Peak to Peak Regional Quality of Life Indicators Study
conducted
by
Peak to Peak Healthy
Communities Project
We need your help. PPHCP is in the midst of conducting the Peak
to Peak Regional Quality of Life Indicators Study. Thus far, community forum participants in Gilpin County and the
greater Nederland area have identified seven issue areas pertaining to our
unique quality of life here in the mountains.
These areas are: Growth; Livability—including Economic Diversity, Housing, and Transportation;
Personal Health & Well-Being; Arts & Culture; Education; Social Capital; and Environment
& Recreational Health. We need your help in identifying appropriate
indicators for each of these areas.
What are indicators? They are pieces of information that tell us something about our
community. Just like a gas gauge
measures the fuel in a tank, and an altimeter indicates a plane’s altitude,
indicators can measure a community’s health—a community’s quality of life. Indicators can be measured and tracked over
time to signal how we are maintaining our desired quality of life, and how we
can improve it.
This survey outlines the seven
issue areas mentioned above, and provides possible indicators for each of these
areas. Please mark your top three indicator choices for each issue area. If
you think of more appropriate indicators, please write them in—they count as
part of your top three. And then
turn this survey in as soon as possible.
Options
for completing and turning in this survey:
1. Mail it to PPHCP, PO Box 668, Nederland,
CO 80466, Attn: lisa
2. Turn it in at the location where you picked
up the survey
3. Go to www.pphcp.org,
download the survey, fill it out, and e-mail to: triscela@hotmail.com
Upon receiving your surveys, we
will do the research to create a baseline indicators study for the Peak to Peak
region. The purpose of this study is to provide a foundation for action in our
community. By looking at how we
measure up in this initial study, we can plan how to maintain and/or improve
our quality of life in these strategic areas.
All households, government
officials, school administrators, planners, businesses, and non-profit
organizations—everyone—will have access to a copy of this report. This report can then be used to guide
decisions made for our communities.
This study should then be updated periodically in order to reflect our
progress. Please use your voice and give us your opinion! This study should reflect you in some way. So gives us your input. And look for community presentations of this
study some time in June, 2002.
G1 actual
population:
A. for Gilpin
B. for Nederland area
G2 average
length of residency
G3 cost of
housing: median sale price of homes
G4 housing
rental affordability
G5 taxable
real estate values
G6
population distribution by: age, gender, ethnicity
G7
percentage of population relying on local goods and services
G8 housing
sales affordability
G9 number
of new building permits issued
G10 number
of renovation/addition permits issued
G11 total
tax revenue collected
G12 road
congestion
G13 number
of existing business licenses
G14 retail sales
per capita
G15 percentage
of businesses lasting at least five years
Suggested Growth indicators:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ED1 cost of
living—what it costs to live here
ED2 number
of people commuting to employment outside of local community
ED3 unemployment
rate
ED4 homeless
population
ED5 number
of people self-employed
ED6 median
income
ED7 number
of people at the livable wage
ED8 total
number of jobs available in the local community
ED9 percentage
of available jobs offering a livable wage
ED10 high
wage paid per employee
ED11 low wage
paid per employee
ED12 number
of new building permits
ED13 effective
buying income per capita
ED14 percentage
of population retired
ED15 percentage
of population seasonal residents
Suggested Economic Diversity indicators:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
H1 percentage
of renters versus homeowners
H2 percentage
of population able to purchase median price home
H3 housing
affordability by percentage of income spent on housing
H4 number
of unoccupied houses
H5 number
of rentals available
H6 high,
low, median rental prices
Suggested Housing
indicators:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
T1 public
transportation available
T2 motor
vehicle registration
T3 percentage
of population reliant upon public transportation
T4 percentage
of population using public transportation
T5 accessibility
to and reliability of transportation services for seniors
T6 number
of people reporting 25 minutes or less commuting time
T7 vehicle
miles traveled
T8 availability
of centralized parking
T9 percentage
of population without vehicles
T10 existing
transportation options
Suggested Transportation
indicators:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PH1 percentage
of population without health insurance
A.
single adults
B. adults with families
C.
children
PH2 self-reporting
of emotional contentment and satisfaction
PH3 number
of child abuse/neglect reports
PH4 alcohol
use reported by youth
PH5 number
of people who have friends/good support group
PH6 professional
mental health usage
PH7 number
of support groups in the community
PH8 percentage
of population that identifies obstacles to health care
PH9 number
of domestic violence calls
PH10 percentage
of population eligible for but not receiving WIC assistance
PH11 percentage
of public health funding spent on preventive education
Suggested Personal
Health & Well-Being indicators:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
AC1 number
of arts and cultural organizations
AC2 number
of visits to public libraries annually
AC3 number
of events/meetings scheduled at public libraries annually
AC4 number
of programs offered by public libraries
AC5 number
attending/participating in public library programs
AC6 library
funding
AC7 library
usage
AC8 public
library materials per capita
AC9 public
library book circulation per capita
AC10 art
courses available in public schools
AC11 music
courses available in public schools
AC12 attendance
trends at cultural/artistic events
AC13 volunteerism
in arts/cultural organizations
Suggested Arts
& Culture indicators:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ed1 high
school graduation rate
Ed2 percentage
of students at or above grade level reading scores
Ed3 percentage
of students testing not ready for 1st grade
Ed4 dollars
per pupil revenues and expenses
Ed5 community
support of the school district
Ed6 average
educational attainment of population
Ed7 percentage
of locally located students enrolled in elementary and secondary schools
outside of the Peak
to Peak region
Ed8 number
of health education classes taught in schools
Ed9 pupil-teacher
ratio
Ed10 average public school teacher salary (compared to
state and national averages)
Ed11 percentage of high school graduates going on to college/university
Ed12 percentage of high school graduates going on to vocational/trade
school
Ed13 availability of quality, affordable childcare
Ed14 volunteerism in schools
Suggested Education
indicators:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
(Social Capital places importance upon the opportunity for
people to come together for different reasons to accomplish things.)
SC1 number
of places available to congregate
A. for adults
B.
for youths
C. for families
SC2 percentage
of population participating in clubs/organizations
SC3 percentage
of population which regularly volunteers
SC4 voter
turnout
SC5 percentage
of non-profits who collaborate with other groups through community coalitions
SC6 percentage
of businesses which collaborate with other groups through community coalitions
SC7 percentage
of non-profits that evaluate their impact in the community
SC8 percentage
of non-profits that include clients in decision-making regarding priorities and
planning
SC9 percentage
of citizens that participate on community boards and commissions
SC10 percentage of candidates running for office for the
first time
SC11 number of family memberships at the Nederland Youth
and Family Center
SC12 number of participants in Gilpin County Parks and Recreation
programming
Suggestion Social
Capital indicators:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Env1 percentage
of habitat effectiveness
(This is an indicator
of habitat fragmentation. As we develop
more trails, roads, and homes, various species become relegated for most of
their favored habitat to those spaces away from these features. An increase in percentage is not a good
thing.)
Env2 noxious
weed mapping
(The presence and
spread or decline of noxious weeds is an indicator of ecosystem health.)
Env3 numbers
of Corvids (jays, crows, magpies, ravens, nutcrackers) versus numbers of
selected open-cup
nesting birds (Western Wood-Peewee, Dusky Flycatcher,
Willow Flycatcher, Warbling Vireo,
Virginia’s Warbler, Western Tanager)
(Corvids do well around
people. They tend to increase and can
cause ecosystem problems for other avian species as Corvids eat eggs and young
of other birds, particularly open-cup nesters.)
Env4 the
presence/absence/well-being of various species and habitats (Lynx; Bighorn
sheep; Elk migration;
Boreal Toad; Northern Leopard
Frog; Northern Goshawk; Greenback Cutthroat Trout; High Quality Native Grasslands;
Wetlands; old-growth Ponderosa Pine woodlands and forests)
(These are examples of indicator species and habitats that
are the litmus test for how well we do our land use planning.)
Env5 measure
light pollution
Env6 number
of environmental education efforts
Env7 ground
water quality
Env8 percentage
of waste diverted from landfills
Env9 percentage
of population and businesses participating in recycling
Env10 surface air quality
Suggested Environment
indicators:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RH1 variety
of recreational options available
RH2 amount
of parks and facility space available per person
RH3 parks
and recreation expenditure per capita
RH4 human
impact on trails and open space
A. number of visits to trailheads annually
B. trail width changes
C. pounds of trash removed from open space and forest service land annually
RH5 miles of
trails
RH6 public
financial support for parks and recreation
Suggested Recreational
Health indicators:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Do you live in Gilpin or the Nederland area?
_____________________________________________
How long have you lived in this area? ______________ Do you rent or own your home?
___________________
Are you a full-time or part-time resident of the area? _________________________________________________
Your age group: Annual
household income:
___ under 21 years ___ under $12,000
___ 21 to 35 years ___ $12,000 to $25,000
___ 36 to 45 years ___ $25,000 to $50,000
___ 46 to 55 years ___ $50,000 to $75,000
___ over 55 years ___ over $75,000
Any other suggestions for this survey or
the Peak to Peak
Quality of Life Indicators Study?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Contact information for
the Peak to Peak Quality
of Life Indicators Study:
lisa mccarley
Peak to Peak Healthy Communities Project
“Bringing People Together to Positively Impact
Community Issues”
PO Box 668
Nederland, CO
80466
303-258-7119
Advisory Board Members:
Michele Bradley
Social Worker
Leslie Brossman
Community Member
Larry Grieco
Director, Gilpin Library
Lynn Hirshman
Director, Gilpin County Health & Human Services
Jeanne Nicholson
Nurse Supervisor, Intermountain Nurse Family Partnership
Program
Garry
Sanfacon
Executive Director, Peak to Peak Healthy Communities
Project
Melissa
Selby
Social Worker