Clark County

Clark County is a small, rural county in eastern Idaho, situated along the Montana border in the Upper Snake River region. Established in 1919 and named for explorer William Clark of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, it represents one of Idaho’s least populous counties. The county’s landscape is defined by broad valleys, irrigated farmland, and rangeland, with prominent public lands and nearby volcanic features associated with the Yellowstone Plateau and the eastern Snake River Plain. Agriculture and livestock grazing are central to the local economy, supplemented by government and service employment tied to small communities and regional travel corridors. Settlement patterns are dispersed, with limited urban development and a strong emphasis on land-based livelihoods. The county seat is Dubois, a small town that serves as the primary administrative and service center for residents and surrounding agricultural areas.

Clark County is a small, rural county in eastern Idaho along the Montana border, with its county seat in Dubois. For local government information and planning resources, visit the Clark County official website.

Population Size

According to the U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts for Clark County, Idaho, the county’s most recent official population figures are published by the Census Bureau (including decennial census counts and updated estimates where available). QuickFacts is the standard federal source for county-level population totals and related demographic indicators.

Age & Gender

County-level age distribution (including median age and age brackets) and sex composition (male/female shares) are published by the U.S. Census Bureau. The most commonly cited county summaries are available via Census Bureau QuickFacts (Clark County, Idaho), which compiles statistics from Census Bureau programs for an at-a-glance demographic profile.

Racial & Ethnic Composition

Official county-level race and Hispanic/Latino ethnicity statistics are provided by the U.S. Census Bureau. The most accessible county profile tables are compiled on QuickFacts for Clark County, Idaho, which reports race categories and Hispanic/Latino origin consistent with Census Bureau standards.

Household & Housing Data

Household and housing characteristics for Clark County—such as number of households, average household size, owner-occupied vs. renter-occupied housing, and total housing units—are published by the U.S. Census Bureau and summarized in QuickFacts for Clark County. For county administrative context (including elected offices and local services that may use these statistics for planning), refer to the Clark County official website.

Data Availability Note

This profile references U.S. Census Bureau county-level publications as the authoritative source. Exact numeric values vary by release (decennial census vs. annual estimates). The official, current figures for each requested category are published directly by the Census Bureau at the QuickFacts link above.

Clark County, Idaho is a sparsely populated, largely rural county; long distances between homes and service nodes tend to constrain fixed broadband buildout and make digital communication more dependent on mobile or satellite connectivity.

Direct county-level email usage statistics are generally not published, so email access trends are inferred from digital-access proxies such as household broadband subscriptions, computer ownership, and smartphone access reported in federal surveys. The most widely used local proxies come from the U.S. Census Bureau (American Community Survey), which reports county estimates for broadband subscription and device access. Age structure also matters because older populations typically show lower adoption of online account-based services (including email) than prime working-age groups; Clark County’s age distribution can be reviewed via ACS demographic tables on data.census.gov. Gender composition is not a primary driver of email adoption in most U.S. survey research, but county sex-by-age profiles are available from the same source.

Connectivity limitations are commonly associated with rural last-mile economics and terrain; federally mapped availability and provider footprints are summarized in the FCC National Broadband Map.

Clark County, Idaho is a sparsely populated, rural county in east‑central Idaho on the Montana border. The county seat is Dubois, and most settlement is concentrated along the Interstate 15 corridor. Large areas are rangeland and mountainous/high‑elevation terrain (including portions of the Beaverhead Mountains), with extensive public lands. Low population density, long distances between sites, and terrain-driven line‑of‑sight limits are structural factors that commonly constrain cellular coverage footprint and capacity relative to urban Idaho.

Data availability and limitations (county-level vs modeled coverage)

County-level statistics on mobile household adoption (such as “smartphone-only households” or “cellular data subscriptions”) are limited and are often reported at broader geographies or as model-based estimates. In contrast, network availability is frequently published as modeled or provider-reported coverage layers (where service is claimed/engineered), which does not directly measure whether households subscribe or experience consistent performance. This overview distinguishes these two concepts and cites the primary public sources used for each.

Network availability (coverage): 4G/5G and where service is reported

Primary sources for availability mapping

• The Federal Communications Commission publishes provider-submitted mobile broadband coverage in the National Broadband Map and in downloadable datasets. This is the main federal reference for reported 4G LTE and 5G availability by location and provider: FCC National Broadband Map.
• Idaho’s statewide broadband resources often summarize broadband conditions and planning context, including rural coverage challenges and mapping references: Idaho Broadband Office.

4G LTE

• Reported LTE coverage in Clark County is typically strongest near transportation corridors and settled areas (notably along I‑15 near Dubois) and weaker or absent in remote mountainous/public-land areas. This pattern is consistent with how LTE macro sites are placed to serve roadways and population centers in low-density counties.
• Coverage “availability” in FCC mapping indicates providers report LTE service meeting FCC-defined mobile broadband thresholds at specific locations; it does not guarantee reliable indoor coverage, consistent speeds, or continuous service across terrain breaks.

5G

• 5G availability in very rural counties is often limited relative to urban markets and may be concentrated where providers have upgraded existing LTE macro sites. FCC map layers identify where providers report 5G; these claims should be interpreted as availability at a location rather than ubiquitous countywide service.
• In rural terrain, reported 5G is commonly low-band 5G on existing towers, which can extend farther than mid-band but still remains subject to terrain obstruction and backhaul constraints. County-specific engineering details (band, spectrum, tower density) are generally not published in a uniform public dataset.

Key distinction

• Network availability (FCC map): where providers report service is available.
• Adoption: whether residents subscribe to mobile service or rely on mobile as their primary connection; FCC coverage layers do not measure this.

Household adoption and access indicators (what is known publicly)

Broad adoption indicators

• The most consistently accessible public indicators related to device and internet access come from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), which includes measures such as computer type and internet subscription categories. These tables can be explored via data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
• At the county level, ACS estimates for very small populations can have higher margins of error and may be suppressed or unstable for some detailed categories, limiting definitive statements specifically for Clark County.

Mobile-specific adoption measures

• ACS “internet subscription” categories commonly include broadband types such as cable, fiber, DSL, satellite, and cellular data plans. However, county-level reporting for “cellular data plan” adoption can be limited by sample size in very small counties, and published estimates should be treated as approximate where margins of error are large.
• As a result, the most defensible county-specific statement is that publicly available, statistically robust county-level metrics isolating mobile subscription adoption in Clark County are limited, and adoption must often be inferred from broader regional/rural Idaho patterns rather than stated as a precise county percentage.

Practical implication

• In rural counties with limited fixed broadband infrastructure, households may rely more on mobile service for basic connectivity; however, without stable county-level adoption estimates, this cannot be quantified definitively for Clark County from public survey tables alone.

Mobile internet usage patterns (4G vs 5G) and performance considerations

Availability vs experienced performance

• Reported 4G/5G availability does not equate to consistent user experience. In Clark County, performance and usability can vary due to:
  • Topography: mountain ridges and valleys can block or reflect signals, creating coverage gaps even where nearby areas show service.
  • Distance to towers: low site density increases edge-of-cell operation, lowering throughput and reliability.
  • Backhaul constraints: rural towers may rely on limited-capacity backhaul compared with urban fiber-fed sites, affecting peak-hour speeds.
• The FCC map can be used to view reported service by provider at specific locations, which is the most direct public reference for 4G/5G availability patterns at a fine scale: FCC National Broadband Map.

On-the-ground usage patterns (what can be stated without speculation)

• County-level public datasets generally do not publish granular splits of actual usage share between LTE and 5G, nor do they provide representative measurements of mobile data consumption by county.
• The most defensible, source-aligned description is that mobile internet use in Clark County is constrained and shaped by where LTE/5G is reported available and by terrain, with the strongest continuity near populated places and major roads.

Common device types (smartphones vs other devices)

Publicly available device-type indicators

• The ACS includes “computer” device categories (desktop/laptop/tablet) and internet subscription types, but it does not provide a clean, definitive county-level breakdown of smartphone ownership in the same way that many commercial surveys do. County-level smartphone ownership rates are therefore not reliably stated from federal sources alone.
• A practical proxy sometimes used in rural connectivity analysis is the share of households with cellular data plans and/or those with limited fixed options, but for Clark County those figures may be noisy due to sample size.

Definitive statements supported by public data constraints

• Smartphones are the dominant personal mobile device nationally, but a Clark County–specific smartphone share (vs basic phones, hotspots, or connected tablets) is not consistently available in a statistically stable public county dataset.
• Device use for internet access in the county is better described qualitatively through the lens of availability and rural infrastructure constraints rather than precise device share estimates.

Demographic and geographic factors influencing mobile usage and connectivity

Geography and settlement pattern

• Population dispersion and very low density reduce the economic incentive for dense tower grids and small-cell deployments, which are more common in cities.
• Interstate 15 concentrates travel and service demand, often corresponding with stronger reported coverage near the corridor and weaker coverage away from it.
• Public lands and mountainous terrain can complicate permitting, power, and backhaul deployment and can reduce effective radio propagation.

Population characteristics relevant to connectivity measurement

• Small population counts can lead to higher uncertainty in survey-based adoption estimates (ACS), limiting precision for mobile adoption indicators at the county level. County-level demographic context and population figures are available through the Census Bureau’s county profiles and datasets: U.S. Census Bureau and Census data portal.

Summary: what can be concluded with public evidence

• Network availability: The most authoritative public view is provider-reported coverage in the FCC National Broadband Map. In a county with Clark’s terrain and low density, reported LTE/5G is generally more continuous near communities and primary corridors and more limited in remote mountainous/public-land areas.
• Household adoption: Public, county-specific mobile adoption metrics are limited and can be statistically unstable for a very small county. ACS tables on internet subscription types provide the closest public indicator, but they may not support definitive county-level mobile-only or smartphone ownership conclusions without careful margin-of-error review.
• Devices and usage patterns: County-specific splits for smartphone vs other mobile devices and LTE vs 5G usage are not consistently available in public datasets; coverage mapping and general rural constraints provide the most defensible description of mobile connectivity conditions in Clark County.

Clark County is a sparsely populated, rural county in eastern Idaho along the Montana border, with Dubois as the county seat and the community of Spencer as another local hub. The county’s ranching and agriculture base, long travel distances between services, and limited local media infrastructure contribute to heavy reliance on mobile connectivity and broad, state- and nation-level digital behavior patterns rather than county-specific social media ecosystems.

User statistics (penetration / active use)

• County-specific social media penetration: No regularly published, statistically reliable social-media penetration estimates exist at the county level for Clark County due to its very small population and limited survey sampling.
• Best-available benchmark (U.S. adults): About 7 in 10 U.S. adults use at least one social media site (Pew). This national benchmark is the most defensible proxy for understanding likely adult usage levels in very small rural counties when local survey data are unavailable. Source: Pew Research Center social media fact sheet.
• Rural context: Rural adults tend to report lower social media adoption than suburban/urban adults in Pew’s geography splits, which is relevant context for a rural county like Clark. Source: Pew Research Center social media usage by community type.

Age group trends (who uses social media most)

Pew’s age patterns are consistent and are the most credible reference point when county-level age splits are unavailable:

• Highest usage: Ages 18–29 (highest adoption across major platforms).
• Next highest: Ages 30–49, generally high but below 18–29.
• Lower usage: Ages 50–64.
• Lowest usage: Ages 65+, though usage has increased over time. Source: Pew Research Center age breakdowns by platform.

Gender breakdown

• Overall social media use: Pew typically shows relatively small gender gaps for “any social media” use, with differences more pronounced at the platform level rather than in overall adoption.
• Platform-level tendencies (U.S. patterns): Women are more likely than men to use some visually oriented or social-networking platforms (historically including Pinterest and Instagram), while men sometimes index slightly higher on some discussion- or video-centric spaces depending on the platform and year. Source: Pew Research Center gender patterns by platform.

Most-used platforms (percentages from reputable surveys)

County-specific platform shares are not published for Clark County; the most reliable percentages come from national surveys:

• YouTube: 83% of U.S. adults
• Facebook: 68%
• Instagram: 47%
• Pinterest: 35%
• TikTok: 33%
• LinkedIn: 30%
• WhatsApp: 29%
• Snapchat: 27%
• X (formerly Twitter): 22% Source for these platform usage rates: Pew Research Center platform usage estimates.

Behavioral trends (engagement patterns and platform preferences)

• Video as a primary format: With YouTube the most-used platform nationally, video is a dominant engagement mode, including “how-to,” news, and entertainment content consumption. Source: Pew Research Center YouTube usage data.
• Facebook as a community utility: In rural areas, Facebook often functions as a general-purpose channel for community updates, local groups, classifieds, and event coordination, reflecting its broad adoption and group features. Source: Pew Research Center Facebook usage data.
• Age-linked platform concentration: Younger adults concentrate more time and engagement on Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat, while older adults are more concentrated on Facebook and YouTube, shaping what content formats and posting frequency are most common by age cohort. Source: Pew Research Center platform-by-age patterns.
• Messaging and private sharing: Growth in WhatsApp usage nationally reflects a broader shift toward private or small-group sharing for personal communication relative to fully public posting. Source: Pew Research Center WhatsApp usage data.
• Connectivity constraints in rural counties: In sparsely populated areas, engagement patterns often skew toward asynchronous consumption (watching/reading and commenting) rather than high-frequency posting, aligning with variable mobile coverage and fewer locally generated content hubs; this is consistent with documented rural-urban differences in internet and technology environments. Reference context: Pew Research Center Internet & Technology research.

Clark County family-related records are primarily handled under Idaho’s statewide vital records system. Birth and death certificates are registered with the Idaho Bureau of Vital Records and Health Statistics and are not generally public; certified copies are available only to eligible individuals under state rules. Official information and ordering is provided by the Idaho Bureau of Vital Records and Health Statistics (Birth, Marriage, Death Records). Adoption records are generally sealed by law and maintained through the court system rather than open public files.

Marriage records are commonly recorded at the county level. Clark County’s recorder maintains recorded documents and provides local access information through the Clark County, Idaho official website (county offices/contacts). Divorce and other family-court case files are maintained by the court. Public access to Idaho court case registers and e-filing resources is provided through the Idaho iCourt Portal; some details may be restricted or redacted.

Public databases vary by record type: recorded documents and court registers may be searchable online, while vital records are accessed through state ordering processes or in-person government offices. Privacy restrictions commonly apply to vital records, adoption matters, and certain family-court documents (including confidential parties, sealed cases, and protected personal identifiers).

Types of records maintained

• Marriage licenses and marriage certificates (Clark County)

  • Marriage records are created when a couple applies for and receives a marriage license from the county, and the completed license is returned and recorded after the ceremony.
  • The county’s recorded marriage record is commonly treated as the official county-level documentation of the marriage.

• Divorce decrees (Idaho district court)

  • Divorce records are court case records that typically culminate in a final judgment/decree of divorce issued by the court.

• Annulments (Idaho district court)

  • Annulments are also court case records. They generally result in a judgment/decree of annulment declaring the marriage void or voidable under Idaho law.

Where records are filed and how they can be accessed

• Marriage records

  • Filed/recorded by: Clark County Recorder (county recording office).
  • Access: Copies are typically requested through the Clark County Recorder. In addition to county copies, Idaho maintains statewide vital records through Idaho Vital Records (Idaho Department of Health and Welfare) for eligible applicants under state rules.
  • Reference (state program): Idaho Vital Records

• Divorce and annulment records

  • Filed by: The Idaho district court serving Clark County (as part of the Fifth Judicial District). The clerk maintains the official case file, including final decrees and related orders.
  • Access: Court files and copies are requested from the clerk of the district court in the county where the case was filed. Some docket-level or document access may also be available through Idaho’s online court records systems, subject to court rules and redaction policies.
  • Reference (court records): Idaho iCourt/iCourt Portal (Idaho Supreme Court)

Typical information included in these records

• Marriage license/record

  • Full names of the parties (and often prior/maiden names as reported)
  • Date and place of marriage/ceremony
  • Date the license was issued and the officiant’s certification/return
  • Officiant name and authority, and witness information (where recorded)
  • Signatures and recording information (book/page or instrument number)

• Divorce decree

  • Names of the parties and case number
  • Date of filing and date of final judgment/decree
  • Legal findings and orders, which may include:
    • Dissolution of the marriage
    • Child custody, parenting time, and child support terms (when applicable)
    • Division of property and debts
    • Spousal maintenance/alimony (when applicable)
    • Name restoration orders (when granted)

• Annulment decree

  • Names of the parties and case number
  • Date of filing and date of judgment
  • The court’s legal basis for annulment and resulting orders (property, support, custody/parenting issues where applicable)

Privacy and legal restrictions

• Marriage records

  • County-recorded marriage documents are generally treated as public records, though access practices can be affected by state public records law and by protections for specific sensitive data elements (for example, Social Security numbers are not public and are commonly excluded/redacted from certified copies or images).

• Divorce and annulment court records

  • Court records are generally presumed open, but access is governed by Idaho court rules on public access and confidentiality, including:
    • Sealed cases/documents by court order
    • Confidential information (such as Social Security numbers, certain financial account identifiers, and some information involving minors) subject to restriction and/or redaction
    • Limits on dissemination of protected information in publicly accessible copies and online systems
  • Reference (court access framework): Idaho Court Administrative Rules (ICAR)

• State-issued certified vital records

  • Certified copies issued by Idaho Vital Records are subject to eligibility requirements and identity verification under state vital records rules, with access typically limited to the person(s) named on the record and other legally qualified requesters.

Clark County is a sparsely populated, rural county in eastern Idaho along the Montana border, with the county seat at Dubois and extensive public lands (including areas around Yellowstone’s western approaches). The population is small and widely dispersed, which shapes access to schools, jobs, and housing; residents commonly travel to nearby counties for services and employment.

Education Indicators

• Public schools (count and names)

  • Public education is primarily provided through the local district serving the Dubois area. A small rural county structure typically means a limited number of campuses (often an elementary and a combined junior/senior high school) rather than multiple neighborhood schools.
  • School-name listings and district structure are most reliably confirmed through the Idaho State Department of Education “School Directory”: Idaho State Department of Education and the district’s official pages (district and individual school names vary by consolidation and reporting year).
  • Data limitation: A single, authoritative “current list of school names” is not consistently published in one county-level dataset; the state directory is the standard reference.

• Student–teacher ratios and graduation rates

  • County-specific student–teacher ratios and graduation rates are often suppressed or volatile in very small districts due to small cohort sizes; the most consistent source is the state’s accountability/report cards.
  • The most recent graduation-rate reporting for Idaho public schools is available via the Idaho Report Card system: Idaho Report Card.
  • Proxy note: Where school-level suppression occurs, district-level indicators from the Idaho Report Card serve as the closest proxy for Clark County’s outcomes.

• Adult educational attainment

  • Adult education levels are best measured via the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS). For small counties, multi-year ACS estimates are commonly used to reduce sampling error.
  • The most recent standardized county profiles are available through Census “QuickFacts”: U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts (search “Clark County, Idaho” for the latest county values).
  • Data availability note: Exact percentages for high school diploma or higher and bachelor’s degree or higher are published in ACS-derived tables but can carry wide margins of error in low-population counties; QuickFacts provides the most accessible roll-up.

• Notable programs (STEM, CTE/vocational, AP)

  • Idaho districts commonly participate in Career & Technical Education (CTE) pathways through state-supported programs (e.g., agriculture, business, trades), often delivered via shared services and regional collaborations rather than stand-alone local facilities in very small districts.
  • Advanced coursework availability (including Advanced Placement or dual credit) is typically limited by staffing and enrollment, with rural districts often relying on dual credit offerings and distance/online options.
  • Program participation and course offerings are most consistently documented in district communications and state reporting portals, including the Idaho Division of Career Technical Education: Idaho Career & Technical Education.

• School safety measures and counseling resources

  • Idaho public schools generally follow state requirements and local policy for emergency operations planning, visitor controls, and safety drills, and many districts coordinate with county law enforcement for response planning.
  • Counseling and student-support staffing in very small districts is frequently structured as shared roles (e.g., counselor serving multiple grade bands) with referrals to regional providers for specialized services.
  • Policy frameworks and safety guidance are reflected in state resources and district policy manuals; statewide reference: Idaho State Department of Education.
  • Data limitation: Public, county-specific counts of counselors/social workers are not consistently reported in a single county dataset; staffing is typically confirmed via district staff directories or Idaho Report Card staff metrics where available.

Employment and Economic Conditions

• Unemployment rate (most recent year available)

  • The standard source for annual county unemployment is the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), published via the “Map/County” tools and series downloads.
  • The most recent county unemployment figures can be retrieved from: BLS Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS).
  • Data note: Month-to-month values can be especially noisy in low-population counties; annual averages are typically the most stable reference.

• Major industries and employment sectors

  • Clark County’s economic base is characteristic of rural eastern Idaho, with employment often tied to:
    • Public administration and education (county and school district functions)
    • Agriculture and ranching (including support activities)
    • Construction and local services
    • Tourism/recreation-related services connected to regional outdoor access and seasonal travel corridors
  • Sector breakdowns are available through ACS “industry by occupation” profiles and Census County Business Patterns where disclosure rules allow. A practical county profile entry point is: data.census.gov.

• Common occupations and workforce breakdown

  • Typical rural occupational mixes include management, construction and extraction, transportation, education services, and service occupations, with smaller absolute counts in professional sub-specialties due to limited local employers.
  • The most consistent county-level occupation tables are in ACS; access via: data.census.gov.
  • Proxy note: In very small counties, occupation detail may be top-coded or suppressed; broad occupational groups are more reliable than narrow job titles.

• Commuting patterns and mean commute time

  • Commuting in Clark County is shaped by dispersed settlement and limited in-county job density; residents often travel to larger job centers in neighboring counties.
  • Mean travel time to work is published in ACS commuting tables and summarized in county profiles. County-level commute time can be pulled via: ACS commuting tables on data.census.gov.

• Local employment vs. out-of-county work

  • Small rural counties frequently function as partial “bedroom” areas, with a notable share of workers commuting to other counties for employment. This pattern is measured via ACS “place of work” and commuting-flow datasets where available.
  • The most widely used federal reference for residence-to-work patterns is the Census commuting products and ACS tables accessible at: data.census.gov.
  • Data limitation: Detailed origin–destination flow tables can be limited for very small geographies; ACS place-of-work shares remain the standard proxy.

Housing and Real Estate

• Homeownership vs. renting

  • Homeownership and rental shares are reported by the ACS (tenure). County totals and percentages are available via: Census QuickFacts and data.census.gov.
  • Context note: Rural Idaho counties commonly have high homeownership rates relative to metropolitan areas, with a smaller rental inventory.

• Median property values and recent trends

  • Median owner-occupied home values are published in ACS, while market trend indicators are commonly drawn from private listing aggregators. The most defensible “official” median value for county comparison is the ACS estimate (with margins of error in small counties).
  • ACS home value tables are accessible via: data.census.gov.
  • Proxy note: Short-term “recent trends” (year-over-year pricing) are not produced by ACS; where trend discussion is needed, it is typically proxied by broader regional Idaho housing patterns rather than a statistically stable county-only series for very low-volume markets.

• Typical rent prices

  • Median gross rent is reported in ACS and summarized in QuickFacts. County median rent can be obtained via: Census QuickFacts.
  • Market note: In small rural counties, published rent medians can be based on small samples; actual listings may be limited and seasonal.

• Types of housing

  • The housing stock is primarily single-family detached homes, manufactured homes, and rural lots/acreage, with limited apartment-scale multifamily inventory concentrated near the county seat or along main routes.
  • Structure-type distributions (single-unit vs. multi-unit vs. mobile homes) are available in ACS “housing characteristics” tables via: data.census.gov.

• Neighborhood characteristics (proximity to schools/amenities)

  • Settlement is concentrated around Dubois and nearby rural clusters; proximity to the main school campus(es), post office, and basic services is typically greatest within or near the town footprint, with outlying residents relying on highway access for groceries, healthcare, and regional services.
  • Data limitation: The county does not have numerous distinct “neighborhoods” in the metropolitan-planning sense; location is more accurately described as town-adjacent versus rural/agricultural parcels.

• Property tax overview (rate and typical homeowner cost)

  • Idaho property taxes are administered locally with rates influenced by taxing districts; effective rates vary by assessed value, levies, and exemptions. County-level property tax summaries are published by the Idaho State Tax Commission and county assessor offices.
  • A statewide entry point is: Idaho State Tax Commission.
  • Proxy note: A single “average rate” can be misleading due to levy variation; the most comparable metric is median real estate taxes paid from ACS (available on data.census.gov), paired with county assessor levy summaries for locally applicable rates.