Helper Wellbeing Survey Findings 2022

By Dr. Courtney Flint and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

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

Summary

Helper City is one of 33 cities participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project in 2022. 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.

We are grateful to all participants who took the survey and to our city partners who helped to make this possible. Additionally, we are grateful to the Utah League of Cities and Towns and USU Extension for their financial support.

What is in this report?

This report describes findings from the 2022 Helper survey and some comparative information with other project cities. Feedback from city leaders, planners, and residents is welcome.

How was the survey conducted?

Starting in March of 2022, Helper City advertised the survey via email lists, social media, and the city website. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 46 viable surveys were recorded in this 2022 survey effort with 91.3% complete responses.
  • The 2021 Helper survey had 100 responses and the 2020 Helper survey had 101 responses. Past reports are available on the Utah Wellbeing Project website.
  • The adult population of Helper was estimated at 1,830, based on the 2016-2020 American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 46 survey responses in 2022 represent 2.5% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 14.27% which is high due to the lower number of participants this year.

Key Findings

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Helper were above average among the 33 study cities. Overall Personal Wellbeing and Community Wellbeing in Helper declined between 2020 and 2021, but increased between 2021 and 2022. 

Highest Rated Wellbeing Domains:

  • Safety and Security
  • Connection with Nature
  • Living Standards

Most Important Wellbeing Domains:

  • Safety and Security
  • Physical Health
  • Mental Health

Red Zone Domain: (High Importance, Low Rating)

  • Physical Health
  • Mental Health

Perceptions that residents take action and feelings of community connection were highest in Helper than in any other study city. 

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:

  • Water Supply (86% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Affordable Housing (79% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Opportunities for Youth (74% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Substance Abuse (71% Moderate or Major Concern)
  • Employment Opportunities (71% Moderate or Major Concern)

What do people value most about Helper? 
Positive social climate with small-town feel. 

Key Wellbeing Issues and Resource Areas

In addition to providing partner cities with the opportunity to take part in surveys, the Utah Wellbeing Project has worked to provide curated resources for community leaders and citizens that aim to improve specific aspects of wellbeing. These Wellbeing Resources can be found on the Utah Wellbeing Project Website, along with other useful tools and information.

Based on results of the 2022 Utah Wellbeing Project Surveys in Helper City, key wellbeing issues include: Physical Health, Mental Health, Water Supply, Affordable Housing, and Opportunities for Youth. Below you will find links to specific wellbeing resource areas we believe may be used to target some of these issues.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Table 1

Full Time Residents of Helper 97.8%
Part Time Residents of Helper 2.2%
Length of Residency — Range 0.5- 76 years
Length of Residency — Average 23.7 years
Length of Residency — Median 15 years
Length of Residence 5 years or less 26.1%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2016-2020 American Community Survey. As the table shows, 2022 survey respondents were not fully representative of Helper. People age 30-39, who are female, have at least a 4- year college degree, are married, have children under 18 in the household, are employed, and those with incomes between $100,000 and $149,999 were particularly overrepresented. People age 18-29 and those with incomes between $25,000 and $49,999 were particularly underrepresented. Not all respondents provided demographic information. Weighting was not used in any of the analysis for the findings presented below.

Table 2
Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents and U.S. Census Data for Helper


Demographic Characteristics		 Helper Wellbeing Survey American Community
Survey 2016-2020 Estimates
Online 2020
101
Respondents		 Online 2021
100 Respondents		 Online 2022
48 Respondents
Age 18-29 5.6% 12.8% 7.1% 15.4%
Age 30-39 21.1% 34.3% 31.0% 13.7%
Age 40-49 18.9% 34.8% 21.4% 16.3%
Age 50-59 24.4% 10.7% 16.7% 23.3%
Age 60-69 17.8% 6.2% 14.3% 14.0%
Age 70 or over 12.2% 1.1% 9.5% 17.3%
Adult Female 61.8% 57.1% 69.0% 47.7%
Adult Male 38.2% 41.6% 26.2% 52.3%
Adult non-conforming
or non-binary		 NA NA 4.8% NA
No college degree 57.3% 62.8% 47.6% 85.3%
College degree (4-year) 42.7% 37.2% 52.4% 14.7%
Median household income NA NA NA $55,760
Income under $25,000 9.4% 14.5% 7.3% 12.8%
Income $25,000 to $49,999 15.3% 18.4% 17.1% 29.9%
Income $50,000 to $74,999 37.6% 39.5% 29.3% 30.3%
Income $75,000 to $99,999 18.8% 15.8% 19.5% 16.2%
Income $100,000 to $149,999 14.1% 9.2% 17.1% 6.9%
Income $150,000 or over 4.7% 2.6% 9.8% 3.9%
Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints		 14.6% 22.4% 12.2% NA
Other religion 52.8% 40.8% 46.3% NA
Agnostic/Atheist/No religious preference 32.6% 36.8% 41.5% NA
Hispanic/Latino NA 14.3% 14.3% 9.5%
White 94.5% 81.1% 90.2% 94.2%
Nonwhite 5.5% (includes
Hispanic/Latino)		 18.9% 9.8% 5.8%
Married 68.5% 63.6% 76.2% 61.4%
Children under 18 in household 47.1% 33.8% 40.5% 24.1%
Employed 66.3% 59.0% 78.6% 59.5%
Out of work and looking for work 1.1% 1.3% 0.0% 2.2%
Other 32.3% 39.7% 21.4% 38.3%
Own home/Owner occupied 86.4% 76.9% 88.1% 79.2%
Rent home/Renter occupied/Other 13.6% 23.1% 11.9% 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 were both measured on a 5-point scale from very poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Helper was 4.15 with 80% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Helper was 4.09 with 80% 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: 0% of respondents; 3: 20% 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: 4% of respondents; 3: 15% of respondents; 4: 48% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 33% of respondents

Comparing survey data from Helper over the years as shown in the information below, we can see that the average personal wellbeing score and the community wellbeing score remained nearly the same between 2020 and 2021, but increased dramatically between 2021 and 2022. 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: Average Rating of Personal and Community Wellbeing Over Time in Helper. Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated 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, 2022 Personal Wellbeing: 4.15, 2022 community wellbeing: 4.09

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns classifies Helper as a Rural Hub/Resort Community (and we have combined these with the Traditional Rural Communities). Some cities may fit within more than one cluster. 

Within the Rural city cluster, Helper fell above the cluster average in terms of the average overall personal wellbeing and community wellbeing scores. Helper was statistically significantly higher than East Carbon and Moab in terms of overall personal wellbeing, but not significantly different from any other city in the cluster. In terms of community wellbeing, Helper was significantly higher than all other cities in the cluster except Ephraim, Beaver, and Bluff. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response.  

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2022). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.27; Millcreek: Average Score 4.24; Cottonwood Heights: Average Score 4.19; Layton: Average Score 4.16; Bountiful: Average Score 4.09; Sandy: Average Score 4.07; South Jordan: Average Score 4.06; West Jordan: Average Score 4.03; Midvale: Average Score 3.94; Logan: Average Score 3.89; Tooele: Average Score 3.76. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Vineyard: Average Score 4.31; Highland: Average Score 4.28; Hyde Park: Average Score 4.25; Nibley: Average Score 4.20; Spanish Fork: Average Score 4.15; North Logan: Average Score 4.15; Lehi: Average Score 4.10; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 4.02; Santaquin: Average Score 3.98; Herriman: Average Score 3.87. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Beaver: Average Score 4.18; Helper: Average Score 4.15; Nephi: Average Score 4.11; Tremonton: Average Score 4.10; Park City: Average Score 4.04; Bluff: Average Score 3.96; Ephraim: Average Score 3.89; Delta: Average Score 3.88; Blanding: Average Score: 3.85; Price: Average Score 3.83; East Carbon: Average Score: 3.73; Moab: Average Score: 3.50. 

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2022). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent). Group: Established/Mid-Sized Cities. Draper: Average Score 4.03; South Jordan: Average Score 4.02; Bountiful: Average Score 3.84; Sandy: Average Score 3.79; Millcreek: Average Score 3.79; Cottonwood Heights: Average Score 3.72; Layton: Average Score 3.71; West Jordan: Average Score 3.55; Logan: Average Score 3.46; Midvale: Average Score 3.24; Tooele: Average Score 3.15. Group: Rapid Growth Cities. Highland: Average Score 4.15; Hyde Park: Average Score 4.05; North Logan: Average Score 3.99; Spanish Fork: Average Score 3.98; Nibley: Average Score 3.87; Vineyard: Average Score 3.84; Santaquin: Average Score 3.72; Lehi: Average Score 3.61; Herriman: Average Score 3.49; Saratoga Springs: Average Score 3.47. Group: Rural, Rural Hub, & Resort and Traditional Communities. Helper: Average Score 4.09; Bluff: Average Score 3.84; Beaver: Average Score 3.82; Ephraim: Average Score 3.75; Nephi: Average Score 3.62; Park City: Average Score 3.50; Delta: Average Score 3.44; Blanding: Average Score 3.44; Tremonton: Average Score: 3.32; Price: Average Score 3.15; East Carbon: Average Score: 2.98; Moab: Average Score: 2.84. 

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 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 four highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Helper were Safety and Security (87%), Living Standards (87%), and Connection with Nature (84%), and Local Environmental Quality (82%). The four most important wellbeing domains were Safety and Security (100%), Physical Health (100%), Mental Health (100%), and Living Standards (98%).

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 - 13% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 87% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 16% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 84% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 18% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 82% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 22% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 78% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 13% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 87% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 31% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 69% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 24% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 76% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 24% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 76% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 22% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 78% rated as good or excellent; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 27% of respondents rated as poor, fair or moderate while 73% 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 - 0% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 100% rated as important or very important; Category: Mental Health - 0% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 100% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 0% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 100% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 2% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 98% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature - 19% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 81% of respondents rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time - 16% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 84% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 14% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 86% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections - 21% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 79% rated as important or very important; Category: Education - 9% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 91% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities - 35% rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 65% 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. Safety and Security and Living Standards were highly important and rated above average among the domains. Physical Health and Mental Health fell in the “red zone” of higher importance, but lower ratings.

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 and Living Standards. High rating, lower Importance (blue quadrant) domains include: Connection with Nature, Local Environmental Quality, Social Connections, Leisure Time, Education. Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Cultural Opportunities. Lower rating, high importance (red quadrant) domains include: Physical Health and Mental Health.

Wellbeing Domains Over Time in Helper

The graphs below show how the domains were rated over the years by Helper residents (irrespective of the COVID-19 Pandemic). The number of respondents changed over time and was particularly lower in 2022 which may be behind some of the dramatic changes in 2022.

Dot Plot. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings Over Time in Helper, Subtitle: Wellbeing is rated on a scale from 1=Very Poor to 5=Excellent. Category: Living Standards- 2020- 3.76, 2021- 3.75, 2022- 4.15; Category: Safety and security- 2020- 3.75, 2021- 3.9, 2022- 4.15; Category: Connection with Nature- 2020- 4.05, 2021- 4.05, 2022- 4.15, Category: Education- 2020- 3.6, 2021- 3.5, 2022- 4.0; Category: Physical Health: 2020- 3.5, 2021- 3.45, 2022 3.75; Category: Mental Health- 2020- 3.8, 2021- 3.5, 2022- 3.8; Category: Local Environmental Quality- 2020- 3.75, 2021- 3.7, 2022- 4.15; Category: Leisure Time- 2020- 3.8, 2021- 3.8, 2022- 4.0, Category: Social Connection- 2020- 3.55, 2021- 3.2; 2022- 4.1, Category: Cultural Opportunities- 2020- 3.3, 2021- 3.0, 2022- 3.95.

How are Demographic Characteristics Related to Wellbeing?

The demographic variables for age, gender, college degree, religion, income, and length of residence were found to have varying relationships among Helper respondents as shown in the table below based on a generalized linear model with unweighted data. The +/- sign indicates whether the wellbeing score in the specific demographic group was significantly higher or lower than the reference group in each demographic variable (p<.05). 

Table 3
Relationship Between Demographic Characteristics and Wellbeing Domains in Helper

  Domains Rated Demographic Variables
Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)
 Resident 5 Years or Less
Wellbeing Ratings
Overall Personal Wellbeing            
Wellbeing in Helper -
vs 18-39 		          
Connection with Nature       -
vs Other		    
Cultural Opportunities            
Education            
Leisure Time            
Living Standards            
Local Environmental Quality -
          
Mental Health           - 
Physical Health              
Safety & Security            
Social Connections            
  Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income
($150,000+)		 Resident 5 Years or Less
Domains Domain Importance 
Connection with Nature            
Cultural Opportunities            
Education            
Leisure Time     -
      
Living Standards            
Local Environmental Quality            
Mental Health    
        
Physical Health            
Safety and Security   +        
Social Connections             
A/A/NRP = Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference

Community Action and Connection 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 4.02. When asked about the degree they feel connected to their community, the average score was 4.00.

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: 5% of respondents; 3: 16% of respondents; 4: 42% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 35% 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: 5% of respondents; 2: 10% of respondents; 3: 14% of respondents; 4: 24% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 48% of respondents

Respondents in the highest income category ($150,000+) reported higher perceptions of local action than those with household incomes between $100,000 and $149,999. This was based on a generalized linear model with unweighted data (p < 0.05).

Table 4
Demographic Characteristics and Community Questions

Community Questions Age 60+ Female College Degree Latter-day Saint Highest Income ($150,000+) Resident 5 Years or Less
Do people in Helper take action?         +
vs $100,000 - $149,999		  
Do you feel connected to your community?

         

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 7 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 71% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 19 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 32% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 68% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5. Of the 16 participants that rate their overall wellbeing as a 5, 6% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 94% 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 scored the highest on perceived community action and community connection based on the number of people indicating a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response.

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: Helper- 23% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 77% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Delta 29% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 71% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bluff 33% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 67% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Beaver 42% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 58% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding 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: Hyde Park 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: Highland 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: Spanish Fork 51% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 49% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 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: North Logan 55% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley 55% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% 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: South Jordan 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: Vineyard 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: Millcreek 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: Draper 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephraim 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: Santaquin 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: Moab 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: Tremonton 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: Layton 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 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: Sandy 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: Tooele 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: Logan 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: Lehi 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: Herriman 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: Cottonwood Heights 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: Saratoga Springs 74% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 26% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; 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; West Jordan 81% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 19% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; Midvale 89% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 11% 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 29% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 71% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bluff 40% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 60% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Beaver 42% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 58% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork 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: Delta- 51% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 49% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Highland- 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: 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: Hyde Park- 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: Millcreek- 58% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 42% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Park City- 58% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 42% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Ephraim- 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: South Jordan- 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- 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful- 61% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 39% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding- 62% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard- 62% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Logan- 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: Nibley- 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: Santaquin- 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: Moab- 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: Layton- 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: East Carbon- 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: Sandy- 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: Tremonton- 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: Cottonwood Heights- 70% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Price- 70% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Tooele- 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: Lehi- 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: Herriman- 78% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 22% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: West Jordan- 79% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 21% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs- 81% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 19% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5; City: Midvale- 85% of respondents indicate a community action score of 1, 2, or 3 while 15% indicate a community action score of 4 or 5.

Participation in Recreation and Nature-Related Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in eight different recreation or nature-based activities in the past 12 months. Enjoying wildlife and birds in your yard or neighborhood (98%) was the most common activity for respondents, followed by non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters (79%) and recreating in parks in the city (77%).

Type: Bar Graph Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-based Activities in Helper. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data - 79% of respondents indicated yes to non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 98% of respondents indicated yes to enjoying wildlife or birds in your yard or neighborhood. 56% of respondents indicated yes to motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah. 77% of respondents indicated yes to recreating in parks in your city. 74% of respondents indicated yes to gardening. 40% of respondents indicated yes to city recreation programs. 56% of respondents indicated yes to watching or reading nature-related programs or publications. 76% of respondents indicated yes to walking with a pet in your city.

For Helper respondents, participating in non-motorized recreation on Utah public lands and waters was significantly related to overall personal wellbeing.

Participating in non-motorized recreation on Utah public lands and waters, recreating in city parks, and walking a pet in the city were positively and significantly related to community wellbeing and community connection. 

Influence of Landscape on Wellbeing

Survey participants were asked about the influence of landscape features on their wellbeing. Natural landscapes including mountains, trails, rivers and streams, and city parks were found to have an overwhelmingly positive influence on wellbeing. 

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, 2% indicated neither, 98% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Rivers and Streams - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 2% indicated neither, 98% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Lakes - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 19% indicated neither, 81% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Trails - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 12% indicated neither, 88% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Red Rock - 2% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 22% indicated neither, 76% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: City Parks - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 12% indicated neither, 88% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Farmland - 0% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 26% indicated neither, 74% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Residential Development - 12% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 36% indicated neither, 52% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Commercial Development - 12% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 43% indicated neither, 45% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Extractive Industry - 26% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 48% indicated neither, 26% indicated positively or very positively; Feature: Manufacturing Industry - 19% of respondents indicated very negatively or negatively, 52% indicated neither, 29% indicated positively or very positively.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of Helper survey respondents indicated they felt population growth was just right (62%). On the pace of economic development, 62% indicated it was just right, 19% too slow, and 5% too fast.

Type: Bar graph. Title: Population Growth in Helper. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Helper? Data – 10% of respondents rated too slow; 62% of respondents rated just right; 24% of respondents rated too fast; 5% 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 – 19% of respondents rated too slow; 62% of respondents rated just right; 5% of respondents rated too fast; 14% of respondents rated no opinion.

The graphs below show how perceptions of population growth and economic development in Helper have varied across recent years of Wellbeing Surveys. The 2022 surveys showed a noticeable increase in the number of people indicating that the current rate of population growth is too fast (from 8% to 11% to 24%) and just right (from 51% to 49% to 62%). On the current pace of economic development, there was a noticeable decrease in the number of people indicating it is too slow (from 52% to 33% to 19%), while the number of people indicating it is just right increased (from 37% to 52% to 62%). 

Type: Line Title: Helper Change in Perceptions of Rate of Population Growth Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2020: 22% rated too slow, 51% rated just right, 8% rated too fast 2021: 15% rated too slow, 49% rated just right, 11% rated too fast 2022: 10% rated too slow, 62% rated just right, 24% rated too fast

Type: Line Title: Helper Change in Perceptions of Pace of Economic Development Subtitle: Remaining Percentage Each Year is No Opinion Data: 2020: 52% rated too slow, 37% rated just right, 2% rated too fast 2021: 33% rated too slow, 52% rated just right, 1% rated too fast 2022: 19% rated too slow, 62% rated just right, 5% rated too fast

The graphs below show how Helper compares to other participating cities in the Wellbeing Project on these perceptions of population growth and economic development in 2022. Margins of error are particularly high for Delta, Helper, Midvale, and Santaquin due to low survey response.

Graph 23: Population Growth Opinion Type: Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth. Subtitle: 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: Logan – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: Draper – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 67% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 65% of respondents rated too fast; City: West Jordan – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 63% of respondents rated too fast;  City: South Jordan – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 63% of respondents rated too fast; City: Midvale – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 62% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy - 2% of respondents rated too slow, 61% of respondents rated too fast; City: Cottonwood Heights - 2% of respondents rated too slow, 56% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful - 2% of respondents rated too slow, 51% of respondents rated too fast; City: Millcreek - 1% of respondents rated too slow, 44% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Lehi – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 76% of respondents rated too fast; City: Herriman – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 74% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 71% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: North Logan – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 69% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 0% of respondents rated too slow, 66% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 65% of respondents rated too fast;City: Highland – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 65% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Park City – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 82% of respondents rated too fast;City: Tremonton – 1% of respondents rated too slow, 67% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 4% of respondents rated too slow, 63% of respondents rated too fast; City: Moab – 4% of respondents rated too slow, 60% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 4% of respondents rated too slow, 50% of respondents rated too fast; City: Beaver – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 40% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 21% of respondents rated too slow, 25% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 23% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 16% of respondents rated too slow, 15% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 20% of respondents rated too slow, 15% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 13% of respondents rated too slow, 14% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bluff – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 10% of respondents rated too fast.  Graph 24: Economic Development Opinion Type: Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development. Subtitle: 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, 50% of respondents rated too fast; City: Logan – 12% of respondents rated too slow, 47% of respondents rated too fast; City: Layton – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 44% of respondents rated too fast; City: Sandy – 7% of respondents rated too slow, 41% of respondents rated too fast; City: Cottonwood Heights – 10% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: South Jordan – 6% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tooele – 34% of respondents rated too slow, 34% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bountiful – 13% of respondents rated too slow, 28% of respondents rated too fast; City: West Jordan – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 28% of respondents rated too fast; City: Millcreek – 8% of respondents rated too slow, 27% of respondents rated too fast; City: Midvale – 24% of respondents rated too slow, 22% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rapid Growth Cities. Data – City: Lehi – 7% of respondents rated too slow, 59% of respondents rated too fast; City: Spanish Fork – 2% of respondents rated too slow, 49% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nibley – 11% of respondents rated too slow, 42% of respondents rated too fast; City: Saratoga Springs – 8% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: North Logan – 9% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: Herriman – 21% of respondents rated too slow, 39% of respondents rated too fast; City: Santaquin – 23% of respondents rated too slow, 38% of respondents rated too fast; City: Hyde Park – 12% of respondents rated too slow, 37% of respondents rated too fast; City: Highland – 23% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Vineyard – 29% of respondents rated too slow, 23% of respondents rated too fast. Subtitle: Rural Hub/Resort and Traditional Rural Communities. Data – City: Park City – 3% of respondents rated too slow, 77% of respondents rated too fast; City: Moab – 19% of respondents rated too slow, 59% of respondents rated too fast; City: Tremonton – 13% of respondents rated too slow, 45% of respondents rated too fast; City: Nephi – 27% of respondents rated too slow, 31% of respondents rated too fast; City: Ephraim – 24% of respondents rated too slow, 30% of respondents rated too fast; City: Beaver – 30% of respondents rated too slow, 18% of respondents rated too fast; City: Bluff – 33% of respondents rated too slow, 14% of respondents rated too fast; City: Blanding – 43% of respondents rated too slow, 5% of respondents rated too fast; City: Delta – 43% of respondents rated too slow, 5% of respondents rated too fast; City: Helper – 16% of respondents rated too slow, 2% of respondents rated too fast; City: Price – 61% of respondents rated too slow, 2% of respondents rated too fast; City: East Carbon – 67% 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. Water Supply, Affordable Housing, and Opportunities for Youth were the top three concerns with at least 74% 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: Water Supply- 14% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 86% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth- 26% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 74% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing- 21% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 79% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Public Lands- 31% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 69% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities- 29% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 71% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Quality Food- 40% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 60% 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; 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: Substance Abuse- 29% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 71% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Roads and Transportation- 38% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 62% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support- 55% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 45% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care- 50% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 50% 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: 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: Air Quality- 48% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 52% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern. Climate Change- 43% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 57% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern.

Other concerns were raised by 2 respondents who filled in the “other” category. The items mentioned were overdevelopment and the power grid. 

Housing in Helper

Helper City chose to add additional questions to the survey related to housing. Below are the findings related to these questions. 

80% of respondents from Helper owned their own home.

Helper residents were asked, “If you were to change your housing arrangements in the next 5 years, how likely is it that you could find new housing that is affordable to you in Helper if desired or necessary?”

  • 14% said very likely
  • 21% said somewhat likely
  • 48% said not likely
  • 17% said unsure how likely

76% said they felt they could afford a single-family home. 12% said they could afford an apartment and another 12% indicated a townhome, mobile home, or other.

In comments about the housing situation in Helper, the most common perspectives focused on a lack of affordable options, poor housing quality, not enough housing, and too many Airbnb's. 

Open Comments

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Helper and to provide any additional comments about wellbeing in Helper. Comments have been shared with city leaders. In summary, many residents of Helper greatly valued the support, friendliness, and closeness of their community members. The environment was seen as clean, safe, peaceful, and beautiful. There were some comments valuing the history and artistic culture of Helper. The additional comments section included concerns about economic and cultural disparities, quality of life, and growth and development. Some were concerned about cost of living going up, while quality of life, especially for youth is decreasing. There were concerns that only some are benefitting from Helper’s growth and development, amenities, and economic changes. Residents valued the uniqueness of the culture of Helper and its history, and are worried growth and development may erase that. 

On This Page