Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Election Brief
September 8, 2020
Table of Contents
2We Are Utah
3Issue Brief
Economic Insights: COVID-19 and the Utah Economy
7Issue Brief
Utah's Housing Shortage: Rising Prices and COVID-19
9Issue Brief
Education Funding: Amending the Utah Constitution
12Informed Decisions 2020 Calendar
September 2020
Dear Utah Voter,
We face significant challenges in 2020 – a global pandemic, an economic recession, racial and ethnic
strife, and, for many, a season of discontent. For all of these reasons and more, the 2020 election is
among the most important in a generation.
This year, Utah voters will choose a president, four members of Congress, a governor, a host of other
state and local officials, and vote on seven constitutional amendments. Our vote is our voice, and it’s
critical our voices are heard this election year.
In this INFORMED DECISIONS™ election brief, we share insights in three areas of critical concern to
Utahns: education funding, housing affordability, and the impact of COVID-19 on Utah’s economy. We
will also host forums and candidate discussions as a companion to this research.
Together, the Hinckley Institute and Gardner Institute, combine our expertise and energies to
analyze, convene, and ultimately, help Utahns make informed decisions. Thanks for your interest.
Sincerely,
Natalie GochnourAssociate Dean, David Eccles School of BusinessDirector, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
Jason P. PerryVice President of Government RelationsDirector, Hinckley Institute of Politics
12Informed Decisions 2020 Calendar
I n f o r m e d D e c i s i o n s 2 0 2 0 1
Utah surpassed 3.2 million residents in 2019 and continues to be among the most rapidly growing states in the nation. Between 2018 and 2019, Utah was the 4th fastest growing state, ranking behind intermountain neighbors Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona. For the entire decade, Utah has had the most rapidly growing population. Since 2010, the state has added approximately 456,000 residents. Over 72% of this growth was concentrated along the Wasatch Front (Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and Weber counties).
Statewide, the population is projected to increase to 5.8 million by 2065. Utah County is projected to have the largest numeric increase to population, resulting in a population of 1.6 million by 2065. This will result in very similarly sized populations in both Salt Lake and Utah counties by 2065. Counties neighboring the Wasatch Front (Wasatch, Juab, Morgan, and Tooele) are also projected to see significant population growth over the next 50 years.
While natural increase (births minus deaths) was the dominant contributor to population growth between 2010 and 2019, net migration was consistently positive and is responsible for a third of the state’s population growth since 2010. Dynamics contributing to population change include a relatively strong job market, a declining total fertility rate since the Great Recession, younger people postponing the formation of new households and having children, and an aging population. In 2015, 1 in 10 Utahns was over the age of 65. By 2065, this share will double to one in five.
Migration also adds to a diversifying population in the state. In the past, foreign-born newcomers to Utah came largely from Latin America. Today, populations from Asia are the largest share of foreign-born entrants to the state. The minority populations (anyone identifying as anything other than non-Hispanic white) in the state contributed about 40% of Utah’s population growth since 2010.
We are Utah
Home to
3,220,262 people
Fastest
growing state since 2010
Fourth fastest growing state,
2018 and 2019
Fourth highest fertility rate at 2.0265
Still Youngest
state in the nation (median age 31.3 years)
Still Largest
household size in the nation (3.12)
30th most populated
state
Sources: Compiled by the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute based on data from the Utah Population Committee, Census Bureau, and National Center for Health Statistics.
I n f o r m e d D e c i s i o n s 2 0 2 02 I n f o r m e d D e c i s i o n s 2 0 2 0 3
Nearly every facet of Utahns’ economic life, like that of others around the globe, has been upended and altered by the COVID-19 pandemic. Utahns feel the sting of lost jobs and income, insecurity about their economic future, and uncertainty about potential long-term changes impacting the economy. It begs the question, what do voters and candidates need to know to make informed decisions this election year?
Pandemic expert and historian John Barry, author of The Great Influenza, said the most important lesson from the 1918 flu pandemic is to “tell the truth.”1 The truth is Utahns will continue to face significant uncertainty about the spread and economic impact of the COVID-19 virus for the remainder of this year and in 2021.
In the face of this uncertainty, voters and candidates will benefit from understanding four economic insights about COVID-19 and the Utah economy.
Insight #1: The economic impact has been sudden, severe, and uneven. The worst is likely over.
When a 5.7 magnitude earthquake rocked the Salt Lake Valley on March 18, 2020, the reality of the COVID-19 recession was just beginning to take hold. New weekly unemployment insurance claims, which averaged 1,131 in 2019, tallied an alarming 19,591 the week of March 21, 2020, and then commenced with seven consecutive weeks of more than 10,000 new weekly claims.2 By the week of May 2, 2020, Utah reached a peak of 126,192 continuing weekly claims, orders of magnitude higher than the 8,856 average of continuing claims in 2019.3 (Figures 1 and 2)
This sudden and severe impact can be seen visually in the alarming rise in Utah unemployment rates that peaked in April 2020 at 10.4%, and the gut-wrenching contraction in jobs, which on a year-over basis tallied -7.3% in April 2020. Utah’s unemployment rate and job contraction have moderated since then at 4.5% and -1.8%, respectively, in July. (Figures 3 and 4)
The job contraction has also been uneven, affecting industries differently. Utah’s leisure and hospitality industry has, by far, suffered the greatest contraction. Year-over job change in July 2020 tallied -19.0%, marking the elimination of over 32,000 hotel, restaurant, and other tourism-related jobs. Utah’s natural resources industry also experienced significant job declines at -11.5%. (Figure 5)
In addition to an uneven effect on industries, there has been an uneven effect on different populations, with Hispanic women, immigrants, young adults and those with less education
Economic Insights: COVID-19 and the Utah EconomyBy Natalie Gochnour, Director, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
Figure 1: Utah New Weekly Unemployment ClaimsMarch 21, 2020 – August 29, 2020
Figure 2: Utah Continued Weekly Unemployment ClaimsMarch 21, 2020 – August 29, 2020
Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services
Continued Claims 2019 Average
21 28
March April May June July August
4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 290
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
$990,732,146
$896,628,754
$707,711,597$749,947,333
$ M
illio
ns
0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20
Total Residential Nonresidential Other
Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
New Claims 2019 Average
Utah New Weekly Unemployment Claims
21 28March April May June July August
4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29
Continued Claims 2019 Average
21 28March April May June July August
4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 150
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
Utah Continued Weekly Unemployment Claims
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Debt to GDP Ratio
0
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
(e)
2021
(e)
Actual Estimated
Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services
I n f o r m e d D e c i s i o n s 2 0 2 02 I n f o r m e d D e c i s i o n s 2 0 2 0 3
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 20210%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
7.9%
9.4%
4.5%
10.2%
US Utah
Figure 3: Unemployment Rate
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
suffering disproportionate job loss nationally.4 Latinos and other minority groups also account for a disproportionate percentage of workers in work places affected by COVID outbreaks, accounting for 73% of infected workers even though they account for only 24% of employees in the industry sectors where workplace outbreaks occurred.5
Barring another surge in cases and an economic shutdown, the worst appears to be over for the Utah economy, and a gradual, albeit fragile, recovery has begun. The Gardner Institute forecasts the Utah economy will grow again in 2021 at a 3.5% or better rate of job growth. Insight #2: The Utah economy has fared better than almost every state.
Utah’s job contraction of -1.8% from July 2019 to July 2020 was the second smallest contraction of any state. The U.S. job contraction of -7.7% is more than three times higher. (Figure 6)
Utah’s economic performance during the pandemic compares favorably with other states and provides opportunities to, as one local business leader has said, “recover to better.”6 Gov. Herbert’s Utah Leads Together IV plan identified three major opportunities for Utah’s revitalization efforts:7
1. Investment advantage – Utah can invest in infrastructure and people to create a competitive benefit for our state.
2. Economic leadership – Utah can assert greater economic leadership regionally, nationally, and globally to increase economic reach.
3. Long-term focus – Utah can avoid “short-termism” and address priorities that benefit the state for generations.
Insight #3: New or accelerated structural changes will dramatically impact the Utah economy.
Award-winning author Arundhati Roy said, “Historically, pandemics have forced humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew. This one is no different. It is a portal, a gateway between one world and the next.”8
In economic terms, this portal or gateway is defined by structural changes in the economy. Economists differentiate between cyclical changes, which are short and typically follow the business cycle, and structural changes, which are long-lived transformations that occur because of new technologies, changing demographics, shifting consumer behavior, and other forces.
The post-COVID-19 world will be impacted by, but not limited to, the following structural changes:
n New banking paradigm – Zero interest rates and a flat yield curve present new challenges for financial services. It remains to be seen how much and for how long these new banking realities will impact Utah’s financial sector.
Figure 4: Job ChangeYear-Over Percent Change July 2020
15.9%
13.7%14.0%
13.1%
10.3%
10.4%
10.8%
11.3%
11.3%
10.6%
11.6%
-16.2%
-12.3%
9.5%8.6%
8.9%
8.5%
8.7%
9.9%
9.4%
7.0%
8.0%
8.0%
6.3%
7.1%
6.6%6.4%7.7%
7.2%
7.8%
7.6%
7.4%
7.1%
7.9%
4.5%4.8%
5.7%
5.0%
13.3%
12.7%
7.1%
6.9%
6.6%
Unemployment Rate
0% to 6.0%6.1% to 7.0%
8.1% to 9.0%10.1% to 12.0%
13.1% to 15.0%15.1%+
Job Growth
-2.0% to 0%-2.1% to -5.0%
-5.1% to -8.0%-8.1% to -11.0%
-11.1% to -14.0%-14% or more
VTNHMACTRI
NJWVMDDCDE 10.4%
8.4%7.6%9.9%13.8%11.2%10.2%16.1%8.1%8.3% VT
NHMACTRI
NJWVMDDCDE
Total
Natural Resources
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade/Transportation/Utilities
Information
Financial Activities
Professional/Business Services
Education/Health Services
Leisure/Hospitality Services
Other Services
Government 1.1%
4.6%
-19.0%
-3.4%
-2.7%
3.3%
-1.5%
1.3%
-1.5%
7.0%
-11.5%
-1.8%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
-14%
-12%
-10%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
0.3%
-1.8%-0.2%
-7.7%
US Utah
-8.7%
-8.8%
-8.2%
-9.6%
-8.5%
-11.0%
-9.4%-6.9%
-7.0%
-7.3%-7.9%
-6.4%
-7.0%
-7.8%
-8.1%
-5.4%
-4.4%
-5.1%-5.0%
-3.9%
-4.4%
-4.9%
-3.6%
-4.7%-4.1%
-4.3%
-4.3%-3.6%
-4.9%
-1.8%
-0.7% -13.7%
-8.7%
-9.5%
-6.9%
-5.3%
-6.0%
-6.5%
-4.9%
-9.2%-6.7%-7.3%-7.4%-10.7%-8.4%-8.5%-12.0%-9.5%-11.8%
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
I n f o r m e d D e c i s i o n s 2 0 2 04 I n f o r m e d D e c i s i o n s 2 0 2 0 5
n De-globalization and regionalization of supply chains – Business will increasingly seek more reliable and resilient supply chains. “Just-in-time” will be replaced by “just-in-case.” Reshoring and shorter supply chains will become more common. This megatrend may help a state like Utah, which benefits from a strategic location at the center of the interior western United States with attractive highway, rail, and air travel infrastructure.
n Tech-enabled services – Trends like remote work, telemedicine, remote sales, online education, and other technology-enabled services, which already had momentum before the pandemic, have accelerated.
Consider that in just a few weeks, e-commerce, online education, and work from home became the norm for many Utahns.
n Reckoning of commercial real estate – Commercial real estate feels not just the short-term impact of missed rent payments, but the long-term impact of behavioral change. Restaurant, hotel, and office property owners will need to actively manage this asset class as e-commerce and remote work, as well as new trends in safety and reduced business travel, impact commercial real estate not just in Utah, but worldwide.
15.9%
13.7%14.0%
13.1%
10.3%
10.4%
10.8%
11.3%
11.3%
10.6%
11.6%
-16.2%
-12.3%
9.5%8.6%
8.9%
8.5%
8.7%
9.9%
9.4%
7.0%
8.0%
8.0%
6.3%
7.1%
6.6%6.4%7.7%
7.2%
7.8%
7.6%
7.4%
7.1%
7.9%
4.5%4.8%
5.7%
5.0%
13.3%
12.7%
7.1%
6.9%
6.6%
Unemployment Rate
0% to 6.0%6.1% to 7.0%
8.1% to 9.0%10.1% to 12.0%
13.1% to 15.0%15.1%+
Job Growth
-2.0% to 0%-2.1% to -5.0%
-5.1% to -8.0%-8.1% to -11.0%
-11.1% to -14.0%-14% or more
VTNHMACTRI
NJWVMDDCDE 10.4%
8.4%7.6%9.9%13.8%11.2%10.2%16.1%8.1%8.3% VT
NHMACTRI
NJWVMDDCDE
Total
Natural Resources
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade/Transportation/Utilities
Information
Financial Activities
Professional/Business Services
Education/Health Services
Leisure/Hospitality Services
Other Services
Government 1.1%
4.6%
-19.0%
-3.4%
-2.7%
3.3%
-1.5%
1.3%
-1.5%
7.0%
-11.5%
-1.8%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
-14%
-12%
-10%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
0.3%
-1.8%-0.2%
-7.7%
US Utah
-8.7%
-8.8%
-8.2%
-9.6%
-8.5%
-11.0%
-9.4%-6.9%
-7.0%
-7.3%-7.9%
-6.4%
-7.0%
-7.8%
-8.1%
-5.4%
-4.4%
-5.1%-5.0%
-3.9%
-4.4%
-4.9%
-3.6%
-4.7%-4.1%
-4.3%
-4.3%-3.6%
-4.9%
-1.8%
-0.7% -13.7%
-8.7%
-9.5%
-6.9%
-5.3%
-6.0%
-6.5%
-4.9%
-9.2%-6.7%-7.3%-7.4%-10.7%-8.4%-8.5%-12.0%-9.5%-11.8%
Figure 6: Job ChangeYear-Over Percent Change July 2020
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Figure 5: Utah Job Change by IndustryJuly 2019 – July 2020
15.9%
13.7%14.0%
13.1%
10.3%
10.4%
10.8%
11.3%
11.3%
10.6%
11.6%
-16.2%
-12.3%
9.5%8.6%
8.9%
8.5%
8.7%
9.9%
9.4%
7.0%
8.0%
8.0%
6.3%
7.1%
6.6%6.4%7.7%
7.2%
7.8%
7.6%
7.4%
7.1%
7.9%
4.5%4.8%
5.7%
5.0%
13.3%
12.7%
7.1%
6.9%
6.6%
Unemployment Rate
0% to 6.0%6.1% to 7.0%
8.1% to 9.0%10.1% to 12.0%
13.1% to 15.0%15.1%+
Job Growth
-2.0% to 0%-2.1% to -5.0%
-5.1% to -8.0%-8.1% to -11.0%
-11.1% to -14.0%-14% or more
VTNHMACTRI
NJWVMDDCDE 10.4%
8.4%7.6%9.9%13.8%11.2%10.2%16.1%8.1%8.3% VT
NHMACTRI
NJWVMDDCDE
Total
Natural Resources
Construction
Manufacturing
Trade/Transportation/Utilities
Information
Financial Activities
Professional/Business Services
Education/Health Services
Leisure/Hospitality Services
Other Services
Government 1.1%
4.6%
-19.0%
-3.4%
-2.7%
3.3%
-1.5%
1.3%
-1.5%
7.0%
-11.5%
-1.8%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
-14%
-12%
-10%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
0.3%
-1.8%-0.2%
-7.7%
US Utah
-8.7%
-8.8%
-8.2%
-9.6%
-8.5%
-11.0%
-9.4%-6.9%
-7.0%
-7.3%-7.9%
-6.4%
-7.0%
-7.8%
-8.1%
-5.4%
-4.4%
-5.1%-5.0%
-3.9%
-4.4%
-4.9%
-3.6%
-4.7%-4.1%
-4.3%
-4.3%-3.6%
-4.9%
-1.8%
-0.7% -13.7%
-8.7%
-9.5%
-6.9%
-5.3%
-6.0%
-6.5%
-4.9%
-9.2%-6.7%-7.3%-7.4%-10.7%-8.4%-8.5%-12.0%-9.5%-11.8%
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
New Claims 2019 Average
Utah New Weekly Unemployment Claims
21 28March April May June July August
4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29
Continued Claims 2019 Average
21 28March April May June July August
4 11 18 25 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 150
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
Utah Continued Weekly Unemployment Claims
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Debt to GDP Ratio
0
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
(e)
2021
(e)
Actual Estimated
Figure 7: U.S. Debt to GDP ratio
Source: Department of the Treasury, Office of Management and Budget, and Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
U.S. -7.7%
I n f o r m e d D e c i s i o n s 2 0 2 04 I n f o r m e d D e c i s i o n s 2 0 2 0 5
Insight #4: Debt management will be the next shoe to drop. In the tenements of New York City in the early 20th century,
apartments were stacked on top of each other with very thin insulation. When an upstairs neighbor pulled off their shoe and dropped it, it was just a matter of time before the second shoe would drop. The idiom “waiting for the next shoe to drop” is the anticipation of the inevitable.
The nation’s fiscal rebalancing is an inevitable reality as the U.S. budget deficit and increasing debt load continue to climb. The U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio was close to 80% prior to the pandemic and is now more than 100%. Analysts expect it will ultimately climb close to record levels experienced after World War II.9 (Figure 7)
The economic theory behind the need for debt management is commonly referred to as “crowding out,” and it occurs in two ways. Public debt crowds out private borrowing by making capital less available and more expensive. That’s bad for
economic growth. Crowding out also occurs when burgeoning interest on the national debt crowds out needed public investment in infrastructure and people.
ForecastThe Gardner Institute expects the economy will not gain
traction until there is an effective COVID-19 vaccine. Until then, Utah voters and candidates should recognize the following:
1) The economic impact has been sudden, severe, and uneven, but the worst is over;
2) The Utah economy has fared better than almost every state, and this creates opportunity;
3) New or accelerated structural changes will dramatically impact the Utah economy; and,
4) Debt management will be the next shoe to drop.
I n f o r m e d D e c i s i o n s 2 0 2 06 I n f o r m e d D e c i s i o n s 2 0 2 0 7
Utah’s Housing Shortage: Rising Prices and COVID-19By James Wood, Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
Since the Great Recession, Utah’s has been the fastest growing state in the country. This growth has added several thousand new households to the state each year, driving demand for housing. Each additional household requires an additional housing unit, whether that household comes from net in-migration, a marriage, a divorce, or a child leaving home to live on his/her own. For a healthy housing market, the annual increase in housing units should be close to the increase in households. However, since 2010 the supply of new housing units in Utah has fallen far short of the number of new households. In 8 of the past 10 years, the increase in Utah households has exceeded the construction of new housing units (see Figure 1). This imbalance has created a severe housing shortage.
The shortage accumulated each year from 2010 to 2018, finally peaking at 56,473 (see Figure 2). Over the past two years, the number of new housing units has surpassed new households, giving some small measure of relief to the market. The cumulative shortage as of 2019 was 53,100. How should this gap between demand and supply be interpreted? Where are those thousands of households living?
In 2010, nearly 10% of rental units were vacant due to the Great Recession. These vacant units provided a ready supply of housing to accommodate the growth in households from 2010 to 2014. But as the vacant units were absorbed, the signs of a housing shortage began to emerge, and potential renters and buyers faced fewer housing choices.
About half of the 53,100 shortfall has been absorbed by vacant units, thereby driving down the vacancy rate. The result has been an extremely “tight” housing market with fewer housing opportunities for renters. The vacancy rates in Wasatch Front counties have been as low as 3% in recent years.
Housing Shortage and Housing PricesThe housing shortage has driven up home prices and rental
rates. From the first quarter of 2015 to the first quarter of 2020, UtahRealEstate.com reports that the median sales price of a single-family home in Utah increased from $231,000 to $360,000, a 56% increase. The monthly mortgage payment on that median-priced home increased from $1,280 in 2015 to $2,002. When compared with other states, Utah ranks among the top five in the rate of price increases. Only three other states, all in the West, have had higher rates of increase: Idaho, Washington, and Nevada (see Table 1).
And what about rental rates? The average base rental rate has increased by 37% to $1,175 in the past five years. In addition to
24,46024,4619,079
26,879
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
New Households New Housing Units
15,381
28,917
38,61841,276 42,676
49,10853,476
56,473 55,54753,100
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
6,422
6,768
13,683 13,792
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
Single Family Multifamily Total
Figure 1: Annual Increase in Households and Housing Units in Utah
Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
24,46024,4619,079
26,879
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
New Households New Housing Units
15,381
28,917
38,61841,276 42,676
49,10853,476
56,473 55,54753,100
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
6,422
6,768
13,683 13,792
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
Single Family Multifamily Total
Figure 2: Cumulative Annual Increase in Utah’s Housing Shortage
Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
Table 1: Top Five States Ranked by Change in Housing Price Index (First Quarter 2015 to First Quarter 2020)
Metropolitan Area Change
Idaho 69.60%
Washington 59.05%
Nevada 55.72%
Utah 52.97%
Colorado 49.08%
Source: Federal Housing Finance Agency, Housing Price Index (HPI) Quarterly Report, 2020 Q1, March 2020
I n f o r m e d D e c i s i o n s 2 0 2 06 I n f o r m e d D e c i s i o n s 2 0 2 0 7
24,46024,4619,079
26,879
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
New Households New Housing Units
15,381
28,917
38,61841,276 42,676
49,10853,476
56,473 55,54753,100
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
6,422
6,768
13,683 13,792
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
Single Family Multifamily Total
Figure 3: Permits Issued for Residential Units in Utah(January through June)
Note: Single-family units plus multifamily units doesn’t equal the total due to cabins and manufactured homes.Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute.
the base rent, many renters must also pay for a media package and an assortment of other fees, bringing the rental rate (excluding utilities) to at least $1,300.
The housing shortage has pushed up housing prices and rents across the state, putting homeownership increasingly out of reach for many households. Homeownership rates for both young and minority households have declined in recent years due to high housing prices. Out of a million households in Utah, 250,000 pay more than 30% of their income for housing. After paying for necessities, these households have little left for health care, retirement, or a child’s education. In a 2019 survey conducted for the Salt Lake Chamber, housing affordability topped the list of issues that most concerned Utah families, ahead of transportation, air quality, and education.
Housing Shortage and Public HealthIn the early part of the decade, vacant units could not
accommodate all the households seeking housing. Many households, unable to find affordable housing due to the shortage, resorted to doubling-up with friends or family. To quote from a recent Pew Research Center study, “American adults are increasingly sharing a home with other adults with whom they are not romantically involved. This arrangement, known as ‘doubling-up’ or shared living, gained notice in the wake of the Great Recession, and nearly a decade later, the prevalence of shared living has continued to grow..” 10,11 During a pandemic, however, shared living raises the risk of transmission and infection, an unexpected public health consequence of Utah’s housing shortage.
The Census Bureau provides the following data on doubling-up in Utah.
● Since 2010, the doubling-up of relatives has increased from 6% to 7% of the household population, amounting to an increase of 20,000 individuals.
● Since 2010, the number of nonrelated individuals doubling-up has increased from 3.75% to 4.25% of the household population, amounting to an increase of 9,000 individuals.
● In 10 years, the share of individuals 25 to 34 years old, living with parents, has increased from 10.4% to 13.4%, amounting to an increase of 16,000 individuals.
COVID-19 and Housing Market ConditionsSurprisingly, COVID-19 has had no impact on new residential
construction. For the first six months of 2020, the number of residential permits issued was at an all-time high of 13,792 (see Figure 3). Multifamily activity has driven new construction to the second-highest January-to-June total ever, 6,728 multifamily units. Housing prices have also been unaffected by COVID-19. The statewide median sales price of a home increased by 7.6% (year over), about the same as the 7.9% increase in 2019. And despite the pandemic, the number of existing homes sold statewide was down less than 2% through the first six months of 2020.
The Utah housing market’s unexpected strength is due not only to the historically low interest rates but also to the state’s housing shortage. So far, COVID-19 has not dampened housing demand nor hurt new residential construction—a much different outcome than expected six months ago. It now looks like COVID-19 will not add to Utah’s housing shortage and that’s very good news.
I n f o r m e d D e c i s i o n s 2 0 2 08 I n f o r m e d D e c i s i o n s 2 0 2 0 9
Education Funding: Amending the Utah ConstitutionBy Andrea Brandley, Research Associate, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
This November, Utah voters will answer the following question: “Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to expand the uses of money the state receives from income taxes and intangible property taxes to include supporting children and supporting people with a disability?”
This marks the second statewide election in a row that an education funding issue appears on the Utah ballot. Two years ago, voters responded to a nonbinding question about increasing the tax on fuel in order to increase funding for public education. The majority voted no. This year, voters are being asked to expand the use of income tax revenue that is currently earmarked solely for education. This brief provides background information to help Utah voters make an informed decision about the amendment.
What’s on the 2020 ballot?During the 2020 general legislative session, the Utah
Legislature passed two bills: S.J.R. 9 (first substitute) and H.B. 357 (second substitute).
H.B. 357 stabilizes public education funding by:– Providing funding for inflation and student growth– Allowing school districts to use capital levy funds for
other purposes in low revenue years – Creating additional “rainy day” funds for education
However, this bill takes effect only if voters approve S.J.R. 9—the constitutional change expanding the use of income tax revenue to include services for children and people with disabilities — this November. Utah voters play a key role in this issue as the constitution cannot be changed without approval from the people. As a part of these changes, the legislature approved large spending increases for public education for FY 2021. The legislature reduced these increases due to the economic effects of COVID-19, but public education will still see a year-over-year increase in funding.
How does Utah education funding work?The responsibility of funding public education falls largely
to states and localities. As shown in Figure 1, the state funds the majority of public education (52%). Localities fund 41%, primarily through property taxes while the remaining 7% is funded federally.12 This amendment focuses on the state’s contribution through income tax revenue.
In the past, Utah has passed constitutional amendments to dedicate income taxes revenue to education spending. The first amendment dedicated all income tax revenue to K-12 public
education (1946) and the second allowed income tax to fund a portion of higher education as well (1996). Higher education was previously funded entirely through the general fund. Funding a portion of higher education through income tax revenue frees up general fund dollars for other purposes. This creates a link between the education and general funds as demonstrated in Figure 2, which provides budget flexibility for lawmakers.
While both income and sales tax revenue are growing, sales tax revenue has grown at a much slower rate in recent years.13 Because sales tax revenue provides for the general fund, lawmakers face increasing difficulty funding other areas of government including social services, transportation, and public safety. They alleviate this problem by funding more higher education expenses through income tax revenue. However, if the trend continues, soon higher education will be funded entirely through the education fund (see Figure 3). Expanding the use of income tax revenue through this constitutional amendment frees up additional general fund dollars, making it possible to continue to balance the budget through this link.
Figure 1: Funding Source for Utah Public Education, 2019
41% Local
7% Federal
52% State
0.00%0.05%0.10%0.15%0.20%0.25%0.30%0.35%0.40%0.45%0.50%
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
0%5%
10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55%60%65%
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
0200400600800
1000120014001600
1986
1988
1990
($ M
illio
ns)
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
Actual 30% of total 40% of Total 50% of Total
Source: Utah State Board of Education
Figure 2: The Co-Mingling of Funds
Source: Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Alp
ine
($ M
illio
ns)
Salt
Lake
Gra
nite
Dav
is
Was
hing
ton
Park
City
Jord
an
Cany
ons
Web
er
Neb
o
Cach
e
Prov
o
Iron
Was
atch
Mur
ray
Ogd
en
Box
Elde
r
Tooe
le
Uin
tah
Sout
h Su
mm
it
Emer
y
Sevi
er
Gra
nd
Mill
ard
Nor
th S
umm
it
Rich
Kane
Beav
er
Loga
n
Mor
gan
Duc
hesn
e
Carb
on
Nor
th S
anpe
te
Juab
Sout
h Sa
npet
e
Way
ne
Gar
�eld
Dag
gett
San
Juan
Piut
e
Tint
ic
CapitalVotedBoard
($ T
hous
ands
)
CapitalVotedBoard
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Park
City
Rich
Dag
gett
Nor
th S
umm
it
Salt
Lake
Sout
h Su
mm
it
Kane
Gra
nd
Way
ne
Beav
er
Emer
y
Was
hing
ton
Piut
e
Mur
ray
Was
atch
Cany
ons
Mill
ard
Iron
Gar
�eld
Web
er
Gra
nite
Alp
ine
Sevi
er
Uin
tah
Prov
o
Jord
an
Dav
is
Mor
gan
Cach
e
Ogd
en
Nor
th S
anpe
te
Neb
o
Box
Elde
r
Loga
n
Juab
Carb
on
Tint
ic
Duc
hesn
e
Tooe
le
Sout
h Sa
npet
e
San
Juan
% o
f Hig
her E
duca
tion
Fund
ed w
ithG
ener
al F
und
Reve
nue
Fiscal Year
Income Tax
Public and Higher Education
Sales Tax
GeneralGovernment
Higher Education
Education Fund
GeneralFund
I n f o r m e d D e c i s i o n s 2 0 2 08 I n f o r m e d D e c i s i o n s 2 0 2 0 9
Figure 4 shows the change in per student state appropriations from 1997-2020 adjusted for inflation. Funding reached its peak in FY 2008. The subsequent drop is likely due to an infusion of federal dollars through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. This federal aid helped states mitigate the effects of the great recession on public education. Since FY 2012, per student state appropriations have been increasing, now approaching the same spending as the FY 2008 peak.
Utah’s student population increased from 478,000 in 1997, to 666,000 in 2020.14 Due to this growth, per-pupil funding has not increased at the same rate as total appropriations. The school-age population is expected to continue to increase through 2021, then decline and stabilize.15
Table 1: How does Utah compare to other states in funding?
Rank Description
Per-Pupil Expenditures
51 In 2017, Utah spent $7,200 per student compared to the national average of $12,200.
Proportion of Personal Income
39 In 2017, Utah contributed $33 per $1,000 of personal income to public education compared to the national average of $37.
Percent of Own-source Revenue
43 In 2018, Utah spent 24.3% of own-source revenue on public education compared to the national average of 27.4%. This provides one measure of the public effort that contributes to funding education, calculated as the percent spent on public education out of all state and local revenue – the funds within state and local government’s control.
Percent of the Economy
39 In 2016, education made up 2.87% of the state’s GDP and 3.19% of the nation’s GDP. This measure represents the relative amount of resources that state governments use to support public education.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2018 Annual Survey of School System Finances, U.S. Census Bureau 2017 Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances, and 2019 National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
Table 2: How does Utah compare to other states in outcomes?
Rank Description of Measure
ACT Score 30* The ACT is the most commonly used college entrance exam. Utah’s 2019 average composite score was 20.3, just below the national average of 20.7.
Graduation Rate† 20 Utah’s 2018 graduation rate was 87.0%, just above the national average of 85.3%.
Math and Reading Assessments
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports state by state test results in reading and mathematics for 4th and 8th graders. In 2019, Utah ranked‡ above average in all four categories.
Grade 4 Math 10
Grade 4 Reading 6
Grade 8 Math 18
Grade 8 reading 6
* This ranking is among all 50 states. When compared only to states with 100% participation, Utah ranks first among fifteen states, tied with Wisconsin.† Note that graduation requirements differ by state making comparisons difficult. Graduation rates also only include public schools. ‡ Note that the NCES suggest that little emphasis be placed on specific ranking as differences between many states lack statistical significance.Source: ACT and National Center for Education Statistics
Tables 1 and 2 describe how Utah compares to the rest of the nation in both funding levels and student outcomes. In addition to addressing Utah’s education achievement, achievement gaps should be acknowledged. Students of color and those coming from economically disadvantaged backgrounds continue to experience significantly worse outcomes than their White or more economically advantaged peers as demonstrated in Figures 5 and 6.16,17 If achievement gaps go unaddressed, statewide educational outcomes will likely worsen as Utah's population continues to diversify.
Figure 3: Percent of Higher Education Funding from Education Fund (Income Tax), FY 1997-2020
Figure 4: Per Student State Appropriations to Public Education, FY 1997-2020(2019 dollars)
Source: Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst, 2019
17% Higher Education
48% Public Education
General Government/Other 5%
Other Capital Budgets 6%
Law Enforcement 9%
Social Services 15%
28% Higher Education
25% Public EducationGeneral Government/
Other 12%
State Buildings 16%
Social Services 7%
Rainy Day Deposits 2%
Law Enforcement 10%
Higher Education 12%29% Public Education
6% General Government/ OtherSocial Services 35%
Law Enforcement 5%
Capital Facilities 1%
Debt Service 2%
Transportation 10%
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
690,
731
695,
057 69
8,99
0
701,
290
700 -
702 -
698 -
696 -
694 -
692 -
690 -
688 -
686 -
684 -
698,
579
698,
579
697,
964
696,
624
695,
437
694,
925
695,
032
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Real State Funds to Public Ed Real Total Appropriations
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
$5,000
$5,500
$6,000
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
($ B
illio
ns)
(tho
usan
ds)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Source: Utah Governor’s Office of Management and Budget
I n f o r m e d D e c i s i o n s 2 0 2 01 0 I n f o r m e d D e c i s i o n s 2 0 2 0 1 1
Utah’s public education funding levels fall far below national averages. Educational outcomes fare better, but achievement gaps persist. The amendment allows additional programs to be funded through income tax revenue that is otherwise earmarked solely for education. However, it also provides
more budget flexibility for legislators and will likely lead to guaranteed funding for student growth and inflation and more secure funding for schools during economic downturns. Utah voters should consider the tradeoffs and make an informed decision this November.
Figure 5: Student Outcomes Based on Economic Status, 2018
Source: Utah State Board of Education
0%10%
20%
30%40%
50%60%
70%
80%90%
100%
High SchoolGraduation
Scoring ≥ to 18 on the ACT
MathematicsPro�ciency
ELA Pro�ciency
High SchoolGraduation
Scoring ≥ to 18 on the ACT
MathematicsPro�ciency
ELA Pro�ciency
Economically Disadvantaged Not Economically Disadvantaged
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
American Indian Black HispanicPaci�c Islander Asian White
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
20.0%
Haw
aii
Loui
sian
aD
istr
ict o
f Col
umbi
aPe
nnsy
lvan
iaN
ew Y
ork
Mar
ylan
dO
hio
Wis
cons
inD
elaw
are
Mis
sour
iRh
ode
Isla
ndTe
nnes
see
Flor
ida
Kent
ucky
Neb
rask
aIn
dian
aM
issi
ssip
piN
ew H
amps
hire
New
Jers
eyA
laba
ma
Illin
ois
Kans
asVi
rgin
iaCo
nnec
ticut
Mai
neM
assa
chus
etts
Min
neso
taM
ichi
gan
Ore
gon
Verm
ont
Iow
aM
onta
naW
ashi
ngto
nG
eorg
iaSo
uth
Dak
ota
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Sout
h Ca
rolin
aA
lask
aCa
lifor
nia
Idah
oN
orth
Dak
ota
New
Mex
ico
Okl
ahom
aA
rkan
sas
Colo
rado
Wes
t Virg
inia
Ariz
ona
Nev
ada
Texa
sW
yom
ing
Uta
h
Local, 40%
Federal, 8%
State, 50%
Figure 6: Student Outcomes Based on Ethnicity, 2018
Source: Utah State Board of Education
0%10%
20%
30%40%
50%60%
70%
80%90%
100%
High SchoolGraduation
Scoring ≥ to 18 on the ACT
MathematicsPro�ciency
ELA Pro�ciency
High SchoolGraduation
Scoring ≥ to 18 on the ACT
MathematicsPro�ciency
ELA Pro�ciency
Economically Disadvantaged Not Economically Disadvantaged
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
American Indian Black HispanicPaci�c Islander Asian White
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
20.0%
Haw
aii
Loui
sian
aD
istr
ict o
f Col
umbi
aPe
nnsy
lvan
iaN
ew Y
ork
Mar
ylan
dO
hio
Wis
cons
inD
elaw
are
Mis
sour
iRh
ode
Isla
ndTe
nnes
see
Flor
ida
Kent
ucky
Neb
rask
aIn
dian
aM
issi
ssip
piN
ew H
amps
hire
New
Jers
eyA
laba
ma
Illin
ois
Kans
asVi
rgin
iaCo
nnec
ticut
Mai
neM
assa
chus
etts
Min
neso
taM
ichi
gan
Ore
gon
Verm
ont
Iow
aM
onta
naW
ashi
ngto
nG
eorg
iaSo
uth
Dak
ota
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Sout
h Ca
rolin
aA
lask
aCa
lifor
nia
Idah
oN
orth
Dak
ota
New
Mex
ico
Okl
ahom
aA
rkan
sas
Colo
rado
Wes
t Virg
inia
Ariz
ona
Nev
ada
Texa
sW
yom
ing
Uta
h
Local, 40%
Federal, 8%
State, 50%
I n f o r m e d D e c i s i o n s 2 0 2 01 0 I n f o r m e d D e c i s i o n s 2 0 2 0 1 1
Endnotes1. Barry, J. (2020, March 17). The Single Most Important Lesson from the 1918 Influenza. New York Times.2. Burt, K. (2020, August 10), Utah Department of Workforce Services.3. Ibid.4. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/09/hispanic-women-immigrants-young-adults-those-with-less-education-hit-hardest-by-covid-19-job-losses.5. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/pdfs/mm6933e3-H.pdf6. Comment made by Economic Development Corporation of Utah president and CEO Theresa Foxley.7. Economic Response Task Force (June 17, 2020). Utah Leads Together IV.8. Roy, A. (April 3, 2020). The Pandemic is a Portal. Financial Times.9. Zandi, M. (April 26, 2020). This Week in the COVID-19 Crisis. Moody’s Analytics.10. “Doubled-up households are defined as having one or more adults in addition to the head of household and spouse or partner, such as an adult child living at
home, two related or unrelated families residing together, or a parent living with an adult child,” U.S. Census Bureau.11. Fry, R. (2018, January 31).”More adults now share their living space, driven in part by parents living with their adult children,” Pew Research Center. Retrieved
from http://pewrsr.ch/2E2mdcF.12. United States Census Bureau (2019a). 2017 Public Elementary-Secondary Education Finance Data. [Data file]. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/
school-finances/secondary education-finance.html13. Utah Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst (2019). YoY Change – Income vs Sales Tax. [Data file].14. Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst. (2019). Real Per Student Spending Public ed [Data file].15. Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. (2019). Utah State and County Short-term Population Projections: 2018-2028. https://gardner.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/
ShortTermPopEstJune2019.pdf16. United States Census Bureau (2019b). 2017 Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances [Data file]. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/
programs-surveys/gov-finances.html17. Note: “Economically disadvantaged” refers to a child experiencing intergenerational poverty, living in a family with an annual income at or below 185% of the
federal poverty level, or living with a legal custodian or legal guardian who can attest that the child or the child’s household is receiving services benefitting low-income households or individuals, as defined in Utah Code 53B-8a-201.
Issue ForumsModerated by Natalie Gochnour, DirectorKem C Gardner Policy Institute
n Funding Public Education in Utah (Online Forum) Wednesday, September 9, 2020 12:00-1:00 PM
n Utah’s Housing Shortage, Rising Prices, and the Impact of COVID-19 (Online Forum)
Wednesday, September 30, 2020 12:00 -1:00 PM
n COVID-19 and the Utah Economy (Online Forum) Wednesday, October 21, 2020 12:00-1:00 PM
Candidate ConversationsModerated by Jason Perry, Director, Hinckley Institute
n Utah’s 2nd Congressional District (Virtual Event) Monday, September 14, 2020 12:00-1:00 PM Chris Stewart, Kael Weston
n The Governor’s Race (Virtual Event) Monday, September 23, 2020 12:00-1:00 PM Spencer Cox, Christopher Peterson
n Utah’s 4th Congressional District (Virtual Event) Monday, October 14, 2020 12:00-1:00 PM Ben McAdams, Burgess Owens
Election Debrief: Who Won and Why (Virtual Event)
Wednesday, November 4, 2020, 1:25-2:45 PM
The Informed Decisions 2020 Issue Forums and Candidate Conversations are sponsored by the Hinckley Institute, Gardner Policy Institute, and the University of Utah Alumni Association. All forums and conversations are virtual events. To participate, RSVP on a sponsoring organization's website.
I n f o r m e d D e c i s i o n s 2 0 2 01 2
The Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute serves Utah by preparing economic, demographic, and public policy research that helps the state prosper. We are Utah’s demographic experts, leaders on the Utah economy, and specialists in public policy and survey research. We are an honest broker of INFORMED RESEARCH, which guides INFORMED DISCUSSIONS, and leads to INFORMED DECISIONS™.
Leadership Team
Natalie Gochnour, Associate Dean and Director
Jennifer Robinson, Associate DirectorShelley Kruger, Accounting and
Finance ManagerColleen Larson, Administrative ManagerDianne Meppen, Director of Survey
ResearchPamela S. Perlich, Director of Demographic
ResearchJuliette Tennert, Chief EconomistNicholas Thiriot, Communications Director James A. Wood, Ivory-Boyer Senior Fellow
Staff
Max Backlund, Senior Research AssociateSamantha Ball, Senior Research AssociateMallory Bateman, Senior Research Analyst Andrea Brandley, Research AssociateMarin Christensen, Research Associate Mike Christensen, Scholar-in-ResidenceJohn C. Downen, Deputy Director of
Economic and Public Policy ResearchDejan Eskic, Senior Research AnalystEmily Harris, DemographerMichael T. Hogue, Senior Research
Statistician
Mike Hollingshaus, Senior DemographerThomas Holst, Senior Energy Analyst Meredith King, Research Associate Jennifer Leaver, Senior Tourism AnalystLevi Pace, Senior Research EconomistShannon Simonsen, Research CoordinatorJoshua Spolsdoff, Research Economist Paul Springer, Senior Graphic DesignerLaura Summers, Senior Health Care AnalystNatalie Young, Research Analyst
The Hinckley Institute of Politics is dedicated to engaging students in transformative experiences and providing political thought leadership. Founded in 1965 by Robert H. Hinckley, whose vision was to, “teach students respect for practical politics and the principle of citizen involvement in government,” the institute remains wholly committed to serving students. The Hinckley Institute maintains a world-class
internship program which places students in a broad range of industries around the world, organizes compelling forums with thought leaders, and provides political engagement opportunities for the larger community. Hinckley’s mission is preserved as students’ educational experiences continue to be enhanced and their pathways paved for impactful, meaningful futures.
StaffJason Perry, JD: DirectorMorgan Lyon Cotti, PhD: Associate DirectorGina Shipley, MPA: Managing Director
of National Internships & Development Officer
Jean Oh, M.Ed.: Managing Director of Global Internships
Natalie Tippets, MS: Special Assistant to the Vice President
Molly Wheeler, MSc: Managing Director of Community Engagement
Brooke Doner: Director of MarketingMiranda Best: Outreach Coordinator
Kyle Tucker: Administrative Program Coordinator
Sheely Edwards: Student StaffGabriela Villalobos: Student Staff