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

ccottam@fivecounty.utah.gov (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.