Multilingual students are a vibrant and enriching part of our school communities. In Utah, 59,147 students in the K-12 system are Multilingual Learners (ML), also known as English Language Learners or English Learners. They bring diverse backgrounds and perspectives that enhance the educational experience for all students. 

This summer, Voices for Utah Children and the Center for Economic Opportunity and Belonging have been raising awareness of ML students and the richness their backgrounds bring. On June 18th, we co-organized a Lunch and Learn event, Promising Practices and Resources to Welcome Newcomers to Schools. 

We welcomed Dr. Christelle Estrada, Ph.D (right photo), who presented data, promising practices, and resources for Multilingual Learners. Dr. Estada is the Education Specialist with the Title III, Refugee & Immigration Program at the Utah State Board of Education. Additionally, Wendy Cervantes (center photo) from the Center for Law and Social Policy joined virtually giving information regarding the federal context on K-12 multilingual and undocumented students, highlighting concerns about the potential resurgence of issues related to Plyler v. Doe in the coming year.

We know much has been debated about immigrant students, and questions have been raised about how resource allocation affects non-ML students. As an organization, we stand by ensuring all children have the opportunity to obtain an education in our state regardless of where they were born or their immigration status. Our state leaders now have a critical opportunity to provide additional support to help our school districts meet the diverse needs of these students.

History of Education for Immigrant Students

Under the 1982 Plyler v. Doe ruling, all foreign-born children, including undocumented ones, have the right to a public K-12 education. Schools are legally obligated to identify multilingual learners and provide necessary language assistance services. This ruling also ensures that parents are informed about enrollment into ML programs and that school policies are in a language they understand. Unfortunately, there are continued efforts to challenge or undermine this ruling, which would be detrimental to immigrant students and their families living in our state. 

Impact and Importance of Multilingual Learners

Educating all children, including newcomers, has proven to be beneficial to the United States as a whole. Historically, multilingual learners are newcomers/immigrants. Research indicates that newcomer students positively impact native-born students, improving their educational outcomes.  

The long-term benefits of educating Multilingual Learners are evident in the achievements of previous generations who have accessed public education and subsequently joined the workforce, such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients. [2]  A June 2024 report by The Center for American Progress highlights some of the significant benefits the DACA program has had in our country. The report reveals that nearly 23% of DACA recipients have pursued higher education, and approximately 343,000 served as essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Immigrants, including those undocumented, make substantial contributions to the U.S. economy, paying $524.7 billion in total taxes in 2021. 

According to a report by The Century Foundation, the presence of immigrant students fosters diverse learning environments, which benefit all students by enhancing skills such as creative problem-solving and critical thinking. Denying education to any child, regardless of immigration status, could have long-term detrimental effects on society, emphasizing the importance of inclusive educational policies.

Why Are We Talking About ML Students Now?

In Utah, the ML student population has seen consistent growth. According to the Utah State Board of Education, the number of refugee students increased from 3,866 in the 2022-23 school year to 4,473 in the 2023-24 school year. Similarly, refugee students learning English rose from 3,157 to 3,555 during the same period. The immigrant student group saw an increase from 17,668 to 18,210, with those learning English growing from 13,491 to 14,233. Overall, the total number of students learning English slightly adjusted from 59,176 to 59,147 between the two school years​. This data shows that ML students continue to be a small percentage of the overall student population.

Who Are Utah’s ML Students?

The ML population in Utah is diverse, including refugees, immigrants, US-born citizens, and other students learning English. These students come to the U.S. for various reasons and hold different immigration statuses. [1] The following definitions come from the Utah State Board of Education and play a role in ML funding opportunities.

• I-94 Arrival-Departure Record Form holders
• I-551 Permanent Resident Record holders
• Immigration Court Letter recipients, also identified as refugee or asylum seekers

ML students are typically aged between 3 and 21, born outside the U.S., and have not attended one or more schools in any state for more than three full academic years. These students are categorized based on their engagement with English Learner services at their school as:

• Y: Receiving English Learner services
• 0: Qualified for services, but family refused
• Fluent: Achieved English fluency and no longer need services

Funding for ML Students

Funding for multilingual (ML) students' education is multifaceted. Schools receive each student’s Weighted Pupil Unit (WPU) and Supplemental Federal Title III Funds. Additionally, some school districts have utilized alternative funding sources to address the needs of students beyond the classroom, particularly in response to significant increases in newcomer students. This funding is designated specifically for English learners and does not detract from the resources available to non-English learner students.

Addressing Misconceptions

During the most recent Education Interim Committee meeting, concerns were raised about resource allocation and its impact on non-ML students. However, based on available funding data, these concerns appear unfounded. Some elected officials claimed that ML students were diverting resources from non-ML students and that Utah schools were overwhelmed by the influx of ML students, leading to insufficient resources and funding. Some suggested that revoking children's right to a public education could resolve these issues. However, it is imperative to uphold access to a public K-12 education as a constitutional right (Plyler v. Doe). While we acknowledge that certain districts have been more affected than others, establishing collaborative groups to discuss and implement promising practices will offer school districts the opportunity to ensure they receive the necessary support.

It is essential for committee officials to engage in discussions with school district leaders to better understand the funding structure for EL programs and raise more awareness. Additionally, it's important to allocate time and resources to constructive conversations on how to ensure that every student has access to a quality education.

Long-term Recommendations for Supporting ML Students

Changes in demographics bring both opportunities and challenges. Utah has the potential to lead by supporting innovative solutions and promising practices led by districts like Canyons, Granite, and Wasatch. Key recommendations include:

• Strengthening learning cohorts and investing in promising models.
• Developing structural changes to expand teacher and school personnel knowledge.
• Investing in professional development for teachers, including curriculum planning, training, and ML endorsement funding
• Increasing classroom support with additional teacher aides.
• Facilitating regular meetings for district officials to share promising practices with those district officials.

Success Stories and Partnerships

Several success stories from schools in Utah were highlighted during the Education Interim Committee, displaying the positive impact of community and educational partnerships:

• Herriman High School: Partnered with Herriman City, Salt Lake Community College, and Deloitte Accounting to support ML students. These collaborations help students integrate, succeed, and feel proud to be part of the U.S. educational system.
• Granite School District: Implemented the Grant Tumaini Process, which supports newcomers and refugees with immediate school immersion, family support, and home visits with interpreters.

Call to Action

Utah's commitment to supporting ML students is critical in fostering an inclusive and enriching educational environment for all children in the state. By investing in these students, we invest in the future of our entire community. These solutions will require continued collaboration, trust, and determination to support all students in our schools, regardless of their birthplace. Upholding access to public K-12 education as a constitutional right is crucial.

When done right, we know Utah schools can be where all immigrant, refugee, and ML students feel supported in their educational journey. We encourage community members to stay engaged with Voices for Utah Children as the interim discussions progress in Utah.

We also invite you to listen in on the Education Interim Committee meetings and help hold them accountable for the educational rights of all of our children. At the end of the interim period, the committee will propose legislation that could either support or harm our ML students, making it crucial for all of us to remain engaged.

For questions, please email . 

Footnotes

1. It is important to recognize that while refugees are immigrants, not all immigrants are refugees. The term Immigrant includes refugees, asylum seekers, international students, and more.
2. Historically, many DACA recipients have been beneficiaries of the ML programs at their schools.

As the November elections approach, one crucial issue on the ballot is the proposed amendment to end the constitutional mandate Utah voters passed decades ago, directing the legislature to use state income tax to fund public education. This proposal will show up on your ballot as Amendment A, and it is based on SJR10, Proposal to Amend the Utah Constitution - Income Tax [1], which passed during the 2023 legislative session.  

Voices for Utah Children is opposed to this change to Utah’s constitution. Here’s why. 

Utahns Approved the Constitutional Education Funding Mandate Nearly 80 Years Ago

Utah implemented its state income tax in 1932. In 1946, voters approved a Constitutional amendment that created the education funding mandate, allocating all income tax revenue exclusively for K-12 public education. This changed in 1996 when another amendment allowed higher education to dip into the income tax pot. And again, in 2020, Amendment G passed, which expanded the use of income tax revenue for social services supporting children and individuals with disabilities [2].

Think of Utah’s constitutional mandate (sometimes referred to as an “earmark”) as setting aside a portion of your paycheck specifically for your child’s school supplies, textbooks, and educational needs. The mandate ensures that a certain amount of public funding is always dedicated to supporting schools and students, helping to maintain academic quality, and providing necessary resources. 

Amendment A would remove this mandate, allowing state legislators to redirect this designated funding elsewhere, as they see fit.

This Change to Our Constitution Poses a Threat to Utah Schools  

Utahns feel a strong commitment to public education. According to Utah Foundation polling, public education consistently ranks as a top issue for Utah voters[3]. With over 90% of Utah's school-aged children attending public schools, many Utahns express positive views about their own schools. The proposal to change Utah’s constitutional education funding mandate does not reflect the priorities of the majority of Utahns in support of public education. 

Utah’s constitutional mandate for public education funding ensures a dedicated source of funding for public education for Utah children. If Amendment A passes and the constitutional mandate is removed, it could undermine the quality of Utah's public education. Our state's children need consistent and dedicated funding to maintain high educational standards and to ensure equitable access across different regions and demographics​. 

Our commitment to funding public education is enshrined in our state constitution. The legislature’s desire to change this is a significant issue that should not be taken lightly. Amendment A creates uncertainty around your child’s school funding. For example, for fiscal year 2025, individual income tax revenue is projected to be around $7.3 billion [4]. Without the clarity of Utah’s constitutional mandate, these funds can be easily diverted away from public education, leaving Utah’s children and teachers without essential support [5]. Already, state leaders have cut the income tax year after year, reducing funding that could be invested in our children's futures.

The Likely Impacts of Changing Our Constitution 

Funding Instability: Without the constitutional mandate directing the legislature to spend our income taxes on public education, state education funding could become subject to political whims. 

Increased Property Taxes: If the constitutional mandate is removed and the legislature reduces school funding, school districts will need to compensate for the lost revenue by increasing property taxes. This challenge would be even greater for rural districts, where the property tax base is limited. These less prosperous school districts may be unable to cover the shortfall. 

Equity Concerns: Utah’s current method of funding public education helps to balance educational opportunities across our varied communities. Some school districts are able to raise a lot of money, through wealthy residents with high-end property. Other school districts do not have access to that level of wealth, and rely on state funding to ensure equitable opportunities for their students. Removing the constitutional mandate could exacerbate inequalities.

Uncertain Future Funding Plans: If the constitutional mandate is removed, legislators must provide clear answers on how education will be funded. Without specific, transparent plans, there is a significant risk that public education funding would be deprioritized.

The Connection Between Amendment A and School Vouchers

Utah’s new school voucher program is also part of this equation. The school voucher program will allow thousands of Utah families to use taxpayer dollars to send their children to private school. The legislature has diverted over $80 million to this school privatization effort since its inception in 2023 - doubling the initial investment before even a single voucher had been awarded to any Utah families. It's important to note that lawmakers initially requested $150 million, signaling their intention to continue diverting public funds away from public education [6].

Lawmakers have made it clear that they plan to continue to increase funding for vouchers, regardless of program outcomes. If the constitutional amendment to fund public education is removed, the flow of resources away from neighborhood public schools and toward private schools could intensify. This will likely reduce the quality and equity of public education that 90% of Utah's children rely on [7]. 

What Lies Ahead? 

The removal of Utah’s constitutional mandate and years of income tax rate cutting have long-term implications for public education. Utah schools still have large class sizes and lack an adequate number of paraeducators, counselors, and nurses. Ending the constitutional mandate could potentially affect everything from teacher salaries and school infrastructure to student performance and community well-being. 

Is Amendment A good for kids? These serious and potential impacts lead us to believe that it is not. Voices for Utah Children is opposed to changing Utah’s constitution in a way that puts our state on the path toward defunding public education. We hope that you will oppose it, as well. 

Endnotes 

[1] Utah Legislature. "S.J.R. 10 Proposal to Amend the Utah Constitution - Income Tax." Accessed June 21, 2024. https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/SJR010.html.

[2] Romboy, Dennis. "Utah's Constitutional Amendment to Change How State Funds Education." Deseret News, October 5, 2020. Accessed June 21, 2024. https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/10/5/21502931/amendment-g-constitutional-amendment-education-child-advocates-say-doesnt-add-up/.

[3]  "Utah Priorities Project Report: 2024," Utah Foundation, April 2024, https://www.utahfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/rr819.pdf.

[4]  Utah Legislature. "Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 2023." Accessed June 21, 2024. https://cobi.utah.gov/2024/1/overview.

[5]  Voices for Utah Children. "What Does Eliminating Utah's Income Tax Mean for Kids?" Accessed June 21, 2024. https://utahchildren.org/newsroom/speaking-of-kids-blog/item/1249-income-tax-elimination-kids-impact.

[6] Utah Legislature. "House Bill 215 - Utah Fits All Scholarship Program." Accessed June 21, 2024. https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/HB0215.html

[7] Utah News Dispatch. "Teacher union files lawsuit against Utah FITS All School Choice Voucher Program." Accessed July 3, 2024. https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2024/05/29/teacher-union-files-lawsuit-against-utah-fits-all-school-choice-voucher-program/.

The well-deserved negative attention to Amendment D–ruled void by a Utah judge for being “false and misleading”–has more people asking, “What exactly is in Amendment A?”

To start, there are several similarities between Amendments A and D:

• Voices for Utah Children is opposed to the legislative proposals in each of these amendments to our constitution.
• Both contain language challenged in court for misrepresenting the proposals they outline.
• Both amendments potentially violated the state constitution because legislative leaders did not follow the constitutionally-mandated procedure for making the language available to the general public to review.
• Both represent a dangerous push by Utah’s legislative leadership to dramatically reduce everyday Utahns’ influence over our own laws and tax dollars.
• Both were written by Senate President Stuart Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz–a major departure from previous practices meant to promote fairness and transparency (the legislature changed state law earlier this year so that they could write their own amendment language, instead of relying on professionals, with legal training, working in state government).

Oppose Amendment A? Get Involved Here.

Now that the actual language of Amendment A is public, we have been getting questions about the details of this legislative proposal. It can be difficult to tell by simply reading the description provided by state politicians, what a major decision registered voters are being asked to make.

Part 1: “Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to allow income tax money to be used for all state needs…”  

This is the real reason for Amendment A. Legislative leaders are asking us to give them permission to spend our income tax dollars on any and all government expenses, instead of spending this money on K-12 education (in the Constitution since 1946), higher education (since 1996), and state programs that help children and people with disabilities (since 2020).

It is important to note that this proposal amends Article 13, Section 5, of our state Constitution, which has directed legislators to spend income tax dollars on public education for nearly 80 years. Utah is unique among states for including this direction in our founding document.

Legislative leaders argue that this change is needed to “balance the state’s budget” and give the legislature more “flexibility.” But, legislators have managed to balance the state’s budget every year, giving Utah its image as a “well-managed” state. It is unclear why they require additional power to do so now. It is difficult to assess whether more or less “flexibility” is needed, as the legislative budgeting process is currently very difficult to follow, as it is non-transparent and occurs mostly behind closed doors.

Part 2: “...and prioritize public education funding for changes in enrollment and inflation?” 

This is a “promise” from legislative leaders that if voters allow them to use income tax dollars on whatever they want, instead of on programs and priorities designated by the people of Utah, state politicians promise that they won’t do anything to “harm” public education through their future funding decisions.

As a reminder, here are some recent examples of the legislature spending, or proposing to spend, taxpayer dollars on pet projects of dubious benefit to our state:

• Millions for “experimental tree cutting” on private land owned by a tech billionaire.
• Potentially billions to dredge Utah Lake to build small islands for luxury homes.
• Millions to a private lobbying group for “anti-wolf” work.

No specifics as to just how the legislature promises to fund public education, should Amendment A pass, are mentioned in the language that will appear on the ballot. This language is sort of referring to a bill (“Hold Harmless for Public Education Enrollment Decline”) the legislature passed in 2023 while anticipating that they would put this amendment on the 2024 ballot.

Note that the thing our legislative leaders want to do (spend income tax money on their own priorities), will be enshrined in our Constitution. Changing the Constitution is hard because voters have to approve it. On the other hand, the “promise” to “hold education harmless” will only be in regular state law, which is much easier to change–legislators can change it whenever they want without needing voter approval.

Part 3: "If this amendment is approved, state statute will eliminate the state sales tax on food."

This is another “promise” from the legislature. If voters give lawmakers what they want, they promise to get rid of the state income tax on food. Local food taxes would not be impacted. 

This language also refers to a state law, already passed (HB101 in 2023), which will go into effect if Utahns accept this “spoonful of sugar.” Sales tax, especially on food, is a regressive tax. At Voices, we do support eliminating the food sales tax to help struggling families with children to feed, but it doesn’t need to be tied to this proposal.

This part of the proposal represents a tactic that legislative leaders have used before. Specifically, in 2023, they forced educators, as well as their own legislative colleagues, to support a bill that contained funding for a new school voucher program. They did this by promising teachers a pay raise. This manipulative trade-off made it nearly impossible for education advocates to fight the voucher funding, contained in the same bill as the pay raise for Utah teachers. 

As with the “hold harmless” promise, the food tax elimination promise will be in state law, while the change to Utahns’ educational funding mandate to the legislature will be enshrined in the constitution. 

Do you trust the state legislature? 

This is the real question to answer when you vote on Amendment A. Do you trust state legislators to do the right thing, particularly when it comes to properly funding our K-12 education system? 

There are countless recent examples of the legislature overburdening and short-changing public education, while funneling millions of dollars–with no oversight–into their school voucher pet project. We do not believe the legislature has much evidence to stand on when asking us to trust them on Amendment A. 

Voices for Utah Children opposes Amendment A. It’s not good for Utah kids; it’s only good for Utah politicians. 

Learn More and Get Involved

The care for the children in our state and communities can be measured by our public investment in our smallest humans. From the fiscal year 2008 to 2022, Voices for Utah Children divided all state programs concerning children into seven categories, without regard to their location within the structure of state government to quantify the level of public funding and identify trends. The seven categories are:

1. K-12 Education
2. Health
3. Food & Nutrition
4. Early Childhood Education
5. Child Welfare
6. Juvenile Justice
7. Income Support

An appendix of our tables, sources, methodology and description of programs can be found here. 

How Much We Spend

The interactive circle chart below compares how much we spend by category, program, and source of funding, just use the filter and click the category to zoom in.

• K-12 Education makes up 92% of the state-funded portion of the Children’s Budget, while the federal-funded portion is more diversified across categories.

Spending Trends

We compare the budget to FY2008 because that was a peak year in the economic cycle before The Great Recession and all figures have been adjusted for inflation, so they are comparable across time.

• From FY2008 to FY2022, total public investment in children increased by 43%, growing much faster than Utah’s public-school enrollment (district & charter schools) by 26%, or the child population ages 0-17 by 13% from 2008-2021.

The federal share of the Children's Budget has fluctuated between 18-26% but had its biggest increase at the beginning of the Great Recession and the Covid-19 Pandemic. This is also when state funding for the Children's Budget has declined, for example real state & local K-12 education funding fell by $206 million since FY2020, the largest two-year decline since the Great Recession in 2008-2010. Several years after the Great Recession the federal share of the Children’s Budget decreased and the state share started to increase again, something that will hopefully happen again as pandemic relief funding rolls back. 

Funding Sources: Federal vs. State

When the categories are disaggregated by source of funding, Food & Nutrition, Income Support, Health, and Early Childhood Education programs are mainly funded by federal sources, and Child Welfare, K-12 Education, and Juvenile Justice programs are funded mainly by state sources. And since Amendment G passed and allowed the income tax to be used to fund programs for children (in addition to K-12 and some Early Childhood Education & Nutrition Programs), the Child Welfare, Juvenile Justice, and Health categories are funded primarily by the income tax. In FY2022, 98% of Juvenile Justice, 100% of Child Welfare, and 88% of Health categories of the state funded Children's Budget were funded by the income tax totaling to $475 M.

When examining the state-funded portion of the budget since FY2008 each category has a different story. 

• Juvenile Justice programs declined the most in dollar amount, $32.9 M or 28% mainly due to a reduction in correctional facility and rural programs and it also had an increase in early intervention services which advocates consider to be a goal of juvenile justice reform.
• Child Welfare programs declined by 16% or $21.8 M, mainly from the Service Delivery program which funds caseworkers to deliver child welfare, youth, and domestic violence services. 
• Income Support declined 49% or $2.1 M and appears to be more cyclical, rising and falling with the Great Recession. Interestingly, the TANF grant is a mix of state and federal funds, and only a small amount goes to Income Support or cash assistance.[i]  
• Food & Nutrition increased by 56% or $19.7 M due to an increase in liquor & wine tax revenues which supports the school lunch program.
• Early Childhood Education had the largest percentage increase of 109% or $42.0 M mainly from the Upstart program but increasing in every program except Child Care Assistance.
• Health has increased by 80% or $139.3 M from the Medicaid and CHIP program but also had a 58% or $12.4 M decrease in Maternal & Child Health. 
• The category that has increased the most in dollar amount is K-12 Education.

K-12 Education Funding

State and local sourced funding for K-12 education increased by $1.6 billion in constant 2022 dollars from FY2008 to FY2022, but per-pupil spending only increased from $10,212 to $10,537 per student. This means that even though more is being spent in total dollars, it barely covers the increase in students during the same time.

In 1948, 100% of the income tax was allocated to public education, an increase from 75% when it was originally imposed in 1931. It was expanded in 1996 to include higher education, in 2021 to include non-education services for children and people with a disability, and may be expanded again depending on a 2024 ballot measure placed by the Utah Legislature.  

The income tax rate has been reduced in 1996, 2006, 2008, 2018, 2022, and 2023.  The graphs below illustrate a timeline of these changes and Utah’s total elementary and secondary public schools (district & charter) funding effort (including capital) as a percentage of personal income and rank compared to other states.

Unfortunately, the result is a downward trajectory and likely explains our second to last place in per-pupil funding in the country.[ii]

Utah's Education Funding Effort as a Percent of Personal Income

According to the fiscal notes, the last two bills that reduced the Income Tax rate in 2022 and 2023 estimated a loss of $1.3 billion in the Income Tax Fund from FY2022-2025 with more ongoing.[iii]

State & Local Funded Portion of K-12 Education

Another result of these changes has been shifts in the funding source for K-12 education. From the fiscal year 2008 to 2022, the federal-funded portion increased by 74% and the state-funded portion declined by 3%.

Meanwhile, Local sources have increased by 12%, possibly to meet the needs of their communities while state-funded sources decline and putting greater pressure on sources like the property tax which is more regressive than the income tax because it takes a greater toll on low-and middle-income families.

Rank of Utah's Education Funding Effort Compared to Other States

We Need to Prioritize Children in the Budget

While Utah doesn’t have the most kids than any other state, we do have the highest share of kids in our population. And we as a community are entrusted to make sure they are cared for, safe, and have the tools they need to achieve their aspirations. As the Utah Legislature drafts, holds hearings on, debates, and passes the Utah state budget we hope they prioritize our most vulnerable and precious group, Utah’s children.

CLICK TO DOWNLOAD

[i] https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/tanf_spending_ut.pdf 

[ii] https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/school-finances.html 

[iii] https://le.utah.gov/~2022/bills/static/SB0059.html, https://le.utah.gov/~2023/bills/static/HB0054.html These fiscal notes show the loss from the income tax fund but they are not disaggregated by changes from the income tax rate or tax credit portion of the bills.

Utah’s family demographics have changed. 53% of Utah families have all available parents in the workforce, making child care a necessity. These days, most Utah families need two incomes to maintain financial stability. But Utah’s licensed child care system struggles to meet the demand. Licensed child care program capacity is only sufficient to serve about 36% of all children under six whose parents are working.

To provide a comprehensive picture of Utah's current child care crisis, this report produced by Voices for Utah Children examines the availability of licensed child care across the state, and in each individual county. By conducting a detailed analysis of both the demand and supply of child care services, the report aims to provide policymakers and the public with a clear understanding of the urgent need for child care reform.

Download a copy of the report here.

County-Level Data

Statewide Data

Takeaways

There is insufficient licensed child care in Utah to meet the needs of working families.

There are more than 154,000 children under the age of six living in Utah with all available parents in the workforce. But, there are only 54,804 licensed child care spots in 1,367 programs statewide. Licensed child care program capacity is only sufficient to serve about 36% of all children under six whose parents are working. That means the working families of nearly two-thirds of Utah’s youngest children must rely on alternate arrangements (such as utilizing family members, hiring or sharing a nanny, alternating parent work schedules, using unlicensed child care providers, or some combination of these).

The high cost of child care makes it even less accessible to low- and middle-income families, and rural families struggle most.

Affordability remains a significant hurdle with child care costs often consuming a substantial portion of a family’s income. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services defines affordable child care as care that costs no more than 7% of a family's income. In Utah, the average annual cost of care for two children under the age of six (one infant, one preschool-aged child is $16,890, taking up about 17% of family’s income. For a family in rural Grand County, the cost of that care is actually higher at $17,339, consuming 41% of their income. The lack of dramatic differences in child care prices from county to county is an illustration of how little flexibility providers have to reduce tuition costs for parents, even in areas of the state where family incomes clearly can’t keep up.

Licensed child care is insufficient in every county in Utah, though the level of unmet need varies from place to place.

Summit County emerges as the county with the highest percentage of child care need met (54%), followed by Carbon, (48%) Sevier (45%), Grand (45%), Salt Lake (45%), and Iron Counties (41%). All other counties have less than 40% of child care need met with licensed program capacity, and multiple rural counties (Daggett, Piute, Rich, and Wayne) have no licensed child care available at all.

With substantial public investment, Utah’s child care system has grown 31% since the start of the COVID pandemic.

Through various federal funding streams, nearly $600 million has worked to grow Utah’s child care capacity from approximately 42,000 licensed slots in March 2020 to over 54,000 in August 2023. In contrast to many other states, Utah has managed to increase its licensed child care capacity - despite substantial pandemic disruptions - through stabilization grants paid directly to existing providers for wage supplementation, startup support for new programs, and a one-time worker bonus of $2,000 per child care professional. These financial investments both expanded the enrollment capacities of existing programs as well as recruited new providers into the sector. However, with the ending of this funding in October 2023, Utah risks jeopardizing this incredible progress.

Recommendations

1. Commit to Public Investment in Child Care

Utah’s child care crisis requires public investment. Funding is needed to bridge the gap between what families can afford and the true cost of care. While businesses can contribute, their capacity to address this crisis is limited. There is no sufficient source of investment to address child care’s market failure aside from public funding. Child care should be valued in the same ways as the public education system, ensuring equal access and opportunities for all children. Currently, the burden of expensive early education falls largely on Utah families, with minimal public support, even though most brain development occurs before age six.

2. Help Parents Afford the Care They Want

Utah’s current child care system doesn’t promote parent choice. Child care affordability and accessibility severely limit family choice when it comes to child care, forcing decisions based on cost or access, rather than preference. This also impacts family planning and career choices. Parents are forced to make difficult choices, such as changing jobs, adjusting school and work schedules, or choosing suboptimal child care situations. To address these issues, policymakers should consider improving the child care subsidy program, expanding the child tax credit, and finding ways to help alleviate the financial burden on Utah families.

3. Support the Critical Work of Child Care Professionals

Child care professionals face significant financial challenges. Low wages and a lack of benefits, including healthcare and retirement, have made the profession unsustainable, leading to high rates of turnover each year. Since Utah’s current child care system only meets 36% of the state's need, Utah must invest in the early child care profession to attract and retain a robust workforce. To support child care providers, policymakers should consider measures including state funding of Child Care Stabilization Grants, wage supplement programs, eliminating barriers to licensure, and increasing access to employment benefits.

For questions or inquiries regarding this report, please contact Voices staff members: 

• Anna Thomas,
• Jenna Williams,  

We know that Utah’s child care crisis is bad, and is going to get worse. New data helps illustrate exactly how bad the situation is, in each county across the state. 

Next week Voices for Utah Children will release a report titled, “Mapping Care for Kids: A County-Level Look at Utah’s Crisis in Licensed Child Care.” The report includes more detailed county-level analysis and data highlighting the inaccessibility of care and financial challenges faced by families and child care professionals. In addition, the report includes policy recommendations for Utah leaders to help resolve this crisis. 

The full report will be available the week of October 23rd, but as a teaser, this blog highlights some key findings from the report.

There is insufficient licensed child care in Utah to meet the needs of working families.

Licensed child care program capacity is only sufficient to serve about 36% of all children under six whose parents are working. Parents face shortages in every county statewide, with rural families struggling most.

The high cost of child care makes it even less accessible to low- and middle-income families, and rural families struggle most.

The average annual cost of care for two children under the age of six (one infant/toddler, one preschool-aged child) for a Utah family costs about 17% of a 4-person family’s income. Cost varies little between rural and urban counties, but on average household median incomes are lower in rural areas. In Grand County, with the state’s lowest median annual income at $42,654, the cost of care for a family of four would comprise about 41% of a family’s income.

Child care providers receive insufficient compensation, and have few incentives to stay in the field.

Child care providers typically earn low wages and very limited benefits. The median hourly wage for child care professionals in Utah is just $12.87 per hour ($26,770/year), less than they could make as professional dog walkers. The poverty rate among child care providers in Utah is 23.1%, more than 8 times higher than that of K-8 teachers. 

With substantial public investment, Utah’s licensed child care capacity has grown significantly since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Thanks to federal funding streams totaling nearly $600 million, licensed child care capacity in Utah has grown by approximately 31% since March 2020. This growth is due primarily to child care stabilization grants made directly to licensed child care providers; those grants recently were reduced by 75%. Utah has been identified as one of six states that could see half or more of all licensed child care programs statewide close with the end of the stabilization grants.

Licensed child care is insufficient in every county in Utah, though the level of unmet need varies from place to place.

How does child care access and affordability compare in each county?

Our full report, “Mapping Care for Kids: A County-Level Look at Utah’s Crisis in Licensed Child Care” will be released the week of October 23rd. For questions about the report, this blog, or sources and methodology, please contact Jenna Williams at . For more information on efforts to improve Utah’s child care system or learn about the child care advocacy network, visit utahchildren.org/issues/early-childhood-education and utahcareforkids.org.