The New, Longer Road to Adulthood Schooling, Work, and Idleness among Rural Youth ANAStASIA SNYdeR dIANe McLAughLIN ALIShA c oLeMAN-JeNSeN Building Knowledge for Families and communities Number 9 director: cynthia M. duncan deputy director: curt grimm Support provided by the Annie e. casey and W.K. Kellogg Senior Fellow and director of evaluation Foundations and by a uSdA/cSReeS National Research Program: Sally Ward Initiative grant. communications director: Amy Sterndale outreach and engagement director: Mica Stark © copyright 2009 Publications coordinator: erin trainer carsey Institute executive committee members: university of New hampshire Ross gittell, Ph.d. huddleston hall James R. carter Professor and Professor of Management 73 Main Street Whittemore School of Business & economics durham, New hampshire 03824-3563 Lawrence hamilton, Ph.d. Professor (603) 862-2821 Sociology david Pillemer, ed.d. www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu dr. Samuel e. Paul Professor of developmental Psychology Psychology Jan A. Nisbet, Ph.d. director, Institute on disability Robert J. Woodward, Ph.d. Forrest d. McKerley chair health economics The New, Longer Road to Adulthood Schooling, Work, and Idleness among Rural Youth Anastasia Snyder diane McLaughlin Alisha coleman-Jensen A Carsey Institute Report 2 contents Introduction 3 Education on the Ascendance 4 Emerging Inequality for Men and Women, Racial/Ethnic Groups, and Early Parents 9 Youth Aspirations and Future Goals 13 Conclusions and Policy Recommendations 16 What Is a Community to Do? 18 References 19 3 Introduction In the not too distant past, most young adults in the with a high school education (Bluestone and harrison 1982; united States were expected to complete their educa- osterman 1999). Rural areas have been particularly affected tion, begin a career, and form a family—in that order— as manufacturing jobs have moved overseas (galston and Bae- by age 25. Progress in each area was evidence of a full hler 1995; Vias and Nelson 2006). Youth and adults displaced transition to adulthood. Since 1980, however, the timing and by this economic restructuring have frequently moved away sequence of how emerging adults attain schooling, find a job, from rural areas. Those remaining have less education (John- and begin a family have changed (Arnett 2004). Family and son 2003), and this combined with fewer high-quality jobs full-time employment are delayed as young adults invest more in rural America dim employment prospects for those who time in postsecondary education. In addition, young adults remain. now often combine school and work and shift their focus This carsey Institute report focuses on the education and between the two (Arnett 2004; Fitzpatrick and turner 2007; work experiences of rural youth during the emerging adult hamilton and hamilton 2006). This shift has been attributed years (age 20 to 24) as they make the transition from adoles- in large part to changing social and economic conditions in cence to adulthood. It documents how rural emerging adults the united States that now require youth with middle-class combine work and school and experience idleness, closely aspirations or higher to spend more time gaining necessary examines their educational attainment, and compares their education. This results in a longer transition to adulthood. experiences with those in central city and suburban areas. We changes in the transition to adulthood have prompted a draw from current research and conduct analysis on nation- rethinking of this period of life, which Jeffrey Jensen Arnett ally representative data sets that contain information on the now refers to as “emerging adulthood” and which includes the transition to adulthood. years from age 18 to 24 (Arnett 2004). during this stage of Specifically, we analyze u.S. census of Population and life, young adults grapple with some of the most salient events housing Public use Microdata samples from 1980 to 2000, influencing their futures. decisions about education, work, and the 2006 American community Survey Integrated Public and family formation made in early adulthood set youth on use Microdata Sample (iPuMS) (Ruggles et al. 2008) to exam- different paths that have lifetime implications for earnings ine how combining school and work has changed between and well-being. 1980 and 2006 for rural and urban emerging adults. The 2006 Little is known, however, about the transition to adulthood AcS iPuMS provides insight into how characteristics of rural among rural youth, their unique patterns of behavior, and how emerging adults (gender, race/ethnicity, family status) are asso- their education and work experiences can intersect with, or ciated with specific patterns of combining work and schooling. lead to, periods of idleness when they are neither working nor We then use panel data from the 1997 National Longitudinal in school. Rural youths’ education and work experiences, their Survey of Youth (NLSY97) to examine work and school expec- frequent migration from rural to more urban areas, and their tations during adolescence, and subsequent work and school idleness are critical issues facing many rural communities and outcomes for emerging adults who stay in nonmetro areas and the young adults who are poised to be the next generation of for those who move away. These analyses illustrate the central rural families. role of migration during this life stage. Finally, we offer con- No studies have examined whether the transition to adult- clusions and policy suggestions. hood has become longer and more complicated for rural youth, or if rural youth, more so than urban youth, are deterred in seeking higher education or professional careers by this lengthening process. Research has long identified the eco- nomic opportunities in rural communities as critical to youth development and their educational and occupational attain- ment (huang et al. 1997). Shifts in the economy from manu- facturing to services have led to a sharp decline in unionized, factory, and manufacturing jobs that pay a living wage to those 4 education on the Ascendance the demand for more education is evident in the grow- cent to 44 percent—and the steady increase in the percentage ing share of emerging adults between 1980 and 2006 who combine school and work—from 13 percent to 30 percent. with at least some postsecondary education (see Figure (See Figure 2 and top panel of table 1.) “Any” school engage- 1). The share of those aged 20 to 24 with at least some postsec- ment (either alone or in combination with work) rose from ondary education rose from 29 percent in 1980 to 41 percent 23 percent in 1980 to 48 percent in 2006, whereas any work in 2006. The percentage with a bachelor’s degree by age 24 also engagement (alone or in combination with school) remained increased to 19 percent by 2006. At the same time, the percent- unchanged at about 75 percent. In other words, many emerg- age of high school graduates and those without a high school ing adults have always worked, but now more are also com- education decreased. bining school as they pursue the needed credentials for a For today’s emerging adults, the educational process has successful transition to adulthood. These two trends might be also changed, becoming longer and more complicated, par- related to similar causal factors. In recent decades, the soaring ticularly as more young people combine work and schooling cost of tuition and the declining value of government finan- (hamilton and hamilton 2006; Sandefur, eggerling-Boeck, cial aid programs, coupled with the increasing demand for a and Park 2005). to better understand the school and work college education in the labor market, have put considerable experiences of emerging adults, we track four possible work financial strain on many youth and young adults with college and school combinations in table 1: (1) only enrolled in school, aspirations (draut 2005), resulting in both a decline in those (2) only in the labor force, (3) combining school and work, and exclusively engaged in schooling and an increase in those (4) idleness (neither in school nor working). combining school and work (Fitzpatrick and turner 2007). The most notable changes between 1980 and 2006 are the The percentage exclusively in school and the percentage idle decline in young adults who are only working—from 61 per- fluctuated during this time period. Figure 1. educational attainment of all youth aged 20 to 24, 1980 to 2006 100 11 11 14 90 19 80 29 70 41 42 60 41 t n e 50 c r e P 40 40 31 29 30 25 20 10 17 18 19 15 0 1980 1990 2000 2006 B.A. or higher Some postsecondary High school Did not complete or associate’s degree graduate high school 5 Note: All percentages are weighted using a standardized person table 1. School, work, and idleness among young adults aged 20 to 24: weight. 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2006 * Source: 1980 1 in 1000 Public Use Microdata Sample of the U.S. Census of Population and Housing. Total sample size for those aged 1980* 1990** 2000*** 2006‡ 20 to 24 is 20,373: 3,776 in nonmetro areas; 4,554 in central city areas; 9,844 in suburban areas; and 2,199 in not identified areas. Education (%) (%) (%) (%) completed is reported differently in the 1980 PUMS data than in the 1990 and 2000 PUMS or 2006 ACS PUMS. In 1980, education completed Idleness and Engagement Overall past high school was only identified by years in college as “first year, School only 10 12 12 18 second year, . . . eighth year or more.” There is no indicator that a Work only 61 55 51 44 college degree has been completed. For this analysis, those who School and work 13 22 24 30 completed a fourth year of college or more are included in the “Four Years of College Completed or More” category. There is no indication Idle 15 11 14 8 of completion of associate’s degrees or vocational training. Those in the “Some College Completed” category finished a first through third Nonmetro (19)‡‡ (20) (16) (13) year of college. School only 10 13 11 7 ** Source: 1990 1% Public Use Microdata Sample. Total sample size Work only 62 56 53 47 for population aged 20 to 24 is 172,216: 41,354 in nonmetro areas; School and work 10 17 20 36 33,137 in central city areas; 93,077 in suburban areas; and 4,648 in not Idle 19 14 16 10 identified areas. *** Source: 2000 5% Public Use Microdata Sample. Total sample size Central City Metro (22) (22) (20) (29) for those aged 20 to 24 is 882,413: 66,072 in nonmetro areas; 154,172 School only 11 13 13 19 in central city areas; 489,637 in suburban areas; and 172,532 in not identified areas. Work only 57 50 47 45 ‡ Source: 2006 American Community Survey iPUMS files from the School and work 17 23 25 29 University of Minnesota Population Center. Total sample size for Idle 15 14 15 7 those aged 20 to 24 is 180,777: 27,098 in nonmetro areas, 49,217 in central city metro areas, 59,641 in suburban metro areas, 37,346 in Suburban Metro (48) (56) (58) (35) mixed metro areas, and 7,475 in not identified areas. One important School only 9 12 11 22 difference between the 2006 ACS iPUMS and the 1980-2000 decennial Work only 63 56 52 42 census PUMS files is that the 2006 ACS file includes a sample of about School and work 13 23 25 31 2.5 percent of the national group quarter population. Idle 14 10 12 5 ‡‡ Numbers in parentheses indicate the percentage of the sample. For example, in 1980, 19 percent of the sample was nonmetropolitan. Figure 2. Percentage of all youth aged 20 to 24 combining school and work, 1980 to 2006 100 8 15 11 14 90 80 13 22 30 24 70 60 t n e 50 c r e P 40 61 55 44 51 30 20 10 18 10 12 12 0 1980 1990 2000 2006 Idle School and work Work only School only 6 Figure 3. Percentage of youth aged 20 to 24 in school only, 1980 to 2006 40 35 30 25 t n 22 e c 20 r 19 e P 18 15 13 11 13 13 10 1100 1122 111112 9 7 5 0 1980 1990 2000 2006 Overall Nonmetro Suburban metro Central city metro Figure 4. Percentage of youth aged 20 to 24 working only, 1980 to 2006 70 63 62 60 56 61 56 53 57 55 52 50 50 51 47 47 44 45 nt 40 e 42 c r e P 30 20 10 0 1980 1990 2000 2006 Overall Nonmetro Suburban metro Central city metro 7 With a few notable exceptions, nonmetro, metro central labor force, compared with 51 percent overall. This difference city, and suburban emerging adults have experienced the same persisted in 2006, when 47 percent of nonmetro youth were trends in patterns of schooling and work, although their lev- only in the labor force while 44 percent of youth overall were els are often unique. Figures 3 to 6 compare work and school- only working. ing for rural and urban youth in 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2006. Labor force participation can also be combined with school- table 1 provides the data for these figures. From 1980 to 2000, ing, which is a pattern that more young adults have followed in exclusive school enrollment changed little in both nonmetro recent decades, although historically nonmetro young adults and metro areas (as shown in Figure 3). however, beginning have had lower levels of combining work and schooling. For in the 2000s, a noticeably smaller percentage of nonmetro example, Figure 5 describes how between 1980 and 2006, more youth were exclusively in school compared to youth in other young adults from all residence areas were combining work areas. overall, 18 percent of emerging adults were exclusively and schooling. Within residence areas, the percentage com- engaged in school in 2006, compared to only 7 percent of those bining school and work grew from 17 to 29 percent and 13 to in nonmetro areas. 31 percent for those in central city and suburban areas, respec- In contrast, nonmetro emerging adults are more strongly tively. For nonmetro young adults, the percentage combining attached to the labor force than others, even as working exclu- school and work rose from 10 percent in 1980 to 36 percent in sively has declined for all youth over time (see Figure 4). By 2006, although much of that increase occurred between 2000 2000, 53 percent of nonmetro emerging adults were only in the and 2006. Figure 5. Percentage of youth aged 20 to 24 combining school and work, 1980 to 2006 40 36 35 31 30 30 29 25 nt 25 23 25 e 23 c 24 r 22 e 20 20 P 17 17 15 13 13 10 10 5 1980 1990 2000 2006 0 Overall Nonmetro Suburban metro Central city metro 8 Figure 6. Percentage of youth aged 20 to 24 idle, 1980 to 2006 20 19 18 16 15 16 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 12 12 nt 11 e c 10 10 r e 10 P 8 8 7 6 5 4 2 1980 1990 2000 2006 0 Overall Nonmetro Suburban metro Central city metro Idleness also varies over time, which likely reflects broader economic conditions and lack of job opportunities for young adults in rural areas (see Figure 6), and historically, a higher percentage of nonmetro youth have been idle, particularly during periods of economic crisis such as 1980. In that year, nearly 19 percent of nonmetro young adults were idle. After declining for a decade or more, idleness for nonmetro youth had again increased by 2000. In that year, 16 percent of non- metro youth were idle compared with 15 percent for central city and 12 percent for suburban youth. These shares declined to their lowest levels in all residence areas by 2006.