SECTION IV DISPARITIES IN OPPORTUNITY Introduction The objective of this section of the FHEA is best expressed in the following quote from HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan. Sustainability also means creating “geographies of opportunity,” places that effectively connect people to jobs, quality public schools and other amenities. Today too many HUD-assisted families are stuck in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty and segregation, where one’s zip code predicts poor education, employment and even health outcomes. These neighborhoods are not sustainable in their present state. The data, tables and figures in this section provide current and historical context for evaluating equity and opportunity in the cities and neighborhoods of Salt Lake County. Ultimately the information developed in the FHEA regarding neighborhood disparities in opportunity will be integrated into the community development strategy to enhance equity and opportunity. Opportunity Index HUD provided an opportunity index to quantify the number of important liabilities and assets that influence the ability of an individual, or family, to access and capitalize on opportunity. HUD created five indices; school proficiency, poverty, labor market, housing stability and job access. With these five measures, a single index score or composite score for opportunity was calculated for each census tract by HUD. Using the census tract data BEBR created an average opportunity score and scores for all opportunity dimensions for the county and each city. These scores were calculated at the city level by weighting of census tract population. Table 1 Weighted, Standardized Opportunity Index Labor School Job Housing Market Poverty Opportunity Proficiency Access Stability Engagement Salt Lake County 4.3 5.4 5.0 4.9 5.3 4.9 Salt Lake City 4.5 6.5 5.4 3.7 4.7 4.9 East Side 5.8 6.5 6.7 4.2 6.2 6.3 West Side 2.3 6.5 3.0 2.9 2.3 2.5 Bluffdale 4.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 3.0 3.0 Cottonwood Heights 7.7 5.5 6.6 5.9 6.6 7.5 Draper 8.2 5.2 7.3 6.1 6.5 7.7 Herriman 5.0 1.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 6.0 Holladay 9.0 5.4 5.9 5.4 6.6 7.3 Midvale 1.6 8.3 3.2 3.1 4.5 3.1 Murray 5.2 8.3 4.8 4.6 5.8 5.9 Riverton 5.5 3.0 5.3 6.1 7.9 5.7 Sandy 6.2 4.9 6.3 6.3 7.4 7.0 South Jordan 7.8 4.1 6.0 8.5 7.6 8.0 South Salt Lake 1.5 8.5 2.5 1.6 2.5 1.5 Taylorsville 2.4 5.4 3.6 4.3 4.9 3.3 West Jordan 2.7 4.4 5.4 6.0 5.8 4.5 West Valley City 1.6 5.4 3.1 3.8 2.5 2.0 Unincorporated Salt Lake County 3.6 4.9 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.0 Source: HUD Spreadsheet for Sustainable Communities grantees. S A L T L A K E C OUNTY : F A I R H O U S I N G E Q U I T Y A SSESSMENT P A G E 65 The overall average opportunity score in Salt Lake County was 4.9, on a scale from 1 to 10. Although the county average was near the middle of the opportunity index scale, the cities in the county varied greatly. As shown in Table 1, the city-level opportunity scores ranged from as low as 1.5 in South Salt Lake to as high as 8.0 in South Jordan. Based on HUD’s opportunity index there are five low opportunity, four moderate opportunity and six high opportunity cities in the county, Table 2. Table 2 Low, Moderate and High Opportunity Cities Low Opportunity Moderate Opportunity High Opportunity Opportunity Index Opportunity Index Opportunity Index South Salt Lake 1.5 West Jordan 4.5 Herriman 6.0 West Valley 2.0 Salt Lake City 4.9 Sandy 7.0 Bluffdale 3.0 Riverton 5.7 Holladay 7.3 Midvale 3.1 Murray 5.9 Cottonwood Heights 7.5 Taylorsville 3.3 Draper 7.7 South Jordan 8.0 Source: HUD Spreadsheet for Sustainable Communities grantees. The HUD opportunity scores are mapped in Figures 1and 2. Figure 1 maps the HUD Opportunity Index score for each census tract in Salt Lake County, whereas Figure 2 maps the aggregate score for each city in the county. The census tract map tells a more detailed story of opportunity and shows the areas within a city that lack access to opportunity. This neighborhood detail is not captured in the city map. The two maps highlight clear differences in opportunities for residents on the east-side versus west- side. Overall, the west-side cities and tracts tend to offer much lower access to opportunity than the east-side cities. In fact, the only city to score above a 6.0 on the west-side is the city of South Jordan. Using only the tract data the tracts on the west-side of the county that scored a 9.0 or above were South Jordan and a sliver of West Jordan and Bluffdale. The largest disparity is between the mid-valley west region and the southeastern region, with opportunity scores ranging from 2.0 in West Valley City to 7.7 in Draper. Not surprisingly, the lowest opportunity tracts and cities are those with high rates of poverty and high concentrations of minority renters; the cities of West Valley City, Taylorsville, South Salt Lake and the west-side of Salt Lake City. These tracts and cities also have high Hispanic and minority concentrations. On the other hand, the east-side cities, especially in the south are relatively more affluent and dominated demographically by non-Hispanic whites. S A L T L A K E C OUNTY : F A I R H O U S I N G E Q U I T Y A SSESSMENT P A G E 66 Figure 1 Opportunity Index by Census Tract in Salt Lake County (1-2 opportunity poor to 9-10 opportunity rich) S A L T L A K E C OUNTY : F A I R H O U S I N G E Q U I T Y A SSESSMENT P A G E 67 Figure 2 Opportunity Index by City and Unincorporated Tract in Salt Lake County S A L T L A K E C OUNTY : F A I R H O U S I N G E Q U I T Y A SSESSMENT P A G E 68 Cities have been ranked by each opportunity dimensions in Tables 3 and 4. Those cities ranking in the bottom quartile are shaded. These cities have the lowest scores in the particular dimension. Salt Lake City west-side, South Salt Lake and West Valley City all rank in the bottom quartile in five of the six dimensions. Midvale ranks in the bottom quartile in four dimensions. Table 3 Ranking of Cities by Opportunity Composite, Job Access and Labor Market Attachment Composite Labor Market Opportunity Index Job Access Index Attachment South Jordan 8.0 South Salt Lake 8.5 Herriman 8.0 Draper 7.7 Midvale 8.3 Draper 7.3 Cottonwood Hts. 7.5 Murray 8.3 SLC East Side 6.7 Holladay 7.3 Salt Lake City 6.5 Cottonwood Heights 6.6 Sandy 7.0 SLC East Side 6.5 Sandy 6.3 SLC East Side 6.3 SLC West Side 6.5 South Jordan 6.0 Herriman 6.0 Cottonwood Hts 5.5 Holladay 5.9 Murray 5.9 Salt Lake County 5.4 Salt Lake City 5.4 Riverton 5.7 Holladay 5.4 West Jordan 5.4 Salt Lake County 4.9 Taylorsville 5.4 Riverton 5.3 Salt Lake City 4.9 West Valley City 5.4 Salt Lake County 5.0 West Jordan 4.5 Draper 5.2 Murray 4.8 Uninc. SL County 4.0 Sandy 4.9 Uninc. SL County 4.4 Taylorsville 3.3 Uninc. SL County 4.9 Bluffdale 4.0 Midvale 3.1 West Jordan 4.4 Taylorsville 3.6 Bluffdale 3.0 South Jordan 4.1 Midvale 3.2 SLC West Side 2.5 Riverton 3.0 West Valley City 3.1 West Valley City 2.0 Bluffdale 2.0 SLC West Side 3.0 South Salt Lake 1.5 Herriman 1.0 South Salt Lake 2.5 Source: Derived from HUD Spreadsheet for Sustainable Communities Grantees. Table 4 Ranking of Cities by School Proficiency, Poverty and Housing Stability School Proficiency Poverty Housing Stability Holladay 9.0 South Jordan 8.5 Herriman 8 .0 Draper 8.2 Herriman 7.0 Riverton 7.9 South Jordan 7.8 Sandy 6.3 South Jordan 7.6 Cottonwood Heights 7.7 Draper 6.1 Sandy 7.4 Sandy 6.2 Riverton 6.1 Cottonwood Heights 6.6 SLC East Side 5.8 Bluffdale 6.0 Holladay 6.6 Riverton 5.5 West Jordan 6.0 Draper 6.5 Murray 5.2 Cottonwood Hts. 5.9 SLC East Side 6.2 Herriman 5.0 Holladay 5.4 Murray 5.8 Salt Lake City 4.5 Salt Lake County 4.9 West Jordan 5.8 Salt Lake County 4.3 Murray 4.6 Salt Lake County 5.3 Bluffdale 4.0 Uninc. SL Co. 4.5 Taylorsville 4.9 Uninc. SL County 3.6 Taylorsville 4.3 Salt Lake City 4.7 West Jordan 2.7 SLC East Side 4.2 Midvale 4.5 Taylorsville 2.4 West Valley City 3.8 Uninc.