By Dr. Courtney Flint | June 4, 2021

Helper Wellbeing Survey Findings

May 2021

Extension Utah State University Logo
Utah Wellbeing Survey Logo

Summary

Helper City is one of 30 cities currently participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project and has been involved since 2019. 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. More details can be found on the Utah Wellbeing Project website. It is important to note that the 2021 survey was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was intentional as the last round of wellbeing surveys were conducted in 2020 prior to the pandemic. This allows us to assess changes at this unique period of time. Future surveys are anticipated to gauge recovery. 

What is in this report?

This report describes findings from the 2021 survey with initial information on changes since 2019 and some comparative information with other project cities. Feedback from city leaders and planners is welcome. We will continue with analysis and reporting.

How was the survey conducted?

In January and February 2021, Helper City advertised the survey via utility bill, social media and local news outlets including radio. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 100 viable surveys were recorded in this 2021 survey effort with 79% complete responses.
  • The 2020 survey had 101 responses and the 2019 iPad survey had 62 responses. All Helper Wellbeing Survey reports are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Helper was estimated at 1,704 based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. The 100 survey responses in 2021 represent 5.9% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 9.34%. 

Key Findings in Helper

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Helper were above average among 29 study cities.

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Connection with Nature
  • Safety and Security
  • Living Standards

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

  • Living Standards
  • Mental Health
  • Safety and Security

COVID-19 had greatest impact on Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities, and Mental Health. Overall personal wellbeing declined in last year for 35% of respondents. Personal wellbeing was more likely to decline for female respondents.

Wellbeing in Helper declined in the last year for 42% of respondents.

Perceptions that residents take action in Helper and feelings of community connection were higher in Helper than in most other study communities, particularly for female respondents.

The majority of respondents felt Population Growth and the Pace of Economic Development in Helper were just right.

Top concerns for the future of Helper were:

  • Opportunities for Youth (88% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Substance Abuse (82% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Employment Opportunities (78% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Water Supply (73% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Helper? Sense of community, small town feel, quiet and peacefulness, and cultural opportunities.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Full Time Residents of Helper 94.0%
Part Time Residents of Helper 6.0%
Length of Residency - Range 0.5-75 years
Length of Residency - Average 22 years
Length of Residency - Median 14 years
Length of Residence 5 Years or Less 24.0%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents are compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. As the table shows, survey respondents were not fully representative of Helper. People who are female, have at least a 4- year college degree, are married, own their home, and have children in household were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 are particularly underrepresented. Not all respondents provided demographic information. Weighting was not used in any of the analysis for the findings presented below. Updates will be provided later in 2021 to account for weighting by demographic characteristics. 

Table 1
Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents and U.S. Census Data for Helper

Demographic Characteristics iPad Survey Online Surveys American Community Survey
2016-2020 Estimates
2019 (N=62) 2020 (N=355) 2021 (N=375)
Age 18-29 21.0% 5.6% 12.8% 15.4%
Age 30-39 14.5% 21.1% 34.2% 13.7%
Age 40-49 19.4% 18.9% 34.8% 16.3%
Age 50-59 11.3% 24.4% 10.7% 23.3%
Age 60-69 22.6% 17.8% 6.2% 14.0%
Age 70 or over 11.3% 12.2% 1.1% 17.3%
Adult female 59.7% 61.8% 57.1% 47.7%
Adult male 40.3% 38.2% 41.6% 52.3% 
No college degree 77.0% 57.3% 62.8% 85.3%
College degree (4-year) 23.0% 42.7% 37.2% 14.7%
Median household income NA NA NA $55,760
Income under $25,000 22.4% 9.4% 14.5% 12.8%
Income $25,000-$49,999 10.3% 15.3% 18.4% 29.9%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 34.5% 37.6% 39.5% 30.3%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 25.9% 18.8% 15.8% 16.2%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 3.4% 14.1% 9.2% 6.9%
Income $150,000 or over 3.4% 4.7% 2.6% 3.9%
Latter-day Saint 30.4% 14.6% 22.4% NA
Other religion 39.3% 52.8% 40.8% NA
No religious preference 30.4% 32.6% 36.8% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA NA 14.3% 9.5%
White 83.6% 94.5% 81.1% 94.2%
Nonwhite 16.4% (incl Hispanic/Latino) 5.5% (incl Hispanic/Latino) 18.9% 5.8%
Married NA 68.5% 63.6% 61.4%
Children under 18 in household NA 47.1% 33.8% 24.1%
Employed (combined) NA 66.3% 59.0% 59.5%
Out of work and looking for work NA 1.1% 1.3% 2.2% 
Other NA 32.3% 39.7% 38.3%
Own home/owner occupied NA 86.4% 76.9% 79.2%
Rent home/renter occupied/other NA 13.6% 23.1% 20.8%

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 both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Helper was 4.07, with 78% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Helper was 3.73 with 59% of respondents indicating city wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Helper. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data - 1 Very Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 2% of respondents; 3: 20% of respondents; 4: 47% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 31% of respondents.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Helper. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Helper? Data - 1 Very Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 7% of respondents; 3: 33% of respondents; 4: 36% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 23% of respondents

Comparing 2020 and 2021 survey data from Helper, the average personal wellbeing score declined from 4.10 to 4.07 and the community wellbeing score declined from 3.74 to 3.73. Note that the number of respondents differed between years and there is no tracking of individuals from one year to the next.

Dot Plot. Title: Comparing Personal and Community Wellbeing From 2020-2021 in Helper. Subtitle: Wellbeing Score is on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Data- 2020 Personal Wellbeing: 4.10, 2020 community wellbeing: 3.74, 2021 Personal Wellbeing: 4.07, 2021 community wellbeing: 3.73

In 2019, a 1-10 scale was used for personal and community wellbeing.

Helper’s 2019 scores:

Overall Personal Wellbeing                      7.74

Community Wellbeing in Helper             7.13

Converted to 1-5 scale, Helper’s 2019 scores:

Overall Personal Wellbeing                      4.08

Community Wellbeing in Helper             3.82

We don't include these in the graph because there is uncertainty in the conversion of scales.

Perceived Changes to Wellbeing in the Last Year

The COVID-19 pandemic dominated much of 2020. Survey respondents were asked if their overall personal wellbeing or wellbeing had changed in the last year. Survey findings show that 35% of respondents indicated that their personal wellbeing declined in that time and 42% of respondents indicated that wellbeing in Helper declined as well.

Bar Graph. Title: Personal Wellbeing Change in Helper. Subtitle: Has your overall personal wellbeing changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 6%; Declined slightly: 29%; No change: 43%; Improved slightly: 15%; Improved Substantially: 6%.

Bar Graph. Title: Community Wellbeing Change in Helper. Subtitle: Has overall wellbeing in Helper changed in the last year? Data – Declined Substantially: 8%; Declined slightly: 24%; No change: 36%; Improved slightly: 20%; Improved Substantially: 11%.

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Helper as a Rural Hub/Resort Community (which we have combined with Traditional Rural Communities). Within this cluster of cities, Helper falls above average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing score and average community wellbeing score. Helper is only statistically significantly different from Vernal in terms of overall personal wellbeing, and significantly higher than Vernal, Price, Moab, and East Carbon on overall community wellbeing.


Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2021). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.22; Sandy: Average Score 4.13; Bountiful: Average Score 4.06; South Ogden: Average Score 4.05; Layton: Average Score 3.98; Logan: Average Score 3.81; Tooele: Average Score 3.79. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Hyde Park: Average Score 4.18; Vineyard: Average Score 4.17; Nibley: Average Score 4.16; North Logan: Average Score 4.15; Hurricane: Average Score 4.08; Spanish Fork: Average Score 4.06; Nephi: Average Score 4.05; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 4.03; Santaquin: Average Score 4.00; Lehi: Average Score 3.98; Ephraim: Average Score 3.86; Herriman: Average Score 3.86. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Richfield: Average Score 4.12; Helper: Average Score 4.07; Wellington: Average Score 4.02; La Verkin: Average Score 3.98; Blanding: Average Score 3.88; Moab: Average Score 3.82; East Carbon: Average Score 3.82; Price: Average Score 3.79, Delta: Average Score: 3.78; Vernal: Average Score 3.66.


Dot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2021). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Bountiful: Average Score 3.96; Draper: Average Score 3.89; Sandy: Average Score 3.80; Layton: Average Score 3.72; South Ogden: Average Score 3.68; Logan: Average Score 3.46; Tooele: Average Score 3.28. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Hyde Park: Average Score 4.06; Vineyard: Average Score 3.95; North Logan: Average Score 3.91; Spanish Fork: Average Score 3.87; Nibley: Average Score 3.80; Hurricane: Average Score 3.75; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 3.66; Lehi: Average Score 3.60; Santaquin: Average Score 3.59; Nephi: Average Score 3.58; Ephraim: Average Score 3.57; Herriman: Average Score 3.47. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Richfield: Average Score 3.88; Helper: Average Score 3.73; La Verkin: Average Score 3.62; Wellington: Average Score 3.61; Delta: Average Score 3.51; Blanding: Average Score 3.48; Vernal: Average Score 3.27; Price: Average Score 3.17, Moab: Average Score: 3.13; East Carbon: Average Score 2.98.

Wellbeing Domains in Helper

According to national and international entities that track wellbeing, there are a number of common dimensions or domains of wellbeing. In this survey, respondents rated ten domains on a 5-point scale from poor to excellent, suggesting how their wellbeing was doing well in each area. They were also asked to indicate the importance of each domain to their overall personal wellbeing on a 5-point scale from not at all important to very important. The top three highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Helper were Connection with Nature, Safety and Security and Living Standards. The three most important wellbeing domains were Living Standards, Mental Health, and Safety and Security.

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: Safety and Security - 27% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 74% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 30% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 70% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 49% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 51% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 26% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 74% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 42% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 58% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 31% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 69% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 43% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 57% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 33% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 67% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 60% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 40% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 67% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 33% 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? Physical Health - 15% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 85% rated as important or very important; Category: Safety and Security 11% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 89% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 10% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 90% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 10% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 90% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 17% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 83% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 17% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 83% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 17% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 83% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 31% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 69% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 36% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 64% 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

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. Connection with Nature, Safety and Security, Leisure Time, Living Standards, and Local Environmental Quality were highly important and rated above average among the domains. Physical Health and Mental Health fell into the red quadrant or “Red Zone”, indicating that it was of higher-than-average importance, but rated lower than average. Please note that all domains except for Cultural Opportunities had an average rating above 3.0 (moderate) and the importance score for all domains was 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: Connection with Nature, Safety and Security, Leisure Time, Living Standards, and Local Environmental Quality. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: None. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Education, Social Connections, and Cultural Opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Physical Health, and Mental Health.

How did the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact Wellbeing Domains?

The COVID-19 pandemic’s impact was most strongly felt regarding Social Connections, Cultural Opportunities and Mental Health. Improvements were reported in Connection to Nature for 14% of respondents.


Likert Graph. Title: The COVID-19 Pandemic's effect on wellbeing domains in Helper. Subtitle: Have any of these categories of your personal wellbeing been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic? Data – Category: Social Connections- 71% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 25% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Cultural Opportunities- 73% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 25% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 2% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Mental Health- 65% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 25% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 4% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Leisure Time- 37% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 52% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 11% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Physical Health - 38% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 54% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 8% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Connection with Nature- 25% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 61% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 14% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Education- 32% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 62% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 6% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Living Standards- 18% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 74% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 8% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 17% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 75% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 8% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19; Category: Safety and Security- 20% of respondents rated wellbeing declined with COVID-19, 74% of respondents rated no change to wellbeing with COVID-19, 6% of respondents rated wellbeing improved with COVID-19.

The following relationships were found in Helper between demographic variables and declines due to COVID-19 pandemic:

  • Personal Wellbeing was more likely to decline for female respondents.

  • Community wellbeing was less likely to decline for those age 60+ and more likely to decline for female respondents.

  • Cultural Opportunities were more likely to decline for those living in Helper 5 years or less.

  • Education was less likely to decline for female respondents.

  • Leisure time was more likely to decline for those living in Helper more than 5 years.

  • Local environmental quality was more likely to decline for those with a college degree.

  • Mental health was more likely to decline for those living in Helper more than 5 years.



The graphs below show how the domains were rated in 2019, 2020 and 2021 by Helper residents. Some domains have been stable while others have changed over time. Note that 2019 results are from a different survey method and with fewer people than in 2020 and 2021.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Overtime in Helper, Subtitle: Wellbeing score is on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2019- 3.85, 2020- 3.75, 2021- 3.75; Category: Safety and security- 2019- 3.65, 2020- 3.75, 2021- 3.9; Category: Connection with Nature- 2019- 4.15, 2020- 4.05, 2021- 4.05, Category: Education- 2019- 3.7, 2020- 3.6, 2021- 3.5; Category: Physical Health: 2019- 3.95, 2020- 3.5, 2021 3.45; Category: Mental Health- 2019- 3.45, 2020- 3.8, 2021- 3.5; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2019- 3.8, 2020- 3.75, 2021- 3.7; Category: Leisure Time- 2019-3.75, 2020- 3.75, 2021- 3.75, Category: Social Connection- 2019- 3.75, 2020- 3.55; 2021- 3.2, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2019- 3.5, 2020- 3.25, 2021- 2.95.

How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?

The demographic variables age, gender, college degree, religion, income, and length of residence were found to have varying relationships with wellbeing perspectives among Helper respondents as shown in the table below based on a multivariate generalized linear model (significance based on p < 0.1). Gender appeared to have influence on the importance of various wellbeing domains. Please note that the number of responses is not fully representative of Helper. The +/- sign indicates whether the demographic group was statistically significantly higher or lower than others in that category. Colors indicate the strongest relationships (p< .05).


Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains in Helper

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing       +
vs A/A/NRP 		 –
Over $100,000 <
$75,000-$99,999		  
Wellbeing in Helper            
Connection to Nature         –
Over $100,000 <
$75,000-$99,999		  
Cultural Opportunities           –
Education + +        
Leisure Time +
          
Living Standards       +    
Local Environmental Quality     –      
Mental Health +          
Physical Health         + vs A/A/NRP     
Safety & Security + vs 18-39     + vs A/A/NRP     
Social Connections +          
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection to Nature       – vs Other     
Cultural Opportunities            
Education            
Leisure Time         –
Over $100,000 <
$75,000-$99,999		  
Living Standards   +
   + vs A/A/NRP  –
Over $100,000 <
$75,000-$99,999		  
Local Environmental Quality + vs 40-59          
Mental Health    + –      
Physical Health    +        
Safety and Security    +     +
Over $100,000 > Under $50,000		  
Social Connections    +         
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference, Other= Other Religions 

Community Action & Connections in Helper

Survey participants were asked about community actions and community connection 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 3.42. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 3.36.

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: 6% of respondents; 2: 15% of respondents; 3: 27% of respondents; 4: 35% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 17% of respondents

Bar chart. Title: Community Connection in Helper. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Helper as a community? Data - 1 Not at All: 9% of respondents; 2: 14% of respondents; 3: 30% of respondents; 4: 30% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 19% of respondents

Female respondents reported higher perceptions of local action and higher levels of community connectedness. Respondents who identified as Latter-day Saint indicated lower levels of community connection than those who identified with other religions. This is based on a multivariate generalized linear model with unweighted data (significance based on p < 0.1). Color indicates the strongest relationships (p< .05).

Demographic Characteristics and Community Questions

Community Questions Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Higher Income Resident 5 Years or Less
Do people in Helper take action?   +         
Do you feel connected to your community?   +   –
vs Other 		    

Other= Other Religions 


A significant, positive relationship was found between individuals’ community connection and overall personal wellbeing.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Helper. Of the 2 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 1 or 2, 100% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 0% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 16 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 75% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 38 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 50% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 17 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 36% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 64% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5.

Comparing Community Action and Connection Across Cities

The graphs below show how Wellbeing Project cities compare on the degree to which people take action in response to local problems and opportunities and how connected people feel to their city as a community. Helper is in the top 6 on perceived community action and is the top city on community connection based on the number of people indicating a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Community Action Across Cities. Subtitle: In your city to what degree do people take action together in response to local problems or opportunities? 1 being not at all. 5 being a great deal. Data – City: Delta- 27% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 73% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vernal- 44% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Moab- 44% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 46% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 54% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 47% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 53% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Helper- 48% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley- 50% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Wellington- 52% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park- 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork- 54% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 46% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: North Logan- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi- 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Richfield- 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephriam- 59% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Draper- 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hurricane- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: La Verkin- 64% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Santaquin- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: South Ogden- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan- 68% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price- 69% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi- 69% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs- 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Layton- 72% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy- 72% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: East Carbon- 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.
Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Community Connection Across Cities. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to your city as a community? 1 being not at all. 5 being a great deal. Data – City: Helper- 52% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Delta- 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi 53% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Moab- 56% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 44% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork- 57% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Wellington- 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Richfield- 60% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hurricane- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vernal- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: La Verkin- 63% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: North Logan- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephriam- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park- 65% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: East Carbon- 66% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Draper- 67% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele- 68% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Layton- 71% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Santaquin- 73% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 27% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy- 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman- 75% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi- 76% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: South Ogden- 76% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs- 80% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 20% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.

Participation in Community Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in seven different activities and a community activeness score was calculated by adding activities. The average community activeness score for Helper was 2.53. Civic or charity groups (42%) and working with others on an issue in the community (42%) were the most common activities for respondents.

Type: Bar Graph Title: Community Participation in Helper. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities (in person or virtually) during the past 12 months? Data - 33% of respondents indicated yes to church group activities. 42% of respondents indicated yes to working with others on an issue in your community. 35% of respondents indicated yes to contacting a public official about an issue. 42% of respondents indicated yes to a civic or charity group activity. 14% of respondents indicated yes to participating in School group activities. 33% of respondents indicated yes to attending a public meeting. 19% of respondents indicated yes to serving on a government board or committee.

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscape including mountains, trails, rivers and streams, and city parks were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. In terms of development and industry in the landscape, respondents were more divided.

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: Rivers and Streams - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 5% indicated neither, 94% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 15% indicated neither, 84% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 14% indicated neither, 85% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 19% indicated neither, 80% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 17% indicated neither, 81% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 1% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 34% indicated neither, 65% indicated positively or very positively; Commercial Development - 12% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 52% indicated neither, 35% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 16% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 45% indicated neither, 39% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 15% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 52% indicated neither, 32% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 34% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 40% indicated neither, 26% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

Nearly half of Helper survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was just right (49%), with 15% indicating too slow and 11% indicating too fast. Just over half of respondents felt the pace of economic development was just right (52%), with 33% indicating too slow.

Type: Bar Graph. Title: Population Growth in Helper. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Helper? Data – 15% of respondents rated too slow; 49% of respondents rated just right; 11% of respondents rated too fast; 25% of respondents rated no opinion.
Type: Bar graph. Title: Economic Development in Helper. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Helper? Data – 33% of respondents rated too slow; 52% of respondents rated just right; 1% of respondents rated too fast; 14% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how Helper compares to other participating cities in the Wellbeing Project on these perceptions of population growth and economic development.

Type: Likert Graph. Title: Respondent’s Opinions Regarding Population Growth and Economic Development in Participating Utah Cities. Subtitle: Population Growth, How would you describe the current rate of population growth in your city/town? Subtitle: Established/Mid-Sized Cities and cities of the first and second class. Data – City: Draper – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 72% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 67% of respondents rated too fast; City: Logan – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 61% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 58% of respondents rated too fast; City: South Ogden – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 52% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 48% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Herriman – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 90% of respondents rated too fast; City: Lehi – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 84% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hurricane – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 80% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 79% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 76% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 74% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 70% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 68% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 5% of respondents rated too slow, 58% of respondents rated too fast;City: North Logan – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 57% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 55% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 35% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Moab – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 62% of respondents rated too fast;City: La Verkin – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 46% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vernal – 14% of respondents rated too slow, 29% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 18% of respondents rated too slow, 17% of respondents rated too fast; City: Richfield – 7% of respondents rated too slow, 14% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 15% of respondents rated too slow, 11% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 10% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 32% of respondents rated too slow, 9% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 35% of respondents rated too slow, 9% of respondents rated too fast; City: Wellington – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 4% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Economic Growth, How would you describe the current pace of economic growth in your city/town? Subtitle: Established/Mid-Sized Cities and cities of the first and second class. Data – City: Draper – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 59% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 8% of respondents rated too slow, 42% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 37% of respondents rated too slow, 28% of respondents rated too fast; City: Logan – 24% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 37% of respondents rated too fast; City: South Ogden – 17% of respondents rated too slow, 25% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful – 20% of respondents rated too slow, 19% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Herriman – 28% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: Lehi – 5% of respondents rated too slow, 61% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hurricane – 22% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 23% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 10% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 41% of respondents rated too slow, 20% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 37% of respondents rated too slow, 20% of respondents rated too fast; City: North Logan – 17% of respondents rated too slow, 20% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 11% of respondents rated too slow, 25% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 39% of respondents rated too slow, 13% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Moab – 12% of respondents rated too slow, 73% of respondents rated too fast; City: La Verkin – 27% of respondents rated too slow, 27% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vernal – 64% of respondents rated too slow, 4% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 57% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: Richfield – 34% of respondents rated too slow, 9% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 51% of respondents rated too slow, 4% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 75% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 79% of respondents rated too slow, 1% of respondents rated too fast; City: Wellington – 66% of respondents rated too slow, 0% of respondents rated too fast.

Concerns in Helper

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Helper. Opportunities for Youth, Substance Abuse, and Employment Opportunities were the top three concerns with over three-quarters of respondents indicating these were moderate or major concerns.

Title: Concerns in Helper. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Helper, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data – Category: Air Quality- 44% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 56% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 34% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 66% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply- 27% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 73% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; ; Category: Roads and Transportation- 34% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 66% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities- 34% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 66% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Land- 34% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 66% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety- 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 12% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 88% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care- 36% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 64% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 22% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 78% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 39% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 61% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Healthcare- 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 39% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 61% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Abuse - 18% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 82% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities- 38% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 62% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 12 respondents who filled in the “other” category.

Other Concerns Mentioned

Cleaning of yards, properties (2)

Cost of water/sewer (2)

Abuse of trails by OHV (1)

Bridge safety (1)

Economic Diversification (1)

Need residential treatment facility for addicts in this area (1)

Racist or overly aggressive police (1)

Smart development (1)

Truthful head leaders of our county, official workers, etc. (1)

Unpaved residential curb gutter sidewalks and mud (1)

Summary of Open Comments

The survey provided opportunities for respondents to share their ideas about Helper with one question on what they value most about their city and another for any additional comments on wellbeing. A summary of values is below. Analysis is ongoing regarding all additional comments and a summary will be added to the report later in 2021.

Key themes in response to “Please tell us what you value most about living in Helper ”

Type: Treemap Chart. Title: Open Comments: Community Values in Helper. Subtitle: The size of the box is proportional to the number of times the theme was mentioned. Data –; Category: Social Climate- 52 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Connected, Small-Town Feel, Friendly, Other; Category: City Character- 30 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Quiet and Peaceful, Historical, Good Quality of life, Well-Maintainted. Category: Activities- 21 Mentions, boxes larges to smallest include Abundant cultural opportunities, Abundant Recreation; Category: Other Themes Mentioned- 43 mentions, boxes largest to smallest include Nature, Feels safe/good law enforcement, Good Location, Low Cost of Living, Good Schools, Good Pace of Growth, Good Air Quality, Other.

Contact Information
Dr. Courtney Flint
courtney.flint@usu.edu
435-797-8635

On This Page

The Utah League of Cities and Towns is a collaborator on this project and the following people have contributed to this effort in many ways: Casey Trout, Rachel Sagers, Madison Fjeldsted, Jordan Hammon, and Sarah Wilson.

Utah State University is an affirmative action/equal opportunity institution and is committed to a learning and working environment free from discrimination, including harassment. For USU’s non-discrimination notice, see equity.usu.edu/non-discrimination.