Geography and the Journey to Adulthood:

Parental proximity, mobility sequences and outcomes

Suzanne Davies WithersElise Bowditch

University of Washington

Transition to Adulthood Idealized American norm – growing up, moving

out, going to college, career Upward social mobility and geographic mobility Just over half of families with college age children

do not have children enrolled in college How typical is this pathway? Where are the rest of young adults as they

navigate the path to independence? Class differences – economic constraints and

expectations

Process not event Traditional rites of passage: graduation, job,

marriage, home It is a process rather than a single event Life course perspective – voluminous of work

documenting the various pathways into adulthood Variable sequencing of events Missing is the role that spatial mobility and parental

proximity serve in the timing of transition and the range of successful outcomes

the geographic aspects of the transition to adulthood

From Aspatial to Spatial Spatial studies are scarce Frontiers of Adulthood (2004) – no reference to

migration or residential mobility Geographic studies to date are mostly regional

(Mitchell ’94, Settersen ’98, Garasky ’02, Buck and Scott ’93, Gutmann et al ’02, Iacovou ’02)

Or State (Mulder and Clark ’02, ’00) Neighborhood effects as causal agents (Corcoran

’92, Solon et al ’00)

Parental Proximity What does parental proximity mean? What does it mean for different groups? Extended family and social networks for support Intergenerational care – children and grandparents Spatial diverge and spatial converge (Silverstein,

‘95) Expect gender and class differences in meaning Urban hierarchy – spatial opportunity structure The route to adulthood is a means of establishing

a geographic relationship with one’s parents

Research Questions1. What is the timing of leaving home?2. What are the different Pathways and

Geographic Destinations?3. Can we predicting parental proximity in

adulthood?4. What is the influence of parental proximity on

adult outcomes (economic) ?5. How do adult offspring compare to their parents

regarding economic outcomes?6. Are there differences based on the sequences

of parental proximity over the transition?

Data Source Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) Followed families and members annually since 1968 The children of original families are now middle aged PSID now an excellent source for intergenerational

life-course studies We follow young adults as they mature and leave the

parental home A key advantage is that we have information on the

parental home during adolescence and throughout the transition

Methodology Follow a cohort of dependents aged 12-16 in

1970 Examine their residential location and living

arrangement as they traverse to adulthood Sample of 2,096 (unweighted) in 1970 We follow their location and characteristics in

five-year intervals 1975, 1980, 1985, and 1990. Merge the PSID with geocodes and track the

relative location of individuals and their parents Differentiate: same zip code, same county, out-

of-county and out-of state

Research Questions I

What is the timing of leaving home?

by gender, race, city size

combinations of each

Dependent’s Survival Curves by Race and Gender

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1975 (17-21) 1980 (22-26) 1985 (27-31) 1990 (32-36)

Year (ages)

White Men White WomenMinority Men Minority Women

Dependent’s Survival Curves by City Size

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1975 (17-22) 1980 (22-26) 1985 (27-31) 1990 (32-36)

Year (ages)

All Metropolitan Urban Rural

Survival Curves by Race and Gender

for Metropolitan Areas

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1975 (17-21) 1980 (22-26) 1985 (27-31) 1990 (32-36)

Year (ages)

White Men White WomenMinority Men Minority Women

Survival Curves by Race and Gender for Urban Areas

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1975 (17-21) 1980 (22-26) 1985 (27-31) 1990 (32-36)

Year (ages)

White Men White Women

Minority Men Minority Women

Survival Curves by Race and Gender

for Rural Areas

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1975 (17-21) 1980 (22-26) 1985 (27-31) 1990 (32-36)

Year (ages)

White Men White WomenMinority Men Minority Women

Research Questions II

What are the different Pathways and Geographic Destinations?

Immediate and ultimate destinations by demographics

Geographic Variation in Residential Independence by

Gender

44.9%

33.8%

35.7%

29.6%

32.0%

27.4%

27.0%

27.1%

27.0%

26.0%

28.7%

29.1%

24.4%

25.5%

23.0%

23.9%

13.4%

21.1%

16.6%

23.8%

19.9%

26.5%

23.6%

26.0%

14.7%

19.1%

18.9%

17.5%

23.7%

20.6%

26.5%

23.1%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Men

Women

Men

Women

Men

Women

Men

Women

17

-21

('7

5)

22

-26

('8

0)

27

-31

('8

5)

32

-36

('9

0)

Zip County State Out

Geographic Variation in Residential Independence by Race

37.0%

47.3%

30.3%

45.3%

27.1%

45.0%

24.0%

46.7%

25.0%

35.5%

27.9%

35.4%

24.5%

28.1%

23.4%

23.6%

19.5%

22.7%

25.9%

26.5%

14.1%

18.4%

19.1%

12.3%

22.4%

19.5%

26.1%

15.6%

7.4%

7.0%

7.3%9.9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

White

Minority

White

Minority

White

Minority

White

Minority

17

-21

('7

5)

22

-26

('8

0)

27

-31

('8

5)

32

-36

('9

0)

Zip County State Out

Research Questions III

Can we predicting parental proximity in adulthood?

Use a logit model to predict geographic proximity by 1990

On the basis of individual and parental traits

Variables p SE e pVariables p SE e p

Original Family Money Income:omitted=lower 25% incomeNo Disability -0.1068 0.0178 ** 0.90 Mid 50% Income 0.2525 0.0561 ** 1.29Many High Attitude Traits 0.2192 0.0212 ** 1.25 Upper 25% Income 0.4788 0.0611 ** 1.61Few Low Attitude Traits 0.0026 0.0189 1.00Few Low Coherence Traits 0.0106 0.0166 1.01 1990 Parent's FamilyFew High Coherence Traits 0.1890 0.0263 ** 1.21 Marital Status:omitted=marriedFinancial Insecurity 0.0135 0.0418 1.01 Parent Single 0.2112 0.0924 ** 1.24Financial Security 0.1014 0.0196 ** 1.11 Parent Widowed -0.2128 0.0580 ** 0.81

Parent Divorced -0.0830 0.0685 + 0.92Individual Parent employment status:omitted=employedMen 0.0121 0.0326 1.01 Parent Unemployed 0.4619 0.0334 ** 1.59White 0.2386 0.0603 ** 1.27 Parent Ret/Dis 1.0344 0.1283 ** 2.81Education:omitted=college degree Parent Family Structure:omitted=extended High School -1.1470 0.0542 ** 0.32 Nuclear 0.6121 0.0594 ** 1.84 Post HS -0.7757 0.0363 ** 0.46

Other Geographic1990 Family Region:omitted=northeastEmployment:omitted=employed Upper Midwest -0.0126 0.0437 0.99 Unemployed -1.5189 0.1082 ** 0.22 South 0.0464 0.0483 1.05 Retired/Dis -0.0489 0.0951 ** 0.95 West 0.1310 0.0539 + 1.14Marital Status:omitted=married City Size:omitted=urban Single 0.1441 0.0539 ** 1.15 Metropolitan -0.6026 0.0417 ** 0.55 Widowed -1.0138 0.1445 ** 0.36 Rural 0.0735 0.0437 1.08 Divorced 0.0395 0.0444 1.04 Note: significance; + = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01

Research Questions IV

What is the influence of parental proximity on adult economic outcomes ?

Compare income-to-needs ratios of adult offspring who live near (same county) with those who live far (out of county)

Compare for each demographic group

Research Questions V

How do adult offspring compare to their parents regarding economic outcomes?

Compare income-to-needs ratios with those of their parents

Compare for each demographic group

Offspring Mean Need Offspring mean need / Parent mean needRatio far vs. near Same Zip Same County Out of County

Overall 1.30 0.75 0.72 0.89

White 1.21 0.73 0.72 0.87Minority 1.53 0.87 0.78 1.25

Men 1.39 0.70 0.68 0.93Women 1.22 0.80 0.76 0.84

Metropolitan (100k+) White 1.20 0.61 0.84 0.88 Minority 1.36 0.66 0.77 0.89

Urban (25k-99,999) White 1.15 0.85 0.58 0.79 Minority 1.67 1.09 0.77 2.33

Rural (<25k) White 1.37 0.76 0.85 0.97 Minority 1.85 1.37 1.04 2.01

Metropolitan (100k+) Men 1.40 0.48 0.84 0.95 Women 1.18 0.74 0.83 0.80

Urban (25k-99,999) Men 1.50 0.85 0.43 0.86 Women 1.06 0.89 0.69 0.76

Rural (<25k) Men 1.33 0.79 0.87 0.99 Women 1.57 0.82 0.85 1.01

Research Question VI

Are there differences based on the sequences of parental proximity over the transition?

Compare the outcomes for different sequences (trajectories)

Offspring Mean Offspring Mean Need /Sequence Income-to-Need Parent Mean NeedCategory Ratio 1990 Ratio 1990

Always near 12.15 1.08Near then Far 15.58 1.29Near-Far-Near 11.49 1.27Near-Far-Near-Far 8.82 0.74Always Far 12.88 1.32Far then Near 10.77 1.18Far-Near-Far 11.18 1.30Far-Near-Far-Near 9.67 1.33

Comparative outcomes by sequence

Sequences by gender

Offspring Offspring Mean Need /Sequence Income-to-Need Parent Mean NeedCategory Ratio 1990 Ratio 1990

Men Women Men Women

Always near 12.33 11.96 1.11 1.06Near then Far 16.95 14.22 1.33 1.24Near-Far-Near 10.34 12.53 1.21 1.33Near-Far-Near-Far 6.56 14.55 0.81 0.55Always Far 14.06 12.42 1.14 1.39Far then Near 14.64 10.38 2.27 1.07Far-Near-Far 11.08 11.37 1.60 0.74Far-Near-Far-Near n/a 9.67 n/a 1.33

Sequences by race

Offspring Offspring Mean Need /Sequence Income-to-Need Parent Mean NeedCategory Ratio 1990 Ratio 1990

White Minority White Minority

Always near 13.66 6.96 1.07 1.14Near then Far 16.19 9.03 1.23 1.86Near-Far-Near 12.33 6.60 1.28 1.24Near-Far-Near-Far 8.74 10.09 0.69 1.51Always Far 12.97 11.64 1.21 2.77Far then Near 11.47 2.47 1.24 0.42Far-Near-Far 11.26 1.86 1.30 0.60Far-Near-Far-Near 9.67 n/a 1.33 n/a

Conclusion Spatial mobility, social mobility and the transition

to adulthood are intertwined Typical paths predicts urban white men well but

women and minorities show different social and spatial patterns and outcomes

Geographic: what does proximity mean for specific geographic areas?

Theoretically: promising venue to unpack how spatial mobility is racialized and gendered

Conceptually: broader issue of intergenerational proximity in a rapidly aging, hyper-mobile society