Utah vs. Arizona

Working Families
Benchmarking Project
2021 edition
Utah vs. Arizona
May 2021
1
VOICES FOR UTAH CHILDREN | WORKING FAMILIES BENCHMARKING PROJECT 2021: UT VS AZ
Acknowledgements
This fourth edition of the Working Families Benchmarking Project was
authored by Taylor Throne and Matthew Weinstein with the support of four
University of Utah economics students -- Logan Burton, Jaewoo Choi,
Catherine Miller, and Hannah Mundinger.
This report is published as part of the State of Working America series, which
is available online at http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/.
Voices for Utah Children is the Utah affiliate of the State Priorities
Partnership, a 42-state consortium of independent nonprofit research and
policy organizations that use evidence and analysis to advance public policies
and investments that reduce poverty and give all people the opportunity to
achieve the American Dream.
Voices for Utah Children

747 E. South Temple
Suite 100
Salt Lake City, UT 84102
(801) 364-1182
www.utahchildren.org
2
Table of Contents
Summary of Key Findings ....................................................................................... 4
Executive Summary................................................................................................ 6
Policy Implications ................................................................................................. 8
Part I: Economic Opportunity .............................................................................. 11
Business ........................................................................................................... 12
GDP .................................................................................................................. 14
Productivity...................................................................................................... 16
Employment .................................................................................................... 17
Education ......................................................................................................... 20
Equity ............................................................................................................... 31
Gender ............................................................................................................. 33
Part II: Standard of Living .................................................................................... 34
Income ............................................................................................................. 35
Wages .............................................................................................................. 36
Poverty ............................................................................................................ 39
Cost of Living.................................................................................................... 45
Taxes ................................................................................................................ 46
Quality of Life................................................................................................... 47
Health .............................................................................................................. 49
Civic Engagement ............................................................................................. 55
3
Working Families Benchmarking Project

Summary of Key Findings Reality
Part I: Economic Opportunity Check
(“winner” highlighted and bolded) Utah Arizona
Business Climate Metrics
Business climate average rank 2019-2020 8th 16th
th
Kauffman Index of entrepreneurship activity and rank 2018 .49 17 .11 27th
Productivity and GDP
Real GDP per worker 2019 (US = $93,674) $79,357 37th $81,524 34th
Change in real GDP 2007-2020 (US = 17.9%) 35.4% 12.6%
Change in Real GDP per capita 2007-2020 (US = $4,050, 7.8%) $3,956 (8.3%) -$2,971 (-6.4%)
Employment
Unemployment rate 2020 (US = 8.1%) 4.7% 7.9%
Labor force participation rate, ages 20-64, 2019 M: 88.7% M: 80.8%
All: 81.2% All: 76.1%
(US: all = 78.3%, men = 82.8%, female = 73.9%) F: 73.5% F: 71.4%
Percentage point change in the labor force participation rate for age
-4.9% -2.5%
16+ 2007-2020 (US = -4.3%)
Education
Public K-12 spending per pupil & rank 2018 (US = $12,612) $7,628 50th $8,239 47th
K-12 education funding distribution fairness rank 2018 2nd 24th
Percentage & rank of 3- and 4-year-olds below 200% of poverty
62% 25th 70% 44th
level not enrolled in school 2015-2019 (US = 59%)
Percentage in full-day kindergarten 2017-2019 (US = 81%) 23% 79%
th th
NAEP average rank of 4 and 8 grade math and reading scores
11th 34th
2015-2019
High school graduation rates by race/ethnicity SY 2017-18 White: 89% Latinx: 78% White: 83% Latinx: 78%
(US: White = 89%, Latinx = 81%, Native Amer. = 74%, Black = 79%) Native: 77% Black: 76% Native: 68% Black 74%
Average higher education state spending per full-time student &
$7,646 19th $2,417 50th
rank 2019 (US avg = $7,198)
Percentage with Bachelor’s degree or higher, ages 25-64, 2019 M: 36.2% M: 27.9%
All: 35.4% All: 29.9%
(US: all = 34.6%, men = 32.0%, women = 37.1%) F: 34.6% F: 31.8%
Percentage with Bachelor’s degree or higher of Millennials (ages 25- M: 33.1% M: 25.7%
All: 35.0% All: 28.2%
34), 2019 (US: all = 36.9%, men = 32.9%, women = 41.1%) F: 36.9% F: 30.8%
Income and Gender Equity + Mobility
Gini Index of income inequality state rank 2019 (1 most equitable) 1st 22nd
Intergenerational mobility rank of U.S. 50th largest metros 1st (SLC) 28th (Phoenix)
Gender wage ratio of women’s to men’s earnings & rank 2019
70% 49th 83% 11th
(US = 82%)
4
Part II: Standard of Living
(“winner” highlighted and bolded) Utah Arizona
Income & Wages
Real median household income & rank 2019 (US = $65,712) $75,780 11th $62,055 28th
Median hourly wage & rank 2020 (US = $20.92) $19.89 29th $19.87 30th
Median hourly wage adj for cost-of-living 2019 (US =$19.33) $19.17 $18.99
Minimum wage 2021 (US = $7.25) $7.25 $12.15
10th percentile hourly wage & rank 2019 (US = $10.07) $9.99 30th $10.94 12th
% of workers earning below poverty wage 2018 (US = 22.5%) 22.1% 24.7%
Poverty
All: 8.9% All: 13.5%
Poverty rates 2019 (US: all = 12.3%, child = 16.8%)
Child: 9.9% Child: 19.1%
All: 15.8% All: 18.4%
Hispanic poverty rates 2019 (US: all = 17.2%, child = 23%)
Child: 22% Child: 25%
All: 19% 1st All: 37% 36th
Share & rank of children in single-parent households 2019
(US: all = 34%, Hispanic = 42%) (1 is the lowest) Hispanic: Hispanic:
1st 26th
35% 46%
Child food insecurity rate & rank 2019 (US = 15.2%) 12.1% 4th 19.0% 37th
Child homelessness rate 2018 (US = 2.7%) 2.0% 2.0%
Cost of Living
BEA Cost of Living Price Index 2019 (US = 100) 96.5 96.3
Household renting cost burden rank 2019 (1 is lowest) 12th 25th
State & local own-source public revenue (taxes) as percentage of
16.3% 15th 12.8% 48th
personal income & rank 2018 (1 is highest) (US = 15.1%)
Quality of Life Metrics
Commute time to work in minutes 2019 (US = 27.6) 22.5 26.6
th
Homeownership rate & rank 2019 (US = 64.6%) 71.9% 8 65.8% 31st
th nd
Kids Count overall ranking 2020 4 42
Health
State health system performance rank
9th/12th 33rd/24th
(Commonwealth Fund rank 2018/US News rank 2019)
Percentage without health insurance & rank 2019 All: 9.7% 33rd All: 11.3% 41st
(US: all = 9.2%, child = 5.7%) Child: 8.3% 45th Child: 9.2% 47th
Percentage of Hispanics without health insurance & rank 2019 All: 23.4% 37th All: 18.6% 26th
(US: all = 18.7%, child = 9%) Child: 17% 43rd Child: 11% 32nd
7th worst for Salt Lake- 10th worst for
Most polluted metropolitan areas by PM2.5 & rank 2016-2018
Provo-Orem Phoenix-Mesa
Civic Engagement
Percentage of eligible adults that voted in 2020 general election &
69% 22nd 66% 30th
rank (US = 67%)
Volunteerism rank 2018 (CNCS) 1st 34th
5
Executive Summary
The goal of the Working Families Colorado was chosen for the
Benchmarking Project is to identify inaugural edition in 2016, then
economic and related issues Minnesota in 2017, and Idaho in
affecting Utah families and examine 2018. For this 4th edition in 2021, we
them through a comparative lens, are comparing Utah to our neighbor
evaluating Utah using a peer state to the south, Arizona.
as a benchmark.
We hope that this benchmarking
Many existing economic project contributes in a constructive
comparison studies and rankings way to the broader economic policy
are helpful in looking at the conversation among experts,
economy as a whole, its impact on policymakers, and the general public.
specific sectors, and employers.
This project seeks to augment those Our findings are summarized on the
comparisons by focusing on how next page.
the economy is experienced by
moderate- and lower-income
families. It is these families whose
children are most at risk of not
achieving their potential in school
and later in the workplace. Thus,
how they experience the economy
is of particular interest to Voices for
Utah Children.
6
Part I: Economic Opportunity
The dynamism, flexibility, and competitiveness of a state’s economy is a
major contributor to economic opportunity; thus, we look at this topic
through a wide range of metrics from business climate and
entrepreneurship rankings to educational attainment and racial/ethnic
gaps. Our most significant findings are as follows:
Utah ranks ahead of Arizona in most Arizona does have several leads on Utah,
measures of economic opportunity, including notably higher productivity and a more equal
educational attainment, job growth, business gender wage ratio, ranking 11th nationally
climate rankings, high level of economic while Utah is 49th. Arizona has more of its
mobility, and low level of income inequality. children in full-day kindergarten and has
Utah ranks 2nd for education funding fairness maintained a small but steady lead in per-pupil
K-12 education investment, ranking 47 th,
and unlike Arizona has surpassed our pre-
compared to 50th for Utah in 2018, last place in
Great Recession level of real GDP per capita,
the nation. Arizona also scores better on Site
although neither has returned to their Selection’s business climate ranking.
previous labor force participation rates.
Part II: Standard of Living

Ultimately, it is by our standard of living that we judge the success of our
economy. We measure standard of living for moderate- and lower-income
families by looking at measures such as wages, poverty, housing
affordability, and health status. Our most significant findings are:
Utah is the clear winner of most standard of Arizona’s notable advantages over Utah
living measures. Utah has higher income, include a higher minimum wage (2021) at
wages, and a lower percentage of people in $12.15, which is adjusted annually for
poverty & earning poverty wages. Utah’s inflation, compared to Utah’s $7.25. This
slightly higher median hourly wage is likely contributes to Arizona’s #12 rank for
consistent with Utah’s higher levels of post- the 10th percentile hourly wage* in 2019 of
secondary educational attainment (see $10.90 compared to Utah’s 30th rank at
Part I). $9.99.
* The 10th percentile wage is the wage at which 10% of workers earned below this wage level and 90% above
it, so it is a good measure of wages for the lowest-skilled workers at the lowest-wage level of the economy.
7
Policy Implications
Utah and Arizona have notable similarities and differences. Our neighbor to the south
shares our semi-arid geography and ready access to outdoor recreational opportunities.
Despite geographical similarities, Utah and Arizona have notable cultural and demographic
differences. The prevalence of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Utah 1 is
not seen in the more religiously diverse Arizona2. Both do have growing minority
populations, most notably Hispanics/Latinos, who made up 14.4% of Utah’s population
and 31.7% of Arizona’s in 2019.
In terms of age demographics, Utah and Arizona have a nearly identical proportion of
those considered “dependent by age” (under 18 and over 65 years), but the distribution
of those two groups is very different. In 2019, Arizona had a higher proportion of those
65 & older -- the 10th highest share in the country -- while Utah ranks 50th for our share of
elderly. By contrast, Utah is at the other extreme for children, ranking 1st for the highest
share of children of any state. In the end, both states’ proportion of working-age adults
are nearly identical and lower than the nation as a whole.
Age Demographics as a Percentage of Total Population, 2019
US Arizona Utah
Children (under 18 years of age) 22.2% 22.5% 29.0%
Elderly (65 years and over) 16.5% 18.0% 11.4%
Total “dependent by age” (under 18 & 65 years and over) 38.7% 40.5% 40.4%
Working age adults (18 to 64 years) 61.3% 59.5% 59.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019: ACS 1-year estimates Table ID: S0101, https://www.census.gov/data.html.
Racial/Ethnic Gaps
Racial and ethnic gaps remain a major challenge in the nation overall, and Utah and
Arizona are no exception. Disparities in Utah between minority racial & ethnic groups
compared to their White non-Hispanic peers are evident in high school graduation rates,
wages, gender pay gaps, poverty rates, and uninsured rates. Addressing these gaps
through an upfront investment in education would likely increase educational attainment,
wages, and standard of living overall and would therefore contribute to reducing racial
and ethnic gaps in the future.
1
Source: https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/state/utah/
2
Source: https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/state/arizona/
8
The Link Between Education and Income

The link between education and income is well-established. States with higher education
levels generally have higher levels of worker productivity, wages, and incomes. In the
current comparison with Arizona, Utah’s higher education levels make for higher levels of
wages and income. The lesson for Arizona would be raise education levels to raise the
state’s standard of living. The same applies to Utah, where the Legislature has struggled
to turn seemingly large dollar increases in education funding every year into increases in
real per-pupil investment sufficient to get Utah out of last place in the national ranking.
The latest data from the Census Bureau reports that Utah remains in last place in per-pupil
education investment at $7,628, with Arizona only slightly better at $8,239 and 47 th in the
nation (for FY 2018). While Utah has done well for its meager investment levels, achieving
impressive gains in educational performance as measured by NAEP 4th and 8th grade math
and reading scores (see Figure 31, page 25), will we be able to continue to advance while
remaining in last place?
While Utah “does more with less” in education compared to other states, we have growing
challenges to address. Utah has racial/ethnic education gaps which are larger than the
national average, for example for Hispanic and American Indian high school graduation
rates (see Figure 33, page 26). Utah’s pupil-to-teacher ratio is 22.9, ranking 48 th while the
national average is 16 (see Figure 22, page 21). Moreover, Utah teacher pay has also fallen
over the past 50 years by 1.8% while nationally teacher salaries have increased 6.7% (see
figure 24, page 22).
At the college level, Utah historically was always ahead of the national average for
attainment of bachelor’s degrees and above. But Census data show Utah’s lead shrinking
relative to the nation with each successive generation, to the point now that Utah
millennials (ages 25-34) are behind their peers nationally, despite relatively generous state
support and low tuition levels.
Can Utah Become a High-Wage State?
For many years, economists have debated whether Utah is a low-wage state, as the Utah
Foundation discussed in their 2008 report, “Is Utah Really a Low-Wage State?”3 That report
argued that our seemingly low wages were explained by our younger demographic profile
and lower cost of living. While this report does not examine how wages intersect with age
demographics, Utah ranks 29th in median hourly wages, compared to 41st in 2004 (see
3
Source: http://www.utahfoundation.org/reports/is-utah-really-a-low-wage-state/
9
chart below). When adjusted for our low cost of living, Utah’s median hourly wage in 2019
was $19.17, just 16 cents lower than the national level. These data seem to demonstrate
that Utah has gone from being a low-wage state a generation ago to middle-wage status
today, a considerable accomplishment.
One question Utah leaders may now wish to consider is, is that good enough? Should we
declare, “Mission Accomplished”? Or is Utah in a position, like Colorado and Minnesota
before us, to become, over time, a high-wage state and set our sights on taking the
necessary steps today to achieve that goal over the years and decades to come?
Similarly, how do we include those earning the lowest wages in the gains Utah has made
and will potentially make in the future? Utah is not even a half percentage point lower
than the national share of workers earning poverty level wages (see Figure 55, page 38)
and lags behind the nation’s 10th percentile wage, ranking 30th (see Figure 54, page 37).
Even as the state with the lowest income inequality ranking in the nation (see Figure 45,
page 31), Utah suffers from a tremendous gap between low-income workers and the rest
of the income scale.
The main lesson that emerges from the Working Families Benchmarking Project reports
comparing Utah to Colorado, Minnesota, Idaho and now Arizona is the following: Higher
levels of educational attainment translate into higher hourly wages, higher family incomes,
and an overall higher standard of living. The challenge for policymakers is to determine
the right combination of public investments in education, infrastructure, public health, and
other critical needs that will enable Utah to continue our progress and achieve not just
steady growth in the quantity of jobs, but also a rising standard of living that includes
moderate- and lower-income working families from all of Utah’s increasingly diverse
communities.
Utah's Rank in Median Hourly Wages

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
20 25 25 25 26
25 29 28 29 28 29
30 31 30 31
32
30
37 38 38 38
35
40
41
45
Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey microdata
10
Part I:
Economic Opportunity
11
Business Utah has remained one of the top-rated

states for business over the last decade.
Figure 1 – Business Climate Rankings (1 is best, 50 worst)

UT AZ
CNBC’s America’s Top States for Business, 4th 20th
2019
Forbes’ Best States for Business, 2019 3rd 18th
Site Selection’s 2020 Top States for 18th 7th

Business Climate, 2020
Source: Forbes Best States for Business, https://www.forbes.com/best-states-for-business/list/#tab:overall; CNBC America’s Top
States for Business, https://www.cnbc.com/top-states-past-year-rankings/; Site Selection Magazine, 2020 Business Climate Rankins,
https://siteselection.com/issues/2020/nov/2020-business-climate-rankings-cover.cfm.
Figure 2 – Kauffman Index: Figure 3 – Hachman Index of

Startup Activity, 2020 Industry Diversity Rank FY 19-20
100% 86% 81% 77% 78% 78% Utah Arizona
70%
50%
0%
1st 3rd
Opportunity Share Startup Early Survival
Rate
Utah Arizona US Average

The Hachman Index measures economic diversity by comparing the
Opportunity share is % of new entrepreneurs who created a industry composition of a state to the industry composition of the
business by choice instead of necessity. Startup early survival nation. Source: EDCU Business and Economics in Utah profile,
rate % of startups that are still active after one year. Source: https://edcutah.org/research.
Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, https://indicators.kauff
man.org/.
12
Figure 4 – Venture Capital Disbursed Per $1 Million of GDP,

2006-2018
$8,000 $7,384
$7,000
$5,979 $5,829 $5,797
$6,000
$4,301
$5,000
$5,119 UT
$4,000 $3,649
$3,210 $4,478 $4,283 US
$2,735 $3,985 $3,993
$3,000 $2,303 $2,303 $2,559 AZ
$1,867 $2,121 $2,815
$2,743 $2,840 $2,554 $2,672
$2,000 $2,443
$2,111
$1,913 $1,787 $1,857
$1,000 $1,686 $1,365 $1,649
$1,219 $1,113 $1,126 $1,079 $954 $946
$0 $720
$511
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
This indicator represents the relative magnitude of venture capital investments in a state after adjusting for the size of the state's
economy. Source: National Science Board, https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/states/indicator/venture-capital-per-1-million-state-
gdp/table.
Figure 5 – Research and Development as a Percentage of GDP,

2006-2017
3.0%
2.9%
2.8% 2.8% 2.8%
2.8% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7%
2.7% 2.7%
2.7% 2.7% 2.7% 2.7%
2.6%
2.7% 2.7% 2.6%
2.6% 2.5% 2.6%
2.6%
2.4% 2.4% 2.4% 2.6% 2.4% US
2.5% 2.4%
2.4%
AZ
2.4%
UT
2.2% 2.3%
2.2%
2.0% 2.2% 2.2%
2.0% 1.9%
1.8%1.9%
1.8%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
This indicator represents the extent to which research and development plays a role in a state’s economy. Source: National
Science Foundation, https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/states/indicator/rd-performance-to-state-gdp/table.
13
GDP
Fueled by our high birth rate, Utah’s overall GDP growth rate has
far exceeded the nation’s. However, on a per-capita basis, the
nation's GDP reached its pre-Great Recession level in 2013, while
Utah took until 2016 to fully recover, and Arizona’s per-capita GDP
still has not recovered from its much steeper Great Recession
decline.
Figure 6 – Real GDP Per Capita, 1997-2020 (2012 dollars)

$60,000
$55,000
United States
Average
$50,000
UT
$45,000
AZ
$40,000
$35,000
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
$60,000
$58,164
$57,204
$58,000
$55,830 $55,924
$56,000 $54,903
$54,368
$54,000 $53,132 $52,650
$51,874 $52,202 $51,885
$51,315 $51,611 $51,553
$52,000 $50,429 $50,844 US
$49,577 $49,656
$50,000 $48,508 UT
$47,930 $47,488
$48,000 $46,331 $46,418 AZ
$46,178
$45,202 $45,127 $45,613
$46,000 $44,428 $44,491 $44,458
$44,163 $43,869
$42,890 $43,207
$44,000
$41,962
$41,281
$42,000 $40,186$40,173 $40,655 $40,895 $40,702 $40,728
$40,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Real GDP in chained dollars (SAGDP9),” “Personal Income Summary: Personal Income,
Population, Per Capita Personal Income (SAINC1),” https://apps.bea.gov/itable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=70&step=1 (accessed April 27,
2021).
14
Figure 7 – Difference in Real GDP Per Capita Compared

to Pre-Great Recession 2007 to 2020
(“winner” bolded and highlighted)
UT AZ US
$3,956 -$2,971 $4,050
Source: See Figure 6.
Figure 8 – GDP Per Capita as Percentage of US Average,

2006-2020
100%
95%
92% 93%
91%
90% 90% 91%
90%
90% 89% 89% 89% 89%
88% 88%
87% 87% 87% 87% US
86%
UT
85% AZ
81%
80% 80%
79%
80% 78%
77% 77%
77% 76% 77% 76%
76%
75%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Figure 9 – Percentage Change in Real GDP 2007 to 2020

UT AZ US
35.4% 12.6% 17.9%
15
Utah lags behind most states in

Productivity productivity per worker at 37th place
while Arizona pulls slightly ahead in 34th
Figure 10 – Real GDP Per-Worker, 1997-2019 (2012 dollars)
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Real GDP in chained dollars (SAGDP9N),” “Personal Income and Employment by Major
Component (SAINC4),” https://apps.bea.gov/itable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=70&step=1 (accessed March 17, 2021).
Figure 11 – Real GDP Per-Worker Gap, 1997-2019

As difference between UT and US (= UT - US) and UT and AZ (= UT - AZ)

16
The US overall and Utah achieved unemployment rates
Employment below pre-Great Recession levels in 2017 & 2019,

respectively, while Arizona never recovered to its pre-GR
level. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, all three
experienced a sharp increase in unemployment, although
as of early 2021 Utah bounced back to 2.9%.
.
Figure 12 – Unemployment Rates, 2000-2020
People are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently
available for work. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Local Area Unemployment Statistics", https://data.bls.gov/cgi-
bin/surveymost?la (accessed March 9, 2021).
Figure 13 – Underemployment Rates, 2004-2020
The underemployment rate is the total unemployed plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for
economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Alternative Measures of Labor
Underutilization for States, 2019 Annual Averages", https://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt_archived.htm (accessed March 9, 2021).
17
Figure 14 – Prime Age Employment to Population Ratio (25-54

yrs.), 1979-2021
84%
82%
80%
Utah
78.9%
78%
Arizona
76% 76.4%
75.6%
US
74%
72%
70%
Source: Economic Policy Institute analysis of Current Population Survey microdata from the U.S. Census Bureau
Labor force participation rates for ages 16+ fell sharply due to the Great Recession, but
not as much for ages 20-64, reflecting fewer teens working and more Baby Boomers
retiring. By both metrics, participation rates rose again in recent years before the COVID
recession.
Figure 15 – Labor Force Participation Rates, 2000-2020

75%
72.9%
73% 72.2% 72.0%
71.2% 70.9% 71.6%
71%
68.5% 68.7% 68.5%
69% 67.9% 68.0%
67.1% 67.2% UT
66.6% 66.2% 66.6%
67% 66.0% 66.0%
US
64.7%
65% 66.0% 63.7% AZ
65.2% 65.4% 63.2% 62.7% 62.9% 63.1%
63% 64.1% 61.7%
63.4% 63.2%
61% 61.8%
61.0% 60.9%
59% 60.3% 60.4% 60.6%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
The labor force participation rate is the labor force (sum of employed and unemployed persons) as a percent of the civilian
noninstitutional population for ages 16 & older. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “States and selected areas: Employment
status of the civilian noninstitutional population,” https://www.bls.gov/lau/staadata.txt, “Employment status of the civilian
noninstitutional population,” https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat01.htm, (accessed March 10, 2021).
18
Figure 16 – Labor Force Participation Rates Ages 20-64,

2010-2019
82%
81%
80.0% 81.2%
80% 79.4% 79.6% UT
79.2%
78.9%
79% 78.6% 78.5% 78.3% 78.3% US
77.8% 77.8%
78% 77.5% 77.4%
77.1% 77.1% 76.9% 77.1%
76.8% 76.8% AZ
77%
76.1%
76% 75.5%
75.2%
74.7% 74.6%
75% 74.3%
74.2%
73.8% 73.7%
74% 73.5%
73%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Employment Status Table ID: S2301, American Community Survey 1-year estimates,
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Table%20ID%20S2301&tid=ACSST1Y2019.S2301.
Figure 17 – Labor Force Participation Rates Ages 20-64 by

Sex, 2007-2019
90% 89.2% 88.5% 88.4% 88.7%
87.7% 87.6%
86.9%
84.2%
85% 83.1% 83.4% 82.8%
81.9% 81.8% 81.7% 82.2%
UT Male
83.3%
80% 82.5% US Male
80.2% 80.4% 80.8%
79.5% 79.7% AZ Male
78.7%
75% 73.5% 73.2% 73.9% US Female
72.7% 72.2% 72.4%
71.4% 71.9%
73.5% AZ Female
70.9% 71.4%
69.7% 70.8%
70% 68.9% 69.5% 71.4% UT Female
70.3% 70.0%
69.2% 69.2% 68.7%
67.6% 68.0%
65%
2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Source: See figure 16.
19
Education Arizona and Utah rank 47th and 50th respectively

for per-pupil investment in K-12 education. But
for equity of funding, Utah ranks 2nd and Arizona
24th.
Figure 18 –Spending Per Pupil for Public K - 12th Grade, 2012-2018

(Inflation adjusted to 2018 dollars)
$14,000
$12,307 $12,499 $12,612
$11,671 $12,069
$11,602 $11,560
$12,000
$10,000
$8,267 $7,985 $7,934 $7,965 $8,199 $8,239
$7,770 $7,628
$8,000 $7,275 $7,354
$6,788 $7,066 $6,895 $6,966
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
US AZ UT
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "Per Pupil Amounts for Current Spending of Public Elementary-Secondary School Systems: US and State:
2012-2018," Table ID:GS00SS08, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/all?q=per%20pupil&g=0100000US. Note: Inflation adjusted using CPI-U,
U.S. City Average, all items, 1982-84=100. Note: Spending is the Elementary-secondary education school current expenditures total per
pupil.
Figure 19 – Funding Level: Cost-Adjusted Per-Pupil, 2018

UT AZ
Funding level per-pupil $9,379 $9,046
adjusted for cost differences
Rank 49th 50th
Grade F F
Difference from national -$5,170 -$5,503
average ($14,548)
Source: Education Law Center, Making the Grade 2020, https://edlawcenter.org/research/making-the-grade-2020.html. Note: Funding
levels adjusted for geographic differences in the costs of running a school district enabling a comparison relative to other states and the
national average is based off each state’s adjusted funding level which is why they don’t match the spending in Figure 16.
20
Figure 20 – Funding Equity, 2018

UT AZ
Rank 2nd 24th
Grade A C
% more funding per pupil to 53% 1%
high poverty districts than
low poverty districts
Low poverty district funding $8,330 $8,392

per pupil
High poverty district funding $12,717 $8,452
per pupil
Source: Education Law Center, Making the Grade 2020, https://edlawcenter.org/research/making-the-grade-2020.html.
Figure 21 – Funding Effort: PK-12 Education Revenue as a

Percentage of State GDP, 2018
UT AZ
Rank 41st 50th

Grade F F
PK-12 State & Local Revenue 2.82% 2.23%
as % of state’s total GDP
Effort below the national -.57% -1.15%
average (3.39%)
Source: Education Law Center, Making the Grade 2020, https://edlawcenter.org/research/making-the-grade-2020.html.
Figure 22 – Public K-12 Pupil to Teacher Ratios Fall, 2017

UT AZ US
Pupil to teacher ratio 22.9 23.2 16.0
Rank 48th 49th
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Public elementary and secondary teachers, enrollment, and pupil/teacher ratios, by
state or jurisdiction Fall 2017, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_208.40.asp.
21
Figure 23 – Average Annual Salary of Teachers K-12, SY 2018-19

UT UT Rank AZ AZ Rank US
nd th
$50,342 42 $49,892 44 $61,730
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Estimated average annual salary of teachers in public elementary and secondary
schools, by state: Selected years, 1969-70 through 2018-19, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_211.60.asp.
Figure 24 – Percentage Change of Public Teacher K-12 Salary

SY 1990-2000 to 2018-19 (2018-2019 $)
UT AZ US
SY 1999-2000 to -3.7% -9.6% -1.3%
2018-19
SY 1969-70 to -1.8% -14.6% 6.7%
2018-19
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, Table 211.60. Estimated average annual salary of teachers in public elementary and
secondary schools, by state: Selected years, 1969-70 through 2018-19, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/2019menu_tables.asp.
Figure 25 –Average Annual Salary of Teachers K-12 SY 1969-70 to

2018-19 (2019 Dollars)
$65,000
$62,566 $62,545
$64,703 $61,730
$60,000 $58,404 $58,646
United States
$57,834 $55,207 $54,866 Arizona
$55,000 Utah
$52,100
$53,619
$49,112 $50,342
$52,281
$50,000 $51,250
$49,892
$48,639
$47,245
$45,000
1969-70 1979-80 1989-90 1999-2000 2009-10 2018-19
After adjusting for inflation, teachers’ salaries today are lower than
they were 50 years ago in Utah and Arizona, while they are up
nationally.
22
Utah’s recent decision (FY 2016) to invest state tax dollars for the first time in public
preschool has yet to register in the national rankings, which always have a lag of a few
years, leaving Utah behind most states.
Figure 26 – Preschool Support, SY 2018-19 (“winner” bolded and highlighted)

UT AZ US Total
State pre-k spending $0 $21,712,929 $8,750,666,956
Local match required? NA Not Required 14 State Programs
State Head Start Spending $0 $0 $171,787,891
State spending per child enrolled $0 $4,013 $5,374
4-year-olds: percent enrolled in No program 4% 43rd 34%

state-funded preschool & state rank
3-year-olds: percent enrolled in No program 2% 24th 6%
state-funded preschool & state rank
Percent & rank of all 3- and 4-year- 56% 33rd 61% 46th 52%
olds not in school (2017-2019)
(lower % is better)
Percent & rank of 3- and 4-year-olds 62% 25th 70% 44th 59%
below 200% of poverty not in
school (2015-2019)
(lower % is better)
Source: Rutgers Graduate School of Education, "The State of Preschool 2019," https://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/YB2019_Full_Report.pdf;
Kids Count Data Center, Young children not in school & by poverty, https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data#USA/2/8/10,11,12,13,15,14,2719/char/0.
Note: Utah did not qualify for SY 2018-19 but has recently appropriated 9 million dollars from state general funds for school readiness programs and
thus will qualify for a state preschool program defined by NIEER starting the 2019-20 school year.
Figure 27 – State-funded Preschool Enrollment Rates, 2002-2019

Percentage of 3-year-olds enrolled Percentage of 4-year-olds enrolled
40%
7% 6% 6% 34%
33% 33%
35% 30%
6% 5% 28%
30%
5% 4% 4% 4% 24%
US 25% US
4% 3% 3%
20% 17%
3% AZ 14% AZ
2% 2% 2% 15%
2% UT UT
1% 10% 6% 6% 6% 7%
1% 4% 4% 4%
0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0%
0%
0%
2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2018 2019
2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2018 2019
Source: Rutgers Graduate School of Education, "The State of Preschool 2019," https://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/YB2019_Full_Report.pdf.
23
Utah kindergarten enrollment exceeds the national level, but only 23%
attend full-day, compared to 81% nationally and 79% in Arizona.
Figure 28 – Percentage of Eligible Children Enrolled in

Kindergarten, 2005-2018
Source: Education Counts Research Center, Early-Childhood Education Kindergarten Statistics, http://www.edcounts.org/create
table/step1.php?clear=1.
Figure 29 – Percentage of Figure 30 – Percentage of 4th

Kindergartners in Full-Day Graders Scoring Below Proficient
Programs Reading Level by Family Income
(eligible vs not eligible for free/reduced school
lunch)
Source: UT data: Calculations based on kindergarten

enrollment for SY2019-20 reported by school districts &
charter schools, captured by the Utah State Board of
Education; AZ State Data: Integrated Public Use
Microdata Series (IPUMS), Current Population Survey:
from Oct. 2017-19. https://doi.org/10.18128/D030.V7
.0; National Data: U.S. Census Bureau, "School
Enrollment in the United States: Oct. 2017-19 - Detailed Source: Kids Count Data Center, fourth graders who scored below
Tables," https://www.census.gov/topics/education/ proficient reading level by family income in the United States,
school-enrollment/data/tables.2019.html. https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data#USA/2/8/10,11,12,13,15,14,2719/char/0
24
Both states’ school performance has been climbing,

though Utah has ranked consistently above Arizona.
Figure 31 – Average NAEP 4th + 8th Grade Math + Reading Rank,

2003-2019
Source: U.S. Dept. of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile?chort=1&sub=MAT&sj=&sfj=NP&st=
MN&year=2019R3.
Figure 32 – Average NAEP 4th + 8th Grade Rank by Subject,

2003-2019

25
Figure 33 – High School Graduation Rates by Race/Ethnicity for

School Year 2017-2018
100% 92%90%
87% 85% 89% 89%
90% 83% 85%
79% 81% 79%
76% 78%76% 77% 76%74%
80% 74%
68%
70%
60%
50%
Total Asian White Pacific Islander Hispanic American Indian/ Black
Alaska Native
UT AZ US
Source: National Center for Education Statistics, "Public high school 4-year adjusted cohort graduation rate (ACGR), by selected
student characteristics and state: 2010-11 through 2017-18," https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_219.46.asp.
Note: The US rate for the Asian & Pacific Islander race were only available together.
Figure 34- Percentage Point Difference between the Graduation

Rates of non-White & non-Hispanic White Students, SY 2017-2018
American Indian/ Alaska
Native Black Hispanic Pacific Islander Asian
8% 7%
3%
3%
-2%
-4%
-7%
-7% -7%
-8%
-9%
-12% -10%
-11%
-12% UT AZ US
-13%
-15% -15%
-17%
Figure 35- Percentage & Ranking of Post-High School Educational

Attainment, 2019
UT AZ US
55.8% 9th 53.8% 17th 51.9%
Source: A Stronger Nation, Tracking America's Progress toward 2025, https://www.luminafoundation.org/stronger-nation/report
/2020/#nation. Post-high school educational attainment is defined as college degrees, workforce certificates, & industry certifications.
26
Figure 36 –Educational Attainment Ages 25-64, 2019

US 10.8% 21.9% 16.1% 8.1% 9.2% 21.4% 12.5%
AZ 12.3% 19.7% 13.8% 14.9% 9.3% 19.3% 10.5%
UT 7.1% 17.9% 18.2% 10.4% 10.8% 23.7% 11.5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
No HS Diploma HS Graduate (including GED) Some College

Short-term Credential Associate's Degree Bachelor's Degree
Graduate or Professional Degree
Source: A Stronger Nation, Tracking America's Progress toward 2025, https://www.luminafoundation.org/stronger-nation/report/

2020/#nation.
Figure 37 – Post-Secondary Educational Attainment, Ages 25-64

by Racial & Ethnic Groups, 2019
70% 66.8% 64.7%
60% 54.3%
49.6% 47.6% 48.5%
50%
40% 34.8% 36.3% 32.4%
30% 23.4% 21.4%25.5% 25.1%
20.5% 18.7%
20%
10%
0%
White Hispanic Asian and Pacific Islander African-American American Indian
UT AZ US
Source: Lumina Foundation, Utah's attainment rates across five racial and ethnic groups, https://www.luminafoundation.
org/stronger-nation/report/2021/#state/UT&s-esid=byAttainment&s-ecmps=AZ. Note: Attainment rate is defined as at least an
associate degree, relevant workforce certificate or industry certification.
Figure 38 –Ages 25-64 with a Bachelor’s Degree or More, 2010-19

37% 35.2% 35.2% 35.4%
35% UT
32.3% 32.8%
33% 31.4% 31.6% 34.6% US
30.3% 30.9% 34.0%
29.9% 33.3%
31% 32.0% 32.6%
31.1% 31.2% AZ
30.1% 30.6%
29%
29.9% 29.3% 29.8% 29.9%
27% 28.8%
26.3% 26.8% 27.5% 27.6% 27.7% 27.7%
25%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "Educational Attainment Table ID: S1501," ACS 1-Year Estimates, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q
=education%20attainment&tid=ACSST1Y2019.S1501&hidePreview=false.
27
Millennials in Utah and Arizona are behind Millennials

nationally for higher educational attainment.
Figure 39 – Educational Attainment by Age Group, 2019

Working Age Population (ages 25-64) Millennial Population (ages 25-34)
50% 50% 46% 45%
44% 45%
39% 40% 37% 37%
40% 35%
35% 35% US UT AZ
US UT AZ
30% 28%
30% 30%
20% 20%
13% 11% 11%
11%
10% 10% 7% 8%
0% 0%
Associate's or higher Bachelor's or higher Graduate degree or Associate's or higher Bachelor's or higher Graduate degree or
higher higher
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "Sex by Age by Educational Attainment for the Population 18 years and over”, Table B15001, https://data.
census.gov/cedsci/table?q=Table%20B15001&tid=ACSDT1Y2019.B15001&hidePreview=false.
Figure 40 – Percentage of Bachelor’s Degree Holders in the Labor

Force, 2005-2018
36%
34.4%
33.7%
34% 33.0%
32.4%
31.8% 31.5%
32% 31.3% 31.1%
30.7%
30.1% US
29.7%
30% 29.3% 29.3%
28.8% 28.9% 28.9% UT
28.2% 28.2% 28.3% 28.3% 28.4% 29.9%
28% 27.3% 29% 29.3% AZ
26.7%
26% 25.8% 27.5% 27.7% 27.7% 27.8%
26% 25.5% 25.2%
24.9% 26.6%
26.2%
25.8%
25.1% 25.1%
24% 24.3% 25%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Source: National Science Board. 2018. “Bachelor's Degree Holders in the Labor Force.” Science and Engineering Indicators 2018, State
Indicators, https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/states/indicator/bachelors-degree-holders-in-labor-force.
28
Figure 41 – Average Public Four-Year In-State Public University

Tuition & Fees, 2004-2021 (2020 dollars)
$14,000
$11,870 $12,000 $11,880

$11,540
$12,000 $11,180
$10,820
$10,560 $10,540 $10,560
$10,240
$9,600 $9,860
$10,000 $9,500
$7,770 $9,070
$8,000 $7,380 Arizona
$7,020
$6,580 US
$5,580 $5,950 $7,250
$6,000 $7,060 $7,180
$6,700 Utah
$6,350
$5,840
$4,000 $4,860 $5,040
$4,480
$2,000
Source: College Board, Trends in College Pricing, https://research.collegeboard.org/trends/college-pricing.
Figure 42 – State Support for Higher Education Per Full-Time

Equivalent Student, 2006-2019 (2012 dollars)
$8,000 $7,592
$6,857
$6,806
$7,000 $6,630 $6,590 $6,551 $6,589
$6,272 $6,406
$6,766 $6,908
$6,000 $6,565 $5,710
$6,266 $5,634 $6,407
$5,533 $5,290 $6,230 $6,212
$4,970
$5,198 $5,928 $6,073
$4,618 $5,427 $5,598
$5,000 $5,155 $5,140 $5,285 UT
$4,282
$4,017 US
$4,000 $3,549
$3,336 AZ
$3,000
$2,331 $2,377 $2,430 $2,438
$2,073 $2,099 $2,112 $2,151
$2,000
$1,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source: National Science Board. “State Support for Higher Education per Full-Time Equivalent Student.” Science and Engineering
Indicators: State Indicators. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/indicators/states/indicator/state-
support-for-higher-education-per-fte-student. (Accessed on March 16, 2021).
29
Figure 43 – Percentage Change in State Spending for Higher

Education Per Student and Average Annual Tuition at Public
Four-Year Colleges between 2008-2019 (inflation-adjusted)
-54%
-7%
Spending
78%
Tuition
40%
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

AZ UT
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "States Can Choose Better Path for Higher Education Funding in COVID-19
Recession," https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/states-can-choose-better-path-for-higher-education-funding-
in-covid.
Figure 44 – Average Net Price at Public Four-Year University as

Share of Median Household Income, 2018
35%
30%
29% 29%
25%
24%
22% 22%
20%
17% 18% 18%
16%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Overall White, Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic Asian
UT AZ
Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "States Can Choose Better Path for Higher Education Funding in COVID-19
Recession," https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/states-can-choose-better-path-for-higher-education-funding-
in-covid. Note: Estimates for Black households in Utah are not included due to a large standard error.
30
Equity
Utah ranks at or near the top of the national scale,
ahead of the nation and Arizona for income equity
and intergenerational social mobility. 2019
Rank:
Figure 45 – GINI Index, 2006-2019 UT #1
AZ #22
Note: higher values indicate greater inequality.
0.49 0.48 0.48 0.48
0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48
0.48 0.48 0.48
0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47
0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47
0.47 0.46
0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46
0.46 0.45 0.45 0.46
0.45
0.45
0.45 US
0.44 AZ
0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43
0.43 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.43 UT
0.42
0.42
0.42 0.41
0.41 0.41 0.41
0.41
0.40
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Gini Index of Income Inequality ACS 1-Year Estimates Table ID: B19083, https://data.census.gov/cedsci
/all?q=gini&g=0100000US_0400000US04,49.
Figure 46 – Intergenerational Upward Mobility Rankings

(higher expected income percentile rank for a person whose parents were at the 25th income percentile)
UT AZ
Among the 50 largest commuting zones (urban + rural) in the US
#1- Salt Lake City, UT #28 Phoenix, AZ
Among 381 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (urban only)
#3- Logan, UT-ID #91- Yuma, AZ
#16- Provo-Orem, UT #120- Prescott, AZ
#35- Ogden-Clearfield, #132- Sierra Vista, AZ
UT
#41- Saint George, UT #225 Lake Havasu City, Kingman, AZ
#43- Salt Lake City, UT #228- Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ
#253- Flagstaff, AZ
#284- Tucson, AZ
th
Average MSA Rank 28 190th
Source: Chetty, Raj, et al. "Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of intergenerational mobility in the United States," The
Quarterly Journal of Economics 129.4 (2014): 1553-1623, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w19843/w19843.pdf;
Data available online at: https://opportunityinsights.org/data.
31
Absolute income mobility measures the ability of children to make more

money than their parents. The values for this chart were calculated using
the percent chance that a son’s household income is higher than his
father’s by age 30. Absolute income mobility has been decreasing
nationally, and Utah and Arizona are no exception, a troubling trend.
Figure 47 – Absolute Income Mobility by Child Birth Cohort and

State, 1940-1980
0.94
0.90 0.94
UT
0.88
US
0.80 AZ
0.78
0.79
0.70 0.74
0.64 0.63
0.60 0.63
0.61
0.58 0.57
0.53
0.50
0.49
0.46
0.40
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
Source: Chetty, Raj, et al. "Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of intergenerational mobility in the United States,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics 129.4 (2014): 1553-1623, https://opportunityinsights.org/data.
32
Gender Utah ranks among the worst for gender

equality while Arizona ranks near the top.
Figure 48 – Gender Pay Gap
Ranking: 1 is best, 50 is worst UT UT Rank AZ AZ Rank
Gender Wage Ratio of Women’s to 70% 49th 83% 11th
Men’s Earnings, 2019
Projected year to close gender pay 2106 47th 2047 6th
gap at current rate, 2015
UT UT Annual Loss AZ AZ Annual Loss

What Mothers Make for Every 59¢ $25,455 75% $13,204
Dollar Fathers Make
Source: American Association of University Women (AAUW), Gender Pay Gap by State, https://www.aauw.org/resources/article/
gender-pay-gap-by-state/; Institute for Women’s Policy Research (IWPR), Status of Women in the States: Projected Year the
Wage Gap Will Close by State 2020 Report, https://iwpr.org/; NWLC, Wage Gap for Mothers by Race, State by State, https://nwlc
.org/resources/the-wage-gap-for-mothers-state-by-state-2017/.
Figure 49 – Age at which a Woman’s Career Earnings Catch Up

to a White non-Hispanic Man’s at 60 & Wage Gap Rank by Race
& Ethnicity, 2019
Ranking: 1 is best, 50 worst UT AZ US
Age Rank Age Rank Age
Overall 77 49th 68 8th 69
White, non-Hispanic women 79 49th 71 28th 79
Asian women 81 47th 67 11th 66
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 92 16th 91 10th 83
women*
Native American women* 97 38th 90 30th 87
Black women* 98 41st 82 19th 83
Latina women 102 42nd 96 35th 92
Source: National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) , https://nwlc.org/resources/the-lifetime-wage-gap-state-by-state/. Note (*): 7
states were not included in the Native American, 4 in the Black & 32 in the Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander rankings due to
insufficient sample size.
33
Part II:
Standard of Living
34
Utah is well ahead for household income ranking 11th

Income nationally while Arizona lags behind at 28th. 2019 is also the
first year that Arizona’s cost-of-living adjusted real median
household income fell below the national overall.
Figure 50 – Real Median Household Income, 2007-2019 2019

Rank:
(Inflation adjusted to 2019 dollars) UT: 11th
AZ: 28th
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "Income in the past 12 months (in 2019 inflation-adjusted dollars)," Table ID: S1901, ACS 1-Year
Estimates, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/all?q=table%20S1901&g=0100000US_0400000US04,49. Note: Inflation adjusted using
CPI-U, U.S. City Average, all items, 1982-84=100.
Figure 51 – Cost-of-Living Adjusted Real Median Household

Income, 2008-2019 (2019 dollars)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "Income in the past 12 months (in 2019 inflation-adjusted dollars)," Table ID: S1901, ACS 1-Year
Estimates, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/all?q=table%20S1901&g=0100000US_0400000US04,49. U.S. Bureau of Economic
Analysis, “Regional Price Parities (RPP),” https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=70&step=1&acrdn=8 (accessed March 18,
2021).
35
Both Utah and Arizona rank in the bottom half

Wages of states for median hourly wage. In 2020, Utah
ranked 29th and Arizona 30st for highest median
hourly wage.
Figure 52 - Real Median Hourly Wage, 1979-2020

United States
$20.50
Arizona
$19.50 Utah
$18.50
$17.50
2020 Rank:
$16.50
UT: 29th
$15.50 AZ: 30th
$14.50
$21.00
$20.92
$20.50 United States
$20.00 $19.57 $19.89 Utah

$19.38
$19.50 $19.87
$19.06 Arizona
$18.99 $18.86 $18.90
$19.00 $18.73
$18.74 $18.57
$18.98 $18.40 $18.62 $18.52
$18.50 $18.36 $18.16 $18.25 $18.27 $18.04
$18.57 $18.56 $18.52 Cost of living-adj.
$18.00 $18.37
$17.55
$17.62 $18.08 $18.02
median hourly
$17.93 $17.89 $17.92 $17.42
$17.50 wage 2019
$17.51 $17.60 $17.40
$17.00 $17.32
UT: $19.17/38th
$17.10 $17.08 AZ: $18.99/40th
$16.50
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey microdata (accessed March 18, 2021). Note: Inflation adjusted
using R-CPI-U-RS, all items, 1977-2020. Median wages likely increased in 2020 due to many low-wage jobs being
lost during the COVID-19 pandemic.
36
Figure 53 – Real Median Wage by Race & Ethnicity, 2000-2020

$23.50
$22.98 US White
$22.59
$21.50 AZ White
$20.41
$19.70
UT White
$19.50
$19.52
UT
$17.50 $17.98 $17.12 Hispanic
$17.00 US
Hispanic
$15.50 $16.19
AZ
$13.70 Hispanic
$13.50
$13.61
$12.65
$11.50
Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey microdata (accessed April 13, 2021). Note: Inflation adjusted using R-CPI-U-
RS, all items, 1977-2020.
Figure 54 – Minimum Wage and 10th Percentile Wage

(“winner” bolded and shaded)
UT AZ US
Minimum wage/hr. $7.25 $12.15 $7.25
(2021)
Minimum wage No Yes No
inflation index
(2021)
Hourly Wage & rank $9.99 30th $10.90 12th $10.07
in 10th percentile in
(2019)
Sources: US Department of Labor, State Minimum Wage Laws, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/state; EPI
analysis of Current Population Survey microdata (accessed March 18, 2021).
37
Compared to Utah and the nation overall, more

Arizonans earn a poverty-level wage. Arizona ranks 16 th
in the nation for the most share of workers earning
poverty level wages, Utah ranks 31 st.
Figure 55 – Share of Workers Earning Poverty Level Wages,

2007-2018 (poverty wage for a family of four was $12.36 in 2018)
Source: Source: EARN | State of Working X Data Library, Share of workers earning below the poverty wage: Economic Policy Institute
38
Poverty While Utah enjoys low poverty rates,

Arizona is above the national average.
Figure 56 – Poverty Rates, 2007-2019
Source: Census Bureau, Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months, Table ID: S1701, ACS 1-Year Estimates, https://data.census.gov/ce
dsci/all.
The Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM) counts

poverty more accurately by accounting for local cost of living, household
expenses such as taxes, childcare, and medical bills, and government
safety net programs such as Social Security/SSI, SNAP/food stamps, TANF,
unemployment insurance benefits, federal tax credits like the EITC, and
government subsidies for housing and school lunches.
Figure 57 – Supplemental Poverty Measure, 2017-2019

UT AZ US
8.0% 12.0% 12.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Table 5. Number and Percentage of People in Poverty by state using 3-year average 2017-2019,
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2020/demo/income-poverty/p60-272.html.
39
Figure 58 – Adult Poverty Rates by Race & Ethnicity, 2019

35%
30% 29% 29%
25% 23%
21%
20% 19% 19% 19%
18%
17% 17%
16%
15%
11%
11%
10%
10% 9% 9% 9%
7%
5%
0%
American Indian Asian Native Hawaiian or Black or African Hispanic of Latino Non-Hispanic White
Pacific Islander American
UT AZ US
Source: Census Bureau, Poverty Status in the Past 12 Months, Table ID: S1701, ACS 1-Year Estimates, https://data.
census.gov/cedsci/all. Kids Count Data Center, Children in poverty by race and ethnicity in the United States, https://
datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/44-children-in-poverty-by-race-and-ethnicity?loc=1&loct=1#detailed/1/any/false
/1729,37,871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133/10,11,9,12,1,185,13/324,323.
Figure 59 – Child Poverty Rates by Race & Ethnicity, 2019

40%
36%
35%
30% 31%
30%
29%
25%
25% 22% 23%
20%
15%
11% 10%
10% 8% 9% 10%
6%
5%
0%
American Indian Asian & Pacific Islander Black or African Hispanic of Latino Non-Hispanic White
American
UT AZ US
Source: See Figure 58. Note: the estimates for Utah’s American Indian and Black races have been suppressed due to a
large confidence interval.
40
Figure 60 – Percentage of Children Living in Single-Parent

Families, 2007-2019
40%
40% 38% 38% 38% 38%
37% 37% 37% 37% 37% 37%
35%
34%
35%
35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35% 35%
34% 34% 34% 34%
30% 32% 32% Arizona
United States
Utah
25%
21%
20%
19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19%
20% 18% 18% 18%
15%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source: Kids Count Data Center, Children in single-parent families in the United States, https://datacenter.kidscount.org/
data#USA/2/23/2488,24,2592,26,2721/char/0.
Figure 61 – Percentage of Children Living in Single-Parent

Families by Race & Ethnicity, 2009-2019
52%
47%
46%
47% 45% 45%
44% 44% 44% 44% 44%
42%
41%
42%
42% 42% 42% 42% 42% 42% 42% AZ Hispanic
41% 36% 36% 41% 41%
37% 40% 35% 35%
34% 34% 34% US Hispanic
33% 33% 33%
32% 30% UT Hispanic
29%
28% 28%
27% AZ Non-Hispanic White
26% 26% 26% 26%
27% 28% 25% 25%
US Non-Hispanic White
22% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% UT Non-Hispanic White

24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24%
17%
16% 16%
17% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15% 15%
14% 14%
12%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source: Kids Count Data Center, Children in single-parent families by race in the United States, https://datacenter.kidsco
unt.org/data#USA/2/23/2488,24,2592,26,2721/char/0.
41
Figure 62 – Child Poverty Rates, 2008-2019

30%
27.2% 27.0%
26.5%
25.6%
24.4% 24.7%
25% 23.6%
23.4%
22.2% 22.6% 22.2%
21.6% 21.7%
20.8% 20.7% 20.8%
20.0% 20.1%
19.5% 19.1%
20%
18.2% 18.4% 18.0%
16.8%
15.7% 15.6%
15.1% 14.8%
15% 13.8%
12.9%
12.2%
11.1% 10.7%
10.5% AZ
9.5% 9.9%
10% US
UT
5%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty Status in the past 12 months, Table ID: S1701, ACS 1-Year Estimates, https://data.census
.gov/cedsci/all?q=child%20poverty%20.
Figure 63 – Family Poverty Rates, 2019

35%
30%
29% 29%
25%
21%
20%
15% 14%
15%
10% 8% 8%
5% 6%
5%
0%
All Families Married Couples Single Parent
UT AZ US
Source: Kids Count Data Center, Families with related children that are below poverty by family type, https://datacenter.kids
count.org/data#USA/2/16/17,18,19,20,22,21,2720/char/0.
42
Utah has a noticeably lower homelessness rate

than Arizona and the nation overall.
Figure 64 – Homelessness Rates, 2014-2019 (as % of total population

on a given night)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population, Table ID: PEPANNRES, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
table?q=population&g=0100000US&tid=PEPPOP2019.PEPANNRES&hidePreview=false; HUD Exchange, CoC Homeless Populations
and Subpopulations Reports, https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/coc/coc-homeless-populations-and-subpopulations-repo
rts/?filter_Year=2014&filter_Scope=&filter_State=&filter_CoC=&program=CoC&group=PopSub.
Figure 65 – Child Homelessness Rates, 2010-2018 (ages 3-17,

enrolled students)
Source: National Center for Homeless Education, "Federal Data Summary: Education for Homeless Children and Youth," Table 2.
Number homeless students by state and school year: 3-5 year old, K-12 and ungraded in Local Educations Agencies, https://nche.
ed.gov/data-and-stats/; U.S. Census Bureau, Children Characteristics, Table ID: B09001, Children 3 to 17 years enrolled in school,
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=table%20S0901&g=0100000US&tid=ACSST1Y2017.S0901&moe=false&hidePreview=true.
43
Figure 66 – Percentage of Children Facing Food Insecurity, 2019

UT AZ US
12.1% 19.0% 15.2%
Source: Feeding America, Child Food Insecurity Rates by State, https://www.feedingamerica.org/sites/default/files/2020-

06/Map%20the%20Meal%20Gap%202020%20Combined%20Modules.pdf.
44
Cost of Living Utah and Arizona have similar costs-of-living

and both are below the overall national level.
Figure 67 – Regional Price Parities, 2008-2019

(where 100 = price index equal to national level)
101
100.6
100.1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
100
100
99 98.6
97.8 97.9
98 97.7
United States
97.2 97.1
96.8 96.9 96.8 Utah
97 96.5 96.4 96.4 96.5
Arizona
96 96 95.9
96 96.3
96.1 95.8 96
95 95.3
94
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Data, Regional Price Parities by state (all items), https://www.bea.gov/iTable/
iTable.cfm?reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1&acrdn=8#reqid=70&step=1&isuri=1.
Figure 68 – Unaffordable Rent Burden Rates, 2010-2019

% of renting households paying more than 30% of household income to gross rent
55%
53.2%
53.4% 2019 Rank:
53%
(1 is
51.9% 52.0% 51.8%
53.0% 51.5% highest/worst)
51%
50.6% UT: 39th
51.4% 49.7% 49.70%
49.6% 49.6%
48.8%
51.2%
48.8%
49.5% AZ: 26th
48.5%
49% 49.6% 48.3%
47.8%
47.0% 47.10%
46.5% 46.5% US
47%
45.0% AZ
45% 44.4% 44.4% 44.30% 44.1%
UT
43%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Selected Housing Characteristics, table ID: DP04, American Community Survey 1-year estimates,
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/all?q=table%20DP04.
45
Taxes
Figure 69 – State & Local Revenue, 2018
Rankings: 1 is highest, 50 is lowest UT AZ US Total
Total Own-Source Revenue ($ million) $22,307 $38,373 $2,550,300
Total own-source revenue as 16.3% 15th 12.8% 48th 15.1%
percentage of personal income & rank
Total Tax Revenue ($ million) $13,078 $27,374 $1,761,402
Total tax revenue as a percentage of 9.6% 32nd 9.1% 38th 10.4%
personal income & rank
Source: Federation of Tax Administrators, “2018 State & Local Revenue as a Percentage of Personal Income,” https://www.
taxadmin.org/2018-state-and-local-revenue-as-a-percentage-of-personal-income. Note: Own-Source Revenue is all revenue
collected by state & local government, including both taxes and fees (including university tuition and public hospital fees).
Figure 70 – State & Local Tax Collection by Source, 2018
U.S.
Total
24% 35% 3% 31% 7%
Utah 31% 37% 3% 26% 4%
Arizona 17% 49% 1% 29% 4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Individual Income Sales & Excise Corporate Income Property Other
Source: Federation of Tax Administrators, “2019 State & Local Tax Collection by Source,” https://www.taxadmin.org/2018-state-
and-local-revenues-by-source.
46
Compared to the nation and Arizona,

Quality of Life Utah has higher homeownership
rates and shorter commutes to work.
Figure 71 – Homeownership Rates, 2006-2019 (% of households

that own) 2019 Rank:
78% th st
76% UT: 8 AZ: 31
76% 75%
74%
74%
74% 73% 72%
71% 72%
72% 71% 71% 71% 71% 71%
72% 70% 70%
70% 69% 69% UT
68% 67% AZ
69% 66% 66% 66%
68% 68% 65% 65% US
66% 67% 64%
67% 65%
66% 64% 63%
64% 65% 65%
64% 65%
62% 64% 64%
62% 62%
60%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "Homeownership Rates by State," Table 15, https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/ann19ind.
html.
Figure 72 – Mean Travel Time to Work, 2005-2019

29
27.6
26.9 27.1
26.4 26.6
27 25.8 26
25.5 25.5 25.7
25.1 25 25.3 25.1 25.3
26.6
25 25.7
25.3 25.6
24.8 25 25.1 25 24.8 24.8 25.1
24.3 24.5 24.6 24.5
23
Minutes
US
22.5 AZ
21 22 22 22
21.4 21.3 21.6 21.6 21.3 21.6
21 21.2 21.2 UT
20.5 20.8
19
17
15
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "Means of transportation to work by selected characteristics," Table ID: S0802, https://data.cen
sus.gov/cedsci/all?q=Table%20S0802%20.
47
Utah could further improve its already-

strong child well-being rankings by focusing
on education and health policy.
Figure 73 – Overall Child Well-being Rankings, 2020

Ranking: 1st is best, 50th is worst UT AZ
Overall 4th 42nd
Economic 2nd 36th
Education 10th 46th
Health 13th 33rd
Family and Community 1st 46th
Source: The Annie E. Casey Foundation, "2020 Kids Count Data Book," https://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/aecf-2020kidscount
databook-2020.pdf.
48
Utah leads Arizona by overall public health rankings,

Health including the lowest smoking rate in the nation.
Figure 74 – Selected Health Care Performance Rankings, 2019

Ranking: 1 is best, 50 is worst UT Rank AZ Rank
Overall Public Health Ranking 12th 24th
Lowest Infant Mortality Rate (2018) 17th 22nd
Lowest Mortality Rate 13th 10th
Lowest Obesity Rate 13th 20th
Lowest Smoking Rate 1st 19th
Lowest Suicide Rate 39th 38th
Mental Health 33rd 36th
Source: U.S. News & World Report, Public Health Rankings https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/health-
care/public-health.
Figure 75 – Health Measures (“winner” bolded and highlighted)

UT AZ US
Total White Hispanic Total White Hispanic Total White Hispanic
Teen birth rate per 12 7 29 18 9 26 17 11 25
1000 women, by
Race/Ethnicity (2019)
Infant mortality rate 5.5 4.7 7.4 5.7 4.8 5.7 5.7 4.6 4.9
per 1,000 live births by
race/ethnicity (2018)
Percentage of adults 8% 7% 8% 15% 14% 15% 15% 16% 12%
who smoke by
Percentage of children 67.9% 66.5% 70.4%
aged 19-35 months
who are immunized
(2017)
White Hispanic White Hispanic White Hispanic
Heart disease deaths 152 80 136.4 108 165.8 111.3
per 100,000
population by
Diabetes Deaths per 23.9 28.7 18.5 34.8 19 25.6
100,000 population by
Race/Ethnicity (2018)
Suicide Rate per 21.2 18.6 13.9
100,000 Individuals
(2019)
Percentage of Children 14% 16% 14%
with Oral Health 49
Problems (2019)
Source: Kids Count Data Center, Teen births by race/ethnicity, https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data#USA/2/27/28,29,30,31,32,34,33/char/0;
KFF, State Health Facts: Health Status, https://www.kff.org/state-category/health-status/, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/default.htm.
Arizona ranks 9th in the nation for the highest uninsured rate, while
Utah is the 17th highest. Both states have expanded Medicaid .
Figure 76 – Percentage of Population without Health Insurance,

2009-2019
18% 17.2% 17.6%
17.3% 16.9% 17.1%
17% AZ
16% 15.1% 15.5%
15.3% 14.8% UT
15% 14.5%
15.3% 15.1% US
14% 14.6% 13.6%
14.5%
13% 14.0%
12.5%
12% 11.3%
11.7% 10.8% 10.6%
11% 10.0% 10.1%
10% 10.5% 9.7%
9.2% 9.4%
9% 9.4% 8.8%
9.2%
8.9%
8% 8.6% 8.7%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "Selected characteristics of health insurance coverage in the United States," Table ID: S7201 ACS 1-year
estimates, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/all?q=table%20S2701.
Figure 77 – Percentage of Population without Health Insurance

by Race/Ethnicity and Sex, 2019
30% 29%
25% 24% 23%
19% 19% 19% 19%

20%
16%
15% 14%
11% 12% 12%
10%
10% 9% 9% 10% 10%
10% 8% 8%
6% 6% 7% 7%
5%
0% 0% 0%
0%
White, not Black American Asian Native Hispanic (any Female Male
Hispanic Indian and Hawaiian and race)
Alaska Native other Pacific US AZ UT
Islander
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Selected Health Characteristics of Health Insurance Coverage in the United States, Table ID: S2701 ACS
1-year estimates, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=health%20insurance&tid=ACSST1Y2019.S2701&moe=false&hidePreview
=true.
50
Figure 78 – Percentage of Children without Health Insurance,

2009-2019
14% 12.9% 13.2%
12.8% Data are not
12.0% 11.9%
12% comparable
10.0% across series
10% 11.1% 9.2%
10.9% 8.4%
10.3% 10.1% 8.3%
7.7% AZ
9.5% 9.4% 7.3%
8%
8.6% 8.3% UT
8.0%
6% 7.5% 7.2% 7.2% 7.3% 7.4% US
7.1%
6.0% 5.8%
5.7%
4% 5.0% 5.2%
4.8% 4.5%
2%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "Selected characteristics of health insurance coverage in the United States," Table ID: S7201 ACS 1-year
estimates, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/all?q=table%20S2701. Note: series between 2008-2016 & 2017-2019 are not comparable
because the U.S. Census Bureau began including 18-year-olds in the health insurance age group for children in 2017.
In 2019 Utah tied (with Texas & Tennessee) for the highest percent of uninsured
Hispanic children at 17%. Arizona fared slightly better in 32nd place at 11%.
Figure 79 – Percentage of White and Hispanic Children without

Health Insurance, 2008-2018
34% UT - Hispanic
35%
AZ - Hispanic
30% Data are not US - Hispanic
27%
26% 26% comparable
25% AZ - White
25% 23%
across series
22% 22% UT - White
19% US - White
20% 19% 18% 18%
17% 17% 17%
16% 17%
15%
15% 14% 13% 13%
16% 12% 12%
12% 11% 11% 11%
10% 10% 10%
10%
10% 8% 9% 8%
8% 8% 8% 8%
8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 9%
7% 7% 5% 5%
6% 5% 4% 6%
5% 7%
6% 6%
5% 5% 5% 5% 4%
4% 4% 4%
0% 3%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source: Kids Count Data Center, "Children without health insurance by race and ethnicity," https://datacenter.kidscount.org/.
Note: series between 2008-2016 & 2017-2019 are not comparable because the U.S. Census Bureau began including 18-year-olds in
the health insurance age group for children in 2017.
51
Both Utah and Arizona have stricter eligibility requirements for public health insurance
programs than most states. And although Arizona has higher participation rates than Utah
and the US overall, these data do not yet reflect Utah’s full Medicaid expansion that began
January 1, 2020.
Figure 80 – Medicaid and CHIP Metrics (“winner” bolded and highlighted)

UT AZ US
State adoption of 12- Medicaid: CHIP: Medicaid: CHIP: Medicaid: CHIP:
month continuous No Yes No No 23 States 25 States
eligibility for children's Yes Yes
Medicaid and CHIP
(January 2020)
Medicaid/CHIP child 87.6% (8.6%) 90.5% (2.8%) 93.7% 5%
participation rate, 2016
(% Change 2013-2016)
Medicaid/CHIP parent 72.3% 81.9% 79.9%
participation rate, 2016
Medicaid Income Eligibility 138% 138% 138%

Limits for parents (in a
family of 3) as a Percent of
the Federal Poverty Level
(January 2021)
Medicaid Income Eligibility 144% 161% 200%
Limits for pregnant
women (in a family of 3) as
a percent of the federal
poverty level
(January 2021)
Lawfully residing Yes No 35 States Yes
immigrant children
covered without a 5-year
wait (ICHIA option), by
Medicaid/CHIP
(January 2021)
Lawfully residing No No 25 States Yes
immigrant pregnant
women covered without a
5-year wait (ICHIA Option),
by Medicaid/CHIP
(January 2021)
Presumptive Eligibility in Children: No Children: No Children: 19 States Yes
Medicaid and CHIP for Pregnant: Yes Pregnant: No
children (Medicaid or Pregnant: 30 States Yes
CHIP) and pregnant
women (January 2020)
Source: KFF, State Health Facts: Medicaid & Chip, https://www.kff.org/state-category/medicaid-chip/.
52
Figure 81 – Medicaid & CHIP Income Eligibility Limits for Children

as a Percent of the Federal Poverty Level, 2020
Source: KFF, https://www.kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/medicaid-and-chip-income-eligibility-limits-for-children-as-a-percent-

of-the-federal-poverty-level/.
Figure 82 – Most Polluted Metropolitan Areas, 2016-2018

UT AZ
By Ozone 11th Salt Lake City-Provo-Orem 7th Phoenix-Mesa
By Short-Term Particle Pollution 7th Salt Lake City-Provo-Orem, 13th Logan 10th Phoenix-Mesa
Source: American Lung Association, Most Polluted Cities, https://www.stateoftheair.org/city-rankings/most-polluted-cities.html
Figure 83 – Selected County Air Quality Report Card (Scale A–F),

2016-2018
UT Ozone Particle AZ Ozone Particle
Pollution Pollution
Box Elder D F Cochise B A
Cache B F Coconino C DNC
Carbon C DNC Gila F DNC
Davis F F La Paz C A
Duchesne F C Maricopa F F
Salt Lake F F Navajo C DNC
San Juan A DNC Pima F B
Tooele F D Pinal F F
Uintah F A Yavapai C DNC
Utah F F Yuma F C
Washington B A
Weber F F
Source: American Lung Association, State Rankings, http://www.lung.org/our-initiatives/healthy-air/sota/city-rankings/states.
53
Figure 84 –All Drug Overdose Death Rates, 1999-2019

(Per 100,000 Population)
28
23.1 23.4
22.1 22.4 22.4 22.3 23.8 26.8
23 21.3
19.5 21.2
19.3 19.1 19.1
19 19 20.3 22.2 21.6
17.5 21.7
18 16.1 16.3 20.7
19.8 18.9
14 16.9 16.9 18.7 18.2
13.5 17.7
16.1
13 10.6 10.6 10.9 14.9 15.7 16.3
13.7 14.1 14.7 AZ
12.7 13.2 13.1 13.8
10.4 12 11.5 11.9 11.9 11.9 12.3
8 10.6 10.4 US
9.4 10.1
8.2 8.9
6.2 6.8 UT
3 6.1
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Source: KFF, State Health Facts: Mental Health & Substance Use, https://www.kff.org/state-category/mentalhealth/ . Note: has been
age adjusted.
Figure 85 –Obesity Rates for Adults, 2011-2019

32% 30.9% 31.4%
30.1%
29.6% 31.4%
30% 28.9% 28.9%
28.3%
27.4% 27.7% 29.5% 29.5%
28% 28.9% 29.0% 29.2%
28.4%
27.8%
26% 26.8%
25.1% US
26.0% 25.7% AZ
24% 25.4% 25.3%
24.4% 24.5% UT
24.3% 24.1%
22%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Obesity defined by BMI≥30. Source: KFF, State Health Facts: Health Status, https://www.kff.org/state-category/health-status/.
Figure 86 – Percentage of Adults Who Reported No Physical

Activity in the Last Month Outside of Work, 2011-2019
30%
26.3% 25.9% 26.6% 26.0%
27% 25.4%
23.7% 24.2% 24.2%
23.3%
24%
24.1% 25.2% 21.2% 24.7% 25.1%
24.1%
21% 18.9% 22.6% 23.1%
22.1%
18% 16.5% 20.6% 16.8% 20.3% 21.1%
15.7%
17.5% 18.0%
15%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
US AZ UT
Source: CDC, Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity: Data, Trends and Maps, https://nccd.cdc.gov/dnpao_dtm/rdPage.aspx
?rdReport=DNPAO_DTM.ExploreByLocation&rdRequestForwarding=Form.
54
Civic Engagement
Figure 87 – Distribution of Community
Service Provided, 2018
(by receiving organization type)
US 31% 6% 19% 6% 3% 5% 25% 6%
AZ 6% 21% 22% 1% 19% 4% 3% 24%
UT 42% 2% 7% 1% 23% 1% 22% 3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Religious Hospital or other health
Educational or youth service Public Safety
Other Environmental or animal care
Sport, hobby, cultural or arts Civic, political, professional or international
Source: AmeriCorps, Volunteering in America, States, https://nationalservice.gov/serve/via/states.
Utah leads the nation with our strong culture of volunteerism and an
improving voter turnout. Arizona ranks 34th for volunteering.
Figure 88– General Election Voter Turnout, (2000-2020)

(as % of eligible population)
80% US UT AZ
69%
State Ranking for
70%
55%
61%
60%
62%
59%
60%
67% 66% Voter Turnout
57% 56% 58%
60% 55% 55% 57%
53% 56% 51% (1 is highest turnout)
50%47%
50% 46%
41% 41% 40% 42% 42% UT AZ
35% 37%
40% 38%
37%
37% 34%
30%
2020 22nd 30th
30% 2018 23rd 33rd
20% 2016 35th 40th
10% 2014 43rd 37th
0%
2012 33rd 38th
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2008 44th 41st
Source: The United States Elections Project, Voter Turnout Data,
http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-data.
55
Working Families
Benchmarking Project
Voices for Utah Children

747 E. South Temple
Suite 100
Salt Lake City, UT 84102
(801) 364-1182
www.utahchildren.org
56

Utah vs. Arizona - Benchmarking Report Final 5-6-21

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Utah vs. Arizona - Benchmarking Report Final 5-6-21

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Working Families

Voices for Utah Children

Working Families Benchmarking Project

Part II: Standard of Living

The Link Between Education and Income

Utah's Rank in Median Hourly Wages

Source: EPI analysis of Current Population Survey microdata

Business Utah has remained one of the top-rated

Figure 1 – Business Climate Rankings (1 is best, 50 worst)

Site Selection’s 2020 Top States for 18th 7th

Figure 2 – Kauffman Index: Figure 3 – Hachman Index of

Utah Arizona US Average

Figure 4 – Venture Capital Disbursed Per $1 Million of GDP,

Figure 5 – Research and Development as a Percentage of GDP,

Figure 6 – Real GDP Per Capita, 1997-2020 (2012 dollars)

Figure 7 – Difference in Real GDP Per Capita Compared

$3,956 -$2,971 $4,050

Source: See Figure 6.

Figure 8 – GDP Per Capita as Percentage of US Average,

Source: See Figure 6.

Figure 9 – Percentage Change in Real GDP 2007 to 2020

35.4% 12.6% 17.9%

Source: See Figure 6.

Utah lags behind most states in

Figure 10 – Real GDP Per-Worker, 1997-2019 (2012 dollars)

Figure 11 – Real GDP Per-Worker Gap, 1997-2019

Source: See Figure 10.

The US overall and Utah achieved unemployment rates

Employment below pre-Great Recession levels in 2017 & 2019,

Figure 13 – Underemployment Rates, 2004-2020

Figure 14 – Prime Age Employment to Population Ratio (25-54

Figure 15 – Labor Force Participation Rates, 2000-2020

Figure 16 – Labor Force Participation Rates Ages 20-64,

Figure 17 – Labor Force Participation Rates Ages 20-64 by

Source: See figure 16.

Education Arizona and Utah rank 47th and 50th respectively

Figure 18 –Spending Per Pupil for Public K - 12th Grade, 2012-2018

Figure 19 – Funding Level: Cost-Adjusted Per-Pupil, 2018

Figure 20 – Funding Equity, 2018

Low poverty district funding $8,330 $8,392

Figure 21 – Funding Effort: PK-12 Education Revenue as a

Rank 41st 50th

Figure 22 – Public K-12 Pupil to Teacher Ratios Fall, 2017

Figure 23 – Average Annual Salary of Teachers K-12, SY 2018-19

Figure 24 – Percentage Change of Public Teacher K-12 Salary

Figure 25 –Average Annual Salary of Teachers K-12 SY 1969-70 to

$60,000 $58,404 $58,646

Source: See Figure 24.

Figure 26 – Preschool Support, SY 2018-19 (“winner” bolded and highlighted)

Local match required? NA Not Required 14 State Programs

State Head Start Spending $0 $0 $171,787,891

State spending per child enrolled $0 $4,013 $5,374

4-year-olds: percent enrolled in No program 4% 43rd 34%

Figure 27 – State-funded Preschool Enrollment Rates, 2002-2019

Figure 28 – Percentage of Eligible Children Enrolled in

Figure 29 – Percentage of Figure 30 – Percentage of 4th

Source: UT data: Calculations based on kindergarten

Both states’ school performance has been climbing,

Figure 31 – Average NAEP 4th + 8th Grade Math + Reading Rank,

Figure 32 – Average NAEP 4th + 8th Grade Rank by Subject,

Source: See Figure 31.

Figure 33 – High School Graduation Rates by Race/Ethnicity for

Figure 34- Percentage Point Difference between the Graduation