth programs will not
significantly impact currently funded agencies.
Sugar-sweetened Beverage Product Distribution Tax
(SSBPD Tax)
On Nov. 8, 2016, City of Boulder voters approved
Ballot Issue 2H, which authorized the city to impose
an excise tax of up to two cents per ounce on the
first distributor in any chain of distribution of drinks
with added sugar, and sweeteners used to produce
such drinks. Although sugar sweetened beverage
distribution taxation is new in Colorado and the
United States, substantial research has been done
on the consumption of sugary drinks and healthy
weight status, dental caries, diabetes, and chronic
diseases associated with sugar sweetened beverage
consumption.
Boulder Revised Code Section 3-16-1 expresses the
Legislative Intent of revenues generated by these
taxes:
• The administrative cost of the tax; and thereafter
for:
o health promotion;
o general wellness programs and chronic disease
prevention in the city of Boulder that improve health
equity, such as access to safe and clean drinking
water, healthy foods, nutrition and food education,
physical activity; and
o other health programs especially for residents
with low income and those most affected by chronic
disease linked to sugary drink consumption.
Programs funded with SSBPD tax dollars to promote
health equity will be awarded through a competitive
RFP process. A seven-member health advisory
committee will be established whose main purpose
is to provide recommendations for the funding of
city and community programs that engage residents
most affected by health equity and chronic disease
caused by consumption of sugar-sweetened
beverages. The health advisory committee will be
seated in 2017 and competitive fund rounds will
occur in 2017 and 2018.
Community Funding Option Between Fund Rounds
Opportunity Fund
The City will conduct a competitive fund round in
2018 for a four-year fund cycle beginning January 1,
2019 to December 31, 2022. The Human Services
Opportunity Fund (OF) serves as a community
funding option between competitive fund rounds.
The OF is a reserved amount of the HSF to fund
emergency services, innovative new programs or an
opportunity or community need which has emerged
outside of the competitive fund round cycle. Use of
opportunity funds is approved by the City Manager.
Applicants should demonstrate an unexpected or
new need, or unanticipated opportunity to address a
human services goal. Agencies apply to the OF on a
rolling basis.
Eligibility criteria for the OF are similar to that of HSF.
Both funding sources seek to fund agencies:
• serving primarily Boulder residents that are low-
income or at-risk ;
• aligning with HS Strategy, core principles and
community priorities; and
• providing direct service(s) to vulnerable
populations;
• demonstrating strong and longer-term evaluation
of outcomes;
• demonstrating strong collaboration and
partnerships; and
• exhibiting diverse funding sources.
HSF does not fund seed, startup or programs that
do not demonstrate longer-term evaluation of
outcomes. The OF will consider funding for startup
programs that align with HS Strategy goals and
demonstrate innovation and core principles. OF
will also continue to fund unexpected needs or
unanticipated opportunities that arise between fund
rounds. As part of the HS Strategy, funding set aside
for the OF will increase.
Role of data-driven performance and outcome
metrics development
Harvard Kennedy Government Performance Lab and
homelessness goal metric development
As part of Bloomberg Philanthropies’ What Works
Cities initiative, the Harvard Kennedy School
Government Performance Lab conducted research
on cities’ procurement practices with regard to data-
driven contracting. They found that when city leaders
align their procurement practices with a data-driven
strategy, they move father along a results-based
continuum. In the absence of any data-driven
strategy, the procurement process is not informed
85
by a market analysis that would advance goals or
milestones.
Boulder has been selected as one of the What
Works Cities test sites to apply data-driven funding
strategies to the existing procurement process, with
the homelessness goal as a starting place. Through
this partnership, the city will develop metrics and
improvements to the procurement process that
will drive agency performance and attainment of
community goals related to homelessness. These
metrics for contract performance will align with
the overall system designed by the Homelessness
Working Group, with the help of the Corporation for
Supportive Housing (CSH). After the HS Strategy is
finalized in June 2017, HS will work with consultants
and grantees to define specific performance
measures for all strategies as part of the 2017 work
plan.
Boulder County Client Portal
Boulder County Housing and Human Services has
created a county data warehouse to support the
county “data platform” to integrate client level
data from across systems and programs to track
and report community-wide outcomes. The City of
Boulder will work with the County to leverage this
platform as much as possible for community funding
outcomes tracking on a community level.
Funding Partnerships
Regional Grant Management System (GMS) Partners
Regional GMS funding partners (City of Boulder,
City of Longmont, and Boulder County Community
Services) have committed to addressing regional
housing, health and human services related problems
by investing collaboratively, across the partners, in
evidence-informed strategies grounded in the social
determinants of health. Other general concepts
agreed to include:
• Develop a common philosophy and approach
(guiding principles) for investments.
• Work together to reach agreement on two or three
high priority regional issues that serve as the focus
of collaboration.
• Develop a funding strategy that includes
investments across partners that would effectively
impact one or more of the priorities.
• Develop a common RFP or alternative process
that specifically targets agreed upon priorities,
structure and review procedures, and common
outcomes across partners that would guide
collaborative funding decisions.
• Develop a private-public collaboration approach to
managing the effort to ensure a greater likelihood
of success and guide the efforts of the funded
entities.
• Develop common outcomes, measures and
evaluation procedures to assess impacts on the
selected priorities.
• Explore and adopt (where appropriate and
feasible) enterprise level data sharing strategies
at the client, program and community level and
advance and complement the current efforts
already underway with the county data warehouse
model.
2018 as a Transition Year for HSF
The fund round for 2018 HSF funding will take place
in late summer and fall of 2017. Strategy metrics
are in development as part of the Human Services
work plan for the second half of 2017. In addition,
GMS funding partners are evaluating next steps for
the partnership. For these reasons, staff anticipates
a one-year fund round as a transition to the longer-
term community funding methodology.
For this transition year, staff will use current GMS
impact areas, outcomes, and indicators and prioritize
indicators most closely linked to new Strategy goals
and strategies for community funding. For example,
the Good Start strategy of accessible, affordable,
quality infant, toddler and preschool care would
be represented by the current HSF indicator most
closely aligned with: “percentage of families provided
quality affordable and/or culturally competent child
care options.”
The Strategy core principles would be implemented
for the transition year, including a scoring emphasis
on evidence-based, evidence-informed and
promising practices.
Table F-3 below provides examples of how current
HSF impact areas align with new HS Strategy goals.
A few indicators may be added to the current
system to ensure that all new Strategy goals are
appropriately represented in funding opportunities.
In addition, funding for evaluation and data
collections will be allowable as some portion of
expenses in program applications.
As part of the process of implementing the
Homelessness Strategy and new adult homeless
services system, some adult homeless services
funding will be allocated outside of the 2018 HSF
process.
FIGURE F-2: Proportional
Allocation of New HSF
Resources
86
87
APPENDIX G
DIRECT SERVICES ASSESSMENT
This full report can be found at:
https://bouldercolorado.gov/links/fetch/42829
PURPOSE
The mission of the City of Boulder Human Services
Department is to create a healthy, socially thriving,
and inclusive community by providing and
supporting human services to Boulder residents
in need. To achieve this mission, the department
plays three roles: direct services provider, funder
and community partner/leader. The city limits its
role as a direct services provider to situations where
there is an expressed desire of City Council or the
community, a demonstrated need cannot be met
through other sectors or the nature of the service
requires a broad community collaborative effort that
is more appropriate for the city to lead.
As part of the Human Services Strategy (Strategy)
development process, staff assessed current direct
service programs to understand areas of community
need, community service gaps, and the fit with other
existing community services. The outcome of the
assessment is a set of recommendations about how
the department can better focus its direct services
to meet present and future community needs in
alignment with the Strategy’s highest priorities.
DIRECT SERVICES OVERVIEW
The department is organized by five work areas:
Administration, Family Services, Community
Relations, Community Funding and Project
Management, and Senior Services. The department
provides direct services in three of these areas:
Family Services, Community Relations and Senior
Services.
Family Services
Family Services supports children and families
through regional collaborative planning and quality
programs. The city provides two types of direct
family services: child care subsidies and family
resource schools.
Child Care Subsidies: The city provides subsidies to
help families with low and lower-middle incomes
pay for child care. These subsidies supplement
support provided by the Boulder County Child Care
Assistance Program (CCAP). The city manages two
subsidy programs, Gap and Cliff.
• The Gap program pays child care providers the
difference between the amount paid by CCAP and
the average market rate for child care in the Boulder
area. These additional funds have the potential to
provide families with an expanded choice of child
care providers. Gap is available to those who qualify
for CCAP and live in Boulder.
• The Cliff program is available for families who do
not qualify for CCAP and Gap, either due to a slightly
higher income or their residency status, and who live
in Boulder.
Family Resource Schools (FRS): The city partners
with the Boulder Valley School District to provide
outreach, direct services and referrals for families
and children to remove barriers to academic
achievement and success for at-risk families in five
Boulder elementary schools. Services available
through FRS include case management, counseling,
referrals to service providers, parent development
classes and after-school programming.
Community Relations
The Community Relations division protects civil
and human rights, facilitates positive community
relations and promotes social equity policy.
Community Relations provides three types of
direct services: the Youth Opportunities Program,
ordinance enforcement, and community mediation.
Youth Opportunities Program (YOP): YOP
strengthens the community by empowering youth,
providing opportunities for youth and encouraging
youth civic participation and volunteer work. A
significant number of youth served by YOP are of low
income or people of color. YOP coordinates the city
manager-appointed Youth Opportunities Advisory
Board (YOAB). YOAB advises city departments
and local agencies on youth-related issues,
promotes the youth voice in Boulder, implements
community projects to help address youth needs
through action teams and distributes approximately
$130,000 annually to local youth programs through
competitive grant processes. In addition to the grants
distributed by YOAB, YOP also awards approximately
$20,000 annually in small grants to individual
resident youth to help pay for cultural, educational or
recreational activities in return for volunteer service.
Ordinance Enforcement: The Office of Human Rights
helps enforce two city ordinances, the Human Rights
Ordinance and the Failure to Pay Wages Ordinance.
• The Human Rights Ordinance protects against
illegal discrimination in the areas of housing,
employment and public accommodation. The city
investigates formal complaints filed with the office.
Complaints may be addressed through mediation
or through a quasi-judicial hearing in front of the
Human Relations Commission.
• The Failure to Pay Wages Ordinance protects
workers from non-payment of wages. Formal
complaints may be addressed through neutral
investigation to determine duty to pay, mediation
and/or prosecution by the City Attorney’s Office.
Community Mediation Service (CMS): CMS helps
Boulder residents resolve disputes. Parties served
88
by CMS include landlords, tenants, roommates,
neighbors, seniors, parents, teens, victims, offenders,
community groups, schools and employees of
nonprofit agencies or the city. CMS also assists in
disputes related to race and cross-cultural relations
and human rights. CMS’ work includes Restorative
Justice (RJ). In RJ, a crime is viewed as an act that
causes harm to people, interpersonal relationships
and the community rather than just as a violation of
the law. Consequently, the focus of RJ is the repair of
harm.
Senior Services
Boulder’s Senior Services helps the city engage
with and improve the well-being of older adults
and promote a positive image of aging through
community collaboration and services. Senior
Services provides five types of direct services:
senior resources, health and wellness programming,
enrichment programming, the Food Tax Rebate
Program, and senior center operations. Senior
Services works with the Senior Community Advisory
Committee (SCAC), a seven-member committee
appointed by the city manager.
Senior Resources: Senior Resource Specialists
offer information and assistance, short-term case
management and community programs for older
adults and family caregivers.
Health and Wellness Programming: Senior Services
offers wellness clinics and programs as well as
fitness classes for older adults. Examples of program
offerings include hosting a monthly hearing clinic,
diabetes prevention classes and functional fitness
assessments. Examples of fitness offerings include
T’ai Chi, weight room training for older adults, seated
restorative yoga and dance classes, massage and
reflexology. The SilverSneakers® program, a free
program for older adults with certain Medicare
health plans, provides unlimited access to specific
fitness classes for pass holders.
Enrichment Programming: Senior Services offers
classes, clubs and day trips for older adults. Class
offerings cover topics such as communication and
computer skills, nature and history, and current
events. Clubs include Bridge, Table Tennis and
Community Book Club. Day trip offerings take
participants to destinations such as historical sites,
cultural events and wildlife areas.
Food Tax Rebate Program (FTRP): Each year, the
City of Boulder provides rebates to help compensate
residents with lower incomes for the city sales tax
they pay on food. To be eligible for a food tax rebate,
a resident must meet financial eligibility guidelines
and must be age 62 or over the entire preceding year,
an adult with a disability or a family with children
FIGURE 1: Direct
Services Assessment and
Recommendation Process
89
under 18 years of age in the household for the entire
preceding year. In 2017, rebates are $80 for qualified
individuals and $245 for qualified families.
Senior Center Operations: The department operates
the West and East Senior Centers. The senior centers
host activities, community gatherings, meetings
and rentals. Programs may be generated by the
department or provided through partnerships with
local agencies and organizations. The West Senior
Center hosts the Meals on Wheels congregate and
home-delivered meal program.
ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
A five-step process was used to assess current direct
service programs and develop recommendations.
See Figure 1.
RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY
Program changes will include expansions, reductions
and realignment of programs to meet community
needs and formalization of community partnerships.
Based on feedback from council, residents, other
community stakeholders and staff, the department
will make the direct services changes described
below.
Family Services programs:
• Formalize partnerships between Family Resource
Schools, Family Resource Centers and the
Emergency Family Assistance Association;
• Realign direct financial support for families to focus
on support needs that cannot be immediately filled
by other agencies; and
• Realign and expand parent engagement and
education programs to avoid duplication with other
agencies and diversify opportunities.
Community Relations programs:
• Expand and strengthen city protections against bias
and discrimination; and
• Expand city capacity to protect residents against
bias and discrimination.
Senior Services programs:
• Increase case management focus to keep pace with
the anticipated increase in the older adult population;
• Expand partnerships with regional organizations for
older residents and their caregivers;
• Continue community resource educational
programming;
• Increase customer service focus to match current
and anticipated increase in use of senior services
facilities;
• Increase program coordination focus for senior
services programs;
• Realign enrichment programs to focus on
educational, cultural, and community engagement;
• Continue enrichment programs that enhance
skills of older adults including those that focus on
technology and employment;
• Realign day trip programs to support a focus on
educational, cultural, and community engagement
and keep department-supported transportation
options for day trips;
• Realign health and well-being programs to focus on
the specific needs of older adults as they age through
the later years of the lifespan; and
• Continue fitness programs for older adults.
Subsidy programs
• Expand the Child Care Subsidy Program; and
• Expand the Food Tax Rebate Program.
RECOMMENDATION DETAILS
Figure 2 provides details and rationale behind the
direct services program recommendations.
90
FIGURE 2: Direct Service
Program Recommendations
91
92
93
94
• City of Boulder Community Cultural Plan (2015)
Other strategic planning documents reviewed
include:
• Boulder County Human Services Strategic Plan
2008-2013
• Boulder County Department of Housing and
Human Services Strategic Priorities (2014)
• Boulder County Public Health Strategic Plan 2013-
2018
• Boulder County Ten-Year Plan to Address
Homelessness (2010)
• Boulder County Area Agency on Aging: Age Well
Boulder County Strategic Plan (2015)
• The Early Childhood Council of Boulder County’s
Early Childhood Framework for Boulder County
(2014)
The strategic document review identified 12
common guiding principles. See Figures 1 and
2. The department reviewed applications of
these 12 principles. See Figure 3. Staff evaluated
Human Services Strategy alignment with Boulder’s
Sustainability Framework. See Figure 4.
APPENDIX H
GUIDING PRINCIPLES & DOCUMENTS
This full report can be found at:
https://bouldercolorado.gov/links/fetch/42830
Many resources shaped Boulder’s Human Services
Strategy (Strategy). This attachment summarizes
the key documents that provided guidance in
coordinating and integrating other key approved
plans.
Staff reviewed 18 strategic plans from other City
of Boulder departments and partners to review
alignment with the Human Services Strategy.
• The City of Boulder’s Sustainability Framework
(2015)
• City of Boulder Resilience Strategy (2016)
• City of Boulder Social Sustainability Strategic Plan
(2007)
• City of Boulder Housing Boulder Action Plan
2016/2017
• The City of Boulder’s Climate Commitment (2017)
• City of Boulder Economic Sustainability Strategy
(2013)
• 2015 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan Update
(March 24, 2017 Public Review Draft)
• City of Boulder Transportation Master Plan: 2014
Action Plan
• City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Department
Master Plan (2014)
• City of Boulder Police Department 2013 Master
Plan
• City of Boulder 2012 Fire-Rescue Master Plan
Update
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX J
APPENDIX K
APPENDIX L
COMMUNITY PERCEPTION REPORT
This full report can be found at:
https://bouldercolorado.gov/links/fetch/42831
FEE STUDY
This full report can be found at:
https://bouldercolorado.gov/links/fetch/42832
CITY OF BOULDER HOMELESSNESS STRATEGY
This full report can be found at:
https://bouldercolorado.gov/links/fetch/42833
CITY ORDINANCES
This full report can be found at:
https://bouldercolorado.gov/links/fetch/42834
OVERVIEW
Ordinance Enforcement: Boulder’s Human Services
Department helps enforce two city ordinances, the
Human Rights Ordinance and the Failure to Pay
Wages Ordinance.
• The Failure to Pay Wages Ordinance protects
workers from non-payment of wages. Formal
complaints may be addressed through neutral
investigation to determine duty to pay, mediation
and/or prosecution by the City Attorney’s Office.
• The Human Rights Ordinance protects against
illegal discrimination in the areas of housing,
employment and public accommodation. The city
investigates formal complaints filed with the office.
Complaints may be addressed through mediation
or through a quasi-judicial hearing in front of the
Human Relations Commission.
FAILURE TO PAY WAGES ORDINANCE
TITLE 5 - GENERAL OFFENSES, Chapter 3 -
Offenses Against the Person
5-3-13. - Failure to Pay Wages Due. (a) No employer
or agent of an employer who is under a duty to pay
wages or compensation shall fail to pay those wages
or that compensation or falsely deny the amount of
the claim for the payment of wages or compensation.
(b) It shall be an affirmative defense to a charged
violation of this section that:
(1) The employer or the employer’s agent was unable
to pay the wages or compensation;
(2) At the time of initially employing the employee,
the employer or employer’s agent had a good faith
and reasonable belief that payment would be made
in a timely manner when due;
(3) The employee was informed as soon as the
employer or employer’s agent was aware, or
through the exercise of reasonable diligence should
have been aware, of conditions that would make it
impossible to pay an employee;
(4) The employer or employer’s agent provided to
each employee who did not receive full and timely
payment a written acknowledgement of debt that
accurately reflected the full amount owed to that
employee; and
(5) After becoming aware of the inability to pay an
employee, the employer or employer’s agent did
not employ any new or additional employees before
satisfying the existing wage and compensation
obligations.
(c) For purposes of this section, wages or
compensation means all amounts for labor or
service performed by employees, whether the
amount is fixed or determined by the standard of
time, task, piece, commission basis, or other method
of calculation or whether the labor or service is
performed under contract, subcontract, partnership,
or other agreement for the performance of labor
or service. However, wages or compensation only
includes payment for service performed personally
by the person demanding payment. No amount is
considered to be wages or compensation until such
amount is earned, vested, and determinable.
(d) For purposes of this section, failure to pay
wages or compensation for each 30-day period of
employment, or any part thereof, shall be considered
a separate violation.
Ordinance No. 7557 (2007)
5-2-4. - General Penalties.
(a) The penalty for violation of any provision of this
code or any ordinance is a fine of not more than
$1,000.00 per violation, or incarceration for not
more than ninety days in jail or by both such fine and
incarceration, except as follows:
(1) Where any different provision is made elsewhere
in this code or any ordinance;
(2) Where the defendant’s criminal culpability is
vicarious, jail may not be imposed as a penalty;
(3) Where a non-traffic violation is involved, in order
to impose a jail sentence, the court must be satisfied
from the evidence and other material available to it
for sentencing that the defendant acted intentionally,
knowingly or recklessly with respect to the material
elements of the violation. Where traffic offenses are
concerned, ordinary negligence is sufficient to permit
the imposition of jail;
102
(4) Where a defendant is a child under the age of
ten years, in which case the child may not be held
accountable in municipal court for any violation; or
(5) Where the defendant is a child of ten years
through and including seventeen years of age, the
child may not be sentenced to jail except upon
conviction of a moving traffic violation for which
penalty points are assessed against the driving
privilege under the laws of this state.
(b) Nothing in Subsection (a) of this section is
intended to:
(1) Remove or limit the discretion or authority of any
public official to charge a child in a court other than
the municipal court; or
(2) Limit the power of the municipal court to
incarcerate a defendant for nonpayment of a fine or
for contempt.
(c) The penalty for violation of any rule or regulations
promulgated under authority delegated by the
charter, this code, or any ordinance of the city is a
fine of not more than $1,000 per violation, except
as provided in Paragraph (a)(4) of this section and
in Section 5-5-20, “Unlawful Conduct on Public
Property,” B.R.C. 1981.
(d) The maximum penalty for violation of Sections
5-3-1, “Assault in the Third Degree,” 5-3-2,
“Brawling,” 5-3-3, “Physical Harassment,” 5-3-4,
“Threatening Bodily Injury,” 5-3-6, “Use of Fighting
Words,” and 5-4-1, “Damaging Property of Another,”
B.R.C. 1981, when the offense is found to be a
bias motivated crime, shall be a fine of not more
than $2,000 per violation, or incarceration for not
more than ninety days in jail, or both such fine and
incarceration. The court shall not be required to
make the findings required by Paragraph (a)(3) of
this section in order to impose a sentence including
incarceration. This ordinance shall not be applied
in a manner that suppresses abstract thought or
protected speech.
Ordinance Nos. 4969 (1986); 5639 (1994); 7496
(2007); 7966 (2014)
HUMAN RIGHTS ORDINANCE
TITLE 12 - HUMAN RIGHTS, Chapter 1 - Prohibition
of Discrimination in Housing, Employment, and
Public Accommodations
12-1-1. - Definitions.
The following terms used in this chapter have the
following meanings unless the context clearly
requires otherwise:
Age means age forty years and older.
Employer means any person employing any person in
any capacity.
Employment agency means any person undertaking,
with or without compensation, to procure employees
or opportunities to work for any person or holding
itself out as equipped to do so.
Gender identity means a person’s various individual
attributes, actual or perceived, that may be in accord
with, or sometimes opposed to, one’s physical
anatomy, chromosomal sex, genitalia, or sex
assigned at birth.
Gender variance means a persistent sense that a
person’s gender identity is incongruent with the
person’s biological sex, excluding the element of
persistence for persons under age twenty-one
and including, without limitation, transitioned
transsexuals.
Genetic characteristics means all characteristics of
an individual that can be transmitted through the
person’s chromosomes.
Genital reassignment surgery means surgery to alter a
person’s genitals, in order to complete a program of
sex reassignment treatment.
Housing means any building, structure, vacant land,
or part thereof during the period it is advertised,
listed, or offered for sale, lease, rent, or transfer of
ownership, but does not include transfer of property
by will or gift.
Labor organization means any organization, or
committee or part thereof, that exists for the purpose
in whole or in part of collective bargaining, dealing
with employers concerning grievances, terms or
conditions of employment, or other mutual aid or
protection in connection with employment.
Marital status means both the individual status
of being single, divorced, separated, or widowed
and the relational status of cohabitating and being
married or unmarried.
Minor child means a person under eighteen years of
age.
Person or individual means any individual, group,
association, cooperation, joint apprenticeship
committee, joint stock company, labor union, legal
representative, mutual company, partnership,
receiver, trustee, and unincorporated organization
and other legal, commercial, or governmental entity.
Physical or mental disability means a physical or
mental impairment that substantially limits one
or more major life activities, a record of such
impairment, or being regarded as having such
impairment. The term excludes current use of
alcohol or drugs or other disabilities that prevent
a person from acquiring, renting, or maintaining
property, that would constitute a direct threat to the
property or safety of others, or that would prevent
performance of job responsibilities.
Place of accommodation means any place of business
engaged in any sales to the general public and any
place that offers services, facilities, privileges, or
advantages to the general public or that receives
financial support through solicitation of the general
public or through governmental subsidy of any kind.
103
Sex means biological sex, the sum of a person’s
physical characteristics.
Sex reassignment treatment means treatment
to change a person’s sex, based on medically
recognized treatment protocols such as that
published by the Harry Benjamin International
Gender Dysphoria Association.
Sexual orientation means the choice of sexual
partners, i.e., bisexual, homosexual, or heterosexual.
Transitioning transsexual means a person experiencing
gender variance who is undergoing sex reassignment
treatment.
Transitioned transsexual means a person who has
completed genital reassignment surgery.
12-1-2. - Discrimination in Housing Prohibited.
(a) It is an unfair housing practice, and no person:
(1) Who has the right of ownership or possession
or the right of transfer, sale, rental, or lease of any
housing or any agent of such person shall:
(A) Refuse to show, sell, transfer, rent, or lease, or
refuse to receive and transmit any bona fide offer
to buy, sell, rent, or lease, or otherwise to deny to or
withhold from any individual such housing because
of the race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation,
gender variance, genetic characteristics, marital
status, religion, national origin, ancestry, pregnancy,
parenthood, custody of a minor child, or mental
or physical disability of that individual or such
individual’s friends or associates;
(B) Discriminate against any individual because
of the race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation,
gender variance, genetic characteristics, marital
status, religion, national origin, ancestry, pregnancy,
parenthood, custody of a minor child, or mental
or physical disability of the individual or such
individual’s friends or associates in the terms,
conditions, or privileges pertaining to any facilities or
services in connection with a transfer, sale, rental, or
lease of housing; or
(C) Cause to be made any written or oral inquiry or
record concerning the race, creed, color, sex, sexual
orientation, gender variance, genetic characteristics,
marital status, religion, national origin, ancestry,
pregnancy, parenthood, custody of a minor child, or
mental or physical disability of an individual seeking
to purchase, rent, or lease any housing or of such
individual’s friends or associates, but nothing in this
section prohibits using a form or making a record
or inquiry for the purpose of required government
reporting or for a program to provide opportunities
for persons who have been traditional targets of
discrimination on the bases here prohibited;
(2) To whom application is made for financial
assistance for the acquisition, construction,
rehabilitation, repair, or maintenance of any housing
shall:
(A) Make or cause to be made any written or oral
inquiry concerning the race, creed, color, sex, sexual
orientation, gender variance, genetic characteristics,
marital status, religion, national origin, ancestry,
pregnancy, parenthood, custody of a minor child, or
mental or physical disability of an individual seeking
such financial assistance, such individual’s friends or
associates, or prospective occupants or tenants of
such housing, or
(B) Discriminate against any individual because
of the race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation,
gender variance, genetic characteristics, marital
status, religion, national origin, ancestry, pregnancy,
parenthood, custody of a minor child, or mental or
physical disability of such individual, such individual’s
friends or associates, or prospective occupants or
tenants in the term, conditions or privileges relating
to obtaining or use of any such financial assistance;
(3) Shall include in any transfer, sale, rental or lease
of housing any restrictive covenant limiting the use of
housing on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, sexual
orientation, gender variance, genetic characteristics,
marital status, religion, national origin, ancestry,
pregnancy, parenthood, custody of a minor child,
or mental or physical disability or shall honor or
exercise or attempt to honor or exercise any such
restrictive covenant pertaining to housing;
(4) Shall print or cause to be printed or published
any notice or advertising relating to the transfer,
sale, rental or lease of any housing that indicates any
preference, limitation, specification or discrimination
based on race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation,
gender variance, genetic characteristics, marital
status, religion, national origin, ancestry, pregnancy,
parenthood, custody of a minor child, or mental or
physical disability;
(5) Shall aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doing
of any act prohibited by this section or obstruct
or prevent any person from complying with the
provisions of this section or attempt either directly
or indirectly to commit any act prohibited by this
section;
(6) For the purpose of promoting housing sales,
rentals or leases in a geographic area, shall initiate,
instigate or participate in any representation,
advertisement or contract, directly or indirectly,
within such geographic area that changes have
occurred, will occur or may occur in the composition
of the geographic area with respect to race, creed,
color, sex, sexual orientation, gender variance,
genetic characteristics, marital status, religion,
national origin, ancestry, pregnancy, parenthood,
custody of a minor child, or mental or physical
disability of the owners or occupants or that such
changes will or may result in lowering property
values, in increased criminal or antisocial behavior, or
in declining quality of schools in the geographic area;
(7) Shall discharge, demote or discriminate in
104
matters of compensation against any employee
or agent because of said employee’s or agent’s
obedience to the provisions of this section;
(8) Shall:
(A) Offer, solicit, accept, use or retain a listing of
housing with the understanding that an individual
may be discriminated against in the purchase, lease
or rental thereof on the basis of race, creed, color,
sex, sexual orientation, gender variance, genetic
characteristics, marital status, religion, national
origin, ancestry, pregnancy, parenthood, custody of
a minor child, or mental or physical disability of such
individual or such individual’s friends or associates;
(B) Deny any individual access to or participation
in any multiple-listing service, real estate brokers’
organization or other service, organization or facility
relating to the business of selling or renting housing;
or
(C) Discriminate against such individual on the
basis of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation,
gender variance, genetic characteristics, marital
status, religion, national origin, ancestry, pregnancy,
parenthood, custody of a minor child, or mental
or physical disability of such individual or such
individual’s friends or associates;
(9) Shall establish unreasonable rules or conditions
of occupancy that have the effect of excluding
pregnant women, parents or households with minor
children.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section do
not apply to prohibit:
(1) Any religious or denominational institution
or organization that is operated, supervised
or controlled by a religious or denominational
organization from limiting admission or giving
preference to persons of the same religion or
denomination or from making such selection of
buyers, lessees or tenants as will promote a bona
fide religious or denominational purpose.
(2) Owner.
(A) An owner or lessee from limiting occupancy of a
single dwelling unit occupied by such owner or lessee
as his or her residence.
(B) An owner from limiting occupancy of rooms or
dwelling units in buildings occupied by no more than
two families living independently of each other if the
owner actually maintains and occupies one of such
rooms or dwelling units as his or her residence.
(C) An owner or lessor of a housing facility devoted
entirely to housing individuals of one sex from
limiting lessees or tenants to persons of that sex.
(3) The transfer, sale, rental, lease or development
of housing designed or intended for the use of the
physically or mentally disabled, but this exclusion
does not permit discrimination on the basis of race,
creed, color, sexual orientation, gender variance,
genetic characteristics, marital status, religion,
ancestry or national origin.
(4) Compliance with any provisions of section
9-8-5, “Occupancy of Dwelling Units,” or chapter
10-2, “Property Maintenance Code,” B.R.C. 1981,
concerning permitted occupancy of dwelling units.
(5) Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,
parenthood or custody of a minor child in:
(A) Any owner-occupied lot containing four or fewer
dwelling units;
(B) Any residential building in which the owner or
lessor publicly establishes and implements a policy
of renting or selling exclusively to persons fifty-five
years of age or older, but only as long as such policy
remains in effect;
(C) Any residential institution, as defined in section
9-16-1, “General Definitions,” B.R.C. 1981;
(D) Any dwelling unit rented, leased or subleased
for no more than eighteen months while the owner
or lessee is temporarily absent, when the owner
or lessee leaves a substantial amount of personal
possessions on the premises;
(E) Any residential building located on real
estate whose title was, as of November 17, 1981,
encumbered by a restrictive covenant limiting or
prohibiting the residence of minor children on such
property, but only so long as such covenant remains
in effect; and
(F) Up to one-third of the buildings in a housing
complex consisting of three or more buildings; for
purposes of this subparagraph, housing complex
means a group of buildings each containing five or
more units on a contiguous parcel of land owned by
the same person or persons.
(c) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section
shall not be construed to require an owner or lessor
of property to make any improvement to a housing
facility beyond minimal building code standards
applicable to the housing facility in question
and approved by a state or local agency with
responsibility to approve building plans and designs.
Ordinance Nos. 4803 (1984); 5061 (1987); 5117
(1988); 7040 (2000); 7724 (2010)
12-1-3. - Discrimination in Employment Practices
Prohibited.
(a) It is a discriminatory or unfair employment
practice, and no person:
(1) Shall fail or refuse to hire, shall discharge, shall
promote or demote, or shall discriminate in matters
of compensation, terms, conditions or privileges
of employment against any individual otherwise
qualified or to limit, segregate or classify employees
or applicants for employment in any way that
would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of
employment opportunities or otherwise adversely
affect such individual’s status as an employee
105
because of the race, creed, color, sex, sexual
orientation, gender variance, genetic characteristics,
marital status, religion, national origin, ancestry, age
or mental or physical disability of such individual
or such individual’s friends or associates; but with
regard to mental or physical disability, it is not a
discriminatory or unfair employment practice for a
person to act as provided in this paragraph if there
is no reasonable accommodation that such person
can make with regard to the disability, the disability
actually disqualifies the individual from the job, and
the disability has a significant impact on the job;
(2) Shall refuse to list and properly classify for
employment or refer an individual for employment
in a known available job for which such individual is
otherwise qualified because of the race, creed, color,
sex, sexual orientation, gender variance, genetic
characteristics, marital status, religion, national
origin, ancestry, age or mental or physical disability
of such individual or such individual’s friends or
associates or to comply with a request from an
employer for referral of applicants for employment
if the request indicates either directly or indirectly
that the employer discriminates in employment on
the basis of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation,
gender variance, genetic characteristics, marital
status, religion, national origin, ancestry, age or
mental or physical disability; but with regard to
mental or physical disability, it is not a discriminatory
or unfair employment practice for an employment
agency to refuse to list and properly classify for
employment or refuse to refer an individual for
employment in a known available job for which
such individual is otherwise qualified if there is no
reasonable accommodation that the employer can
make with regard to the disability, the disability
actually disqualifies the individual from the job, and
the disability has a significant impact on the job;
(3) Shall exclude or expel any individual otherwise
qualified from full membership rights in a labor
organization, otherwise discriminate against any
members of such labor organization in the full
enjoyment of work opportunity, or limit, segregate
or classify its membership or applicants for
membership, or classify or fail or refuse to refer for
employment such individual in any way that deprives
such individual of employment opportunities, limits
employment opportunities or otherwise adversely
affects such individual’s status as an employee
or applicant for employment because of the race,
creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender variance,
genetic characteristics, marital status, religion,
national origin, ancestry, age or mental or physical
disability of such individual or such individual’s
friends or associates;
(4) Shall print or circulate or cause to be printed
or circulated any statement, advertisement or
publication, or to use any form of application
for employment or membership, or to make any
inquiry in connection with prospective employment
or membership that expresses, either directly
or indirectly, any limitation, specification or
discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color,
sex, sexual orientation, gender variance, genetic
characteristics, marital status, religion, national
origin, ancestry, age or mental or physical disability
or intent to make any such limitation, specification
or discrimination, unless based upon a bona fide
occupational qualification;
(5) Shall establish, announce or follow a policy
of denying or limiting, through a quota system
or otherwise, opportunities for employment or
membership in a group on the basis of race, creed,
color, sex, sexual orientation, gender variance,
genetic characteristics, marital status, religion,
national origin, ancestry, age or mental or physical
disability;
(6) Shall aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the
doing of any act defined in this section to be a
discriminatory or unfair employment practice,
obstruct or prevent any person from complying with
the provisions of this section, or attempt, either
directly or indirectly, to commit any act defined
in this section to be a discriminatory or unfair
employment practice;
(7) That is an employer, labor organization or
joint labor-management committee controlling
apprenticeship or other training or retraining,
including on-the-job training programs shall
discriminate against any individual on the basis of
the race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender
variance, genetic characteristics, marital status,
religion, national origin, ancestry, age or mental
or physical disability of such individual or such
individual’s friends or associates in admission to or
employment in any program established to provide
apprenticeship or other training; but with regard to
mental or physical disability, it is not a discriminatory
or unfair employment practice to withhold the
right to be admitted to or to participate in any such
program if there is no reasonable accommodation
that can be made with regard to the disability, the
disability actually disqualifies the individual from the
program, and the disability has a significant impact
on participation in the program;
(8) Shall use in the recruitment or hiring of
individuals any employment agency, placement
service, training school or center, labor organization
or any other employee referral source known by
such person to discriminate on the basis of race,
creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender variance,
genetic characteristics, marital status, religion,
national origin, ancestry, age or mental or physical
disability;
(9) Shall use in recruitment, hiring, upgrading or
promoting any test that such person knows or has
reason to know tends to discriminate on the basis
106
of race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender
variance, genetic characteristics, marital status,
religion, national origin, ancestry, age or mental or
physical disability; but it is not a discriminatory or
unfair employment practice to provide employment
opportunities for classes of individuals that have
been the traditional targets of discrimination or
to use a form or make a record or inquiry for the
purpose of required government reporting, and with
regard to mental or physical disability, it is not a
discriminatory or unfair employment practice for a
person to act as prohibited in this subsection if there
is no reasonable accommodation that the employer
can make with regard to the disability, the disability
actually disqualifies the individual from the job, and
the disability has a significant impact on the job; and
(10) Seeking employment, shall publish or cause to
be published an advertisement with a specification or
limitation based upon race, creed, color, sex, sexual
orientation, gender variance, genetic characteristics,
marital status, religion, national origin, ancestry, age
or mental or physical disability, unless based upon a
bona fide occupational qualification.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section
do not apply to prohibit a religious organization or
institution from restricting employment opportunities
to persons of the religious denomination or persons
of other defined characteristics and advertising such
restriction if a bona fide religious purpose exists for
the restriction.
(c) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section
concerning discrimination based on marital status
do not apply to the provision of employee health or
disability insurance.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
chapter, a workplace supervisor may require that
a worker not change gender presentation in the
workplace more than three times in any eighteen-
month period.
Ordinance Nos. 5061 (1987); 5468 (1992); 7040
(2000)
12-1-4. - Discrimination in Public Accommodations
Prohibited.
(a) It is a discriminatory practice, and no person
shall:
(1) Refuse, withhold from or deny to any individual
because of the race, creed, color, sex, sexual
orientation, gender variance, genetic characteristics,
marital status, religion, national origin, ancestry or
mental or physical disability of such individual or
such individual’s friends or associates, the full and
equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages or accommodations of a place
of public accommodation; or
(2) Publish, circulate, issue, display, post or mail
any written or printed communication, notice
or advertisement that indicates that the full and
equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages or accommodations of a
place of public accommodation will be refused,
withheld from or denied an individual or that such
individual’s patronage or presence at a place of
public accommodation is unwelcome, objectionable,
unacceptable or undesirable because of the race,
creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender variance,
genetic characteristics, marital status, religion,
national origin, ancestry or mental or physical
disability of such individual or such individual’s
friends or associates.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section do
not apply to prohibit:
(1) Persons from restricting admission to a place
of public accommodation to individuals of one sex
if such restriction bears a bona fide relationship to
the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages
or accommodations of such place of public
accommodation; or
(2) Any religious or denominational institution that
is operated, supervised or controlled by a religious or
denominational organization from limiting admission
to persons of the same religion or denomination as
will promote a bona fide religious or denominational
purpose.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
chapter, transitioned transsexuals may use the locker
rooms and shower facilities of their new sex and
shall be protected by section 12-1-4, “Discrimination
in Public Accommodations Prohibited,” B.R.C. 1981,
from any discrimination in their use of such locker
rooms and shower rooms.
(d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
chapter, transitioning transsexuals shall be granted
reasonable accommodation in access to locker
rooms and shower facilities.
Ordinance Nos. 5061 (1987); 7040 (2000)
12-1-5. - Prohibition on Retaliation for and
Obstruction of Compliance With Chapter.
(a) No person shall use a threat, communicated by
physical, oral or written means, of harm or injury
to another person, such other person’s reputation
or such person’s property, or discriminate against
any person because such person has entered into a
conciliation agreement under this chapter, because
the final or any other ruling in any proceeding
brought under this chapter has been in such other
person’s favor, because such other person has
opposed a discriminatory practice, or because such
other person has made a charge, filed a complaint,
testified, assisted or participated in an investigation,
proceeding or hearing before a person charged with
the duty to investigate or hear complaints relating
to problems of discrimination, but this section does
not apply when the threat involves knowingly placing
or attempting to place a person in fear of imminent
bodily injury by use of a deadly weapon;
107
(b) No person shall willfully obstruct, hinder or
interfere with the performance or the proper exercise
of a duty, obligation, right or power of the city
manager, the municipal court or other official or body
charged with a duty, obligation, right or power under
this chapter.
12-1-6. - Provisions of This Chapter Supplement
Other Code Sections.
Anything to the contrary notwithstanding,
the substantive terms of this chapter and the
remedies herein provided supplement those terms
and remedies contained in this code and other
ordinances of the city.
12-1-7. - City Manager May Appoint Person to
Assist in Enforcement.
The city manager may appoint a person to carry out
any or all of the duties, obligations, rights or powers
under the provisions of this chapter, who may have
such job title as the manager designates.
12-1-8. - Administration and Enforcement of
Chapter.
(a) Any person claiming to be aggrieved by a
violation of this chapter may file a written complaint
under oath with the city manager:
(1) Within one year of any alleged violation of section
12-1-2, “Discrimination in Housing Prohibited,”
B.R.C. 1981; within one hundred eighty days of any
alleged violation of section 12-1-3, “Discrimination
in Employment Practices Prohibited,” B.R.C. 1981; or
within sixty days of any alleged violation of section
12-1-4, “Discrimination in Public Accommodations
Prohibited,” B.R.C. 1981; and
(2) The complaint shall state:
(A) The name of the alleged violator, or facts
sufficient to identify such person;
(B) An outline of the material facts upon which the
complaint is based;
(C) The date of the alleged violation;
(D) That any conduct of the complainant was for the
purpose of obtaining the housing, employment or
public accommodation in question and not for the
purpose of harassment or entrapment of the person
against whom the complaint is made; and
(E) That a complaint concerning this same matter
has not been filed with another agency or that any
complaint concerning this matter filed with another
agency has been dismissed by such agency without a
final judgment on the merits.
(b) The city manager shall furnish a copy of the
complaint to the person against whom the complaint
is made.
(c) Before conducting a full investigation of the
complaint, the city manager may attempt to
negotiate a settlement of the dispute between the
parties, if the manager deems that such an attempt is
practicable.
(d) If the city manager does not deem it practicable
to attempt a preinvestigation settlement or if such
settlement attempt is unsuccessful, the manager
shall conduct an investigation to determine whether
there is probable cause to believe the allegations of
the complaint.
(1) If the city manager determines there is no
probable cause, the manager shall dismiss the
complaint and take no further action thereon other
than that of informing the concerned persons that
the complaint has been dismissed.
(2) If the city manager determines that there is a
sufficient basis in fact to support the complaint, the
manager shall endeavor to eliminate the alleged
violation by a conciliation agreement, signed by all
parties and the manager, whereunder the alleged
violation is eliminated and the complainant is made
whole to the greatest extent practicable.
(3) The city manager shall furnish a copy of
such signed conciliation agreement to the
complainant and the person charged. The terms of
a conciliation agreement may be made public, but
no other information relating to any complaint, its
investigation or its disposition may be disclosed
without the consent of the complainant and the
person charged.
(4) A conciliation agreement need not contain a
declaration or finding that a violation has in fact
occurred.
(5) A conciliation agreement may provide for
dismissal of the complaint without prejudice.
(e) If a person who has filed a complaint with the
city manager is dissatisfied with a decision by the
manager to dismiss the complaint under paragraph
(d)(1) of this section or if conciliation attempts as
provided in paragraph (d)(2) of this section are
unsuccessful to resolve the complaint, the aggrieved
party may request a hearing before the City of
Boulder Human Relations Commission, which shall
hold a hearing on the appeal. If the commission finds
violations of this chapter, it may issue such orders
as it deems appropriate to remedy the violations,
including, without limitation, orders:
(1) Requiring the person found to have violated this
chapter to cease and desist from the discriminatory
practice;
(2) Providing for the sale, exchange, lease, rental,
assignment or sublease of housing to a particular
person;
(3) Requiring an employer to: reinstate an employee;
pay backpay for discriminatory termination
of employment, layoff or denial of promotion
opportunity; make an offer of employment in case of
discriminatory refusal of employment; make an offer
of promotion in the case of discriminatory denial of
promotion opportunity; or take other appropriate
108
equitably remedial action;
(4) Requiring that a person make available a
facility of public accommodation in the case of
discriminatory denial of the use of such facility;
(5) Requiring that a person found to have violated
this chapter report compliance with the order or
orders issued pursuant to this section; and
(6) Requiring that a person found to have violated
any provisions of this chapter make, keep and make
available to the commission such reasonable records
as are relevant to determine whether such person is
complying with the commission’s orders.
(f) No person shall fail to comply with an order of the
human relations commission.
(g) The city manager may initiate and file a
complaint pursuant to this section based on the
information and belief that a violation of this chapter
has occurred. The manager may file such a complaint
pursuant to the following standards:
(1) The manager has supervised any investigative
testing used;
(2) Any investigative testing is not designed to
induce a person to behave in other than such
person’s usual manner; and
(3) The case is not brought for the purpose of
harassment.
(h) No complaint shall be accepted against the City
or a city-appointed agency unless there is no state or
federal protection for the human rights violation set
forth in the complaint.
Ordinance Nos. 4879 (1985); 7040 (2000)
12-1-9. - Judicial Enforcement of Chapter.
(a) The city manager may file a criminal complaint
in municipal court seeking the imposition of the
criminal penalties provided in section 5-2-4, “General
Penalties,” B.R.C. 1981, for violations of this chapter.
(b) The city manager may seek judicial enforcement
of any orders of the human relations commission.
(c) Any party aggrieved by any final action of the
human relations commission may seek judicial
review thereof in the District Court in and for the
County of Boulder by filing a complaint pursuant to
the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure 106(a)(4).
Ord. No. 7838 (2012)
12-1-10. - City Contractors Shall Not Discriminate.
The city manager shall require that all contractors
providing goods or services to the City certify their
compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
12-1-11. - Authority to Adopt Rules.
The city manager and the human relations
commission are authorized to adopt rules to
implement the provisions of this chapter.
12-1-12. - Gender Variance Exemptions.
Competitive sports and sports-related records
and sex-segregated housing for persons under age
twenty-five shall be exempt from the gender variance
discrimination provisions of this chapter.
Ordinance No. 7040 (2000)
12-1-13. - Elements of Proof.
Proof of the characteristics of the victim, while
admissible to prove intent, and to determine
reasonable accommodation for disabilities and for
transitioning transsexuals, shall not otherwise be
required as an element of proof in and of itself. The
essential elements of proof shall be of discriminatory
intent and of a nexus between such intent and an
action or refusal or failure to act identified in this
chapter.
Ordinance No. 7040 (2000)
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Main Host page for publication and appendices can
be found at:
https://bouldercolorado.gov/human-services-
plan/human-services-strategy
109