2018 edition Utah vs. Idaho · This report is published as part of the State of Working America series, which is available online at . ... Kauffman Index 2016 startup activity indicators:

1

Reality Check

2018 edition

Utah vs. Idaho

July 2018

Working Families Benchmarking Project

VOICES FOR UTAH CHILDREN | WORKING FAMILIES BENCHMARKING PROJECT 2018: UT VS ID

2

Voices for Utah Children

747 E. South Temple

Suite 100

Salt Lake City, UT 84102

(801) 364-1182

www.utahchildren.org

Acknowledgements

This third edition of the Working Families Benchmarking Project was

authored by Zachary Cutshall and Matthew Weinstein. Zachary Cutshall

graduated from the University of Utah with a bachelor’s in economics in

2018. Matthew Weinstein is state priorities partnership director at Voices for

Utah Children.

This report is published as part of the State of Working America series, which

is available online at www.StateofWorkingAmerica.org.

Voices for Utah Children is the Utah affiliate of the State Priorities

Partnership, a 42-state consortium of independent nonprofit research and

policy organizations that use evidence and analysis to advance public policies

and investments that reduce poverty and give all people the opportunity to

achieve the American Dream.


3

Table of Contents Summary of Key Findings …………………………………………………………………………………………………………4

Executive Summary.................................................................................................................... 6

Policy Implications ..................................................................................................................... 8

Part I: Economic Opportunity .................................................................................................. 10

Business ............................................................................................................................... 11

GDP ...................................................................................................................................... 12

Productivity .......................................................................................................................... 14

Employment ........................................................................................................................ 15

Education ............................................................................................................................. 17

Equity ................................................................................................................................... 27

Gender ................................................................................................................................. 28

Part II: Standard of Living ........................................................................................................ 29

Income ................................................................................................................................. 30

Wages .................................................................................................................................. 31

Poverty ................................................................................................................................ 33

Cost of Living ........................................................................................................................ 38

Taxes .................................................................................................................................... 40

Quality of Life ....................................................................................................................... 41

Health .................................................................................................................................. 43

Civic Engagement ................................................................................................................ 50


4

Working Families Benchmarking Project

Summary of Key Findings

Part I: Economic Opportunity (“winner” highlighted and bolded) Utah Idaho

Business Climate Metrics Business climate average rank 2014-2017 3rd 20th Kauffman Index 2016 startup activity indicators: startups per 1,000 firms/% of new business owners not unempl before

94 88.1% 80.6 89.3%

Productivity and GDP Real per-worker GDP 2016 (US = $84,386) $ and rank $70,647/39th $61,073/49th

Change in real GDP 2007-2016 (US = 10.4%) % and rank 15.6%/9th 5.9%/34th

Change in real per capita GDP 2007-16 (US = $1,451 / 3.0%) -$657 / -1.5% -$1,614/-4.4%

Employment

Unemployment rate 2017 (US = 4.4%) 3.2% 3.2%

Labor force participation rate 2017 (US = 62.8%) 69.4% 64%

Change in labor force participation rate 2006-2017 (US = -3.4%) -2.4% -4.8%

Education Current public K-12 spending per pupil & rank of K-12 finances per $1,000 personal income 2015 (US = $11,392)

$6,575/50th $6,923/49th

K-12 education funding fairness ranking #1 #23 Percent/rank of 3- and 4-year-olds below 200% of poverty level not enrolled in any educ program 2012-2016 (US = 60%)

65%/36th 75%/48th

Percent in full-day kindergarten 2013 (US = 75%) 25% 38% NAEP rankings: average rank of 4th and 8th grade math and reading scores 2015-2017

12th 20th

Average higher education state spending per full-time student 2016 & rank (US avg = $6,791)

$9,730/5th $7,181/18th

Bachelor’s degree or higher, ages 25-64, 2016 (US = 32.6% all, 30.5% men, 34.7% women)

All:

32.8%

M: 33.2% All:

28.1%

M: 27.5%

F: 32.4% F: 28.7%

Bachelor’s degree or higher, ages 25-34, 2016 (US = 34.9% all, 31.0% men, 38.9% women)

All:

33.6%

M: 31.0% All:

26.3%

M: 22.7%

F: 36.3% F: 30%

Associate’s degree or higher 2016 ages 25-64 (US = 41.7%) 43.5% 38.6% School-to-prison fairness index: referral to law enforcement by race, where 1 is fair, >1 is more referrals than fair and <1 is fewer referrals than fair (US = .94 Hisp., 1.62 black, 0.76 white)

Hisp:

1.34

Black:

2.21

White:

0.89

Hisp:

1.15

Black:

1.65

White:

0.96

Income and Gender Equity + Mobility Income inequality (Gini) state rank 2016 (1 = lowest) 2nd 12th

Intergenerational mobility rank, 50 largest metros (1 is best) 1st (SLC metro) 46th (Boise metro)

Gender wage ratio (female/male) & rank 2016 70%/50th 75.6%/41st

Reality Check


5

Part II: Standard of Living (“winner” highlighted and bolded) Utah Idaho

Income & Wages

Real median household income & rank 2016 (US = $57,617) $65,977/11th $51,807/37th

Average rank for median household income 2007-2016 13th 37th

Median hourly wage & rank 2017 (US = $18.28) $17.61/27th $16.74/ 43rd

Median hourly wage adj for cost of living 2016 (US =$18.24) $18.20 $17.48

Minimum wage / tipped worker min wage (US = $7.25/ $2.13) $7.25/$2.13 $7.25/$3.35

% of workers earning below poverty wage 2016 (US = 23.9%) 23% 29%

Poverty

Household poverty rate 2016 (US = 14.0%) 10.2% 14.4%

Child poverty rate 2016 (US = 19.5%) 11.1% 17.7%

Hispanic poverty rate 2016 (US = 21.0%) 17.6% 22.1%

Share & rank of all children/Latino children in single-parent households 2015 (US = 35%/42%) (1 is best)

All: 19% (1st) All: 26% (3rd)

Latino: 33% (2nd ) Latino: 31% (1st)

Child food insecurity rate & rank 2015 (US = 17.9%) 16.4%/9th 17.6%/17th

Child homelessness rate & rank 2014 (US = 2.26%) 2.22%/30th 2.25%/31st

Cost of Living

BEA Cost of Living Level 2016 (US = 100) 97.3 93.0

Housing cost burden ranking 2016 (1 is best/lowest) 14th 18th

Home energy costs 2016 as % of 2011 costs (US = 94.2%) 139% 114%

Transport. cost as % of HH inc (metro average) 2009-2013 25.3% 27.5% State & local own-source revenue as percent of personal income & rank 2015 (1 is highest) (US = 15.3%)

16.0%/17th 14.1%/39th

Quality of Life Metrics

Commute time to work in minutes, 2016 (US = 26.6) 21.6 20.9

Homeownership rate & rank 2017 (US = 63.9%) 71.0%/9th 69.9%/16th

Kids Count overall ranking (2017) 7th 20th

Health State health system performance rank 2017 (Commonwealth Fund rank/US News rank) 15th / 15th 26th/18th

Population without health insurance 2016 (US = 8.6%) 8.8% 10.1% ALA State of the Air 2017, # of metros in top 20 for ozone pollution/# of metros top 10 for short-term PM2.5

1/2 0/0

Civic Engagement Percent of eligible adults that voted in general election 2016 & rank (US = 60.2%)

57.7%/35th 61.0%/25th

Volunteerism rank 2015 (CNCS) 1st 11th


6

Executive Summary

The goal of the Working Families

Benchmarking Project is to identify

economic and related issues

affecting Utah families and

examine them through a

comparative lens, evaluating Utah

using a peer state as a benchmark.

Many existing economic

comparison studies and rankings

look at the economy as a whole or

at its impact on specific sectors or

on employers. This project seeks to

augment those very useful

comparisons by focusing on how

the economy is experienced by

moderate- and lower-income

families. It is these families whose

children are most at risk of not

achieving their potential in school

and later in the workplace. Thus,

how they experience the economy

is of particular interest to Voices

for Utah Children.

Colorado was chosen for the

inaugural edition in 2016, and then

Minnesota in 2017. For this 3rd

edition in 2018, we are comparing

Utah to our neighbor to the north,

Idaho. Idaho is an interesting

comparison because of its

geographic proximity to Utah —

and thus similar regional identity

— as well as its cultural similarities

and the strength of its economy in

recent years.

We hope that this benchmarking

project contributes in a

constructive way to the broader

economic policy conversation

among experts, policymakers, and

the general public.

Our findings are summarized on

the next page.

7

Part I: Economic Opportunity The dynamism, flexibility, and competitiveness of a state’s economy is a major

contributor to economic opportunity, so we look at this topic through a wide range of

metrics, from business climate and entrepreneurship rankings to educational

attainment and demographic gaps. Our most significant findings are as follows:

Part II: Standard of Living Ultimately, it is by standard of living that we judge the success of our economy. We measure standard of living for average and below-average families by looking at such measures as wages, poverty, and affordability of major household expenditures such as housing, transportation, and energy. Our most significant findings are:

Utah ranks ahead of Idaho by nearly

every measure of economic

opportunity, including educational

attainment, economic productivity,

job growth, business climate

rankings, high level of economic

mobility, and low level of income

inequality.

Idaho matches Utah for low unemployment and

outpaces the Beehive State by one of the two

measures of startup activity. Idaho also has

more of its children in full-day kindergarten and

has maintained a small but steady lead in per-

pupil K-12 education investment, ranking 49th for

many years, compared to 50th for Utah, last

place in the nation. Utah also ranks last in the

gender wage gap, where Idaho is 41st.

Idaho biggest advantage over Utah in

the Standard of Living metrics is its

low cost of living. Idaho also enjoys

better air quality and shorter

commutes. In terms of civic

engagement, Idaho boasts a voter

participation rate higher than the

national average, while Utah tops the

nation for volunteerism.

Utah is the clear winner by most measures of

wages and poverty. Utah’s median hourly wage

was 5% higher than Idaho’s last year, though

that advantage shrinks by about a fifth when

adjusted for Idaho’s lower cost of living. Utah’s

slightly higher median hourly wage is consistent

with (though much smaller than) the state’s 17%

advantage over Idaho in higher education

attainment (Bachelor’s degrees and above) and

16% advantage over Idaho in worker

productivity (see Part I). By the poverty metrics,

Utah leads in nearly every category.


8

Policy Implications

Utah and Idaho share many characteristics in common. Our neighbor to the north shares our

Intermountain West setting and quality of life amenities, such as ready access to outdoor

recreation opportunities. The two states share important cultural features as the nation’s #1

and #2 states for their share of Mormons, with Utah’s LDS share estimated as high as two-

thirds and Idaho at about one-quarter of its population. Both also have growing minority

populations, most notably Latinos, who made up 14% of Utah’s population and 12.5% of

Idaho’s in 2017.

In terms of economic performance, both states have been standouts in recent years and seem

well-positioned for the years to come. Utah ranks higher by the Forbes and CNBC rankings, but

Bloomberg said about Idaho last year that it “outperforms all 49 other states with a 21st-

century economy” and the “best combination… of robust personal income, job growth, stock-

market gain and home price appreciation,” all of which Bloomberg attributed to Idaho’s

increasing integration with the global economy.1 But notwithstanding Idaho’s increasing

economic vitality, the most noteworthy findings of this report is that Utah ranks far ahead of

Idaho by key metrics of standard of living, including median household income, median hourly

wage, and poverty rates. It should therefore come as no surprise that Utah also ranks far

ahead for educational attainment and worker productivity.

The Link Between Education and Income

The link between education and income is well-established. States with higher education

levels generally have higher levels of worker productivity, wages, and incomes. In the current

comparison, Utah’s higher education levels make for a more productive workforce, which in

turn makes possible higher levels of wages and income. The lesson for Idaho seems clear –

raise education levels to raise the state’s standard of living. And the same applies to Utah,

where the Legislature has struggled to turn seemingly large dollar increases in education

funding every year into actual increases in real per-pupil education investment.

The Census Bureau reported in May 2018 that Utah remains in last place in per-pupil K-12

education investment at $6,953, which is $204 behind Idaho in 49th place (for FY 2016). While

Utah has done well for its meager investment levels, achieving impressive gains in educational

performance as measured by NAEP 4th and 8th grade math and reading scores (see Figure 23

on page 20), will we be able to continue to advance while remaining in last place?

1 Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-18/trump-friendly-idaho-doesn-t-put-america-first


9

In particular, as noted in Figure 16 on page 17, teacher pay in Utah has been on a steady

downward slide over the last decade, and we are not alone. In several states this year, low pay

and overcrowded classrooms have led teachers to an unprecedented level of political activity,

including strikes and protests at state capitals. Could Utah be next? This past winter the

Legislature sought to head off such an uprising – in the form of the Our Schools Now initiative

– by accepting hundreds of millions of dollars in property tax increases to enable a real

education funding boost. This fall Utah voters will decide on the second part of this question

by voting on an increase in the state gas tax. While these particular tax increases – property

and motor fuels rather than an income tax increase as originally proposed by Our Schools Now

-- add regressivity to Utah’s tax code, they also represent what may well be a once-in-a-

generation opportunity to bolster education finance in Utah.

Can Utah Become a High-Wage State?

For many years, economists have debated whether Utah is a low-wage state, as the Utah

Foundation discussed a decade ago in their report, “Is Utah Really a Low-Wage State?”2 Many

have argued that our seemingly low wages were explained by our younger demographic

profile and lower cost of living. While this report does not examine demographics, it seems

clear from Utah’s #27 rank in median hourly wages in Figure 40 on page 30 and the cost of

living data in Figure 53 on page 37 that, when adjusted for our low cost of living, Utah’s

median hourly wage is right at the national level. This indicates that Utah is no longer a low-

wage state (if we ever truly were), and that we have, in fact, achieved the status of a middle-

wage state.

The question now becomes, is that good enough? Should we declare, “Mission

Accomplished”? Or is Utah in a position, like Colorado and Minnesota before us, to become

over time a high-wage state and set our sights on taking the necessary steps today to achieve

that goal over the years and decades to come, even as we deal with the challenges and

opportunities presented by our ongoing demographic transformation?

The main lesson is clear from three years of Working Families Benchmarking Project reports

comparing Utah to Colorado, Minnesota, and now Idaho: Higher levels of educational

attainment translate into higher hourly wages, higher family incomes, and an overall higher

standard of living. The challenge for policymakers is to determine the right combination of

public investments and economic development policies that will enable Utah to continue our

progress and achieve not just steady job growth, but also a rising standard of living for average

and below average working families.

2 Source: http://www.utahfoundation.org/reports/is-utah-really-a-low-wage-state/


10

Part I:

Economic Opportunity

Reality Check


11

Business Utah has remained one of the top-rated states for business over the last decade.

Figure 1 – Business Climate Rankings (1 is best, 50 worst) CNBC’s America’s Top States for Business Forbe’s Best States for Business

Source: http://www.cnbc.com/americas-top-states-for-business/, https://www.forbes.com/best-states-for-

business/list/#tab:overall

8

1345

2

88

20

151416

10

13

31

26

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Utah

Idaho

1 1 1 3

28

22 2220

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2014 2015 2016 2017

Utah

Idaho

Figure 2 – Kauffman Index 2017: Startup Activity

Source: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation: www.kauffman.org/microsites/kauffman-index/rankings/state; startup density is

the number of startup firms per 1,000 firms; opportunity share is percent of new entrepreneurs not unemployed before starting

new business

Figure 3 – Hachman Index of Industry Diversity Rank 2015 UT ID

1st 35th The Hachman Index measures economic diversity by comparing the industry composition of a state to the industry composition of

the nation. Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute Analysis of Bureau of Economic Analysis data, available online at:

http://edcutah.org/news/2016/05/26/research-weekly-utah-1-economic-diversity

94.00

88.06

80.60

89.31

85.40 86.30

70.00

75.00

80.00

85.00

90.00

95.00

100.00

Startup Density 2017 Opportunity Share 2017

Utah Idaho US


12

GDP

$30,000.00

$35,000.00

$40,000.00

$45,000.00

$50,000.00

$55,000.00

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

US

UT

ID

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$50,000

$55,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

US

UT

ID

Figure 4 – Real GDP per capita (chained 2009 dollars)

Fueled by our high birth rate, Utah’s GDP growth leads the nation. However, neither state’s per capita GDP has recovered from the Great Recession, largely because labor force participation rates remain lower than they were, though Utah’s is moving toward its pre-recession level.

Source: Burea of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce


13

Figure 5 – Change in Real GDP per Capita, 2016 Compared to Pre-

Recession (2007) (“winner” bolded and highlighted) UT ID US

-$657 -$1,614 $1,451 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce

Figure 6 – GDP per Capita as Percent of US Average

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce

Figure 7 – Growth in Real GDP 2007-2016 (“winner” bolded and highlighted)

UT ID US 15.6% 5.9% 10.4%

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce

90.0%

92.2%

89.6% 89.0%87.8% 88.2%

87.1% 87.1% 87.3% 87.3%88.5%

75.6% 75.5% 75.8%74.3%

73.2%72.0%

70.8%71.6% 71.3% 71.4% 71.1%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

US

UT

ID


14

Productivity

Figure 8 – Real Per-Worker GDP

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis, in chained 2009 dollars

Figure 9 – Real Per-Worker GDP Gap As difference between UT and ID (= UT - ID ), and UT and US (= UT - US)

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis, in chained 2009 dollars

$50,000

$55,000

$60,000

$65,000

$70,000

$75,000

$80,000

$85,000

$90,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

US

UT

ID

$(1

1,6

30

)

$(1

2,0

00

)

$(1

3,0

97

)

$(1

2,8

74

)

$(1

3,5

99

)

$(1

4,3

42

)

$(1

5,3

16

)

$(1

5,1

11

)

$(1

3,3

01

)

$(1

2,6

30

)

$(1

4,2

93

)

$(1

3,7

11

)

$(1

4,4

32

)

$(1

4,2

37

)

$(1

5,5

91

)

$(1

5,6

44

)

$(1

5,6

13

)

$(1

5,7

43

)

$(1

5,2

59

)

$1

0,3

97

$8

,21

4

$4

,56

2

$7

,48

4

$7

,58

6

$7

,68

0

$7

,75

8

$7

,93

1

$9

,46

8

$1

0,1

05

$7

,27

4

$8

,05

5

$8

,44

4

$9

,23

7

$8

,55

7

$7

,92

8

$8

,37

3

$8

,53

0

$8

,96

5

$(16,000)

$(14,000)

$(12,000)

$(10,000)

$(8,000)

$(6,000)

$(4,000)

$(2,000)

$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

UT-ID gap

UT-US gap

Utah lags behind most states in productivity per worker at 39th place, but Idaho is even further behind in 49th place.


15

Employment Unemployment rates have fallen below pre-Great Recession levels nationally. In 2017 Idaho matched Utah’s low unemployment rate.

Figure 10 – Unemployment Rate

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, US: table LNU04000000 annual averages of monthly estimates; States: Employment status of the

civilian noninstitutional population, 1976 to 2017 annual averages, available online at: https://www.bls.gov/lau/staadata.txt

Figure 11 – Underemployment Rate Defined as the percentage of the civilian labor force and marginally attached workers who are

unemployed, marginally attached workers, or part-time for economic reasons

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

4.0%4.7% 5.8%

6.0%5.5% 5.1%

4.6% 4.6%

5.8%

9.3%9.6%

8.9%

8.1%7.4%

6.2%

5.3%4.9%

4.4%

2.4%3.1%

4.3%

5.4%5.0%

4.9%

4.3% 4.5%

5.7%

7.9% 9.1%8.8%

8.3%7.8%

6.6%5.7%

5.1%

3.2%3.3%

4.5%

6.1%

5.6%

5.3%

4.1%

2.9%2.6%

3.5%

7.3%8.2%

7.0%

5.8%

4.4%3.9%

3.6% 3.6%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

United State

Idaho

Utah

8.2% 8.3%

10.5%

16.2%

16.7%

15.9% 14.7%

13.8%

12.0%

10.5%

9.6%

8.5%

6.9% 6.1%

10.4%

16.5%

16.3% 16.1%

14.0%

12.7%

10.3% 8.6%

7.8%

7.2%

(Idaho)5.8%

5.0%

6.2%

12.9%

15.1%

13.3%

11.2%

9.7%

8.2%7.5% 7.5%

7.3%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

US

Idaho

Utah


16

Figure 12 – Labor Force Participation Rate, Age 16+

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics analysis of Current Population Survey, employment status of the civilian noninstitutional

population age 16 and older. US: table LNU01300000 annual average of monthly estimates; States: 1976 to 2016 annual

averages, available online at: https://www.bls.gov/lau/staadata.txt

Figure 13 – Labor Force Participation Rate by Gender,

2006-2016, Ages 20-64

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-year Estimates (table S2301); Labor Force Participation Rate ages 20-

64 by gender

72% 71.9%71.6%

71.1% 71.1%71.6% 71.8% 71.9%

70.9%

69.2%68.8%

67.8% 67.8%68.1% 68.0%

68.3%68.8%

69.4%69.4%69.9%

69.3%

68.5% 68.4%

69.3%68.8%

67.8%

66.6%

65.8%65.3%

64.9%64.5%

63.8% 63.6%63.9% 64.0% 64.0%

67.1%66.8% 66.6%

66.2% 66.0% 66.0% 66.2% 66.0% 66.0%65.4%

64.7%64.1%

63.7%63.2%

62.9% 62.7% 62.8% 62.8%62%

64%

66%

68%

70%

72%

74%

UT

ID

US

88.6% 89.2% 88.7% 88.5% 87.9% 87.7% 88.0%86.9% 87.4% 87.6% 87.6%

84.6%86.1%

87.2%

84.2%83.0% 82.9% 82.3%

83.1% 83.0%81.4%

83.3%

69.7% 70.3%71.2% 70.9% 71.1%

69.8%

70.6%

69.1%

68.8%

70.0%

69.3%69.3% 68.9%

70.9% 70.9%69.7% 69.3%

70.8%

68.4%

69.5%

68.8%

70.5%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

UT: 20-64 Male

ID: 20-64 Male

ID: 20-64 Female

UT: 20-64 Female

Labor force participation rates fell sharply due to the Great Recession, but Utah has been recovering since 2013, unlike Idaho and the nation, which have remained close to their post-recession lows.


17

Education

Figure 14 – State Current Spending per Pupil, Public Elementary

and Secondary Schools (not adjusted for inflation)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Survey of School System Finances, table SS1400A08

Figure 15 – State Education Funding Equity as a ratio of: (funding for high poverty areas) / (funding in low poverty areas);

a higher value indicates relatively more funding to high poverty areas

Source: Rutgers Graduate School of Education, Education Law Center, School Funding Fairness Interactive Data, online at

http://www.schoolfundingfairness.org/is-school-funding-fair/interactive-data

$10,724 $11,003$11,392

$11,762

$6,555 $6,500 $6,575$6,953

$6,791 $6,621 $6,923$7,157

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

2013 2014 2015 2016

US UT ID

1.51

1.62

1.52

1.22 1.24 1.231.26

1.30

1.41

0.86 1.07

0.96

0.83

1.050.99

0.89 0.90

0.99

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

UT

ID

Idaho and Utah rank 49th and 50th respectively for per-pupil investment in K-12 education. But for equity of funding, Utah ranks #1 and Idaho #23.

2015 Rank:

UT #1 ID #23


18

Figure 16 – Wage Competitiveness for Teachers Ratio of teacher compensation to that received by non-teachers with similar education



60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

UT ID

2015 Rank:

UT #47 ID #9

Figure 17 – Public School System Funding Effort, FY 2015 UT ID US

Spending per $1,000 of

personal income and

national rank $37/#36 $31/#47 $38

Source: http://www.schoolfundingfairness.org/is-school-funding-fair/interactive-data for state figures and

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/econ/g15-aspef.pdf for US.

Figure 18 – School Staffing Fairness in Pupil-to-Teacher Ratio 2015 Staffing fairness is a ratio of teachers per 100 students in: (high poverty areas) / (low poverty areas); a

higher value indicates relatively smaller classroom size in high poverty areas

UT ID

Staffing Fairness ratio 95% 108% Staffing Fairness rank 35th 14th Pupil-teacher ratio in average

district (teacher:pupil) 6.0:100 5.6:100



Teacher wage competitiveness and education funding effort have been on a downward slide in Utah in recent years.


19

Figure 19 – Preschool Support 2015 (“winner” bolded and highlighted)

UT ID US (average)

State pre-k spending $0 $0 $147,816,036

Local match required? N/A N/A 14 state programs

require local match

State Head Start spending $0 $0 $3,315,164

State spending per child enrolled $0 $0 $4,976

4 year-olds: access to state-funded

preschool rank

Tied for last

place w 7 other

states

Tied for last

place w 7 other

states

3 year-olds: access to state-funded

preschool rank

Tied for last

place with 20

other states

Tied for last

place with 20

other states

Percent/rank of all 3- and 4-year-olds

not enrolled in school (2013-2015) 58%/33rd 69%/50th 53%

Percent/rank of 3- and 4-year-olds

below 200% of poverty level not

enrolled in school (2011-2015)

66%/38th 75%/50th 60%

Source: Barnett, W. S., Friedman-Krauss, A. H., Weisenfeld, G. G., Horowitz, M., Kasmin, R., & Squires, J. H. (2017). The State of

Preschool 2016: State Preschool Yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.; percent of young

children not enrolled in school from Kids Count: DataCenter.KidsCount.org.

Utah’s recent decision (FY 2016) to invest state tax dollars for the first time in public preschool has yet to register in the national rankings, which always have a lag of a few years, leaving Utah behind most states.

Figure 20 – State-funded Preschool Enrollment Rates Percent of 3 year-olds enrolled Percent of 4 year-olds enrolled

Source: National Institute for Early Education Research, The State of Preschool 2015 report, available online at:

http://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Yearbook_2015_rev1.pdf

3% 3% 3%

4% 4% 4% 4%

5%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2015

US

UT

ID

14%17%

20%

24%

28% 28% 29% 29%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2015

US

ID

UT


20

Fig. 21 – Percent of Eligible Children Enrolled in Kindergarten

Source: Education Week, Education Counts Research Center, Early-Childhood Education Statistics, online at:

http://www.edcounts.org/createtable/step1.php?clear=1

Fig. 22 – Percent of Kindergarteners in Full-Day Programs 2013

Source: Education Week, Education Counts Research Center http://www.edcounts.org/createtable/viewtable.php

77.5%

78.6%

78.0%

78.3%

77.8% 77.9%

78.7%

78.2%78.0%

77.5%

78.2%

75.3%75.7% 76.4%

76.9% 77.7%77.6%

78.0% 77.9% 77.7%

77.8%

78.0%

77.5%

74.7%

77.1%

76.8% 76.8%76.3%

73.5% 73.3%

72.5%

74.9%

74.0%

71.0%

72.0%

73.0%

74.0%

75.0%

76.0%

77.0%

78.0%

79.0%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

UT

US

ID

24.6%

37.9%

75%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

UT ID US

Utah kindergarten enrollment matches the national level, but only 25% attend full-day K, compared to 75% nationally and 38% in Idaho.


21

Figure 23 – Average NAEP 4th + 8th Grade Math + Reading Rank

Source: U.S. Dept. of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP), nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/report.aspx

Figure 24 – 4th Graders Scoring At or Above Proficient Reading

Level by Family Income (eligible vs not eligible for free/reduced school lunch)

Source: Kids Count, online at http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data#USA/2/8/10,11,12,13,15,14,2719/char/0

24

25.25

28.75

27.5

23.5

20.75

12.25

11.75

27

17.5

22

22.5

21

23.5

21.75

18

10

15

20

25

30

2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

UT

ID

45%

48%

52% 52%

41%44% 44%

49%

37%

41%

46%48%

19%

21%

24%

27%

21% 21%24%

17% 18%

20%

21%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

2009 2011 2013 2015

US not eligible

ID not eligible

UT not eligible

UT eligible

ID eligible

US eligible

Utah school performance has been climbing steadily since 2007, passing Idaho in 2013.


22

Figure 25 - School-to-Prison Referrals, Arrests, and Racial

Fairness Indices 2013-14 (for students without disabilities)

(arrows indicate whether rates have increased or decreased since 2011-12) UT ID US

Rate of students referred to law enforcement

(as % of all students) 0.248%↓ 0.281%↓ 0.288%↓

Rate of students with school-related arrests

(as % of all students) 0.027%↓ 0.024%↓ 0.089%↓

Referral to law enforcement fairness index 2013-14: referrals to law enforcement

by race in ratio to enrolled student population racial makeup (1=totally fair, >1=more referrals

than fair, <1= fewer referrals than fair; values at bottom of graph are fairness index for 2011-2012.)

School-related arrests fairness index 2013-14: school-related arrests by race in ratio

to enrolled student population racial makeup (1=totally fair, >1=more referrals than fair, <1= fewer

referrals than fair; values at bottom of graph are fairness index for 2011-2012.)

Source: Civil Rights Data Collection, U.S. Dept of Education Office for Civil Rights http://ocrdata.ed.gov/DataAnalysisTools/

1.65

0.96

1.15

2.21

0.89

1.34

1.62

0.76 0.94

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Black White Hisp

ID UT US

2011-2012 values 1.23 2.81 1.72 .94 .76 .80 1.29 1.60 1.06

0.94

1.67 1.81

0.80

1.56

2.24

0.65

1.05

-

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Black White Hisp

ID UT US

mo

re t

ha

n f

air

le

ss t

ha

n f

air

2011-2012 values 2.42 1.87 .91 .95 .76 1.63 1.0 1.06

mo

re t

ha

n f

air

le

ss t

ha

n f

air


23

2003 2013 2013 2003

Figure 26 – Hispanic and White Makeup of Student Population

Taking and Passing AP Exams, 2003 and 2013

Source: The College Board, AP Report to the Nation 2014, available at research.collegeboard.org/programs/ap/data/nation/2014

3.6

%

3.0

%

12

.4%

7.0

%

7.3

%

18

.8%

3.7

%

2.5

%

13

.0%

6.1

%

6.0

%

16

.9%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

Utah ID US Utah ID US

Hispanic Representation

% of all exams taken % of all exams passed

89

.4%

89

.5%

64

.4%

83

.0%

83

.7%

83

.0%

89

.3%

90

.0%

67

.7%

84

.9%

86

.3%

84

.9%

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

Utah ID US Utah ID US

White Representation

% of all exams taken % of all exams passed

Figure 27 – High School Students Not in School and Not

Graduating on Time (“winner” bolded and highlighted)

UT ID US

Teens (ages 16-19) not in school and not high

school graduates (2016) 5% 4% 4%

High school students not graduating on time

(2014-15) 15% 21% 17%

Source: Kids Count, available at http://datacenter.kidscount.org, accessed 11/06/2017

2003 2003 2013 2013


24

Source: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education/higher-education

Figure 28 – Educational Attainment 2014, ages 25-64

Source: Lumina Foundation analysis of U.S. Census Bureau ACS data: http://strongernation.luminafoundation.org/report/#nation

Figure 29 – Adults Ages 25-64 with a Bachelor’s Degree or More

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, table B23006 Educational Attainment

8.2%

9.1%

11.9%

22.2%

27.1%

25.9%

20.0%

23.2%

15.8%

10.7%

10.4%

9.0%

22.0%

19.4%

20.7%

10.8%

8.8%

11.9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Utah

Idaho

US

No HS Diploma HS Graduate (including GED) Some College

Associate's Degree Bachelor's Degree Graduate or Professional Degree

29.7% 29.9%29.3%

30.0%30.4%

30.9%31.4% 31.2%

32.3%32.8%

29.4% 29.6% 29.8% 29.9% 30.1%30.6%

31.1%31.5%

32.0%

32.6%

25.8%25.4%

25.0%25.6%

26.5%26.0%

26.9%

25.6%26.4%

28.1%

24.0%

25.0%

26.0%

27.0%

28.0%

29.0%

30.0%

31.0%

32.0%

33.0%

34.0%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

UT

US

ID

US News ranks Utah second in the country for overall higher education in 2017, thanks to our low tuition and debt levels.


25

Utah and Idaho keep public university tuition relatively affordable with generous state appropriations.

Figure 31 – Average Public Four-Year In-State Public University

Tuition & Fees (in 2016 dollars)

Source: College Board, Annual Survey of Colleges, Table 5 – based on published tuition and fees, available at:

https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/cp-2016-table-5.xlsx

$5,130 $5,490

$5,800 $6,190

$6,600 $7,070

$7,630

$8,280 $8,650

$8,890 $9,150

$9,430 $9,670

$9,970

$4,641$4,913 $4,999 $5,150 $5,132

$5,554$5,985 $6,156

$6,399 $6,628 $6,780 $6,994 $7,134 $7,250

$4,231$4,489 $4,590 $4,770 $4,757

$5,198$5,520 $5,743

$5,996 $6,197 $6,330 $6,526 $6,673 $6,788

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

$11,000

US

ID

UT

Figure 30 – Educational attainment by age group, 2016 Working Age Population (ages 25-64) Millennial Population (ages 25-34)

Source: Voices for Utah Children analysis of U.S. Census Bureau ACS 1-year data by Zachary Cutshall.

41.7%

32.6%

11.9%

38.6%

28.1%

8.8%

43.5%

32.8%

10.8%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

Associates Degree

or Higher

Bachelor's Degree

or Higher

Graduate Degree

or Higher

US ID UT 43.9%

34.9%

10.6%

37.1%

26.3%

5.3%

44.2%

33.6%

8.5%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

Associates Degree

or Higher

Bachelor's Degree

or Higher

Graduate Degree

or Higher

US ID UT

The Millennial generation in Utah and Idaho has not seen the higher education gains experienced by their peers across the nation.


26

Figure 33 – Percent Changes in Total State Spending on Higher

Education and Percent Changes in Public Four-Year In-State

Tuition & Fees (2008-2016, inflation-adjusted)

Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, A Lost Decade in Higher Education Funding State Cuts Have Driven Up Tuition and

Reduced Quality, available online at: https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/funding-down-tuition-up

40.10%

-11.20%

38.20%

-18.60%

-35.00% -25.00% -15.00% -5.00% 5.00% 15.00% 25.00% 35.00% 45.00%

ID Utah

Spending

Tuition

Figure 32 – Higher Education State Appropriations per Full-time

Enrolled Student (in 2015 dollars)

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences' Integrated Postsecondary Education Data

System, online at: https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/Home/UseTheData

$7,772 $8,148

$10,866

$8,950

$6,897 $7,170

$6,271

$7,516

$8,274

$9,312 $9,730

$7,016

$7,779

$7,985 $7,534

$5,955

$4,975 $4,716

$5,284 $5,689

$6,322

$6,790

$9,048

$7,338

$5,956 $5,682

$4,815 $4,667 $4,637 $4,757 $5,101

$6,711

$7,181

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

$11,000

$12,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Utah

Idaho

US

UT 2016 rank: 5th

ID 2016 rank: 18th


27

Equity

Figure 34 – GINI Index (2006-2016) Note: higher values indicate greater inequality

Source: Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) GINI Index of Income Inequality 1-year estimates, table B19083, 2006-

2016 - UT, ID , & U.S. (Source: American Community Survey, http://factfinder.census.gov)

0.464 0.467 0.469 0.469 0.4690.475 0.476

0.481 0.480 0.482 0.482

0.421

0.436

0.419 0.421

0.433 0.432 0.4300.438

0.454 0.452 0.450

0.410 0.409 0.411 0.4140.419

0.425 0.424 0.426 0.428 0.425 0.426

0.400

0.410

0.420

0.430

0.440

0.450

0.460

0.470

0.480

0.490

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

US

Idaho

Utah

Figure 35 – Intergenerational Upward Mobility Rankings (higher expected income percentile rank for a person whose parents were at the 25th income percentile)

UT ID Among the 200 largest commuting zones (urban + rural) in the US

#1 – Provo, UT #46 – Boise, ID

Among 381 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (urban only)

#3 – Logan, UT-ID #30 – Idaho Falls, ID

#16 – Provo-Orem, UT #59 – Coeur d’Alene, ID

#35 – Ogden-Clearfield,

UT

#121- Pocatello, ID

#41 – Saint George, UT #147 – Boise, ID

#43 – Salt Lake City, UT

Average MSA rank 28th 89th Source: Chetty, Raj, et al. "Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of intergenerational mobility in the United

States." The Quarterly Journal of Economics 129.4 (2014): 1553-1623. Data tables online at: http://www.equality-of-

opportunity.org/data/

Utah ranks at or near the top of the national scale, ahead of the nation and Idaho for income equity and intergenerational social mobility.


28

Gender

A 2015 analysis by Voices for Utah Children found the disparity between men’s and

women’s wages in Utah to be much larger than the same disparity at both national

and regional levels. The research also found that Utah’s gap is so much larger than the

nation’s because of how women’s qualification and characteristics – such as

educational disparities – put them at a much larger disadvantage in Utah.

Figure 36 – Status of Women Indices, 2016 (“winner” bolded and highlighted)

Ranking: 1 is best, 50 worst UT ID Grades: A is best, F worst Rank Grade Rank Grade

Employment & Earnings 44 D 49 F Political Participation 50 F 40 D- Poverty & Opportunity 30 D+ 45 D- Health & Well-being 4 B 14 C+ Work & Family 50 F 46 D- Source: Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR), Status of Women in the States dataset, available online at:

https://statusofwomendata.org/explore-the-data/

Figure 37 – Gender Pay Gap, 2016

Ranking: 1 is best, 50 worst UT UT rank ID ID rank

Gender Wage Ratio (Female/Male), 2015 70% 50 75.6% 41 Gender Wage Ratio for millennials

(ages 16-34), 2013-15 78.8% 49 81.5% 48

Projected Year to Close Gender Pay Gap

(at current rate of progress since 1959) 2106 48 2083 36

Source: Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR), Status of Women in the States dataset, available online at:

https://statusofwomendata.org/explore-the-data/

Idaho and Utah rank toward the back of the pack nationally for gender equity.


29

Part II:

Standard of Living

Reality Check


30

Income While Utah is well ahead of the nation for household income, ranking #11 in 2016, Idaho lags behind at #37. Both states enjoy a low cost of living relative to the nation.

Figure 38 – Real Median Household Income (2016$)

Source: Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) Median Household Income table B19013, factfinder.census.gov

Figure 39 – Cost-of-Living-Adjusted Real Median Household Income

Source: Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) table B19013; adjusted by BEA Regional Price Parities, all items (available

online: American Community Survey, http://factfinder.census.gov & Bureau of Economic Analysis, http://bea.gov)

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$50,000

$55,000

$60,000

$65,000

$70,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

$64,277

$62,278 $61,418

$60,557 $60,652

$62,250 $62,749

$64,858

$57,161

$55,498$54,406

$53,207 $53,031 $53,166$53,719

$55,755

$49,975

$47,390 $46,513 $46,453

$48,703

$50,196 $51,134

$51,686

$45,000

$50,000

$55,000

$60,000

$65,000

$70,000

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

UT

US

ID


31

Wages

Figure 40 - Real Median Hourly Wage (in 2017 dollars)

Source: Economic Policy Institute analysis of Current Population Survey data.

$13.00

$14.00

$15.00

$16.00

$17.00

$18.00

$19.00

19

79

19

81

19

83

19

85

19

87

19

89

19

91

19

93

19

95

19

97

19

99

20

01

20

03

20

05

20

07

20

09

20

11

20

13

20

15

20

17

UNITED STATES

Utah

Idaho

$17.80 $17.90

$18.25 $18.00

$17.50 $17.41 $17.53 $17.48

$17.70

$18.24 $18.28

$17.18

$17.05

$17.97

$17.33

$16.46

$16.59

$16.83 $16.97

$17.08

$17.71 $17.61

$16.86

$16.34 $16.18 $16.17 $16.23

$16.05

$15.74 $15.59

$16.53

$16.26

$16.74

$15.00

$15.50

$16.00

$16.50

$17.00

$17.50

$18.00

$18.50

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

20

15

20

16

20

17

US

UT

ID

Both Utah and Idaho rank in the bottom half of states for median hourly wage.

In 2017, Idaho ranked #43 and Utah #27 for median hourly wage.


32

Figure 41 – Share of Workers Earning Below Poverty Wage (poverty wage is $11.81 in 2016 CPI-U-RS adjusted dollars)

Source: EPI analysis of CPS-ORG using poverty threshold of family of four ($24,563 in 2016) divided by (52weeks*40hours/week),

see https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.html

Figure 42 – Minimum Wage 2017 and 10th Percentile Wage 2017 ( “winner” bolded and shaded)

US UT ID

Minimum wage $7.25 $7.25 $7.25

Minimum wage inflation

indexing No No No

Hourly wage/rank at the 10th

percentile in 2016 $9.90 $9.92/#21 $9.14/#42

Sources: Minimum wage data from US Department of Labor, available online at https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm.

10th percentile wages from EPI analysis of Census Bureau CPS data.

26.6%

29.4%

30.3%

31.7%31.0%

33.7%

31.1% 31.1%31.9%

28.4%

29.0%

23.3%

26.5%

26.0%

25.5%

26.0%

28.0% 28.1%27.5%

27.4%

25.9% 23.9%

28.1%

26.0%

26.6%

24.6%

26.5%

29.8%

29.2%

27.7%

27.0%

26.2%

23.0%22.0%

24.0%

26.0%

28.0%

30.0%

32.0%

34.0%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

ID

U.S.

UT

Compared to Utah and the nation, many more Idahoans earn a poverty-level wage. Idaho ranks #42 in the nation for hourly wages for low-skilled workers (10th percentile of hourly wages); Utah ranks #21.


33

Poverty

Figure 43 – Poverty Rates 2007-2016

Source: Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) Poverty Rates, 2007-2016 - UT, ID , & U.S. (Source: American

Figure 44 – White & Hispanic Poverty Rates 2016

Source: Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) Poverty Rates 2016 - UT, ID , & U.S. (Source: American Community

Survey, http://factfinder.census.gov; Kids Count Data Center datacenter.kidscount.org)

While Utah enjoys low poverty rates, Idaho is above the national average.

12.1%

12.6%

14.3%

15.7%

16.5%

15.9%

15.6%

14.8%

15.1%

14.4%

13.0%

13.3% 14.3%

15.3%

15.9% 15.9%

15.8%15.5%

14.7%

14.00%

9.7%9.5%

11.5%

13.2%13.5%

12.8% 12.7%

11.7%11.3%

10.2%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

11.0%

12.0%

13.0%

14.0%

15.0%

16.0%

17.0%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Idaho

US

Utah

11.6%

21.0%

12%

28%

8.9%

17.6%

8%

20%

13.6%

22.1%

15%

27%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

White Poverty Rate Hispanic Poverty Rate White Child Poverty Rate Hispanic Child Poverty Rate

US UT ID


34

Figure 45 – Child Poverty Rates 2007-2016

Source: Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) Poverty Rates, 2007-2016 - UT, ID , & U.S. (Source: Kids Count

Data Center datacenter.kidscount.org)

18.0% 18.2%

20.0%

21.6%22.2%

22.6%22.2%

21.7%

20.7%

19.50%

15.9% 15.8%

18.1%

19.00%

20.4%20.7%

19.1%18.8%

17.8% 17.70%

11.0%10.5%

12.2%

15.7% 15.6%15.1%

14.8%

13.3%12.9%

11.10%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

22.0%

24.0%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

US

ID

UT

Figure 46 – Family Poverty Rates 2016

Source: Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) Poverty Rates, 2007-2016 - UT, ID , & U.S. (Source: Kids Count Data

Center datacenter.kidscount.org)

16%

7%

32%

16%

8%

36%

10%

5%

27%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

All Families Married Couples Single Parents

US ID UT


35

Figure 47 – Percent of Children Living in Single-Parent Homes by

Hispanic/Non-Hispanic

Source: Kidscount.org

Figure 48 – Percent of Children Living in Single-Parent Homes

Source: Kidscount.org

36%37% 37%

38%

42%

40%41%

42% 42% 42% 42% 42%

30% 30%31% 31%

33%

30%

36% 36%

34% 34%33%

34%

27%29% 29%

33%

39%

31% 31%

23% 23% 23% 23%25%

24% 24%25% 25% 25% 25%

24%

21%20% 20%

22%21% 21%

22%

24% 24%23% 23%

21%

15% 15% 15% 15% 15%16%

17%16%

15% 15% 15%14%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

US-Hispanic

UT-Hispanic

ID-Hispanic

US-Non Hispanic

ID-Non Hispanic

UT- Non Hispanic

22%23%

24%25%

26%27%

26% 26%25%

26%

18% 18% 18%19%

21%20%

19% 19% 19% 19%

32% 32%

34% 34%35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

ID

UT

US


36

Figure 49 – Homelessness Rate (as % of total population)

Source: Population data: U.S. Census Bureau table PEPANNRES (2017 population estimates); Total homeless persons data: U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development, Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs, Homeless Populations and

Subpopulations, available online from: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/coc/coc-homeless-populations-and-

subpopulations-reports/

Figure 50 – Child Homelessness Rate (ages 3-17, enrolled students)

Source: Population data: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-year estimates, Children ages 3-17 in households

and enrolled in school (table S0901); Child homelessness data: National Center for Homeless Education, Federal Data Summary

for McKinney-Vento Education for Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) Program, available online at:

http://nche.ed.gov/ibt/sc_data.php

0.20%0.19% 0.18% 0.18% 0.17% 0.17%

0.12%0.11%

0.10% 0.10%0.09% 0.09%

0.12%0.11%

0.13%0.12%

0.13%0.12%

0.00%

0.05%

0.10%

0.15%

0.20%

0.25%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

US UT ID

1.44%

1.57% 1.53%

1.90% 2.02%2.18%

2.33%2.26% 2.34%

1.94%

2.34%2.53%

3.67%

2.13%2.36%

2.21%

2.22% 2.21%

0.73%

0.92%

1.46%

1.51%1.94% 1.95%

2.06%2.25%

2.27%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

3.50%

4.00%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

US

UT

ID

Utah has a lower homelessness rate than Idaho and the nation, but all three share a similar child homelessness rate.


37

Figure 52 – Supplemental Poverty Measure (2013-2015) UT ID US

All persons 9.4% 10.0% 15.0% Source: Voices for Utah Children Analysis of CPS data by Anastasia Baranowska. For more information on the SPM see:

https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/supplemental-poverty-measure.html

The Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) counts poverty more accurately by taking into account local cost of living, household expenses such as taxes, childcare, and medical bills, and government safety net programs such as Social Security/SSI, SNAP/food stamps, TANF, unemployment insurance benefits, federal tax credits like the EITC, and government subsidies for housing and school lunches.

Figure 51 – Percent of Children Facing Food Insecurity 2015 UT ID US

16.4% 17.6% 17.9%

Source: Feeding America, available online at: http://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/our-research/map-the-meal-

gap/2015/2015-mapthemealgap-exec-summary.pdf


38

Cost of Living

Figure 53 – Cost of Living: Regional Price Parities (all items, where 100 = price index equal to national level)

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Price Parities by state, all items, available online at:

https://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1&acrdn=8#reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

96.8

97.8

96.997.2 97.1

97.797.2 97

95.294.8

93.5 93.3 93.4 93.293.6 93.4

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

US

UT

ID

Idaho enjoys a lower cost of living than Utah; both are below the national average.

Figure 54 – Unaffordable Rent Burden Rate (% of renting households paying more than 30% of household income to gross rent)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-year estimates (table DP04)

53.0%53.4%

52.0%51.5% 51.8%

50.6%

56.0%

50.9%51.6%

49.9%

47.7%46.8% 47.1%

45.9%48.8%

51.2%

49.6%

47.0%46.5%

44.4%45.0%

42.0%

44.0%

46.0%

48.0%

50.0%

52.0%

54.0%

56.0%

58.0%

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

US

ID

UT


39

Utah enjoys mostly lower transportation costs than Idaho.

Figure 55 – Transportation Expense as Percent of Income by

Metropolitan Planning Organization (typical household)

Source: Center for Neighborhood Technology, Housing and Transportation Affordability Index, htaindex.cnt.org

Figure 56 – Annual Household Transportation Costs by

Metropolitan Planning Organization (typical household)

28%

27%

24%

22%

27%

29%

27%

27%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Cache MPO

Dixie MPO

Mountainland Association of Governments (Orem)

Wasatch Front Regional Council (Salt Lake City)

Kootenai

Bannock Transportation Organization

Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho

Bonnevill MPO

Utah

Idaho

$14,587

$14,216

$14,929

$12,438

$13,512

$13,347

$12,500

$13,702

$- $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000

Cache MPO

Dixie MPO

Mountainland Association of Governments (Orem)

Wasatch Front Regional Council (Salt Lake City)

Kootenai

Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho

Bannock Transportation Association

Bonnevile MPO

Utah

Idaho


40

Taxes

Figure 57 – Home Energy Affordability Gap Index (2011 = 100, values below 100 indicate improved affordability)

Source: Fisher, Sheehan & Colton, Home Energy Affordability Gap 2nd series data, available online at:

http://www.homeenergyaffordabilitygap.com/03a_affordabilityData.html

100 99.9 101.2

116.3106.6

94.2100

115.1121.3

146.6

164.4

139

100 100.3 100.7

175

139.1

113.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

US UT ID

Worsened

affordability

since 2011

Improved

affordability

since 2011

Figure 58 – State and Local Own-Source Revenue, 2015 (“winner” bolded and highlighted) Rankings: 1 is best, 50 worst UT ID US (average)

Total own source revenue ($ million) $17,760 $8,549 $44,362

Own source revenue as percent of

personal income 16.0% 14.1% 15.3%

Rank of own source revenue as percent

of personal income (1 is highest) 17th 39th

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Bureau of Economic Analysis, from Federation of Tax Administrators, available online at

https://www.taxadmin.org/2014-state-and-local-revenue-as-a-percentage-of-personal-income. Own Source Revenue is all

revenue collected by state and local government from its own sources (excluding federal transfers).


41

Quality of Life

Figure 59 – Homeownership Rates (% of households that own)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, CPS/HVS Housing Vacancies and Homeownership dataset, state data available at:

https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/files/annual17/ann17t_15.xlsx (rates by state table 15); national data available at: all data

73.5%

74.9%

76.2%

74.1%72.5%

71.4% 71.1% 70.9%

70.9%

69.9%

71.3% 71.0%

75.1%

74.5%75.0%

75.5%

72.4%

72.4%73.0%

71.5%

69.6%

70.0%

70.5%69.9%

68.8%68.1% 67.8%

67.4%66.9%

66.1%65.4% 65.1%

64.5%63.7% 63.4%

63.9%

62.0%

64.0%

66.0%

68.0%

70.0%

72.0%

74.0%

76.0%

78.0%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

UT

ID

US

Figure 60 – Mean Travel Time to Work (in minutes)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 1-year estimates (table S0802)

25.1 25.025.3

25.525.1

25.325.5

25.7 25.826.0

26.426.6

20.520.8

21.4 21.321.0

21.221.6

22.0

21.221.6

21.321.6

19.820.1

20.520.2

19.8

20.4

19.7

20.2 20.120.3

20.520.9

19.0

20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

24.0

25.0

26.0

27.0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

US

UT

ID

Compared to the nation, Utah and Idaho have higher homeownership rates and shorter commutes.


42

Utah could further improve its already-strong child well-being rankings by focusing on education and health policy.

Figure 61 – Overall Child Well-being Rankings 2018 (“winner” bolded and highlighted) Ranking: 1 is best, 50 worst UT ID

Overall 6th 21st

Economic 7th 12th

Education 12th 40th

Health 19th 26th

Family and Community 1st 14th Source: Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count Databook 2018, available online at http://www.aecf.org/resources/2018-kids-

count-data-book/


43

Health

Figure 62 – Selected Health Care Performance Rankings, 2017 (“winner” bolded and highlighted) Ranking: 1 is best, 50 worst UT Rank ID Rank

Overall Ranking 10th 18th Infant Mortality Rate 12th 9th Hospital Readmissions 3rd 2nd Nursing Home Citations 7th 15th Age-adjusted Mortality Rate 17th 26th Obesity Rate 5th 14th Suicide Rate 42nd 43rd Self-reported Mental Health 23rd 17th Child Wellness Visits 29th 45th Source: McKinsey & Company’s Leading States Index, via U.S. News & World Report Best States, available online at:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states

Figure 63 – Real Per Capita Personal Healthcare Spending as

Percent of Real Per Capita GDP (by state of residence)

Source: Healthcare spending data from U.S. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, table 11, available online

at:https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-

Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsStateHealthAccountsResidence.html, converted to chained 2009

dollars using annual averages of series SUUR0000SAM c-cpi-u for medical care (US city average); per capita state GDP from

Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce

13.4%14.5%

16.4%

17.9%19.0%

20.6%21.4%

22.8%

12.2%13.3%

14.8%15.5%

16.3%17.2%

17.9%18.9%

9.9%

11.2%12.3%

12.8%13.5%

14.6%15.1%

16.1%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

20.0%

22.0%

24.0%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

ID

US

UT

Utah leads Idaho by most measures of health care quality and ranks in the top ten nationally.


44

Figure 64 – Population without Health Insurance 2016

Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 1-year estimates, Health Insurance Coverage Status for Total Civilian Noninstitutionalized

Population (table S2701) https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-260.html

Figure 65 – Population with Health Insurance by Gender and

Race/Ethnicity, 2013-2015 (ages 18-64)

Source: https://statusofwomendata.org/explore-the-data/download-the-data/

15.1%15.5%

15.1%

14.8%14.5%

11.7%

9.4%

8.6%

14.6%

15.3%

15.3%

14.5%14.0% 12.5%

10.5%

8.8%

17.4% 17.7%

16.5%16.2% 16.2%

13.6%

11.0%

10.1%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

18.0%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

80

.7%

58

.3%

N/A

83

.4%

61

.3% 7

8.5

%

78

.2%

87

.2%

54

.1%

80

.2%

81

.7%

66

.8% 81

.1%

82

.6%

86

.6%

63

.3% 7

8.5

%

82

.0%

67

.4% 80

.7%

81

.3%

0.0%10.0%

20.0%30.0%

40.0%50.0%

60.0%70.0%

80.0%90.0%

100.0%

ID Women UT Women US Women

78

.6%

50

.4%

78

.6%

82

.2%

58

.3% 7

1.7

%

75

.1%

84

.5%

52

.4%

69

.8%

82

.4%

58

.8% 7

8.9

%

79

.7%

83

.5%

55

.2% 6

9.8

%

80

.0%

59

.8% 75

.4%

76

.6%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

ID Men UT Men US Men

Idaho ranks 11th worst in the nation for its high uninsured rate, while Utah is 18th worst. Neither state has expanded Medicaid.


45

Figure 66 – Percent of Children without Health Insurance

Source: U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 1-year estimates (table S2701). Children include

noninstitutionalized persons under the age of 18.

Figure 67 – Percent of White and Hispanic Children without

Health Insurance

Source: National Kids Count, available online at http://datacenter.kidscount.org/rawdata.axd?ind=107&loc=1, accessed

04/05/2018

10.3%

10.9% 11.1%

10.1%9.5% 9.4%

7.2%

5.8%

11.2%

10.5%

9.1%8.5%

8.9%

7.8%

5.8%

4.7%

8.6%8.0%

7.5%7.2% 7.1%

6.0%

4.8% 4.5%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

UT

ID

US

34%

26%25%

27%26%

22%23%

17%

12%

30%

21%

16% 16%

13% 13%12%

9%9%

19%

16%14%

13%12% 12% 10%

8% 7%

10% 9% 9%7% 8%

7%8% 7%

8%

7%7%

7% 6% 5%4%7%

6% 6%5% 5% 5% 5%

4%3%2%

6%

10%

14%

18%

22%

26%

30%

34%

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

UT-Hispanic

ID-Hispanic

US-Hispanic

ID-White

UT-White

US-White

In 2015 Utah had the highest uninsured rate for Latino children of any state. In 2016, this ranking dropped to fourth highest.


46

Figure 68 – Selected County Air Quality Report Card (Scale A–F)

UT Ozone Particle

Pollution ID Ozone

Particle

Pollution Box Elder D D Anoka C B

Cache C F Becker A B

Carbon C Carlton B

Davis F F Crow Wing A B

Duchesne F Goodhue A

Garfield C Hennepin A B

Salt Lake F F Lake A B

San Juan B Lyon C B

Tooele D Olmstead A B

Uintah F Scott B A

Utah F F St. Louis A B

Washington C A Stearns A B

Weber F F Washington A B

Wright B A

Source: American Lung Association, State of the Air 2017 report, available online at: http://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-

air/sota/city-rankings/states


47

Figure 70 – Healthcare System (“winner” bolded and highlighted)

UT ID US

State Adoption of 12-

Month Continuous

Eligibility for Children’s

Medicaid and CHIP

Medicaid:

No

CHIP:

Yes

Medicaid:

Yes

CHIP:

Yes

Medicaid:

Yes in 24

States

CHIP:

Yes in 26

States

Medicaid/CHIP child

participation

rate, 2015 82.9% 93.3% 93.1%

Medicaid/CHIP parent

participation

rate, 2015 68.1% 67% 80.2%

Average annual growth in

Medicaid Spending

2007-2010

7.3%

2010-2014

5.1%

2007-2010

8%

2010-2014

3.9%

2007-2010

6.8%

2010-2014

5.2% Medicaid Income Eligibility

Limits for parents (in a

family of 3) as a Percent of

the Federal Poverty Level

60% 26% 138%

Medicaid and Income

Eligibility Limits for

Pregnant Women as a

Percent of the Federal

Poverty Level

144% 138% 200%

Lawfully residing

immigrant children

covered without a 5-year

wait (ICHIA Option), by

Medicaid/CHIP

Yes No Yes, in 33 States

Lawfully residing

immigrant pregnant

women covered without a

5-year wait (ICHIA Option),

by Medicaid/CHIP

No No Yes, in 25 States

Presumptive Eligibility in

Medicaid and CHIP for

children (Medicaid or

CHIP) and pregnant

women

Children Pregnant

Women Children

Pregnant

Women Children

Pregnant

Women

No Yes Yes Yes Yes in 31

States

Yes in 30

States

Source: https://www.kff.org/state-category/medicaid-chip/

Both Utah and Idaho have stricter eligibility requirements for public health insurance programs than most states and lower participation.


48

Figure 71 – Medicaid and CHIP Income Eligibility Limits for

Children as a Percent of the Federal Poverty Level

Source: https://www.kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/medicaid-and-chip-income-eligibility-limits-for-children-as-a-percent-of-

the-federal-poverty-level/

Figure 72 – Health Measures (“winner” bolded and highlighted) UT ID US Total White Hisp Total White Hisp Total White Hisp

Teen Birth Rate per 1,000

Women, by

Race/Ethnicity, 2015

17.6 13.2 38.6 22.5 18.9 39.2 22.3 16 34.9

Infant Mortality Rate by

Race/Ethnicity, 2011-

2013

5.2 4.8 5.1 5.6 5 6.7 6.0 5.1 5.0

Percent of Adults who

Smoke by Race/Ethnicity,

2016

8.8% 8.1% 9.6% 14.5% 14.8% NSD 16.4% 17.4% 12.4%

Percent of children (age

19-35) months who are

immunized, 2015 68.1% 71.6% 72.2%

Total White Other Total White Other Total White Other

Heart Disease Deaths per

100,000 Population by


150 151.3 105.6 160 161.8 86.9 165.5 154.5 NA

Diabetes Deaths per

100,000 Population by


24.6 24 36.5 19.8 19.6 NSD 21.0 19.3 18.3

Suicide Rate per 100,000

Individuals, 2015 22.4 22.2 13.3

Percent of Children with

Oral Health Problems,

2016 13.5% 15.4% 13.4%

Source: https://www.kff.org/state-category/health-status/, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/default.htm

* NSD: Not Sufficient Data. Data unreliable due to small sample size

* NA: Total not available due to suppression constraints


49

Figure 73 – Prescription Opioid Overdose Deaths and Death Rate

per 100,000 Population (Age-Adjusted)

Source: https://www.kff.org/state-category/health-status/

Figure 74 – Obesity (BMI ≥ 30.0) Rate Ages 18 and Over

Source: https://nccd.cdc.gov/dnpao_dtm/rdPage.aspx?rdReport=DNPAO_DTM.ExploreByLocation&rdRequestForwarding=Form

Figure 75 – Percentage of Adults Who Reported No Physical

Activity in the Last Month Outside of Work

Source: https://nccd.cdc.gov/dnpao_dtm/rdPage.aspx?rdReport=DNPAO_DTM.ExploreByLocation&rdRequestForwarding=Form

66.6 6.7

8.6

10.7 10.9

12.8 12.9 13.312.2

13.4

11.5

13.7

15.4 15.216

15.114.1

1.4 1.5 1.9 2.6 2.9

3.4 3.74.6 4.8 4.8 5 5.4 5.4 5.1 5.1

5.97

10.2

1.6 1.83.4 3

3.8

3.1 3

4.43.8 4.2 4

4.6 4.73.6 4.1 4.1

4.85.6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

UT

US

ID

27.427.7

28.3

28.9 28.9

29.6

27 26.8

29.6

28.928.6

27.4

24.4 24.3 24.1

25.7

24.5

25.4

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

US

ID

UT

25.4

23.3

26.3

23.7

25.9

24.2

21.4

20.3

23.7

18.7

21.2

20.2

18.9

16.5

20.6

16.8

20.3

15.715

17

19

21

23

25

27

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

US

ID

UT


50

Civic

Engagement

Figure 76 – General Election Voter Turnout (as % of eligible adult

population)

Source: Electproject.org, Voter Turnout Data: http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-data

55%

61%

62%

59%

60%

55%

60%

57%56%

58%59%

65% 65%

61% 61%

48%

50%

52%

54%

56%

58%

60%

62%

64%

66%

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016

US UT ID State Ranking for

Voter Turnout (1 is highest rank)

UT ID

2000 26th 14th

2004 31st 20th

2008 43rd 24th

2012 33rd 21st

2016 35th 25th

Utah leads the nation with our strong culture of volunteerism. Idaho ranks 11th for volunteer hours per capita and has higher levels of voter turnout.

Figure 77 – Volunteer Hours per Capita

Source: Corporation for National & Community Service, Volunteering and Civic Life in America Dataset (2015), available online at:

https://data.nationalservice.gov/Volunteering-and-Civic-Engagement/Volunteering-and-Civic-Life-in-America/spx3-tt2b

94.0

85.0

77.8

87.6

80.276.6 83.3

100.1

84.0

70.3

81.4

74.9

91.7

75.6

53.1

80.1

61.0

54.756.8

53.350.8 49.9

55.8 58.4

48.651.6

41.637.5

36.8 37.6 37.9 36.3 35.3 34.8 34.2 34.2 33.9 32.7 32.4 31.2 32.1 31.0

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

UT

ID

US

Overall volunteer rank 2015:

UT: 1st ID : 11th


51

Figure 78 – Percent of Population Attending a Public Meeting

Source: Corporation for National & Community Service, Volunteering and Civic Life in America Dataset (2015), available online

at: https://data.nationalservice.gov/Volunteering-and-Civic-Engagement/Volunteering-and-Civic-Life-in-America/spx3-tt2b

Figure 79 – Distribution of Community Service Provided (by receiving organization type)

Source: Corporation for National & Community Service, Volunteering and Civic Life in America Dataset (2015), available online

at: https://data.nationalservice.gov/Volunteering-and-Civic-Engagement/Volunteering-and-Civic-Life-in-America/spx3-tt2b

16.5%

13.4%

17.9%

16.6%

13.4% 13.6%

18.9%

15.4%14.8%

11.0%

13%

10%

15%

18%

12%

15%

13%

10% 10%8%

9.0%8.3%

9.6% 9.9%

9.2% 9.0% 9.0%8.3% 8.1% 8.2%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Percent of Population Attending a Public Meeting

UT

ID

US

4.8%

8.7%

5.2%

15.2%

21.9%

26.0%

2.9%

3.6%

7.3%

1.7%

4.1%

8.5%

65.4%

43.2%

34.1%

6.8%

10.4%

15.0%

1.1%

4.3%

4.0%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

UT

ID

US

Civic, political, professional or international Educational or youth service

Hospital or other health Other

Religious Social or community service

Sport, hobby, cultural or arts


52

Voices for Utah Children

747 E. South Temple

Suite 100

Salt Lake City, UT 84102

(801) 364-1182

www.utahchildren.org

Reality Check Working Families

Benchmarking Project

Documents

2018 edition Utah vs. Idaho · This report is published as part of the State of Working America series, which is available online at . ... Kauffman Index 2016 startup activity indicators: