1
Reality Check
2018
edition
Utah vs. Idaho
July 2018
Working Families
Benchmarking Project
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
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.
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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
3
rd
20
th
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
$70,647/39
th
$61,073/49
th
Change in real GDP 2007-2016 (US = 10.4%) % and rank
15.6%/9
th
5.9%/34
th
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)
$6,575/50
th
$6,923/49
th
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%/36
th
75%/48
th
Percent in full-day kindergarten 2013 (US = 75%)
25% 38%
NAEP rankings: average rank of 4
th
and 8
th
grade math and
reading scores 2015-2017
12
th
20
th
Average higher education state spending per full-time
student 2016 & rank (US avg = $6,791)
$9,730/5
th
$7,181/18
th
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)
2
nd
12
th
Intergenerational mobility rank, 50 largest metros (1 is best)
1
st
(SLC metro) 46
th
(Boise metro)
Gender wage ratio (female/male) & rank 2016
70%/50
th
75.6%/41
st
Reality
Check
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
5
Part II: Standard of Living
(“winner” highlighted and bolded)
Utah
Idaho
Income & Wages
Real median household income & rank 2016 (US = $57,617)
$65,977/11
th
$51,807/37
th
Average rank for median household income 2007-2016
13
th
37
th
Median hourly wage & rank 2017 (US = $18.28)
$17.61/27
th
$16.74/ 43
rd
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% (1
st
) All: 26% (3rd)
Latino: 33% (2
nd
)
Latino: 31% (1
st
)
Child food insecurity rate & rank 2015 (US = 17.9%)
16.4%/9
th
17.6%/17
th
Child homelessness rate & rank 2014 (US = 2.26%)
2.22%/30
th
2.25%/31
st
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 18
th
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%/17
th
14.1%/39
th
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%/9
th
69.9%/16
th
Kids Count overall ranking (2017)
7
th
20th
Health
State health system performance rank 2017
(Commonwealth Fund rank/US News rank)
15
th
/ 15
th
26
th
/18
th
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%/35
th
61.0%/25
th
Volunteerism rank 2015 (CNCS)
1
st
11
th
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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 3
rd
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 49
th
for
many years, compared to 50
th
for Utah, last
place in the nation. Utah also ranks last in the
gender wage gap, where Idaho is 41
st
.
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.
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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 21
st
-
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 49
th
place (for FY 2016). While
Utah has done well for its meager investment levels, achieving impressive gains in educational
performance as measured by NAEP 4
th
and 8
th
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
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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/
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
10
Part I:
Economic Opportunity
Reality
Check
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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
1
3
4
5
2
88
20
15
14
16
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 22
20
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
1
st
35
th
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
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
12
GDP
$30,000.00
$35,000.00
$40,000.00
$45,000.00
$50,000.00
$55,000.00
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
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
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
14
Productivity
F
igure 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
G
ap
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
$(11,630)
$(12,000)
$(13,097)
$(12,874)
$(13,599)
$(14,342)
$(15,316)
$(15,111)
$(13,301)
$(12,630)
$(14,293)
$(13,711)
$(14,432)
$(14,237)
$(15,591)
$(15,644)
$(15,613)
$(15,743)
$(15,259)
$10,397
$8,214
$4,562
$7,484
$7,586
$7,680
$7,758
$7,931
$9,468
$10,105
$7,274
$8,055
$8,444
$9,237
$8,557
$7,928
$8,373
$8,530
$8,965
$(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 39
th
place, but
Idaho is even further behind in 49
th
place.
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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.
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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
1.23
1.26
1.30
1.41
0.86
1.07
0.96
0.83
1.05
0.99
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 49
th
and 50
th
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
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
18
Figure 16
–
Wage Competitiveness for Teachers
Ratio of teacher compensation to that received by non-teachers with similar education
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
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
35
th
14
th
Pupil-teacher ratio in average
district (teacher:pupil)
6.0:100 5.6:100
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
Teacher wage competitiveness and education funding effort have
been on a downward slide in Utah in recent years.
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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%/33
rd
69%/50
th
53%
Percent/rank of 3- and 4-year-olds
below 200% of poverty level not
enrolled in school (2011-2015)
66%/38
th
75%/50
th
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
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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.
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
21
Figure 23
–
Average NAEP 4
th
+ 8
th
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
–
4
th
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.
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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
more than fair
less than fair
2011
-
2012
values
2.42 1.87
.91 .95 .76
1.63 1.0 1.06
more than fair
less than fair
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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.
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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.
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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: 5
th
ID 2016 rank: 18
th
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
27
Equity
Figure 34
–
GINI In
dex (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 0.469
0.475
0.476
0.481
0.480
0.482
0.482
0.421
0.436
0.419
0.421
0.433
0.432
0.430
0.438
0.454
0.452
0.450
0.410
0.409
0.411
0.414
0.419
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
28
th
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.
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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/
Fig
ure 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
Clos
e
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.
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
29
Part II:
Standard of Living
Reality
Check
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
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
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
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
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
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.
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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 10
th
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 10
th
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.
10
th
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 (10
th
percentile of hourly wages); Utah ranks #21.
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
33
Poverty
Figure 43
–
Poverty Rates 2007
-
2016
Source: Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) Poverty Rates, 2007
-
201
6
-
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
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
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
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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.
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
38
Cost of Living
Figu
re 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
96.9
97.2
97.1
97.7
97.2
97
95.2
94.8
93.5
93.3
93.4
93.2
93.6
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
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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 $16,000
Cache MPO
Dixie MPO
Mountainland Association of Governments (Orem)
Wasatch Front Regional Council (Salt Lake City)
Kootenai
Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho
Bannock Transportation Association
Bonnevile MPO
Utah
Idaho
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
40
Taxes
Figure 57
–
Home Energy Affordability Gap Index
(2011 = 100, values below 100 indicate improved affordability)
Source: Fisher, Sheehan & Colton, Home Energy Affordability Gap 2nd series data, available online at:
http://www.homeenergyaffordabilitygap.com/03a_affordabilityData.html
100
99.9
101.2
116.3
106.6
94.2
100
115.1
121.3
146.6
164.4
139
100
100.3
100.7
175
139.1
113.8
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
US UT ID
Worsened
affordability
since 2011
Improved
affordability
since 2011
Figure 58
–
State and Local Own
-
Source Revenue, 2015
(“winner” bolded and highlighted)
Rankings: 1 is best, 50 worst
UT ID US (average)
Total own source revenue ($ 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)
17
th
39
th
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).
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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
25.0
25.3
25.5
25.1
25.3
25.5
25.7
25.8
26.0
26.4
26.6
20.5
20.8
21.4
21.3
21.0
21.2
21.6
22.0
21.2
21.6
21.3
21.6
19.8
20.1
20.5
20.2
19.8
20.4
19.7
20.2
20.1
20.3
20.5
20.9
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.
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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 201
8
(“winner”
bolded and highlighted
)
Ranking: 1 is best, 50 worst
UT
ID
Overall
6
th
21
st
Economic
7
th
12
th
Education
12
th
40
th
Health
19
th
26
th
Family and Community
1
st
14
th
Source: Annie E. Casey Foundation, Kids Count Databook 2018, available online at http://www.aecf.org/resources/2018-kids-
count-data-book/
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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
10
th
18
th
Infant Mortality Rate
12
th
9
th
Hospital Readmissions
3
rd
2
nd
Nursing Home Citations
7
th
15
th
Age
-
adjusted Mortality Rate
17
th
26
th
Obesity Rate
5
th
14
th
Suicide Rate
42
nd
43
rd
Self-reported Mental Health
23
rd
17
th
Child Wellness Visits
29
th
45
th
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.
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
44
Fig
ure 64
–
Population with
out
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%
78.5%
78.2%
87.2%
54.1%
80.2%
81.7%
66.8%
81.1%
82.6%
86.6%
63.3%
78.5%
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%
71.7%
75.1%
84.5%
52.4%
69.8%
82.4%
58.8%
78.9%
79.7%
83.5%
55.2%
69.8%
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 11
th
worst in the nation for its high uninsured
rate, while Utah is 18
th
worst. Neither state has expanded
Medicaid.
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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.
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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.
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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
Race/Ethnicity, 2016
150 151.3 105.6
160 161.8 86.9 165.5 154.5 NA
Diabetes Deaths per
100,000 Population by
Race/Ethnicity, 2016
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
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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
6
6.6
6.7
8.6
10.7
10.9
12.8
12.9
13.3
12.2
13.4
11.5
13.7
15.4
15.2
16
15.1
14.1
1.4
1.5
1.9
2.6
2.9
3.4
3.7
4.6
4.8 4.8
5
5.4 5.4
5.1 5.1
5.9
7
10.2
1.6
1.8
3.4
3
3.8
3.1
3
4.4
3.8
4.2
4
4.6
4.7
3.6
4.1 4.1
4.8
5.6
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
27.4
27.7
28.3
28.9 28.9
29.6
27
26.8
29.6
28.9
28.6
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
15.7
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
US
ID
UT
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
50
Civic
Engagement
Figure 76
–
General El
ection 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 26
th
14
th
2004 31
st
20
th
2008 43
rd
24
t
h
2012 33
rd
21
st
2016
35
th
25
th
Utah leads the nation with our strong
culture of volunteerism. Idaho ranks 11
th
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
80.2
76.6
83.3
100.1
84.0
70.3
81.4
74.9
91.7
75.6
53.1
80.1
61.0
54.7
56.8
53.3
50.8
49.9
55.8
58.4
48.6
51.6
41.6
37.5
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: 1
st
ID : 11
th
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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
V
OICES
F
OR
U
TAH
C
HILDREN
|
W
ORKING
F
AMILIES
B
ENCHMARKING
P
ROJECT
2018:
UT
VS
ID
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
