By Dr. Courtney Flint | May 20, 2020

 

Helper Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2020

Dr. Courtney Flint
Utah State University Extension

extension logo
utah wellbeing survey logo

Summary

Helper is one of 25 cities participating in the Utah Wellbeing Project. This project is designed to assess the wellbeing and local perspectives of city residents and to provide information to city leaders to inform their general planning process.

Eighteen cities participated in an online survey effort in February and March 2020. Helper City advertised the survey via social media, a newsletter, and flyers. All city residents age 18 and over were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey, available from February 7, 2020 to March 16, 2020.

A total of 101 completed surveys were recorded during this effort. This report contains descriptive information based on Helper resident responses and comparisons with other cities from this most recent survey effort.

Public intercept surveys with iPads were conducted in Summer 2019. A report based on those findings is available at https://usu.edu/utah-wellbeing-project/.

Contact Information: Courtney Flint, courtney.flint@usu.edu, 435-797-8635
Acknowledgements: Utah League of Cities and Towns, Casey Trout, Rachel Sagers, and Caitlyn Rogers

Respondent Characteristics

The vast majority of Helper survey respondents (95%) were full-time residents. Length of residency ranged from 1 to 90 years with an average of 24 years. The majority of respondents (70%) had been living in Helper more than 5 years.

Table 1 details the demographic characteristics of the respondents and allows for comparison with U.S. Census information from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey. As the table shows, females and those age 40-50 were over-represented in the survey sample. The survey under-represents those without a college degree and those with low incomes. There is no census comparison for religion. These characteristics should be taken into consideration when interpreting the findings from the survey, as survey respondents are not fully representative of Helper residents.

Table 1

Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents and U.S. Census Data for Helper

Demographic Characteristics Helper iPad Survey 2019 (62 Respondents) Helper
Online Survey 2020
(101 Respondents)
American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
Age 18-39 35.5% 26.7% 29.1%
Age 40-59 30.6% 43.3% 39.6%
Age 60 or Over 33.9% 30.0% 31.3%
Female 59.7% 61.8% 47.7%
Male 40.3% 38.2% 52.3%
No college degree 77.0% 57.3% 85.3%
College degree (4-year) 23.0% 42.7% 14.7%
Median household income NA NA $55,760
Income Under $50,000 32.7% 24.7% 42.7%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 34.5% 37.6% 30.3%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 25.9% 18.8% 16.2%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 3.4% 14.1% 6.9%
Income $150,000 or over 3.4% 4.7% 3.9%
Religion: Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints
30.4% 14.6% NA
Other religion 39.3% 52.8% NA
No religious preference 30.4% 32.6% NA
White (non-Latino) 83.6% 94.5% 87.4%
Nonwhite or Latino 16.4% 5.5% 12.6%
Children under 18 in household NA 47.1% 24.1%
Employed (combined) NA 66.3% 59.5% (in labor force age 16+)
Out of work and looking for work NA 1.1% 2.2% (unemployed)
Other NA 32.3% 38.3% (not in labor force)

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Helper

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Helper. These wellbeing indicators are both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Helper was 4.10, with 81% indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Helper was 3.74.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Helper. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 5% of respondents; 3: 15% of respondents; 4: 46% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 35% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Helper. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Helper? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 5% of respondents; 3: 36% of respondents; 4: 39% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 20% of respondents.

The average personal wellbeing score in Helper falls above the average of all cities surveyed in early 2020. The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Helper in the “Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort Cities” group, along with four other cities in this study as indicated in the graph below. There is no statistically significant difference among these cities on personal wellbeing.

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Sampled Utah Cities (2020). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.24; Bountiful: Average Score 4.11; Cedar City: Average Score 3.99; Tooele: Average Score 3.77. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. North Logan: Average Score 4.23; La Verkin: Average Score 4.18; Eagle Mountain: Average Score 4.14; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 4.14; Santaquin: Average Score 4.11; Hurricane: Average Score 4.09; Lehi: Average Score 4.09; Nibley: Average Score 4.08; Herriman: Average Score 3.99. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort Cities. Richfield: Average Score 4.12; Helper: Average Score 4.10; Delta: Average Score 3.99; Nephi: Average Score 3.98; Moab: Average Score 3.93.

Wellbeing Domains in Helper

According to national and international entities tracking wellbeing, a number of common domains make up wellbeing. In this survey, respondents rated ten domains on a 5-point scale from poor to excellent, and indicated their importance to their overall personal wellbeing on a 5-point scale from not at all important to very important. Based on percentage with a good or excellent rating, the top three highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents were connection with nature, safety and security, and living standards. The top three most important wellbeing domains were safety and security, physical health, and mental health.

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Helper. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Category: Connection with Nature - 23% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 77% rated as good or excellent; Category: Safety and Security - 30% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 70% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 31% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 69% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 32% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 68% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 32% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 68% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 34% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 66% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 42% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 58% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 42% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 58% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 45% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 55% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 58% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 42% rated as good or excellent.


Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Importance in Helper. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Category: Safety and Security - 4% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 96% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 9% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 91% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 11% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 89% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 12% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 88% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 18% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 82% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 20% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 80% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 22% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 78% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 24% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 76% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 33% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 67% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 46% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 54% rated as important or very important.

The demographic variables for age, gender, education, religion, income, and race/ethnicity were significantly related to a few wellbeing perspectives among Helper respondents. These relationships are shown in Table 2 and are based on a multivariate generalized linear model using the categories from Table 1, excluding children in household and employment. Sample size may have affected results.

Table 2
Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Nonwhite or Latino
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing            
Wellbeing in Helper            +
Connection to Nature         +  $150,000+ >
under $50,000
 
Cultural Opportunities            
Education   +   + $150,000+ >
$75,000-$99,999
 
Leisure Time            
Living Standards         +  
Local Environmental Quality         $150,000+ >
$50,000-$74,999
 
Mental Health         +
 
Physical Health      +  
vs no religious preference
$150,000+ >
$50,000-$74,999
 
Safety & Security            
Social Connections            
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Nonwhite or Latino
  Domain Importance 
Connection to Nature     +      
Cultural Opportunities     +      
Education            
Leisure Time      +    $150,000+ > $100,000-$149,999  
Living Standards            
Local Environmental Quality  +
vs 18-39
  +      
Mental Health            
Physical Health    +        
Safety and Security            
Social Connections    +         

Wellbeing Matrix for Helper

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Helper. Physical Health falls into the red quadrant, indicating that it was of higher than average importance but rated lower than average. It is important to note that all domains have an average rating above 3.0 (moderate) and the importance score for all domains is higher than 3.0 (moderately important).

Scatterplot. Title: Helper Wellbeing Matrix. Domains are classified into four quadrants depending on their average rating and average importance as compared to the average of all the average domain ratings and the average of all the average domain importance ratings. High rating, high importance (green quadrant) domains include: Safety and Security, Living Standards, Mental Health, Living Standards, and Local Environmental Quality. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Connection with Nature and Leisure Time. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Social Connections and Education. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Physical Health.

Community Action & Connections in Helper

Survey participants were asked about community actions and connectedness to community in Helper. Both questions were scored on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5). When asked about the degree to which people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities in Helper, the average score was 3.72. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.41.

Bar chart. Title: Community Action in Helper. Subtitle: In Helper, to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? Data - 1 Not at All: 2% of respondents; 2: 13% of respondents; 3: 21% of respondents; 4: 38% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 26% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Helper. Subtitle: In Helper, to what degree do you feel connected to your community? Data - 1 Not at All: 10% of respondents; 2: 12% of respondents; 3: 32% of respondents; 4: 21% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 26% of respondents

There were no significant relationships in the Helper survey data between demographics and these community questions. Likewise, there was no significant relationship between community connection and overall personal wellbeing in Helper.

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscape including mountains, rivers and streams, red rock, and lakes, as well as trails and city parks were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. Farmland also had a positive influence for the majority of survey respondents.

In terms of development and industry in the landscape, half of respondents indicate that commercial development is a positive feature in the landscape and nearly half (48%) of respondents find residential development as a positive feature. Over one-third of respondents (36%) also see manufacturing industry as a positive feature. Comparatively, more respondents find extractive industry as a negative feature than as a positive feature, yet almost half of respondents (49%) see it as neither a positive nor a negative feature.

Likert Graph. Title: The Role of Landscape Features in Helper Residents' Wellbeing. Subtitle: How does the presence of the following landscape features influence your wellbeing? Feature: Mountains - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 1% indicated neither, 99% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 5% indicated neither, 93% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 8% indicated neither, 91% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 4% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 15% indicated neither, 81% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 20% indicated neither, 78% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 5% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 18% indicated neither, 77% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 4% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 41% indicated neither, 55% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 12% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 38% indicated neither, 50% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 12% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 48% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 18% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 46% indicated neither, 36% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 28% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 49% indicated neither, 23% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development in Helper

Most survey respondents noted that population growth in Helper is just right (51%), while just over one-fifth of respondents stated that it is too slow (22%). On the question of the pace of economic development, 52% said it is too slow, while 37% said it is just right. Compared to other cities surveyed in early 2020, Helper had the smallest percentage of survey respondents that stated that population growth was too fast and the second highest percentage that stated that it was too slow. Comparatively, Helper was in the top half of cities that find economic development too slow and has the second smallest percentage of respondents that state economic development is too fast.

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Helper. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Helper? Data - Too Slow: 22% of respondents; Just Right: 51% of respondents; Too Fast: 8% of respondents; No Opinion: 19% of respondents.Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Helper. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Helper? Data - Too Slow: 52% of respondents; Just Right - 37% of respondents; Too Fast - 2% of respondents; No Opinion - 9% of respondents.

Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth in Sampled Utah Cities. Herriman - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 91% indicated too fast; Lehi - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 83% indicated too fast; Saratoga Springs - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 80% indicated too fast; Eagle Mountain - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 72% indicated too fast; Draper - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 72% indicated too fast; Santaquin - 1% of respondents indicated too slow, 72% indicated too fast; Tooele - 3% of respondents indicated too slow, 70% indicated too fast. North Logan - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 66% indicated too fast. Moab - 4% of respondents indicated too slow, 64% indicated too fast; Nibley - 0% of respondents indicated too slow, 60% indicated too fast; Hurricane - 2% of respondents indicated too slow, 56% indicated too fast; Nephi - 6% of respondents indicated too slow, 53% indicated too fast; Bountiful - 3% of respondents indicated too slow, 46% indicated too fast; Cedar City - 2% of respondents indicated too slow, 46% indicated too fast; La Verkin - 12% of respondents indicated too slow, 35% indicated too fast; Richfield - 14% of respondents indicated too slow, 18% indicated too fast; Delta - 31% of respondents indicated too slow, 9% indicated too fast; Helper - 22% of respondents indicated too slow, 8% indicated too fast.

Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development in Sampled Utah Cities. Draper - 4% of respondents indicated too slow, 44% indicated too fast; Lehi - 9% of respondents indicated too slow, 56% indicated too fast; Nibley - 19% of respondents indicated too slow, 23% indicated too fast; Moab - 24% of respondents indicated too slow, 62% indicated too fast; North Logan - 29% of respondents indicated too slow, 19% indicated too fast; Bountiful - 35% of respondents indicated too slow, 14% indicated too fast; Cedar City - 44% of respondents indicated too slow, 9% indicated too fast; Saratoga Springs - 45% of respondents indicated too slow, 14% indicated too fast; Hurricane - 47% of respondents indicated too slow, 14% indicated too fast; Herriman - 48% of respondents indicated too slow, 23% indicated too fast; Eagle Mountain - 50% of respondents indicated too slow, 15% indicated too fast; Helper - 52% of respondents indicated too slow, 2% indicated too fast; Nephi - 54% of respondents indicated too slow, 9% indicated too fast; La Verkin - 56% of respondents indicated too slow, 11% indicated too fast; Santaquin - 58% of respondents indicated too slow, 12% indicated too fast; Richfield - 63% of respondents indicated too slow, 5% indicated too fast; Tooele - 63% of respondents indicated too slow, 10% indicated too fast; Delta - 80% of respondents indicated too slow, 0% indicated too fast.

Risks and Assets for Wellbeing in Helper

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which local issues were a major or minor risk or asset to wellbeing in Helper (see Table 3).

Table 3
Top Rated Risks and Assets by Helper Respondents

Highest Rated Assets
(indicated by at least 71% of respondents)
Highest Rated Risks
(Indicated by at least 31% of respondents)
Air Quality Substance Abuse
Access to Public Land Employment Opportunities
Recreation Opportunities Shopping Opportunities
Public Safety Opportunities for Youth
Roads and Transportation  

Respondents also wrote in other assets and risks as shown in Table 4. It is clear that some people not only listed current assets, but also those they wish Helper had.

Table 4
Other Assets and Risks Mentioned by Bountiful Respondents

Other Assets Other Risks
Cultural opportunities and events (2) Parks/green spaces/trails (2) Drug problems and transients Electrical grid
Mental health New business Job opportunity No gym
Property protection School Recycling  
Variety of religious groups      

Housing Findings in Helper

Of the survey respondents,

  • 95% live in a single-family house.
  • 86% own their home.
  • 27% spend more than one-third of their after-tax income on rent or mortgage.
  • 21% indicated they were very likely to change housing arrangements in next 5 years (17% were somewhat likely, 62% said they were not at all likely or not very likely).

For those desiring a housing change,

  • 59% seek to own their next housing (12% would seek to rent, 29% not sure)
  • 88% seek single-family housing

According to survey respondents, the greatest obstacles in seeking new housing include the price and type of housing stock. Not having enough money was also indicated as an obstacle for 40% of respondents.

Grouped Bar Chart. Title: Housing Obstacles. Not enough housing stock of my preference type in the area - 35% noted as no obstacle, 19% as minor obstacle, 46% as major obstacle; Obstacle: Not enough housing stock in my price range in the area - 41% noted as no obstacle, 28% as minor obstacle, 31% as major obstacle; Not having enough money - 60% noted as no obstacle, 27% as minor obstacle, 13% as major obstacle; Not having established credit history to qualify for a loan - 82% noted as no obstacle, 10% as minor obstacle, 8% as major obstacle; Not knowing someone to help with the home buying or renting process - 83% noted as no obstacle, 10% as minor obstacle, 7% as major obstacle; Not knowing how to start the process of buying or renting a new home - 86% noted as no obstacle, 11% as minor obstacle, 4% as major obstacle.

Summary of Open Comments

Respondents were given the opportunity to provide comments at the end of the survey. Comments were made by 31 Helper respondents (31% of those that completed the survey). These comments indicate that Helper respondents see a lot of potential in their town and want to see it thrive. Many people are concerned about the lack of recreation and cultural opportunities and want to see more businesses and activities. People are also worried about economic growth and employment opportunities in Helper. Some people noted concerns about drug use and crime. Overall, residents want to revitalize the town and invest in its growth.

Dominant themes in comments included the following:

  • Not enough economic growth and amenities
  • Few recreational and cultural opportunities
  • Concerns about substance abuse
  • Many are happy living in Helper

A Few Quotes:

  • “Helper needs more of its residents to spend their money in Helper. Most residents spend their money in Price or over the mountain. We need to find a way to get people to invest more in their own community, because this town will never improve without its residents support.”
  • “Helper is on the verge of becoming an active community again. We need more businesses and activities to bring more people into our town, give them employment, and a reason to reside here. Hopefully things will continue to progress.”
  • “Love all of the great things that are happening in Helper and hope to play a role in continuing these developments.”
  • "Helper is a nice town to live in. The people are friendly & helpful & the town is in good shape for as old as it is.”
Pie Chart. Title: Tone of Comment. Data: 8 positive comments, 20 negative comments, 3 mixed comments.
Bar chart. Title: Major Themes. Theme: Economy - mentioned 11 times; Overall Happy - mentioned 7 times; Safety - mentioned 5 times; Cultural Opportunities - mentioned 4 times; Social Climate - mentioned 4 times.