This document provides an executive summary of the sixth edition of "Toward a More Competitive Colorado." It finds that while Colorado continues to benefit from past investments, it has become a weaker competitor for new jobs and investment. Tax increases have been approved locally while state tax revenue has declined, shifting costs to local governments. This has reduced funding for pillars of the economy like education, transportation, and healthcare. A comprehensive review of fiscal policy is needed to address strategic funding needs and ensure long-term economic prosperity. Colorado still has strengths in innovation but faces challenges from focused economic development by other states and countries.

2. Toward a More Competitive Colorado
Sixth Edition, 2010-2011
Preface
“O would some power the gift to give us to see ourselves as others see us."
Robert Burns – Scottish Poet
Colorado competes each day for new jobs both nationally and internationally. Employers and their consultants
search the Internet for data to compare state against state for potential locations and expansions.
The Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation (Metro Denver EDC), an affiliate of the Denver Metro Chamber
of Commerce, releases a new edition of Toward a More Competitive Colorado each year in conjunction with Qwest. The
annual study examines a host of economic competitiveness rankings. The goals of this research are twofold:
1. To examine job creation opportunities where the state and region have a competitive advantage.
2. To set benchmarks by which Colorado’s competitiveness can be tracked against the nation and competing states.
This study is a collection of numerous national rankings on economic competitiveness. While there are hundreds
of different rankings on any host of topics, the ones chosen are typical of the elements that weigh most heavily
in either a company’s perception of the region or the reality of the company’s business circumstances (see the
Methodology page).
The Metro Denver EDC’s economic development recruitment and retention efforts focus on key industry clusters
where the region has a significant concentration of jobs or other assets in excess of the national average. For more
information on Metro Denver’s major industry clusters, visit www.metrodenver.org/industries.
By comparing the needs of the region’s clusters with Colorado’s competitive position, a number of challenges facing
the Colorado economy become apparent. These disconnects are being addressed by the Colorado Competitive
Council (C3), a public policy affiliate of the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce.
Cover Photo Credits:
Colorado State Capitol, Bob Ashe for VISIT DENVER
University of Colorado Boulder, Fitzsimons Life Science District, and Xcel Energy

3. Toward a More Competitive Colorado
Sixth Edition, 2010-2011
Methodology
The sixth edition of Toward a More Competitive Colorado includes data from a variety of sources, including private organizations
and government agencies. In all cases, the data included in this publication is the most recent publicly available information
as of September 2010. It should be noted that the data year reflects the year that the data describes, not necessarily the year of
publication. Three years of data for each data point are generally presented, including the years 2000 (a year of peak economic
performance in the state), 2003 (the bottom of the state’s recession), and 2008 or 2009 (the current period). In cases where these
three periods are not available, data for the closest available years are presented. There are instances in which only one or two
years of data are included due to data availability.
All 50 states are ranked for each data point, excluding Washington, D.C. and U.S. territories. There are two types of slides
included in this report: (1) the top five and bottom five ranking states and (2) Colorado versus its key competitor states. For slides
portraying the top five and bottom five states, a state’s position is based on its ranking in the earliest year of data. For example,
a state ranked number one in 2000 continues to appear in the number one spot even if its relative rank dropped below five in
2008. Colorado is also always included in the top five and bottom five states slides, regardless of position. The Colorado versus
competitor states slides always include Colorado, Arizona, Georgia, New Mexico, Texas, and Utah. The order in which the states
appear is based upon the states’ ranking in the earliest year of the data series. In addition, each data set includes a ranking of the
states from 0 to 50 in table format.
The scale for all graphs and tables ranges from zero at the top to 50 at the bottom. Using this scale, a number one rank is
always the most desirable and is portrayed with the tallest bar. However, the interpretation of this most desirable ranking varies
depending upon the statistic presented. For example, a state with the highest level of per capita personal income is ranked as
number one, reflecting the most desirable position. Likewise, a state with the lowest prevalence of obesity is ranked as number
one, also reflecting the most desirable position. The ranking box on each slide presents Colorado’s relative position for the most
recent year.

4. Toward a More Competitive Colorado, Sixth Edition Figures:
STRENGTHS
Figures Economic Vitality
1&2 State New Economy Index
3&4 State Gross Domestic Product per Employee
5&6 Per Capita Personal Income
7&8 Employment Growth
9 & 10 Economic Outlook
Innovation
11 & 12 Entrepreneurial Activity Index
13 & 14 Proprietors as Percent of Total Employment
15 & 16 Number of New Companies per 1,000 Employees
17 & 18 Venture Capital Investments per $1,000 State GDP
19 & 20 Initial Public Offerings – Top 5 States
21 & 22 Small Business Innovation Research Grants
23 & 24 Total R&D Spending at Academic Institutions per Capita
25 & 26 Ratio of Total R&D Expenditures to State GDP
27 & 28 Number of Patents Granted per One Million Residents
29 & 30 State Technology and Science Index
31 & 32 High-Tech Employment per 1,000 Workers
33 & 34 Average High-Tech Worker Wage
35 & 36 High-Tech Export Concentration
37 & 38 Clean Energy Employment per 1,000 Workers
39 & 40 Clean Energy Job Growth
Business Costs
41 & 42 Cost of Doing Business Index
43 & 44 Cost of Doing Business: Tax Burden Index
45 & 46 State Business Tax Climate Index
47 & 48 Corporate Tax Index
Taxes
49 & 50 State Tax Revenue per Capita
51 & 52 State and Local Tax Revenue per Capita
53 & 54 State Sales Tax Rates
55 & 56 Residential Property Rate in Largest City in Each State
57 & 58 Estimated Tax Burden for Family with $50,000 Annual Income in Largest City
59 & 60 Lowest Total State Expenditures per Capita
61 & 62 Lowest per Capita State & Local Government Expenditures for Public Welfare Programs
Livability
63 & 64 Most Livable States
65 & 66 Annual Population Growth
67 & 68 Charitable Contributions as a Percentage of Income
69 & 70 Lowest Percentage of Children in Poverty
71 & 72 Lowest Total Crime Index per 100,000 Population
73 & 74 Percent of State Land Devoted to National Forest System
75 & 76 Number of State Parks and Natural Areas

5. Toward a More Competitive Colorado, Sixth Edition Figures:
Figures K-12 Education
77 & 78 Percent of Public School Fourth Graders Proficient or Better in Reading
79 & 80 Average Fourth Grade Reading Scores
81 & 82 Ninth Graders with Greatest Chance for College by Age 19
83 & 84 Highest AP Exam Scores (3+) per 1,000 High School Juniors and Seniors
85 & 86 Highest ACT (25 or above) & SAT (1780 or above) Scores per 1,000 High School Graduates
87 & 88 Population 25+ Completing High School
89 & 90 Teens Ages 16 to 19 Not Attending School and Not Working
Higher Education
91 & 92 Population 25+ with Bachelor’s Degree or Higher
93 & 94 Import/Export Ratio of College-Bound Students
95 & 96 Science and Engineering Doctorate Holders as Percent of Workforce
97 & 98 Science and Engineering Graduate Students per 1,000 Individuals 25-34 Years Old
99 & 100 State Higher Education Grant Aid Targeted to Low-Income Families
Health
101 & 102 Lowest Obesity Prevalence Among Adults
103 & 104 Participation in Physical Activities
105 & 106 Fewest Retail Prescriptions Filled per Capita
107 & 108 Fewest Deaths per 100,000 Population
109 & 110 Fewest Cancer Deaths per 100,000 Population
111 & 112 Fewest Diabetes Deaths per 100,000 Population
113 & 114 Fewest Heart Disease Deaths per 100,000 Population
115 & 116 Fewest Stroke Deaths per 100,000 Population
117 & 118 Lowest Adult Cigarette Smoking Rate
119 & 120 Lowest Percentage of Pre-Term Births to Live Births
121 & 122 Infant Deaths per 1,000 Live Births
123 & 124 Nonfederal Physicians per 100,000 Population
Infrastructure
125 & 126 Percent of Electricity Generated through Renewable Sources
127 & 128 Percent of Electricity Generated through Non Hydro Renewable Sources
129 & 130 Total Wind Energy Net Generation – Top 10 States
131 & 132 Total Wind Energy Installed Capacity – Top 10 States
133 & 134 Total Solar Energy Installed Capacity – Top 10 States

6. Toward a More Competitive Colorado, Sixth Edition Figures:
WHERE COLORADO IS CHALLENGED
Figures Economic Vitality
135 & 136 Export Dollars per Capita
Taxes
137 & 138 Local Government Tax Revenue per Capita
139 & 140 Sales Tax Index
Livability
141 & 142 Lowest Single-Family Median Home Price in Largest Metro Area
143 Lowest Percentage of Population in Non-Attainment Air Quality Areas
K-12 Education
144 & 145 Pre-K Resources per Child
146 & 147 Expenditures for Public K-12 Schools per Student
148 & 149 Spending on K-12 Public Schools as a Percent of Personal Income
150 & 151 Student/Teacher Ratio in Public Elementary & Secondary Schools
152 & 153 Average Salaries for Public School Teachers
154 & 155 Percent of Public School Eighth Graders Proficient or Better in Reading
156 & 157 Average Eighth Grade Reading Scores
158 & 159 Public High School Graduation Rates
160 & 161 Percent of Teens Not in School and Not High School Graduates
Higher Education
162 & 163 Percent of Family Income Needed to Pay for Public Four-Year College
164 & 165 Percent of Family Income Needed to Pay for Private Four-Year College
166 & 167 State and Local Public Higher Education Support per Full-Time Student
168 & 169 State and Local Public Higher Education Support per Capita
170 & 171 Higher Education Appropriations Relative to State & Local Tax Revenues and Lottery Profits
172 & 173 Number of Graduates Attending College Directly from High School
174 & 175 Percentage of High School Graduates Entering Same-State College within 12 Months of Graduation
176 & 177 State Engineering Degree Production per 1,000 Occupations
178 & 179 State Engineering Tech Degree Production per 1,000 Occupations
180 & 181 State Nursing Degree Production per 1,000 Occupations
182 & 183 State Computer Science Degree Production per 1,000 Occupations
184 & 185 State Education Degree Production per 1,000 Occupations
Health
186 & 187 Health Insurance Costs
188 & 189 Total State Healthcare Expenditures as Percent of State Gross Domestic Product
190 & 191 Percentage of Population with Health Insurance
192 & 193 Registered Nurses per 100,000 Population
Infrastructure
194 & 195 Federal Highway Funding per Capita
196 & 197 Highway Performance
198 Percentage of State Funding for Transportation

7. Toward a More Competitive Colorado
Sixth Edition, 2010-2011
Acknowledgements
Report sponsor:
Qwest
Research economists:
Patty Silverstein, Development Research Partners
David Hansen, Development Research Partners
Emily Stuart, Development Research Partners
Lisa Strunk, Development Research Partners
Metro Denver EDC staff:
Kelly Brough
Tom Clark
Janet Fritz
Annie Boeckman

8. “If Colorado hopes to
continue its position as
a state for innovation,
opportunity, and
investment, significant
changes in public
policy and a new vision
of prosperity must be
embraced within the state.”
Toward a More Competitive Colorado
Executive Summary on Competitiveness
The Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation (Metro Denver EDC) first
published Toward a More Competitive Colorado (TMCC) in 2005 to be an annual
measurement of the state’s competitive position among other states in key
indicators related to economic vitality and growth.
In the sixth edition of TMCC, we can report that Colorado continues its trend toward
becoming a weaker competitor for new jobs and investment. In many respects, the
state continues to live off the investments it made in the past.
Colorado has moved from a “middle-level” tax state to a “low-level” tax state. Tax
increases by voters have been approved at the local level (eighth-highest local
tax revenue per capita) while the state’s coffers continue to further deplete (10th-
lowest state tax revenue per capita).
Colorado’s tax climate has:
• among the lowest corporate income tax rate of any state that has an
income tax;
• the lowest sales tax rate of any state that assesses a sales tax and;
• the second-lowest residential property tax rate in the country (in the
state’s largest city).
Colorado voters have created an economy focused on the communities in which
they live. Funds have been devoted to “place-making”—developing amenities
like bike trails, parks, open space, the arts, community centers, and residential
services. This focus supersedes; however, supporting what we consider to be
the building blocks or pillars of the economy: an educated workforce; a safe,
multimodal transportation system; and quality, affordable healthcare. In some
instances where state dollars have dwindled, local governments use their own
revenues to pay for services that the state government once provided; local
maintenance of state highways within city limits is one example.

9. Over the years, voters have increasingly chosen to shift the cost of K-12 education
from local property taxes to a beleaguered state General Fund. Higher education
has borne the brunt of budget cuts driven by constitutional mandates protecting
K-12 funding and increased Medicaid case loads. In response to taxpayers’
outcries and real or threatened ballot initiatives, permanent cuts in income
tax, residential property taxes, and sales taxes have reduced the quality and
productivity of our transportation systems at the state, county, and local level—
especially our roads.
Local taxes do not fund interstate highway repair or build research universities.
“Colorado continues to be a The state’s budget is the appropriate place for funding these pillars of the
center of innovation—with a economy. What we have observed over the past 11 years of data is that the
highly educated workforce decisions of Colorado voters have given them exactly the government they voted
for, with tax revenues focused locally and state revenues kept limited. This is
that attracts some of the compounded by the addition of previously local expenditures being shifted to the
world’s brightest minds.” state’s General Fund. The result, we conclude, is something they may not have
wanted—an increasingly “mediocre” competitive position.
What has become obvious in our ongoing analysis is the need for a
comprehensive review of state and local tax/fiscal policy. Under the aegis of the
University of Denver, this examination—the Colorado Economic Futures Panel—is
presently underway. We applaud this long-needed investigation.
While local taxes for local amenities are a laudable use of revenues, we must
realize that the longer-term, strategic expenditures for state infrastructure, strong
research universities, and well-educated workers cannot be passed over by
citizens. Living in a nice house that cannot be maintained due to the loss of jobs
and incomes is a strategy for only one thing—decline.
While TMCC’s findings this year are disappointing and troubling, let us not lose
sight of the state’s continuing strengths. Colorado continues to be a center of
innovation—with a highly educated workforce that attracts some of the world’s
brightest minds. We have made great strides in growing our innovation clusters
over the years, particularly in aerospace, energy, and bioscience. Without job
growth in these clusters over the past three years, our economy would be in much
worse condition.
We live in a world of tough competitors, including other states and countries.
Many of Colorado’s competitors are far more focused on what we call “purposeful
economic development.” Countries such as China are acquiring major stakes in
rare minerals and playing an increasingly prominent role in the purchase of oil
reserves in places such as Canada. Other countries have made giant leaps in the
number of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians they train for entry into the
workforce. For these competitors, the future is now. The steps they are taking to
improve their economies should not be lost on any of us. We will either rise to this
challenge or fall even further behind in our attempts.
In 1986, the Director of Corporate Real Estate for Hughes Aircraft, Sam Hunter,
said, “We see Metro Denver as a district town—a place where we need a presence
but would not consider for a major investment. Colorado has such great potential.
Yet it seems that every time you climb to the peak of greatness, you fall back.
For you to be viewed as a strong competitor, you must demonstrate that you can
accomplish great things.”
Over the past two decades Colorado has achieved great things as a state. We are
now seen as a global competitor with a promising future. The state achieved this
perch with a common vision, strong leadership, and the political and civic will to
make Colorado a great place to live with a great economy to match. But, we must
be vigilant in working to maintain and improve this position.

10. Colorado’s Strengths:
• Colorado’s state GDP per employee still ranks in the top 15 among the 50
states, but our ranking has declined steadily since 2000.
• Per capita personal income ranks 15th but had been as high as No. 6 in
2001.
• Colorado ranks second-best in the country for economic outlook.
• Colorado continues to post high population growth rates—4th highest in
2009—despite a challenging employment situation.
• Colorado sustains its key rankings in innovation measures, including: venture
capital (No. 3), Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants (No. 2), “We live in a world of
patents granted (No. 10), high-tech employment (No. 3), high-tech wages
tough competitors,
(No. 6), and R&D spending at academic institutions (No. 17).
• The state maintains high rankings for 4th grade proficient or better in reading including other states
(No. 6); while 8th grade reading proficiency has slipped to a position (No. 26) and countries.”
that we now consider a challenge.
• Colorado students rank well in Advanced Placement testing (No. 12) and
post the country’s highest ranking for ACT and SAT scores per 1,000
students.
• Colorado’s cleantech industry is advancing, ranking No. 14 in 2008 for
percentage of electricity generated from renewable sources (up from No. 21
in 2007) and eighth-highest when considering non-hydro sources.
• In 2000, only 11 states reported energy generated from wind. In 2009 that
number jumped to 35 states, with Colorado ranking seventh. The state
ranks sixth out of 27 states with quantifiable solar operations.
• New indicators included in this edition are two measures in which Colorado
exhibits a dominant position: “Clean Energy Employment per 1,000
Workers” (No. 6) and “Clean Energy Job Growth” (No. 9).
• Colorado has the nation’s lowest obesity rate and ranks No. 2 for fewest
retail drug prescriptions filled.
• Colorado ranked third-lowest for its expenditures on state welfare programs.
While Colorado still has much to celebrate as an innovation economy, we see little
improvement from last year’s analysis in any of the areas we classified as “Strengths.” In
fact, we saw a drop in 28 of 67 categories where we had strengths. We had 17 categories
in the “Challenges” section continue to drop. In other words, we are still strong, but
getting weaker year by year.
Colorado’s Challenges:
• Export dollars per capita dropped another place this year with Colorado ranking
fourth-lowest in country. The decline in our manufacturing sector—especially high-
tech manufacturing—continues to impact the state’s export position.
• Colorado struggles in a variety of K-12 education measures: Pre-K resources
(third lowest), K-12 expenditures (22nd lowest), and student/teacher ratio (10th
highest). Average teacher salaries dropped to 27th lowest (down from
No. 24 during 2005-2008).
• Colorado’s ranking in the percent of “Public School Eighth Graders Proficient
or Better in Reading” has dropped from No. 12 in 2003 to No. 26 in 2009
and is now classified as a challenge.
• Colorado is one of eight states to have eight percent of its “Teens Not in
School and Not High School Graduates”—only seven states have higher
percentages.
• As for higher education, Colorado continues to rank near the bottom of all
states, ranking 48th in both public support per full-time student and public
support per capita.
• Colorado’s high school graduates entered in-state colleges and universities
at lower rates than students in more than half of the U.S. states, with the
state’s ranking dropping from 29th in 2006 to 32nd in 2008.
• Colorado’s ranking for federal highway funding per capita remained at No. 44
for the 2006 through 2009 period. Transportation funding represented just 5.3
percent of the state’s budget in 2010, whereas transportation funding
represented 12.7 percent of the total budget 30 years ago.

11. • Colorado’ highway performance ranking has improved from No. 45 in 2003
to No. 33 in 2007, but the state’s ranking had been even higher in 2005
(No. 29) and 2006 (No. 31).
What is perhaps most alarming; however, is that in the midst of these continuing
declines and increasingly ominous signs that Colorado has been unable to make
corrections in its competitive challenges, the state faces another set of ballot
initiatives that will drive the state into a second recession. Amendments 60 and
61 along with Proposition 101, if passed, are projected to cost the state over
70,000 jobs, half of which are in the private sector. Classroom sizes—already
“...longer-term, strategic among the highest in the nation—will assuredly increase. Funds that will be
expenditures for state eliminated from road construction will push Colorado’s roads into even worse
infrastructure, strong research repair. Personal income will drop.
universities, and well-
educated workers cannot be At the end of this six-year analysis of Colorado’s competitive position, we can
passed over by citizens.” only echo our findings from last year. If Colorado hopes to continue its position as
a state for innovation, opportunity, and investment, significant changes in public
policy and a new vision of prosperity must be embraced within the state. Without
such decisions we will drift into a policy that will leave us as a state with great
potential, but unable or unwilling to achieve great things.
For additional information, contact 303.620.8039,
info@metrodenver.org, or www.metrodenver.org
Affiliate of:
Published October 2010.

12. Strengths
Focusing on Maintaining Colorado’s Competitive Edge

13. Economic Vitality

14. State New Economy Index
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
0
5
10
15 10th
Best
20
Rank 2002
25
2008
30
35
40
45
50
MA CA CO WA MD SD ND WV AR MS
The State New Economy Index uses 26 measures to gauge which states are best prepared for
economic growth and a changing global economic climate. Colorado, with a strong Fig. 1
technological base, innovative environment, and educated populace, ranks 10th in the nation.

15. State New Economy Index
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
Colorado vs. Competitors
10th
Best
0
5
10
15
20
Rank 25 2002
30 2008
35
40
45
50
CO TX AZ UT GA NM
Colorado outranked its competitors in most of the technology, innovation, and workforce-related
measures. However, Colorado ranked lower than its competitors in value-added manufacturing Fig. 2
and export-focused manufacturing.

16. State New Economy Index Rank
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, State New Economy Index
State 2002 2008
Alabama 45 47
Alaska 39 32
Arizona 15 20
Arkansas 49 48
California 2 8
Colorado 3 10
Connecticut 7 6
Delaware 9 4
Florida 17 23
Georgia 18 21
Hawaii 38 35
Idaho 20 26
Illinois 19 16
Indiana 32 36
Iowa 40 42
Kansas 30 31
Kentucky 42 45
Louisiana 44 41
Maine 29 28
Maryland 5 3
Massachusetts 1 1
Michigan 22 17
Minnesota 14 14
Mississippi 50 50
Missouri 28 37
Montana 41 40
Nebraska 36 27
Nevada 31 25
New Hampshire 12 13
New Jersey 6 5
New Mexico 25 29
New York 11 9
North Carolina 24 24
North Dakota 47 39
Ohio 27 30
Oklahoma 33 43
Oregon 13 15
Pennsylvania 21 22
Rhode Island 23 11
South Carolina 35 34
South Dakota 46 44
Tennessee 34 38
Texas 10 18
Utah 16 12
Vermont 26 19
Virginia 8 7
Washington 4 2
West Virginia 48 49
Wisconsin 37 33
Wyoming 43 46
GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data.
See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

17. State Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
per Employee
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
0
15th
5 Highest
10
15
20
2000
Rank 25
2003
30 2008
35
40
45
50
DE AK CT NY NJ CO VT AR ND MS MT
State GDP, the broadest measure of goods and services produced in a state, reveals the Fig. 3
productivity of a state’s workers when viewed on a per employee basis.

18. State Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
per Employee
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Colorado vs. Competitors
0
15th
5 Highest
10
15
20
2000
Rank 25
2003
30 2008
35
40
45
50
CO TX GA AZ NM UT
Colorado has a higher state GDP per employee than all of its top competitors except Texas, Fig. 4
which is also the only competitor state that has improved its ranking since 2000.

19. State Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per Employee
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
State 2000 2003 2008
Alabama 43 42 39
Alaska 2 2 1
Arizona 21 23 25
Arkansas 47 47 45
California 6 6 7
Colorado 9 13 15
Connecticut 3 3 4
Delaware 1 1 2
Florida 29 27 23
Georgia 15 15 20
Hawaii 17 19 17
Idaho 40 48 50
Illinois 11 11 12
Indiana 30 30 38
Iowa 39 39 32
Kansas 37 38 36
Kentucky 35 37 41
Louisiana 25 25 8
Maine 45 46 47
Maryland 14 14 14
Massachusetts 7 7 10
Michigan 16 17 29
Minnesota 22 21 21
Mississippi 49 49 49
Missouri 31 33 40
Montana 50 50 48
Nebraska 38 34 33
Nevada 18 20 16
New Hampshire 20 24 26
New Jersey 5 5 6
New Mexico 24 29 24
New York 4 4 3
North Carolina 23 18 19
North Dakota 48 44 37
Ohio 28 31 34
Oklahoma 42 35 27
Oregon 27 26 28
Pennsylvania 26 22 22
Rhode Island 19 16 18
South Carolina 41 41 46
South Dakota 36 32 30
Tennessee 32 28 31
Texas 10 9 9
Utah 33 40 35
Vermont 46 43 44
Virginia 12 12 13
Washington 8 8 11
West Virginia 44 45 42
Wisconsin 34 36 43
Wyoming 13 10 5
GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data.
See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

20. Per Capita Personal Income
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
0
15th
Highest
5
10
15
20
2000
Rank 25
2003
30 2009
35
40
45
50
CT NJ MA MD NY CO MT NM AR WV MS
Colorado’s high personal income level is due mainly to its ability to attract and retain highly Fig. 5
educated people with high-paying jobs.

21. Per Capita Personal Income
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
Colorado vs. Competitors
0 15th
Highest
5
10
15
20 2000
Rank 25 2003
2009
30
35
40
45
50
CO GA TX AZ UT NM
Higher incomes discourage companies with lower-paying jobs from relocating to or expanding
in a state. Colorado continues to have higher per capita personal income than its competitors. Fig. 6

22. Per Capita Personal Income
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
State 2000 2003 2009
Alabama 44 41 41
Alaska 15 15 8
Arizona 37 38 42
Arkansas 48 48 44
California 8 10 11
Colorado 7 8 15
Connecticut 1 1 1
Delaware 13 13 19
Florida 21 22 23
Georgia 26 32 39
Hawaii 22 21 12
Idaho 41 44 48
Illinois 9 11 13
Indiana 32 34 40
Iowa 33 35 27
Kansas 28 25 21
Kentucky 40 45 46
Louisiana 45 42 28
Maine 34 30 30
Maryland 4 4 4
Massachusetts 3 3 3
Michigan 18 23 37
Minnesota 10 7 14
Mississippi 50 50 50
Missouri 31 29 32
Montana 46 39 35
Nebraska 25 19 20
Nevada 14 17 26
New Hampshire 6 6 10
New Jersey 2 2 2
New Mexico 47 47 43
New York 5 5 6
North Carolina 30 37 36
North Dakota 38 31 17
Ohio 24 26 34
Oklahoma 42 40 33
Oregon 23 27 31
Pennsylvania 16 18 18
Rhode Island 17 16 16
South Carolina 39 43 45
South Dakota 36 28 25
Tennessee 35 36 38
Texas 27 33 24
Utah 43 46 49
Vermont 29 24 22
Virginia 12 9 7
Washington 11 14 9
West Virginia 49 49 47
Wisconsin 20 20 29
Wyoming 19 12 5
GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data.
See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

23. Employment Growth
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
0
5
10
15
20
1999-2000
Rank 33rd
25 Highest 2002-2003
30 2008-2009
35
40
45
50
NV CO ID CA AZ IN WV IA AL MS
Employment growth trends were extremely volatile for most states throughout the 2000 decade.
After being a top employment growth state at the beginning of the decade, Colorado now ranks Fig. 7
toward the middle. No state reported job growth between 2008 and 2009.

24. Employment Growth
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
Colorado vs. Competitors
0
5
10
15
20
Rank 25
33rd 1999-2000
Highest
2002-2003
30 2008-2009
35
40
45
50
CO AZ TX UT NM GA
Employment growth in Colorado improved from 2003 to 2008, then slipped again in 2009. The
employment growth rate in Colorado from 2008-2009 (-4.7%) was better than all of its Fig. 8
competitors except Texas (-2.9%) and New Mexico (-4.2%).

25. Employment Growth
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
State 2000 2003 2009
Alabama 49 32 38
Alaska 17 3 2
Arizona 5 4 48
Arkansas 34 28 11
California 4 26 40
Colorado 2 48 33
Connecticut 39 45 27
Delaware 45 21 34
Florida 6 6 47
Georgia 22 39 42
Hawaii 11 2 30
Idaho 3 11 45
Illinois 36 44 35
Indiana 46 31 43
Iowa 48 34 9
Kansas 42 46 18
Kentucky 31 27 31
Louisiana 41 12 4
Maine 9 20 15
Maryland 16 14 10
Massachusetts 13 49 16
Michigan 30 47 49
Minnesota 23 30 25
Mississippi 50 40 28
Missouri 40 33 22
Montana 26 5 19
Nebraska 29 18 5
Nevada 1 1 50
New Hampshire 15 16 20
New Jersey 24 25 24
New Mexico 21 7 26
New York 25 36 8
North Carolina 37 42 37
North Dakota 44 10 1
Ohio 43 43 39
Oklahoma 27 50 17
Oregon 28 37 46
Pennsylvania 32 38 13
Rhode Island 19 9 29
South Carolina 35 19 44
South Dakota 20 15 3
Tennessee 38 23 41
Texas 8 35 7
Utah 14 22 36
Vermont 10 29 14
Virginia 7 17 12
Washington 18 13 21
West Virginia 47 41 6
Wisconsin 33 24 32
Wyoming 12 8 23
GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data.
See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

26. Economic Outlook
American Legislative Exchange Council
0 2nd
Best
5
10
15
20
Rank 25 2008
30 2010
35
40
45
50
UT SD TN WY VA CO ME OH NJ NY VT
Economically competitive states attract people from less competitive regions around the nation. High
ranking states are projected to have positive levels of in-migration, employment growth, and higher Fig. 9
personal incomes due to their competitive tax environments, fiscal health, and strong legal systems.

27. Economic Outlook
American Legislative Exchange Council
Colorado vs. Competitors
0 2nd
Best
5
10
15
20
Rank 25 2008
30 2010
35
40
45
50
UT AZ GA CO TX NM
While Colorado has maintained its high ranking, Texas and New Mexico have both decreased in rank.
In 2010, Colorado ranked well for its tax structure, legal system, and low workers’ compensation costs. Fig. 10
Colorado ranked poorly for its high percentage of debt service costs relative to overall tax revenue.

28. Economic Outlook
American Legislative Exchange Council
State 2008 2010
Alabama 15 17
Alaska 37 22
Arizona 6 3
Arkansas 11 13
California 42 46
Colorado 9 2
Connecticut 40 36
Delaware 31 37
Florida 16 5
Georgia 8 9
Hawaii 41 39
Idaho 10 7
Illinois 43 47
Indiana 12 20
Iowa 23 28
Kansas 29 25
Kentucky 44 40
Louisiana 24 16
Maine 46 44
Maryland 28 29
Massachusetts 22 32
Michigan 17 26
Minnesota 39 38
Mississippi 19 18
Missouri 25 15
Montana 32 33
Nebraska 34 34
Nevada 7 11
New Hampshire 26 30
New Jersey 48 48
New Mexico 27 35
New York 49 50
North Carolina 21 21
North Dakota 18 12
Ohio 47 42
Oklahoma 14 14
Oregon 35 41
Pennsylvania 36 43
Rhode Island 45 45
South Carolina 20 31
South Dakota 2 4
Tennessee 3 10
Texas 13 19
Utah 1 1
Vermont 50 49
Virginia 5 8
Washington 30 24
West Virginia 38 27
Wisconsin 33 23
Wyoming 4 6
GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data.
See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

29. Innovation

30. Entrepreneurial Activity Index
Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
0
5
10 11th
Best
15
20
2000
Rank
25 2003
30 2009
35
40
45
50
AK MT NM WI ID CO VA WV PA MA RI
The Entrepreneurial Activity Index measures the percentage of the adult, non business owner
population that start new businesses. Entrepreneurial activity is a key measure of innovation. Fig. 11

31. Entrepreneurial Activity Index
Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
Colorado vs. Competitors
11th
0 Best
5
10
15
20 2000
Rank 25
2003
30 2009
35
40
45
50
NM AZ UT CO TX GA
All of Colorado’s competitors have high entrepreneurial activity rankings. However, Colorado
outranks all of its competitors in venture capital investments per $1,000 of state gross domestic Fig. 12
product and in IPO rankings which are key elements of entrepreneurial success and financing.

32. Entrepreneurial Activity Index
Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
State 2000 2003 2009
Alabama 35 50 47
Alaska 1 3 19
Arizona 8 14 3
Arkansas 15 20 15
California 26 8 10
Colorado 15 6 11
Connecticut 45 49 29
Delaware 28 48 26
Florida 20 23 6
Georgia 27 14 6
Hawaii 32 41 33
Idaho 5 11 4
Illinois 32 37 40
Indiana 22 37 31
Iowa 10 12 43
Kansas 28 37 43
Kentucky 42 24 38
Louisiana 24 6 8
Maine 15 24 19
Maryland 24 10 29
Massachusetts 49 43 22
Michigan 28 24 26
Minnesota 42 30 46
Mississippi 12 43 50
Missouri 32 42 33
Montana 2 1 1
Nebraska 15 19 48
Nevada 40 24 11
New Hampshire 37 24 31
New Jersey 37 30 22
New Mexico 3 2 37
New York 20 37 19
North Carolina 22 34 38
North Dakota 6 5 25
Ohio 40 43 33
Oklahoma 37 20 1
Oregon 8 9 11
Pennsylvania 48 43 48
Rhode Island 50 47 40
South Carolina 42 30 43
South Dakota 13 17 8
Tennessee 28 24 15
Texas 19 4 4
Utah 14 20 15
Vermont 10 17 14
Virginia 45 34 33
Washington 35 14 40
West Virginia 45 34 18
Wisconsin 3 30 26
Wyoming 7 12 22
GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data.
See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

33. Proprietors as Percent of Total Employment
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
0
4th
5 Best
10
15
20
2000
Rank
25 2003
30 2009
35
40
45
50
MT SD ND ID WY CO VA RI NJ SC DE
The number of proprietors tends to increase during recessionary times as “necessity is the
mother of invention.” Ideally, these innovative individuals continue to operate their small Fig. 13
business even after the economy recovers.

34. Proprietors as Percent of Total Employment
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Colorado vs. Competitors
4th
Best
0
5
10
15
20 2000
Rank 25
2003
30 2009
35
40
45
50
CO NM TX UT AZ GA
With the exception of New Mexico, Colorado’s competitors have also increased their
entrepreneurial activity. Currently, about one in four working individuals in Colorado may be Fig. 14
classified as a proprietor, compared to 21.3 percent nationally.

35. Proprietors as Percent of Total Employment
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
State 2000 2003 2009
Alabama 30 34 30
Alaska 7 10 21
Arizona 29 27 23
Arkansas 18 20 32
California 12 12 7
Colorado 10 8 4
Connecticut 31 21 14
Delaware 50 50 47
Florida 33 31 17
Georgia 42 32 18
Hawaii 23 36 33
Idaho 4 2 2
Illinois 38 42 41
Indiana 37 47 49
Iowa 11 14 28
Kansas 15 18 19
Kentucky 24 24 37
Louisiana 35 33 29
Maine 9 9 8
Maryland 32 29 24
Massachusetts 41 41 42
Michigan 45 39 25
Minnesota 27 25 34
Mississippi 28 28 27
Missouri 22 23 31
Montana 1 1 1
Nebraska 14 19 40
Nevada 34 40 22
New Hampshire 21 15 15
New Jersey 48 44 39
New Mexico 16 22 26
New York 44 38 38
North Carolina 36 37 36
North Dakota 3 7 16
Ohio 43 46 44
Oklahoma 6 4 5
Oregon 13 13 13
Pennsylvania 40 45 46
Rhode Island 47 49 48
South Carolina 49 30 20
South Dakota 2 5 9
Tennessee 19 16 11
Texas 17 11 10
Utah 20 17 12
Vermont 8 3 3
Virginia 46 48 50
Washington 25 26 35
West Virginia 26 35 43
Wisconsin 39 43 45
Wyoming 5 6 6
GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data.
See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

36. Number of New Companies per 1,000 Employees
U.S. Census Bureau; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
0
5
10
15
20
2000
Rank 25 2003
30 2008
35
40
45
50
WA MT CO CA ID IN WI AR OH IA
Colorado’s highly educated workforce and entrepreneurial environment continue to attract
existing companies and support new business creation. The state ranked fourth in the number Fig. 15
of new companies per 1,000 workers in 2008.

37. Number of New Companies per 1,000 Employees
U.S. Census Bureau; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Colorado vs. Competitors
0
5
10
15
20 2000
Rank
25 2003
30 2008
35
40
45
50
CO UT NM GA AZ TX
Colorado is rivaled only by Utah among its competitors in the number of new companies per Fig. 16
1,000 workers.

38. Number of New Companies per 1,000 Employees
U.S. Census Bureau; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
State 2000 2003 2008
Alabama 37 42 45
Alaska 14 12 27
Arizona 22 33 26
Arkansas 48 22 12
California 4 14 22
Colorado 3 3 4
Connecticut 31 38 34
Delaware 9 10 18
Florida 12 7 5
Georgia 19 25 15
Hawaii 23 24 32
Idaho 5 4 2
Illinois 44 40 36
Indiana 46 44 44
Iowa 50 49 49
Kansas 42 32 29
Kentucky 43 45 43
Louisiana 36 41 41
Maine 10 20 19
Maryland 11 11 13
Massachusetts 34 30 31
Michigan 40 39 35
Minnesota 38 36 48
Mississippi 35 37 40
Missouri 39 27 33
Montana 2 2 3
Nebraska 41 43 42
Nevada 15 8 8
New Hampshire 18 13 11
New Jersey 21 15 21
New Mexico 16 16 14
New York 20 17 10
North Carolina 29 31 28
North Dakota 45 46 39
Ohio 49 48 50
Oklahoma 26 26 30
Oregon 8 9 9
Pennsylvania 25 35 24
Rhode Island 17 18 17
South Carolina 27 28 25
South Dakota 32 50 37
Tennessee 30 21 23
Texas 33 34 38
Utah 7 5 6
Vermont 13 19 16
Virginia 24 23 20
Washington 1 1 1
West Virginia 28 29 46
Wisconsin 47 47 47
Wyoming 6 6 7
GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data.
See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

39. Venture Capital Investments per $1,000 of
State GDP
PricewaterhouseCoopers MoneyTree
0
5
3rd
10 Highest
15
20 2000
Rank 25 2003
2008
30
35
40
45
50
MA CA CO NH WA MS AK WV SD WY
Venture capital investments are often highest in states with a strong culture of innovation and
entrepreneurship. With 105 completed deals in 2008, venture capital investment in Colorado Fig. 17
was nearly $832 million.

40. Venture Capital Investments per $1,000 of
State GDP
PricewaterhouseCoopers MoneyTree
Colorado vs. Competitors
3rd
Highest
0
5
10
15
20
Rank 25 2000
2003
30
2008
35
40
45
50
CO UT TX GA AZ NM
While all of Colorado’s competitors ranked in the top half of the 50 states for venture capital
investments per $1,000 of state GDP in 2008, Colorado remains the only competitor in the top Fig. 18
five states.

41. Venture Capital Investments per $1,000 of State GDP
PricewaterhouseCoopers MoneyTree
State 2000 2003 2008
Alabama 31 34 42
Alaska 47 47 48
Arizona 22 27 20
Arkansas 41 43 48
California 2 2 2
Colorado 3 3 3
Connecticut 9 14 24
Delaware 24 46 17
Florida 17 23 33
Georgia 13 19 18
Hawaii 18 30 40
Idaho 40 12 29
Illinois 20 21 22
Indiana 34 39 31
Iowa 44 47 28
Kansas 27 31 32
Kentucky 33 41 36
Louisiana 38 45 45
Maine 21 42 44
Maryland 8 9 8
Massachusetts 1 1 1
Michigan 36 33 23
Minnesota 19 17 7
Mississippi 46 44 48
Missouri 25 28 30
Montana 37 47 27
Nebraska 30 4 37
Nevada 42 25 43
New Hampshire 4 5 4
New Jersey 10 6 10
New Mexico 43 40 21
New York 11 20 13
North Carolina 16 13 14
North Dakota 45 22 39
Ohio 29 24 26
Oklahoma 39 29 41
Oregon 14 18 16
Pennsylvania 15 16 12
Rhode Island 32 8 19
South Carolina 23 37 38
South Dakota 49 36 47
Tennessee 26 26 34
Texas 12 11 15
Utah 7 10 6
Vermont 28 38 9
Virginia 6 15 11
Washington 5 7 5
West Virginia 48 32 25
Wisconsin 35 35 35
Wyoming 50 47 46
GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data.
See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

42. Initial Public Offerings
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
(Top Five States & Colorado)
0
5
10 4th
Highest
15
20
Rank 25 2002
2008
30
35
40
45
50
WA MA CA CO IL
This measure ranks states based on the number and value of initial public offerings (IPOs) in
each state as a share of total worker earnings. Many states tie for last place in this ranking with Fig. 19
no IPOs issued in the measured years. Colorado is a top creator of IPOs in the country.

43. Initial Public Offerings
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
4th
Colorado vs. Competitors
Highest
0
5
10
15
20
Rank
25
2002
30 2008
35
40
45
50
CO GA TX AZ UT NM
Colorado outranks its competitors in IPO activity, although Texas and Utah currently rank in the Fig. 20
top 10. New Mexico – with no IPO activity – ties several states ranking in last place.

44. Initial Public Offerings
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
State 2002 2008
Alabama 34 25
Alaska 34 41
Arizona 18 28
Arkansas 34 38
California 3 8
Colorado 4 4
Connecticut 9 7
Delaware 34 41
Florida 19 21
Georgia 15 30
Hawaii 34 33
Idaho 34 12
Illinois 5 17
Indiana 19 26
Iowa 11 40
Kansas 34 41
Kentucky 31 33
Louisiana 25 27
Maine 22 15
Maryland 7 13
Massachusetts 2 2
Michigan 32 32
Minnesota 13 16
Mississippi 34 35
Missouri 10 36
Montana 34 41
Nebraska 28 41
Nevada 30 3
New Hampshire 27 41
New Jersey 14 11
New Mexico 34 41
New York 17 10
North Carolina 26 19
North Dakota 34 17
Ohio 33 37
Oklahoma 8 1
Oregon 23 41
Pennsylvania 12 22
Rhode Island 34 22
South Carolina 34 41
South Dakota 34 8
Tennessee 24 24
Texas 16 5
Utah 21 6
Vermont 34 41
Virginia 6 20
Washington 1 31
West Virginia 34 29
Wisconsin 29 39
Wyoming 34 14
GRAPH METHODOLOGY: A state’s position on each bar chart to the left is based on its numerical ranking in the earliest year of data.
See the Methodology page under “Introduction” for more details.

45. Small Business Innovation Research Grants
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
0
5
2nd
10 Highest
15
20
2000
Rank 25
2003
30 2009
35
40
45
50
MA NM CO NH MD OK IN KY LA IA
Awards received from SBA’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grant program are
often used to measure innovation and entrepreneurship. Colorado has historically ranked Fig. 21
among the most successful states for high dollar value of SBIR grants per worker.

46. Small Business Innovation Research Grants
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA); U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Colorado vs. Competitors
0 2nd
Highest
5
10
15
20
Rank 2000
25
2003
30 2009
35
40
45
50
NM CO AZ UT TX GA
Colorado’s strong research and development sector is a major contributor to its high ranking
compared to its competitors. Fig. 22