Full text of Community Investments (Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco) : Community Investments, Volume 17, Issue 1 : Community Development Assessment for the State of Utah

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT
FOR
THE STATE OF UTAH

A GUIDE TO UTAH’S
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO

2

FOREWORD
Ethan Jennings
December 2004
The Community Affairs Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has
developed a new series of reports for the nine states in the Twelfth District that both detail the
demographic, economic, governmental, and institutional underpinnings of each state and provide
an analysis of the various community development needs within each state. These reports, which
we are calling “Environmental Assessments,” are meant to provide a framework for the array of
community development activities that the department undertakes across the District. The hope
is that the reports will not only provide a helpful compilation of existing community
development needs and resources for each state, but will also allow us to target our time and
resources to those areas that both show the greatest need and offer the opportunity for the most
meaningful role.
We hope that you will find these Environmental Assessments useful and that the information
presented will enhance your understanding of the state of community development in each
location.
We look forward to your comments and suggestions.

Joy Hoffmann
Vice President
Community Affairs Department

Jack Richards
Senior Community Affairs Manager
Community Affairs Department

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT
I.

DEMOGRAPHICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

II.

ECONOMY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

III.

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

IV.

NONPROFITS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AND RESOURCES
V.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

VI.

SMALL BUSINESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

VII.

POVERTY AND ASSET ACCUMULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

VIII. NATIVE AMERICANS AND IMMIGRANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

4

METHODOLOGY
In an attempt to provide a framework for performing our own community development work, the
Community Affairs Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco has produced
separate reports entitled “environmental assessments” for each of the nine states which comprise
the Federal Reserve’s Twelfth District: Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada,
Oregon, Washington, and Utah. Each report is divided into two sections: one covering the
overall “Community Development Environment” in the state, and the other covering the
“Community Development Needs and Resources” in the state. These environmental assessments
are intended to bring together available research and information in both of these areas.
Chapters in the “Community Development Environment” section cover the demographic,
economic, governmental, and institutional underpinnings in each state, providing detail on each
state’s industrial structure, economic outlook, banking system, nonprofit groups, and government
departments involved in community development. The second section of each report delves into
four areas of “Community Development Needs and Resources:” affordable housing, small
business, poverty and asset accumulation, and issues specific to native people and immigrants.
A key resource for both the data and the approach taken in this effort was the 2002 State Asset
Development Report Card, published by an influential research and advocacy organization,
CFED (formerly known as the Corporation for Enterprise Development). CFED’s report
analyzes a great deal of data on a range of factors affecting asset accumulation and poverty for
each state in the nation. The CFED report divides its analysis into separate evaluations of “Asset
Outcomes” and “Asset Policies” for each state, producing an overall grade (A, B, C, D, or F) for
each. Not only do our reports reference virtually all of the individual rankings which feed into
CFED’s two overall grades, but they also follow a somewhat similar approach in dividing each
of the community development areas in each state (affordable housing, small business, poverty
and asset accumulation, and native people and immigrant issues) between “needs” and
“resources” in a manner similar to CFED’s “Asset Outcomes” and “Asset Policies.”
The reports then build on these CFED comparisons by drawing on the considerable resources
already produced by a variety of national and local organizations in these subject areas for each
state, pulling together their major data, analyses, and conclusions into one single report. The
reports were designed by Scott Turner, who managed the project, with additional oversight and
editing by Jack Richards. This Utah Environmental Assessment was written by Ethan Jennings, a
second year student of the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California,
Berkeley. The Environmental Assessment was also supported by significant data and material
gather by Craig Nolte of the Community Affairs Department’s field staff. Websites referenced in
this report were accessed between September and December of 2004, and we have attempted to
provide accurate links to content referenced, although content and/or location may change over
time. We should note here that while the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco sponsored these
environmental assessments, they reflect only the views of the author.
We gratefully acknowledge the community development practitioners in each state who agreed
to review drafts of these reports and provide helpful feedback. In addition, we have attempted to
ensure there are no errors or omissions in this report, but encourage you to contact us if you
believe important changes are warranted. Please contact us by the end of February 2005, and we
will be pleased to make appropriate revisions and post an edited version of the reports on our
website in March 2005.

5

CONCLUSIONS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ENVIRONMENT
1.

Demographics

Utah is the 13th-largest state in total area, covering 84,904 square miles. 1 The state experienced
rapid population growth of 5.3% between 2000 and 2003, the eighth highest in the nation. 2 As of
July 2004, the state’s population was estimated at 2.47 million, 3 with 180,000 residents in Salt
Lake City, the state’s largest urban area. 4 While the state population posted a remarkable
29.6% growth between 1990 and 2000 (the fourth-fastest growth nationwide), the Provo-Orem
MSA grew even faster during the decade, ranking as the 10th-fastest growing MSA in the
country. 5 Utah has a more predominantly White population than the U.S. on average, and
smaller percentages of Blacks/African-Americans and Hispanics/Latinos. 6
2.

Economy

Utah’s economy totaled $75.8 billion in 2003, making it the 33rd-largest state economy in the
country. 7 The state’s unemployment rate has been consistently better than the U.S. rate,
averaging 5.8% in 2003, 8 although Utah had the fourth-lowest personal income per capita in that
year. 9 Utah’s economic outlook is extremely positive due to the state’s projected strong
employment growth in high-paying jobs in the professional and business service and educational
sectors. Manufacturing in Utah has also posted strong growth, mostly a result of the
awarding of significant defense contracts.10
3.

Governmental and Financial Sectors

Utah’s state government is in a sound fiscal position, experiencing a $1.9 billion surplus in
state funds in FY 2003. 11 Not surprisingly, the state earns top bond ratings on its obligations
from the major credit rating agencies. 12 In its financial sector, Utah had three operating
Community Development Financial Institutions as of November 2004, 13 as well as 73 FDICinsured institutions operating in the state with combined deposits in the state of $102 billion. 14
Among these 73 institutions are numerous state-chartered industrial banks, which in 2004
1

Netstate.com, The Geography of Utah, http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/ut_geography.com.
U.S. Census Bureau, Utah QuickFacts, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/.
3
Utah Population Estimates Committee, State of Utah Population Estimates, Net Migration, Births and Deaths,
http://governor.utah.gov/dea/UPEC/04StatePop.pdf.
4
Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2004 Economic Report to the Governor, January 2004,
http://www.governor.utah.gov/dea.
5
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Change and Distribution, 1990-2000,
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-2.pdf.
6
U.S. Census Bureau, Utah QuickFacts.
7
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts, http://www.bea.gov/bea/regional/gsp.htm.
8
Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2004 Economic Report.
9
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts.
10
Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2004 Economic Report.
11
State of Utah Division of Finance, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for FY Ended June 30, 2003.
12
California State Treasurer’s Office, Comparison of Other States’ General Obligation Bond Ratings, December
2004.
13
CDFI Fund, CDFI State Profile – Utah, 2004. http://www.cdfi.org/stateprof.asp.
14
FDIC, Deposit Market Share Report: Utah, June 2004.
2

6

accounted for more than 40% of financial institutions in the state with more than 50% of the
state’s banking assets. 15 Utah’s 119 credit unions hold just 5.4% of combined financial assets in
the state. 16
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS AND RESOURCES
1.

Affordable Housing

Utah faces modest affordable housing challenges. The state’s housing stock grew 27.9% between
1990 and 2000 (the fourth-highest rate nationally), and homeownership also increased during
this time period, growing at the fifth-fastest rate in the country. 17 Utah ranked slightly above
average in its housing affordability at 19th nationwide, although in 2004, more than one fifth
of renters were spending more than 50% of their income on housing. 18 Utah ranks in the top
half nationally (17th) in homeownership, with 72.7% of residents owning their homes. This
is notable given the high median value of homes in the state. 19 Utah has made efforts to improve
housing affordability, including a state housing trust fund and property tax circuit breakers, but
operates only two of six first-time homebuyer assistance programs. 20
2.

Small Business

Small business is important to Utah’s economy, but less so than in other Western states: 75% of
all firms employ fewer than 10 workers, and just over 10% of workers in the state are
employed by such firms (ranking Utah 36th in the nation). 21 Business bankruptcies were
down 13.8% in 2003, 22 but access to credit remains an issue for small businesses: Utah ranks
a below-median 29th in the level of private loans to small businesses and earns the same ranking
for its small business entrepreneurship rate. 23 The state also earns only average scores in gender
and racial cross-sections of small business ownership data, 24 indicating that there is room for
improvement in the minority business environment.
3.

Poverty and Asset Accumulation

Asset poverty may be the single most important community development issue in Utah.
Between 2001 and 2003, Utah’s poverty rate averaged 9.8% (17th-best nationwide). Yet the
state has a low net worth per household 25 and the highest personal bankruptcy rate in the
country. 26 In addition, real per capita income in Utah actually decreased slightly between 2002
15

FDIC, Utah State Profile, Fall 2004; more information about industrial banks is available at
http://www.dfi.utah.gov/whatisIB.htm.
16
Credit Union National Association, State Fact Sheet – Utah, http://www.cuna.org/download/utah_fs.pdf.
17
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2000 Census Results: Housing Trends 1990-2000, Table 1,
U.S. Housing Market Conditions, Summer 2001, http://www.huduser.org/periodicals/ushmc/summer2001/summary2.html.
18
NLIHC, Up Against a Wall, November 2004, http://www.nlihc.org/pubs/uaw04/newrankingtables.pdf.
19
Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Utah Data Guide, Summer 2003.
20
CFED, State Asset Development Report Card (SADRC), 2002.
21
U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2001.
22
U.S. Small Business Administration, Small Business Economic Indicators for 2003, August 2004,
http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbei03.pdf.
23
CFED, SADRC.
24
Ibid.
25
Ibid.
26
American Bankruptcy Institute, U.S. Bankruptcy Statistics, http://www.abiworld.org/statcharts/HouseRank.htm.

7

and 2003, and as many as 32% of the impoverished in Utah lack health insurance. 27 Utah scores
respectably on measures of educational attainment, with 26% of Utahns over 25 having a college
degree (20th). 28 Inequality in educational attainment by race is relatively small, but the gender
gap in the state poses a problem: men have a 47% higher attendance rate in higher education
than women (the eighth-largest gap nationally).29 Utah has taken steps to address its asset
accumulation-related challenges by supporting IDAs, having passed IDA legislation in 1997 and
integrated TANF credits into its IDA policy. 30 The nascent Utah IDA network is also increasing
access to IDAs in the state.
4.

Native Americans and Immigrants

Utah ranks 11th in the percentage of state population (1.3%) accounted for by the
American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN) population. 31 The state has seven reservations that
were home to more than 25,000 American Indians as of 2000. 32 Housing conditions and
poverty levels for the AIAN population are uniformly worse than the state averages: in
2000, the AIAN poverty rate was 33.4%, the median value of AIAN-owned homes was well
below the state mean, and nearly 40% AIAN renters were paying more than 30% of their income
towards rent. 33
Approximately 7% of Utahns are foreign born, the 19th-largest population share
nationwide. The foreign-born population grew 171% in Utah between 1990 and 2000, the fifthfastest rate of growth and three times as much as the national average of 57.4%. Nineteen
percent of the foreign born in Utah live in poverty, and significantly fewer foreign born in
Utah are citizens (30% in Utah versus 40% nationwide). Most immigration to Utah is from
Latin America (55%), Asia (18%), and Europe (16%). 34

27

Utah Issues, State of Working Utah: 2004.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 American Communities Survey Data, http://www.census.gov/acs/www/.
29
CFED, SADRC.
30
George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Center for Social Development, State Assets Policy – Utah,
http://gwbweb.wustl.edu/csd/policy/states/utah.html.
31
U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Data.
32
Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, American Indian Reservation Population 2000,
http://www.governor.state.ut.us/dea/HTMLBriefs/RaceBrief/Reservation/83.htm.
33
U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Data.
34
Ibid.
28

8

STATE OF UTAH
SELECTED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS

35

Affordable Housing
Homeownership Rate 35
Rental Affordability Rate 36
Severely Cost-Burdened Renter Households 37

Rate
72.7%
-21.9%

State Rank
17th
19th
24th

Small Business
Small Business Employment Rate 38
Entrepreneurship Rate 39
Level of Private Loans to Small Business 40

10.3%
11.6%
--

36th
29th
29th

Poverty and Asset Accumulation
Poverty Rate 41
Households with Zero Net Worth 42
Personal Bankruptcy Rate 43

9.8%
14.9%
27.4

17th
27th
50th

Native Americans and Immigrants
Native American Population 44
Native American Poverty Rate 45
Foreign-Born Population 46
Foreign-Born Poverty Rate 47

1.3%
33.4%
7.1%
19.4%

11th
-19th
--

U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Statistical Abstract 2003; represents the percentage of housing units that are occupied
by owners, ranked from highest percentage (1st)
36
NLIHC; Up Against a Wall, November 2004; rank is calculated based on a weighted average of the state’s median
gross rent, renter market affordability ratio, and percent of severely cost-burdened renters, ranked from most
affordable (1st)
37
Ibid.; represents the percentage of renter households in the state spending more than 50% of income on rent in
2003, ranked from lowest percentage (1st)
38
U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 2001; represents the share of total state employment attributable to
firms with ten or fewer employees, ranked from highest share (1st)
39
CFED, SADRC; represents the percentage of the labor force that owns employer or non-employer firms as of 2000,
ranked from highest percentage (1st)
40
Ibid.; represents the dollar amount of private business loans under $1 million per workers, ranked from highest
amount (1st)
41
U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003; represents the
average percentage of people living below the federal poverty level during the period from 2001 to 2003, ranked
from lowest percentage (1st)
42
CFED, SADRC; represents the percentage of households with zero or negative net worth, ranked from lowest
percentage (1st)
43
American Bankruptcy Institute; represents personal bankruptcy filings in 2003 per thousand households in the
state, ranked from fewest filings (1st)
44
U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000; represents the percentage of the state’s population composed of Native
Americans and Alaska Natives (only), ranked from highest percentage (1st)
45
Ibid.; represents the percentage of Native American/Alaska Native (only) individuals living below the federal
poverty level at any time in 1999
46
Ibid.; represents the percentage of the state’s population composed of foreign-born individuals, ranked from
highest percentage (1st)
47
Ibid.; represents the percentage of foreign-born individuals living below the federal poverty level at any time in
1999

9

I.

DEMOGRAPHICS

1.

Geography

Utah is the nation’s 13th-largest state with 82,168 square miles of land area and 2,736 square
miles of water area. 48 The predominant owners of land in Utah are government agencies: the
U.S. Forest Service owns 14.4% and the Bureau of Land Management owns 42%, while private
owners hold only 21.6% of land in Utah. 49

Source: Infoplease.com

2.

Population

Utah’s 2004 population was 2,469,230. 50 The largest cities in 2003 were Salt Lake City
48

Netstate.com, The Geography of Utah. http://www.netstate.com/states/geography/ut_geography.htm.
Utah State University Department of Geography and Earth Resources, Utah Land Ownership,
http://www.nr.usu.edu/Geography-Department/utgeog/landown.html.
50
Utah Population Estimates Committee, State of Utah Population Estimates, Net Migration, Births and Deaths,
http://governor.utah.gov/dea/UPEC/04StatePop.pdf.
49

10

(179,894), West Valley City (111,687) and Provo (105,410). 51 In 2000, Utah ranked 34th in
overall population and 41st in population density (26.3 persons per square mile). 52 Population
growth between 1990 and 2000 was 30%, far above the national average of 13.1%. 53 The median
age in Utah was 27.7 in 2003, compared to 36.0 nationally. 54
Population by County, 1990 and 2000
County / Multi-County Area
1990
Statewide
1,722,850
Bear River Area
108,393
Box Elder
36,485
Cache
70,183
Rich
1,725
Wasatch Front Area
1,104,356
Davis
187,941
Morgan
5,528
Salt Lake
725,956
Tooele
26,601
Weber
158,330
Mountainland Area
289,197
Summit
15,518
Utah
263,590
Wasatch
10,089
Central Area
52,294
Juab
5,817
Millard
11,333
Piute
1,277
Sanpete
16,259
Sevier
15,431
Wayne
2,177
Southwest Area
83,263
Beaver
4,765
Garfield
3,980
Iron
20,789
Kane
5,169
Washington
48,560
Uintah Area
35,546
Daggett
690
Duchesne
12,645
Uintah
22,211
Southeast Area
49,801
Carbon
20,228
Emery
10,332
Grand
6,620
San Juan
12,621
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Data.

51

2000
2,233,169
136,097
42,745
91,391
1,961
1,381,778
238,994
7,129
898,387
40,735
196,533
413,487
29,736
368,536
15,215
66,192
8,238
12,405
1,435
22,763
18,842
2,509
140,919
6,005
4,735
33,779
6,046
90,354
40,516
921
14,371
25,224
54,180
20,422
10,860
8,485
14,413

% Change
29.6
25.6
17.2
30.2
13.7
25.1
27.2
29
23.8
53.1
24.1
43
91.6
39.8
50.8
26.6
41.6
9.5
12.4
40
22.1
15.3
69.3
26
19
62.5
17
86.1
14
33.5
13.7
13.6
8.8
1
5.1
28.2
14.2

U.S. Census Bureau, Census estimates for July 2003.
Netstate.com, Census 2000 State Population Information, http://www.netstate.com/states/tables/st_population.htm.
53
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Change and Distribution, 1990-2000,
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-2.pdf.
54
U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 American Community Survey Data.
52

11

3.

Metropolitan Statistical Areas

In 2003, Utah had five MSAs:
Population by MSA, 2003
2000 Population
102,720
442,656
376,774
90,354
968,858

Logan
Ogden-Cleafield
Provo-Orem
St. George
Salt Lake City
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

4.

2003 Population
107,538
468,942
406,851
104,132
1,005,232

Numerical Change
4,818
26,286
30,077
13,778
36,374

Percent Growth
4.7%
5.9%
8.0%
15.2%
3.8%

55

Race and Ethnicity

The demographics of the state exhibit a high degree of difference from the rest of the country:
Utah has a more predominantly White, American Indian/Alaska Native, and Hawaiian/Pacific
Islander population than the U.S. as a whole. Utah also has dramatically fewer Blacks/African
Americans and slightly fewer Hispanics/Latinos than the U.S. on average.
Population by Race, 2000
Race
Number
% State Population
White
1,992,975
89.2
Black or African American
17,657
0.8
American Indian/Alaska Native
29,684
1.3
Asian
37,108
1.7
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
15,145
0.7
Other race
93,405
4.2
Two or more races
47,195
2.1
Hispanic or Latino (of any race)
201,559
9
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Data.
* Persons of Hispanic or Latino Origin may be of any race

5.

% U.S. Population
75.1
12.3
0.9
3.6
0.1
5.5
2.4
12.5

Educational Attainment

High school attainment for Utahns is notably above national averages, and college graduation
rates are comparable. Ninety percent of Utahns over 25 have completed high school or its
equivalent (fifth) and 26.2% have a bachelor’s degree or higher (21st). The national rates in 2003
were 83.6% and 26.5%, respectively. 56

55

New MSAs have not existed long enough to provide comparative population data from 1990. Missouri Census
Data Center, Populations of Metropolitan Statistical Areas for US: 2000 Census and July, 2003 Estimate,
http://mcdc2.missouri.edu/webrepts/geography/metropops03.pdf.
56
U.S. Census Bureau, 2003 American Community Survey Data.

12

II.

ECONOMY

A.

ECONOMIC STRUCTURE

Gross state product (GSP) is one of the most frequently used comprehensive measures of an
economy. It is defined as the value added in production by the labor and property located in a
state. The Bureau of Economic Analysis reports GSP as data becomes available. Utah’s GSP in
2003 was $75.8 billion current dollars (33rd in the nation), a 3.8% increase over the previous
year. 57 GSP per capita was $32,227, 38th in the nation.
1.

Major Industries

Utah’s leading industries include mining, manufacturing, petroleum and coal, primary metals,
farming, services, and tourism. 58
Utah Gross State Product, 2002
Agriculture/Related, 1%
State/Local Govʹt, 10%
Federal Military, 1%

Mining/Extraction, 1%
Utilities, 2%
Construction, 5%

Federal Govʹt, 4%

Manufacturing, 10%

Other Services, 3%
Accommodation/Food,
3%
Recreation, 1%
Retail and Wholesale,
13%

Health Care, 5%

Services, 11%

Transport, 4%
Information, 4%

Real Estate, 13%

Finance, 9%

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis

Percent Change in Real Gross State Product by Major Industry, 2000-2001
US
Utah

Total
GSP
0.40
0.58

Agric.

Mining

Constr.

Manufg.

-1.70
12.01

4.78
14.67

-1.61
-4.17

-6.00
-13.08

Transport
& Utilities
-0.18
-3.80

Finance

Services

Govt.

2.79
7.63

0.95
1.13

1.81
3.02

Rank in GSP
% Change
N/A
22

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis
57

Not adjusted for inflation. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Accounts. Retrieved from
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2003/gsp0503.xls.
58
Leading industries here refers to those that represent a high share of state or national GSP relative to the size of
the state’s economy. Since Utah’s economy is 0.69% the size of the U.S.’, if an industry in Utah represents more
than 0.69% of total U.S. economic value in a sector then it can be assumed Utah is relatively competitive.

13

a.

Natural Resource Extraction

Although the metals industry in Utah experienced a year of major decline in FY 2001 (from $905
million to $611 million, 32.5% year-on-year contraction), primary metals remain an important
economic sector in Utah, accounting for 1.35% of the value of the national metals sector. Coal
and metal mining had a combined value of $700 million in 2001, representing significant growth
in both mining sectors (14% and 21% growth, respectively). Utah ranked 10th nationally in
total non-fuel mineral production value and 13th in coal production in 1999. 59 Oil and gas
products have traditionally been another strong sector in Utah, representing $727 million of
economic value in 2000. By 2001, however, the oil and gas sector had declined to $388 million
(still worth nearly 1% of total U.S. value generated in the sector).
b.

Manufacturing

During most of the 1990s, Utah manufacturing expanded rapidly, increasing 26% from 1991 to
1998. By contrast, the United States gained only 2%. However, in both 1999 and 2000, about
1,200 jobs were trimmed from manufacturing payrolls, followed by an additional cut of 3,800 in
2001. Substantial layoffs in late 2001 continued this trend through 2002. Although
manufacturing declined nearly 12% in FY 2001, manufacturing activities still represented nearly
11% of Utah’s economy in 2001. 60
c.

Agriculture

The farming sector in Utah grew by 26% between 2000 and 2001, from $470 million to $592
million, making it one of Utah’s biggest industries (although still representing less than 1% of
total U.S. economic activity in agriculture). Increases in meat prices tend to benefit Utah, since
livestock products are dominant.
d.

Information Technology

In recent years, attempts have been made to attract high-tech industries to the state. In 1999, the
state awarded a $5 million loan to Intel to develop a 150-acre campus that was expected to add
an expected 7,000 high-paying jobs. 61 The Intel campus opened in 2000 and thus far directly
employs 600 Utahns. 62 A total of 5.9% of Utahns in the private sector work in high-tech
industries, putting Utah well above the national median. 63 Utah has been ranked ninth in the
Milken Institute’s State Technology and Science index for three consecutive years. It is one of
the top 10 states in total Research & Development (R&D) assets and offers large tax credits for
R&D. The state has over 2,600 information technology companies and over $1 billion
cumulatively invested in telecommunications infrastructure. 64 Technology firms have been hard
59

National Mining Association, Mining in Utah, http://www.nma.org/pdf/states_99/smbut1999.pdf.
Utah Department of Community and Economic Development, State of Utah Economic
Overview, ,http://dced.utah.gov/BIRS/state/STATESUM.htm.
61
Utah Department of Community and Economic Development, 1999 Annual Report: Industrial Assistance Fund,
http://dced.utah.gov/Annrpt99/iaf.html.
62
Intel Corporation, Intel in Your Community, http://www.intel.com/community/utah/index.htm.
63
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, State-by-State Overview of the High-Technology Industry.
64
Economic Development Corporation of Utah, Targeted Industries,
http://www.edcutah.org/pdf/targetedindustries.pdf.
60

14

hit by the dot-com bust, however, and their employment share in Utah has slipped considerably
as a result.
e.

Services and Tourism

Tourism has been a growing sector in the state, with hospitality-related sectors larger than
average for a state the size of Utah. Winter recreation, gains in the restaurant sector, and
increases from regional and discount airlines have helped increase travel receipts; a successful
2002 Winter Olympics played a significant role in attracting winter sports tourism to the state in
2003 (up 7% in FY 2003). 65 Utah's major ski resorts continue to rank among the best in North
America. For example, Alta, Snowbird, and Deer Valley were ranked at or near the top in recent
reader surveys in Ski and Skiing magazines. 66
Utah Services Gross State Product in 2000
Transportation, 4.1%
Wholesale, 3.7%
Government, 18.3%

Retail, 12.1%

Other Services, 3.0%
Information, 2.8%

Leisure, 9.3%

Education, 11.1%

Finance, 6.0%

Professional Services,
12.3%

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2003. 67

2.

Economic Diversification

The most important statewide economic development organization is the Utah Division of
Business and Economic Development (DBED). 68 DBED’s mission is the attraction and
retention of firms and industries in Utah through an incentive fund, private bonding authority, a
business development program, special groups promoting technology and film, and an
international business promotion program.

65

Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2004 Economic Report to the Governor,
http://www.governor.utah.gov/dea. See also FDIC, State Profile – Utah Summer 2004.
66
Zions Bank, Utah Economic Outlook Winter 2004,
http://www.zionsbancorporation.com/zionsbank/ins/insUT2004winter.html.
67
Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Retrieved from Economy.com, State of Utah 2004. Classifications are based on
SIC industry codes and are therefore incompatible with GSP estimates using NAICS.
68
Utah Division of Business and Economic Development, http://dced.utah.gov/DBED/.

15

The Economic Development Corporation of Utah (EDCU) is a private, statewide, non-profit
organization formed in 1987 to provide a unified economic development program promoting the
state. EDCU is an investor-based organization, with more than 230 private sector businesses and
organizations, chambers of commerce, municipalities, and counties. EDCU publishes a quarterly
economic review of the state and maintains a matching grant fund as well as extensive data on
the state economy.
3.

Labor Force and Employment

Employment Patterns in Utah, 2004
United States

Utah

Government
Other Services
Leisure and Hospitality
Education and Health
Professional & Business Services
Finance
Information
Trade, Transport and Utilities
Manufacturing
Construction
Natural Resources and Mining
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

Share of Employment

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

In June 2004, Utah’s labor force totaled 1,109,437 workers. 69 Sixty-nine percent of all Utahns
and 61% of women over 16 years old work, 70 giving Utah a higher labor participation rate
than U.S. average in all categories. 71 In total, 53.4% of labor force is male and 46.6% is
female; 7% of workers are unionized versus 14% nationally. 72 Overall employment was up by
1.3% in the first quarter of FY 2004 73 and has been strong throughout the year. 74
69

Utah Department of Workforce Services, Utah Nonagricultural Employment, October 2004,
http://jobs.utah.gov/edo/information/dwsdefault.asp.
70
U.S. Census Bureau, Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics, http://censtats.census.gov/data/UT/04049.pdf.
71
Utah Issues, State of Working Utah 2004, http://www.altrue.net/site/poverty/content.php?type=1&id=8972. Note
that the high labor participation rate for women exists despite the strong influence of the LDS church, suggesting
that the impacts of the church cannot assumed to be straightforward.
72
Utah Issues, State of Working Utah 2004.
73
FDIC, Utah State Profile Summer 2004.
74
Utah State Department of Workforce Services (unpublished memo, August 17 2004).

16

B.

ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE

1.

Historic Economic Performance

Since World War II ended, Utah’s population has grown rapidly. Utah’s population growth
during the 1960s was the result of high birth rates. In the 1970s and 1980s, the state’s population
growth accelerated as people from other states moved to Utah. Despite the influx of out-of-state
residents, adherents to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) comprised 69% of
the state’s population as of the 2000 Census. 75
The energy crisis in the 1970s greatly aided the oil fields of the Uintah Basin and the coalfields
of Carbon and Emery counties, where the production of coal reached an all-time high. 76 The
national economic recession of the early 1980s resulted in the loss of many mining,
manufacturing, and construction jobs: by 1982, the state’s unemployment rate had reached its
highest level since 1941. A slow economic recovery began in 1984, but the mining industry
remained depressed until 1987. In the 1980s, high-tech businesses began to locate in Utah, a
trend that continued through the 1990s. 77
Utah has had consistently low unemployment since the mid-1980s. During the national recession
of 1991-92, Utah's unemployment rate remained consistently below 4.9% (until late 1992, when
it topped 5%). At the same time, the national unemployment level stayed consistently above 7%,
reaching 7.7% in the summer of 1992 until it dropped below 7%, eventually reaching 5.9% in
late 1994. By mid-1995, Utah's unemployment rate ranged between 3% and 4%. 78
The gap between the national average per capita income (PCI) and Utah’s PCI has grown
successively larger every year since 1980, suggesting that the rest of the country is becoming
wealthier more quickly than Utah. 79 This trend is demonstrated in the graph below, where two
lines show the path of PCI growth for Utah and the U.S. average and another two lines show the
percentage growth in PCI per year for Utah and the U.S. average. With the exception of 2003,
when Utah experienced a particularly strong year, Utah’s average PCI has grown more slowly
than the rest of the country. 80 Further research may be warranted to ascertain whether this is due
to Utah’s high population growth rates and large families (compared to the mean for the entire
country).

75

Utah Office of the Governor, 1999 Population Estimates for Utah,
http://governor.utah.gov/dea/UPEC/Pe99uebrRev.PDF.
76
Utah Geological Survey and Utah Energy Office of the Department of Natural Resources, 2001 Annual Review
and Forecast of Production and Distribution Utah Coal,
http://geology.utah.gov/utahgeo/energy/coal/coalrpt2001.pdf.
77
Houston Consultants for Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development and the High Technology
Industry in Utah: Trends, Implications and Recommendations, http://www.slacc.org/media/pdf%20files/2005-0112.researchunivwhitepaper.pdf.
78
State of Utah, Utah’s New Commonwealth Economy, http://historytogo.utah.gov/commonwealth.html.
79
Per capita income is not intended to be a measure of living standards as it is not adjusted for state or county cost
of living. Fluctuation in the state and national PCI growth rates has meant a net increase in the PCI gap of only 5%
between 1998 and 2003.
80
Bureau of Economic Analysis, Survey of Current Business, http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/spi/.

17
Growth and Current Per Capita Income, 1998‐2003
UT PCI

US PCI

Growth in US PCI

Growth in UT PCI
0.06

35,000

30,000

4.94%

0.05

Current PCI (USD)

25,000

20,000

22,240

23,276

23,436

3.23%

24,033

24,306

24,977

3.20%

0.04

0.03
2.76%

15,000

2.55%
2.35%
1.62%

10,000

0.01

1.14%

5,000

0.02

Percentage Growth in PCI

4.66%

0.69%
0

0
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

2.

Recent Economic Performance

Recent unemployment rates reflect an improving labor market in the years since 2002. In 2002,
the state’s jobless rate averaged 6.1%, the highest level since 1987. In 2003, unemployment had
fallen to 5.2%, and in 2004 unemployment fell further to 4.8%. 81
By the end of 2004, Utah’s non-farm employment growth had outpaced the nation for the fifth
consecutive quarter. Job growth in Salt Lake City was slightly weaker, approximating the
performance of the nation. Leading annual growth were the professional and business services,
educational and health services, and retail sectors, which each added at least 2,400 jobs.
Employment in the manufacturing sector also continued to grow, in part because of strength in
the nondurable goods sub-sector, particularly the food processing industry. The manufacturing
sector is also expected to benefit from an increase in federal defense spending. Defense
spending in Utah in 1999 totaled $1.42 billion, a 12% increase over the previous year. 82
3.

Economic Outlook

The 2005 Economic Report to the Governor forecasts continued economic growth during 2005.
Employment growth of 2.4% is expected to nearly match the 2004 rate of 2.5%. Population
growth is also expected to reach 2.4%, a slight increase over 2004's 2.3%, primarily due to
stronger net in-migration. Construction job growth is expected to remain strong at 4.8%, with
total value on track to meet or exceed the 2004 record. Higher interest rates and high energy
prices may dampen economic growth during 2005, but a weaker U.S. dollar will also have a
positive two-fold impact on Utah and the West: an ability to sell more of Utah’s products
81

ZionsBank, Utah Economic Outlook Winter 2004,
http://www.zionsbancorporation.com/zionsbank/ins/insUT2004winter.html.
82
Economy.com, State of Utah 2004, August 2004.

18

internationally and an expected rise in foreign visitors to Utah. 83

83

Utah Governor’s Office, 2005 Economic Report to the Governor,
http://www.governor.utah.gov/dea/ERG2005.html.

19

III.

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

A.

STRUCTURE

1.

State and Local Governments

In 1970, the state government founded seven Associations of
Governments (AoGs), one for each of Utah’s multiple-county
regions (they appear in the county population charts in section
I.2. and in the map at right). The role of these AoGs is to
assist state and local governments. 84
AoGs presently deal with planning issues and problems that
transcend county boundaries, especially in the areas of health,
social services, and economic development. Counties operate
under the Utah Association of Counties, 85 and city and town
governments operate the Utah League of Cities and Towns. 86
According to Census data, Utah has 237 incorporated areas
(towns or cities). 87 Eighty-five percent of Utah's population
resides within incorporated municipalities; of the remaining
15% (300,000 residents) that live in unincorporated areas,
70% reside in unincorporated counties along the Wasatch Front. In sum, 95% of Utah’s 2.2
million residents live in urban areas or incorporated municipalities. 88 Nonetheless, the
contrast between the community development needs of urban and rural areas is dramatic, as
becomes evident in the housing and poverty sections of the environmental assessment. 89
Utah has 29 counties, each of which is empowered to raise operating funds by taxes, fees,
licenses, fines, and bonds. Counties may license and regulate local businesses, zone property,
plan development, build and maintain roads, and build and operate a variety of public facilities.
About three fourths of Utah's land is owned by federal, state, or local government. 90
2.

Educational System

Utah has 820 K-12 schools in 40 districts, plus one charter school district. Enrollment in the
2003-2004 school year was 486,938. 91 Utah also has 79 private and Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) schools with a combined K-12 enrollment of 13,400. 92 The statewide charter school
84

Utah Governor’s Office, Regional Associations of Governments,
http://www.governor.state.ut.us/planning/aog/aog.htm.
85
Utah Association of Counties, http://uacnet.pegasus.ultraservers.net.
86
Utah League of Cities and Towns, http://www.ulct.org/index.html.
87
U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division; http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2003-04-49.pdf.
88
Utah League of Cities and Towns, Never, Never Let Them See You Sweat,
http://www.ulct.org/staff_nakamura.092401.html.
89
As the vast majority of Utah’s population is urban, statewide data is used except in cases where it obscures an
important detail about rural households. For these purposes, county-level data is ideal, although beyond the scope of
the Environmental Assessments in their current form.
90
State of Utah, Utah's Counties: 29 Unique Parts of One State, http://pioneer.utah.gov/generalcounties.html.
91
Utah State Office of Education, Public Education Fingertip Facts 2004,
http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us/default/FngrFacts.pdf.
92
Utah State Office of Education, Utah Private and BIA Schools, http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us/data/files.htm.

20

district represents 3,253 students in 19 schools. 93 Utah State University (USU) is noted for its
education school. USU had 23,908 students enrolled in Fall 2004 and awarded 3,776 degrees in
2003. The University of Utah (UU) enrolled 28,437 students in 2003 and awarded 6,087
degrees in 2003. UU has nationally ranked programs in chemical and fuels engineering,
computing, and modern dance.
B.

GOVERNMENT FINANCES

Property, personal income, and sales taxes together account for 82% of Utah’s total state and
local tax revenue. 94 Utah has earmarked 100% of income tax revenues for education funding, a
unique policy among states. Utah’s large school-age population places heavy demands on the
tax system to fund education. 95 The statewide minimum sales and use tax is 4.75%, which
cities and counties may supplement. 96 Utah was ranked 35th in local government taxes per capita
in 1998 ($793), 97 and 43rd in the level of federal taxation per capita ($5,330). 98 In 2003, the State
Legislature passed the Streamlined Sales Tax, which simplified collection for delivery and ecommerce transactions, an innovative program. Utah is also one of 14 states that charges sales
tax on food, which critics cite as a highly regressive tax with negative implications for poverty
alleviation.
A 2004 study by the Utah Foundation found that the present combined tax burden in Utah ranks
28th nationwide ($372.60 per $1000). High education costs are evident in the difference between
federal and local tax burdens: the same study ranks Utah 11th-highest nationally by the state and
local tax/fee burden and 40th in federal taxes. 99 In 2003, Utah received $12.3 billion – 37th
highest among the states – from the federal government, and was ranked 48th in the level of per
capita federal spending at $5,311 per person.100
In FY 2003, Utah received 54.1% of its revenues from state taxes and 32.7% from grants
and contributions (primarily federal). Charges for goods and services and other miscellaneous
collections accounted for 13.2% of government revenues: 101

93

Utah State Office of Education, Fall Enrollment Summary by Grade,; http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us/data/files.htm.
Utah Foundation, Utah’s Tax Situation (Report 666), http://www.utahfoundation.org.
95
Ibid. Utah’s population aged 5-17 is 20% above the national mean.
96
Utah State Tax Commission, Utah Sales and Use Tax Rates, http://tax.utah.gov/sales/rates.html.
97
Public Policy Institute of New York, http://www.ppinys.org/taxes/98localtax.htm.
98
Public Policy Institute of New York, http://www.ppinys.org/reports/jtf/Table%2030.htm.
99
Utah Foundation, Utah’s Tax Situation.
100
Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Utah Data Guide Summer 2003.
101
State of Utah Division of Finance, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for FY ended June 30, 2003.
94

21
State of Utah Revenue by Source, 2003

Sales Tax
21%

Capital Grants and
Contributions
2%
Operating Grants and
Contributions
31%

Individual Income and
Corporate Taxes
25%

Service Charges
12%
Other Taxes
8%

Miscellaneous
1%

Source: State of Utah Division of Finance.

The state government’s net assets increased $262.6 million or 2.5% in FY 2003. Combined tax
revenues rose 1.6% in the General Fund and 2.3% in the Uniform School Fund, signifying the
beginning of economic recovery. 102
In FY 2003, Utah increased its state surplus to $1.9 billion, including $1.1 billion in legally
restricted assets and another $466.2 million in funds with internally-imposed limitations. The
remaining $335 million was available for general use. Government expenditures were also up,
especially in the areas of health and environmental quality (up $116 million) and employment
and family services (up $41.8 million), primarily the result of sluggish economic times and
higher unemployment translating into increased demand for government services. 103
As of June 30, 2003, the state had $69.6 million of outstanding debt related to its capital assets,
and in 2003, Utah held a total of $3.3 billion in bonded debt ($660.5 million of which was
issued in FY 2003). The state earns AAA ratings (the highest possible) on its general obligation
(GO) debt from S&P and Moody’s.
C.

MAJOR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT

The most important statewide housing finance agency in Utah is the Utah Housing Corporation
(UHC), 104 headquartered in Salt Lake City. UHC is a semi-private corporation founded by the
State of Utah in 1975, and is responsible for administering the main state and federal housing
funds, including the federal and state Low-Income Housing Tax Credit programs, in addition to
programs for first-time homebuyers and bonding for multifamily housing developments.

102

Ibid.
Ibid, p. 19.
104
Utah Housing Corporation, http://www.utahhousingcorp.org.
103

22

Community development and small business needs are tended to at the state government level by
the Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), 105 which operates a
host of programs aimed at developing businesses in Utah as well as attracting out-of-state
business through a variety of incentive programs described in the Small Business Resources
section. DCED operates the State of Utah Small Cities Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) program for cities and towns with less than 50,000 population in counties with fewer
than 200,000 residents. The entitlement cities (those too large for the state CDBG program) of
Salt Lake, Provo, Orem, Ogden, Layton, Clearfield, Sandy, Taylorsville, West Jordan, West
Valley, St. George, Logan, and the County of Salt Lake each have similar CDBG programs
designated for their areas and apply for CDBG funds on an independent basis. 106 Rural CDBG
funds (disbursed to Associations of Governments) amounted to a record $7.5 million in 20032004. 107
DCED operates the Olene Walker Trust Fund, a composite fund including state and federal
dollars. The Olene Walker Trust Fund and UHC together finance most housing projects
throughout the state. DCED Community services programs include the Utah Pioneer
Communities program, designed to revitalize downtown districts. The Small Business
Administration operates Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs) in many locations
across Utah, as well as its own headquarters in Salt Lake City, through which it channels small
business loans.
Traditional poverty and income support programs are operated by the Department of
Workforce Services, including unemployment insurance and the TANF block grant. Other
poverty programs are operated by DCED, including the Community Service Block Grant,
Community Food and Nutrition Program, Emergency Shelter Grant, Critical Needs Housing
Grant, Pamela Atkinson Homeless Trust Fund and the Emergency Food Network.
The interests of Utah’s immigrant and minority populations are tended to by a set of Ethnic
Offices attached to the governor’s office. The mission of these four Ethnic Offices (Black,
Asian, Hispanic, and Polynesian) is to review state policy and agency performance to determine
the impact on the state’s ethnic populations. Based on their review, the offices make
recommendations to the governor and other state agencies on how they can increase their level of
responsiveness to ethnic citizens. 108 The Utah DCED Division of Indian Affairs is the state
liaison with Utah’s American Indian population and maintains a directory of organizations across
the state that work on issues relevant to the American Indian community. 109

105

Utah Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), http://dced.utah.gov.
DCED, About Us, http://dced.utah.gov/cdbg/aboutus.html.
107
DCED, Annual Report 2004.
108
DCED, Annual Report 1999, http://dced.utah.gov/Annrpt99/ethnic.html.
109
Utah Division of Indian Affairs, http://dced.utah.gov/indian/.
106

23

IV.

NONPROFITS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

A.

NONPROFITS

Since 1990, the Utah Nonprofits Association (UNA) has been an umbrella membership
organization for 501(c)(3) organizations in Utah, and is the statewide affiliate of the National
Council of Nonprofit Associations (NCNA). Its current membership is over 300. In 2000, UNA
published a report on the charitable nonprofit sector in Utah. 110 The report is limited to
nonprofits reporting to the IRS, which UNA estimates represents only one third of all nonprofits
in Utah. Nonetheless, 1,174 reporting charitable nonprofits existed in Utah in 2000 (twice as
many as in 1990), representing $4.1 billion in total assets (a 74% increase from 1990) and $3.2
billion in expenditures – about 4.7% of Utah’s GSP. These figures include Utah’s 323
foundations with over $2.2 billion in assets that gave nearly $115 million in grants in 2000. A
larger number of 501(c)(3) organizations are registered with the IRS but are exempt from
reporting – in total, 4,940 501(c)(3) organizations exist in Utah.
Reporting Nonprofits in Utah by Field, 2000

12%
1%
Human Services

3%

33%

4%

Education
Arts, Culture, Humanities
Health Care

6%

Environment/Animals
Community Improvement
Religion
Research

12%

All Others

13%

16%

Source: Utah Nonprofits Association
Sixty-six percent of the state’s nonprofits representing 90% of expenditures and 93% of all
assets are located in Salt Lake and Utah counties. Individual contributions represented only
10% of revenue for nonprofits in 1999, with the remainder coming from fees for services and
goods, private foundation and government grants, contracts, investments, and related activities.
The largest expenditures were made by hospitals (0.6% of reporting institutions but 47.5% of

110

Utah Nonprofits Association, The Utah Charitable Nonprofit Sector 2000, http://www.utahnonprofits.org.

24

total expenses for the nonprofit sector), while human services organizations represented less than
16% of total expenditures.
Utah Nonprofits by County, 2000
County
Organizations
Expenditures
Box Elder
10
$2,483,571
Cache
46
$32,139,975
Carbon
13
$8,542,277
Daggett
1
$189,914
Davis
57
$158,488,568
Duchesne
3
$598,412
Emery
2
$290,152
Garfield
2
$980,532
Grand
13
$5,507,211
Iron
18
$3,120,101
Juab
2
$16,169,924
Kane
3
$12,659,983
Millard
1
$291,149
Morgan
2
$43,844
Salt Lake
660
$3,535,121,208
San Juan
7
$3,081,637
Sanpete
6
$5,721,429
Sevier
5
$1,201,235
Summit
56
$34,449,488
Tooele
5
$848,888
Uintah
4
$850,725
Utah
120
$113,790,663
Wasatch
4
$535,855
Washington
42
$49,458,723
Wayne
2
$830,586
Weber
90
$85,236,088
Total
1,174
$4,072,632,138
Source: Utah Nonprofits Association 111

B.

Assets
$1,397,762
$24,435,476
$9,486,280
$52,998
$55,140,620
$342,784
$360,646
$669,643
$10,407,650
$5,109,579
$9,189,801
$10,372,805
$17,986
$55,685
$2,891,982,635
$2,323,723
$5,078,076
$1,962,616
$24,595,367
$299,831
$644,820
$78,148,013
$30,662
$25,809,440
$937,756
$39,575,747
$3,198,428,401

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

CFED’s data on bank access reveals a mixed picture for Utah. While only 27.9% of households
have checking accounts (45th in the nation), a striking 75% maintain savings accounts (fifth in
the nation). 112 However, this may be explained by the fact that checking accounts that pay
interest are included by CFED in the savings account category.
The total number of banks operating in Utah, including industrial banks (IBs), was 73 as of
end-year 2004. Sixty-six banking institutions are headquartered in Utah, representing
assets of $198 billion. Eleven of these have existed fewer than three years, and 33 of them have
existed for fewer than nine years. Utah has eight unprofitable insured institutions, and the
industry-wide median return on assets ratio went down from 1.81 in 2002 to 1.69 in 2003 and
1.58 in 2004. 113 The overall median commercial & industrial (C&I) loan growth rate was slightly
negative in 2003 (-1%) and smaller business loans increased as a share of total C&I lending (to

111

Ibid.
CFED, State Asset Development Report Card (SADRC), 2002, pp. 114-115.
113
FDIC, Utah State Profile, Winter 2004.
112

25

95%). 114 The median past due (the share of a bank’s assets that are past due) decreased one
percentage point from 2003 to 1.68%. 115
Bank Asset Distribution by MSA, 2004
MSA Distribution
Salt Lake City-Ogden UT
No MSA
Provo-Orem UT
Source: FDIC 116

# of Inst.
48
11
7

Assets
194,899,187
1,762,254
1,507,795

% Inst.
72.73%
16.67%
10.61%

% Assets
98.35%
0.89%
0.76%

Twenty-five state-chartered banks operate in Utah, as well as 11 nationally chartered banks and
three out-of-state state-chartered banks. Seventy state-chartered and 49 federally-chartered credit
unions operate in the state as well as two state-chartered and five federally-chartered savings and
loans. Besides these, 33 Industrial Banks (IBs, formerly Industrial Loan Corporations or ILCs)
operate in Utah, featuring more flexible charters. 117 IBs represent 42% of insured institutions
with 65% of assets in March 2004, up 34% and 37%, respectively, from the previous year. 118
Utah’s 119 credit unions control 5.4% of combined financial assets in the state, compared to
6.5% nationally. 119
C.

CDFIs

Utah has three organizations that have been certified by the Community Development Financial
Institutions Fund as of November 2004. To achieve certification, an entity must have a primary
mission of promoting community development, must principally serve and maintain
accountability to an eligible target market, be a financing entity providing development services,
and not be a government entity or controlled by a government entity.
Utah’s three CDFIs include: 120
•
•
•
•

Neighborhood Housing Services of Provo, Inc. (Provo)
Salt Lake Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (Salt Lake City)
Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund (Salt Lake City)
Rural Community Assistance Corporation (Draper)

Certification as a CDFI also enables entities to apply for various awards from the CFDI Fund.
Under the CDFI Program, two CDFIs in Utah have received awards since 2000.
CDFI Fund Awardees Since 2000
Institution Name
Rural Collaborative
Utah Microenterprise Loan Fund
Source: CDFI 121
114

Location
Park City
Salt Lake City

Date
2001
2002

Award Amount
$196,000
$20,000

FDIC, Utah State Profile, Summer 2004.
FDIC, Utah State Profile, Winter 2004.
116
Ibid.
117
Utah Department of Financial Institutions, http://dfi.utah.gov.
118
FDIC, Utah State Profile, Summer 2004.
119
Credit Union National Association, Credit Unions Fact Sheet – Utah, http://www.cuna.org/download/utah_fs.pdf.
120
CDFI Fund, Certified Community Development Financial Institutions as of November 1, 2004,
http://www.cdfifund.gov/docs/certification/cdfi/CDFI-state.pdf.
115

26

V.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Utah faces moderate housing affordability needs. The state is ranked 19th in overall housing
affordability; Utah’s urban/rural divide means that statewide assessments are of limited
usefulness – where appropriate, every effort should be made to distinguish between urban centers
and the Utah countryside. Statewide, 43% of renters in Utah are unable to afford the average
two-bedroom rent, from a high of 44% of renters in Salt Lake City to a low of 33% in Kane
County. 122 The rate of severely cost-burdened renter households (those spending more than 50%
of their income on rent) is a moderate 24th at 21.9%. 123 However, only 23.5% of Utahns are
paying more than 30% of income towards housing costs, a marked decrease from 1990. 124
Homeownership grew 3.4 percentage points between 1990 and 2000, the fourth-fastest growth
rate in the country. 125 By 2003, the homeownership rate had climbed to 72.7%, 17th in the
nation. 126 This is especially notable considering the relatively high median value of Utah homes
($131,603 in 2000, fourth in the nation). 127
A.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS

1.

Overall Housing Market

Among U.S. states, Utah ranked third in the growth of housing stock between 1990 and
2000, growing 28.4% during the time period. In 2000, there were 768,281 units, of which
701,281 (91.2%) were occupied (72% by owners and 28% by renters). 128
Home prices appreciated 1.6% in 2003, compared to 8% nationally. 129 The inflationadjusted median value of single-family homes in Utah was $146,100 in 2000, $26,500 higher
than the national median. 130 Values increased 75.8% during the 1970s, dropped 22.4% in the
1980s, and rebounded with 66% growth during the 1990s. 131
Between 1990 and 2000, gross median rent was up 26.8% versus the national average of 5.4%
growth (making Utah the state with the fastest growth in rental prices, although most of the
growth was limited to urban centers). 132 In 2000, renters on average spent 24.9% of their
income on rent (24th-highest in the nation). 133

121

CDFI Fund, Utah Awardee Profiles by State, http://www.cdfifund.gov/awardees/pdf/states/utah.pdf. Some past
awardees are no longer CDFIs and so do not appear in the list above.
122
NLIHC, Out of Reach 2003.
123
NLIHC, Up Against a Wall 2004.
124
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics, State of Utah.
125
U.S. Census Bureau, Census 1990 and 2000 Data.
126
U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Statistical Abstract 2003.
127
Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Utah Data Guide.
128
Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Housing Characteristics in Utah;
http://www.governor.utah.gov/dea/Publications/HousingBrief.pdf.
129
FDIC, Utah State Profile, Summer 2004.
130
Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Utah Data Guide.
131
Ibid.
132
Ibid.
133
Ibid.

27

Top and Bottom 5 Counties by Mean Rent Costs, 2000
County
Gross Rent
County
Summit
$909
Grant
Wasatch
$731
Piute
Salt Lake
$638
Washington
Davis
$637
Utah
Washington
$594
Salt Lake
Rich
$354
Rich
San Juan
$383
Garfield
Millard
$388
Kane
Piute
$395
Wayne
Emery
$397
San Juan
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Data.

Mean % of Income to Rent
28.8%
26.8%
26.7%
25.5%
25.3%
16.9%
18%
18.5%
18.6%
18.8%

There are 17 housing authorities (eight serving urban areas and nine serving rural areas)
operating in Utah with a total of 2,981 public housing units statewide in 2002, of which 2,766
are located in urban areas and 215 are in rural areas. Utah also has 9,898 Section 8 vouchers,
8,082 of which can be used in urban areas. These vouchers were valued at $44.2 million in 2002
($37.7 million is for urban areas and $6.4 million is for rural areas). 134
2.

Homeownership Statistics

Utah ranked 17th in homeownership nationally in 2002 with 72.7% of Utahns owning their
homes. 135 Utah fares very well in differences in homeownership by race, gender, and income,
placing ninth in the nation for the smallest racial homeownership gap. 136 Its scores on income
equality are middling (26th). 137 A more serious problem is ownership by gender: Utah ranks
42nd in the country on gender equality in home ownership, with 25% more men owning homes
than women.
3.

National Low Income Housing Coalition’s Affordable Rental Housing Analyses

The National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) has for several years produced a report
entitled Out of Reach that analyzes the country’s wage-rent disparity. Specifically, NLIHC
calculates the amount of money a household must earn in order to afford a rental unit of a range
of sizes at the state or county’s Fair Market Rent (FMR), based on the generally accepted limit of
no more than 30% of income going to housing costs. The required income is then compared to
the Area Median Income (AMI), the minimum wage, and the incomes of extremely low-income
households (incomes below 30% of AMI). In addition, in 2004, the NLIHC released a report
entitled Up Against a Wall: Housing Affordability for Renters analyzing rental housing related
data from the 2003 American Communities Survey.
Together, these reports indicate that Utah’s affordable housing situation has benefited from
sustained attention. Using an index that takes into account the state’s median gross rent, a ratio of
rental costs to renters’ incomes, and the percentage of renter households in the state spending
more than 50% of income on rent, the NLIHC ranked Utah as having the 19th-best affordable
rental housing situation in the country. Utah’s median gross rent in 2003 was $632, ranking
134

U.S. Department of HUD, Community Profiles – State of Utah,
http://www.hud.gov/local/ut/community/cmmprofilesutah2002.cfm.
135
U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States 2003.
136
Utah has a 35% higher rate of ownership for white families compared to non-white. CFED, SADRC, p. 95.
137
Top-quintile earners are 89% more likely to own their homes than bottom quintile earners. CFED, SADRC, p. 96.

28

the state 28th-cheapest nationally; its renter affordability ratio was 18th-best and the percentage of
renters who are severely cost burdened (paying over 50% of income on rent) was 24th at 21.9%
statewide.
Utah’s “housing wage” is $13.36. This represents the amount that a full-time (40 hours per
week) worker must earn in order to afford a two-bedroom unit at the area’s FMR. In other words,
a minimum wage worker must work 104 hours per week to afford a two-bedroom unit at the
area’s FMR. Utah’s housing wage ranks 27th-highest. 138
An estimated 28% of Utahns rent their homes (from 25% in rural Utah to 29% in Salt Lake
County); given the statewide housing wage, NLIHC reports that 46% of renters were unable to
afford a two-bedroom unit at FMR in 2003. In Piute and Weber counties, this figure was
above 50% (equivalently, the income needed to afford a two-bedroom unit in these counties is
above the renter median income). 139
B.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESOURCES

1.

CFED’s Affordable Homeownership Program Rankings

CFED lauds Utah for supporting a strong housing trust fund and property tax circuit breakers for
elderly renters and owners. However, Utah as of 2002 offered only two out of six possible
programs for first-time homebuyers (funds for second mortgage and a lease purchase program
but no direct lending, homeownership counseling, construction assistance, or direct
downpayment grants). Utah scores above the median in the share of private activity bonds for
home mortgages (19th). 140
2.

Federal Affordable Housing Programs

The State of Utah received over $75 million in funding from the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development in FY 2001, not including special purpose grants and grants awarded
directly to state nonprofits. 141
Major HUD Programs in Utah, FY 2001
Program
Community Development Block Grant
HOME Investment Partnership
Housing Opportunity for People with AIDS
Emergency Shelter Grant
Continuum of Care (Homeless Assistance)
Source: U.S. Department of HUD 142

138

Funding
$24,343,000
$860,000
$439,000
$824,000
$2,138,697

NLIHC, Out of Reach 2004, http://nlihc.org/oor2004.
Ibid.
140
CFED, SADRC, pp. 78, 129-133.
141
This and following information from U.S. Department of HUD, Community Profiles – State of Utah,
http://www.hud.gov/local/ut/community/cmmprofilesutah2002.cfm.
142
U.S. Department of HUD, Community Profiles – State of Utah. Where newer figures are available, they are listed
under section headings.
139

29

a.

Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS (HOPWA)

HUD funds the HOPWA program in order to help prevent homelessness among persons with
AIDS. Utah passed the threshold of 1,500 persons with AIDS in 2000 and thus became eligible
for the first time to receive a HOPWA formula grant of $368,540. The HOPWA allocation for
Utah in 2001 was $439,000. HOPWA contracts are in place with the Salt Lake Community
Action Program (SLCAP) for short-term rental assistance, emergency assistance, and homeless
prevention programs. SLCAP provides assistance statewide and coordinates with all HOPWA
program providers and other agencies in the community. Contracts are also in effect with
housing authorities in Weber, Utah, and Salt Lake Counties and in Salt Lake City for long-term
rental assistance (up to two years) for twenty-five people with AIDS. In fiscal year 2001, the
HOPWA program expanded in two rural areas. Iron County Care and Share in Cedar City and
the St. George Housing Authority will provide long-term rental assistance and emergency
assistance for persons with AIDS. As of 2002, there were five providers serving 127 persons
with AIDS and funding 27 housing units.
b.

Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG)

The HUD ESG program provides funding for homeless services. The funds are used for utilities,
building renovation and repairs, limited homelessness prevention, operations, and essential
services. In FY 2001, the State of Utah received a total of $824,000 in ESG funding. The larger
jurisdictions of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, and Provo receive funds directly from HUD.
c.

Home Energy Assistance Target (HEAT)

Utah received $14 million in federal funds in 2004 for the HEAT Program, Utah’s name for the
Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). LIHEAP is a federal block grant
program and is fully funded by the federal government. The program is administered by the state
in partnership with the regional Associations of Governments and nonprofit agencies throughout
Utah.
d.

Other Federal Programs

The Housing Preservation Grant is funded by USDA Rural Development, which allocates
approximately $100,000 annually to Utah for the rehabilitation of single-family homes owned by
low-income Utahns. 143
The Utah Division of Housing and Community Development administers the U.S. Department of
Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program through eight government and nonprofit
agencies around the state. State funding for weatherization was leveraged with six additional
private and federal grants at a ratio of approximately $340 from those sources to every one dollar
from the state. During fiscal year 2004, weatherization services were provided to 1,698 homes,
including 156 Native American units, 453 elderly units and 527 disabled units, with a total
impact on 5,617 people.
3.

State Affordable Housing Programs

The Utah Housing Corporation (UHC) is one of the most important housing agencies in Utah.
UHC’s primary activity is providing mortgages to first-time homebuyers and resources for
143

Ibid.

30

developers through its First Home and First Home Plus programs (for families at or below 62%
of AMI) as well as administering the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and bonding for
multifamily developments. In 2003, UHC had cumulatively financed 48,200 housing projects
and 16,400 rental units for a total of 64,604 residential units. UHC generated $79 million in
wages across 37,400 jobs. UHC holds $191.2 million in net assets and an AAA credit rating, the
highest of any housing authority in the nation. 144 UHC provided 3,655 mortgages between 1997
and 2002, one third of which went to new housing. 145 Programs operated by UHC include:
•

•
•
•

Educationally Constructed Housing Opportunities (ECHO), a program in which the state
pays for materials and schools provide construction students who gain experience building
homes;
Rehabilitated through Affordable Constructed Housing (REACH), a program similar to
ECHO that employs prison laborers;
Credits to Own (CROWN) program is a rent-to-own program that applies tenants’ rent to
mortgage payment and offers an option to purchase after a number of years; and
the UHC administers the $4.2 million Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
grant. In 2003, 1,300 new and rehabilitated rental units received $150 million worth of
Federal LIHTC benefits, with the state LIHTC program providing an additional $1.2 million
in equity. 146 Since 1987, the LIHTC program in Utah has covered 17,550 new multifamily
units. 147

The Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund (OWHLF) is a division of the Utah DCED. The fund is
comprised of a combination of state and federal funds intended for construction, rehabilitation
and purchase of single- and multi-family housing units throughout the state (supported by 11:1
leveraging from federal (including the Housing Preservation Grant and HOME programs) and
other sources for each dollar spent by the state). The Fund serves a broad variety of Utahns,
including the low-income, first-time homebuyers, residents with special needs, and Native
Americans. The Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund awarded $5.98 million in loans and grants
during FY 2004 for the purchase and/or renovation of at least 706 units of multi-family housing
for low-to-moderate income residents in Utah. The Utah General Fund also supports OWHLF
financially. The Fund owns several homeless shelters, transitional housing for the homeless and
units for the chronically mentally ill. Programs operated by the Olene Walker Fund include: 148
•
•

•

144

a multi-family program designed to provide financial assistance in the acquisition, new
construction, or rehabilitation of affordable rental housing of five or more units;
a four-plex or less with rental income program designed to provide financial assistance in the
acquisition, new construction, or rehabilitation of affordable rental housing of one to four
units;
a single-family program designed to provide financial assistance to low-income individuals
or families in need of rehabilitation, replacement, or weatherization of an existing owner
occupied home;

Utah Housing Corporation, Turning Dreams into Reality, http://www.utahhousingcorp.org.
Utah Housing Corporation, Economic Impact of Residential Mortgage Programs of the Utah Housing
Corporation in FY 2002.
146
Utah Housing Corporation, Turning Dreams into Reality.
147
Utah Housing Corporation, Economic Impact of Residential Mortgage Programs of the Utah Housing
Corporation in FY 2002.
148
U.S. Department of HUD, Community Profiles – State of Utah and Utah DCED, Olene Walker Housing Loan
Fund, http://dced.utah.gov/OWHLF/index.html.
145

31
•

•

•

•
•

a non-rental special needs housing program designed to provide financial assistance in the
acquisition, new construction, or rehabilitation of affordable shelters, group homes, and
transitional housing that do not generate income;
a pre-development program that provides non-recourse loans for project development
preceding permanent or construction-only financing of affordable rental and homeownership
projects;
an owner-occupied development program designed to provide financial assistance to
developments of single-family subdivisions and projects designed to provide housing to lowincome individuals and families;
the Home Choice program, designed to provide financial assistance and mortgage assistance
for low-income persons with disabilities, and
the American Dream Down Payment Assistance program, designed to help low-income, first
time home buyers purchase homes by providing down payment or closing cost assistance in
the form of zero percent interest loans.

Further needs, including the needs of the homeless, are managed by several state bodies. The
State Community Services Office (SCSO) provides funding and technical support throughout
the state to dedicated service providers. Programs in which SCSO is involved include: 149
•

•

•
•
•
•

Critical Needs Housing, a state-funded affordable housing appropriation of $564,000 (in
2004) made available primarily as grants to nonprofits and local governments to promote
affordable housing. Uses include emergency home repair, making housing accessible for the
disabled, transitional housing for the homeless, acquisition of property, and the establishment
of rural housing authorities;
the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), operated by five public and four privately
operated community action agencies. Discretionary funding is distributed to the state
association of CSBG providers and Utah Issues Information Program, a private, nonprofit
organization whose mission is to improve the quality of life for poverty-stricken Utahns. The
CSBG network coordinates statewide activities designed to reduce poverty and encourages
private-sector entities to participate in efforts to alleviate poverty in local communities. Some
agencies emphasize case management and family development programs. Others focus on
emergency services, housing, and nutrition. Funding in 2004 amounted $3.3 million;
the Pamela Atkinson Trust Fund, worth $1.5 million in 2004;
the Emergency Shelter Grant, worth $541,000 in 2004;
the Emergency Food Network, which dispersed $170,400 funds in 2004 to emergency food
pantries throughout the state; and
the Community Food & Nutrition program, worth $26,645 in 2004.

The Rural Development Fund (RDF) was authorized by state charter to fund county and
municipal governments or special service districts within Kane, Garfield, Piute, and Wayne
Counties, not including Indian Tribes, individuals, corporations and private nonprofits. In 2004,
the RDF provided $301,500 of funding for eligible projects.
The Balance of State Continuum of Care Committee (BSCC) was created in 2000 by the Utah
State Homeless Coordinating Committee (SHCC) to assist in the coordination of services and the
establishment of a coherent strategy for preventing and addressing homelessness. The
Continuum serves 22 of Utah's 29 counties that do not have their own State Continuum of Care
149

Utah DCED, Annual Report 2004, http://dced.utah.gov/admin/AnnualReport2004.pdf.

32

Committees. BSCC was successful in receiving $1.6 million from the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. Other continuums that also received funding include those
serving Utah, Summit, and Wasatch counties ($844,730) and Salt Lake County ($1.7 million). 150
Voluntary taxpayer contributions (of approximately $120,000 in 2001) accumulate to the
Homeless Trust Fund. Legislative appropriations in 2001 increased the total level of funding to
$750,000. The Homeless Trust Fund provides operating funds for soup kitchens, homeless
shelters, transitional housing, and matching funds for federal homeless initiatives.
4.

Other Housing Programs

a.

Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle

The Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle (FHLB) contributes to affordable housing in Utah
through several programs, including its Challenge Fund, Community Investment Program (CIP),
Affordable Housing Program (AHP), and Home$tart Program. 151
The Challenge Fund is a recoverable grant program that provides seed money of up to $20,000
per project. Through it, the FHLB encourages the creation of affordable housing in geographic
areas where there is a lack of development capacity. FHLB awards grants to member financial
institutions that typically combine them with their own financial or in-kind contributions before
passing them to the sponsor developer. Through the CIP, members can apply for advances
(loans) to support affordable housing initiatives. This loan program is unique in that financial
institution members can apply for advances that the Seattle Bank extends at 10 basis points
below regular price, for terms from between five and 30 years. Rate locks are also available for
periods up to 24 months. These loans are especially effective when they support housing and
commercial development in distressed or rural areas where financial resources are scarce.
The AHP offers grants to member financial institutions and their community sponsors to
stimulate affordable rental and homeownership opportunities for low-income households. AHP
grants have been used in a variety of ways, including to: lower the interest rate on a loan, reduce
mortgage principal, fund rehabilitation and new construction, and cover down payment and
closing costs. AHP is funded with 10% of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle's net income
each year. On average, the Seattle Bank supports about 60 projects each year and awards roughly
$7,000 for each unit developed.
The Home$tart program provides first-time homebuyers with downpayment assistance and
closing costs by matching their financial contributions with $3 for every $1 up to $5,000.
Households receiving public housing assistance qualify for a match of $2 for every $1 up to
$10,000. Funds for Home$tart are available on a first-come, first-served basis, starting April 1.
Approximately $5.5 million was available to support homebuyers in Federal Home Loan Bank of
Seattle's region in 2004.

150
151

Ibid.
FHLB Seattle, Community Investment, http://www.fhlbsea.com/FHLBSEA/main/communityinvestment3/.

33

b.

Community Development Corporation of Utah

The Community Development Corporation of Utah is the sole Community Development
Corporation (CDC) dedicated to housing development in Utah. This nonprofit agency serves the
entire state. A HUD grant was used in 2000 to develop the CDC's Affordability Project. The
Affordability Project is designed to take advantage of excess and donated building materials to
reduce the cost of housing construction. By using below market cost building materials the
agency anticipates the cost of constructing new housing units will be greatly reduced and the
savings will be passed on to the new homebuyers. 152
c.

Utah Community Reinvestment Corporation (UCRC)

Established in 1999, UCRC commands $60 million in revolving credit from 32 member
institutions. UCRC primarily works on multifamily rental development for low- to moderateincome renters. UCRC provides mortgage loans (oriented towards Section 42 and Section 8
properties), acquisition/rehabilitation loans, tax credit equity bridge loans, bond placements and
technical assistance. 153
d.

Rural Collaborative

Rural Collaborative provides technical assistance and training, as well as an Affordable Housing
Loan Fund, with an expedited application process to developers in Idaho, Montana, North and
South Dakota, Oregon, and Utah. 154

152

U.S. Department of HUD, Community Profiles – State of Utah.
Utah Community Reinvestment Corporation, http://www.ucrc.biz.
154
Rural Collaborative, http://www.shelterthewest.org.
153

34

VI.

SMALL BUSINESS

Small business is important to Utah’s economy, but less so than in many other states: 75% of
firms in Utah employ fewer than 10 workers, and just over 10% of Utah’s labor force is
employed by such firms (36th nationally). 155 Business bankruptcies have decreased significantly
in recent years, 156 although firms’ access to credit remains a significant problem. 157 Utah
earns middling scores in gender and racial cross-sections of business ownership, indicating room
for improvement. 158
A.

SMALL BUSINESS NEEDS

1.

General Background

Based on 2001 firm size data, 35,609 or 74.7% of all firms employ fewer than 10 employees,
and just 10.3% of workers in Utah work for companies employing fewer than 10 (ranking
36th nationally). 159 Business bankruptcies were down in 2003 to 519 from 602 in 2002 (a 13.8%
reduction, 16th-best rate in the country). 160
Self-employment by women increased by 37.5%, from 25,625 in 2002 to 35,243 in
2003, representing 42.1% of self-employed persons in the state. Women-owned businesses
generated $5.1 billion in revenues, employed 54,135 workers, and constituted 42,000 firms or
24.8% of all firms in 1997. In 1997, 22.1% or 1,900 of the minority-owned businesses in the
state were employer firms, and they generated 85.9% of the total minority owned business
revenue of $1.2 billion. There were 4,700 Hispanic-owned businesses, 400 Black-owned
businesses, 2,400 Asian and Pacific Islander-owned businesses, and 1,400 American Indian and
Alaskan Native-owned businesses in 1997. 161
2.

CFED’s Small Business Data from their Asset Development Report Card

Utah performs relatively poorly in CFED’s rankings, with a below-median entrepreneurship
ranking of 29th. 162 Eleven percent of the labor force in Utah own employer or non-employer
firms, compared to 9% in Nevada (the lowest-ranking state) and nearly 20% in Montana (the
highest-ranking state). Dividing small business ownership data by race and gender, Utah ranks
20th in minority entrepreneurship and 26th in women’s business ownership. In many areas, Utah
lags behind the national average in the asset endowments of women relative to men.
Furthermore, minority- and women-owned businesses tend to be small. The state ranks 20th and
37th in these measures, respectively. The state ranks a distant 29th in the level of private loans
to small businesses, possibly indicating an unmet need for credit.

155

U.S. Small Business Administration, 2001 County Business Patterns.
U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy.
157
CFED, SADRC.
158
Ibid.
159
U.S. Small Business Administration, 2001 County Business Patterns.
160
U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy.
161
U.S. Small Business Administration, Small Business Profile: Utah.
162
Percentage of business ownership does not measure the amount of capital represented by small business. Source:
CFED, SADRC, p. 107, which uses SBA and BLS data from 2000 and 2001.
156

35

3.

CFED’s Data from their Development Report Card for the States

CFED also publishes a report that ranks the 50 states according to economic benchmarks,
business vitality, and development capacity. While not limited to small businesses, this report
provides valuable insight into the health and vitality of the overall business sector. Utah is
awarded middling grades, receiving a “C” in Performance, a “C” in Business Vitality, and
an“A” in Development Capacity, representing a significant decrease in the rankings compared
to 2003. The Performance score is brought down by lower than typical performance in earnings
and resource efficiency. Business Vitality scores were hurt by poor competitiveness in addition
to the fact that Utah received one of the lowest scores nationally for business closings in 2003
(49th). 163 Utah scored very high in Development Capacity due to a vibrant research and
development sector and strong performance in education measures despite its abysmal school
spending ranking (49th). Utah’s best scores were in charitable giving, infant mortality, heart
disease incidence, and households with computers; its worst were in business closings, K-12
education expenditures, investment income, and the cost of urban housing. 164
4.

Progressive Policy Institute’s 2002 State New Economy Index

Another measurement of the vitality of Utah’s economy comes from the PPI’s State New
Economy Index, which aims to use a set of relatively novel indicators to measure the
transformation of the state from a traditional manufacturing economy to an information and
technology economy. The index is comprised of 17 indicators under the categories “Knowledge
Jobs,” “Globalization,” “Economic Dynamism and Competition,” “Transformation to a Digital
Economy” and “Technological Innovation Capacity.” In the PPI index, Utah scores a solid 12th
overall in the strength of its so-called New Economy. 165
5.

Small Business Survival Index

Each year, the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council publishes its Small Business Survival
Index, which ranks each state on its policy environment for entrepreneurship. In October 2004,
Utah ranked 28th overall among the states in a positive entrepreneurial environment. On
individual categories provided in the appendices to the report, Utah’s top- and bottom-quintile
rankings were as follows (higher is always better): 166
•
•
•
•
•

163

Top corporate income tax rate: 9th
Adjusted unemployment tax rate: 48th
Per capita health care spending: 1st
Electric utility costs: 7th
Workers compensation premiums: 8th

Utah experiences a high level of ‘job churning’ (fourth highest in the nation). Thus, its business closures score
alone is misleading because the state also has a high rate of startups.
164
CFED, Development Report Card for the State 2004, http://drc.cfed.org/.
165
Progressive Policy Institute, New Economy Index 2002, http://www.neweconomyindex.org/states/2002/utah.html.
166
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, Small Business Survival Index 2004,
http://www.sbsc.org/Media/pdf/SBSI_2004.pdf.

36

B.
1.

SMALL BUSINESS RESOURCES
CFED’s Small Business Development Policy Rankings

Utah scores in the upper half (19th) in the nation for the amount of finance provided by Small
Business Investment Companies (SBICs), with SBIC financing equaling $29.90 per worker in
2000. 167 However, as of 2001, the state did not have a Capital Access Program (CAP),
employment ownership policy program or a self-employment option for unemployment
insurance. Based on these observations, CFED makes a critical judgment of Utah’s asset
building policies.
2.

State Government Business Development Agencies

The single most important business development agency is the Utah Division of Business and
Economic Development (DBED). DBED operates many programs, the largest of which are listed
below: 168
a.

International Business Development (IBD) Office

IBD’s mission is to attract foreign companies to Utah and open foreign markets to Utah’s
exports. In 2004, IBD concluded trade missions to Qatar, Canada, and China.
b.

Office of Technology and Science (OTS)

OTS has responsibility for the creation, implementation, and ongoing support of activities
designed to promote the health and vibrancy of the state’s technology-based business sector.
Specific programmatic activities within the office include the Utah Technology Alliance, the
State Centers of Excellence program, the Office of the State Science Advisor, and the
Technology@Breakfast program. Through the fiscal year, the Office of Technology and
Science’s Utah Centers of Excellence Program leveraged a cumulative state investment of $37.7
million with non-state matching funds totaling more than $397 million.
c.

Business Expansion and Retention (BEAR) Program

The mission of the BEAR is to promote the vitality, expansion and retention of existing Utah
businesses. Its activities are divided into two categories: metro/urban programs and rural
programs. Under the metro business development category, DBED operates the following
programs:
•
•

•

167
168

the Business Visitation Program, which in 2004 conducted more than 325 business
visits statewide to determine needs of Utah businesses and to assist in expansion;
the Small Business Development Centers (SBDC) program, a partnership between
the State of Utah, the Small Business Administration (SBA), and local colleges and
universities. The partnership maintains 11 SBDC Centers and eight satellite offices;
the Enterprise Zone and Recycling Market Development Zones program, which
offers tax credits for investments and job creation by businesses located within the

CFED, SADRC, pp. 143-149.
Descriptions for all programs contained in Utah DCED, Annual Report 2004.

37

•

zone. One hundred and forty five businesses earned more than $1,592,000 in tax
credits from Utah Enterprise Zones and Recycling Market Development Zones; and
the Utah Procurement Technical Assistance Center (PTAC), a partnership
between BEAR and the Department of Defense to provide Utah’s small businesses
with counseling, technical assistance, and any other resources required to successfully
compete for government contracts. Services are available throughout the State
through working agreements with local SBDCs or Associations of Governments.

BEAR operates another category of programs oriented towards rural businesses, which includes
the following programs:
•

•

•

d.

the Utah Smart Site Program works to create technology-based jobs in rural Utah.
In 2003, the program received the Innovation Excellence in Economic Development
award from the U.S. Department of Commerce and an award from Southern Utah
University for creating rural technology-based jobs and providing rural technologyrelated training. Key program accomplishments through the end of FY 2004 include:
1,094 new rural technology-related jobs, more than $400 million in federal contracts,
legislation providing $300,000 to encourage state agencies to contract with Utah
Smart Sites, and online technology-based training provided to 1,338 rural Utahns;
the Governor’s Rural Partnership Office, newly created in 2004, will support the
Governor’s Rural Partnership Board in creating an annual Rural Action Agenda as
well as providing oversight for the Utah Smart Site and Main Street programs; 169 and
Pioneer Communities/Main Street, which provides training and guidance in
economic development, streetscape design, architecture, marketing, and
organizational development aimed at enhancing downtown’s appearance,
strengthening its business environment, effectively marketing it, and building
community pride.

Utah Incentive Funds

DBED operates two incentive funds in Utah. The first is the Utah Industrial Assistance Fund,
a $25 million post-performance disbursement grant created by the Utah State Legislature in 1991
to provide fund the establishment, relocation, or development of industry in Utah. In FY 2004 a
total of 17 companies were funded, including two special legislative projects. With assistance
from the IAF, 3,485 jobs will be created, paying an average salary of $37,400 and generating a
potential $123 million in new tax dollars. There are four incentive programs within the Industrial
Assistance Fund:
•
•

•

169

the Rural Incentive Program funds companies that are relocating or expanding outside
Davis, Weber, Salt Lake, and Utah counties;
the Targeted Industries Incentive Program attracts corporate headquarters,
biotechnology, medical devices, aerospace, bioinformatics, digital media, Web
services, and information technology companies;
the Corporate Incentives Program provides disbursements reserved for projects with
extraordinary growth potential involving heavy capital investment, large numbers of
new jobs, a high average salary, and significant Utah purchases;

Utah DCED Rural Development, Rural Resource Center, http://rural.utah.gov/rural_resource_center/.

38
•

the Economic Opportunities Program provides incentives to the film industry ($1
million earmarked in 2004) and other miscellaneous activities ($400,000 in 2004).

The second incentive fund is the Private Activity Bond (PAB). Created under the federal Tax
Act of 1986, states are allowed to allocate a certain amount of tax-exempt bonds based on their
population. A total of $18.2 million in PAB funding was made in 2004.
3.

The Small Business Development Center (SBDC) Network

The Business Development Program partners with the U.S. Small Business Administration and
colleges and universities around Utah to fund 12 SBDC offices that provide one-on-one
counseling and training for Utah small business owners. 170 The program also provides
sponsorship for training courses that are taught statewide. These courses focus on entrepreneurial
and business startup training. SBDCs provide an array of services to small business owners
statewide. However, the SBDC presence has diminished somewhat in recent years due to
restructuring. 171
4.

USDA Rural Development

The USDA operates the Rural Business Investment Program (RBIP) in partnership with the
Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA selects and licenses applicants to become Rural
Business Investment Companies (RBIC), and determines eligibility for financial assistance and
grant awards under the RBIP funded by the USDA. In addition to RBIP, the USDA also
operates a number of its own grant programs for eligible rural businesses of all sizes. Details
about the programs are offered on the USDA Rural Development website,172 and include the
Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program, the Rural Business Opportunity Grant Program, the
Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program, and the Renewal Energy
Systems/Energy Efficiency Improvements Program
5.

U.S. Small Business Administration

The SBA office in Salt Lake City operates its 7(a) and 504 loan guarantee programs in Utah
through partnerships with local financial institutions through its Certified Lender Program,
Express Lender Program, and Small Business Investment Company Program. The SBA is also
involved in SBDCs and cooperates with state business development agencies.173

170

SBDC Directory, http://www.slcc.edu/sbdc/.
Graham, Steve, Utah Community Reinvestment Corporation (Personal correspondence 1/05).
172
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Business and Cooperative Programs,
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/.
173
U.S. Small Business Administration, Utah District Office, http://www.sba.gov/ut/.
171

39

VII.

POVERTY AND ASSET ACCUMULATION

Utah generally scores well on measures of poverty and asset accumulation. The average
poverty rate between 2000 and 2003 was 9.8% (17th-lowest in the nation). 174 The 2003 rate was
slightly higher at 10.6%. 175 Areas needing improvement include increasing access to credit
(while reducing the highest personal bankruptcy rate in the nation), improving Utahns’ net
worth, and narrowing the gender gap in poverty and asset measures.
A.

POVERTY AND ASSET ACCUMULATION NEEDS

1.

Poverty Statistics

The average poverty rate between 2001 and 2003 was 9.8%. 176 In 2003, 10.6% of Utahns were
living in poverty, nearly two percentage points below the national rate of 12.5% and virtually
identical to the 2002 statewide rate. Real median household income declined slightly for Utah
between 2002 and 2003 to $46,873, 177 while Utah’s poverty rate remained virtually unchanged.
35% of Utahns were living at or below 200% of the federal poverty level between 2002 and
2003, putting Utah near the national median. 178
The percentage of uninsured in Utah between 2001 and 2003 averaged 13.6%; 179 however, as
many as 32% of Utahns below the poverty rate are uninsured. 180
County Poverty Rates, 2002
Beaver County
Box Elder County
Cache County
Carbon County
Daggett County
Davis County
Duchesne County
Emery County
Garfield County
Grand County
Iron County
Juab County
Kane County
Millard County
Morgan County
Piute County
Rich County
Salt Lake County
San Juan County
174

All ages in poverty
Number
Percent
608
10.3
3,426
7.7
9,623
10.3
2,447
12.6
66
8.1
16,545
6.5
2,037
13.9
1,178
11.1
504
11.4
1,291
14.8
5,184
14.7
841
9.6
659
10.9
1,447
11.7
320
4.2
211
15.3
180
8.9
86,305
9.4
3,440
25.1

Median household income
Estimate
37,436
46,618
40,857
36,132
32,699
55,623
34,962
40,759
33,964
31,221
34,096
39,930
34,455
37,852
55,981
28,399
41,220
47,892
27,111

U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003.
Urban Issues, Poverty in Utah 2003.
176
Ibid.
177
Ibid.
178
Kaiser Family Foundation, Distribution of Total Population by Federal Poverty Level.
179
U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2003.
180
Urban Issues, State of Working Utah 2004.
175

40
Sanpete County
Sevier County
Summit County
Tooele County
Uintah County
Utah County
Wasatch County
Washington County
Wayne County
Weber County
Utah
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 181

2.

3,261
2,337
1,958
3,242
3,230
41,589
1,273
12,363
331
18,817
224,715

14.6
12.5
5.9
6.9
12.4
10.6
7.3
12
13.5
9.2
9.7

33,944
36,721
66,037
49,575
36,958
45,773
50,615
37,850
31,545
46,160
46,165

Personal Bankruptcy Filings

Utah’s rate of personal bankruptcy filings is the highest in the country at 27.4 filings per
1,000 households at the end of 2003. 182
3.

CFED Asset Outcome Ranking

In CFED’s overall grading scheme, Utah won the top grade of “A” in asset outcomes. 183
While CFED examines a variety of data in reaching its conclusions, the grades are primarily
supported by strong marks in the areas of human capital development. However, Utah is one of
the lowest-scoring states in terms of per-pupil K-12 expenditures and need-based aid to
undergraduates, as well as almost entirely lacking business capital and bank access policies.
These low scores are reflected in a weaker asset policy grade and may warrant further attention if
Utah’s strong asset outcome scores are to be sustained.
a.

Net Worth and Asset Poverty Statistics

Utah has a below-average (32nd) net worth per household ($100,567). It has one of the smallest
gaps in the nation between assets of men and women (fifth). Asset poverty means that a
household does not have the resources to support itself for three months in isolation. One fifth of
households are asset poor and 15% have zero net worth (14th and 32nd in the nation,
respectively). This signifies a significant level of vulnerability for Utah households.
b.

Human Capital and Insurance-Related Statistics

The state scores very well on measures of human capital accumulation. Education is spread
somewhat equitably by race: Utah has the 13th-smallest minority attainment gap. The gender
gap is a distinct problem here: Utah ranks 43rd with 47% higher college attendance for
men compared to women. Health insurance in part strengthens Utah’s high score, with high
rates of insured low-income parents (eighth) but weaker rates of insured low-income children
(20th).

181

U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE),
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/.
182
FDIC, Utah State Profile, Summer 2004. See also American Bankruptcy Institute, http://www.abiworld.com.
183
CFED, SADRC, p. 75.

41

Head Start program coverage is above the median level (18th), with 21.5% of children ages 0-5
who are in poverty served by a Head Start program as of 2001. 184 Utah fares well in college
attainment as well, with 8.9% of those over 25 holding at least an associate’s degree (third)
and with over 29% of household heads having at least a bachelor’s degree (eighth). Utah
performs relatively well in college attainment by race, with 44% more white heads of households
having college degrees than minority heads of household (third). The gap in achievement
between income groups is also striking: over five times as many degree holders come from the
top 20% of residents as come from the bottom quintile, which is, however, relatively good for
the nation at large, placing the state 16th. 185 Once more, the key issue is access by gender, with
47% more male heads of household holding degrees than female heads of household (giving the
state a weak score of 43rd).
Finally, Utah has high scores on insurance-related comparatives. In 2000, the state ranked
seventh in the percentage of non-elderly covered by employer health plans and only marginally
weaker in insurance for low-income children and parents (20th and eighth).
4.

The Asset Development Institute’s Asset Index

In September 2002, the Asset Development Institute at Brandeis University published a report
entitled The Asset Index: Measuring The Progress Of States In Promoting Economic Security
And Opportunity. The report presents state-by-state data on individual outcomes for job-based
and related income assets, human capital, and financial assets. These outcomes are the primary
indicators of the economic security people have and the opportunity they enjoy. For each of these
three categories, the report presents a cluster of indicators that point to important related assetbased outcomes and provides the numerical outcome for residents on each indicator as well as a
national rank for on each indicator (for all indicators, first is “best” and 50th is “worst”).
Utah ranks among the top 10 states for 10 indicators and among the lowest 10 states for four
indicators. The state’s worst rankings are in the areas of personal bankruptcies and
inequality in the ownership distribution across income classes of interest- and dividendpaying assets. The study’s authors conclude that “residents of Utah, compared to those of other
states, have had relatively less success in accumulating financial assets and relatively more in
gaining job-based and related income assets and building human capital.” 186
5.

IDA Policy

Utah lacks a state-sponsored IDA plan, but does include provisions for IDAs in the state TANF
plan. IDA legislation passed in 1997, but plans were never developed to realize a state IDA. 187
As of 2004, only one IDA existed in Utah, a pilot program with limited eligibility. 188 The state
TANF plan is limited to those with under $2000 in assets with an $8000 vehicle exclusion. 189
184

Ibid, p. 99.
Ibid, p. 99-105.
186
The Asset Development Institute, The Asset Index: Measuring The Progress Of States In Promoting Economic
Security And Opportunity, September 2002, http://www.centeronhunger.org/pdf/ASSETINDEX.pdf.
187
Washington University in St. Louis Center for Social Development, State Assets Policy – Utah,
http://gwbweb.wustl.edu/csd/policy/states/utah.html.
188
CFED, IDA Network, http://www.idanetwork.org/index.php?section=state&page=state.php&state=ut.
189
Department of Health and Human Services, TANF Annual Report to Congress November 2004, Chapter 12.
Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/annualreport6/chapter12/chap12.htm.
185

42

B.

POVERTY AND ASSET ACCUMULATION RESOURCES

1.

Income and Work Supports

Utah operates several types of income support programs: the state TANF program (called the
Family Employment Program or FEP), the state General Assistance program (GA), state
Unemployment Insurance (UI), assisted child care and the federal Earned Income Tax Credit
(EITC).
FEP caseloads declined 57% during welfare reform between 1993 and 2001. FEP currently has a
36-month lifetime limit and is not tied to inflation. In years prior to 2001, FEP enrollment had
declined, but enrollment has increased every year since 2001.
The General Assistance Program is a state program designed to provide assistance to childless
adults who are medically unable to work for a period greater than 30 days. It provides
individuals with $261 per month and couples with $362. GA also requires that recipients become
enrolled in the state Primary Care Network, a basic health insurance system for uninsured adults.
In 2000, the Department of Workforce Services limited GA to no more than 24 months in a 60month period, but GA caseloads have nonetheless increased from 1,100 in 1998 to 2,000 in
2003. 190
FEP Caseloads, 1997‐2003
13000

12000

12089

11000

10931

9804

10000

9436
9000

8659

8740
8424

8000

7000
1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Source: Urban Issues, Poverty in Utah 2003.

2.

Nutritional Support Programs

Utah operates programs that serve impoverished individuals and families. The Food Stamp
program is a federally funded program that is administered in Utah by the Department of
190

Urban Issues, Poverty in Utah 2003.

43

Workforce Services. Statewide, the Food Stamp caseload grew by 5,700 or 14.4% between
2002 and 2003. The counties with the largest percentage increases were Daggett (4 cases or
66%), Morgan (6 cases or 24%), Summit (23 cases or 23%), Juan (30 cases or 22%), and Piute (5
cases or 20%).
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) has
seen a participation increase of 56% since 1990 to a caseload of 63,945 in 2003. The Senior
Food program reached 9,158 people in 2003, and the number of food boxes provided by
emergency food pantries (such as shelters) increased 6.5% in 2003 to 224,780. 191
3.

Community Services Block Grant Program (CSBG)

The CSBG Program is a federal appropriation that is administered by agencies across the state to
combat poverty directly. In FY 2000, more than 60,000 people received benefits from the
program. The CSBG network provides education assistance, income management training,
emergency housing, and nutrition services. 192
4.

CFED’s Asset Policy Rankings

CFED gives Utah a “D” in Asset Policy, in stark contrast to the state’s “A” in Asset Outcomes.
CFED lauds the state’s performance in education measures and good standings in low-income
health care, but harshly criticizes the abysmally low level of education spending and lack of
policies to promote financial asset building.
a.

IDA Policy

While Utah does include IDAs in its TANF plan, the state did not operate an IDA program as of
2004. Furthermore, the state has not appropriated any money for IDAs. In the end, Utah is one of
the lowest-scoring states in terms of how well IDAs have been incorporated into poverty
alleviation efforts. 193
b.

Other Financial Asset Building Policy Rankings

Utah’s state income tax threshold for a one-parent family of three is $12,800, which is 27thlowest in the nation. The problem is compounded by the fact that Utah lacked an EITC program
as of the year 2000. Utah does not have a state minimum wage above the federal level. Utah is
identified as one of the 12 harshest states in the nation in progressive asset limits for public
assistance, with low TANF and Medicaid asset limits but a high vehicle exclusion ceiling. 194
c.

Human Capital Development Policy Rankings

Utah’s rankings by CFED for its human capital development policies are almost universally
negative – with a few major caveats. While as much as 21.5% of young students in poverty are
191

Ibid.
U.S. Department of HUD, Community Profile – State of Utah,
http://www.hud.gov/local/ut/community/cmmprofilesutah2002.cfm.
193
CFED, SADRC, p. 78.
194
Ibid, pp. 125-127.
192

44

covered by the Head Start program (above median for the country), the state does not provide
supplementary funds. The state is ranked 25th in funding for customized job training and
49th in K-12 per-pupil expenditures, making these two areas of extreme need. Utah rates 39th in
the level of need-based aid available to undergraduates. On the bright side, the state ranks third
in school spending equalization, with only a 1% difference in spending between schools above
and below the median. 195
d.

Wage Protection Policy Rankings

Utah earns mediocre scores in the array of CFED wage protection policy measures. The state
ranks a healthy 13th in the country for workers compensation coverage (with 91.6% of workers
covered) but a distant 32nd in the level of benefits paid out under the state plan. Utah ranks 15th in
the level of unemployment benefits, paying 39% of the state’s average wage to recipients. Utah
has yet to implement any of three common reforms made to unemployment insurance plans
(covering minimum wage earners and part-time workers and using an alternative base period).
e.

Health Insurance Policy Rankings

Weak scores in policy contribute to the state’s “D” ranking. Utah scores 33rd in the eligibility of
low-income parents for publicly funded insurance. Furthermore, the state has not expanded
coverage to low-income adults without children, and offers only a small tax credit to eligible
firms that cover 50% or more of an employee’s health insurance. 196 To the state’s credit, Utah
provides a generous 24 months of transitional medical assistance once a family or individual’s
income rises above the state eligibility threshold. 197
f.

Property Protection Policy

Property protection policy measures are intended to assess how well a state protects homeowners
against loss of equity. Utah lacks anti-predatory lending legislation and does not require
disclosure from property insurers to protect against redlining. 198

195

Ibid, pp. 135-140.
The tax credit (not noted by CFED) is $200 per year for the first two years an employee is hired when the eligible
firm pays at least 50% of the new employee’s health insurance. Meyer, Ed, State of Utah (Personal correspondence,
12/20/04).
197
CFED, SADRC, pp. 163-165.
198
Ibid, pp. 166-169.
196

45

VIII. NATIVE AMERICANS AND IMMIGRANTS
By any measure, Utah’s American Indians face seriously deficient community development
outcomes. Utah’s population is 1.3% Native American (the 11th-highest proportion nationwide),
and this relatively large population has a poverty rate of 33.4% - three times Utah’s average. The
American Indian community exhibits depressed housing values and weaker infrastructure and
human capital outcomes than is the case for rest of Utahns.
Immigrants to Utah represent over 7% of Utah’s population and have grown rapidly between
1990 and 2000. More immigrants to Utah are Hispanic than is the case nationally: 55% of
foreign-born in 2000 were from Latin America versus 51% at the national level, and fully 53%
of foreign-born reported Hispanic origin compared to 45.5% at the national level. Foreign-born
non-citizens are far more likely to be in poverty than either foreign-born citizens or the rest of
Utah’s residents.
A.

NATIVE AMERICAN NEEDS

1.

The Native Population in Utah

Utah is ranked 20th in the size of the overall American Indian/Alaska Native (AIAN)
population, with 30,045 living in the state in 2000, a number 18.4% higher than the 1990 figure.
Utah ranks 11th the percentage of the population represented by AIAN residents (1.3%). 199
Around 10,000 American Indians were living on reservations in the state in 2000. 200 Utah has
five reservation systems: the Goshute, the Paiute reservations of five distinct bands, the Utah part
of the Navajo reservation in Arizona, the Skull Valley reservation, and the Uintah-Ouray
reservation.
American Indian Reservations in Utah
Goshute
Area (acres)
112,085
Labor Force
60
Percent HS graduate or higher
52.1
Percent college graduate or higher
8.3
Unemployment
28.6
Per Capita Income
$1,939
Population
86
Tribal Enrollment
411
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce 201

Pauite
32,036
166
--45
$7,042
-668

Skull Valley
17,444
5
---$20,647
25
111

Uintah-Ouray
2,100,000
798
52.3
4.1
28.6
$4,520
3,154
3,154

The 2000 Census contains detailed data about the 25,549 Utahns who reported only American
Indian ethnicity. The main tribes in Utah are the Navajo (14,634), the Ute (2,940), Cherokee
(736), Paiute (668), Sioux (655) and Shoshone (589). 202 Forty-eight percent of families

199

U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Data.
Ibid.
201
U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, Utah,
http://www.eda.gov/PDF/40Utah.pdf.
202
U.S. Census Bureau, American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes for the United States, Regions, Divisions, and
States, http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/phc-t18.html.
200

46

primarily speak a language besides English at home, and 15.4% of the population is in
households where the head of house speaks English less than very well. 203
2.

Statistics on Native Americans

While Utah’s poverty rate for individuals was 9.4% in 2000, the individual poverty rate in the
AIAN community was a striking 33.4%. The median income of AIAN households was
$27,000, far below the state median household income of $45,726. The data shows that
American Indians are far less likely to have college degrees (9.1% for Indians versus 26.1%
for the state as a whole). Seventy-one percent of Utahns own homes and 28.5% rent, but within
the Indian community, only 54.2% own homes and 45.8% rent. The average American Indian
household is also 15% larger than the average Utahn household (3.6 persons compared to 3.1
persons). While the state has a 5% rate of unemployment among the civilian labor force, the
unemployment rate for the Native population is 15%. 204
American Indian families are far more likely to live in poverty, be unemployed and rent their
homes. Within the Native community, the median value of homes is $80,700, far below the state
average. Thirty-eight percent of renters are paying over 30% of gross income towards rent and
24.8% of owners are paying 30% or more of gross income towards costs associated with
homeownership, suggesting that American Indians are having significant difficulty paying for
housing. Furthermore, housing quality is deficient as well: 10% of homes lack complete
plumbing (compared to 0.4% statewide) and 25% of homes lack telephone service (compared to
1.5% across the state). 205
B.

NATIVE AMERICAN RESOURCES

1.

State Programs

The primary state agency responsible for dealing with issues with relevance to the AIAN
population of Utah is the State Department of Commerce’s Division of Indian Affairs. 206 The
Utah Division of Indian Affairs (UDIA) was created in 1953; it serves as the Indian Affairs
authority for the state of Utah with the task of coordinating public policy interests of the
governor’s office with those of the Native American population, monitoring State and Federal
Indian legislation which impacts Utah Indian Tribe and to develop programs and services,
provide alternatives, and implement solutions that will allow Indian citizens an opportunity to
share in the progress of the state of Utah.
In its 1999 Annual Report, UDIA outlines its activities as based on capacity-building events.
Every year, the UDIA sponsors an economic development summit that is widely attended by
tribal leaders, state officials, and private business leaders. UDIA is in the process of developing
its ‘Circle of Wellness’ project, a community center in Salt Lake City. UDIA also worked with
universities and libraries to encourage expansion of materials relevant to the study of the
American Indians of Utah. Finally, UDIA participated in conferences on lending available to
203

U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Data.
Ibid.
205
Ibid.
206
Utah Department of Community and Economic Development, Division of Indian Affairs,
http://dced.utah.gov/indian/index.html.
204

47

Utah tribes and tribal members on reservation lands as well as participating in the Federal
Reserve Bank of San Francisco’s Sovereign Lending Task Force meetings. 207
Two funds, the Navajo Revitalization Fund (NRF) and the Uintah Basin Revitalization Fund
(UBRF), provide matching grants or loans for capital improvement projects to tribal interests that
are impacted by the development of oil and gas interests held “in trust” for the Navajo and Ute
tribes and their members. The value of NRF projects in 2004 was $1.1 million, and UBRF
projects amounted to $413,000.
2.

National Programs

The federal government provides many services specifically targeted towards the AIAN
community. The Bureau of Indian Affairs maintains a comprehensive list, and most major
domestically-oriented federal agencies offer specialized programs:
a. Department of Health and Human Services
All members of federally recognized Indian tribes and their descendants are eligible for services
provided by the Indian Health Service (IHS). IHS operates a comprehensive health service
delivery system for 1.6 million of the nation's estimated 2.6 million American Indians and
Alaska Natives. Its annual appropriation is approximately $3.5 billion.
In addition to the IHS, HHS also operates the Administration for Native Americans (ANA) under
the Administration for Children and Families. Through ANA, HHS offers three grant programs:
Social and Economic Development Strategies (SEDS), Environmental Regulatory Enhancement,
and Native Language Preservation and Maintenance, with a combined total outpayment in 2003
of $25.6 million. 208
b. Department of Housing and Urban Development
HUD operates the Native eDGE program and also hosts an interagency news site, Code Talk,
designed specifically to deliver electronic information from government agencies and other
organizations to Native American communities. 209
c. Department of Labor
The Department of Labor offers culturally-sensitive job training and employment programs
through its office of Indian and Native American Programs. 210
d. Small Business Administration
The task of the Office of Native Affairs 211 is to improve awareness of SBA programs and the
access of AIAN entrepreneurs to the business services offered by the SBA.
207

Utah Department of Community and Economic Development, Division of Indian Affairs, Annual Report 1999,
http://dced.utah.gov/Annrpt99/indian.html.
208
ACF Administration for Native Americans, ANA Administered Grant Programs,
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ana/programs/index.html.
209
U.S. Department of HUD, http://www.codetalk.fed.us/.
210
U.S. Department of Labor, http://www.doleta.gov/DINAP/.

48

e. Department of Agriculture
The USDA American Indian Council (AIC) 212 is an employee organization, formed to give a
voice to the American Indian and Alaska Native community and culture within the US
Department of Agriculture. The AIC seeks to support the Secretary's diversity initiatives and
works to promote cultural awareness among USDA employees. The USDA also provides a
Guide to Programs for American Indians and Alaska Natives, 213 which catalogues seven major
types of assistance available to AIAN communities: environment, agriculture, rural development,
nutrition, food safety, economic research, and marketing.
C.

IMMIGRANT NEEDS

1.

Immigrant Totals

In 2000, 7.1% of Utah's total population was foreign born (20th nationally), compared with
3.4% in 1990. At the national level, the foreign-born population represented 11.1% of the total
population in 2000, compared with 7.9% in 1990. The percentage growth of the foreign-born
population in Utah ranks fifth nationally at 171% between 1990 and 2000. At the national
level, the foreign-born population increased 57.4% during the same time period.
In Utah in 2000, 53.3% of the foreign born reported Hispanic origin (only 45.5% reported
Hispanic origin at the national level). Eighty-two percent of the foreign born in Utah speak a
language other than English at home – 23.6% of foreign born reported an ability to speak English
“not well,” and 11.7% “not at all” (these levels are 22.9% and 12.2% nationally).
One fifth of foreign-born Utahns earned incomes below the federal poverty level in 2000.
Eight percent of foreign-born citizens lived in poverty compared with 24.3% of foreign-born
non-citizens. At the national level, 17.9% had a 1999 income below poverty level, with 10.6% of
foreign-born citizens and 22.8% of foreign-born non-citizens living in poverty. Thirty percent
of all foreign born in Utah are citizens, significantly lower than the 40% national figure. 214
2.

Origin of Immigrants

Most of Utah's foreign born are from Latin America. Of the total foreign born in Utah in
2000, 55.4% were from Latin America, 17.9% from Asia, and 16.2% from Europe. At the
national level, 51.7% of the foreign born were from Latin America, 26.4% from Asia, and 15.8%
percent from Europe (with the remainder from Africa, elsewhere in North America, and
Oceania).
The top three countries of birth for the foreign born in Utah were Mexico, Canada, and
211

U.S. Small Business Administration, http://www.sba.gov/naa/.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, http://www.usda.gov/da/employ/AICHomePage.htm.
213
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations, Guide to USDA
Programs for American Indians and Alaska Natives, http://www.usda.gov/news/pubs/indians/open.html.
214
U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Data. 2004 Immigration data is also collected and analyzed by the Utah
Governor’s Office, http://www.governor.utah.gov/dea/ERG/ERG2004/23Immigrants.pdf. Utah Legal Services, Inc.
maintains an eligibility handbook that describes specific immigration eligibility rules,
http://www.uls.state.ut.us/uls/flyers/pb092603.htm.
212

49

Germany. Of the total foreign born in Utah, 41.9% were born in Mexico, 4.9% in Canada, and
3.2% in Germany. At the national level, the top three countries of birth were Mexico (29.5%),
the Philippines (4.4%), and India (3.3%). 215
D.

IMMIGRANT RESOURCES

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA),
significantly changed the eligibility of non-citizens for Federal means-tested public benefits.
Under PRWORA, states have the option to provide or deny TANF and Medicaid to qualified
aliens residing in the U.S. before August 22, 1996, the date of enactment of the welfare reform
law. New arrivals, other than refugees, are barred from federal means-tested benefits for their
first five years in the country. Emergency medical assistance must be provided to both qualified
and not qualified aliens. The law permits immunizations and testing and treatment for
communicable disease, but prohibits the use of Medicaid funds for such purposes. Utah
Reathorization Project (UREAP) has been working for relaxation of restrictions on eligibility for
state and federal programs for immigrants. 216
Utah provides up to 36 months of cash assistance to legal resident non-citizens barred from
receipt of federal benefits. 217 In addition, the Department of Workforce Services operates the
Refugee Resettlement Program, which provides for the effective resettlement of refugees and
assists refugees in achieving economic self-sufficiency through employment and cash/medical
assistance. 218 The Refugee Cash Assistance Program (RCA) provides Federal funding to cover
the cost of financial assistance to refugees. Refugee Cash Assistance is limited to up to eight
months from the month of entry into the U.S. The Refugee Cash Assistance Program connects
refugees to appropriate activities such as job search, job training, adult education, skill training,
community work, English language training, and other employment related activities. The
Refugee Medical Assistance (RMA) Program provides Federal funding for limited medical
coverage to refugees not eligible for Medicaid. Refugee Medical Assistance is also limited to up
to 8 months from the month of entry into the U.S.

215

U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Data.
Salt Lake Community Action Program, Food Stamp Program Reauthorization (October 26, 2001 Position Paper),
http://www.slcap.org/UREAP/UREAPFSPposprfinal.html.
217
National Conference of State Legislatures, Welfare Reform and Immigrants: State Trends,
http://www.ncsl.org/statefed/trends2.htm.
218
Utah Department of Workforce Services, Utah Refugee Resettlement Program,
http://wi.dws.state.ut.us/services/financial/refuge.asp.
216