This document provides an overview of Colorado's fiscal education network toolkit. It discusses Colorado's structural budget challenges, including growing demand for services like education, healthcare and transportation that outpaces limited revenue growth. It outlines options like reducing services, changing the tax code, and doing nothing. The goal of the network is to engage nonprofits to have productive community conversations about fiscal issues and help voters make informed choices through discussing values and considering long-term impacts.

1. Fiscal Education Network Toolkit
LET’S
TALK!
Take an Hour to Change
Colorado’s Future

2. Fiscal Education Network Toolkit
2
Table of Contents
Introduction........................................................................................2
Making Sense of the State’s Revenue Challenges....................................3
The General Fund...............................................................................4
Compounding Factors to the Structural Problems........................... 5 — 6
How Does Colorado Compare?......................................................7—9
What Are the Options?...................................................................... 10
Nonprofits are Vital to Community Conversations................................ 10
Leadership Challenge................................................................... 10­­—11
Steps.........................................................................................12—13
Strategies...................................................................................14—15
Resources/Figures.......................................................................15-—6
Introduction
Colorado’s projected long-term revenues are insufficient to sustain the public services Coloradans have come to expect.
Colorado voters have the unique responsibility of deciding how best to balance the public’s desires for both low taxes
and robust public services. The purpose of the Fiscal Education Network is to help Coloradans make informed choices
about state fiscal policies and public services through community engagement led by a statewide network of nonprofit
organizations.
Research conducted by John Creighton on behalf of the Fiscal Education Network has produced an approach to com-
munity engagement geared toward “building public will” long term rather than simply “swaying public opinion” as many
political campaigns achieve in the short term. The framework presented in this toolkit clarifies the differences between
building public will and swaying public opinion, as well as identifying the stages of public thinking people go through
before they commit to public action. We need your help and leadership to engage Colorado’s communities in these vital
discussions about our state’s future.

3. 3
Help Coloradans
Make Sense of
the State’s
Revenue
Challenges
Colorado faces an unprecedented
budget challenge that goes far beyond the typical “taxes
versus services” debate that preoccupies any government
body. At the ballot box and in countless opinion surveys,
Coloradans express consistent support for education,
fundamental health care services, public safety, services
for seniors, roads, highways and transit. Many Coloradans
are concerned that these vital services are underfunded.
Majorities of people surveyed oppose more cuts to these
public services, yet the costs of mandated, necessary and/
or popular services and infrastructure increasingly exceed
state revenues.
The challenge is this: Colorado has grown but state
revenues haven’t kept pace. Over the past decade…
• The population has grown by nearly 20 percent.
• The number of registered vehicles on the road has in-
creased by just over 25 percent.
• The number of K-12 students has increased 15 percent.
• The number of college students in the state has grown by
more than 30 percent.
• Medicaid caseloads have doubled.
Yet state revenues available to fund these services are not
much more than they were in 2001. General Fund revenues
have increased by 7 percent and per capita state spending
fell from $2,237 to $2,211 (adjusted for inflation) between
2001 and 2010. Specific revenue sources like Colorado’s
gas tax also haven’t kept up with the state’s growth.
Colorado’s gas tax has not increased since 1992 while the
state’s population increased by more than 60 percent dur-
ing that same time period. In that time period, the popula-
tion has grown more than 60 percent. The current value
of the gas tax adjusted for inflation is less than half of its
value in 1992, according to the Colorado Department of
Transportation.
Although revenues are not sufficient to maintain public
services at their current levels, the Colorado General As-
sembly continues to make cuts including:
• K—12 education — $260 million (FY 2010—11), $130
million (FY 2009—10). FY 2010—11 per student funding
is $450 less than in 2008-09;
• Child welfare services — $6.7 million;
• Human services — 2.3 percent cut; and
• Medicaid spending — $138 cut per recipient.
Coloradans have made it clear that we expect state and
local governments to fund good schools, maintain roads
and bridges, provide fire and police protection, and sup-
port the most vulnerable members of our communities.
State revenues, however, are not sufficient to meet these
expectations in the short term or long term. Colorado’s
General Fund revenue in 2010 was nearly the
same as 2001.
The Independence Institute, a fiscally conservative think-
tank in the state, says in its report Citizens’ Budget, “The
state’s budget problems arise not just from recent difficult
economic times, but originate from structural spending
problems that allow recurring crises.” In other words, we
face a long-term problem that won’t go away when the
recession ends.

4. Fiscal Education Network Toolkit
4
40%
9%
9%
9% 4% 5%
24%
K-12 Education
Health Care
Higher Education
Corrections
Human Services
Judiciary
Everything Else
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Medicaid…
Children’s…
Higher…
K-12…
State Park…
General Fund
Changes in Demand Since FY 2007-2008
72%
19%
21%
7%
7%
-5%
$20,000.0
$18,000.0
$16,000.0
$14,000.0
$12,000.0
$10,000.0
$8,000.0
$6,000.0
$4,000.0
$2,000.0
$0.0
DollarsinMillions
Fiscal Year
11-12
12-13
13-14
14-15
15-16
16-17
17-18
18-19
19-20
20-21
21-22
22-23
23-24
24-25
Other Agencies
SB 228
Big 3
GF SEF Revenue
The General Fund
Demand for state services has increased in general, while
revenues to fund these services have not kept pace. Since
fiscal year 2007—2008, enrollment in and use of state
services has increased, in some cases dramatically. The
general fund’s purchasing power has decreased 11 percent,
adjusted for inflation since 2001. The child poverty rate
rose 102 percent in Colorado over a ten—year span from
2001—2011. Yet, the general fund rose only .5 percent (fig.
1) to support vulnerable children and families, including a
2 percent decline in funds for medical services for special
needs children over the same time period. In light of Med-
icaid and K—12 education forecasts, economists predict
corrections, Medicaid, and K—12 education will account
for all general fund expenditures by fiscal year 2024—25,
leaving services, including higher education, human
services, and transportation, unfunded from general fund
dollars.

5. 5
Compounding Factors to the Structural Problems
Aging population
Coloradans are getting older. By 2025, Colorado’s population of those over the age of 65 is expected to grow to 17 per-
cent of the total population. This is an increase of 70 percent. Seniors contribute nearly half the amount of the sales tax
base per household than people between the ages of 45­—64 contribute.
Additionally, while seniors represent a small, yet growing population in Colorado, they are significant consumers of
public services.
Medicaid Enrollees to Expenditures (FY 2010)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
59.4%
16.9%
12.1%
7.7%
3.2%
0.7%
0.7%
2.4%
27.9%
33.0%
13.9%
22.1%
Non Citizens
Partial Eligibles
Elderly
Disabled
Adults
Children
Expenditures (2,929,236,158)
“Shifting” K—12 education funding system
How K­—12 education is funded has shifted over the last
20 years. In 1993, the state funded 35 percent of local
school expenditures. In 2010, that number grew to 63
percent, due in large part to a decrease in local mill levies,
which raise funds for local schools through property taxes.
State law requires that the state pay a larger percentage for
K—12 education when the local share is reduced, Accord-
ing to current projections, this figure is expected to grow
to 70 percent by FY 2024—25.
Families must pay more of the cost of higher
education
Colorado State University estimates that it educates a
student for 4 percent less in inflation-adjusted dollars than
it did 20 years ago. What has changed is that 20 years ago
two-thirds of the cost of a CSU education was paid by the
state.

6. Fiscal Education Network Toolkit
6
0
10
20
30
40
40%
60%
1983 2012
72%
Family Share (Tuition Fees)
28%
50
60
70
80
Transportation Needs?
Additional Transportation Revenue Required by Level of Service
$380
$31 $57
$276
$50
$131 $203
$461$500
$830
$688
Highway Repairs Bridge Repairs Maintenance Total
Level of Service
C+ B A
$1380
Millions
$1,400
$1,300
$1,000
$800
$600
$400
$300
$0
Transportation infrastructure continues to deteriorate
The Transportation Department gives Colorado’s current road and bridge conditions a C+ grade. Fifty percent of Colo-
rado’s roads and bridges are in good or fair condition. Seven percent are in poor conditions, including 128 bridges that
will be unsafe in the next five years.

7. 7
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
1959
1965
1973
1983
1993
2003
2013
2023
2033
2039
45.67%
54.33%
Goods Shared
23.29%
76.71%
Services Shared
Personal Consumption Expenditures for Goods and Services as a Share
of Total: U.S. History and Forecast
Colorado’s Changing Economy
When the state sales tax was implemented we consumed more goods than services, so only goods were taxed.
Now we consume more services-tax free. The sales tax base has declined because it applies less to what Coloradans
buy more often.
We Pay Less Tax
GeneralFundAsShareTotalState
PersonalIncome
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
1989 2011
4.4%
4.1%
4.7%
4.5%
4.2%
3.5%
3.7%
3.2%
How Does Colorado
Compare to Other States?
• Combined state and local tax burden =
39 (Tax Foundation)
• Best states for retiree taxes = 5
(MSN Money)
• Business tax climate = 15
(Tax Foundation)
• State tax burden as percentage of
income = 49 (Colorado Legislative
Council)
• 2d lowest state sales tax burden
(Legislative Council, Colorado
Department of Revenue)

8. Fiscal Education Network Toolkit
8
‘92 ’93 ‘94 ’95 ‘96 ’97 ‘98 ’99 ‘00 ’01 ‘02 ’03 ‘04 ’05 ‘06 ’07 ‘08
U.S.
Colorado
$8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Colorado’s Commitment to Higher Education Has Declined
State Tax Funds to Higher Education per $1,000 of Personal Income
Colorado State Taxes per $1,000 of Personal Income Compared to
Nation 49 of 50 States
Source: Grapevine, An Annual Compilation of Data on State Tax Appropriations for the Geral Operations of Higher Education Center for the Study of Educationn Policy, Illinois State University
Fiscal Year

9. 9
Spending per $1,000 of Personal Income
Colorado v. U.S. Average

10. Fiscal Education Network Toolkit
10
What are the Options?
Option
1
Option
2
Option
3
No Policy Changes
Permanently Reduce
Public Services
Change the Tax Code
• 19 percent cuts to K—12 education for 13 of next
14 years.
• 90 percent cuts to the following programs after FY
2017­—18.
• Roll back eligibility levels for Medicaid, eliminate
some coverage for low-income adults and increase fees.
• Change Medicaid to a public system resembling
health savings accounts.
• Shorter school days for younger students.
• Cut prison time for non-violent offenders.
• Redirect funds from Great Outdoors Colorado to
education.
• Add personal services to the sales tax base.
• Levy property taxes for schools with a statewide
mill levy.
• Restore four graduated income tax brackets.
— Agriculture
— Local Affairs
— Higher Education
— Natural Resources
— Military and Veterans
Affairs
— Public Safety
— Public Health and
Environment
— Regulatory Affairs
— Personnel and
Administration
— Revenue
This is a leadership challenge
for all Coloradans.
It is this challenge that prompted Colorado Nonprofit
Association to launch the Fiscal Education Network. The
Fiscal Education Network consists of nonprofit organiza-
tions empowered to lead productive conversations in their
local communities. The goal is to increase Coloradans’
awareness of the state’s fiscal challenges and enable Colo-
rado voters to exercise their responsibilities as community
leaders.
Nonprofits Are Vital to Community
Conversations
Why should this issue matter to Colorado’s nonprofits?
When government services are cut, many nonprofits
provide services to help fill the gap. Nonprofits are
also known as trusted, nonpartisan voices who, through
their extensive community-based networks, can engage
their neighbors in meaningful civic conversations Under
Colorado’s constitution; voters make fundamental fiscal
policy decisions. Generating consensus takes neighbor-
to-neighbor conversations, which nonprofits are uniquely
situated to facilitate.
Helping our fellow Coloradans understand the effects of
the state’s revenue challenges is especially important be-
cause voters must decide so many issues with far reaching
implications. Constitutional measures adopted by voters
over the last 30 years have largely determined how state
government funds services and programs important to
Coloradans think are important.
Fiscal Education Network Overview
The Fiscal Education Network provides Colorado non-
profits with information about the state’s long-term fiscal
challenges and the tools to encourage community and
value based discussion of these issues. This effort is co-
ordinated with Colorado Reform Roundtable, a coalition
of businesses, nonprofits, and labor unions interested in
fiscal reform.
Through the Fiscal Education Network, Colorado Non-
profit Association provides information, materials and
resources to nonprofits about the state’s fiscal challenges
and how these challenges impact the nonprofit sector and
our communities. These materials will be educational and

11. 11
Awareness Options Choice/
Action
responsibilities as citizens. The political class engages
people as consumers of government. The operational
question is how can government serve people’s indi-
vidual needs? This perspective absolves individuals of any
responsibilities — except for going to the ballot box to
express their satisfaction, or lack of it, for elected officials
based on how their personal needs are met. However,
research shows that most people, given the opportunity,
want to exercise their role as responsible citizens and
think about government in the role of long-term planner in
the service of the represented community. This is the role
that problem solvers embrace. Shifting the conversation
from people’s individual needs toward the needs of the
community is often as simple as changing the questions
asked.
Drawing upon research about productive civic dialogue,
the Fiscal Education Network developed a framework for
conversations that reconcile values and build pub-
lic will and consensus. Unlike a campaign to change
public opinion on an issue in the short term, public
will-building progresses through stages of awareness, op-
tions, and choice/action. Public will building results from
value-based discussions. People become aware when they
perceive a threat to their values. When people consider
options, they are trying to determine how to balance
their values. Most importantly, people make decisions
based on values and then back those decisions with facts
and data, not the other way around.
Public Opinion Public Will
• Protect or sway small percentage at
margin
• Short term; high intensity
• Narrow issues; drive home a single
message
• Appeal to people’s preconceived view
• Mass media
• Move people through stages of public
thinking
• Longer term
• Broader narrative; encourage discourse
• Engage people as citizens who hold
responsibilities
• Grassroots conversations
designed to assist nonprofits in engaging their constitu-
encies and neighbors in awareness discussions and the
consideration of options.
A key element of this initiative is changing the tone and
focus of conversations about government and how tax dol-
lars are spent. Much of the debate is based on a consumer
viewpoint, “What’s in it for me?” We expect that a $1
spent on a government service will be returned exactly as
a $1 worth of services to us personally. Yet, many services
provide benefit to communities as a whole or to disad-
vantaged populations and do not personally benefit the
taxpayer.
We value what government provides such as education,
public safety and transportation infrastructure, yet we also
lack confidence in the government’s ability to spend tax
dollars wisely on such services without waste, fraud and
abuse. To reconcile these conflicts, we must move from
a consumer perspective and toward one based on our

12. “This is a lead-
ership challenge
for all
Coloradans.”
Fiscal Education Network Toolkit
12
Account for People’s Ambivalence
About Government
Coloradans are not convinced that they have a good gov-
ernment right now. But they do want to maintain a high
quality of life, which makes our state a great place to live,
work, play and raise families. They understand government
plays a role in providing services and infrastructure to
maintain our quality of life and hold a relatively nuanced
stance on the need for government to provide vital ser-
vices and the necessity of taxes to pay for them. Problem
solvers account for their frustrations but find ways to set
them aside in order to seek resolve the challenges. Colo-
radans need spaces in which they can move beyond their
frustrations and begin to learn about and examine the
challenges facing the state.
Focus on the Big Picture, Rather Than
Narrowly Defined Issues and Personalities
Political rhetoric often focuses on narrow, short term
issues, the needs of specific interest groups and manufac-
tures “bad guys” who must be “put in their place.” Problem
solvers focus on the big picture and look at how issues
are connected to the long term. In Colorado, people need
to consider — big-picture questions: What are the vital
services and infrastructure or public structures needed to
maintain quality of life? And how do we fund these ser-
vices and infrastructure in a way that is fair to all?
STEP 1
STEP 2
Coloradans want state government to maintain
vital services. They must think like problem
solvers and focus on the big picture. They must
exercise their role as responsible citizens and have
conversations about the needs of their community.
How To Talk About State and
Community Priorities
Coloradans, like people across the nation, say they are
frustrated with politics and government. They are not
convinced that government, as it is now, is good. But,
Coloradans do want to maintain a quality of life
that makes our state a great place to live, work, play, and
raise children. They understand government plays a role in
providing services and infrastructure to maintain our
quality of life and hold a relatively nuanced stance on the
need for government to provide vital services.
Research suggests that
messaging and
language play an
important role
in engaging people on
public issues. But how
people are engaged in discussion about
public issues is generally more important
than a particular message or the specific
language used. In order to build public will
for action, people need time and space to step
out of the context of their daily affairs and focus on what
the community needs to sustain a high quality of life. When
people are given the opportunity to look at issues as prob-
lem solvers with shared responsibilities for the matter, they
are more likely to voice support long-term policy solutions.
Engage People as Problem Solvers
Colorado needs a robust public conversation on the rev-
enue challenges facing the state in the short term. Colora-
dans have made clear that they expect state and local gov-
ernments to maintain vital services and infrastructure. But,
state revenues do not exist to meet these expectations. So,
Coloradans must decide what to do. A key to help Colora-
dans think about the revenue challenges facing the state is
to help people approach these issues like problem solvers.
Here are five keys to help people think this way.

13. “Values trump
data when it
comes to decision-
making.”
13
Citizens engaged in problem solving wrestle with ques-
tions such as:
• What makes this community a good place to live for
everyone who is here?
• How do we balance the needs and priorities of different
people and groups?
Efforts to educate the public about policy issues often
bombard people with facts. There is an underlying atti-
tude of, “If people just understood better ...” But research
shows that trying to help people “get the facts straight”
may strengthen their
adherence
to their current
understanding of the
issue. Research shows
that values trump data
when it comes to decision
making. People make decisions
consciously and unconsciously based on
their values and then use data to support their
choice. Trying to change values or teach new ones is
extremely difficult and may feel threatening to the per-
son. Instead, research suggests, people are more likely to
engage as problem solvers when they are able to connect
an issue to their existing core values. Coloradans have
demonstrated at the ballot box that they value vital govern-
ment services and infrastructure. Coloradans also express
a desire to be reasonable, act as good stewards and ensure
that local communities can make their own choices. By
appealing to these values, we can create an entry point
for people to want to learn about the revenue challenges
facing Colorado and consider these issues as problem
solvers.
Focus on Possibilities Not Just Bad News
Groups seeking to engage people on public issues often
convey “bad news” to people. Here are all the problems
that exist. An overemphasis on bad news can paralyze
people because it does not lead them toward identifying
problems and producing productive solutions. Problem
solvers acknowledge challenges that must be addressed
or barriers that must be overcome. But communications
and education should emphasize what is possible and how
people can help bring about change. Rather than get-
ting mired in debate about whether taxes are too high or
too low, people in Colorado need opportunities to work
through possible solutions. Coloradans have a unique
responsibility compared to people living in many other
states. Colorado voters must decide how much revenue to
provide the state and how to provide those revenues. The
possibilities for solving problems rest with Coloradans.
Engage People as
Citizens Not Consumers
The political class engages people as consumers of gov-
ernment. The operational question is how can government
serve people’s individual needs? This perspective absolves
individuals of any responsibilities — except for going to
the ballot box to express their satisfaction, or lack of it,
for elected officials based on how their personal needs
are met. However, research shows that most people, given
the opportunity, want to exercise their role as responsible
citizens and think about government in the role of long
term planner in the service of the represented community.
This is the role that problem solvers embrace. Shifting the
conversation from people’s individual needs toward the
needs of the community is often as simple as changing the
questions we ask.
STEP 3
STEP 5
STEP 4

14. Fiscal Education Network Toolkit
14
Assess Your Strategies
Do you engage people as problem solvers?
Use this set of questions to consider how well you engage
people as problem solvers with your current communica-
tions and education strategies, messages and products.
These questions are based on the work of several national
research and communications organizations.
How do you account for people’s ambivalence
about government?
Try to avoid
• Messages and materials suggesting people should feel
guilty because of Colorado’s lack of funding for govern-
ment programs.
• Stories, messages and materials that inadvertently rein-
force people’s negative perceptions of government.
Strive to
• Acknowledge people’s frustrations with government and
politics?
• Recast people’s frustrations as aspirations?
• Lead with the vital services and infrastructure
Coloradans say they value.
How do you frame issues?
Try to avoid
• Messages and materials that focus on narrow issues and/
or caricatures of “bad guys?”
• Messages materials that lead people to focus on short
term-problems in isolation?
Strive to
• Frame challenges in the context of the vital services and
infrastructure Coloradans say are important?
• Put short term problems in the context of long-term
conditions and systems needed to maintain a high qual-
ity of life?
What are the underlying questions
in your messaging?
Try to avoid
• Messages that lead people to focus on individual, con-
sumer oriented demands.
• Emphasizing people’s personal problems and what gov-
ernment should do to resolve these problems.
Strive to
• Help people think through ways to balance different
people’s priorities.
• Show the interdependence between individual initiative
and government action.
How do you connect issues to people’s
emotions values?
Try to avoid
• Messages and stories that tend to illicit people’s angers,
frustrations and fears.
• Leading people to focus on private values such as
personal finances.
Strive to
• Help people tap into their aspirations and sense of
possibility.
• Help people focus on ways to realize public values such
as fairness for all concerned.
Given your assessment of your communi-
cations strategies, messages and materials,
consider these questions:
• What are you doing well to engage people as problem
solvers?
• What could you do more, better or differently?
• How will you adjust your strategies, messages and
materials in the future?

15. “Focus on the
challenge not
the solutions.”
15
Tips for Effective “Building
Awareness” Conversations
Consider these ideas to help get started:
• Begin with people who are ready to talk in places where
they already gather. Small groups are often better than
large.
• Set the stage for conversation – ground rules, safe
space, communicate the need to understand the
challenge.
• Invite a guest speaker to provide the fiscal information
if you’re not comfortable playing that role.
• Ask those who are ready to talk about solutions to help
build awareness instead – taking the conversation to
solutions does not help enlist those who are becoming
aware.
• Ask those who are ready to “do something” to help ex-
pand the conversation. Build out in “concentric circles.”
Things to keep in mind when
leading conversations:
• Start with people’s values. Tell a story or give a hypo-
thetical example that touches on things people value
about their community.
• Focus on the challenge not solutions. Help people un-
derstand that Colorado has a structural budget problem.
Don’t race to solutions.
• Use data to illuminate the challenge. People can be
overwhelmed by too much data. Use just enough to help
people understand the challenge.
• Acknowledge people’s skepticism; make room for am-
bivalence. Let people ask questions. Don’t be defensive
if people question the data.
• Tell stories – or ask people to tell stories – to make is-
sues real. Stories are what help people connect data to
their daily lives.

16. Fiscal Education Network Toolkit
16
Resources
• BackstreetBudgeter.com by Engaged Public —
www.backseatbudgeter.com
• Bell Policy Center — www.bellpolicy.org
• Boom or Bust Colorado —
www.boomorbustcolorado.com
• Center for Colorado’s Economic Future (DU) —
www.du.edu/economicfuture
• Colorado Department of Higher Education —
http://highered.colorado.gov
• Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute —
www.cclponline.org/fiscal_policy
• Colorado Tax Tracks — www.colorado.gov/taxtracks
• Independence Institute’s Citizens’ Budget —
http://tax.i2i.org/citizens-budget
• University of Colorado Denver School of Public
Affairs — www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/SPA
Figures
1. Governor Hickenlooper FY 2012-2013 Proposed Budget
to JBC
2. Bell Policy Center calculations based on data from
the Colorado Legislative Joint Budget Committee’s FY
2011-12 Companion Budget Package Summery to Senate
Bill 11-209 (the Long Bill Narrative), prepared by Joint
Budget Committee Staff, April 5, 2011.
3. University of Denver; Center for Colorado’s Economic
Future
4. University of Denver; Center for Colorado’s Economic
Future
5. Bell Policy Center
6. Colorado Department of Transportation
7. Calculated by Bell Policy Center based on gross Gener-
al Fund revenues reported in Legislative Council docu-
ments, and state personal income data reported by the
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic
Analysis.
8. Grapevine, An Annual Compilation of Data on State
Tax Appropriations for the General Operation of Higher
Education Center for the Study of Education Policy, Il-
linois State University.
9. Legislative Council
10. Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute