Colorado State University and the NoCo Foundation Just Released a Regional Wellbeing Report That Has Northeast Colorado Talking

On Thursday afternoon, the room at Northeastern Junior College had the distinct atmosphere of a place where people had traveled great distances to be. There are pickup trucks on the property. The coffee cups are only halfway full. A scattering of county commissioners, ranchers, nonprofit directors, and city council members—the kind of audience you only get when a report truly resonates with the listeners.

The Northeast Colorado Intersections Report: Pursuing Community Well-Being was released there by the NoCo Foundation and Colorado State University’s Office of Engagement and Extension, and the venue selection seemed thoughtful. A six-county study about rural Colorado is not unveiled in Denver. You take it home.

The report itself is the result of over a year of listening in Logan, Morgan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washington, and Yuma counties through focus groups, surveys, community meetings, and one-on-one conversations. The eastern plains are a different animal, but it builds upon a similar effort that covered Larimer and Weld and was published in 2024. smaller communities. longer trips. reduced profit margins on nearly everything, including daycare centers, grocery stores, and hospitals. Walking through the data gives the impression that the authors were aware of that.

The texture of the results is more noteworthy than any one statistic. The launch’s panel discussion focused on issues that locals were already aware of but seldom saw documented: the dearth of reasonably priced housing, the decline in childcare options, and hunger in areas where food is produced on the land. It’s the kind of paradox that makes rural Colorado difficult to describe and even more difficult to resolve. a region that struggles to feed some of its own while feeding the nation.

For some time now, the NoCo Foundation has been working toward this goal. The organization, which celebrated its 50th anniversary last year, has made more than $150 million in grants since 1975. However, when you consider how much of that money stayed local, the figure seems different. The president and CEO of the foundation, Kristin Todd, has expressed a desire for data that engages a community in dialogue rather than merely describing it. That framing is important. In PDF format, reports frequently expire. This one is being used more as a springboard.

It’s important to note who collaborated with them to build this. Using what they refer to as living systems frameworks, CSU’s Institute for the Built Environment has been discreetly carrying out this type of systems-level work throughout Colorado, including in the Aspen-to-Parachute corridor.

The method is simple: ask people what’s going on, map out where their responses overlap, and then get them back together to discuss it. The phrase may sound scholarly. Mapping was handled by the Geospatial Centroid. The design was influenced by the Division of Marketing and Communications at CSU. As you watch it come together, it seems like these organizations have realized that good data alone won’t make much of an impact.

It is genuinely unclear if any of this will alter the course of the six counties. Daycare centers are not built by reports. Rent is not reduced by them. However, they accomplish something more difficult to quantify: they make an area understandable to itself, which is sometimes necessary for everything else. Speaking with attendees of the Sterling event gave me the impression that this one might be used. Perhaps because it was written near the ground. Perhaps because everyone in the room could identify with it.

The next test will be gradual, involving grant cycles, budget meetings, and the quiet choices communities make when no one is around.