Results of the Community Needs Assessment
Executive Summary Data for the needs assessment was gathered from a variety of sources. Five County Association of Governments
(FCAOG) utilized information obtained by Intermountain Healthcare’s Community Health Needs Assessment, program
intake, data from the Utah Department of Workforce Services (including the Annual Report on Homelessness and the
Annual Report on Intergenerational Poverty), Community Action Partnership of Utah’s poverty report, and other relevant
community data to guide efforts for community feedback.
Input was gathered through public forums and a community needs assessment survey. Outreach for the survey and public
forums was made to current clients (low and moderate income households), faith-based organizations, human services
agencies and local elected officials. Local Department of Workforce Services staff assisted with some outreach.
Volunteers engaged over 30 businesses for marketing and community participation. Social media campaigns and public
notices in newspaper were also utilized to gather a variety of opinions across multiple sectors.
The community needs assessment survey was open to the public from April 26 to June 14, 2016. A total of 345
participants completed the survey, including at least 16 local elected officials, 114 human services practitioners, 6 non-
English speakers, and 90 CSBG-eligible clients. Eighty responses came from paper surveys from seniors and those with
limited computer proficiency or access. Throughout May, Five County Association of Governments held public forums,
including a Spanish-speaking forum. Local elected officials, partner agencies, and the public participated in these forums
held in all five counties and generally confirmed the needs.
The key findings from the surveys include lack of affordable housing, limited transportation opportunities, and low wages
as major barriers to exiting poverty and working towards self-sufficiency in Southwest Utah. However, across public,
private, and low-income sectors, many believe that locally-driven solutions, better communication across local agencies,
and additional community involvement and resources can improve the quality of life for all members of the region.
The results of the public forums and survey instrument were presented to the Human Services Council on July 13th,
2016. The recommendation from the Human Services Council was to offer services and participate in initiatives that
strengthen interagency coordination (links and partnerships). Participation and/or coordination of local homeless
coordinating committees, intergenerational poverty committees, mobility management councils, asset-building
coalitions, youth services committees, and other related local bodies is a high priority.
Outreach for the Community Needs Assessment
Outreach to Community Service Block Grant / Social Services Block Grant Clients Outreach for the survey and public forums was made to current clients at Iron County Care and Share, Dove Center,
Kane County Care and Share, the Hurricane Valley Pantry, Garfield County Care and Share, the Beaver County Senior
Citizen Center, the Washington County Senior Citizen Center (in St. George), and the Five County Association of
Governments Community Action Department in St. George.
Five County Community Action staff also reached out to other human services departments within the AOG, including
case managers for the Area Agency on Aging, HEAT, and Weatherization.
Intake from CSBG and food pantry services was pulled in DBA FacsPro to generate an email list of clients from the last
three years. Using mail merge, 448 invitations were sent. 34 emails were rejected by various email servers. A copy of the
email is as follows:
Dear Community Member:
As a household who has accessed services through Five County Association of Governments or one of its partner agencies (food pantries,
senior citizen centers, adult education programs, emergency shelters, etc.), we would like to invite you to provide input on community
needs for Beaver, Garfield, Iron, Kane, and Washington counties. The input from members of the community, such as you, will be shared
with local elected officials.
Here is a link to survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2016NeedAssessment-Southwest-Utah
There will also be several public forums taking place in the coming month. You are also personally invited to participate. See the following
information below:
Beaver City Hall (30 West 300 North, Beaver, UT) @ 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 10th
Garfield County: Panguitch City Library (25 S 200 E, Panguitch) @ 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 11th
Iron County: Cedar City Office (10 N Main, Cedar City, UT 84720) @ 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 26th
Kane County: Kanab Public Library (374 N Main St., Kanab) @ 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 4th
Washington County: Grace Episcopal Church (1072 E 900 S, St. George) @ 6:30 p.m. on Friday, May 13th
Spanish Language Forum: St. George Library (88 W 100 S, St. George) @ 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 17th
Interpretive services can be paid for by Five County Association of Governments – Community Action. Please contact Toni Tuipulotu at 674-
5757 ext. 104 to request an interpretive service at least 24 hours prior to the public forum you plan to attend.
Thank you so much for your input! Please feel free to pass this information on to others.
Sincerely,
Clint Cottam
Director of Community Action
Outreach to Minority Groups and Sub-populations through Community Partners Physical paper copies were also distributed to the Learning Center for Families, Help Me Grow (St. George office), Family
Health Care, Switchpoint Community Resource Center, and the Panguitch City library. Community Action staff also
emailed a link to the survey to all case managers on the homeless case manager, youth services committees, and human
services lists.
Key agencies were identified as having access to vulnerable populations, such as Family HealthCare and the Learning
Center for Families who serve a large number of Spanish-speaking clients, and Piute Tribal Housing Authority and Piute
Tribal Social Services for outreach to Native American populations.
A survey tool was translated into Spanish by Family Healthcare and some staff translated the English survey into Spanish.
Outreach to Local Elected Officials An email to 74 mayors, county commissioners, members of the state legislature, and school board members was sent on
May 23, 2016. The email went as follows:
Dear [Local Elected Official]
Five County Association of Governments conducts a community needs assessment every three years for the
Community Services Block Grant (CSBG). This assessment should identify what unmet needs exist in
communities, what public/private/non-profit partnerships could be formed or strengthened, and how to best
utilize limited resources. As a local elected official, your input is especially important. You know the needs of
your community and interact with constituents.
Here is a link to the 2016 Southwest Utah Needs Assessment survey:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2016NeedAssessment-Southwest-Utah.
The survey takes the average person between 4 – 10 minutes to complete and will be open until May 31, 2016
at 11:59pm. Feel free to pass this survey along to constituents, other local elected officials, and those working in
the private sector.
The results of the survey will also be available later this summer after it is presented to and approved by the Five
County Human Services Council and Five County Steering Committee.
Thank you in advance for your willingness to participate. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Outreach to Faith-based / Private Organizations: The flyer below was developed by Five County Community Action staff to promote the survey and public forums:
Five County Association of Governments 1070 West 1600 South, Building B, St. George, UT 84770
[email protected] (435) 674-5757 ext. 102
Community Action 2016 Public Forums
Come share your opinions regarding needs in your community about
Housing Child Care Transportation Health Income Education Nutrition
Beaver County: Beaver City Hall (30 West 300 North, Beaver, UT) @ 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 10th
Garfield County: Panguitch City Library (25 S 200 E, Panguitch) @ 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 11th
Iron County: Cedar City Hall (10 N Main St, Cedar City, UT 84720) @ 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 26th
Kane County: Kanab Public Library (374 N Main St., Kanab) @ 3:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 4th
Washington County: Grace Episcopal Church (1072 E 900 S, St. George) @ 6:30 p.m. on Friday, May 13th
Spanish
Language Forum: St. George Library (88 W 100 S, St. George) @ 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 17th
Interpretive services can be paid for by Five County Association of Governments – Community Action. Please contact Toni
Tuipulotu at 674-5757 ext. 104 to request an interpretive service at least 24 hours prior to the public forum you plan to attend.
We’d also love for you to take the Southwest Needs Assessment at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2016NeedAssessment-Southwest-Utah
Utilizing volunteers and members of the tri-partite board, flyers were distributed to 10 local churches and 77 local
businesses in Washington and Iron counties.
Press Release: Cindy Rose, a Community Action program specialist in the Cedar City Office, provided local media in Iron and Beaver
counties the following press release:
Outreach via social media
Throughout May 2016, Five County AOG launched 6 Facebook campaigns for the public forums and the need assessment
survey. For county-specific events, the geography was changed just to target local Facebook users. Five County reached
over 4,000 unduplicated Facebook users in southwest Utah. At least 112 surveys were completed as a result of the
Facebook campaign.
Below are some of the Facebook posts which were posted on the Community Action Department page:
In addition to Facebook campaigns, Shelly Esplin of the local DWS office assisted Five County Staff in posting the link to
the survey on Iron County Facebook groups, which resulted in at least 20 additional surveys being completed.
The Learning Center for Families and Help Me Grow also assisted in creating Facebook events for the public forums on
behalf of Five County Association of Governments.
The Community Needs Survey
The community needs assessment survey was open to the public from April 26 to June 14, 2016. A total of 345
participants completed the survey, including at least 16 local elected officials, 114 human services practitioners, 6 non-
English speakers, and 90 CSBG-eligible clients. 80 responses came from paper surveys for seniors and those with limited
computer proficiency or access.
There were 2 surveys omitted from the need assessment for being “survey sabotages”. These answers were deliberately
provided in a sarcastic manner which made unfounded generalization of subpopulations rather than providing honest
feedback. These surveys will not appear in the results of survey.
Based on the demographic information collected in the survey, the respondents are approximately proportionate to the
area demographics in regard to income distribution, race, and education. There are two categories where the
respondent demographics do not align with the demographics of the general population. They are as follows:
Females comprised approximately 73% of the survey respondents, which is not representative of the overall
population
Residents 23 and under only comprise 6% of the survey responses, but make
A limitation of this survey is that it was meant to engage the community and solicit feedback from low-income, private,
non-profit, faith-based, and government leaders rather than be designed for data modeling or inferential statistics. It
was intended to be as short as possible to generate complete responses.
Demographics of Survey Respondents County breakdown:
Answer Choices– Responses–
–
Beaver
9.06% 30
– Garfield
9.37% 31
–
Iron
21.75% 72
–
Kane
5.74% 19
–
Washington
54.08% 179
Total 331
How long people lived in that county:
Answer Choices– Responses–
–
less than one year
2.42% 8
– 1-2 years
7.88% 26
–
3-5 years
9.09% 30
Answer Choices– Responses–
– 5-10 years
16.67% 55
–
over 10 years
63.94% 211
Total 330
Ethnicity:
12 chose to skip the answer. Note – the option for mixed race was not given on the survey.
Answer Choices– Responses–
–
African American or Black
2.10%
7
–
Asian
0.90%
3
–
Alaskan Native or American Indian / Native American
3.30%
11
–
Caucasian or White
84.70%
303
–
Hispanic or Latin
7.80%
26
–
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
1.20%
4
Total Respondents: 333
2014 ACS Data for 5 County Region
White Black American Indian Asian Islander
Mixed Race
194,924 1,080 3,018 1,394 1,731 4,279
94.4% 0.5% 1.5% 0.7% 0.8% 2.1%
* 9.2% of region is Hispanic (within Race categories)
Gender:
Answer Choices– Responses–
– Male
26.46% 86
–
Female
73.54% 239
–
Other
0.00% 0
Answer Choices– Responses–
Total 325
Age:
Answer Choices– Responses–
–
17 or younger
3.06% 10
–
18-23
3.67% 12
–
24-44
36.39% 119
– 45-54
19.57% 64
–
55-69
29.97% 98
–
70 or above
7.34% 24
Total 327
Education:
Answer Choices– Responses–
– 0 - 8th grade
3.66% 12
–
9th - 11th grade
3.66% 12
–
high school diploma
14.63% 48
–
12 + some post secondary
22.26% 73
–
2 year college or Associate's Degree
12.50% 41
–
4 years of college or Bachelor's Degree
27.74% 91
–
Master's Degree or beyond
15.55% 51
Total 328
Income:
Answer Choices– Responses–
–
not employed
8.17% 25
–
employed hourly
10.46% 32
–
employed part-time
12.42% 38
–
employed full-time
42.48% 130
Answer Choices– Responses–
– seasonal employment only
0.98% 3
–
employed with multiple jobs
5.56% 17
–
retired and receiving income from Social Security and/or retirement plan
18.63% 57
–
currently receiving benefits from DWS until I can obtain employment
1.31% 4
Total 306
Income:
Answer Choices– Responses–
–
$0 - $10,000
10.00% 30
– $10,001 - $20.000
15.00% 45
–
$20,001 - $30,000
11.67% 35
–
$30,001 - $40,000
14.33% 43
–
$40,001 - $50,000
11.67% 35
–
$50,001 - $60,000
9.00% 27
–
$60,001 or over
28.33% 85
Total 300
Household Size:
* Average CSBG client had household size of about 3
Answer Choices– Responses–
–
1
20.44% 65
– 2
29.25% 93
–
3
15.09% 48
–
4
14.78% 47
–
5
10.38% 33
– 6
5.66% 18
Answer Choices– Responses–
– 7
2.83% 9
–
8
0.31% 1
–
9
0.63% 2
–
10
0.31% 1
–
11
0.00% 0
–
12
0.31% 1
Total 318
Housing:
Answer Choices– Responses–
–
stable housing (rent)
22.12% 69
–
stable housing (own)
61.86% 193
–
living with family or friends
4.81% 15
–
unstable housing (own or rent)
8.33% 26
– living in an emergency shelter
0.32% 1
–
living in a motel
0.32% 1
–
homeless
2.24% 7
Total 312
Health Insurance:
Answer Choices– Responses–
–
yes
81.70% 259
–
no
18.30% 58
Total 317
Benefits from Employment:
Answer Choices– Responses–
–
yes, I receive benefits
54.05% 167
Answer Choices– Responses–
– no, I do not receive benefits
45.95% 142
Total 309
Household Type:
Answer Choices– Responses–
–
single parent (female)
7.43% 22
–
single parent (male)
0.34% 1
–
married with children in the home
37.84% 112
–
marriedwith no children in the home
22.97% 68
– livingwith partner
3.72% 11
–
single person
18.58% 55
–
multiple adults with children in the home
4.05% 12
–
multiple adults no children in the home
5.07% 15
Total 296
Below is a summary of the questions:
Unmet Needs
Question 1 - How well do you think the following needs are being met in your
community? Please rate on a scale of 0 - 10, with 10 meaning needs are completely
met and 0 meaning needs are not met at all:
Housing
Transportation
Income Management
Employment
Family Supports
Community Involvement
Nutrition
Health
Education
Emergency Services
4.42
4.61
4.68
5.12
5.57
5.58
5.65
5.91
6.35
6.94
Q1 - ON A SCALE OF 0-10 (WITH 0 BEING COMPLETELY UNMET AND 10 MET), HOW ARE THESE
NEEDS BEING MET?
Prioritization of Unmet Needs
All survey Responses
Local Elected Officials
Human Services Providers
Program Clients / General
Public
Spanish Speaking Surveys
Priority 1 Housing Income Management Housing Housing
Community Involvement
Priority 2 Transportation Housing Transportation Transportation Income Management
Priority 3 Income Management Transportation
Income Management
Income Management
Housing
Priority 4 Employment Family Supports Employment Employment Transportation
Priority 5 Community Involvement Employment Family Supports Family Supports
Employment
Priority 6 Family Supports Education Community Involvement
Community Involvement
Family Supports
Priority 7 Nutrition Community Involvement Nutrition Nutrition
Nutrition
Priority 8 Health Nutrition Health Health Education
Priority 9 Education Health Education Education Health
Priority 10 Emergency Services
Emergency Services
Emergency Services
Emergency Services
Emergency Services
Beaver County Garfield County Iron County Kane County Washington County
Priority 1 Transportation Housing Income Management Transportation Housing
Priority 2 Income Management Employment Transportation Housing
Income Management
Priority 3 Housing Income Management Housing
Income Management Transportation
Priority 4 Family Supports Transportation Employment Employment Employment
Priority 5 Employment Education Nutrition Nutrition Community Involvement
Priority 6 Community Involvement Family Supports
Community Involvement Family Supports Family Supports
Priority 7 Education Community Involvement Health
Community Involvement Nutrition
Priority 8 Health Nutrition Family Supports Health Health
Priority 9 Nutrition Health Education Education Education
Priority 10 Emergency Services
Emergency Services
Emergency Services
Emergency Services
Emergency Services
For questions 2 – 9, qualitative data was collected. Below is the Word cloud of how frequently a word appears in
qualitative responses. The bigger the word, the more frequently it was mentioned. There is also a box of the top ten
frequent words in the qualitative section
Question 2 – Top 10 Key Word Count:
• Housing - 17.24% • Services - 12.93% • Community - 11.21% • Center - 7.76% • Families- 7.76%
• Senior- 6.03% • Drug- 4.31% • Teen-4.31% • Homeless-4.31%
Support for People -
Questions 2 was a response-only question to give participants an opportunity to express needs that may have been hard
to prioritize on question 1 or to expound on prioritization. An analysis of text reveals that housing was the top unmet
need for clients and included comments such as frustration find housing for those exiting homeless and jail, those on
fixed incomes (SSI / SSDI) including seniors and persons with disabilities, and those supporting large families.
Another common theme was building a sense of community. Many comments indicated that housing is tied into having
a community and stability. Some comments also spoke about the importance of community centers, including senior
citizen, health, and recreational center.
Question 3 - Are there INCOME barriers that prevent you or someone you know from
achieving economic security? Answer Choices– Responses–
–
No
38.64%
131
Answer Choices– Responses–
–
Yes. Please Explain
61.36%
208
Total 339
Top 10 Key Word Count:
• Jobs-28.02% • Low-24.64% • Pay-21.26% • Employment-8.21% • Cost of Living-7.25% • Opportunities-4.83%
• Education-4.83% • Disability-4.35% • Minimum Wage-3.38% • Money-3.38% • Businesses-2.42% • Town-2.42% • SSI-1.93%
61% of survey respondents indicated that income barriers prevent themselves or someone they know from achieving
economic security. The majority of responses talk about the low wages and high cost of living. There are at least five
responses which address the need for low-income entrepreneurs to receive more training a support. These responses
often address “opportunities” and “town”, indicating they believe community support is the best way to create
opportunity. Other responses addressed the mis-match with educational achievement to the wages being paid in the
region and even the state.
Other Data:
(I) Income / Use of Income
Base Year: 2016
A – Income Area Characteristics
Characteristics (see the Data
Element suggestions under
Issue
Area “Use of Income”)
By County:
Overall Measure
for Utah Beaver Garfield Iron Kane
Washington
Poverty Rate 13% 13.6% 22.8% 8.5% 15.5% 11.5%
Percent Change in poverty rate from last
assessment 2.2% -1.0% 1.7% -3.4% -0.2% -1.3%
Income Inequality (GINI Index 0-1 – 0
means complete income equality) .40 .42 .43 .38 .43 .42
GINI change from last assessment -.02 +.01 +.02 -.06 +.01 0
Median Income $50,818 $45,666 $43,615 $48,456 $50,169 $60,943
Percent change in median income from
last assessment 17.57% -0.79% 3.29% 6.64% -0.27
Required Living Wage* - 2 Adults 2
Children (with both parents working) $14.45 $14.45 $14.45 $14.73 $14.96 $15.19
Average family size for those at 125%* - 2.8 2.8 1.9 1.8 2.5 N/D
Required annual income before taxes for
the average family size* $60,111 $60,111 $60,111 $61,277 $62,239 $63,191
Number of families that received Earned
Income Tax Credits (2012) 534 282 3,085 408 9,055 195,000
Persons receiving Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) – Cash
Assistance (June 2016)
7 3 191 23 341 10,540
Persons receiving Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) – Cash
Assistance (January 2016)
13 5 172 23 405 10,501
Number of children receiving
free/reduced lunch 778 424 4,803 591 13,838 231,165
Number/percentage of residents receiving
food stamps (June 2016)
499
(7.9%)
311
(6.2%)
5,632
(11.6%)
534
(7.5%) 13,656 (8.8%) 224,201 (7.5%)
Number/percentage of residents receiving
food stamps (January 2016)
479
(7.5%)
312
(6.2%)
5,800
(12.0%)
535
(7.5%) 14,314 (9.2%) 228,472 (7.6%)
Families Receiving Emergency Food
Boxes (January 2016) 373 319 1,544 154 2,555 N/D
Families Receiving Emergency Food
Boxes (June 2016) 328 296 1,244 108 2,299 N/D
Number receiving SSI, average benefit
and average household size
2.7% /
$4,546
3.3% /
$8,482
5.8% /
$9,628
5.1% /
$13,729 3.6% / $11,390 3.5%/$9,567
Number receiving SSA and average
benefit and average household size
31.3% /
$17,833
40.7% /
$16,981
27.8% /
$17,224
41.0% /
$18,188 39.0% / $19,988 24.2%/$18,620
% of residence declaring bankruptcy 0.20% 0.12% 0.29% 0.17% 0.32% 0.46%
Average EITC Return (2012) $1,580 $1,529 $1,474 $1,456 $1,419 N/A
Other: Number of Families receiving
Child Care Subsidy (June 2016) 45 9 459 0 1,305 21,447
Percentage of children experiencing or
who are at risk of experiencing
intergenerational poverty (2015)
30 – 35% 30 – 35% 47% 32% >40% 31%
MIT Living Wage Calculator - http://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/
Five County Association of Governments Administrative Data – Food pantry data (Calendar year 2015 – DBA FacsPro Database;
Returns Claiming Child Tax Credits, Percent by County, Brookings EITC 2012; http://jobs.utah.gov/wi/statewide/assistrecipients.html;
ACS – http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_14_1YR_DP03&prodType=table;
Corporation for Enterprise Development - http://scorecard.assetsandopportunity.org/latest/measure/bankruptcy-rate
US Federal Courts - http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/f-5a/bankruptcy-filings/2016/03/31)
4th Annual Report on Intergenerational Poverty - http://www.jobs.utah.gov/edo/intergenerational/igp15.pdf
Question 4 - Are there EDUCATION barriers that prevent you or someone you know
from achieving economic security?
Answer Choices– Responses–
–
No
65.49%
222
–
Yes, please explain
34.51%
117
Total 339
For those who answered ‘Yes’
Key Word Count:
• Education– 26.50% • School - 17.95% • Cost - 10.26% • College - 9.40% • Job (Connection to)- 7.76% • Local- 5.98% • Income- 5.13%
• Expensive-5.13% • Access-3.42%
Travel – 2.56%
Child Care- 1.71% • Control1.71% • Finances - 1.71%
Unlike many of the other barriers listed in the survey, 65.49% do not experience or know someone who experiencing
barriers. In some ways, this is surprising since the educational obtainment for the region lags state and national
averages, especially in regard to percent of individuals with bachelor degrees. For those who stated yes, there were
concerns over local education which properly prepares students for the workforce and a larger number indicated costs
as barrier to post-high school education. In a smaller number of respondents, they indicated that travel and childcare
are the barriers to them furthering their education.
(II) Education
Base Year: 2016
A – Income Area Characteristics
Characteristics (see the Data
Element suggestions under
Issue
By County: Overall Measure
for Utah Beaver Garfield Iron Kane Washington
Area “Use of Income”)
High School Graduation Rate 69.7% 61.1% 75.1% 77.3% 77.2% 84.0%
Percent of Individuals with a Bachelors
Degree 18.2% 23.2% 27.1% 25.6% 27.1% 31.10%
Higher Education Enrollment (18 and
older) 3.1% 3.7% 17.1% 3.2% 10.8% 11.90%
Early Education Enrollment* 44.6% 64.5% 41.2% 50.3% 45.1% 42.80%
Average Classroom Size 19.64 16.85 21.20 17.02 22.02 22.02
Utah School Board Enrollment data - http://www.schools.utah.gov/data/Reports/Class-Size/StateReport2015.aspx;
http://www.schools.utah.gov/data/Reports/Graduation-Dropout/Subgroup2015.aspx;
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
(III) Employment
Base Year: 2016
A – Income Area Characteristics
By County: Overall
Measure for
Utah Beaver Garfield Iron Kane Washington
Average Monthly Wage $2768 $2307 $2467 $2442 $2614 $3,515
Average Hourly Wage $16.65 $16.65 $16.65 $16.65 $17.26 $16.34
Unemployment Rate 3.9% 8.6% 4.5% 4.6% 4.3% 3.80%
Job Growth* (Year-year
ending March 2016) 0.7% 3.6% 5.9% 8.5% 6.1% 2.90%
Sector with Highest
Employment Rate* Office and
Administrative
Support
Occupations
Office and
Administrative
Support
Occupations
Office and
Administrative
Support
Occupations
Office and
Administrative
Support
Occupations
Office and
Administrative
Support
Occupations
Office and
Administrative
Support
Occupations
Wages for Sector with
Highest Employment
Rate*
$13.75 $13.75 $13.75 $13.75 $14.23 $15.84
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_ut.htm#00-0000;
http://jobs.utah.gov/wi/pubs/eprofile/index.html;
Question 5 - Are there Housing barriers that prevent you or someone you know from
achieving economic security?
Answer Choices– Responses–
–
No
41.00%
139
–
Yes, please explain
59.00%
200
Total 339
Key Word Count:
• Rent - 18.69% • Affordable Housing-16.67% • Low Income Housing-14.65% • Rentals-12.63% • Expensive-7.58% • Cost of Housing-6.06%
• Waiting List-5.56% • Housing Available-4.55% • Prices-4.55% • Live-4.55% • County-3.03% • Limited-3.03%
59% of respondents indicated that housing was barrier to achieving economic security. Surprisingly, very limited
comments about home repairs and ownership were found. This may indicate that those who are renting are the ones
more likely to achieve economic security due to rising rent costs. One major discrepancy between the comments at the
public forums and the community needs assessment is the omission of vacation rentals. When survey data was
presented at public forums, community members and local elected officials were then able to provide an explanation of
unregulated vacation rentals on housing availability and rising costs. Additionally, most respondents on the survey did
not indicate homelessness as an issue relating to housing issues. Need!
(IV) Housing
Base Year: 2016
A – Income Area Characteristics
Characteristics (see the Data
Element suggestions under
Issue
Area “Use of Income”)
By County:
Overall Measure
for Utah Beaver Garfield Iron Kane Washington
Homeownership Rates 78% 78% 63% 79% 69% 69.9%
Average Household Size
2.94 2.69 3.02
2.43
2.98 3.14
Fair Market Rent $606 $606 $606 $692 $763
# of Tax Credit or Affordable Housing
Units (2015 Federal Housing Credit
Award)
4 0 0 0 0 621
Foreclosure Rate*
Restricted Restricted
1 in
every
7696
ND 1 in every
1116
1 in 1439 housing
units
Median Home Price (2014 ACS) $144,200 $156,600 $165,400 $168,200 $209,500 $212,500
Number of Chronically Homeless
Individuals (2015 PIT) 0 0 2 0 0 168
Number of Children Doubled Up with
Another Family for Economic Reasons 2,175 – Mostly in Washington County 11,283
Number of Homeless Veterans 0 0 0 0 10 336
Number of Transitional Housing and
Permanent Supportive Housing Units 0 0 8 0 125
222
(Balance of State
Total)
Apartment Vacancy (ACS 2014) 15.2% 15.8% 12.6% 14.3% 6% /.4%* 5.7%
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/49001,49; http://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/ann15ind.html;
http://www.realtytrac.com/statsandtrends/foreclosuretrends/ut
http://www.zillow.com/ut/home-values/
https://utahhmis.org/reports/trends-in-homelessness/
https://jobs.utah.gov/housing/scso/documents/homelessness2015.pdf
http://excelcres.com/market-research/ * Washington County Only
http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/84713-Beaver/
https://utahhousingcorp.org/PDF/awarded_2015.pdf
http://www.utahcontinuum.org/ucc/utah-balance-of-state/2016-bos-coc-grant-information/
According to the 2016 point-in-time count, the region saw a 12% increase in homeless individuals. The region also had
approximately 31% of all homeless individuals within the Utah Balance of State, with 42% of those counted being
unsheltered. Approximately 30% of the 230 individuals included in the FY 16 headcount reported experiences domestic
violence.
Question 6 - Are there Nutrition barriers that prevent you or someone you know
from achieving economic security?
Answer Choices– Responses–
–
No
74.34%
252
–
Yes, please explain
25.66%
87
Total 339
Key Word Count:
• Nutrition- 18.39% • Expensive-14.94% • Needs-12.64% • Eat-10.34% • Healthy Food-9.20% • Income-6.90% • Fresh Fruits-5.75% • Health-5.75%
• Buy-5.75% • Money-5.75% • Fresh Produce-3.45% • Community-3.45% • Cost-3.45% • Care-3.45% • Food Stamps-2.30% • Not Enough Education-2.30%
Only 25% of survey respondents indicated nutrition as a barrier to achieving economic security for themselves or
someone they know. Although Five County AOG has been involved in pantry support for decades, there are more food
resources in this area due to the Southern Utah Branch of the Utah Food Bank, additional grocery rescue, and the LDS
church. In some responses, survey respondents indicated that is much easier for their local church congregation to help
with food than housing.
For those who reported they or someone they knew faced nutrition-related barriers, they most frequently spoke about
the expense of purchasing healthy food. While there are community gardening, WIC, and pantry grocery rescue
opportunities in many areas, there are fewer grocery rescue resources in Garfield County.
Another barrier addressed in the survey is the ability and knowledge of how to prepare healthy food, even when it is
available through community pantries or via SNAP benefits. This may indicate that additional linkages to USU’s Food
Sense and other related classes are needed. Where low-income families can use food stamps for fresh produce and
meats, they often do not know how to prepare healthy meals. This outreach at pantries will be essential.
In relation to SNAP data, it appears as though aging itself is another nutrition-related barrier to becoming economic
security. Data from the community needs assessment shows that food stamp cases only increased in Garfield and Kane
counties, counties where seniors comprise a greater share of the population than they did at the time of the 2013 need
assessment. Five County Area Agency of Aging and county senior citizen centers can meet some of this need through
senior citizen meals, transportation, meals on meals, and home-based meals for clients which are easy to prepare. USDA
Food Commodities for seniors in also another resource to be better utilized in serving these counties specifically
As Five County AOG staff reviewed the data, they considered doing away with pantry services altogether. However,
when staff discussed why nutritional needs were being met, they concluded that the need was partly being met through
support of community partners. By suddenly discontinuing service, the impact would be felt most in rural areas, such as
the Hurricane Valley area, Beaver County, and Garfield County. They also examined the frequency of pantry visits and
realized there are opportunities to better utilize food pantries as linkages to resources which can assist with
employment, increase financial assets, outreach to homeless clients, and support larger self-sufficiency efforts. While
rural pantry workers provide excellent case management, they are sometimes limited by multiple jobs or employment
hours. Five County AOG staff also recognizes the need to secure other non-CSBG pantry resources to continue
operation of pantries, so that CSBG resources may better support case management and asset building at pantries.
AmeriCorps volunteers to build capacity may be a resource for this solution.
(V) Nutrition
Base Year: 2016
A – Income Area Characteristics
Characteristics (see the Data
Element suggestions under
Issue
Area “Use of Income”)
By County:
Overall Measure
for Utah Beaver Garfield Iron Kane Washington
Percentage of Children on Free or Reduced
School Lunch 778 424 4,803 591 13,838 231,165
Number/percentage of residents receiving
food stamps (June 2016)
499
(7.9%)
311
(6.2%)
5,632
(11.6%)
534
(7.5%) 13,656 (8.8%) 224,201 (7.5%)
Number/percentage of residents receiving
food stamps (June 2013)
524
(8.1%)
299
(5.9%)
6,106
(13.1%)
508
(7.0%)
16,827
(11.4%) 252,728 (8.7%)
Percent Change in Food Stamp Caseload -4.8% +4.0% -7.8% +5.1% -18.8% -11.3%
Adults Obesity Rate (2014) * Combined 31.5%* 31.5%* 22.4% 31.5%* 22.2% 25.7%
Adult Obesity Rate – under 150% FPG (2015) 20.5%* 20.5%* 22.3% 20.5%* 27.2% 29.3%
WIC Participation No County Data 61,259
% of population with diabetes (2013) 6.9% 9.7% 6.8% 9.8% 7.8% 7.7%
Child Obesity Rates No County Data 11.60%
http://www.schools.utah.gov/data/Reports/Child-Nutrition.aspx
http://www.jobs.utah.gov/wi/statewide/assistrecipients.html
http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/26wifypart.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/atlas/countydata/atlas.html
http://stateofobesity.org/states/
http://gis.cdc.gov/grasp/diabetes/DiabetesAtlas.html
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_14_1YR_S2201&prodType=table
http://ibis.health.utah.gov/query/builder/brfss/LandlineCell_BRFSSCrude/BMI.html
Question 7 - Are there Health barriers that prevent you or someone you know from
achieving economic security?
Answer Choices– Responses–
–
No
58.70%
199
–
Yes, please explain
41.30
140
Total 339
Key Words:
• Health-29.93% • Insurance-18.25% • Care-15.33% • Medical-11.68% • Doctors-8.03% • Services-5.84% • Money-4.38%
• Unable to Work-1.46% • Funding-1.46% • SSI-1.46% • Drug-1.46% • Physical-1.46% • Transportation-1.46% • Ear-1.46%
• Limited-4.38% • Substance Abuse Treatment-2.19% • Hospital-2.19% • Offer-2.19% Long Term-1.46% • Chronic Diseases-1.46%
• Pain-1.46% • Physicians-1.46% • Rural-1.46% • Shots-1.46% • Specialists-1.46% • Support-1.46%
41% of clients who completed the community need assessment survey indicated that health was a major barrier for
themselves or someone they know in achieving economic security. One a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no health
needs are being met to 10, with all health needs being met, the average score was 5.91. This was prioritized at the 8th
most unmet need. From the responses of these 41% who indicated health was a barrier, the most frequent gas in
services relate to access to health insurance, substance abuse treatment, dental, and mental health counseling. There
was a decrease in the number of individuals indicating they had unmet physical needs. Transportation for medical care
was indicated as a barrier to exiting poverty.
(VI) Health
Base Year: 2016
A – Income Area Characteristics
Characteristics (see the
Data Element
suggestions under Issue
Area “Use of Income”)
By County:
Overall Measure for Utah Beaver Garfield Iron Kane
Washington
Infant Mortality Rate 4.53 deaths per 1000 live births * Data only available on
regional level* 4.9 deaths per 1000 live births
Adult Life Expectancy Rate 77.4 78.8 78.15 78.5 80.8 80.2
Adult Life Expectancy Rate -
Male (2010) 74 76.9 76.6 76.3 78.5 78.3
Adult Life Expectancy Rate -
Female (2010) 80.8 80.7 79.7 80.7 83.1 82.1
Percentage of Individuals
Uninsured 12.2% 20.6% 20.2% 19.1% 21.7% 12.50%
Rate of Infectious Diseases* Combined with state data 563.4 per 100,000 people
% of adults reporting fair or poor
health 14% 14% 12% 12% 13% 13%
https://ibis.health.utah.gov/indicator/view/InfMort.Ut_USYear.html
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/life-expectancy/
http://www.countyhealthrankings.org/sites/default/files/state/downloads/CHR2016_UT.pdf
http://maps.communitycommons.org/viewer/?mapid=2511s
http://caputah.org/poverty-in-utah/poverty-reports
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_14_1YR_S2701&prodType=table
Question 8 - Are there Transportation barriers that prevent you or someone you
know from achieving economic security?
Answer Choices– Responses–
–
No
50.44%
171
–
Yes, please explain
49.56%
168
Total 339
• Bus-33.53% • Public Transportation-22.16% • Limited-12.57% • Buses-5.99%
• Employment-2.40% • Hard-2.40% • Ride-2.40% • Cedar City-2.40%
• Afford-5.39% • Community-4.79% • Senior-4.19% • Town-3.59% • Transit-3.59% • Extended-2.99% • Travel-2.99% • Low Income-2.40% • Washington City-2.40%
• Access-1.80% • Job Opportunities-1.80% • DMV-1.80% • Money-1.80% • Bike Lanes-1.20% • Owning a Vehicle-1.20% • Far-1.20% • Miles-1.20%
50% of clients who completed the community need assessment survey indicated that transportation was a major barrier
for themselves or someone they know in achieving economic security. On a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 indicating no
transportation needs are being met to 10, with all health needs being met, the average score was 5.91. This was
prioritized as the 2nd most unmet need out of 10 areas. From the responses of the 50% who indicated transportation
was a barrier, the most frequent barriers mentioned were frequency and reach of public transportation (especially for
SunTran not expanding into Washington City), the lack of rural public transportation for non-seniors in Garfield, Kane,
and Beaver counties, the need for transit navigation training, and the increased cost of transportation for families
commuting long-distances for employment. During the public forum in Cedar City, a representative of the Utah
Department of Workforce services also talked about the extra transportation cost burden for those driving to childcare
providers that too far from work.
(VII) Transportation
Base Year: 2016
A – Income Area Characteristics
Characteristics (see the Data
Element suggestions under
Issue
Area “Use of Income”)
By County:
Overall Measure
for Utah Beaver Garfield Iron Kane Washington
Workers 16 years and over 2,708
2,139 18,852 3,190 55,216 1,299,818
Car, truck, or van -- drove alone 2,251
(83.1%)
1,472
(68.8%)
14,435
(76.6%)
2,512
(78.7%)
42,842
(77.6%)
978,566
(75.3%)
Car, truck, or van -- carpooled 279
(10.3%)
241
(11.3%)
2,298
(12.2%)
205
(6.4%)
5,981
(10.8%)
151,602
(11.7%)
Public transportation (including taxicab) 9
(0.3%)
0
(0.0%)
88
(0.5%)
0
(0.0%)
181
(0.3%)
30,823
(2.4%)
Walked 75
(2.8%)
192
(9.0%)
957
(5.1%)
163
(5.1%)
1,457
(2.6%)
32,668
(2.5%)
Other means 18 59 323 62 1,126 25,073
(0.6%) (44.83%) (1.7%) (1.9%) (2.0%) (1.9%)
Worked at home
70
(2.6%)
112
(5.2%)
399
(2.10%)
235
(7.4%)
2,582
(4.7%)
62,601
(4.8%)
Mean travel time to work (minutes) 17 14 19 13 18 20
http://www.statsamerica.org/distress/distress.aspx (2014 ACS Data)
Question 9 - If there were barriers you listed, how can the community come together
to overcome these barriers? Please explain below:
• Housing-15.49% • Community (Bottom-up approach)-14.79% • Families-10.56% • Service-8.45% • Wages-7.75% • Jobs-6.34% • Think-5.63% • Health-4.93% • County-4.93% • Programs-4.93% • Low Income-4.23% • Public Transportation-4.23%
• Address (Talk openly about)-3.52% • Issues-3.52% • Instead (Diversion)-2.82% • Assistance-2.82% • Private-2.82% • Children-2.11% • Ask-2.11% • Public Transit-1.41% • Expand Transportation Options-1.41% • Unknown-1.41% • Committee-1.41% • Freedom-1.41%
• Fund-4.23% • Place (Divert)-4.23%
• Idea-1.41% • Truly-1.41%
There were many respondents who could not think of specific solutions to problems, but indicated the need for local
decisions, the ability to discuss tough issues openly, to think about solutions, to include the private-sector in solutions,
and to create linkages though initiatives such as the intergenerational poverty commission.
Some specific solutions that were addressed in regard to housing and transportation is to explore private-sector
solutions such federal tax credits and Community Reinvestment Act to help developers build more affordable housing
and to expand ride-share services in rural counties. In some solutions, the public sector can provide technical support,
coordination, and data needed for these community-driven solutions.