Clinton Wellbeing Survey Findings 2024

By Dr. Courtney Flint and Team

utah wellbeing survey logo

Contact Information

Dr. Courtney Flint

435-797-8635

Summary

Clinton is one of 51 cities participating in the Utah Wellbeing Survey Project in 2024. This project is designed to assess the wellbeing and local perspectives of city residents and to provide information to city leaders to inform general planning processes. Additional analysis is underway and this report may be updated over time.

We are grateful to all those who took the survey and to our city partners who helped to make this possible. We are grateful to a number of entities for funding: the Utah League of Cities and Towns, USU Extension, USU’s Institute for Land Water and Air, the Wasatch Front Regional Council, Utah Department of Transportation, the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, and the cities of Alpine, Cedar Hills, Draper, Millcreek, Nephi, North Salt Lake, Ogden, Orem, Pleasant Grove, Providence, Springdale, Tremonton, West Bountiful, and West Valley City.

This report describes findings from the 2024 Clinton survey and comparative information with other project cities. In March and April 2024, Clinton City advertised the survey for residents largely through the city webpage, social media, newsletters, flyers, and email. All city residents age 18+ were encouraged to take the online Qualtrics survey.

How many people responded?

  • 461 viable surveys were recorded in this 2024 survey effort.
  • The adult population of Clinton was estimated at 15,914, based on the American Community Survey by the U.S. Census. The 461 survey responses in 2024 represent 2.9% of the adult population and have a conservative margin of error of 4.5%.

Survey Respondent Characteristics

Resident Statistics
Full Time Residents of Clinton 99.1%
Part Time Residents of Clinton 0.9%
Length of Residency — Range 0.3-85 years
Length of Residency — Average 15.3 years
Length of Residency — Median 10.5 years
Length of Residency 5 Years or less 27.1%

Demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared below with U.S. Census information from the 2018-2022 American Community Survey. In the graph below, gray bars indicate differences between the American Community Survey estimates and the Utah Wellbeing Project surveys. The wider the gray bars, the larger the differences. Also note that estimates for religious affiliation, adult non-conforming or non-binary gender, disability, and chronic conditions are unavailable from the census data. There can also be a variable margin of error in the American Community Survey estimates, and caution should be used when comparing estimates. Not all respondents provided demographic information. As the graph shows, 2024 survey respondents were not fully representative of Clinton. People who have at least a 4-year college degree and are married were overrepresented while those who are age 18-29 and do not have a college degree were underrepresented.

Dot Plot. Title: Clinton 2024 Demographics. Data — Age 18-29: American Community Survey Estimate: 23%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 5%; Age 30-39: American Community Survey Estimate: 21%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 22%; Age 40-49: American Community Survey Estimate: 21%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 30%; Age 50-59: American Community Survey Estimate: 15%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 17%; Age 60-69: American Community Survey Estimate: 11%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 16%; Age 70 or Over: American Community Survey Estimate: 9%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 11%; Income under $25,000: American Community Survey Estimate: 3%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 3%; Income $25,000 to $49,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 7%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 7%; Income $50,000 to $74,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 20%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 14%; Income $75,000 to $99,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 19%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 18%; Income $100,000 to $149,999: American Community Survey Estimate: 30%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 36%; Income $150,000 or over: American Community Survey Estimate: 21%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 23%; Adult Female: American Community Survey Estimate: 50%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 56%; Adult Male: American Community Survey Estimate: 50%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 43%; Adult non-conforming or non-binary*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 0%; Employed: American Community Survey Estimate: 67%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 66%; Out of work and looking for work: American Community Survey Estimate: 4%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 1%; Other: American Community Survey Estimate: 29%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 33%; No College Degree: American Community Survey Estimate: 73%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 46%; College degree (4-year): American Community Survey Estimate: 27%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 54%; Rent home/Renter occupied/Other: American Community Survey Estimate: 10%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 5%; Own home/Owner occupied: American Community Survey Estimate: 90%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 95%; Married: American Community Survey Estimate: 61%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 82%; Children under 18 in household: American Community Survey Estimate: 50%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 54%; Disability*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 10%; Chronic Condition*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 30%; Hispanic/Latino: American Community Survey Estimate: 13%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 9%; Nonwhite: American Community Survey Estimate: 12%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 11%; Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 51%; Other Religion*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 22%; Agnostic/Atheist/No Religious Preference/Spiritual but Not Religious*: American Community Survey Estimate: NA%, Utah Wellbeing Survey Estimate: 27%

Overall Personal Wellbeing and Overall Wellbeing in Clinton

Survey participants were asked about their overall personal wellbeing and overall community wellbeing in Clinton. These wellbeing indicators were both measured on a 5-point scale from poor (1) to excellent (5). The average personal wellbeing score in Clinton was 4.07 with 80% of respondents indicating their wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale. The average score for community wellbeing in Clinton was 3.79 with 67% of respondents indicating community wellbeing at a 4 or 5 on the 5-point scale.

Bar Chart. Title: Personal Wellbeing in Clinton. Subtitle: How would you rate your overall personal wellbeing? Data — 1 Poor: 0% of respondents; 2: 3% of respondents; 3: 17% of respondents; 4: 48% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 31% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Community Wellbeing in Clinton. Subtitle: How would you rate overall wellbeing in Clinton? Data — 1 Poor: 1% of respondents; 2: 6% of respondents; 3: 26% of respondents; 4: 46% of respondents; 5 Excellent: 21% of respondents

Comparing Wellbeing Across Utah Cities

The Utah League of Cities and Towns clusters cities and towns into five different categories based on size and growth rates. We utilize these clusters in our analysis. Clinton is classified as a Rapid Growth City. Some cities may fit within more than one cluster.

Within the Rapid Growth city cluster, Clinton was below the average overall personal wellbeing score and close to the average overall community wellbeing score.

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Personal Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2024). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent). Data — Group: Cities of the 1st & 2nd Class — West Valley City Average Score 3.81; Ogden Average Score 3.91; Layton Average Score 3.96; West Jordan Average Score 4.01; Orem Average Score 4.05; South Jordan Average Score 4.13; Sandy Average Score 4.18; Millcreek Average Score 4.23; Group: Established/Mid-sized Cities — Logan Average Score 3.66; Midvale Average Score 3.71; Cedar City Average Score 3.94; South Ogden Average Score 4.04; Pleasant Grove Average Score 4.07; North Salt Lake Average Score 4.08; Bountiful Average Score 4.13; Draper Average Score 4.22; West Bountiful Average Score 4.22; Cottonwood Heights Average Score 4.29; Alpine Average Score 4.32; Cedar Hills Average Score 4.33; Group: Rapid Growth Cities — Herriman Average Score 3.97; Saratoga Springs Average Score 4.02; Lehi Average Score 4.05; Clinton Average Score 4.07; Hyrum Average Score 4.10; Spanish Fork Average Score 4.10; Nibley Average Score 4.14; West Haven Average Score 4.17; Vineyard Average Score 4.22; Hyde Park Average Score 4.23; Wellsville Average Score 4.24; Mapleton Average Score 4.26; Providence Average Score 4.27; Ivins Average Score 4.40; Group: Rural Hub & Resort, Traditional Rural Communities — Vernal Average Score 3.60; Price Average Score 3.62; Monticello Average Score 3.71; East Carbon Average Score 3.75; Delta Average Score 3.78; Helper Average Score 3.79; Tremonton Average Score 3.81; Blanding Average Score 3.85; Nephi Average Score 3.92; Beaver Average Score 3.95; Heber Average Score 4.01; La Verkin Average Score 4.13; Bluff Average Score 4.20; Springdale Average Score 4.21; Park City Average Score 4.22; Midway Average Score 4.27; Emigration Canyon Average Score 4.42

Dot Plot. Title: Overall Community Wellbeing Scores from Participating Utah Cities (2024). Subtitle: (On a scale from 1=Poor to 5=Excellent). Data — Group: Cities of the 1st & 2nd Class — Ogden Average Score 3.27; West Valley City Average Score 3.38; West Jordan Average Score 3.50; Layton Average Score 3.52; Orem Average Score 3.63; Millcreek Average Score 3.82; Sandy Average Score 3.91; South Jordan Average Score 4.00; Group: Established/Mid-sized Cities — Logan Average Score 3.18; Midvale Average Score 3.24; Cedar City Average Score 3.42; Pleasant Grove Average Score 3.61; South Ogden Average Score 3.72; North Salt Lake Average Score 3.75; Bountiful Average Score 3.84; Cottonwood Heights Average Score 3.90; West Bountiful Average Score 4.00; Draper Average Score 4.03; Alpine Average Score 4.15; Cedar Hills Average Score 4.15; Group: Rapid Growth Cities — Herriman Average Score 3.40; Vineyard Average Score 3.43; Saratoga Springs Average Score 3.46; Lehi Average Score 3.50; West Haven Average Score 3.67; Hyrum Average Score 3.76; Clinton Average Score 3.79; Spanish Fork Average Score 3.80; Ivins Average Score 3.91; Providence Average Score 3.91; Nibley Average Score 3.92; Hyde Park Average Score 4.02; Mapleton Average Score 4.02; Wellsville Average Score 4.11; Group: Rural Hub & Resort, Traditional Rural Communities — Price Average Score 2.88; East Carbon Average Score 3.03; Tremonton Average Score 3.09; Monticello Average Score 3.11; Vernal Average Score 3.12; Blanding Average Score 3.31; Heber Average Score 3.42; Delta Average Score 3.43; Nephi Average Score 3.43; La Verkin Average Score 3.57; Beaver Average Score 3.59; Springdale Average Score 3.68; Helper Average Score 3.71; Park City Average Score 3.85; Bluff Average Score 3.88; Midway Average Score 4.07; Emigration Canyon Average Score 4.28

Wellbeing Domains in Clinton

According to national and international entities that track wellbeing, there are a number of common dimensions or domains of wellbeing. Survey respondents rated twelve domains on a 5-point scale from poor to excellent. 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 highest rated wellbeing domains for respondents in Clinton were Family Life (79%), Living Standards (76%), and Safety and Security (75%). The most important wellbeing domains were Mental Health (97%), Safety and Security (97%), Family Life (94%), Living Standards (94%), and Physical Health (93%).

Likert Graph. Title: Wellbeing Domain Ratings in Clinton. Subtitle: How would you rate your level of personal wellbeing in each of the following categories? Data — Category: Family Life - 21% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 79% rated as good or excellent; Category: Living Standards - 24% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 76% rated as good or excellent; Category: Safety and Security - 25% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 75% rated as good or excellent; Category: Mental Health - 28% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 72% rated as good or excellent; Category: Physical Health - 38% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 62% rated as good or excellent; Category: Leisure Time - 39% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 61% rated as good or excellent; Category: Connection with Nature - 44% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 56% rated as good or excellent; Category: Transportation - 46% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 54% rated as good or excellent; Category: Education - 51% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 49% rated as good or excellent; Category: Local Environmental Quality - 51% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 49% rated as good or excellent; Category: Social Connections - 56% of respondents rated as poor, fair, or moderate while 44% 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 Clinton. Subtitle: How important are the following categories to your overall personal wellbeing? Data — Category: Mental Health - 3% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 97% rated as important or very important; Category: Safety and Security - 3% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 97% rated as important or very important; Category: Family Life - 6% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 94% rated as important or very important; Category: Living Standards - 6% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 94% rated as important or very important; Category: Physical Health - 7% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 93% rated as important or very important; Category: Leisure Time -12% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 88% rated as important or very important; Category: Local Environmental Quality -16% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 84% rated as important or very important; Category: Connection with Nature -25% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 75% rated as important or very important; Category: Transportation -30% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 70% rated as important or very important; Category: Education -33% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 67% rated as important or very important; Category: Social Connections -36% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 64% rated as important or very important; Category: Cultural Opportunities -48% of respondents rated as not at all important, slightly important, or moderately important while 52% rated as important or very important

Wellbeing Matrix for Clinton

The graph below illustrates the relationship between the average rating and the average importance of wellbeing domains for survey respondents from Clinton. Family Life, Leisure Time, Living Standards, Mental Health, Physical Health, and Safety and Security were highly important and rated above average among the domains. No Domains fell in the “red zone” of higher importance and lower ratings.

Scatterplot. Title: Clinton Wellbeing Matrix. Subtitle: 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 domain importance ratings. Data — High rating, high importance (green quadrant) domains include: Family Life, Leisure Time, Living Standards, Mental Health, Physical Health, and Safety and Security; Lower rating, lower importance (yellow quadrant) domains include: Connection with Nature, Cultural Opportunities, Education, Local Environmental Quality, Social Connections, and Transportation

Community Connection in Clinton

Survey participants were asked about how connected they feel to Clinton on a 5-point scale from not at all (1) to a great deal (5), and the average score of all respondents was 2.95.

Bar Chart. Title: Community Connection in Clinton. Subtitle: How connected do you feel to Clinton as a community? Data — 1 Not at All: 11% of respondents; 2: 24% of respondents; 3: 32% of respondents; 4: 23% of respondents; 5 A Great Deal: 9% of respondents

A positive relationship was found between individuals’ community connection and overall personal wellbeing, and to some extent between community connection and mental health.

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Overall Wellbeing and Community Connection in Clinton. Data — Of the 17 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Poor) 1 or 2, 94% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 6% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 77 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 3, 79% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 21% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 223 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a 4, 76% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 144 respondents that rate their overall personal wellbeing as a (Excellent) 5, 44% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5

Likert Graph. Title: Comparing Mental Health Rating and Community Connection in Clinton. Data — Of the 36 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Poor) 1 or 2, 81% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 19% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 84 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 3, 81% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 19% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 184 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a 4, 71% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5; Of the 123 respondents that rate their mental health rating as a (Excellent) 5, 49% indicate a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 51% indicate a community connection score of 4 or 5

The graph below shows how Wellbeing Project cities and towns compare on feelings of community connection based on the percentage of respondents who answered 4 or a 5 on a 5-point scale from “not at all” to “a great deal” connected to their city or town. Clinton ranked 36 out of the 51 cities that participated.

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 and 5 being a great deal. Data — City: Bluff 26% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 74% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Wellsville 43% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 57% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Midway 44% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 56% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Beaver 46% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 54% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Alpine 48% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: West Bountiful 48% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 52% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Springdale 49% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 51% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Cedar Hills 49% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 51% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Mapleton 49% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 51% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: South Jordan 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Helper 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Delta 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 50% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Ivins 52% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Hyde Park 52% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 48% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Bountiful 53% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 47% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Nibley 54% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 46% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Park City 54% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 46% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Spanish Fork 55% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Emigration Canyon 55% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 45% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Millcreek 57% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Cottonwood Heights 57% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 43% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Draper 58% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 42% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Orem 59% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 41% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Cedar City 60% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 40% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: La Verkin 62% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Blanding 62% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Hyrum 62% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Nephi 62% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 38% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Pleasant Grove 63% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Sandy 63% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 37% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Vernal 64% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 36% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Ogden 65% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: East Carbon 65% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 35% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Heber 66% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Vineyard 66% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 34% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Clinton 67% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 33% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: North Salt Lake 68% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Monticello 68% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 32% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Providence 69% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: West Haven 69% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 31% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Layton 70% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 30% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Lehi 71% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 29% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: West Valley City 72% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Price 72% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 28% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Saratoga Springs 74% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 26% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: West Jordan 74% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 26% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Midvale 75% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 25% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Tremonton 76% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Logan 76% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 24% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: South Ogden 77% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 23% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5; City: Herriman 77% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 1, 2, or 3 while 23% of respondents indicated a community connection score of 4 or 5

Participation in Recreation and Nature-Related Activities

Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in various activities in the last 12 months. The most popular activities were walking or biking in your neighborhood or city (90%), gardening at home (84%), recreating in parks in your city (75%), and using trails in or near your city (74%).

Bar Graph. Title: Participation in Recreation and Nature-Based Activities in Clinton. Subtitle: Have you participated in any of the following activities during the past 12 months? Data — 90% of respondents indicated yes to Walking or biking in your neighborhood or city; 84% of respondents indicated yes to Gardening at home; 75% of respondents indicated yes to Recreating in parks in your city; 74% of respondents indicated yes to Using trails in or near your city; 63% of respondents indicated yes to Community events; 61% of respondents indicated yes to Non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah; 55% of respondents indicated yes to Buying food from a farmer's market; 34% of respondents indicated yes to Motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah; 34% of respondents indicated yes to City recreation programs; 6% of respondents indicated yes to Participating in a community garden

Motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah, non-motorized recreation on public lands or waters in Utah, and recreating in parks in your city were significantly related to higher ratings of personal wellbeing.

Recreating in parks in your city was significantly related to higher ratings of community wellbeing.

Participating in city recreation programs, participating in community events, recreating in parks in your city, and walking or biking in your neighborhood or city were significantly related to higher ratings of community connection.

Perspectives on Population Growth and Economic Development

The majority of respondents in Clinton indicated that they felt the population growth was too fast (63%). For the pace of economic development, the largest proportion of respondents indicated that it was just right (40%).

Bar Chart. Title: Population Growth in Clinton. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in Clinton? Data — Too Slow: 1% of respondents; Just Right: 23% of respondents; Too Fast: 63% of respondents; No Opinion: 13% of respondents

Bar Chart. Title: Economic Development in Clinton. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Clinton? Data — Too Slow: 19% of respondents; Just Right: 40% of respondents; Too Fast: 29% of respondents; No Opinion: 12% of respondents

The graphs below show perceptions of population growth and economic development for Clinton compared to other participating cities and towns in the Rapid Growth Cities cluster.

Likert Graph. Title: Population Growth for Rapid Growth Cities. Subtitle: How would you describe the current rate of population growth in your city/town? Data — City: Saratoga Springs 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 5% indicated that it was just right, 90% indicated that it was too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Ivins 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 7% indicated that it was just right, 88% indicated that it was too fast, and 3% had no opinion; City: Herriman 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 9% indicated that it was just right, 86% indicated that it was too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Lehi 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 8% indicated that it was just right, 85% indicated that it was too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Nibley 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 10% indicated that it was just right, 83% indicated that it was too fast, and 7% had no opinion; City: Mapleton 0% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 16% indicated that it was just right, 80% indicated that it was too fast, and 4% had no opinion; City: West Haven 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 19% indicated that it was just right, 77% indicated that it was too fast, and 3% had no opinion; City: Hyrum 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 19% indicated that it was just right, 75% indicated that it was too fast, and 5% had no opinion; City: Spanish Fork 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 19% indicated that it was just right, 74% indicated that it was too fast, and 6% had no opinion; City: Vineyard 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 21% indicated that it was just right, 68% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion; City: Hyde Park 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 24% indicated that it was just right, 66% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: Providence 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 22% indicated that it was just right, 66% indicated that it was too fast, and 11% had no opinion; City: Clinton 1% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 23% indicated that it was just right, 63% indicated that it was too fast, and 13% had no opinion; City: Wellsville 2% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 38% indicated that it was just right, 52% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion

Likert Graph. Title: Economic Development for Rapid Growth Cities. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in your city/town? Data — City: Ivins 15% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 22% indicated that it was just right, 55% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: Lehi 13% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 31% indicated that it was just right, 45% indicated that it was too fast, and 10% had no opinion; City: Spanish Fork 6% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 42% indicated that it was just right, 45% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: Saratoga Springs 25% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 32% indicated that it was just right, 36% indicated that it was too fast, and 7% had no opinion; City: West Haven 34% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 27% indicated that it was just right, 34% indicated that it was too fast, and 6% had no opinion; City: Mapleton 31% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 28% indicated that it was just right, 33% indicated that it was too fast, and 8% had no opinion; City: Nibley 19% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 32% indicated that it was just right, 30% indicated that it was too fast, and 19% had no opinion; City: Clinton 19% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 40% indicated that it was just right, 29% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: Providence 12% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 48% indicated that it was just right, 27% indicated that it was too fast, and 14% had no opinion; City: Hyrum 32% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 30% indicated that it was just right, 26% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion; City: Herriman 40% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 28% indicated that it was just right, 25% indicated that it was too fast, and 7% had no opinion; City: Vineyard 50% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 23% indicated that it was just right, 21% indicated that it was too fast, and 6% had no opinion; City: Hyde Park 29% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 38% indicated that it was just right, 15% indicated that it was too fast, and 18% had no opinion; City: Wellsville 37% of respondents indicated that it was too slow, 44% indicated that it was just right, 7% indicated that it was too fast, and 12% had no opinion

The graph below illustrates how many respondents perceived the pace of economic development as too slow, just right, too fast, or had no opinion, with additional breakdowns for the number of respondents who provided comments.

Sankey Graph. Title: Perceptions about the Pace of Economic Development in Clinton. Subtitle: How would you describe the current pace of economic development in Clinton? (In Number of Respondents). Data — Total Respondents: 394; No opinion: 48; Too fast: 113; Just right: 159; Too slow: 74; 'Too fast' without comment: 25; 'Too fast' with comment: 88; 'Too slow' without comment: 8; 'Too slow' with comment: 66

The 19% of respondents who rated the pace of economic growth as “too slow” were further asked what aspects of the local economy they would like to see more of in Clinton. The strongest theme was the desire for more retail business, particularly restaurants, but also shopping. There were also comments from some who desire more amenities and services beyond businesses, particularly related to recreation. There were concerns about having the infrastructure to support growth and concerns about traffic.

Additionally, the 29% of respondents who rated the pace of economic growth as “too fast” were further asked what aspects of the local economy they feel are growing too quickly in Clinton. Comments largely focused on too many houses being built, particularly apartments. Some commented on having too many restaurants and businesses. There were comments about excessive traffic and congestion and some concerns about the loss of green space and open space. A number of people mentioned changes in the town’s character, particularly losing its small town feel, and a lack of planning for the growth Clinton has experienced.

Transportation in Clinton

Respondents were asked to indicate all of their primary modes of transportation on a regular basis in Clinton. The most popular modes of transportation were personal car (100%) and walking (30%).

Bar Graph. Title: Primary modes of transportation in Clinton. Subtitle: What are your primary modes of transportation? (select all that apply on a regular basis) Data — 100% of respondents indicated yes to Personal Car; 30% of respondents indicated yes to Walking; 11% of respondents indicated yes to Biking; 6% of respondents indicated yes to Carpool; 5% of respondents indicated yes to Public transportation; 1% of respondents indicated yes to Ride sharing (Uber or Lyft); 1% of respondents indicated yes to Scooter or micro-mobility device

Respondents were asked to indicate the most common barriers to transportation in Clinton. The most problematic barriers were Travel time (47%) and Lack of routes (35%).

Likert Graph. Title: Barriers to Personal Travel in Clinton. Subtitle: Are any of the following a barrier to you personal travel? Data — Category: Travel time - 53% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 47% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of routes - 65% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 35% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Cost - 68% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 32% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Safety - 79% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 21% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Knowledge - 90% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 10% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Lack of transport - 91% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 9% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Disability - 93% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 7% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier; Category: Language - 98% of respondents indicated it was not a barrier or seldom a barrier, while 2% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, often, or always a barrier

Respondents were asked to indicate the importance of a set of possible transportation developments in Clinton. The most important development to respondents were Improving road surfaces (76%), Enhancing safety (74%), and Adding road capacity (64%).

Likert Graph. Title: Possible Transportation Developments in Clinton. Subtitle: On a scale of 1 - Not at all important to 5 - Very important, please rate the importance of the following developments to you. Data — Category: Improving road surfaces - 24% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 76% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Enhancing safety - 26% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 74% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Adding road capacity - 36% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 64% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Improving walkability - 46% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 54% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Connecting communities - 51% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 49% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: More trails - 51% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 49% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.; Category: Improving public transit - 63% of respondents indicated it 1, 2, or 3, while 37% of respondents rated it a 4 or 5.

Respondents were asked to indicate how frequently various activities take them out of Clinton to another city or town. The most commonly indicated reasons for traveling to another city or town at least sometimes or once a month were Eating Out (95%), Friends and Family (89%), and Groceries (86%).

Likert Graph. Title: Frequency of Clinton Residents Traveling to Other Cities for Various Activities. Subtitle: How frequently do each of these activities take you out of Clinton to another city or town? Data — Category: Eating Out - 5% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 95% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Friends and Family - 11% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 89% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Groceries - 14% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 86% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Other Services - 20% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 80% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Health/Medical Care - 24% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 76% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Recreation/Sports - 35% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 65% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Work - 36% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 64% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: School/Education - 69% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 31% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often; Category: Religion - 71% of respondents indicated it was never or rarely and 29% of respondents indicated it was sometimes, regularly, often

Concerns in Clinton

Survey respondents indicated the degree to which a number of possible local issues were a concern as they look to the future of Clinton. Traffic (89%), Water Supply (84%), Public Safety (80%), and Water Quality (79%) were the top concerns.

Likert Graph. Title: Concerns in Clinton. Subtitle: As you look to the future of Clinton, how much of a concern are the following issues? Data — Category: Traffic - 11% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 89% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Supply - 16% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 84% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Public Safety - 20% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 80% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Water Quality - 21% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 79% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Air Quality - 22% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 78% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Affordable Housing - 25% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 75% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Open Space/Green Space - 27% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 73% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Opportunities for Youth - 28% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 72% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Recreation Opportunities - 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 Healthy/Quality Food - 37% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 63% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Shopping Opportunities - 43% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 57% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Great Salt Lake - 44% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 56% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Trails & Paths - 46% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 54% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Homelessness - 50% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 50% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Climate Change - 52% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 48% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Suicide - 56% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 44% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Employment Opportunities - 58% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 42% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Social and Emotional Support - 58% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 42% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Mental Health Care - 64% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 36% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Accessible Transportation - 64% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 36% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Health Care - 65% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 35% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Culturally Appropriate Food - 70% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 30% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Substance Misuse - 73% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 27% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern; Category: Access to Substance Use Disorder Treatment - 84% of respondents indicated not a concern at all or slight concern while 16% of respondents indicated a moderate or major concern

Additional Questions for Clinton

Housing

Survey participants were asked about what types of moderate income housing they supported in Clinton and were allowed to indicate any/all housing types that they support. The most supported housing type was a Single-lot single-family (84%) followed by Townhomes (45%).

Bar Graph. Title: What types of moderate income housing do you support in Clinton?. Data — 84% of respondents indicated yes to Small-lot single-family; 45% of respondents indicated yes to Townhomes; 24% of respondents indicated yes to Townhomes or apartments integrated with new or existing commercial; 12% of respondents indicated yes to Apartments; 10% of respondents indicated yes to Moderate income housing in Clinton is not important to me

Better-paying Jobs in Clinton

Survey participants were asked about the importance of efforts to pursue better-paying jobs in Clinton, and the results are shown in the graph below. The majority of respondents indicated a 3, 4, or 5.

Participants were also asked about what type of focus areas they supported to bring better-paying jobs to Clinton. The most supported answers were Maintain existing retail-related job base (72%), Higher end restaurants (71%), and Medical office/campus (71%).

Bar Chart. Title: How important to you are efforts to pursue better-paying jobs in Clinton?. Data — 1 Not at all important: 17% of respondents; 2: 9% of respondents; 3: 26% of respondents; 4: 25% of respondents; 5 Very important: 23% of respondents

Likert graph. Title: Do you support any of the following focus areas in terms of efforts to bring better-paying jobs to Clinton?. Data — Maintain existing retail-related job base: 4% of respondents opposed it, 24% were unsure, and 72% supported it; Medical office/campus: 9% of respondents opposed it, 21% were unsure, and 71% supported it; Higher end restaurants: 14% of respondents opposed it, 15% were unsure, and 71% supported it; Small aerospace industries: 16% of respondents opposed it, 31% were unsure, and 53% supported it; Higher end retail: 34% of respondents opposed it, 29% were unsure, and 36% supported it

Economic Development in Clinton

Survey participants were also asked about what type of economic development activities Clinton should pursue. The most supported activity was to implement a business retention and expansion program to increase employment base within the community (62%).

Bar Graph. Title: What type of economic development activities should Clinton pursue?. Data — 62% of respondents indicated yes to Implement a business retention and expansion program to increase employment base within the community; 45% of respondents indicated yes to Create destination retail for unique opportunities for customers to have experiences not replicated online; 40% of respondents indicated yes to Capitalize on low supply of office space in the region — high tech, health services, etc.; 17% of respondents indicated yes to Re-branding — new city logo, marketing brochure, enhanced webpage, etc.

Clinton’s Community Identity

An additional question asked respondents what unique characteristics relate to Clinton’s identity. Responses were both positive and negative. On the positive side, comments emphasized the small town feel of Clinton and it’s safe, friendly, family-oriented atmosphere. People mentioned being able to get everything needed in Clinton or nearby. On the other hand, some said there wasn’t anything unique about Clinton or that its unique identity had been lost or threatened by rapid growth. There were additional responses as detailed in the table below.

Positive Responses # Negative Responses #
Small Town or Small Town Feel 49 None, nothing unique 23
Family, Children Oriented 21 It’s been lost or become just like other places 19
City has what we need or it’s nearby, accessible 20 Concern about losing character with growth, changing too fast 13
Friendly, Caring, People Help each other, close-knit, community oriented 16 No Opinion or Don’t Know 9
Safe, low crime 16 Don’t want high density, low income housing 5
Bedroom community 9 Poorly kept houses and property 4
Peaceful, Quiet 8 Want more restaurants 4
Open areas and parks, green spaces, trails 8 Need trails, protect open space, losing open space 3
Right size - not too big or too small, has grown responsibly, small but near urban 8 Need to allow alcohol in restaurants, want liquor store 3
Single family homes, not a lot of apartments, large lots 8 Feeling sad or disappointed about Clinton 3
Love Clinton 7 Too few activities 3
Farming Community 6 Poor rec dept 2
Suburban 5 Not diverse 2
Love rec program, sporting activities, parks 5 Tax increase 2
Trying to continue a small community atmosphere but trying to attract more people, trying to catch up 5 People need to clean up after dogs, limit dogs 2
Good Mayor, Great Leadership 4 No jr high or high school 1
Clean 4 Traffic 1
Comfortable, nice community 4 Failing businesses 1
Police Care, Love first responders 3 Divide between classes 1
Good community events 3 Negative about government 1
Close to air force base 3 Lame 1
Accessible, walkable 3 Need small businesses 1
Balance of businesses and homes 2 Need safer roads 1
Shopping opportunities 2 City at disadvantage due to lack of access to I-15 1
Higher middle class 2 Trying to catch up to other places near by 1
Not crowded 2 Cost of sewer is high 1
Good, very good 2 Fire dept understaffed 1
Slower paced than city life 2 Hard to break into city organization and culture 1
Flowers that used to hang along main dirt roads 2 Need to protect community the way it is 1
Connected to Roots 1 Too many churches 1
Traffic not too bad 1 Keep industry out 1
No people living on the streets 1 Keep retail and commercial properties away from residential homes 1
Attracting people and business 1 Shopping is not unique 1
Affordable 1 Negative about digging same roads 1
Good schools 1 Keep it boring 1
Love that it’s away from interstate 1 Would like a hospital 1
Has a good place for seniors to gather 1 Would like pickleball courts 1
Hidden gem 1 Lack of industrial base 1
    HAFB doesn’t allow Clinton to grow tax base to improve services provided by other cities 1

Open Comments

All open comments collected in the survey were shared with city leaders. General observations and themes are shared here.

What Respondents Value Most in Clinton

Survey respondents were asked to comment on what they value most about Clinton. The most common words and phrases from all city comments are included in the word cloud below. It is possible that negative or unrelated words may appear since these words have been taken out of context, and they may not indicate the respondent’s intended meaning. Safety was mentioned by many as being of value to many in Clinton. The small town feel as well as the community in Clinton were also mentioned by many. The location of Clinton was also mentioned by many, specifically bringing up access to other communities, stores and businesses, and the freeway.

A word cloud of most common words about what respondents value most in their city

Local Environmental Quality in Clinton

The 51% of respondents who rated the Local Environmental Quality domain as 1, 2, or 3 (Poor, Fair, or Moderate) were further asked if there are specific aspects of local environmental quality that they feel are problematic. Air quality in Clinton was a major concern due to inversions and dust. The lack of green space and trees in Clinton was also a concern. Road construction, traffic, and a lack of alternate modes of transportation were also mentioned.

Improving Wellbeing in Clinton

Survey respondents were asked if there is anything that could be done to improve wellbeing in Clinton. Transportation was brought up often, mentioning not only needed road and traffic safety but also citing that road conditions need to be improved. People also mentioned wanting more recreation and other local opportunities and activities for people of all ages.

Additional Comments

Respondents were also asked if they had any additional comments on wellbeing in Clinton. City government themes arose with this question, some stating their support and appreciation for the current city employees and mayor, while others wanted more enforcement of city codes by the government which also reflects themes about wanting the city image to be improved.

On This Page