Why aren’t we being more targeted about food insecurity? Denver’s spending in the last decade. Update: SLB La Jara decision is pushed to November.
Why aren’t we being more targeted about food insecurity?
Prop MM got a quick edit during the recent special session of the legislature. The bill that did the editing is linked first below, and what it changed was to take any extra revenue (not bloody likely if you ask me, the “free” lunch program is already way underfunded) and put it to the SNAP program, the one providing what were food stamps essentially.
If you want a more thorough summary, check out screenshot 1 attached which comes from the bill’s fiscal note.
I had a reader send me an infographic from the second link below. The site is from an (obviously) that ranks states on a series of metrics. You can read all the other metrics that you’d like on the site, I want to focus in on the one in screenshot 2.
This is the header row for their table and the row for children from 0 - 3 who experience food insecurity (some manner or another of not getting enough to eat on a daily basis) in Colorado. Colorado is, by this group’s measure, doing well at 1.6% and we’re ranked #1.
Not all children who experience hunger are below age 3, however, and perhaps older children fare worse. In looking up statistics, I found numbers ranging from 6% of Colorado children experiencing food insecurity up to the highest number I could find of about 14.3%.
The high number comes from the third link below and the topline statistics are in screenshot 3.
They have children overall in Colorado experiencing hunger at about 14.3%, with 56% of that group (or 0.56 x 14.3 = 8% in total) being below the poverty line.
I would not wish hunger on anyone. I am also not here to minimize the effect it has on someone’s life, especially that of a child. How on earth is a child supposed to grow correctly (in body and mind) if they do not have sufficient food on a recurring basis?
I’d also like to point out that while, depending on where you look, Colorado is doing relatively well compared with other states, it doesn’t mean we don’t have a ways to go to help kids find the food they need.
But looking at this number ought to make you wonder why we need to be so worried about sending extra money to food stamps. It ought to make you wonder why we’re spending so much on “free” school lunches.
I don’t mean do nothing, I mean be more targeted with our resources so that those needing help can get it while at the same time still respecting taxpayers. Perhaps if we collected less, and were more judicious in spreading it around, we could still backfill SNAP for a federal decrease AND get those children truly needing the free lunches their food.
Screenshot 4 is a good illustration of what I mean. It is a map from that same resource linked third below showing a geographic distribution of childhood food insecurity across Colorado. The orange dots are food bank distribution locations, and darker greens show a greater need.
Notice that the state is not a uniform green mass. In fact, a lot of the Front Range and mountain communities (esp the I-70 corridor as you might imagine) are doing much better than the Plains and Western Slope. Sadly, everyone is doing better than Bent and Huerfano.
Does it make sense to plaster the whole state with tax money to feed all the children rich and poor alike on the taxpayer dime? Does it make sense to feed more money into this effort instead of forcing the state to rethink it’s original plan?
Why not collect a smaller amount and focus it in areas where clearly there is a greater (geographical and age-related) need?
There are times I wish I could read minds. If I could I’d be trying to figure out the internal reasoning used by those who sponsored the free lunch measure, Prop LL to get more to fund it, and the (now amended) Prop MM which directs any leftovers to SNAP. Why are they holding so tightly to “free” lunches for all?
https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb25b-003
https://pn3policy.org/pn-3-state-policy-roadmap-2025/co/outcomes
https://map.feedingamerica.org/county/2023/child/colorado
Denver’s spending in the last decade
In yesterday’s post about Boulder tightening its belt, I mentioned that I didn’t want to comment about the causes for their $40 million budget shortfall because I didn’t know much about their spending, etc.
The report linked first below isn’t about Boulder, but it does give a look at their neighbor city’s spending.
The CSI report linked below offers a look at Denver’s spending over the last decade. Quite illuminating and worth a look.
I won’t cover the whole report, I’ll leave that to you. One graph is worth special mention, however. I took a picture and attached it as screenshot 1.
Look at the change from 2015 to 2024. The city went from collecting more than they spent (inflation and population adjusted) to the other way round.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m on the team that wants government collections to be as minimal as possible. Still, oughtn’t any responsible government, one that wanted to operate on a sane and sustainable basis seek to keep expenses below revenue?
Graphs like these are the precursors to talk about budget cuts, tax hikes, complaints about TABOR, etc.
And they’re something to keep in mind when Denver’s politicians grouse and lay blame about budget shortfalls.
Update: the State Land Board La Jara decision is pushed to November due to the Federal shutdown.
Quick update. I posted earlier about the sale of the La Jara ranch land in the San Luis Valley to a conservation group (see an earlier newsletter linked first below if you want/need the context).
Had a leaseholder just now message and say they were unaware of the sale even though it was up for final decision on the 15th!
When I looked, turns out the decision has been pushed due to the Federal shutdown. See the image heading this post.
More time for you to prepare your feedback! Watch for the November agenda on their site and/or sign up for updates at the second link below.
https://coloradoaccountabilityproject.substack.com/p/selling-la-jara-to-conservation-groups?r=15ij6n
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSec5XIrmyGCoqQxHvZnPJM0znjDrwGj2ROS7OH58BVC1zBzEQ/viewform
1) I think the addition of SNAP as a potential use for the tax funds is nothing more than a cynical ploy by the party in charge to get sympathetic, yet uninformed, voters to vote for the tax increase.
2: Rachel Gabel's column in this morning's Gazette, does a good job of explaining the leaseholder's role in the land sale.