Moving Past Net Migration: Demographic Characteristics of Utah's Recent Migrants - Kem C ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Emily Harris
Demographer, Kem C. Gardner
Policy Institute
Moving Past Net Migration:
Demographic Characteristics
of Utah’s Recent Migrants
Migration is becoming a more reliable component of
Utah’s population growth. Migrants are demographically
different from the rest of Utah, contributing to the
changing demographics of the state.
June 2021
411 East South Temple Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
I
801-585-5618 gardner.utah.edu1950-1960 1960-1970 1970-1980
1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010
30,000
25,000
20,000
Net Migration
15,000
Moving Past Net Migration: Demographic 10,000
5,000
Characteristics of Utah’s Recent Migrants 0
-5,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Analysis in Brief
Migration is becoming a more consistent component of Utah Resident Population by Migration Status and Domestic
Utah’s population growth as births decline. Most standard Out-Migrants, 2014–2018
population estimation work focuses on net migration, the
difference between in and out migration. However, net Moved within UT Did not Move
migration estimates cannot provide detail about gross in and 393,874 2,633,517
out migration flows, or identify demographic characteristics of
these migrants. Analysis of American Community Survey Public In-Migration Out-Migration
Use Microdata highlights key characteristics of recent movers Out of State Domestic
to and from Utah, providing insights into their contributions to
18,000 18,000
108,110 94,674
the changing demographics of the state. Out of Country
16,000 International
16,000
25,289 ?
Utah’s in and out-migrants differ demographically from non-
14,000 14,000
movers, who are the majority of the resident population. Utah’s 12,000
Note: International out-migrants are not included in the data or analysis
12,000
migrants are younger, more racially/ethnically diverse, and Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year American Community Survey, Integrated Public
10,000 10,000
Use Microdata Series
more likely to have an undergraduate degree than non-moving
8,000 8,000
Utah residents. The age discrepancy between migrants and the
6,000 Utah population drives much of the differences we see
general Key
6,000Findings:
in4,000
these demographic characteristics. Migration became a • 4,000
In-migrants make up 4% of Utah’s population, or 133,000
steadier
2,000 contributor to Utah’s population growth in the 1990’s people, and 25,000 of those in-migrants moved from abroad.
2,000
and the current patterns are consistent with, and a continuation There
0
are almost 95,000 domestic out-migrants.
0
of, what was seen then. Utah’s demographics will undoubtedly • A quarter of in-migrants were originally born in Utah, and
0-4
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
continue to change and evolve as migrants from all over the 35% of domestic out-migrants where born in Utah.
country and world leave their imprint Male
Female on the state. • At least half of Utah’s in and domesticMale
Female out-migrants originated
from or departed to other Western states or Texas.
Age Distribution by Mobility Status, 2014–2018 • Utah is not even in the top 10 recipient states of California’s
out-migrants.
100%
0.25
90%
• In-migrants are 71% White alone, 19%non-Hispanic or24% Latino,
27%
0.2 80%
while non-moving Utah residents are 78% White alone,
70%
non-Hispanic or Latino.
Sahre of Total
28%
Share of Total
0.15 60% 23% 26%
- Additionally, both in-migrants and domestic out-migrants
50%
0.1 not born in Utah are much more racially and ethnically
40%
30%diverse than their Utah-born counterparts.
0.05
• In-migrants
20% have a median age 49%
49% of 25 years and domestic
44%
0 out-migrants
10% have a median age of 27, compared to the
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
non-moving
0% Utah resident median age of 31.
Non-Moving In-Migrants Domestic
Non-Moving Domestic In-Migrants
• Utah in-migrants and domestic out-migrants are
Utah Residents more likely
Out-Migrants
Utah Residents Out-Migrants toEmployed
have a Bachelor’s degree Unemployed
Armed Forces or higher compared
Not in LFto Under 16
Note: International out-migrants are not included in the data or analysis non-moving Utah residents.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year American Community Survey, Integrated Public
Use Microdata
0.8 Series
0.7
I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM
0.6
1 gardner.utah.edu I June 2021
f Total
0.5Table of Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Figure 8. Utah Domestic Out-Migrant Destinations,
Moving past net migration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2014–2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
How do we measure in and out-migration?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Figure 9. Utah In-Migrant Place of Birth, 2014–2018. . . . . . . . 7
The Magnitude of Utah’s Migrants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 10. Utah In-Migrant Citizenship Status,
Migrant Geographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2014–2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Where are Utah’s migrants coming from? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 11. Race and Ethnicity by Mobility Status,
Where are Utah’s migrants going? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2014–2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Where were in-migrants born? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 12. Age and Sex of Utah’s Migrants, 2014–2018. . . . . . 8
A small share of in-migrants are not U.S. citizens. . . . . . . . . . . 6 Figure 13. Mobility Status Population Pyramid,
Migrant Demographic Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2014–2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Utah’s in-migrants are more racially/ethnically diverse Figure 14. Age Distribution by Mobility Status,
than domestic out-migrants and non-movers. . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2014–2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Utah’s migrants are younger than the rest of Utah. . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 15. School Grade Attending by Mobility Status,
Migrants are highly educated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 2014–2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Labor force participation is similar across all groups. . . . . . 11 Figure 16. Educational Attainment (Ages 25+) by
Migrants are less likely to be married. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Mobility Status, 2014-2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Utah Born In-Migrants are Less Racially Diverse and Figure 17. Employment Status by Mobility Status,
Have More Children than Remaining In-Migrants . . . . . 12 2014–2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Migrant Household Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Figure 18. Marital Status (Ages 15+) by Mobility
Migrants need housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Status, 2014–2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Migrants have more non-family households than Figure 19. Age Distributions, In-Migrant Subsets,
the rest of Utah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2014-2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Discussion and Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Figure 20. Race and Ethnicity, In-Migrant Subsets,
Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2014-2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 21. Employment Status, In-Migrant Subsets,
Figures 2014–2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 1. Utah Net Migration and Annual Average Figure 22. School Attending, In-Migrant Subsets,
Unemployment Rates, 1980-2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2014–2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 2. Utah Age-Specific Net Migration Rates, Figure 23. Educational Attainment (Ages 25+),
1950-2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 In-Migrant Subsets, 2014-–2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 3. Utah Net Migration, 2010–2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Figure 24. Housing Tenure by Mobility Status,
Figure 4. Utah Resident Population by Migration 2014–2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Status and Domestic Out-Migrants, 2014–2018. . . . . . . . . . 5 Figure 25. Household Type by Mobility Status,
Figure 5. Utah In-Migrant, Domestic Out-Migrant, and 2014–2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Non-Moving Resident Place of Birth, 2014–2018. . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 6. Utah In-Migrant Domestic Origins, 2014-2018 . . . . 6 Table
Figure 7. Domestic In-Migration Rates to Utah Table 1. Median Age by Mobility Status, 2014–2018. . . . . . . . 9
(per 1,000), 2014–2018. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
June 2021 I gardner.utah.edu 2 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TMIntroduction
Utah’s modern migration patterns and migrant characteristics Moving past net migration
are dynamically evolving. Net in-migration is becoming a more Utah’s net migration varies over time and is heavily influenced
prominent component of population growth in Utah. Gaining a by economic conditions. Net migration in Utah generally
better understanding of who is coming and going provides increases with economic prosperity, and slows or reverses with
essential insights to Utah’s changing population. economic slowdowns or recessions. People move for other
Nationally, Utah is recognized for its young population, rapid reasons, such as for educational or recreational opportunities,
population growth, and high fertility rate. While these signature family reunification, or retirement. These migration motives
demographics have remained, the last decade has ushered in a tend to be more likely during specific life periods.4, 5
marked demographic change for the state. Utah was the fastest- Economic conditions tend to be the dominant driver of
growing state in the nation from 2010-2020, but saw a sharp migration in Utah, attracting job seekers during expansions. In
drop in its fertility rate and a steady decline in natural increase.1, 2 contrast, recessions and loss of economic opportunity add a
Robust in-migration to Utah has become a much more significant layer of uncertainty, and domestic migration may stall
driver of its growth. completely until conditions become stable or improve. As
There is no comprehensive migration tracking system as exists shown in Figure 1, when unemployment rates are low in Utah,
for births and deaths. Instead, researchers piece together an net in-migration tends to be high. Inversely, when state
understanding of migration flows by interrelating multiple, unemployment rates are high, net migration to Utah is low or
partial data sources. These data limitations make measuring negative.
gross migration flows notoriously difficult. As a result, the most Between 2000 and 2010, Utah attracted two main age groups:
common metric is net migration, the difference between in- young adults between the ages of 15-24 and retirement age
migration and out-migration. Direct observation of net migration adults over the age of 60.6 Generally, young adults are a highly
is impossible because it is an analytical concept, and a “net mobile age group. Utah attracts young adults seeking
migrant” is the result of a computation. Most estimates focus on educational, economic, and recreational opportunities, along
the number of people Utah nets every year from migration, with steady flows of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
meaning the difference between gross in and out flows.3 missionaries.7 Figure 2 shows age specific net migration rates
As migration becomes a more consistent contributor to for all decades back to the 1950s. The basic patterns persist over
Utah’s population growth, more questions are surfacing about time, while the steady upward shift in the schedule shows
who these recent migrants are and how their demographics increasing rates at all ages in more recent years.
compare to current Utah residents. Utilizing the 5-year American These age patterns of Utah’s decadal net migration hide the
Community Survey Public Use Microdata, the report identifies variation between in and out-migrants. There are different
migration flows, highlights key characteristics of recent movers migratory patterns and propensities between in-migrants and
to and from Utah, and provides insights into their contributions out-migrants in any given age group. If the age rates of in and
to the changing demographics of the state. out-migrants were identical, Utah’s net migration rates would
Figure 1. Utah Net Migration and Annual Average Unemployment Rates, 1980–2018
50,000 10
9
40,000
8
UT Unemployment Rate
30,000 7
Net Migration
20,000 6
5
10,000
4
0 3
2
-10,000
1
-20,000 0
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Net Migration Recession Average Unemployment Rate
Source: Utah Population Estimates Committee, Utah Population Committee, Federal Reserve of St. Louis, Bureau of Labor Statistics
30
62% 35% 26%
25
INFORMED DECISIONS
20
TM
3 gardner.utah.edu I June 2021
er 100)
Non-Moving Domestic
15 In-Migrants
Utah Residents Out-Migrants-20,000 0
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Age
2010Group
2012 2014 2016 2018
Net Migration Recession Average Unemployment Rate
1950-1960 1960-1970 1970-1980
1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010
Figure 2. Utah Age-Specific Net Migration Rates, 1950-–2010 Figure 3. Utah Net Migration, 2010–2018
30 30,00062% 35% 26%
25
25,000
20
Net Migrants (per 100)
Non-Moving
20,000 Domestic
15 In-Migrants
Utah Residents Out-Migrants
Net Migration
10 15,000
5
10,000
0 38% 65% 74%
5,000
-5
Born In Utah Not Born In Utah
-10 0
-15 -5,000
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75+
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Age Group
1950-1960 1960-1970 1970-1980
1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010
Source: Winkler et al., 2013 Source: Utah Population Committee
Moved within UT Did not Move
30,000
393,874 2,633,517
be 25,000
close to zero across all ages, as the magnitudes would cancel
each other out. Both in and out-migrants differ demographically
20,000 In-Migration How do we measureOut-Migration
Net Migration
from non-moving Utah residents, who are the majority of the
15,000
resident population. Otherwise, Utah’s age and racial/ethnic
10,000
Out of State
108,110 in and out-migration? Domestic
94,674
characteristics would continue to remain similar.8 Out of Country International
5,000 25,289 ?
This research utilizes the 5-year ACS Public Use Microdata This report utilizes American Community Survey (ACS)
Sample0 (PUMS) for the 2014-2018 period. Understanding the microdata, known as the Public-Use Micro-Data Sample
overall
-5,000Utah context during this period is essential to an (PUMS).11 The PUMS data allows researchers to create
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
accurate interpretation of the migration patterns and customized tabulations from ACS responses.
characteristics shown in this report. Throughout the five-year The PUMS is available for both the 1-year or 5-year ACS.
period of this analysis, Utah maintained high growth with These are considered period estimates rather than point
sustained net in-migration.9 From 2014 through 2018, Utah was in time estimates.12 Data is collected almost daily,
in the middle of one of the longest economic expansions in the meaning estimates are interpreted as an average over the
state’swithin
Moved history.
UT
10
In the national context, Utah ranked fastest
Did not Move period rather than an exact estimate of a given day or
393,874
growing in housing units from 2016 through 2019 2,633,517
and fastest year. The benefit of using 5-year data is the ability to
growing population in 2016. Consequently, this data and its utilize more data points, providing a more reliable
trends represent Utah’s migrant characteristics
In-Migration and volume
Out-Migration estimate, especially for small populations. Assuming
during
Out ofaState
period of prosperity and growth (see Figure 3).
Domestic there has not been a significant shift or event in that
108,110 94,674
period, the five-year estimates offer reliable results.
Out of Country International
25,289 ? This report utilizes responses to a question that asks
where the person lived one year ago. If their address last
year was different from their current residence, they are
asked to record their previous address. The resulting data
set reports if the respondent did not move, moved within
the same state, moved from out of state, or moved from
another country. This data allows us to capture both
international and domestic inflows, but only domestic
outflows.
June 2021 I gardner.utah.edu 4 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TMAge Group
1950-1960 1960-1970 1970-1980
1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010
The Magnitude of Utah’s Migrants
30,000
Approximately
50,000 133,000 migrants, 4% of Utah’s population, Out of the 133,000 in-migrants, about 25% or 35,000 10 are
moved
25,000into
40,000 Utah in the previous 12 months during the 2014- returning to their birth state. These Utah-born in-migrants
9 left
2018 period. Roughly 25,000 of those in-migrants moved from the state at some point (possibly more than once), and8 have
UT Unemployment Rate
20,000
30,000 7
abroad. However, most of Utah’s population did not move; now returned (see Figure 5). About one-third of domestic out-
Migration
NetMigration
15,000 6
20,000
around 83% or 2.6 million people stayed in the same home, and migrants were born in Utah meaning two-thirds of domestic
10,000 5
13%10,000
of residents, roughly 394,000, moved within Utah. out-migrants were born somewhere else, moved to Utah, and
4
Net
Alternatively,
5,000 at least 95,000 people decided to leave Utah over later moved elsewhere. Lastly, a little less than two-thirds
3 of
0
a single 0year for another state. This data does not capture those Utahns who stayed within the state since last year were born
2 in
-10,000
moving
-5,000to international destinations from Utah. Utah, meaning 38% of non-movers were born in a different 1
-20,000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 state or country during this period. 0
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Net Migration Recession Average Unemployment Rate
Figure 4. Utah Resident Population by Migration Status and Figure 5. Utah In-Migrant, Domestic Out-Migrant, and
Domestic Out-Migrants, 2014–2018 Non-Moving Resident Place of Birth, 2014–2018
30
62% 35% 26%
Moved
25 within UT Did not Move
393,874 2,633,517
20
Net Migrants (per 100)
Non-Moving Domestic
15 In-Migrants
Utah Residents Out-Migrants
In-Migration
10 Out-Migration
5 of State
Out Domestic
0108,110 94,674 38% 65% 74%
Out
-5 of Country International
25,289 ? Born In Utah Not Born In Utah
-10
-15
Note: International out-migrants are not included in the data or analysis Note: International out-migrants are not included in the data or analysis
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75+
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year American Community Survey, Integrated Public Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year American Community Survey, Integrated Public
Use Microdata Series Use Microdata Series
Age Group
1950-1960 1960-1970 1970-1980
1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010
Migrant
30,000
Geographic Characteristics
Where
25,000are Utah’s migrants coming from? propensity of each state to supply migrants to Utah.17 Exploring
Consistent with historic migration patterns, the western the migration rates reveals Idaho sent the most population-
20,000
region provides almost 50% of Utah’s in-migrants: California, adjusted in-migrants to Utah, 5.3 migrants per 1,000 residents,
Net Migration
15,000
Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and Arizona are key source states. followed by Wyoming, Hawaii, Nevada, Montana, and
The10,000
Southern region accounts for nearly a third of Utah’s in- Washington.
migrants,
5,000 with Texas and Florida supplying the most in-
migrants. 0 Of those that moved from abroad, the largest shares Where are Utah’s migrants going?
come from South and Central America.13 Figure 6 displays the Utah exports about half of its domestic out-migrants either to
-5,000
origin states
2010for 2011
Utah’s2012
domestic
2013 in-migrants
2014 2015 from
20162014-2018.
2017 2018 other states in the western region or to Texas, which also
California is the largest single source of domestic in-migrants experienced the largest absolute population growth from
for Utah. This is not surprising since it is the most populated state 2010-2020.18 Utah’s largest share of out-migrants went to
in the nation and has had significant domestic net out-migration California, followed by Texas, Washington, and Idaho (see Figure
since 1990.14, 15 However, Utah is not even in the top 10 recipient 8). It is typical for most moves to happen between neighboring
states of California’s out-migrants. In 2018, Utah received states, with less frequent moves to more distant destinations.19
Moved within UT Did not Move
approximately
393,874 18,000 Californians, while Arizona, Texas, Nevada,
2,633,517 Long distance moves occur more frequently when the
and Washington each received over 50,000 Californians. 16
destination state is larger. As an example, Utah had greater out-
Figure 7 shows the in-migration rates to Utah Out-Migration
from each state. migration to Texas than New Mexico.
In-Migration
This calculation adjusts for population size and provides the
Out of State Domestic
108,110 94,674
Out of Country International
25,289 ?
I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 5 gardner.utah.edu I June 20215.3%
Figure 6. Utah In-Migrant
0.1%
Domestic Origins, 2014–2018 5.3% 1.1% 0.5%
4.1% 0.1% 0.0%
Note: Does not include 1.1% 0.5% 0.1% 0.3%
international in-migration 6.6% 1.2% 2.0%
0.0%
4.1% 0.0% 0.1% 2.4%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year 1.3% 0.5% 0.1%
0.3%
American Community Survey, Integrated 6.6% 1.2% 0.5%
2.0%
0.0% 0.7% 2.4%
0.3%
Public Use Microdata Series 1.3% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%
0.1%
3.3% 1.0%
1.7% 0.2% 0.3% 0.5%
0.5%
0.7%
3.8% 0.5% 0.6%
0.5%
16.6% 3.3% 0.4% 0.5% 1.7% 0.2%
1.0% 0.1%
1.3% 0.1%
0.5%
0.3% 0.6%
3.8% 0.1% 0.5%
16.6% 0.4% 0.5% 0.8% 1.3% 0.1%
0.1% 0.3%
4.6% 0.3%
1.1% 0.3%
0.5%
0.8%
4.6% 0.1% 0.2% 2.0%
1.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%
0.7%
7.2%
2.1% 0.3%0.3% 0.2% 2.0%
0.7%
7.2%
2.1% 0.3%
3.0%
3.0%
Figure 7. Domestic In-Migration
Rates to Utah (per 1,000), 0.98
2014–2018 1.41 0.12
0.98 0.86
0.02 0.00
Note: Does not include 1.37 0.12
1.41 0.86 0.32
international in-migration 5.29 0.00 0.27 0.16 0.38
0.00
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year 1.37 0.02 0.07
3.02 0.08
0.32
American Community Survey, Integrated 0.27 0.19
0.38
5.29 0.00 0.29 0.16
0.04
Public Use Microdata Series 0.33 0.07 0.07
0.08
3.02 0.11
1.52 0.12
0.19
0.29 0.18 0.03 0.04
0.93 0.33 0.06 0.09
0.07
0.571.52 0.18 0.11 0.21
0.11 0.18 0.030.08 0.30
0.12
0.93 0.06 0.09
0.57 0.18 0.11 0.15 0.06
0.21 0.30
0.03 0.08
0.91 0.67 0.15 0.07
0.15 0.06
0.91 0.03 0.26
1.21 0.67 0.15 0.12 0.05 0.07
0.35 0.08 0.12 0.05 0.26
1.21 1.97
0.35 0.08
1.97
0.20
0.20
Where were in-migrants born? A small share of in-migrants are not U.S. citizens
The birthplaces of Utah in-migrants can differ from the origin Utah’s in-migrants are overwhelmingly U.S. born, or born as
state or nation they moved from. We can estimate
7.3% how many of U.S. citizens abroad to U.S. parents. A small share of Utah’s in-
the in-migrants coming from certain states and countries were 1.8% migrants,
0.5% 17%, were born in another country, and of those, 4%
0.1%
7.3%
born in Utah by identifying their birth state.
2.4% are naturalized1.1%citizens while the other 13% are not U.S. 0.2%
citizens
1.8% 0.1% 0.0%
0.5%
The vast majority (82%) of Utah in-migrants were6.7% born in the (see Figure
0.0% 10). This includes
2.0% both documented 0.4%(e.g., refugees,
0.5%
0.2%
2.4% 1.1%
United States. Approximately a quarter of in-migrants, the largest 1.1% 0.9%
those here on work or school visas, and others21),0.3% and
0.0%
6.7% 0.0% 2.0% 0.4% 0.9%
0.5%
share from a single state, were born in Utah and have returned undocumented 0.1%
immigrants. 2.6%
1.1% 0.3% 0.9% 0.0%
0.3%
5.0% 2.0%
(see Figure 9).20 Regionally, the west supplies the most in- 0.1% 2.5% 1.2% 2.6% 1.4%
0.9%
5.3% 0.3% 0.1%
0.0%
migrants, with the largest share (13%) born in5.0%
California. All other 0.4% 2.0% 0.0%3.4% 0.2%
1.4%
10.3% 3.9%2.5% 1.2%
0.9%
states contribute 3% or less of their native-born population.5.3% 0.0% 0.1%
10.3% 0.4% 3.9% 1.3% 1.9%
3.4% 0.2%
Internationally, the most prominent places of birth were5.4% Mexico 4.7% 0.9%
1.7% 0.6% 3.2%
1.9%
and Brazil and other South and Central American countries. 1.3%
5.4% 4.7% 1.1%
0.3% 1.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.1% 3.2%
8.1%
0.2% 0.6% 0.1% 1.1%
June 2021 I 0.3%
gardner.utah.edu 6
8.1%
0.9% I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM
0.2%
0.9%
4.2%Figure 8. Utah Domestic
Out-Migrant Destinations, 7.3%
2014–2018 1.8% 0.5%
0.1%
2.4% 1.1% 0.2%
Note: International out-migrants are not
0.0%
included in the data or analysis 2.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year 6.7% 0.0% 0.4% 0.5%
1.1% 0.9% 0.3%
American Community Survey, Integrated
Public Use Microdata Series 0.1% 2.6% 0.9%
0.3% 0.0%
5.0% 2.0%
2.5% 1.2% 1.4%
5.3% 0.0% 0.1%
10.3% 0.4% 3.9% 3.4% 0.2%
0.9%
1.3% 1.9%
5.4% 4.7%
1.7% 0.6% 3.2%
0.3% 0.6% 0.1% 1.1%
8.1%
0.2%
0.9%
4.2%
Figure 9. Utah In-Migrant
Place of Birth, 2014–2018 2.9%
2.9% 0.9% 0.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year 0.0%
American Community Survey, Integrated 0.9% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0%
2.1% 0.0%
Public Use Microdata Series 0.6% 0.8%
0.2%
0.0%
2.1% 1.4% 0.8%
3.3% 0.0% 0.2%
3.3% 0.3% 0.8% 1.0% 1.4% 0.1%
0.8%
0.0%
0.3% 1.0% 0.5%
0.1%
0.4% 0.6%
0.8% 0.6% 0.5%
0.9%
1.1% 0.8% 0.4% 1.6% 0.9%
1.2%
1.1%26.2% 1.5% 0.7% 1.6%
26.2% 2.0% 1.5% 0.7% 1.2%
0.1%
0.0% 1.5% 0.1%
13.2% 2.0% 0.6% 0.5% 0.0% 1.5% 0.2%
13.2% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.2%
0.6%
0.5% 0.6%
0.5% 0.6%
1.8% 0.5%
1.8% 0.6% 0.5% 0.4% 0.6%
0.6% 0.4% 0.6%
0.1% 0.3% 0.6%
1.3% 0.1% 0.3% 0.6%
1.3%
3.1%
3.1% 0.4%
1.3% 1.3% 0.4%
1.5%
1.5%
Figure 10. Utah In-Migrant Citizenship Status, 2014–2018
82% Born in U.S. 71% White, alone
82% Born in U.S. 71% White, alone
13% Not a U.S. Citizen 17% Hispanic
13% Not a U.S. Citizen 17% Hispanic
4% U.S. citizen by 3% Two + races
4% U.S. citizen by
naturalization 3% Two + races
naturalization
In-Migrants 0% Some other race, alone
1% Born abroad of
In-Migrants 0% Some other race, alone
1% NH or Pac Islander, alone
1% Born abroadParents
American of 1% NH or Pac Islander, alone
American Parents 5% Asian, alone
0.2% Born in PR, Guam, 5%
VirgininIslands, or 1% Asian, alone
American Indian or Alaska
0.2% Born PR, Guam, Native, alone
VirginNorth marianas
Islands, or 1% American Indian or Alaska
North marianas 2%Native, alone
Black, alone
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year American Community Survey, Integrated Public 2% Black, alone
Use Microdata Series 79% White, alone
79% White, alone
I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 7
13% Hispanic
gardner.utah.edu I June 2021
13% Hispanic
3% Two + races
Domestic0.3%
0.9%
Migrant
0.0%
Demographic Characteristics
0.6% 0.0%
0.2%
Utah’s
0.0%in-migrants 0.8%
are more racially/ethnically
1.4% diverse
0.8% one-third of out-migrants were born in Utah. Similar to the Utah-
0.3% 1.0% 0.1%
than domestic out-migrants and non-movers born in-migrant analysis, out-migrants originally born in Utah are
0.6% 0.5%
0.4%
Utah’s
0.8% in-migrant population is younger and more
0.9%racially/ much less diverse than the out-migrants not born in Utah.
1.6% 1.2%
ethnically diverse than 1.5%the
0.7%state as a whole. The total Utah
0.1%
2.0% 0.0% 1.5%
population is 78% White alone,
0.6% 0.5%
0.6%
non-Hispanic, and in-migrants
0.2% Utah’s migrants are younger than the rest of Utah
are 71% White alone, non-Hispanic.220.6% The most significant Utah’s in-migrant age structure peaks in young adulthood,
0.5%
0.5%
difference in the0.4% minority shares is0.6% the Hispanic or Latino with the most significant share clustering between ages 15-29,
0.6%
population, accounting for0.3% 17% 0.6%
of the in-migrant population sharply spiking in the 20-24 age group. These results suggest
0.1%
rather than 14% of non-moving Utah residents.
3.1%
that Utah’s young population is not just a result of sustained
0.4%
The racial makeup of Utah’s out-migrants closely mirrors the and high fertility but also due to its young in-migrant population.
state’s overall racial and ethnic demographics. Whereas in- As noted, young adults have the highest migration rates in
migrants are more racially diverse1.5% than the state, those leaving general. For Utah, migrants are coming for economic opportunity,
Utah mimic the state’s general demographics even though only higher education, and returning missionaries of the Church of
Figure 11. Race and Ethnicity by Mobility Status, 2014–2018 Figure 12. Age and Sex of Utah’s Migrants, 2014–2018
71% White, alone In-Migrants
n 17% Hispanic 18,000 18,00
16,000 16,00
3% Two + races 14,00
14,000
In-Migrants 0% Some other race, alone
12,000 12,00
1% NH or Pac Islander, alone
10,000 10,00
5% Asian, alone
m, 8,000 8,00
1% American Indian or Alaska
Native, alone
6,000 6,00
2% Black, alone
4,000 4,00
79% White, alone 2,000 2,00
0
13% Hispanic
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
0-4
25-29
3% Two + races
Domestic Female Male
Out-Migrants 0% Some other race, alone
0% NH or Pac Islander, alone Domestic Out-Migrants
18,000 3% Asian, alone 18,000 100
0% American Indian or Alaska 0.25
16,000 Native, alone 16,000 90
0.2
14,000 80
14,000 2% Black, alone
70
Sahre of Total
Share of Total
12,000 12,000
0.15 60
78% White, alone
10,000 10,000 50
0.1
8,000 14% Hispanic 8,000 40
0.05 30
6,000 6,000
3% Two + races 20
4,000 Non-Moving 4,0000
10
0% Some other race, alone
Utah Residents
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
2,000 2,000 0
1% NH or Pac Islander, alone
0 2% Asian, alone 0
Non-Moving Domestic In-Migrants
0-4
80-84
85+
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
50-54
55-59
60-64
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
35-39
40-44
45-49
65-69
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
1% American Indian or Alaska Utah Residents Out-Migrants
Em
Native, alone
Female 1% Black, alone
Male Female Male
0.8
Note: International out-migrants are not included in the data or analysis Note: International out-migrants are not included in the data or analysis
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year American Community Survey, Integrated Public Source:
0.7U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year American Community Survey, Integrated Public
Use Microdata Series Use Microdata Series
100%
0.6
0.25
al of Total
June 2021 I gardner.utah.edu 8
90%
0.5
80%
27%
19%
I N F O R M E D D E C24%
I S I O N S TM
0.2
0.4
hare
70%
tal
28%Figure 13. Mobility Status Population Pyramid, 2014–2018
85+
80-84
75-79
18,000 18,000
70-74
65-69 16,000
16,000
60-64
55-59
14,000 14,000
50-54
45-49
12,000 12,000
40-44
35-39
10,000 10,000
30-34
8,000 8,000
25-29
20-24 6,000
6,000
15-19
10-14
4,000 4,000
5-9
0-4
2,000 2,000
25,000 0 25,000 75,000 125,000 175,000 225,000 275,000
0 0
Non-Moving Utah Residents In-Migrants Domestic Out-Migrants
0-4
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
Note: International out-migrants are not included in the data or analysis
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year American Community
Female Male Survey, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series Female Male
Figure 14. Age Distribution by Mobility Status, 2014–2018 Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.23 It is also important to note that
100%
Utah attracts a steady amount of retirement migration in ages 55
0.25
90% 74, though it is dwarfed 19%
through by the surge of education and
27% 24%
80%
0.2 labor-related migration. Figure 12 shows Utah’s migrant
24
70%
population broken down by age and 28% sex.
Sahre of Total
Share of Total
0.15 60% 23% 26%
Utah’s domestic out-migrant age structure is also young, with
50%
0.1 the40%
most significant number clustering around ages 25-29, with
0.05
another
30% uptick in the 0-4 age group. This suggests Utah exports
recent 49% of higher education
20% graduates 49% and those early 44% in their
0 careers
10% but still old enough to have started a family. Female out-
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
migrants
0% tend to leave more evenly spread out across ages 15-29,
Non-Moving In-Migrants Domestic
Non-Moving Domestic In-Migrants whereas males sharply leave around the 25-29 ageOut-Migrants
Utah Residents group.25
Utah Residents Out-Migrants There are dramatic
Employed differences
Armed Forces between the
Unemployed Notage
in LFdistributions
Under 16
Note: International out-migrants are not included in the data or analysis of in-migrants, domestic out-migrants, and everyone else in
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year American Community Survey, Integrated Public Utah (see Figure 14). In-migrants are overwhelmingly young,
Use Microdata
0.8 Series
with a considerable share belonging to the 20-24 age group;
0.7
domestic out-migrants are similar but clustered around the 25-
Table
0.6 1. Median Age by Mobility Status, 2014–2018 29 age group. Additionally, out-migrants have more
Share of Total
0.5 Median Age preschoolers than in-migrants. At the same time, Utah’s non-
State
0.4of Utah 30.7 movers have a more equal distribution across all ages that
Non-Moving
0.3 Utah Residents 31 slowly declines as the population ages.
Domestic
0.2 Out-Migrants 27 Median age identifies the exact center of the population age
In-Migrants
0.1 25 distribution, with half the population older and half the
Note: International out-migrants are not included in the data or analysis population younger. Overall, Utah’s median age in the study
0
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year American Community Survey, Integrated Public
Not Attending Nursery/Prek k-12 College Undergrad
Use Microdata Series period was 30.7 years. In-migrants had aGrad or Professional
median age of 25
Non-Moving Utah Residents In-Migrants Domestic Out-Migrants
years, and domestic out-migrants had a median age of 27 years.
If we removed the in-migrants from the Utah population, the
median age of 30.7 years would increase to 31 years. This
Doctorate
Prof. Degree (beyond Bach)
indicates that in-migrants while still much younger than the
Master Deg. rest of Utah, barely affect the overall median age.
Bach. Degree
Assoc. Degree
Some College, no degree
HS diploma/GED
I N F O R M E Less
D Dthan
E CHS
I S I O N S TM 9 gardner.utah.edu I June 2021
None6,000 6,000
12,000 12,000
4,000 4,000
10,000 10,000
2,000 2,000
Migrants
8,000 are highly educated (BYU)
8,000 reliably attract tens of thousands of individuals from out
A little
0 over 60% of Utah in-migrants are not attending school, 0
of6,000
state, and likely accounts for a good share of those in the
6,000
0-4
60-64
80-84
85+
45-49
50-54
55-59
65-69
70-74
75-79
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
but of the 40% who are, about half of them are attending either “some
4,000 college, but no degree” category.26, 27
4,000
undergraduate programs or graduate/professional programs. In the domestic out-migrant population aged 25 years and
2,000 Female Male 2,000 Female Male
Both non-moving Utah residents and domestic out-migrants over, the most common educational attainment is a Bachelor’s
0
have0 a larger share of those who are not attending school com- degree, and a little less than half of domestic out-migrants have
0-4
85+
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
pared to in-migrants. Alternatively, in-migrants have a significant- a Bachelor’s degree or higher. Another 35% of those domestic
100%
ly higher
0.25 share of undergraduate college attendance compared out-migrants over the ageFemale
of 25 have at least a high school
Female Male 90% 19% Male 24%
to the other two groups. The higher median ages of both degree but 27%
less than an Associate’s degree.
0.2 80%
non-moving Utahns and domestic out-migrants (31 years and 27 The
70% data clearly shows that Utah in-migrants and out-
Sahre of Total Sahre of Total
28%
Share of Total Share of Total
years
0.15respectively) are past the traditional age of higher education migrants
60%
100% have23%higher shares of those with a Bachelor’s 26% degree
0.25
students, helping to explain this difference in school attendance. or 90%
higher than non-movers.19%
50% Non-movers have 24%
higher
0.1 27%
For0.2the in-migrant population aged 25 years and older, the 40%
percentages
80% of those with less than an associate’s degree than
most0.05common educational attainment is a bachelor’s degree, 30%
70%
migrants. In-migrants and out-migrants are generally more
49% 28%
49%
0.15 20%
60% 23%since most people or households who 44%
26%
followed0
by some college but no degree. Most of the individuals highly educated move to
10%
50%
migrating into Utah are highly educated, suggesting a move for another state need enough income or a prospect of good
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
0.1
0%
40%
employment or college attendance. Utah System of Higher income to Non-Moving
make a move. Usually, movements in
In-Migrants the young
Domestic
0.05 30% Utah Residents 28, 29, 30Out-Migrants
Non-Moving
Education (USHE) universities Domestic
and Brigham Young In-Migrants
University adult age group 49%are due to school
20%
or a job.
49% 44%
Utah Residents Out-Migrants
Employed Armed Forces Unemployed Not in LF Under 16
0 10%
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
Figure 15. School Grade Attending by Mobility Status, 2014–2018 0%
Non-Moving In-Migrants Domestic
0.8 Utah Residents Out-Migrants
Non-Moving Domestic In-Migrants
0.7 Utah Residents Out-Migrants
Employed Armed Forces Unemployed Not in LF Under 16
0.6
Share of Total Share of Total
0.5
0.8
0.4
0.7
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.5
0.1
0.4
0
0.3 Not Attending Nursery/Prek k-12 College Undergrad Grad or Professional
0.2 Non-Moving Utah Residents In-Migrants Domestic Out-Migrants
0.1
Note: International out-migrants are not included in the data or analysis. Note: Estimate is shown with its 90% confidence interval. This interval represents a range of population values
that are
0 plausible in light of information in the sample, with a 90% degree of confidence. Reported values for groups with non-overlapping error bars are statistically different to the same
degree of confidence.Doctorate
Not Attending Nursery/Prek k-12 College Undergrad Grad or Professional
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year American Community Survey, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series
Prof. Degree (beyond Bach) Non-Moving Utah Residents In-Migrants Domestic Out-Migrants
Master Deg.
Figure 16. Educational
Bach. Degree
Attainment (Ages 25+) by Mobility Status, 2014–2018
Doctorate
Assoc. Degree
Prof.
SomeDegree (beyond
College, Bach)
no degree
Master Deg.
HS diploma/GED
Bach. Degree
Less than HS
None
Assoc. Degree
Some College, no degree 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
HS diploma/GED Share of Total
Domestic Out-Migrants In-Migrants Non-Moving Utah Residents
Less than HS
None
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35
Share of Total
Domestic Out-Migrants In-Migrants Non-Moving Utah Residents
Note: International out-migrants are not included in the data or analysis. Estimate is shown with its 90% confidence interval. This interval represents a range of population values that are
plausible in light of information in the sample, with a 90% degree of confidence. Reported values for groups with non-overlapping error bars are statistically different to the same degree
of confidence.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year American Community Survey, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series
June 2021 I gardner.utah.edu 10 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TMLabor force participation is similar across all groups Figure 18. Marital Status (Ages 15+) by Mobility Status,
A little more than half of in-migrants are in the labor force 2014–2018
(working or actively seeking work). The majority of those in the
labor force are actively employed, while 4% are unemployed 41% Married
and looking for work. The relatively low unemployment rate is
2% Widdowed
a reflection of the strong economic conditions at the time. The
other half are either not in the labor force (28%) or under age 16 9% Divorced
(19%). These figures match the overall state’s employment In-Migrants
patterns. 2% Separated
Utah’s out-migrants have a different age structure, particularly
more children, which results in slightly different employment 46% Never Married
patterns. Domestic out-migrants have approximately 5% more
individuals under the age of 16 than in-migrants, contributing
to a slightly smaller share of employed out-migrants. The
50% Married
percentage of out-migrants not in the labor force is about the
same as in-migrants. 3% Widdowed
10% Divorced
Migrants are less likely to be married
Domestic
In and out-migrants have a younger age structure than non- Out-Migrants
movers, and this can affect marital status. Consistent with
18,000 3% Separated
research findings, this data shows that those who have never
16,000
been married are more likely to move.31 More than half of non-
34% Never Married
14,000 are married, the largest percentage out of the three
movers
subgroups,
12,000 with only 30% having never been married. A little
less than
10,000 half of in-migrants over the age of 14 have never been
married. Around 40% of in-migrants are currently married, 56% Married
8,000
while
6,000
about 10% are either separated, divorced, or widowed.
4% Widdowed
About half of out-migrants (over the age of 14) are currently
4,000
married, and 15% are either separated, divorced, or widowed. Non-Moving
2,000 Utah Residents 9% Divorced
About one-third of out-migrants have never been married.
0
Compared to in-migrants, out-migrants are more likely to be or
0-4
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
80-84
85+
have been married, while in-migrants are more likely to have 1% Separated
never been married. 30% Never Married
Female Male
Figure 17. Employment Status by Mobility Status, 2014–2018
100% Note: International out-migrants are not included in the data or analysis
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year American Community Survey, Integrated Public
90% 19% Use Microdata Series
27% 24%
80%
70%
28%
Share of Total
60% 23% 26% Comparing these two migrant groups to those who did not
50% move provides a comprehensive view of differences in marital
100% 5.2%
40% status.
90%Non-movers
16.3%are more likely21.1%
to be married or have been
19.6%
30% married
80%before, about 70% of those 15 or older, confirming the
49% 49% 15.1%
20% 44% 70% 14.9%
notion that those who are not married are more likely to move.
13.3%
Share of Total
60% 16.6%
Share of Total
10% 14.5%
The non-mover group has an older population, contributing to
80-84
85+
0% 50%
Non-Moving In-Migrants Domestic a higher
40% likelihood of marriage due to corresponding life course
Utah Residents Out-Migrants 62.0%
nts expectations
30% and motivations.
52.0% 49.5%
Employed Armed Forces Unemployed Not in LF Under 16 20%
10%
Note: International out-migrants are not included in the data or analysis 0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year American Community Survey, Integrated Public In-Migrants Domestic Non-Moving
Use Microdata Series Out-Migrants Utah Residents
Living with Living Single Married
Roommates Alone Parent Couple
INFORMED DECISIONS TM
11 gardner.utah.edu I June 2021Less Than HS
None
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
Utah BornIn-Migrants,
In-Migrants
Born in Utah
are Less Racially Diverse and Have More Children
In-Migrants, Not Born in Utah
Share of Total
ried
than Remaining In-Migrants
Doctorate
In a twelve-month period, there are approximately 35,000 Figure 21. Employment Status, In-Migrant Subsets,
Prof. Degree
in-migrants to the state who were also born in Utah, a quarter of 2014–2018
(beyond Bach)
Master
100% Deg.
all in-migrants. There are a few notable differences between
90%
Bach. Degree 16.3%
these0.7 Utah-born in-migrants and the rest of the in-migrants 80%
26.4%
Assoc. Degree
born0.6elsewhere. While the age distribution, racial and ethnic 70% 29.2%
Share of Total
Some College,
composition,
0.5 and employment status differs between these two 60%
no Degree 26.1%
Share of Total
83% White, alone
0.4 50%
HS/GED
groups, schooling and educational attainment are very similar. 14% Hispanic
40% 2% Two + races
0.3 Less Than HS
Utah-born in-migrants have a younger age distribution 30%
In-Migrants 0% Some other race, alone51.0%
0.2 20% 42.9%
especially in ages 0-14, indicating that these households have BornNone
in Utah 0% NH or Pac Islander, alone
ried 0.1 10% 0% Asian, alone
more0children compared to the rest of in-migrants.35 These age 0% 0 0.05 0.1
1%
0.15
American
0.2 0.25 0.3
Indian or Alaska
0.35
Native,
0.4
alone
Not Nursery/ k-12 College Grad or In-Migrants, Born in Utah ShareIn-Migrants,
of Total Not Born in Utah
differences influencePrek
Attending the employmentUndergrad status differences
Professional Employed 0%Unemployed
Black, alone Armed Forces
In-Migrants, Born in Utah In-Migrants, Not Born in Utah
because children underNot
In-Migrants, the agein of
Born 16 cannot,
Utah by Census
In-Migrants, Born in Bureau
Utah Not in Labor force Under 16
definition, be members of the labor force. They are also much Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year67% White,Community
American alone Survey, Integrated
less racially and ethnically diverse than the other in-migrants. Public Use Microdata Series 18% Hispanic
83% of the Utah born in-migrants are White alone, non-Hispanic, 3% Two + races
FigureIn-Migrants
22. School Attending, In-Migrant Subsets,
while the rest of in-migrants are 67% white, non-Hispanic. Not Born in Utah 0% Some other race, alone
2014–2018 100%
90%
Figure 19. Age Distributions, In-Migrant Subset, 2014-2018 0.7 2% NH or Pac Islander, alone
7% Asian, alone 80%
0.6 0% American Indian or Alaska Native, alone 70%
Share of Total
0.25 2% Black, alone
0.5 60%
Share of Total
0.2 0.4 50%
Share of Total
40%
0.3
0.15 30%
0.2 20%
0.1 0.1 10%
0 0%
0.05 Not Nursery/ k-12 College Grad or
Attending Prek Undergrad Professional
0 In-Migrants, Not Born in Utah In-Migrants, Born in Utah
ing
0-4
5-9
10-14
15-19
20-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65-69
70-74
75-79
80-84
85+
ents Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year American Community Survey, Integrated
ried Public Use Microdata Series
In-Migrants, Born in Utah In-Migrants, Not Born in Utah
ple
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year American Community Survey, Integrated Figure 23. Educational Attainment (Ages 25+),
Public Use Microdata Series Migrant Subsets, 2014–2018
Figure 20. Race and Ethnicity, In-Migrant Subsets, 2014-2018 Doctorate
Prof. Degree
83% White, alone (beyond Bach)
14% Hispanic Master Deg.
2% Two + races
Bach. Degree
In-Migrants 0% Some other race, alone
Born in Utah 0% NH or Pac Islander, alone Assoc. Degree
0% Asian, alone Some College, 79% White, alone
1% American Indian or Alaska Native, alone no Degree
0% Black, alone HS/GED
13% Hispanic
Less Than HS
67% White, alone None Domestic 3% Two + races
18% Hispanic 0% Some other race, alone
Out-Migrants
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
In-Migrants
3% Two + races
Share 0% NH or Pac Islander, alone
of Total
Not Born in Utah 0% Some other race, alone 3% Asian, alone
In-Migrants, Born in Utah In-Migrants, Not Born in Utah
0% American Indian or Alaska
2% NH or Pac Islander, alone Note: Estimate is shown with its 90% confidence interval.Native,
This interval
alone represents a
7% Asian, alone range of population values that are plausible in light of information in the sample, with
0% American Indian or Alaska Native, alone 2% Black, alone
a 90% degree of confidence. Reported values for groups with non-overlapping error
2% Black, alone
bars are statistically different to the same degree of confidence.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year American Community Survey, Integrated
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year American Community Survey, Integrated
Public Use Microdata Series
Public Use Microdata Series 100%
90%
June 2021 I gardner.utah.edu 12
0.7
0.6
I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 80%
70%
f Total
0.5 60%
talMigrant Household Characteristics
Migrants need housing
In-migrants living in housing units make up about 60,000 Figure 25. Household Type by Mobility Status, 2014–2018
households, or 6% of households statewide. More than half of 100% 5.2%
in-migrants rent (56%), with the remaining 44% owning a 90% 16.3% 21.1% 19.6%
home. Domestic out-migrants have an even larger share of 80%
15.1%
70% 14.9% 13.3%
renters, signaling they were probably renters in Utah as well;
Share of Total
60% 16.6%
Share of Total
however, the destination’s housing market and conditions also 14.5%
50%
impact one’s ability to rent or own. This is dramatically different 40%
62.0%
than the 72% of non-mover households who own their home. 30% 52.0% 49.5%
20%
Again, age plays a factor in these numbers. People under the
10%
age of 35 are more likely to rent in Utah (48% of renter-occupied 0%
householders are under 35, and only 16% of owner-occupied In-Migrants Domestic Non-Moving
Out-Migrants Utah Residents
are under 35), and the young age distribution of in-migrants
Living with Living Single Married
means they are more likely to rent than own.32 Roommates Alone Parent Couple
This reality, coupled with the fact that out-migrants only
Note: International out-migrants are not included in the data or analysis
make up 41,000 households, indicates there will be increasing Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year American Community Survey, Integrated Public
housing demand for both renters and owners if these migration Use Microdata Series
patterns persist. If Utah continues to struggle to keep up with
housing demands and housing affordability, that could affect Migrants have more non-family households than the rest
Utah’s ability to attract out-of-state workers in the future.33 of Utah
Within these households, there is a variety of different
Figure 24. Housing Tenure by Mobility Status, 2014–2018 household types, and the distribution of these types are quite
similar between out-migrants and in-migrants. A little over half
56% 64% 28% of in-migrant households are married-couple households, and
a third are non-family households (meaning that they are
Domestic Non-Moving neither married nor with children in their home). About half of
In-Migrants
Out-Migrants Utah
Residents out-migrant households are married couples, with an additional
ed
15% as single parents. The remaining 35% are non-family
44% 36% 72%
households. However, non-moving Utah residents have a much
Renter Owner larger share of married couple households. This pattern closely
mirrors household data and trends for the overall state.34
Note: International out-migrants are not included in the data or analysis
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2018 5-Year American Community Survey, Integrated Public This data set does not include housing unit analysis of those
Use Microdata Series
living in group quarters, such as college dormitories, prisons,
and nursing homes.
ed
ed
I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM 13 gardner.utah.edu I June 2021Discussion and Conclusion Previous research indicates that, since 1950, Utah has Additionally, only one-third of out-migrants were born in consistently had net in-migration of young adults between Utah, meaning two-thirds of the out-migrants were born ages 20 and 29, while net migration in the other age groups is somewhere else, moved to Utah, and then left again. A gap in much lower.36 This research goes a step further by identifying this data is the absence of those moving from Utah to an the basic demographic characteristics of recent in and out- overseas location. Examination of changes in stocks of the migrants. foreign-born population in Utah over time can partially shed Utah’s in-migrants are younger, more racially/ethnically light on these flows. Other methods estimating net migration diverse, and have higher educational attainment than those can potentially address this data gap as well. already living in Utah. Utah’s overall median age is 30.7 years, Recent in-migrants, having moved within the last year and but median age varies by mobility status. Domestic out- measured from 2014 to 2018, make up 60,000 households, with migrants have a median age of 27 years. In-migrants have a more than half renting and 44% owning a home. This does not median age of 25 years, and non-moving Utah residents have a account for group quarters populations. While there is bound median age of 31. The non-moving Utahns’ slightly higher to be an exchange of households from out-migrants leaving, median age indicates that if in-migrants were removed from there are still more in-migrants than out-migrants, which might the Utah population, the median age of 30.7 years would exacerbate Utah’s housing shortage. This issue compounded increase to 31 years. this year as Utah continued to attract in-migrants, yet fewer The age discrepancy between migrants and the general Utah houses were on the market due to COVID-19 induced population drives much of the differences we see in race/ uncertainty.39 ethnicity, marital status, educational attainment, and labor Migration adds an unpredictable and sometimes volatile force participation. Not only is Utah less diverse than other dynamic to Utah’s population and growth and has a lasting states who are sending in-migrants, but recent racial/ethnic impact on the state’s demographics. Utah was the fastest- projections for Utah point out that racial/ethnic minorities growing state in the nation over the last decade. In strict typically have higher fertility rates, contributing to the more accounting terms, between 2010 and 2020, a diverse young population within Utah and across the country.37 third of population growth was due to net in-migration. These recent migration patterns are consistent with and a Because in-migrants tend to be young, in peak childbearing continuation of migration patterns that became well- ages, they also contribute to natural increase as they establish established in Utah in the 1990s.38 Migration propensities, families and have native-born Utah children. motives, and patterns differ over a person’s lifetime and As fertility rates decline in the U.S. and Utah, it is reasonable generation. Younger people, particularly younger than 25, will to assume that if regional and state growth continues at high prioritize different aspects of life than those who are older and levels, growth will become more reliably fueled by the more established. movement of people and less from natural increase. The data indicate that only 4% of Utahns moved from out of Migration will continue to fluctuate based on local and state or country in the last year. That may sound small, but that national conditions, and the demographic characteristics of equals roughly 130,000 people. About a quarter of in-migrants migrants will shift in the future. However, Utah’s demographics were born in Utah and returned after a previous move. However, will undoubtedly continue to change and evolve as migrants if we look at the bigger picture, almost 40% of those currently from all over the country and world leave their imprint on the living in Utah were not born in Utah, indicating a sustained, state. longer term trend of in-migration. June 2021 I gardner.utah.edu 14 I N F O R M E D D E C I S I O N S TM
You can also read
