Colorado Higher Education Funding Formula

Colorado Higher Education Funding Formula is sponsored by Colorado Department of Higher Education. Allocates state funding to higher education institutions based on performance metrics and strategic goals.

Colorado’s Higher Education Funding Formula Warning! Your browser is extremely outdated and not web standards compliant. Your browsing experience would greatly improve by upgrading to a modern browser .

Colorado’s Higher Education Funding Formula: Options for Reform that Balance Learning with Career Success Colorado’s Higher Education Funding Formula: Options for Reform that Balance Learning with Career Success In a recent survey of 3,800 college prospects, students were asked what motivates them to attend college. The two top responses were “Learning” and “Career.

” Given the amount of public and private resources that are devoted to higher education—over $1 trillion across the U.S.—these top two reasons seem self-explanatory. Unfortunately, postsecondary education credential production does not always correlate with strong economic outcomes.

As such, it is important to examine whether a state’s system of higher education truly prepares graduates for success and leadership in high-demand, high-paying jobs by offering access to credentials linked to a high return on investment (ROI) for the learner, including for first generation and underserved communities. This study examines the effectiveness of Colorado’s outcomes-based funding formula for higher education.

It also assesses how targeted adjustments — particularly to the weight assigned to credential production — could enhance workforce readiness and drive economic mobility. Using econometric analysis, we find that even modest shifts in funding incentives could lead to meaningful improvements in labor market outcomes, strengthening Colorado’s talent pipeline and long-term economic competitiveness.

More specifically, CSI’s modeling suggests that if the state centered its outcome-based funding formula to strategically include credentials of value and wage/employment outcomes, which are credentials associated with high workforce demand and a high ROI, Colorado’s institutions could set the national stage in terms of bridging workforce gaps and bolstering economic mobility.

Since 2020, Colorado has utilized a performance-based funding (PBF) model for higher education. While this structure is intended to incentivize institutional effectiveness and student success, the current model has some structural inefficiencies and generally lacks responsiveness to the evolving higher education landscape.

A primary concern, for example, is that the formula disproportionately favors traditional, full-time students and does not adequately account for the complexities of Colorado’s nontraditional student population.

Despite national trends showing that roughly one-third of college students enroll part-time, the state’s funding mechanism does not fully recognize the academic progression or completion rates of the part-time learners, transfer students, or adult learners even though these learners will be key to fulfilling future workforce needs, especially as the state confronts declining birth rates and shrinking K–12 pipelines.

Moreover, the model emphasizes year-over-year changes in degree completion rather than longer-term equity or workforce-aligned outcomes, such as employment. Background on Current System Colorado’s higher education outcome-based funding model stems from House Bill (HB) 20-1366, approved during the 2020 General Session.

The legislation aimed to boost the earnings potential of future college graduates by tying funding allocations to institutional performance across eight key indicators, identified in Figure 1. Funding allocations differ by institution, depending upon how well Colorado’s Institutions of Higher Education (IHE) rank based on these indicators.

HB 20-1366 was a step back from an earlier framework, created by HB 14-1319 , that had emphasized credentials in high-demand fields like healthcare and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

The HB 20-1366 formula allocates funding by using existing base funding plus or minus additional funding based on three steps that are: Base funding: An institution’s funding allocation, less one-time funding from the prior year.

Step 1 — Allocations based upon the Colorado Commission on Higher Education priority: The Colorado Commission on Higher Education may recommend additional funding to add to the base prior to performance funding allocations for the following purposes: Progress toward master plan goals, including addressing base funding disparities or funding priorities not addressed through performance funding.

Additional costs associated with educating resident first-generation undergraduates. Step 2 — Performance funding: Following the calculation of base funding allocations and pre-performance budget adjustments, all funds are distributed through performance-based funding. This allocation is determined by each institution’s relative rate of change over time on a set of performance metrics compared to peer institutions.

The state utilizes eight key inputs to assess institutional performance. These metrics are illustrated in Figure 1. Step 3 — Temporary Adjustments: Institutions may receive temporary funding adjustments based upon legislative or other priorities, such as progress toward a master plan goal.

Temporary funding adjustments do not automatically become part of the base in the following fiscal year. Since the new formula was established, the Colorado Department of Higher Education (CDHE) has yet to use temporary funding adjustments. Colorado’s current funding formula doesn’t reward better performance in any substantive way.

The lack of real financial rewards provides very little incentive for higher education institutions to move the needle on credentials and other job-ready/society improving skills. As it currently stands, graduates of institutions generating wages in the economy subsidize other institutions and their graduates.

For public institutions, the total state appropriation is of greater significance than any performance on the eight factors in the performance-based funding formula. This creates stability at the expense of rewarding performance. Thus, funding on the margin creates very little impetus for change, as the base makes up over 97% of total funding.

Since the formula’s enactment, no institution has seen its share of total state funding increase or decrease by more than 1% - although some have seen declines in student enrollment greater than that. The lack of incentive is clearly shown in the following figure, which shows that institutions all generally see similar growth rates in funding each year.

Funding for the Colorado State University (CSU) system grew by 44% over the past five years. Only 0. 67% of that growth was due to performance funding.

Virtually all of the increase was due to increased appropriations, further contributing to the above point. Since the implementation of the current funding formula, state appropriations for higher education have grown substantially; however, this increase has coincided with a decline in credentials. While the number of credentials has declined, funding allocated to the credential portion of the performance funding formula increased 169.

4% between FY 2019-20 and FY 2022-23, from about $12. 4 million to about $33. 4 million.

Funding per credential has increased from $784 per credential in FY 2020-21 to $1,058 per credential in FY 2022-23. Since the new funding formula has been enacted, the state has bonused $6,843,000 (or almost 7 million dollars) to produce 2,112 fewer credentials. The funding disparity per credential is even more pronounced at the institutional level.

For instance, the number of credentials dropped from 5,950 in FY 2020 to 5,560 in FY 2023 for the CSU system. In contrast, their credential funding rose, growing from $6. 6 million in FY 2024 to $7.

3 million in FY 2025, the latest available information at the time of writing. This makes the point or begs the question... is this performance funding or just status quo?

CSI modeled hypothetical scenarios using Colorado’s current funding formula and potential institutional investment strategies to illustrate the economic value of high-demand, high-ROI degrees. The analysis’ results suggest that increasing investment in credentials of value—those aligned with workforce demand and strong economic returns—would generate greater positive impacts for Colorado’s economy.

Assuming a 20% increase in the level of Coloradan graduates completing credentials of value, CSI estimates that (spurred by a highly talented pipeline of graduates) nearly 19,000 new jobs would be created in Colorado by 2035. Colorado’s higher education institutions could improve alignment between program offerings and high-value credentials tied to labor market demand.

Notably, gaps exist in fields such as construction trades; legal studies; physical sciences; social sciences; and biological and biomedical sciences. For example, between 2001 and 2021, only 11 of Colorado’s 32 higher education institutions offered programs in construction. Data shows wages are typically either the first or second most important reason students attend college in the first place.

CSI modeled a scenario in which the funding formula puts a 50% weight towards credentials of value production and a 50% weight towards earnings outcomes of graduates (with no guaranteed prior year funding base).

Based on this assumption, findings suggest that current allocation levels would shift significantly, with three institutions seeing large increases: the University of Colorado (+$91 million), the School of Mines (+$35 million), and the Community College system (+$25 million).

As Colorado reviews its performance funding model, leaders could find ways to make performance more relevant and ensure the performance metrics include additional incentives for credentials of value. As noted later in this paper, the state is unique in what it considers important in funding higher education.

The one factor in which the state aligns with most other states is credential production, with at least 62% of states using it in their accountability and funding metrics. In contrast to credential production, the State places significant weight on factors that empirically produce little to no economic value, including: Only 42% of states place any weight on Pell-eligible or low-income students.

Only 28% of states consider an underrepresented background as important for funding. We could not find a state that uses a form of first-generation resident headcount in its funding formulas the way Colorado does. Graduation rates are used by approximately a quarter of states, with 18% using graduation rate at 100% of the normal time and 22% using the graduation rate at 150% of the normal time.

Unlike states such as Florida, Colorado’s current higher education funding formula does not incorporate post-graduation employment outcomes. Introducing employment metrics as an input variable could better align state funding with workforce outcomes and labor market needs. By including workforce outcomes, the formula becomes more balanced.

It would then incorporate a core factor driving students to attend higher education in the first place. Approximately one-third of states use credentials of value in some form (36%). In looking at job growth across states, states that employ credentials of value in their funding considerations generally see higher job growth.

Policymakers may want to include credentials of value in the State’s funding formula. The current formula moves slowly. The three and four-year lags in the formula are the reason institutions pay much more attention to the size of the appropriation pie than their share of that pie.

Policymakers could move away from such a structure to one in which institutions are offered a base in funding and new funding is allocated based on up-to-date performance for: (1) credentials of value and (2) job placement/employment outcomes.

This provides a real incentive to encourage students towards higher lifetime earnings potential while simultaneously preserving core instructional capacity in fields that may not produce high value outcomes. We think this strategy would offer students a well-rounded education that also considers the risk taxpayers are incurring when investing in a student’s future.

Educational Attainment and Workforce Alignment The Lumina Foundation’s 2024 report, A Stronger Nation, found Colorado leads the nation in post-secondary educational attainment. Nearly two thirds of residents between the ages of 25 and 64, 62. 9%, have some form of postsecondary credential.

That number is up from 60. 5% in 2022. Though Colorado's outcomes are helped by its ability to recruit an educated workforce, much of the increase was due to targeted efforts by schools to improve student success and graduation rates, even as enrollments have fluctuated (recent lower national in-migration trends make up a large factor as well).

The state has also invested in targeted programs such as Care Forward, Skill Advance, and Opportunity Now to help Coloradans pursue short-term credentials in high-demand fields. As state resources become more constrained, it is increasingly vital to support students as they pursue industry-aligned, in-demand credentials that lead to long-term economic security.

Credential production does not necessarily correlate with a strong economy or labor market, however, so while Colorado’s high rate of postsecondary credentials is laudable, it is important to examine whether the system truly prepares graduates for success and leadership in high-demand, high-paying jobs by improving access to credentials that are linked to a high ROI for the learner.

Increasingly, there is a growing need to keep postsecondary education accessible, relevant, and aligned with labor market demands. It is no longer enough to only focus on attainment; Colorado’s IHEs should consider offering more value-providing credential pathways that help graduates earn higher wages and build meaningful careers in high-demand industries.

As Colorado reviews its performance funding model, leaders could explore ways to make performance more relevant and ensure the metrics include additional incentives for credentials of value.

To explore the higher education outcome-based funding formula and its effectiveness, CSI utilized data from multiple sources, including: the Post-Secondary Employment Outcomes (PSEO) data explorer tool, Colorado Department of Higher Education (CDHE), Office of Labor Market Information (LMI) at the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE), the Colorado Demography Office (SDO), the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and the Lumina Foundation.

We would like to thank all of these organizations for their commitment to providing valid, robust public datasets. As indicated, policymakers’ performance funding and other decisions have resulted in somewhat different funding growth rates from FY 2020-21 to FY 2024-25. Since FY 2020–21, Western Colorado University (WCU) has recorded the highest percentage increase in state funding.

This growth was largely driven by substantial non-performance-based funding, such as rural higher education, rather than by metrics traditionally used to assess institutional performance, such as student outcomes or degree completion. In contrast, the CSU system has seen the slowest funding growth during that period. Its increase was just 44%.

Are the differences in funding growth effective in producing a stronger, more economically relevant higher education system? The disproportionate funding growth at institutions like WCU, absent corresponding improvements in performance, suggests Colorado’s funding formula is vulnerable to inconsistencies and supplemental allocations that bypass performance criteria altogether.

As a result, institutions critical to the state’s long-term workforce development strategy may be underfunded relative to their contributions and needs. The rise in funding is occurring even though student enrollment is down at six of the 10 institutions shown (Adams, CSU system, CU system, Mesa, Metro, and UNC). The four growing institutions include CCCS, FLC, Mines, and Western.

Given that the formula is über-lagged (3/4 years) and places only 10% weight on resident full-time enrollment, the formula exacerbates differences in funding per student, depicted below as state funding per resident headcount.

In terms of total funding, Colorado’s three largest public postsecondary systems — the Colorado Community College System (CCCS), the University of Colorado (CU) system, and the CSU system — receive the majority of allocations. As Figure 6 shows, in FY 2024-25, CCCS received approximately 29% of total funding, followed by CU (23%) and CSU (15%).

While total state funding for higher education in Colorado has increased significantly across all public institutions over the past five years, the proportional distribution of funding among systems has shifted only marginally.

This limited movement is largely a function of the funding formula’s structure, which emphasizes year-over-year continuity and incremental adjustments rather than major redistributions based on changing institutional needs or performance.

For example, the CCCS and the Metropolitan State University of Denver (MSU Denver) — the two systems that experienced the largest increases in their share of total funding — saw their shares rise by only 0. 61 percentage points over the five-year period. Conversely, the CU and CSU systems experienced slight declines in their funding shares, decreasing by 0.

84 and 0. 67 percentage points, respectively, as shown in Figure 7. This relative stability in funding distribution suggests the current formula lacks the necessary flexibility to meaningfully respond to shifting enrollment patterns, performance metrics, or equity considerations.

As a result, institutions that are growing in enrollment or serving high-need populations are slow to see corresponding increases in funding share, limiting their capacity to scale programs, services, or infrastructure to align with student demand or workforce needs.

Performance Funding Methodology Has Minimal Impact Figure 7 in the previous section shows that budget allocations have changed little over the years because of the marginal adjustments inherent in the allocation formula. Due to the formula structure, institutions have little incentive to shift their instructional preferences for future workforces.

As shown, the performance funding formula matters very little to each institution’s funding. For instance, Adams saw total funding increase 62% over the past five years, but only 0. 19% of that growth was due to its improvement relative to the other institutions on performance funding.

If the goal is to provide an incentive for economic growth outside of higher education, the current funding formula does not achieve this goal in a material way. This point is even clearer when examining the percent change in credential funding since FY 2019-20 and the percent change in credentials.

As Figure 9 shows, since the funding formula was signed into law, the budget for credential production has expanded significantly while credential growth declined. The slope of these curves became even more dramatic after the funding formula enactment in FY 2020-21.

Broader Trends in Higher Education and the Earners of Degree Holders Given that the credential production weight of the performance funding formula is of extremely minor importance to the funding of an institution, how are objective measures of output faring in this system?

This section examines each of the eight measures used in the performance funding formula and other potential measures of performance: credential production, resident full-time enrollment, first generation resident headcount enrollment, retention rate, Pell-eligible student share, underrepresented minority student share, graduation rate at 100% of normal time, and graduation rate at 150% of normal time.

Credential Production (5% Weight) According to the CDHE, a credential is “a piece of documentation that verifies an individual’s qualifications, competencies, or skills, often related to specific job-relevant skills or industry standards, and can include degrees, certifications, or other forms of recognition.

” At 5% of the current funding formula, the number of credentials has declined from 48,031 in FY 2019-20 to 45,454 in FY 2022-23 (Figure 9). Interestingly, although the number of credentials has declined, the funding allocated to the credential portion of the funding formula has increased by $12. 4 million from what would have been $33.

4 million in FY 2019-20 had the formula been in effect in that year. Overall, given the drop in credentials and the increasing funding for credentials, the cost per credential using just the credential funding portion of total performance funding has gone from $784 per credential in FY 2020-21 to $1. 058 per credential in FY 2022-23.

As Figure 10 shows, on a growth basis, Colorado School of Mines has seen the largest increase in credentials. Its credentials have risen 18% since FY 2019-20. Other institutions that have increased their credential output include Mesa College (+1.

7%) and the CU System (+ 1. 2%). Conversely, the University of Northern Colorado (UNC) and Fort Lewis College (FLC) have seen awarded credentials drop by 15% and 14%, respectively.

While Colorado’s funding formula is partially outcomes-based, CSI’s analysis finds that institutions with declining performance metrics are still receiving substantial increases in funding. This suggests that a significant share of state dollars is not tied to demonstrated performance or value.

In effect, this results in funding nonperformance—allocating public resources to institutions without accountability for student outcomes, labor market alignment, or return on investment.

Strengthening the formula’s ties to performance indicators, such as credential completion in high-demand fields or graduate employment outcomes, would ensure funding is better aligned with both institutional effectiveness and the state’s economic priorities.

Notably, as Figure 10 suggests, although institutions have had varied success in awarding credentials, the overall number of credentials is down 5% from FY 2019-20 to FY 2022-23. These funding disparities imply that Colorado’s current performance-based funding formula is not functioning effectively in terms of incentivizing or expanding credential production across the state’s public institutions.

Other factors, including declining undergraduate enrollment — a trend that has persisted since 2010 — and lingering negative impacts of COVID-19, have also likely led to downticks in higher education’s credential production. Thus, the state has bonused $6,843,000 (or almost 7 million dollars) to produce 2,112 fewer credentials.

At the same time, the credentials portion of the funding formula has grown from about $33 million in FY 2021 to approximately $41 million in FY 2023. Table 1 shows each institution’s estimated share of the credentials portion of the funding formula. Columns 6 and 7 suggest no correlation between subsidy level and credential production.

Resident Full-Time Enrollment (10% Weight) Figure 12 shows the growth or decline in resident full-time enrollment for several institutions. Only four institutions — Colorado School of the Mines, Adams State University, Western State College University, and Fort Lewis College — have seen a marked increase in these numbers from 2019-20 to 2023-24. The rest either have remained largely the same during this period or declined significantly.

Two entities, Colorado Mesa University and Community Colleges of Colorado, now seem to be reversing towards an upswing in enrollment. First-Generation Resident Headcount Enrollment (5% Weight) As shown in Figure 13 on the following page, the variation in first generation headcount is wide, ranging from an increase of nearly 80% at Adams State University to a decline of nearly 40% at the University of Northern Colorado.

One factor to consider is that, for this metric, percentage growth is sensitive to the student base. For instance, a 200-student increase in first generation students at Adams State is a much larger relative increase than a 200-student increase at the University of Colorado. In order to provide context, the next page also shows the total count of first-generation students by institution.

Pell-Eligible Student Share (20% Weight) The term “Pell-eligible” refers to students with an Estimated Family Contribution (EFC) low enough to qualify for federal Pell grants, regardless of whether the student receives a grant. With this, both graduate and undergraduate students are considered. Colorado’s formula does not seem to have led to much of an increase in students eligible for Pell Grants.

The following two figures show the share of students eligible for Pell Grants by institution and the percentage change in the share of Pell-eligible students. The two figures on this page examine the Pell-eligible headcount relative to the total population of students and the growth or decline in the share of students eligible for Pell Grants as a percentage of total students with the growth in state funding.

Underrepresented Minority Share (20% Weight) The next figure examines growth in underrepresented minority students relative to the change in the budget for these students. As shown, there is little connection between the two numbers. This outcome stems partly from the lookback nature of the formula, where three-year and four-year average changes are used to share out a growing pie.

As has been noted, the budget continues to grow regardless of performance. Retention Rate (20% Weight) Figure 20 shows the growth or decline in student retention from FY 2019-20. Only four institutions — Colorado School of the Mines, Fort Lewis College, the CSU system, and the University of Colorado — have improved since the current formula was put into place.

As Figure 21 shows, graduation rates for students completing a degree within the normally allotted time to complete the degree also have not improved with the current formula. Given the nature of this variable, the normal graduation rate may be more of an effect than a cause that can be meaningfully influenced to a sufficient degree by institutions. Thus, the lack of much improvement in the measure.

Graduation Rate at 150% of Normal Time (10% Weight) Figure 22 indicates that graduation rates for students completing a degree over a longer time horizon also have not improved with the current formula. What Other States Are Doing While Colorado incorporates several important metrics into its performance-based funding model, it lacks a clear emphasis on student progression and alignment with workforce needs.

As the following examples show, other states clearly prioritize these areas. Tennessee. With the Complete College Tennessee Act of 2010 , Tennessee shifted its funding model toward performance metrics.

These factors now encompass around 80% of the allocation of points awarded by the state. Tennessee’s formula also incorporates premiums to prioritize outcomes involving underserved populations, including adult and low-income students, and degrees in high-need academic fields like STEM and health care.

Tennessee’s funding formula also distinguishes between community colleges and four-year institutions by employing distinct performance indicators for each sector. This differentiated approach allows for more tailored accountability and resource allocation.

Notable and innovative inputs used in Tennessee’s model include: The total number of short-term certificates — defined by the state as a certificate that requires less than 24 credit hours — awarded during an academic year; The number of long-term certificates — a certificate that requires more than 24 credit hours — awarded during an academic year; Job placement, which encompasses all work-eligible or work-capable graduates employed within a year of graduation; and Non-credit workforce training hours that students complete in an academic year.

Texas. In 2023, Texas adopted an outcomes-based formula to allocate state funding to its community colleges. The formula aims to align institutions with Texas’s educational goals and workforce needs.

Texas’s formula weights outcomes affecting target populations, including economically disadvantaged students (25%), academically disadvantaged students (25%), and adult learners (50%). The first metric Texas uses is the number of students completing 15 semester credit hours (SCHs) of dual credit or dual enrollment through an institution, provided these hours meet degree or workforce credential requirements.

The second indicator is the number of students who complete 15 SCHs and either transfer to a Texas public university or enroll in a structured co-enrollment program.

The final metric is the total number of degrees and credentials awarded, encompassing bachelor’s and associate degrees, Advanced Technical Certifications (Levels 1 and 2), occupational skills awards, Institutional Credentials Leading to Licensure or Certification (ICLCs), Opportunity High School Diplomas, and Third-Party Credentials.

(An Opportunity High School Diploma refers to earning a high school diploma through concurrent enrollment in a competency-based education program.)

For these credentials, specific criteria apply: Among other requirements, ICLCs must meet a minimum total contact-hour requirement, and certificates are counted only if, on average, they yield a positive ROI within certain timeframes, ensuring only credentials of value contribute to this measure. Additionally, extra weights are applied to degrees in high-demand fields as defined by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Florida.

Several components of Florida’s outcomes-based funding model are explicitly designed to align institutional performance with the state’s broader educational and workforce priorities, thereby linking public investment in higher education to measurable economic and policy goals.

Efforts include: The number of bachelor’s degrees awarded in “programs of strategic emphasis” like STEM, with double majors double-counted; Median wages of full-time bachelor’s degree graduates a year out from graduation, excluding self-employed, military, or minimum-wage workers; and An institution-specific benchmark that allows IHEs to choose a unique component they would like to be measured on that’s tailored to its goals and strengths.

Examples include: Florida Poly measures workforce experiences; UCF looks at the total number of degrees awarded to Hispanic and African American students; and UF examines its endowment size.

Colorado’s Funding Model Compared to Other States Colorado’s higher education funding model is distinct in its reliance on a base-plus approach whereby annual allocations begin with prior-year funding levels and are then adjusted marginally using the eight specific variables already discussed. As Figure 23 shows, Colorado is one of 26 states that use some sort of base funding model.

As Figure 24 on the next page demonstrates, 19 other states incorporate performance or outcomes funding in a marginal or supplementary manner. Another 13 states apply performance-based funding selectively — typically limited to certain sectors such as community colleges — while 18 states do not employ any form of performance or outcomes-based funding.

This comparative positioning highlights Colorado’s cautious adoption of performance funding mechanisms. While the state has taken steps to reward institutions based on student outcomes, the modest scale and limited influence of these metrics in the overall funding formula suggest performance-based funding plays a secondary role relative to historical funding levels.

As such, Colorado may benefit from further refinement of its model to more meaningfully connect state appropriations to institutional performance, and workforce alignment – the current model drives little or no motivation to change or perform. Further Details on What Other States Consider Given this background, how does Colorado compare with other states in terms of what is considered in funding formulas?

In terms of how they compare with Colorado, the following table indicates how many of the other 50 states consider the same or similar factors as Colorado. Overall, the top three factors Colorado considers that other states also generally consider are credential production (62%), low-income students (42%), and retention rate (30%).

No states consider first generation headcount, and only 28% consider underrepresented minority student share. When looking at performance funding, resident full-time students (6%), graduation rate at 100% of the normal time (18%), and graduation rate at 150% of the normal time (22%) are also infrequently used.

Recently, growing interest among states concerns job placement/employment, with 22% of states now placing some sort of consideration of this outcome in funding. Further details on other states’ funding considerations is given in Appendix C.

Connecting Degrees with Jobs and Performance Funding Factors with Degrees Given the divergence in factors considered in performance funding, is there a connection between one, some, or all of the factors Colorado considers and degrees/certificates of value, as represented by scientific and engineering degrees?

Degrees of Value (Credentials of Value) and Jobs Before looking at the connection between performance funding factors and degrees, the following figure shows the correlation between the percentage of degrees awarded for science and engineering and the percentage of STEM jobs per total employment.

Unsurprisingly, the state is high on both science and engineering degrees as a percent of total and STEM jobs as a percent of total employment. Colorado has a long tradition of being a technologically capable population with a workforce able to compete with any state in the country in science, technology, engineering, and math. The simple linear regression correlation of the following figure