Rural America At A Glance Rural America At A Glance

United States Department of Agriculture

2019 Edition

Overview

Nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) America encompasses a diverse set of counties, from 

those that are closely tied to metropolitan (metro) areas with relatively large urban populations, to those that are isolated and sparsely populated. About two-thirds of nonmetro residents (30 million people) live in counties that are adjacent to metro areas, and nearly 14 

million of them live in counties with an urban population of at least 20,000 people (“more 

urban” nonmetro counties). Among the one-third of residents in nonmetro areas that live in 

nonadjacent counties, about 5 million live in more urban counties. The remaining 11 million 

nonmetro residents live in nonadjacent counties that have fewer than 20,000 urban residents 

(“less urban,” having 2,500 to 19,999 urban residents, or “completely rural,” having fewer 

than 2,500 urban residents).

This report focuses on demographic and socioeconomic trends after the end of the 

Great Recession in 2009. Varying demographic and socioeconomic trends are evident for 

different places along the rural-urban continuum. Between 2010 and 2018, population grew 

in metro counties and in nonmetro areas having more urban population, while population 

declined in other types of nonmetro counties. Employment grew in all types of counties 

except for completely rural, nonadjacent counties, but grew more slowly in all types of nonmetro counties than in metro counties. In addition to slower population growth, lower rates 

of labor force participation in nonmetro areas—due to an older, less educated population 

that is more likely to be disabled—also contributed to slower employment growth in nonmetro than in metro areas. Poverty rates are highest in the most rural, isolated settings, and 

the gap between poverty rates in these and other settings has grown. Even so, poverty rates 

have declined since 2013 in all types of nonmetro counties.

Real personal income per person (PIPP) was significantly higher and grew faster in 

metro counties than in nonmetro counties during 2010-17. Among nonmetro counties, the 

levels and changes in PIPP were fairly similar across the rural-urban continuum, although 

real PIPP declined between 2015 and 2017 in the most rural and remote type of nonmetro 

counties. Part of the reason for this was the decline in farm income and mining income during the latter part of the study period, since these industries are more prominent in more 

rural and remote counties. Real PIPP declined in farming-dependent nonmetro counties after 

2013, and in miningdependent nonmetro 

counties after 2014. 

Nonmetro recreation 

counties had the most 

rapid growth in real 

PIPP during 2010-17 

and the highest level 

of PIPP after 2013. 

Other nonmetro county types—manufacturing-dependent, 

Federal and State 

Governmentdependent, and nonspecialized counties—

had similarly low levels and slow growth 

of real PIPP from 

2010 to 2017.

United States Department of Agriculture

Economic Research Service

Economic Information Bulletin 212

November 2019

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
21 Rural America at a Glance 2019 Edition

The nonmetro population has declined since 2010 outside areas with 

larger towns

Nonmetro counties contained 46.1 million residents in July 2018, 14.1 percent of the 

Nation’s population, according to the latest estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau. This compares with 46.3 million residents in July 2010, a 0.4-percent decline during this decade. 

Renewed population growth since 2016 (nonmetro counties added an estimated 54,000 residents 

during 2016-18) did not offset the loss of 260,000 people during 2010-16, which was the firstever period of nonmetro population decline. Overall population loss from 2010 to 2018 resulted 

from a historically low population gain of 272,000 nonmetro residents from natural change 

(births-deaths), which did not offset population loss of 478,000 from net outmigration (more 

people moving out of nonmetro counties than moving in).

Rates of population change varied across the rural-urban continuum during 2010-18, from a 

nearly 7-percent increase in metro counties to a nearly 2-percent decrease in completely rural, 

nonadjacent counties. The only nonmetro categories that gained population during this decade 

were the more urban nonmetro counties, both adjacent and nonadjacent to metro counties. In 

these counties, high rates of natural increase (compared with other nonmetro counties) more than 

offset population loss from net outmigration. In both categories of less urban nonmetro counties, 

natural increase was insufficient to offset population loss from net outmigration. Both natural 

decrease and net outmigration contributed to population loss in completely rural nonmetro counties. Nonmetro net migration tends to fluctuate with the business cycle and often returns from 

net outmigration to inmigration during periods of economic recovery. In contrast, natural 

decrease is more closely linked with long-term declines in fertility rates and population aging, 

and therefore is less likely in any given county to return to previous levels of natural increase.

The highest rates of population loss from 2010 to 2018 were in isolated, completely rural 

nonmetro counties

 

Note: Nonmetro adjacent counties are physically adjacent to one or more metro counties and have at least 2 percent of their workers commuting to metro 

counties. "More urban" nonmetro counties have an urban population of 20,000 to 49,999, "less urban" nonmetro counties have an urban population of 2,500 

to 19,999, and "completely rural" nonmetro counties have an urban population of less than 2,500.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program.

Nonmetro employment continues to grow more slowly than metro employment

Employment in both nonmetro and metro counties fell by 5 percent between the end of 

2007 and the end of 2009, reflecting the effects of the Great Recession. Between 2010 and 2018, 

nonmetro employment grew at an average annual rate of 0.4 percent, compared to 1.5 percent 

per year in metro areas. By the second quarter of 2019, nonmetro employment remained more 

than 1 percent below the pre-recession level, while metro employment exceeded the pre-recession level by more than 9 percent. This difference in employment growth between metro and 

nonmetro counties is due in part to slower population growth in nonmetro counties than in metro 

counties during this period.

 Employment growth between 2010 and 2018 has been fastest (totaling more than 4 percent 

over the 8-year span) in more urban nonmetro counties. Less urban and completely rural nonmetro counties, especially those not adjacent to a metro county, generally saw slower employment growth. In fact, completely rural nonadjacent counties experienced a slight decline (-0.4 

percent) in employment between 2010 and 2018.
2 Rural America at a Glance 2019 Edition

These differences in employment growth rates across the rural-urban continuum may be 

related in part to differences in population growth across these settings. The slowest employment 

growth occurred in the same areas that had negative population growth—i.e., less urban or completely rural nonmetro counties. Employment growth since 2010 was faster than population 

growth in all groups of counties, indicating that a rising share of the population was employed.

Employment has grown more rapidly in metro than nonmetro areas since the Great Recession

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

Percent difference from 2007 Q4

Metro

Nonmetro

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Note: Shaded area indicates Great Recession. Data are seasonally adjusted.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS).

Employment has grown more rapidly than population since 2010 across the rural-urban 

continuum, but has declined in the most isolated rural areas

 

Note: Nonmetro adjacent counties are physically adjacent to one or more metro counties and have at least 2 percent of their workers commuting to metro 

counties. "More urban" nonmetro counties have an urban population of 20,000 to 49,999, "less urban" nonmetro counties have an urban population of 2,500 

to 19,999, and "completely rural" nonmetro counties have an urban population of less than 2,500.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) and the 

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program.

Declining labor force participation in nonmetro areas contributes to slower 

nonmetro employment growth

Besides population growth, two other factors that affect differences in employment growth 

between metro and nonmetro areas are changes in labor force participation (the share of the 

adult population that is in the labor force; i.e., either employed or actively seeking employment) 

and changes in the demand for labor. Although it is difficult to isolate the independent effect of 

each of these factors, it is clear that labor force participation rates have been slower to recover in 

rural than in urban areas. In 2018, labor force participation was only 58 percent in nonmetro 

counties, compared to 64 percent in metro areas, a larger gap than in 2010. A decomposition 

analysis reveals that about half of the current participation gap can be explained by the fact that 

residents of nonmetro areas are older, on average, and more likely to be retired. Another quarter 

of the gap reflects the fact that, on average, residents of nonmetro counties have slightly lower 

levels of education. The remaining one-quarter of the participation gap can be explained by the 

higher rates of disability reported by residents of nonmetro counties.

3
3 Rural America at a Glance 2019 Edition

An older population, lower educational attainment, and a greater share of the population with 

disability account for lower labor force participation in nonmetro areas

Metro Nonmetro Difference

Amount each factor 

contributes to 

participation gap

Share of total 

gap

LF participation rate, 2018 63.7% 57.6% 6.1%

Average age 46.1 48.9 3.3% 55%

Median education category Some college, 

no degree High school 1.4% 23%

Share with disability 10.9% 16.5% 1.5% 25%

Other factors -0.2% -3%

6.1% 100%

LF = Labor Force.

Note: The contribution of each factor is assessed using the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition method. “Other factors” refers to the unexplained component of 

that method.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service decomposition analysis of nonmetro-metro differences in labor force participation rate, using data from the U.S. 

Census Bureau, Current Population Survey.

 The decline in the unemployment rate since 2010 has been similar in metro and nonmetro 

areas – falling in metro areas from an average of 9.7 percent in 2010 to 3.9 percent in 2018, and 

in nonmetro areas from 9.2 percent to 4.2 percent. While part of this decline is the result of job 

creation, much is also due to declining labor force participation rates—or a drop in the number 

of people who have or want a job—especially in nonmetro areas. Declining labor force participation explains two-thirds of the drop in the nonmetro unemployment rate, compared to onethird in metro areas. 

Falling labor force participation rates are partly the result of an aging population, but other 

forces are at work as well. One way to see this is to focus on the participation rate for those 

between the ages of 25 and 54, the prime working-age population. Studies suggest that, nationally, the remaining shortfall in the prime-age labor force participation rate (compared to pre-recession levels) is driven not by demographic or other structural factors but by the lingering effects 

of the recession itself, particularly for less educated workers. For metro areas, as of 2018 the 

prime-age participation rate has recovered to within 0.7 percentage points of its 2007 level. This 

suggests that continued economic growth could restore the metro prime-age participation rate to 

its pre-recession levels. Whether this conclusion holds for nonmetro areas is unclear; the primeage labor force participation rate in nonmetro areas remains 3.0 percentage points below its prerecession rate.

Labor force participation of the prime working-age population is lower in nonmetro than metro 

areas, and the gap has grown since the recession

 

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service analysis of data from U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Department of Labor, Current Population Survey

Poverty rates have been decreasing since 2013, but are higher in more rural and 

more isolated nonmetro areas 

The official poverty rate has historically been higher for nonmetro than metro residents, and 

this remains true. From 2010 to 2017 (the most recent estimates available), the nonmetro poverty 

rate fell from a high of 18.5 percent in 2011 and 2013 to a low of 16.4 percent in 2017. 

The metro poverty rate fell from a high of 15.5 percent in 2011 and 2012 to a low of 12.9 percent in 2017.

4
54 Rural America at a Glance 2019 Edition

Nonmetro poverty rates and their changes from 2010 to 2017 varied across the rural-urban 

continuum. In 2017, poverty rates were higher in more rural and remote counties. Poverty rates 

peaked during 2011-13 and have declined between 1.7 percentage points and 2.3 percentage 

points across all types of nonmetro counties. The decline in poverty rates was smaller in more 

remote and rural counties, indicating a growing poverty gap between more remote/rural areas 

and other nonmetro areas.

Poverty rates are highest in the most isolated and rural nonmetro areas

 

Note: Nonmetro adjacent counties are physically adjacent to one or more metro counties and have at least 2 percent of their workers commuting to metro 

counties. "More urban" nonmetro counties have an urban population of 20,000 to 49,999, "less urban" nonmetro counties have an urban population of 2,500 

to 19,999, and "completely rural" nonmetro counties have an urban population of less than 2,500.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using Census Bureau Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, 2010-2017.

Personal income per person is lower and growing more slowly in nonmetro areas

In 2017, personal income per person (PIPP) was nearly $54,000 in metro areas but less 

than $40,000 in nonmetro areas. The gap in PIPP between metro and nonmetro areas has grown since 

2010, as real (adjusted for inflation) PIPP grew 13.5 percent in metro areas between 2010 and 2017, 

versus 9.7 percent in nonmetro areas. Among metro areas, PIPP is highest and growing most rapidly 

in the largest metro areas—those with populations of at least 1 million. Among nonmetro areas, the 

levels and changes in PIPP have been fairly similar across the rural-urban continuum, although real 

PIPP declined between 2015 and 2017 in completely rural, nonadjacent counties.

Real personal income per person is higher and growing more rapidly in metro areas than in nonmetro areas

 

Note: Nonmetro adjacent counties are physically adjacent to one or more metro counties and have at least 2 percent of their workers commuting to metro 

counties. "More urban" nonmetro counties have an urban population of 20,000 to 49,999, "less urban" nonmetro counties have an urban population of 2,500 

to 19,999, and "completely rural" nonmetro counties have an urban population of less than 2,500.

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

Real personal income per person has declined in recent years in farming-dependent and mining-dependent nonmetro counties

One reason that real PIPP has declined in more rural/remote nonmetro counties is that farm 

income and mining income—which are more important in more rural and remote nonmetro 

counties—have declined in recent years after peaking earlier in the decade. After net farm 

income peaked in 2013 at $137 billion, it declined 52 percent by 2016 (to $66 billion) and 

remained 41 percent below the 2013 level ($81 billion) in 2017, driven by falling agricultural 

commodity prices. Similarly, mining sector value-added declined 48 percent from a peak of $413 
5 Rural America at a Glance 2019 Edition

billion in 2014 to a low of $216 billion in 2016, driven largely by declining oil and gas prices, 

and remained 35 percent below the 2014 level in 2017.

Corresponding to these declines in farming and mining income were declines in personal 

income per person in farming-dependent and mining-dependent nonmetro counties. In farmingdependent nonmetro counties, real PIPP declined by 5.1 percent between 2013 and 2017; in miningdependent nonmetro counties, real PIPP declined by 7.8 percent between 2014 and 2017.

In nonmetro counties other than those dependent on farming or mining, real PIPP grew slightly 

between 2010 and 2013, then more rapidly after 2013. The greatest growth over the entire 2010-17 

period occurred in recreation counties, which by 2014 (and subsequently) had the highest average 

PIPP among all economic types of nonmetro counties. The other three nonmetro economic types—

manufacturing-dependent, Federal and State Government-dependent, and nonspecialized counties—

all experienced similarly low levels of, and slow growth in, real PIPP over the period. Although real 

PIPP declined after 2013 and 2014 in farming- and mining-dependent counties, PIPP was still higher 

in these counties in 2017 than in all other economic types, except recreation counties.

In nonmetro areas, real personal income per person grew the most and was highest in 2017 in 

recreation counties

 

Note: County economic types are classified by USDA, Economic Research Service using U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis data on the share of employment and earnings by industry (for all types), and U.S. Census Bureau data on the percentage of vacant housing units intended for seasonal or occasional 

use (for recreation counties only).

Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

6

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, 

and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity 

(including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, 

or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint 

filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should 

contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. 

Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination 

Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the 

complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Data sources

Population Estimates Program, Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. 

Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Regional Economic Accounts, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce.

Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.

Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.

Definitions and additional information

For more on the 2013 definitions of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas as well as related 

concepts such as urbanized areas and central counties, visit the ERS “What Is Rural?” topic page.

ERS Website and Contact Person 

Information on rural America can be found on the ERS website. For more information, contact 

John Pender at john.pender@usda.gov or (202) 694-5568.