About the Series
This report is part of the Urban Institute's Assessing the New Federalism,
a multi-year effort to monitor and assess the devolution of social programs
from the federal to the state and local levels. Alan Weil is the project director.
The project analyzes changes in income support, social services, and health
programs. In collaboration with Child Trends, Inc., the project studies child
and family well-being. There are two Highlights for each state. The Highlights
that focus on health cover Medicaid, other public insurance programs, the health
care marketplace, and the role of public providers. The income support and social
services Highlights look at basic income support programs, employment and training
programs, child care, child support enforcement, and the last-resort safety
net. The Highlights capture policies in place and planned in 1996 and early
1997. To receive the full-length reports on which the Highlights are based,
contact the Urban Institute. The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies,
reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views
expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban
Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Colorado
is a conservative state with respect to fiscal issues, and its citizens are
protective of individual rights and local government prerogatives. Economic
and demographic distinctions among regions are important because the state’s
social service delivery system is decentralized. Counties deliver most social
services—including welfare benefits, employment and training, child care, child
welfare, and General Assistance. Counties also establish eligibility for Medicaid
and food stamps and share in the costs of administering the Food Stamp program.
Recent state welfare reform legislation and reorganization of employment and
training programs have further decentralized service delivery. Only in child
welfare has centralized state control increased.
Colorado’s strong economy has helped the budget grow, but
the state has imposed strong fiscal constraints on public revenues and expenditures.
In 1979, legislation imposed a cap on the growth of general fund appropriations,
which cannot exceed the annual gain in personal income or 6 percent, whichever
is lower. The Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights (TABOR), passed in November 1992 in
a citizen-initiated referendum, stipulates that each year total state and local
government revenues may not increase more than the combined percentage of population
growth and inflation. TABOR covers all state and local revenues except federal
funds, government enterprise revenues, lawsuit awards, and donations. If TABOR
limits are exceeded, the state or the localities must either refund the difference
to taxpayers or receive voter approval to retain the excess revenues. Colorado’s
economy has been so strong that, in fiscal year (FY) 1997, state revenue growth
exceeded Colorado’s 6.6 percent combined population growth and inflation rate,
triggering a refund for the first time.
State Characteristics
Colorado’s population was 3.7 million in 1995 (table
1), after growing at a brisk pace of over 2.5 percent per year from 1991
to 1995. During these years, net in-migration averaged over 56,000 people per
year. The state’s population is relatively young. In 1994–95, 8.5 percent of
people in the state were age 65 or older, compared with 12.1 percent nationally.
Although most of the state’s 63 counties are rural, Colorado’s population is
significantly less rural than the U.S. population (27.8 percent in Colorado
compared with 36.4 percent for the nation as a whole in 1990). The state’s population
is heavily concentrated in Denver and nearby counties along the Front Range,
in a line that stretches north and south, from Fort Collins and Boulder through
Denver, and south through Colorado Springs and Pueblo. Twelve Front Range counties
contained 79 percent of the state’s population in 1992. Douglas County, just
south of Denver, was the fastest-growing county in the nation, with a 65 percent
population increase between 1990 and 1995.
Colorado’s population includes a significant share of Latinos
but relatively small numbers of other racial or ethnic minority groups. In 1995,
Colorado’s population was 11.8 percent Hispanic, compared with 10.7 percent
for the United States. Non-Hispanic blacks made up only 2.9 percent of the state’s
population, far less than their 12.5 percent share of the national population.
Colorado also had fewer noncitizen immigrants—5.1 percent compared with 6.4
percent nationally.
Colorado has a somewhat higher percentage of two-parent
families than the nation as a whole (39 percent compared with 35.7 percent)
and a slightly higher percentage of two-parent families in which mothers of
young children work full-time. Colorado also has a highly educated population.
The state ranks in the top four in the nation for high school completion (91
percent of Coloradans age 25 and over were high school graduates) and in the
top five in college completion (33 percent of Coloradans had a bachelor’s degree).
Strong economic growth has fueled in-migration and rising
incomes during the 1990s. Per capita personal income has risen by nearly one-quarter
since 1990. By 1995, Colorado’s per capita income ($23,961) was just above the
national average of $23,208. Colorado’s poverty and unemployment rates were
well below U.S. rates: 9.3 percent versus 14.3 percent for the poverty rate
in 1994, and 4.2 percent versus 5.4 percent for the unemployment rate in 1996.
Children in Colorado appear to be strikingly better off than the national average.
In Colorado, 12.4 percent of children lived in families with incomes below the
federal poverty level in 1994, compared with 21.7 percent nationally.
Colorado’s economy is outperforming the national economy,
as shown by higher income growth and lower unemployment every year during the
1990s. Falling unemployment rates have been accompanied by rapid declines in
welfare caseloads and decreased demand for employment services in most areas
of the state. Nonagricultural employment increased by 25 percent from 1990 to
1996. The construction sector led the state’s job growth, with employment increasing
by almost 10 percent annually during the 1990s. Public-sector projects such
as a new international airport, baseball stadium, and central public library
accounted for much of this construction growth early in the decade, but private
commercial and housing development picked up during the mid-1990s. Despite rapid
growth in recent years, Coloradans remember the "bust" years of the
1980s, when energy industry declines led to real estate losses and a crisis
in the state’s savings and loan industry. Colorado policymakers have adopted
strategies to diversify the state’s economic base and have a cautious attitude
toward growth.
Setting the Social Policy Context
Within the fiscally conservative framework and budget priorities,
the guiding philosophy of state policies is to provide the assistance people
need to get back on their feet (with strong emphasis on education and training)
and to help those who cannot help themselves. Thus, Colorado human services
include social safety net programs, such as a constitutionally mandated Old
Age Pension and state appropriations for Aid to the Needy and Disabled and Aid
to the Blind.
Colorado spends most of its state budget on K-12 education,
higher education, health care, and human services. Because of the fiscal limits,
the legislature has had to establish spending priorities. Top priority has been
given to Medicaid increases, corrections caseloads, and social services caseloads
under court order. "Discretionary" spending in areas such as the welfare
benefit level, mental health, and most other social services receives priority,
but there has been little room for expansion of income support.
Basic Income Support
In the final year of Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC), a single mother with two children received a monthly cash benefit of
$356, a level that had not changed since 1989. This compares with the national
average of $377 a month. The number of Colorado families receiving AFDC fell
by 42 percent between 1993 and 1997, outpacing the nationwide decline of 29
percent. In addition to AFDC/Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF) and the
state-funded assistance programs, counties may offer General Assistance (see
table 2).
Until 1997, Colorado had a five-county welfare demonstration
project under federal waiver—the Colorado Personal Responsibility and Employment
Program (CPREP). For the rest of the state, both state and local officials’
goals for AFDC reflected the traditional role of the program as an income-maintaining
entitlement. Colorado’s Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) program, called
New Directions, promoted long-term self-sufficiency by encouraging recipients
to participate in extensive education and training and by advocating that counties
work on reducing barriers to employment with holistic case management and supportive
services. Mandatory JOBS components included a high school diploma or general
equivalency diploma (GED), basic or remedial education, English as a second
language, job skills training, job readiness, job development, and job placement.
Components at county option included job search, on-the-job training, community
and alternative work experience, and work supplementation. There was no standard
organizational structure for county JOBS programs.
CPREP continued to emphasize skill development, but it changed
a number of other features of the AFDC/JOBS structure. It offered more generous
earned income disregards, provided financial incentives to those who completed
a GED, enacted stricter JOBS requirements through permanent sanctions for noncompliance,
increased the number of JOBS case managers or provided additional JOBS slots,
and increased the income limits for transitional child care. An early evaluation
indicated that CPREP did not see a decrease in welfare dependence, but there
was a slight increase in the percentage of recipients who were employed (compared
with the control group). The state ended CPREP in July 1997 when it implemented
Colorado Works, taking advantage of the option in the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) that allowed states to end
their waiver demonstrations without being subject to cost neutrality requirements
if they did so within 90 days of enacting their TANF program.
Colorado’s TANF response, although different from the reform
embodied in CPREP, was influenced by two lessons learned from the waiver experience:
Recipients need a support system of services in order to stay employed once
they have jobs, and moving families from welfare to work is expensive and requires
a long-term commitment.
Programs That Promote Financial Independence
To help promote self-sufficiency, cash assistance programs
often need to be supplemented with employment and training, subsidized child
care, child support collection efforts, and health insurance coverage.
Employment and Training
Employment and training programs in Colorado are in the
process of moving toward a system of one-stop career centers, with the goal
of serving all Coloradans. In 1994, the Colorado Workforce Coordinating Council
(CWCC) was established to identify areas for reform to move toward this goal.
In consultation with CWCC, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE)
sets policy, develops performance standards, and allocates funds for career
centers. Counties are heavily involved in providing job training services through
administration of Job Training and Partnership Act (JTPA) Service Delivery Areas
(SDAs) and will become more heavily involved through changes adopted during
1997.
CWCC recommended consolidating all U.S. Department of Labor-funded
programs into a "seamless network of career centers delivering services
at the local level." CWCC also recommended "ultimately" integrating
Food Stamp Employment and Training, JOBS, Adult Education, Vocational Education,
and other programs into the career centers, but its top priority was implementing
the one-stop career centers through the Colorado Career Center System, a process
that is to take place over three years.
In July 1997, following CWCC’s recommendations, the JTPA
and Job Service programs were consolidated under the CDLE with 18 planned Workforce
Development Regions (WDRs) as local administrative entities. Conversion of five
of the seven SDAs in Denver and the neighboring counties into WDRs, where both
JTPA and Job Service will be offered at one-stop centers (to be operated by
counties or county consortia), was scheduled for fall 1997. The second wave
is scheduled to convert the remaining SDAs into WDRs. The third and final wave
will divide the single rural SDA into WDRs in 1999. CDLE plans to close most
or all of its Job Service centers during the implementation period and convert
their staffs, through attrition, to county employees.
School-to-Career (school-to-work in other states) is the
next major program slated for consolidation, to be merged with the one-stop
system by 2000. It is currently administered by the lieutenant governor’s office
through an interagency team at the state level, six regional partnerships, and
local school districts and businesses. Adult education programs, administered
jointly by the Colorado Department of Education (CDE) and the Colorado Community
College and Occupational Education System, are also supposed to be integrated
with the one-stop system, but there is no formal mechanism for coordination
between the two at the state level.
Welfare reform is unlikely to drive Colorado’s workforce
development systems for two reasons. First, CWCC and CDLE view businesses and
job seekers as their primary customers. Second, TANF, JOBS, and the Food Stamp
program are far from being consolidated into the workforce development system.
In 1997, an executive order from the governor directed CWCC to coordinate the
one-stop workforce system with welfare-to-work as well as other programs. The
details are left to CWCC, CDLE, and local WDRs to work out, but funds flow separately
to distinct local government entities—county departments of social services
and career centers—that must then coordinate services.
Child Care and Early Childhood Development
Colorado has taken a number of steps to encourage broad
input into and awareness of child care policy. These include First Impressions
(housed in the governor’s office and supported by private foundations to develop
policy, coordinate programs, and advocate on behalf of families); the Business
Commission on Child Care Financing (appointed by the governor to come up with
financing recommendations); the Colorado Children’s Cabinet (made up of representatives
from the state agencies that deliver or influence policy related to young children);
Bright Beginnings (a public-private partnership that focuses on the prenatal
period through age three); a governor-established Commission on Early Care and
Education; and the Colorado Children’s Campaign (an independent nonprofit organization
that works to raise the visibility of children’s issues).
Child care and child development are considered parts of
an overall vision in the state, although the two components still have separate
administrative structures. State policymakers are interested in bridging the
gap between child development and child care by building an integrated system
that enhances child development and provides care during all the hours parents
need to support their work activities.
The Child Care Division of the Colorado Department of Human
Services (CDHS) administers all child care subsidies, is responsible for licensing
child care facilities, and oversees child care resources and referrals. The
Colorado Child Care Assistance Program pools federal funding sources into a
single program that serves all low-income families on a sliding fee scale based
on family income. Federal funding accounts for about 55 percent of funds available
for the subsidy, which served almost 32,000 low-income children in state FY
1996. The subsidy is administered through county departments of social services,
and the state reimburses the county for child care subsidy payments to providers.
These county departments are responsible for eligibility determination, authorization,
and payments to providers. Until July 1, 1997, eligibility requirements were
statewide, and there were few county options. The state’s response to TANF has
increased county flexibility. There are no waiting lists for the subsidy program,
which serves welfare and nonwelfare clients alike, although there is concern
about what will happen as welfare reform progresses. Supply is reported to be
a current problem, primarily for infants and toddlers and in rural areas.
The major child development programs are the Colorado Preschool
Program and Head Start, structured as part-day, part-year programs operating
in facilities separate from full-day child care centers. The Preschool Program
is administered by the CDE, which is under the jurisdiction of the elected State
Board of Education. It was established to serve four-year-olds and now operates
in 110 of Colorado’s 176 school districts.
The Head Start Collaboration grant is administered by the
governor’s office, with input from CDHS and CDE. An interagency group representing
child care, Head Start, family care, preschool programs, and schools met for
nine months and developed basic principles and beliefs and then agreed on strategies
for early childhood programming. Blended funding, one of the strategies addressed
by this group, was incorporated into pilot projects authorized in recently passed
child care legislation.
Child Support
Colorado’s child support program is housed in the Division
of Child Support Enforcement in CDHS and is administered by the state’s 63 county
departments of social services. The state has been working hard to improve its
child support system. In 1989, it initiated immediate income withholding, authorization
to intercept lottery winnings, and a state case registry. Since then, it has
implemented workers and unemployment compensation intercept, credit bureau reporting,
driver’s license suspension, and in-hospital paternity establishment. Colorado
has centralized collection and distribution of child support payments, which
is the only part of the statewide child support responsibilities that is performed
by a private contractor.
One of the state’s principal child support goals is to increase
both the number of cases with support orders and the number of those cases that
actually receive payments. Collections increased from $31.7 million in 1987
to $137.3 million in 1996, with the majority of the increase from non-AFDC cases.
In 1996, for example, 54 percent of AFDC cases had support orders (compared
with 63 percent for non-AFDC cases), and payments were made on only 24 percent
of AFDC cases (compared with 31 percent of non-AFDC cases with child support
orders). The state is currently examining the effectiveness of various innovations
in processing child support cases through the Model Office Project—a three-year
federal research and demonstration project with three sites in Colorado.
Medicaid
The Medicaid program is the main vehicle for providing health
coverage to the low-income population in Colorado. Because increased Medicaid
spending directly reduces the state’s ability to raise spending in other areas,
the legislature is concerned with keeping its coverage limited. Thus Colorado’s
Medicaid program covers only federally required groups. The state does, however,
have certain state-only programs with limited coverage, in an effort to provide
a decent floor on coverage without expanding the Medicaid entitlement. These
state-only programs include the Colorado Indigent Care program, the Old Age
Pension program, the Colorado Prenatal Plus program, and the Child Health Plan
(recently replaced by the State Children’s Basic Health Plan). Some 540,000
Coloradans were uninsured in 1995, of whom 150,000 were children. These represent
smaller proportions of the state’s population than the national average.
The only Medicaid change passed in response to federal welfare
reform legislation was to authorize development of buy-in programs for both
former welfare recipients and disabled recipients after they return to work.
Some respondents expressed concern that the delinking of Medicaid from AFDC/TANF
may create problems for counties in identifying and enrolling Medicaid-eligibles
who are not on welfare, given that the pressure to move welfare clients to work
may take precedence in an environment of limited caseworker time. To alleviate
this concern, the state is developing an automated eligibility system that will
include a stand-alone Medicaid eligibility system to interface with TANF, food
stamps, and other programs.
Teen Pregnancy Prevention
The Family Services Division (FSD) of the Colorado Department
of Public Health and Environment oversees statewide policy and programs concerning
teen pregnancy prevention. Most of the state and federal money goes to serve
pregnant and parenting teens, although FSD has been urging that more money be
allocated to prevention. FSD produces an adolescent health report every few
years, which is widely used. It also uses federal money to support teacher training
in sexuality education in the schools and has recently added abstinence programs
to its offerings. Colorado did accept federal money for abstinence-only programs
and solicited proposals from local jurisdictions. In the 1996 legislative session,
a provision was passed allowing Medicaid to cover primary prevention (aimed
at 10- to 13-year-olds). Few counties have taken advantage of this provision,
however, because the reimbursement process is cumbersome. FSD has been informing
communities about this option and encouraging them to apply. In the private
sector, the Colorado Trust, one of the state’s major foundations, has played
a key role in supporting community-based prevention efforts. It is now in the
fourth year of a five-year $10 million teen pregnancy prevention initiative.
Last-Resort Safety Net Programs
Although one of the goals of devolution is to promote the
well-being of children and families, it is important to consider what might
happen to families for whom the new rules and programs do not work as designed.
Child welfare, housing, and emergency services have existed for a long time
to "pick up the pieces" when families cannot cope.
Child Welfare
Child welfare in Colorado is the responsibility of the Office
of Children, Youth, and Families in CDHS. The state office provides for a range
of technical assistance and oversight responsibilities. Primary among these
is oversight for a settlement agreement that followed a civil action brought
by the Colorado Lawyers Committee on behalf of the state’s foster children and
other children served by the child welfare system. The provisions of the Child
Welfare Settlement Agreement (CWSA), reached in 1994, resulted from negotiations
with CDHS, which had conducted its own investigation into the deficiencies of
the system.
The impact of CWSA has been great. It has led to additional
resources for the system, including increased state funding, maximization of
federal funding, and overall staff increases. In addition, it has brought statewide
standards concerning service delivery, policies and procedures, and documentation
and automation. All counties now use a statewide risk assessment tool and state-mandated
intake and investigation procedures and time frames. All counties are mandated
to provide a wide range of core services, which can be provided as alternatives
to or to prevent out-of-home placements. As of June 1996, all counties had implemented
family preservation, in-home homemaker services, and aftercare services, and
most had available mental health services, nonresidential substance abuse treatment,
and ongoing family therapy. The state is unlikely to see much further change
as a result of federal welfare reform, as child welfare services will continue
to comply with the terms of settlement agreements.
Emergency Services and Housing
Colorado faces a continued shortage of affordable housing
and a homeless population that increased by 18 percent between 1990 and 1995,
as thousands of families a month streamed into Colorado because of its economic
boom. The state plays a relatively limited role in serving the homeless, however,
and provides no state funding for affordable housing development. The Coordinating
Council on Housing and the Homeless includes representatives of nonprofit organizations
and state agencies and plays a role in distributing federal McKinney funds.
Otherwise, providing for the homeless is up to the counties. In Denver, the
local site we visited, food, shelter, and transportation to individuals in a
temporary emergency are provided by the local General Assistance program. Most
services to the homeless are provided by private agencies. The Metropolitan
Denver Homeless Initiative (MDHI) was formed in 1994 as a collaborative with
more than 400 member organizations. MDHI has been involved in developing 753
transitional, permanent, and single-occupancy housing units.
Implications of the New Welfare Reform Legislation
Passage of federal welfare reform was the impetus for major
welfare reform legislation in Colorado. The senator whose proposal finally prevailed
(after two previous welfare reform bills were defeated) sought input from a
broad range of groups, including AFDC caseworkers and recipients. The legislation’s
primary goal was to shift from the AFDC/JOBS focus on education and training
to a TANF program that stressed a work-first orientation through work requirements,
time limits, and strict sanctions. The final legislation, Colorado Works, included
uniform eligibility standards and benefit levels set by the state, but also
transferred considerably more responsibility to the counties than had been the
case under AFDC/JOBS (see table 3).
Colorado Works mandates that counties assess all applicants
and recipients and enter into an individual responsibility contract (IRC) with
each recipient. Counties may design their own assessment tools and contracts
as long as they are confined to matters directly related to seeking and maintaining
education, training, or employment. The absence of strategies to overcome personal
barriers to employment (such as substance abuse) from the IRC does not reverse
Colorado’s historical dedication to providing supportive services. It is, rather,
a commitment to focus on outcomes, not behavior, and reflects a decision to
manage personal barriers outside the IRC process. Counties may decide if they
want a diversion program and how diversion assistance will be provided. They
may also design and implement their own education, training, and work programs
from a menu of mandatory and optional components. In addition, they may determine
when recipients will have to work within the 24-month federal requirement and
may provide any form of assistance, in addition to the cash grant, to promote
long-term employment.
With respect to sanctions, the state defines penalties but
the counties have some discretion on timing. For the first instance of noncompliance,
a family’s grant is cut by 25 percent for at least one month until compliance
but not more than three months as determined by the county. For the second instance,
the grant is cut by 50 percent with the same stipulations. For the third instance,
the case benefit is terminated for at least three months but not more than six
months, again as determined by the county.
The increased flexibility for the counties embodied in Colorado
welfare reform law is truly changing the state-county relationship, even in
a state that has always had a decentralized system—with some consequent strains.
The debate over performance contracts highlights the push and pull. All counties
were required to submit their county operational plans for Colorado Works implementation
by October 1, 1997, for state review. The counties were then supposed to sign
a performance contract, with noncompliance sanctionable by the state. However,
counties refused to sign the contracts and had ongoing negotiations with the
state regarding what these documents should include. In December 1998, the state
and the counties finally agreed on a memorandum of understanding between the
Colorado Department of Human Services and Boards of County Commissioners. The
only specific performance standards that counties are held accountable for are
participation rates. There is a bill pending in the legislature that would require
counties to have official written policies regarding welfare. Another area of
controversy is the counties’ maintenance-of-effort funding requirements. That
issue was revisited in the 1998 legislative session, resulting in a 9 percent
reduction in county maintenance-of-effort requirements for state FYs 1997–98
and 1998–99.
Particular challenges for Colorado in complying with federal
PRWORA/TANF requirements are work participation requirements, child support
provisions, and provisions affecting immigrants. The TANF participation requirements
necessitate uniform standards and reporting at the state level. Colorado is
in the process of implementing a statewide system for tracking work participation
rates, but counties disagreed with early figures and did not believe they should
be sanctioned for not meeting participation requirements. In addition, the state’s
current management information system is not designed to take into account county-specific
policies as currently permitted under Colorado Works. CDHS officials acknowledge
that the data system is an immediate priority, but the counties are pessimistic
about the ability of the state to solve the problems quickly. Although Colorado
has emphasized administrative processes rather than court involvement in child
support enforcement for several years, some of PRWORA’s policies geared toward
more centralized and standardized case processing are difficult to implement
in a system with county discretion. Colorado passed legislation in 1997 to bring
the state into full compliance with PRWORA requirements, but these requirements
displeased several state legislators, who viewed them as increased government
interference in individuals’ lives.
Colorado continued its commitment to providing a safety
net for legal immigrants with legislation passed in 1997. The bill (S.B. 97-171)
confirmed eligibility for the state’s Old Age Pension, Aid to the Needy and
Disabled, and Aid to the Blind, irrespective of citizenship or date of entry.
It also appropriated $2 million for FY 1997 in emergency assistance for immigrants
losing eligibility for food stamps, but the bill contained two controversial
provisions, both of which may be open to legal challenges. The first would count
sponsors’ income as part of immigrants’ income in determining eligibility for
these state cash assistance programs, which is a violation of Colorado’s state
constitution. The second makes anyone who sponsors an immigrant ineligible for
public assistance, which may violate the U.S. Constitution.
Changes in the relationship between the state and its counties
in Colorado as a result of PRWORA/TANF offer the opportunity for innovation
in one of the nation’s most comprehensive experiments in devolution. It will
be important to watch whether counties take advantage of this opportunity to
optimize the use of county resources and personalize service delivery, or whether
energies will be diverted by the power struggle between the state and the counties
as they try to adjust to a new state-local partnership.
Tables
|
Table 1
State Characteristics, 1995 |
|
| |
Colorado |
United
States |
|
| Population Characteristics |
|
|
|
Population (1995) (in thousands)
|
3,689 |
260,202 |
Percent under 18 (1995)
|
26.5% |
26.8% |
Percent Hispanic (1995)
|
11.8% |
10.7% |
Percent Non-Hispanic Black
(1995)
|
2.9% |
12.5% |
Percent Noncitizen Immigrant
(1996)
|
5.1% |
6.4% |
Percent Rural (1990)
|
27.8% |
36.4% |
Population Growth (1990–1995)
|
13.7% |
5.6% |
|
| Births: |
|
|
Per 1,000 Women Ages 15–19
(1994)
|
54 |
59 |
Per 1,000 Women Ages 15–44
(1994)
|
63.3 |
66.7 |
Percent to Unmarried Women
(1994)
|
25.0% |
32.6% |
Percent to Women under 20
That Were Nonmarital (1994)
|
73% |
76% |
|
|
Economic Characteristics
|
|
|
Per Capita Income (1995)
|
$23,961 |
$23,208 |
Percent Change in Per Capita
Personal Income (1990–1995)
|
24.6% |
21.2% |
Percent below Poverty (1994)
|
9.3% |
14.3% |
Unemployment Rate (1996)
|
4.2% |
5.4% |
Employment Rate (1996)
|
69.3% |
63.2% |
Percent Jobs in Manufacturing
(1995)
|
11.0% |
16.0% |
Percent Jobs in Service Sector
(1995)
|
25.3% |
23.1% |
Percent Jobs in Public Sector
(1995)
|
13.6% |
14.7% |
|
|
Family Profile
|
|
|
Percent Two-Parent Families
(1994)
|
39.0% |
35.7% |
Percent One-Parent Families
(1994)
|
12.5% |
13.8% |
Percent Mothers with Child
12 or Under
|
|
|
Working Full-Time (1994)
|
41.2% |
38.1% |
Working Part-Time (1994)
|
14.6% |
16.1% |
In Two-Parent Families and
Working (1994)
|
42.9% |
40.3% |
In One-Parent Families and
Working (1994)
|
12.8% |
13.9% |
Percent Children below Poverty
(1994)
|
12.4% |
21.7% |
| Median Income of
Families with Children (1994) |
$43,143 |
$37,109 |
| Percent Children
Uninsured (1995) |
10.5% |
10.0% |
|
| Source:
Complete list of sources is available in Income Support and Social
Services for Low-Income People in Colorado (The Urban
Institute, 1998). |
|
|
Table 2
Social Welfare Spending for Families
with Children in Colorado, FY 1995 |
|
| Program |
$
in Millions |
Total
Spending per
Poor Family |
|
Federal
Spending |
State
and/or
Local
Spending
|
Total
Spending |
Colorado |
United
States |
|
| Income Support |
|
|
|
|
|
AFDC Benefits
|
$75.8
|
$67.0 |
$142.8 |
$699 |
$851 |
AFDC Administration
|
12.5 |
12.5 |
24.9 |
122 |
136 |
SSI for Children
|
–
|
– |
43.5 |
213 |
184 |
EITC Federal
|
295.7 |
– |
295.7 |
1448 |
1010 |
|
|
Food Security
|
|
|
|
|
|
Food Stamps, households with
children
|
180.2 |
– |
180.2 |
882 |
$711 |
Child Nutrition
|
97.7 |
– |
97.7 |
478 |
344 |
|
|
Education and Training
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOBS
|
10.5 |
6.2 |
16.7 |
82 |
59 |
JTPA—TOTAL
|
26.6 |
– |
26.6 |
130 |
NA |
Title II
|
18.6 |
– |
18.6 |
91 |
73 |
Title III
|
8.0 |
– |
8.0 |
39 |
NA |
Job Service
|
10.0
|
– |
10.0 |
49 |
NA |
|
|
Child Care/Development
|
|
|
|
|
|
AFDC
|
6.0 |
5.3 |
11.4 |
56 |
61 |
At-Risk
|
4.1 |
3.7 |
7.8 |
38 |
20 |
CCDBG
|
10.0 |
– |
10.0 |
49 |
34 |
Head Start
|
35.8 |
– |
35.8 |
175 |
117 |
Colorado Preschool
|
– |
17.0 |
17.0 |
83 |
NA |
|
|
Child Support Enforcement
|
|
|
|
|
|
Child Welfare
|
24.9 |
11.2 |
36.1 |
177 |
115 |
|
|
Protection/Family Preservation
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foster Care
|
5.4 |
1.8 |
7.2 |
NA |
NA |
Adoption Assistance
|
24.4 |
22.4 |
46.8 |
NA |
NA |
Other
|
3.3 |
3.0 |
6.3 |
NA |
NA |
|
| I-VA Emergency
Assistance |
0.8 |
– |
0.8 |
NA |
NA |
|
| Health |
32.7 |
32.7 |
65.5 |
|
NA |
Medicaid, children only
|
116.8 |
103.2 |
220.0 |
1077 |
984 |
|
| Source: Complete
list of sources is available in Income Support and Social Services for
Low-Income People in Colorado (The Urban Institute,
1998). |
|
Table
3
Colorado’s TANF Program |
|
Eligibility
|
Income
eligibility for a recipient family of three with no unearned income and
no child care expenses is $750/month in the first month of earnings, falling
to $510/month in the thirteenth month of earnings; asset limit is $2,000. |
| Diversion Assistance |
Provides up to three
months of cash or vendor payments, whichever the county prefers, for families
with short-term needs; counties have the option of implementing a diversion
assistance program for applicants eligible under TANF; counties can also
choose to operate a separate diversion program for applicants not eligible
for cash assistance under TANF. |
| Time Limits |
Five years, with
exemptions for those who are disabled or ill, caring for a disabled person,
or victims of domestic violence. |
| Earnings Disregards |
Disregards $120 and
one-third of the remainder for the first four months of earnings; $120 for
the next eight months (months 5–12); $90 after 12 months. |
| Work Requirements |
Adults must participate
in work activities within two years of benefit receipt; counties have the
option to exempt adults caring for children under age one. $164/month maximum
for single parent with two children and no other income. |
| Work Sanctions |
For first instance
of noncompliance, 25 percent reduction in benefit for 1–3 months (county
option); for continued noncompliance after 3 months or second instance of
noncompliance, 50 percent reduction in benefit for 1–3 months (county option);
for continued noncompliance after another 6 months or subsequent instances
of noncompliance, termination of benefits for 3 months (county option). |
| Benefit Level |
$356/month maximum
for single parent with two children and no income. |
| Source:
L.
Jerome Gallagher, Megan Gallagher, Kevin Perese, Susan Schreiber, and Keith
Watson. One Year after Federal Welfare Reform: A Description of State
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Decisions as of October 1997.
The Urban Institute, Assessing the New Federalism Occasional
Paper Number 6, June 1998, various tables. |
Also Available From Assessing the New
Federalism:
1. The Medicaid Reform Debate in 1997. John Holahan,
Joshua M. Wiener, and David Liska, July 1997.
2. The Other Side of Devolution: Shifting Relationships
Between State and Local Governments. Keith Watson and Steven D. Gold, August
1997.
3. Health Care in New York City: Service Providers’ Response
to an Emerging Market. Joel Cantor, Kathryn Haslanger, Anthony Tassi, Eve
Weiss, Kathleen Finneran, and Sue Kaplan, March 1998.
4. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program: A Look
at the Numbers. Frank Ullman, Brian Bruen, and John Holahan, March 1998.
5. Federal and State Funding of Children’s Programs.
Toby Douglas and Kimura Flores, March 1998.
6. One Year after Federal Welfare Reform: A Description
of State Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Decisions as of October
1997. L. Jerome Gallagher, Megan Gallagher, Kevin Perese, Susan Schreiber,
and Keith Watson, June 1998.
7. Adopting and Adapting Managed Care for Medicaid Beneficiaries:
An Imperfect Translation. Robert E. Hurley and Susan Wallin, June 1998.
8. Counting the Uninsured: A Review of the Literature.
Kimball Lewis, Marilyn Ellwood, and John L. Czajka, July 1998.
9. Does Work Pay? An Analysis of the Work Incentives
under TANF. Gregory Acs, Norma Coe, Keith Watson, and Robert I. Lerman,
July 1998.
10. Job Prospects for Welfare Recipients: Employers Speak
Out. Marsha Regenstein, Jack A. Meyer, and Jennifer Dickemper Hicks, July
1998.
11. Medicaid Managed Care for Persons with Disabilities.
Marsha Regenstein and Stephanie E. Anthony, August 1998.
12. Long-Term Care for the Elderly: Profiles of Thirteen
States. Joshua M. Wiener and David G. Stevenson, August 1998.
13. Public Policy, Market Forces, and the Viability of
Safety Net Providers. Stephen A. Norton and Debra J. Lipson, September 1998.
14. The Children’s Budget Report: A Detailed Analysis
of Spending on Low-Income Children’s Programs in 13 States. Kimura Flores,
Toby Douglas, and Deborah A. Ellwood, September 1998.
15. Child Care Assistance under Welfare Reform: Early
Responses by the States. Sharon K. Long, Gretchen G. Kirby, Robin Kurka,
and Shelley Waters, September 1998.
16. Cash Assistance in Transition: The Story of 13 States.
Sheila R. Zedlewski, Pamela A. Holcomb, and Amy-Ellen Duke, December 1998.
17. Health Care Market Competition in Six States: Implications
for the Poor. Randall R. Bovbjerg and Jill A. Marsteller, November 1998.
18. Health Policy for the Low-Income Population: Major
Findings from the Assessing the New Federalism Case Studies. John
Holahan, Joshua M. Wiener, and Susan Wallin, November 1998.
19. Portraits of the Safety Net: The Market, Environment,
and Safety Net Response. Stephen A. Norton and Debra J. Lipson, November
1998.
20. The Cost of Protecting Vulnerable Children: Understanding
Federal, State, and Local Child Welfare Spending. Rob Geen, Shelley Waters
Boots, and Karen C. Tumlin, January 1999.
21. Welfare Reform and Interstate Welfare Competition:
Theory and Evidence. Jan K. Brueckner, December 1998.
22. Controlling the Supply of Long-Term Care Providers
at the State Level. Joshua M. Wiener, David G. Stevenson, and Susan M. Goldenson,
December 1998.
23. Block Granting Welfare: The Fiscal Impact on States.
Elizabeth T. Powers, forthcoming.
About the Authors
Nancy Pindus is
a senior research associate at the Urban Institute. She served as case study
coordinator for income support and social services for Assessing the New Federalism.
Her work at the Urban Institute focuses on services integration, welfare reform,
employment and training programs, public health programs, and organizational
and industry analysis.
Randy Capps is a research associate at the
Urban Institute and is currently a Ph.D. candidate in sociology at the University
of Texas at Austin. His dissertation concerns self-employment among Mexican
immigrants in the United States. His other interests are immigration policy,
economic incorporation of immigrants, and education and training policy.
Amy-Ellen Duke is a research associate at
the Urban Institute. Her career has concentrated on income support programs
and related employment and training issues. She has been involved in a number
of the Institute's assessments and evaluations of state welfare reform efforts,
including a study of the impacts of welfare reform in rural communities.
Karin Malm is an independent consultant with
a background in child welfare issues, including studies of the implementation
of family support and family preservation services, incidence of child abuse
and child neglect, and evaluations of family preservation, foster care, and
adoption services. Currently, she is directing an assessment of domestic violence/child
protective services collaboration grants for the Administration for Children
and Families.
Funders
The project has received funding from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, the W.K.
Kellogg Foundation, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, The Henry J. Kaiser Family
Foundation, The Ford Foundation, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation,
the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation,
The Commonwealth Fund, the Stuart Foundation, the Weingart Foundation, The McKnight
Foundation, The Fund for New Jersey, and The Rockefeller Foundation. Additional
funding is provided by the Joyce Foundation and The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
through a subcontract with the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
Publisher: The Urban Institute, 2100 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037
Copyright © 1999
Permission is granted for reproduction of this document, with attribution to
the Urban Institute.
For extra copies call 202-261-5687, or visit the Urban Institute's web site
(http://www.urban.org) and click on "Assessing the New Federalism."
PDF