U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

census.gov

American Community Survey Reports

Young Adult Migration: 2007–2009 to 2010–2012

By Megan J. Benetsky; Charlynn A. Burd, Ph.D.; 

and Melanie A. Rapino, Ph.D.

March 2015

ACS-31

INTRODUCTION

Young adults in the United States have the highest rate 

of migration compared with other age groups. The 

most common reasons for moving among all ages are 

job, housing, or family related.1 Many of these moves 

are made between the ages of 18 to 34, an age group 

marked by various life course transitions associated with 

moving.2 These include getting a job, going to college, 

getting married, or having children. 

Generally, when economic conditions are good, the 

rate of migration is relatively stable, regardless of age.3

However, spurred by a credit and housing crisis, the 

Great Recession, which lasted from about 2007–2009, 

was followed by a large increase in unemployment in the 

United States. Accordingly, migration in the United States 

1 David K. Ihrke, Carol S. Faber, and William K. Koerber,

“Geographical Mobility: 2008 to 2009,” Current Population

Reports, P20-565, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC, 2011. 2 Rachel S. Franklin, “Migration of the Young, Single, and

College Educated: 1995 to 2000,” Census 2000 Special Reports,

CENSR-12, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2003; and Justyna

Gowrowkowska and Todd K. Gardner,“Historical Migration of the

Young, Single, and College Educated: 1965 to 2000,” Population Division

Working Paper No. 94, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2012. 3 David K. Ihrke, Carol S. Faber, and William K. Koerber,

“Geographical Mobility: 2008 to 2009, Current Population Reports,

P20-565, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC, 2011.

slowed.4,5 Young adults may have foregone many of the 

life course transitions associated with moving because 

of fewer employment opportunities, delayed family 

formation, or the inability to buy a home.

This report describes the demographic and 

socioeconomic status of young adult migrants, aged 18 

to 34 using the 2007–2009 and 2010–2012 American 

Community Survey (ACS) 3-year estimates. Migrants 

in this report include any young adults whose current 

address was different from their address 1 year ago. 

These estimates represent the years of the postrecession 

period using the 2010–2012 ACS 3-year estimates 

and were compared with the 2007–2009 ACS 3-year 

estimates, which represented the years of the recession 

period. The geographic location of young adults was 

also analyzed for the two time periods with a focus on 

metropolitan areas.

The ACS is a nationally representative, ongoing survey 

that produces annual estimates of socioeconomic, 

demographic, and housing characteristics at the national 

and subnational levels. The ACS 3-year estimates are a 

multiyear dataset collected over a 36-month period that 

allow a more detailed analysis of smaller populations 

across smaller areas of geography. The U.S. Census 

Bureau recommends the comparison of multiyear 

estimates only when the data years are not overlapping, 

such as the 2007–2009 and 2010–2012 datasets.6 In the 

ACS, respondents were asked where they lived

1 year ago, which provided the previous residence 

4 The Great Recession officially began in December of 2007 and 

ended in June of 2009, according to the National Bureau of Economic 

Research. See <www.nber.org/cycles.html>. 5 William H. Frey, The Great American Migration Slowdown: Regional 

and Metropolitan Dimensions, Brookings, Washington, DC, 2009; and

David K. Ihrke, Carol S. Faber, and William K. Koerber, “Geographical 

Mobility: 2008 to 2009,” Current Population Reports, P20-565,

U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC, 2011. 6 See <www.census.gov/acs/www/guidance_for_data_users

/comparing_data/>.

YOUNG ADULTS, DEFINED

Young adults are defined as being between the 

ages of 18 and 34, roughly born in the late 1970s 

through the 1990s. They are characterized as 

having grown up with the Internet, and they came 

of age during the Great Recession.
2 U.S. Census Bureau

(origin) information. The “residence 

1 year ago” question was 

interpreted as a move in the last 

year despite the use of the 3-year 

datasets, rather than a move 3 

years ago.7 The current residence 

information was obtained from the 

mailing address and the previous 

residence was self-reported. Age 

was reported at the time the survey 

was conducted.8 

This report is organized as follows: 

first, there is an overview of 

7 For more information on how to interpret 

ACS multiyear data, see Section 11.11 at

<www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads

/survey_methodology/acs_design

_methodology_ch11_2014Chapter_11

_RevisedDec2010.pdf>. 8 All data include Puerto Rico, unless 

otherwise noted.

migration trends across age groups, 

then each time period is examined—

postrecession (2010–2012) and 

recession (2007–2009). For each 

time period, we examine the 

mobility trends for young migrants 

as well as their demographic and 

socioeconomic characteristics. 

Finally, there is an analysis of the 

geography of young inmovers by 

metropolitan areas. 

HIGHLIGHTS

• Young adults had higher 

migration rates than the total 

population.

• The number of young adults 

who moved between the 

2007–2009 recession period 

and the 2010–2012 postrecession period declined by about 

half of a million people.

• The migration rate of young 

adults declined about 1.4 percentage points from the 2007–2009 

recession period to the 2010–

2012 postrecession period.

• Young adults aged 18 to 24 had 

the highest migration rate compared to 25- to 29-year-olds and 

30- to 34-year-olds in both the 

2007–2009 recession period and 

the 2010–2012 postrecession 

period, and also had the largest 

decline from the 2007–2009 

recession period to the 2010–

2012 postrecession period.

• Young adult females aged 18 to 24 

had a higher migration rate than 

young adult men 18 to 24 in the 

2010–2012 postrecession period, 

while young adult males overall 

had larger declines between periods compared with women.

• Native-born young adults had 

larger declines between periods 

than the foreign born.

• Young adults with a college 

degree had the smallest declines 

in migration compared to young 

adults with less education. 

• Many smaller metros, especially 

ones with colleges, had larger 

shares of young adult inmovers 

than large metro areas.

YOUNG ADULTS ARE

THE MOST MOBILE 

POPULATION

Migration in the United States is 

largely driven by young adults and 

the children that accompany them. 

The migration rate declines after 

young adulthood as more people 

have completed the markers of 

adulthood transitions like completing 

education, getting a job, getting 

married, and buying a home. These 

life events connected to transitions 

to adulthood tend to be associated 

with moving as well. Using the 

2007–2009 and 2010–2012 ACS 

3-year estimates, Figure 2 shows this 

trend across age. Children aged 1 to 

6 had migration rates higher than 

that of the total population. This 

was because children typically move 

with their parents, many of whom 

are young adults. The migration rate 

went up at age 18, peaked at about 

age 23, and continued to stay above 

the total population average until the 

late 30s. 

Figure 2 also shows that 

migration rates in the 2010–2012 

postrecession period tracked closely 

to migration rates in the 2007–2009 

recession period, except across the 

young adult ages. From age 18 to 

30 there was a significant decline 

in migration in the 2010–2012 

postrecession period compared with 

the 2007–2009 recession period due 

to about a half-million fewer young 

adult movers between these periods.

Figure 1. 

Reproduction of the 

Question on Residence 

1 Year Ago From 

the 2012 American 

Community Survey
U.S. Census Bureau 3

While most young adults experience 

major life course transitions, there 

is a relatively large range in age 

(17 years) in the 18- to 34-year-old 

sample, which may mask variations 

in the likelihood to migrate or the 

location of migration. For example, 

18- to 24-year-olds are more likely 

to move to areas with universities, 

while 25- to 29-year-olds’ migration 

patterns may be job-driven, and 

30- to 34-year-olds may seek out 

areas with affordable housing for a 

family in addition to employment 

opportunities. For this reason, this 

analysis separates young adults 

into three groups: 18- to 24-yearolds, 25- to 29-year-olds, and 30- to 

34-year-olds. This helps to capture 

differences between those who are 

still enrolled in school or who are 

not in school and those who have 

likely completed their education. 

Figure 3 shows the age distribution 

for the total population and for 

movers. Young Adults made up 

about 23.7 percent of the total 

population of the United States, 

while they accounted for over 43 

percent of all movers. About 20.8 

percent of all movers were between 

the ages of 18 and 24, accounting 

for almost half of all young adult 

movers. This is followed by 13.2 

percent of all movers aged 25 to 29 

and about 9.5 percent between 30 

and 34 years. The 18- to 24-year-old 

age grouping is larger than the 25- 

to 29-year-old group and those aged 

30 to 34, due to a 7-year age range 

rather than a 5-year range. However, 

young adults aged 18 to 24 were 

grouped together because, in many 

tables and reports by the Census 

Bureau, educational attainment 

is usually measured beginning at 

age 25, when formal education is 

over for most people.9 In addition 

to following previous educational 

attainment specifications, these age 

categories were also useful because 

migration increases and peaks 

between ages 18 and 24, before 

declining at age 25. 

9 “Even when data are collected from all 

household members regardless of age, the 

Census Bureau generally publishes data only 

for adults. Most publications focus on adults 

aged 25 years and over, when education has 

been completed for most people,” U.S. Census 

Bureau, “About Educational Attainment,” 

<www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education

/about/index.html>.

Figure 2. 

Age-Specific Migration Rates, 2007–2009 and 2010–2012

*The average migration rate for the total population, 2007–2009 to 2010–2012.

Note: This figure does not include movers in Puerto Rico.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2009 and 2010–2012 American Community Survey 3-year estimates.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 +

Migration rate 

(in percent) Total Young Adult 18–34

 15.4%*

2007–2009 2010–2012

Age
4 U.S. Census Bureau

People who lived in group quarters 

are a highly mobile population 

and were also overrepresented by 

young adults. About 2.6 percent of 

the total population lived in group 

quarters, compared with about 

5.9 percent of young adults. Of 

those who lived in group quarters, 

48.4 percent moved in the last year 

compared with those who lived in 

housing units who had a mover rate 

of 14.2 percent. Young adults who 

lived in group quarters also had a 

higher migration rate than those 

living in housing units, 58.0 percent 

compared with 25.9 percent (Table 1).

Presented in this report are 

migration rates across various 

demographic, socioeconomic, and 

family characteristics for all young 

adults, 18- to 24-year-olds, 25- to 

29-year-olds, and 30- to 34-yearolds during the postrecession 

(2010–2012 ACS). In order to 

highlight how migration differed 

between the periods, the next 

section discusses the change in 

migration rates from the 2007–2009 

recession period to the 2010–2012 

postrecession period rather than 

the migration rates of the recession 

period. The last section examines 

inmovers by metro size.

YOUNG ADULT MIGRANTS’ 

CHARACTERISTICS, 

POSTRECESSION, 2010–2012

Demographics

According to 2007–2009 ACS data, 

about 21 million young adults 

moved during this time period 

(Table 2). These young adults had 

a migration rate of about 29.2 

percent, compared with 15.7 

percent for the total population.10

For the younger age group, those 

aged 18 to 24, the migration rate was 

about 33.3 percent, where migration 

10 The universe for 1-year migration rates 

includes anyone aged 1 or over.

Figure 3. 

Age Composition of the Total Population and Movers, 2010–2012 American

Community Survey

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010–2012 American Community Survey 3-year estimates.

Percent

Age

Total population 

aged 1 and over

Movers

43.5%

23.7%

75 +

65 to 74

55 to 64

45 to 54

35 to 44

30 to 34

25 to 29

18 to 24

1 to 17

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100
U.S. Census Bureau 5

peaked for young adults. Among 25- 

to 29-year-olds, the migration rate 

declined to 30.3 percent, and further 

declined to 21.8 percent for 30- to 

34-year-olds. These rates change in 

the 2010–2012 postrecession period 

(Table 3), where the overall mover 

rate declined to 15.1 percent, and the 

rate for the Total Young Adult group 

went down to 27.8 percent. 

Looking at differences by sex during 

the 2010–2012 postrecession 

period, the migration rates of males 

and females differed very little in 

the Total Young Adult population 

(Figure 4). Differences in sex 

became apparent when young 

adults were divided into the three 

age groups. Among 18- to 24-yearolds, females had a higher rate of 

migration than males (32.4 percent 

compared with 29.8 percent); but 

among 25- to 29-year-olds and 

30- to 34-year-olds, the pattern 

reversed, and males were more 

likely to migrate than females 

(29.5 percent compared with 28.6 

percent, and 22.5 percent compared 

with 20.4 percent, respectively). 

Compared with White young adult 

movers, who had a migration rate of 

28.0 percent, Black (27.4 percent), 

American Indian and Alaska Native 

(25.6 percent), and Some Other 

Race (24.2 percent) were less likely 

to move.11,12 The remaining racial 

categories, Asian (29.8 percent), 

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander (29.7 percent), and Two 

or More Races (28.5 percent) were 

more likely to migrate than White, 

young adult movers. The same 

pattern was generally true for 18- to 

24-year-olds and 25- to 29-yearolds as well. However, among 

30- to 34-year-olds, Black, Asian, 

and Two or More Races movers 

11 Federal surveys now give respondents 

the option of reporting more than one race. 

Therefore, two basic ways of defining a race 

group are possible. A group such as Asian 

may be defined as those who reported Asian 

and no other race (the race-alone or singlerace concept) or as those who reported Asian 

regardless of whether they also reported 

another race (the race-alone-or-in-combination 

concept). This report shows data using the 

first approach (race alone). Use of the singlerace population does not imply that it is the 

preferred method of presenting or analyzing 

data. The Census Bureau uses a variety of 

approaches. 12 All percentages are rates of migration, 

unless otherwise noted.

were among the highest migration 

rates (24.1, 24.6, and 23.9 percent, 

respectively), while White movers 

had the lowest (20.6 percent).13

A different story emerged when 

examining migration rates by 

Hispanic origin. Non-Hispanics 

were more likely to migrate than 

Hispanics; however, this was 

especially apparent in the 18- to 

24-year-old age group, where 

32.9 percent of young adult nonHispanics migrated in the last year 

compared with 24.2 percent of 

Hispanics. The gap in migration 

rates decreased when the 25- to 

29-year-old group was compared 

with the 30- to 34-year-old group.

The native born were more likely 

to migrate within the United States 

than foreign-born young adults.14

This pattern changed among 30- to 

34-year-olds, where the foreign born 

were more likely to migrate than 

13 Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 

was not statistically different from any other 

race category. 14 The native born are more likely to 

migrate within or to the United States if they 

are coming from Puerto Rico.

Table 1. 

Migration Rates for Housing Units and Group Quarters for Young Adults and

the Total Population

Population

Total population Total Young Adults

Migration rate

(percent) Margin of error

Migration rate

(percent) Margin of error

Housing unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2 0.1 25.9 0.1

Group quarters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.4 0.2 58.0 0.3

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010–2012 American Community Survey 3-year estimates.
6 U.S. Census Bureau Table 2. Migration Rates by Selected Characteristics for Young Adults, Recession Years 2007–2009 ACS 3-Year Estimates—Con. Characteristic Total population aged 1 and over Total Young Adults Aged 18–24 Aged 25–29 Aged 30–34 Movers Migration rate (percent) Margin of error Movers Migration rate (percent) Margin of error Movers Migration rate (percent) Margin of error Movers Migration rate (percent) Margin of error Movers Migration rate (percent) Margin of error Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47,636,609 15.7 0.1 21,007,269 29.2 0.1 10,152,912 33.3 0.1 6,539,736 30.3 0.1 4,314,621 21.8 0.1 Sex Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,194,510 16.2 *0.1 10,773,437 29.3 *0.1 5,037,795 32.1 *0.2 3,433,471 31.1 *0.2 2,302,171 22.9 *0.2 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,442,099 15.2 †*0.1 10,233,832 29.1 †*0.1 5,115,117 34.6 †*0.2 3,106,265 29.4 †*0.2 2,012,450 20.6 †0.2 Race White alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,896,634 14.5 *0.1 14,957,166 29.4 *0.1 7,429,632 34.4 *0.1 4,623,797 30.3 *0.2 2,903,737 20.8 0.2 Black or African American alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,464,336 20.0 †*0.1 2,909,498 29.4 *0.2 1,362,142 30.7 †*0.3 904,171 31.1 †*0.4 643,185 25.4 †*0.3 American Indian and Alaska Native alone . . . . . . 453,704 18.8 †*0.4 184,900 28.6 †*0.7 90,547 30.5 †*1.1 55,834 29.5 *1.1 38,519 23.9 †*1.3 Asian alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,285,053 17.1 †0.2 1,075,407 30.0 †0.3 418,862 33.4 †0.4 361,197 32.3 †*0.5 295,348 24.4 †0.4 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone . . . . . 96,809 21.4 †1.0 43,435 30.8 1.5 21,059 33.6 2.0 12,745 30.8 3.1 9,631 26.1 †2.5 Some Other Race alone . . . 3,004,947 18.5 †*0.2 1,309,318 25.5 †*0.3 550,645 27.5 †*0.4 432,016 27.0 †*0.5 326,657 21.4 †0.4 Two or More Races . . . . . . . 1,435,126 20.3 †*0.2 527,545 30.4 †*0.4 280,025 33.3 †*0.6 149,976 30.9 *0.8 97,544 23.8 †0.8 Hispanic Origin Hispanic or Latino . . . . . . . . 8,566,090 17.2 *0.1 3,525,000 24.5 *0.2 1,513,758 26.2 *0.2 1,151,017 26.2 *0.3 860,225 20.4 0.2 Not Hispanic or Latino . . . . . 39,070,519 15.4 †*0.1 17,482,269 30.4 †*0.1 8,639,154 34.9 †*0.1 5,388,719 31.3 †*0.1 3,454,396 22.2 †*0.2 Nativity and Citizenship Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,082,609 15.5 *0.1 17,907,289 29.6 *0.1 9,089,590 33.5 *0.1 5,453,669 30.5 *0.2 3,364,030 21.6 *0.1 Foreign born . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,554,000 17.2 †*0.1 3,099,980 27.4 †*0.2 1,063,322 31.7 †*0.3 1,086,067 29.3 †*0.3 950,591 22.2 †0.3 Naturalized citizen . . . . . . 1,638,505 10.0 0.1 571,148 20.5 *0.3 185,969 24.7 *0.5 197,840 23.1 *0.5 187,339 16.0 *0.4 Noncitizen . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,915,495 22.6 †*0.2 2,528,832 29.6 †*0.2 877,353 33.7 †*0.4 888,227 31.2 †*0.3 763,252 24.6 †0.3 Educational Attainment1 Less than high school . . . . . 4,465,675 14.4 *0.1 2,881,669 27.1 *0.2 1,389,895 27.2 *0.2 851,872 29.9 *0.4 639,902 23.9 *0.3 High school graduate or equivalent . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,322,074 12.5 †*0.1 5,636,578 28.1 †*0.1 2,944,380 30.9 †*0.2 1,593,714 28.4 †*0.2 1,098,484 22.2 †*0.2 Some college . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,517,715 13.2 †*0.1 7,818,713 30.3 †*0.1 4,590,549 35.0 †*0.2 1,989,352 29.4 †*0.2 1,238,812 21.0 †*0.2 Bachelor’s degree or higher . 7,066,992 12.6 †*0.1 4,670,309 30.3 †*0.2 1,228,088 44.5 †*0.3 2,104,798 33.0 †*0.2 1,337,423 21.3 †0.2 Employment status Employed, at work . . . . . . . . 21,759,904 15.5 *0.1 13,278,475 27.9 *0.1 5,651,781 33.0 *0.1 4,628,768 29.5 *0.2 2,997,926 20.4 *0.1 Employed, with a job but not at work . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620,385 16.6 †*0.2 372,784 29.7 †*0.5 167,138 37.4 †*0.8 120,964 30.0 0.9 84,682 20.9 0.7 Unemployed.............. 2,796,824 23.6 †*0.2 1,735,684 30.5 †*0.3 945,668 30.6 †*0.3 483,293 32.2 †*0.4 306,723 27.9 †*0.5 Armed Forces, at work . . . . 572,208 48.5 †*0.6 481,755 56.0 †*0.7 291,302 65.9 †*1.1 125,440 50.0 †1.0 65,013 38.9 †1.3 Armed Forces, with a job but not at work . . . . . . . . . . 7,916 54.6 †*4.9 6,942 54.9 †*5.0 4,773 56.1 †*6.7 1,287 52.7 †10.3 882 52.3 †12.4 Not in the labor force . . . . . . 11,845,660 14.0 †*0.1 5,131,629 31.0 †*0.2 3,092,250 32.9 *0.2 1,179,984 31.4 †*0.3 859,395 25.2 †*0.3 See footnotes at end of table.
U.S. Census Bureau

7

Table 2.Migration Rates by Selected Characteristics for Young Adults, Recession Years 2007–2009 ACS 3-Year Estimates—Con.

Characteristic

Total population

aged 1 and over Total Young Adults Aged 18–24 Aged 25–29 Aged 30–34

Movers

Migration

rate

(percent)

Margin 

of error Movers

Migration

rate

(percent)

Margin 

of error Movers

Migration

rate

(percent)

Margin 

of error Movers

Migration

rate

(percent)

Margin 

of error Movers

Migration

rate

(percent)

Margin 

of error

Mean annual adjusted personal income(in dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . $20,631 X $64 $21,074 X $61 $12,185 X $52 $27,117 X $117 $32,832 X $186Marital StatusMarried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,488,844 10.2 *0.1 5,495,392 24.8 *0.1 1,328,643 42.4 *0.3 2,185,556 27.1 *0.2 1,981,193 18.0 0.2Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,423,797 9.3 †*0.1 37,979 29.3 †1.2 8,142 32.5 †2.9 13,133 32.1 †2.9 16,704 26.3 †1.9Separated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,553,031 17.5 †*0.1 968,515 34.9 †*0.3 109,572 46.9 †*1.2 369,654 39.2 †*0.5 489,289 30.6 †*0.4Divorced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,474,293 27.4 †*0.2 523,318 40.8 †*0.5 96,151 46.8 †1.0 201,961 42.7 †*0.9 225,206 37.3 †*0.6Never married . . . . . . . . . . . 27,696,644 20.4 †*0.1 13,982,065 30.7 †*0.1 8,610,404 32.0 †*0.1 3,769,432 31.2 †*0.2 1,602,229 24.4 †*0.2Own Children Under 18Not present . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,723,918 14.1 †*0.1 11,082,219 31.7 †*0.1 5,580,136 35.0 †*0.2 3,696,343 31.9 †*0.2 1,805,740 24.4 †*0.2Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,786,442 15.2 0.1 7,387,836 22.5 0.1 2,619,509 23.0 0.2 2,504,326 26.5 0.2 2,264,001 18.9 0.2

Presence of children

under 6 only . . . . . . . . . . 6,974,929 22.8 *0.2 3,473,371 27.9 *0.2 1,403,658 38.3 *0.4 1,275,118 27.8 *0.3 794,595 18.8 *0.3

Presence of children

6–17 only . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,678,070 11.5 †*0.1 2,004,227 17.1 †*0.2 791,220 13.2 †*0.2 479,953 24.0 †*0.4 733,054 19.8 †*0.3

Presence of children

under 6 and 6–17 years . 7,133,443 17.1 †*0.2 1,910,238 22.0 †*0.2 424,631 24.1 †*0.4 749,255 26.2 †*0.3 736,352 18.2 †0.3† Significant at the 90 percent confidence level within category, using first category as reference group.* Significant at the 90 percent confidence level between the 2007–2009 ACS 3-year estimates and the 2010–2012 ACS 3-year estimates.X Not applicable.1 Educational attainment for the total population restricts the universe to those aged 25 and older. For age groups <18 years, total young, and 18–24 years, the restriction is lifted.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2009 American Community Survey 3-year estimates.
8 U.S. Census Bureau Table 3. Migration Rates By Selected Characteristics For Young Adults, Postrecession Years 2010–2012—Con. Characteristic Total population Aged 1 and over Total Young Adults Aged 18–24 Aged 25–29 Aged 30–34 Movers Migration rate (percent) Margin of error Movers Migration rate (percent) Margin of error Movers Migration rate (percent) Margin of error Movers Migration rate (percent) Margin of error Movers Migration rate (percent) Margin of error Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47,086,720 15.1 0.1 20,463,254 27.8 0.1 9,785,234 31.1 0.1 6,224,492 29.0 0.1 4,453,528 21.5 0.1 Sex Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,654,016 15.5 *0.1 10,329,019 27.7 *0.1 4,799,498 29.8 *0.2 3,189,352 29.5 *0.2 2,340,169 22.5 *0.1 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,432,704 14.8 †*0.1 10,134,235 27.9 †*0.1 4,985,736 32.4 †*0.1 3,035,140 28.6 †*0.2 2,113,359 20.4 †0.1 Race White alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,303,395 14.0 *0.1 14,431,810 28.0 *0.1 7,013,144 32.2 *0.1 4,399,233 29.1 *0.1 3,019,433 20.6 0.1 Black or African American alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,272,992 18.7 †*0.1 2,807,695 27.4 †*0.2 1,331,803 28.3 †*0.2 822,188 29.2 *0.4 653,704 24.1 †*0.3 American Indian and Alaska Native alone . . . . . . 440,288 17.4 †*0.4 171,431 25.6 †*0.6 83,357 27.2 †*0.8 49,204 26.3 †*1.0 38,870 22.0 †*1.0 Asian alone . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,539,245 16.9 †0.2 1,222,377 29.8 †0.3 509,624 32.8 †0.4 396,650 31.4 †*0.5 316,103 24.6 †0.4 Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone . . . . . 111,311 21.5 †1.0 47,945 29.7 †1.3 22,930 33.1 2.0 15,076 31.3 2.3 9,939 22.8 2.3 Some Other Race alone . . . 2,663,871 17.9 †*0.2 1,133,460 24.2 †*0.3 485,565 24.9 †*0.4 360,940 26.0 †*0.5 286,955 21.3 †0.4 Two or More races . . . . . . . . 1,755,618 19.7 †*0.2 648,536 28.5 †*0.3 338,811 30.0 †*0.5 181,201 29.8 †*0.7 128,524 23.9 †0.6 Hispanic Origin Hispanic or Latino . . . . . . . . 9,046,344 16.6 *0.1 3,666,329 23.3 *0.2 1,621,639 24.2 *0.2 1,142,206 25.1 *0.2 902,484 20.2 0.2 Not Hispanic or Latino . . . . . 38,040,376 14.8 †*0.1 16,796,925 29.0 †*0.1 8,163,595 32.9 †*0.1 5,082,286 30.1 †*0.1 3,551,044 21.8 †*0.1 Nativity and Citizenship Native . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,448,986 14.9 *0.1 17,453,964 28.0 *0.1 8,760,338 31.2 *0.1 5,182,400 29.2 *0.1 3,511,226 21.3 *0.1 Foreign born . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,637,734 16.4 †*0.1 3,009,290 26.8 †*0.2 1,024,896 30.4 †*0.3 1,042,092 28.5 †*0.3 942,302 22.4 †0.3 Naturalized citizen . . . . . . 1,817,152 10.0 0.1 589,799 20.1 *0.3 179,936 22.7 *0.5 205,253 22.0 *0.5 204,610 17.0 *0.4 Noncitizen . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,820,582 21.5 †*0.1 2,419,491 29.1 †*0.2 844,960 32.8 †*0.4 836,839 30.7 †*0.3 737,692 24.5 †0.3 Educational Attainment1 Less than high school . . . . . 16,113,232 15.3 *0.1 2,533,880 25.0 *0.2 1,213,646 24.5 *0.3 709,412 28.1 *0.3 610,822 23.1 *0.3 High school graduate or equivalent . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,614,174 14.0 †*0.1 5,010,665 25.8 †*0.1 2,584,113 28.0 †*0.2 1,375,207 26.3 †*0.2 1,051,345 21.1 †*0.2 Some college . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,712,217 17.0 †*0.1 8,094,904 29.1 †*0.1 4,748,085 33.0 *0.2 1,982,031 28.1 *0.2 1,364,788 21.3 †*0.2 Bachelor’s degree or higher . 8,647,097 13.8 †*0.1 4,823,805 29.7 †*0.1 1,239,390 42.5 †*0.3 2,157,842 32.6 †*0.2 1,426,573 21.3 †0.2 Employment Status Employed, at work . . . . . . . . 20,668,956 14.9 *0.1 12,384,842 26.8 *0.1 5,094,719 31.2 *0.1 4,287,424 28.5 *0.1 3,002,699 20.1 *0.1 Employed, with a job but not at work . . . . . . . . . . 508,851 16.1 †*0.2 288,742 28.3 †*0.6 117,429 34.4 †*0.9 97,121 29.4 1.0 74,192 21.3 0.8 Unemployed.............. 3,490,376 21.6 †*0.1 2,127,473 28.3 †*0.2 1,109,714 28.4 †*0.2 591,080 29.9 †*0.4 426,679 26.2 †*0.3 Armed Forces, at work . . . . 483,440 47.5 †*0.6 412,082 54.3 †*0.8 242,588 62.7 †*1.0 110,690 49.0 †1.1 58,804 40.4 †1.3 Armed Forces, with a job but not at work . . . . . . . . . . 5,068 49.2 †5.4 4,830 51.4 †5.6 3,587 52.7 †5.9 886 47.8 †11.3 357 48.1 †21.1 Not in the labor force . . . . . . 12,090,356 13.4 †*0.1 5,245,285 29.0 †*0.1 3,217,197 30.5 †*0.2 1,137,291 29.5 †*0.2 890,797 24.1 †*0.2 See footnotes at end of table.
U.S. Census Bureau

9

Table 3.Migration Rates By Selected Characteristics For Young Adults, Postrecession Years 2010–2012—Con.

Characteristic

Total population

Aged 1 and over Total Young Adults Aged 18–24 Aged 25–29 Aged 30–34

Movers

Migration

rate

(percent)

Margin 

of error Movers

Migration

rate

(percent)

Margin 

of error Movers

Migration

rate

(percent)

Margin 

of error Movers

Migration

rate

(percent)

Margin 

of error Movers

Migration

rate

(percent)

Margin 

of error

Mean annual adjustedpersonal income(in dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . $20,611 X $61.5 $20,462 X $65.2 $10,978 X $58.3 $26,856 X $129.5 $32,363 X $197.7Marital StatusMarried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,954,400 9.8 *0.0 5,001,387 24.0 *0.1 1,073,916 40.5 *0.4 1,959,398 26.8 *0.2 1,968,073 18.1 0.2Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,359,579 8.9 †*0.1 33,205 28.8 †1.5 6,178 37.3 4.4 10,930 32.3 †2.5 16,097 24.8 †2.1Separated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,612,581 16.5 †*0.1 887,336 32.9 †*0.3 87,007 41.9 †*1.0 311,340 36.2 †*0.5 488,989 30.0 †*0.4Divorced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,467,832 26.0 †*0.2 470,440 38.7 †*0.5 79,790 46.2 †1.7 174,494 40.7 †*0.8 216,156 35.3 †*0.7Never married . . . . . . . . . . . 27,692,328 19.7 †*0.1 14,070,886 28.8 †*0.1 8,538,343 30.0 †*0.1 3,768,330 29.4 †*0.1 1,764,213 23.3 †*0.2Own Children Under 18Not present . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,760,597 13.5 †*0.1 10,805,980 30.0 0.1 5,325,846 32.6 0.2 3,611,181 30.6 †*0.1 1,868,953 23.7 †*0.2Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,428,780 14.9 *0.1 7,133,663 21.4 0.1 2,496,191 21.1 0.2 2,301,742 25.4 *0.2 2,335,730 18.9 0.2

Presence of children

under 6 only . . . . . . . . . . 6,778,887 22.3 *0.2 3,327,931 26.8 *0.2 1,270,055 35.4 *0.4 1,211,944 27.1 *0.3 845,932 19.3 *0.2

Presence of children

6–17 only . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,574,904 11.4 †*0.1 1,943,225 16.3 †*0.2 806,539 12.7 †*0.2 422,135 22.4 †*0.4 714,551 19.2 *0.3

Presence of children

under 6 and 6–17 years . 7,074,989 16.6 †*0.2 1,862,507 21.0 †*0.2 419,597 21.6 †*0.4 667,663 24.8 †*0.3 775,247 18.2 †0.2† Significant at the 90 percent confidence level within category, using first category as reference group.* Significant at the 90 percent confidence level between the 2007–2009 ACS 3-year estimates and the 2010–2012 ACS 3-Year Estimates.X Not applicable.1 Educational attainment for the total population restricts the universe to those aged 25 and older. For age groups <18 years, Total young, and 18–24 years, the restriction is lifted.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010–2012 American Community Survey 3-year estimates.
10 U.S. Census Bureau

natives. Among the foreign born, 

migration rates across citizenship 

status vary greatly. About 29.1 

percent of all young adults without 

citizenship moved in the last year, 

compared with 20.1 percent of all 

foreign-born young adults with 

citizenship. The difference was 

more apparent for 18- to 24-yearolds, where 32.9 percent of young 

adults without citizenship moved 

in the last year, while only about 

22.7 percent of young adults with 

citizenship moved. Noncitizens had 

higher migration rates than foreignborn citizens for 25- to 29-year-olds 

and 30- to 34-year-olds. 

Socioeconomic indicators

Educational attainment had a clear 

association with the likelihood to 

migrate. Among all young adults, 

those who had some college or 

graduated from college were the 

most likely to move (Figure 5). 

Measuring educational attainment 

across age groups was not ideal as 

many 18- to 24-year-olds are still 

enrolled in school.15 However, this 

age group continued to have some 

of the highest migration rates, 

especially among college graduates. 

For the 25- to 29-year-olds, college 

graduates continued to be the most 

likely to move (32.6 percent), while 

those aged 30 to 34 with less than a 

high school degree were most likely 

to move (23.1 percent). 

Migration rates varied depending 

on employment status. Young 

adults most likely to migrate were 

those who reported that they were 

15 “Even when data are collected from all 

household members regardless of age, the 

Census Bureau generally publishes data only 

for adults. Most publications focus on adults 

aged 25 years and over, when education has 

been completed for most people,” U.S. Census 

Bureau, “About Educational Attainment,” 

<www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education

/about/index.html>.

Figure 4. 

Migration Rates by Sex, 2010–2012 

Postrecession Period

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010–2012 American Community Survey 3-year estimates.

Migration rate (in percent)

Male Female

Total 

Young Adults

18–24

years

25–29

years

30–34

years

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Figure 5. 

Migration Rates by Age Group and Educational 

Attainment, 2010–2012 Postrecession Period

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010–2012 American Community Survey 3-year estimates.

Migration rate (in percent)

Less than 

high school

High school 

graduate or 

equivalent

Some 

college

Bachelor’s 

degree or

higher

Total

Young

Adults

18–24

years

25–29

years

30–34

years

0 10 20 30 40 50
U.S. Census Bureau 11

Armed Forces, at work and not 

at work, (54.3 percent and 51.4 

percent).16,17 This was expected 

as they are known to be a highly 

mobile population.18 Those who 

were employed, at work were least 

likely to have moved, as expected. 

16 See ACS subject definitions of employment status. Those who were “Employed” or 

were working for the Armed Forces could be 

“at work” or “with a job but not at work.” 

“At work” includes those who did any work at all 

during the reference week as paid employees, 

worked in their own business or profession, 

worked on their own farm, or worked 15 hours 

or more as unpaid workers on a family farm 

or in a family business. “With a job but not at 

work” includes those who did not work during 

the reference week but had jobs or businesses 

from which they were temporarily absent due to 

illness, bad weather, industrial dispute, vacation, 

or other personal reasons. See <www.census

.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation

/SubjectDefinitions/2012_ACSSubject

Definitions.pdf>. 17 The estimates for “Armed Forces, at 

work” and “Armed Forces, not at work” were 

not statistically different from one another. 18 Melanie A. Rapino and Julia Beckhusen, 

“The Migration of Military Spouses using the 

2007–2011 5-Year American Community

Survey,” Working Paper No. 2013-25,

U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2012.

The migration rates of this group 

declined with each age category. For 

example, those aged 30 to 34 years 

who reported being employed and at 

work had the lowest migration rate 

(20.1 percent), likely because many 

had settled into a job or career and 

had no need to relocate.19

Family characteristics

When marital status was examined, 

those who reported being separated 

or divorced had the highest rates 

of migration for all young adults. 

Generally, single young adults had 

higher migration rates than their 

married peers. Married young adults 

had the lowest migration rates 

across all age groups except those 

aged 18 to 24, though this may 

be due in part to a relatively small 

sample size of widowed, separated, 

19 David K. Irhke and Carol S. Faber, 

“Geographical Mobility: 2005 to 2010,”

Current Population Reports, P20-567,

U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2012. 

and divorced people of this age. For 

the older age groups, the migration 

pattern for marital status looked 

similar to that for the Total Young 

Adult group. 

Many people move into larger 

homes or change school districts 

around the time a child is born or a 

few years later.20 In general, young 

adults were more likely to move if 

there were no children present in 

the household. However, the age 

of the child had an effect on the 

likelihood of moving as well.

If the respondent’s own children 

were reported as present in 

the home, the Census Bureau 

aggregates them into two age 

categories to better interpret school 

transitions: Under 6 years old and 

between 6 and 17 years old.21 The 

assumption is that many children 

under the age of 6 were not enrolled 

in school, while children aged 6 to 

17 were enrolled. Young adults were 

less likely to move if all of their 

children were school-aged (Figure 6). 

Those 18 to 24 years old with only 

a child(ren) under 6 were the most 

likely to move, while those with a 

child(ren) between the ages of 6 and 

17 were the least likely to move. 

Young adults between 25 and 29 

years of age had similar migration 

patterns to the overall young adult 

population. For young adults aged 

30 to 34, age of the child(ren) 

present appeared to have less of 

an effect on migration than for the 

younger age groups.

20 Sandra E. Black, “Do Better Schools 

Matter? Parental Valuation of Elementary 

Education,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 

May 1999, 114(2), pp. 577–99. 21 A third category allows for having at 

least one child under 6, as well as, at least one 

child between 6 and 17 years.

Figure 6. 

Migration Rates by Age Group and Presence and 

Age of Children, 2010–2012 Postrecession Period

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010–2012 American Community Survey 3-year estimates.

Migration rate (in percent)

Presence 

of children 

under 6 only

Presence 

of children 

6–17 only

Presence 

of children 

under 6 and 

6–17 years

No children 

present

Total 

Young Adults

18–24

years

25–29

years

30–34

years

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40
12 U.S. Census Bureau

CHANGES IN MIGRATION 

RATES FROM THE 2007–

2009 RECESSION PERIOD

TO THE 2010–2012 

POSTRECESSION PERIOD

Migration slowed in the years after 

the recession for young adults 

(Figure 7). Migration rates for 

the 2007–2009 recession period 

across demographic, economic, 

and household indicators were 

mostly higher than migration 

rates in the postrecession period 

of 2010–2012. The differences in 

migration rates between periods 

were larger for 18- to 24-year-olds 

(–2.2 percentage points) than for 

the other age groups. The following 

sections discuss these differences 

in migration rates between the 

recession and postrecession period 

in more detail.

Demographics

From the recession period (2007–

2009) to the postrecession period 

(2010–2012), young adult males 

had a larger decline in migration 

rates than females (Figure 8). The 

differences by sex were particularly 

apparent for the 25- to 29-year-old 

age group, where the migration rate 

for men declined 1.6 percentage 

points, but only about half as much 

for women (–0.8 percentage points). 

The declines in migration rates for 

those aged 18 to 24 and 30 to 34 

were similar for males and females. 

Examining migration and race, 

the American Indian and Alaska 

Native alone group had among 

the largest decline in migration 

among the Total Young Adult 

group (Figure 9).22 Among the 25- 

to-29-year-old age group, Native 

Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 

appeared to be the only group to 

22 Black and Native Hawaiian or

Pacific Islander were not statistically

different.

Figure 8. 

Migration Rate Difference Between 2007–2009 

Recession and 2010–2012 Postrecession Periods 

by Age Group and Sex

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2009 and 2010–2012 American Community Survey 

3-year estimates.

Migration rate difference (in percentage points)

Male Female

Total 

Young Adults

18–24

years

25–29

years

30–34

years

–2.50

–2.25

–2.00

–1.75

–1.50

–1.25

–1.00

–0.75

–0.50

–0.25

0.00

Figure 7. 

Migration Rates by Age Group for the 2007–2009 

Recession and 2010–2012 Postrecession Periods

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2009 and 2010–2012 American Community Survey 

3-year estimates.

Migration rate difference (in percentage points)

Recession Postrecession Difference

Total 

Young Adults

18–24

years

25–29

years

30–34

years

–5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40
U.S. Census Bureau 13

have an increase in their migration 

rates, however this increase was 

not statistically significant when 

compared with the other races. For 

the 30- to-34-year-olds, the apparent 

increase in migration for Asians was 

also not statistically significant. 

Hispanic origin was a significant 

factor in migration likelihood. 

Overall, non-Hispanics had a higher 

migration rate than Hispanics both 

during the recession period and in 

the postrecession period (Tables 

1 and 2). However, the migration 

rate of Hispanics declined by about 

1.2 percentage points and about 

1.4 percentage points for nonHispanics. Migration rates declined 

by about 2.0 percentage points 

among 18- to 24-year-olds for both 

Hispanics and non-Hispanics. 

Comparing movers who were 

foreign born and those who were 

native born, the native born had 

higher migration rates in the 

recession period as well as the 

postrecession period. The native 

born also experienced a larger 

decline in migration rate across all 

age groups. The migration rate for 

foreign-born citizens was lower 

than the rate of those who were 

not citizens in both periods, while 

18- to 24-year-old foreign-born 

citizens experienced a larger decline 

compared with noncitizens. Among 

30- to 34-year-olds, foreign-born 

citizens were more likely to move 

in the postrecession period than the 

recession period compared to their 

noncitizen peers. 

Figure 9. 

Migration Rate Difference Between 2007–2009 Recession and 2010–2012 

Postrecession Periods by Age Group and Race

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2009 and 2010–2012 American Community Survey 3-year estimates.

Migration rate difference (in percentage points) 

 White 

 alone

Black or

African 

American 

alone

 American 

 Indian and

 Alaska

 Native 

 alone

 Asian 

 alone

Native 

Hawaiian 

and Other

Pacific 

Islander 

alone

Some 

Other 

Race 

alone

Two or 

More 

Races

Total 

Young Adults

18–24

years

25–29

years

30–34

years

–3.5

–3.0

–2.5

–2.0

–1.5

–1.0

–0.5

0.0

0.5
14 U.S. Census Bureau

Socioeconomic indicators

Many young adults move to go to 

college or for a job. Declining rates 

in migration from the recession 

period to the postrecession period 

may indicate that young adults were 

choosing colleges and jobs closer 

to home so they do not have to 

move (Figure 10). They also may 

be foregoing college altogether 

or are unable to find jobs. Among 

18- to 24-year-olds, those with at 

least some college had the smallest 

declines in migration compared to 

those who did not go to college. 

College graduates aged 25 to 29 

experienced the smallest decline in 

migration while 30- to 34-year-olds 

with some college experience had an 

increase in migration rates from the 

2007–2009 recession period to the 

2010–2012 postrecession period.

We further examined the roll of 

education in young migrants’ lives 

through school enrollment and 

group quarters (GQ) status.23 Young 

migrants, especially those in the 

18 to 24 years of age category, 

were more likely to be enrolled 

in school and living in or out of a 

GQ than 25- to 29-year-olds and 

30- to-34 year olds in both the 

2007–2009 recession period and the 

2010–2012 postrecession period. 

Figure 11 shows the percentage of 

23 American Community Survey Subject 

Definitions: “A group quarters is a place

where people live or stay, in a group living 

arrangement, that is owned or managed by

an entity or organization providing housing 

and/or services for the residents. This is not

a typical household-type living arrangement. 

These services may include custodial or

medical care as well as other types of assistance, and residency is commonly restricted

to those receiving these services. People

living in group quarters are usually not related 

to each other. Group quarters include such

places as college residence halls, residential 

treatment centers, skilled nursing facilities, 

group homes, military barracks, correctional 

facilities, and workers’ dormitories.” See

<www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads

/data_documentation/GroupDefinitions

/2012GQ_Definitions.pdf>.

young migrants who lived in a GQ 

that reported being enrolled or not 

enrolled in school at the time of 

survey.24 The results for recession 

versus postrecession were similar, 

but there are some statistically 

significant differences to note. The 

percentage of migrants enrolled 

in school for 18- to 24-year-olds 

increased in the postrecession 

years for those residing in a GQ 

and those not residing in a GQ, 8.1 

to 8.3 and 42.2 to 43.8 percent, 

respectively. Additionally, there was 

24 Figure 11 shows percentages, 

 not mover rates.

an increase in the percentage of 25- 

to 29-year-olds and 30- to 34-yearolds enrolled in school not living 

in a GQ in the postrecession years 

(15.5 to 17.0 percent and 9.0 to 10.0 

percent, respectively). One possible 

explanation for this may be that 

continuing or furthering education 

may have been a result of a decrease 

in the number of available jobs in 

the recession years and additionally, 

students over 24 may forgo living on 

campus in lieu of living in their own 

home or with others. 

Figure 10. 

Migration Rate Difference Between 2007–2009 

Recession and 2010–2012 Postrecession Periods 

by Age Group and Educational Attainment

*The change in migration rate for College graduate or more for 30- to 34-year-olds 

rounds to zero.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2009 and 2010–2012 American Community Survey 

3-year estimates.

Migration rate difference (in percentage points) 

Less than 

high school

High school 

graduate or 

equivalent

Some 

college

Bachelor’s

degree or

higher

–3.0

–2.5

–2.0

–1.5

–1.0

–0.5

0.0

0.5

*

Total 

Young Adults

18–24

years

25–29

years

30–34

years
U.S. Census Bureau 15

Given the recession, many people’s 

employment statuses changed. 

Though this report only looks at 

change in the aggregate and does 

not track individuals, we may 

still assume that migration was 

affected by these employment 

status differences across periods. 

Generally, employed persons at work 

had smaller declines in migration 

rate except compared to those in 

the Armed Forces (Figure 12). No 

employment category across 

any age group experienced 

statistically significant increases 

in migration from recession to 

postrecession periods. 

FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS

Migration rates by marital status 

were also expected to show 

declines. Married young adults 

experienced less of a decline 

in migration rate compared to 

other single young adults.25 For 

presence of children, interestingly, 

the declines in migration were 

slightly steeper for young adults 

without children (–1.7 percentage 

points) than for young adults with 

children (–1.1 percentage points). 

25 Again, the data for young adults who 

are widowed have a relatively low sample 

size and therefore the increased rate of 

migration for this group was not statistically 

different from young adults who are married.

Evidence for this was seen in 

30- to 34-year-olds with children, 

as their migration rate from the 

recession to postrecession period 

had almost no change. Young 

adults aged 30 to 34 with children 

under 6 experienced increased 

migration between periods, while 

18- to 24-year-olds with a child(ren) 

under 6 had the largest decline in 

migration compared with other 

young adults across age groups 

(Figure 13).26

26 Not statistically different from 18- to 

24-year-olds with a child under 6 and a child 

aged 6–17, or 18- to 24-year-olds without 

children.

Figure 11. 

Young Adult Movers by Age Group, School Enrollment 

Status, and Group Quarters (GQ) Status for 2007–2009 

Recession and 2010–2012 Postrecession Periods

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2009 and 2010–2012 American Community Survey 

3-year estimates.

Percent

Not enrolled, 

not in GQ

Not enrolled, 

in GQ

Enrolled, 

not in GQ

Enrolled, 

in GQ

18–24 years 25–29 years 30–34 years

Recession

Postrecession RecessionPostrecession RecessionPostrecession

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

METROPOLITAN 

AND MICROPOLITAN 

STATISTICAL AREAS

Metropolitan (metro) and 

micropolitan (micro) areas 

are geographic entities 

defined by the Office of 

Management and Budget 

(OMB). Collectively, metro and 

micro areas are referred to as 

Core Based Statistical Areas 

(CBSA).

A metro area contains an 

urban core area of 50,000 or 

more people. A micro area 

contains a core urban area 

of at least 10,000 people, 

but less than 50,000. Each 

CBSA is composed of one or 

more counties that contain 

the urban core. Additionally, 

any adjacent counties that 

are socially or economically 

integrated, (as measured 

by commuting to work) are 

included. 
16 U.S. Census Bureau

GEOGRAPHIC

MOVING PATTERNS

OF YOUNG ADULTS

Consistently, young adults are 

the largest group of movers. The 

previous section showed differences 

in demographic characteristics of 

the three subgroups: 18- to 24-yearolds, 25- to 29-year-olds, and 

30- to 34-year-olds. This section 

explores the geographic differences 

in migration for metropolitan areas 

with populations greater than 

or equal to 100,000 people, by 

examining the percentage of young 

adult inmovers. 

INMOVERS 

As mentioned earlier, the ACS asks 

respondents to identify where 

their place of residence was 1 year 

earlier. A mover is a person whose 

previous residence was different 

1 year ago. While the previous 

section focused on all movers, 

this section focuses on inmovers. 

Figure 12. 

Migration Rate Difference Between 2007–2009 Recession and 2010–2012 

Postrecession Periods by Age Group and Employment Status

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2009 and 2010–2012 American Community Survey 3-year estimates.

Migration rate difference (in percentage points)

 Employed, 

 at work

Employed, 

with a job 

but not 

at work

 Armed 

 Forces, 

 at work

Unemployed Armed 

Forces, 

with a job 

but not 

at work

Not in the 

labor force

–5.0

–4.0

–3.0

–2.0

–1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

Total 

Young Adults

18–24

years

25–29

years

30–34

years

INMOVER 

A person was designated an 

inmover in this report if the 

individual’s previous residence 

was in a different metro, micro, 

or nonmetropolitan area than 

her current residence, and 

her current residence was a 

metropolitan area with a total 

population of at least 100,000. 
U.S. Census Bureau 17

An inmover was defined as an 

individual who lived in a metro 

area with a total population of at 

least 100,000 who did not live in 

the same metropolitan area in the 

previous year. An inmover’s previous 

residence can be another metro, 

micro, or nonmetro area.

In the 2007–2009 recession period, 

there were 5,792,598 Total Young 

Adult inmovers to metros with 

a total population greater than 

100,000, while in the 2010–2012 

postrecession period there were 

only 5,626,816 (Table 4).

PERCENTAGE OF

YOUNG ADULT INMOVERS

While it is important to note that 

large metropolitan areas gain the 

largest number of young adult 

movers, analyzing a metro’s share 

of young adults moving into the 

area is another way to examine the 

migration of young adults. In order 

to determine which metropolitan 

areas acquired a larger share 

of young adult inmovers, the 

percentage of young adult inmovers 

of the total inmovers was calculated 

for each metro where the metro’s 

total population was greater than 

or equal to 100,000. Additionally, 

the metropolitan areas were divided 

into three groups based on the 

total population of the metro area—

Group 1, small metros: 100,000 to 

499,999; Group 2, medium metros: 

500,000 to 999,999; and Group 3, 

large metros: 1,000,000 or greater.27 

One key observation was that 

the 18- to 24-year-old group 

consistently had a higher 

percentage of inmovers when 

compared with the other two age 

groups, 25- to 29-year-olds and 

30- to 34-year-olds. Table 5 notes 

metropolitan areas with total 

populations greater than 100,000 

that were among the largest and 

smallest percentages of inmovers 

organized by metropolitan total 

population size and age group.

Figure 14 shows the percentage of 

young adult inmovers in relation to 

the total inmovers for the United 

States in the 2007–2009 recession 

period. Figure 15 shows the 

percentage of young adult inmovers 

in relation to the total inmovers for 

the United States in the 2010–2012 

postrecession period. Gray colored 

metros had no statistical difference 

from the respective periods’ national 

average. In the two periods, many 

metros in the Southwest and Florida 

were below the national average of 

the share of total young inmovers, 

while many metros in the Northeast 

were above the national average.

27 Full tables for metro areas greater

than 100,000 people is available at 

<http://www.census.gov/hhes/migration

/files/acs/acs2007-2009/YAM_detailed-tables

.xlsx>.

Figure 13. 

Migration Rate Difference Between 2007–2009 

Recession and 2010–2012 Postrecession Periods 

by Age Group and Presence and Age of Children

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2009 and 2010–2012 American Community Survey 

3-year estimates.

Migration rate difference (in percentage points)

Presence 

of children 

under 6 only

Presence 

of children 

6–17 only

Presence 

of children 

under 6 and 

6–17 years

No 

children

present

–3.0

–2.5

–2.0

–1.5

–1.0

–0.5

0.0

0.5

Total 

Young Adults

18–24

years

25–29

years

30–34

years
18 U.S. Census Bureau

LARGE METROS—

POPULATION 1,000,000 

OR GREATER

Recession

Among large metros (Table 5), 

Boston, MA; Rochester, NY; and 

Buffalo, NY, had the greatest 

percentage of Total Young Adult 

inmovers, above 50 percent. 

Among metros with the greatest 

percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds 

were Rochester, NY; Providence, RI; 

and Buffalo, NY. Salt Lake City, UT; 

San Jose, CA; and Denver, CO, were 

among the largest metros with the 

highest inmover percentage of 25- 

to 29-year-olds. Birmingham, AL; 

San Francisco, CA; and Austin, TX, 

were among large metros with the 

greatest percentage of inmovers 

aged 30 to 34. For these metros, 

about one person of every ten who 

moved into the metro was 30- to 

34-years-old.

Postrecession

Among large metros, Providence, 

RI; Rochester, NY; and Boston, 

MA, had the greatest percentage 

of Total Young Adult inmovers, 

about 60 percent. Providence, RI; 

Rochester, NY; and Buffalo, NY, were 

still among large metros with the 

greatest 18- to 24-year-olds in the 

2010–2012 postrecession period.28

About 20 percent of all inmovers 

were aged 25 to 29 in San Jose, CA; 

Chicago, IL; and New York, NY. San 

Jose, CA; San Francisco, CA; and 

28 There was no statistical difference 

among the metros or between the periods.

Louisville, KY, were among large 

metros with the greatest percentage 

of 30- to 34-year-olds.

MEDIUM-SIZED METROS— 

POPULATION 500,000 

TO 999,999

Recession

Among medium metros, Provo, 

UT; Madison, WI; and Toledo, OH, 

had the greatest percentage of 

Total Young Adult inmovers, which 

were between 60.3 and 65.3 

percent. Provo, UT; Toledo, OH; 

and Springfield, MA, were among 

the top medium-sized metros with 

the greatest percentage of 18- to 

24-year-olds. These metros ranged 

from 42.5 to 51.7 percent of their 

inmovers in this age group. Ogden, 

UT; Bakersfield, CA; and Omaha, 

NE, were among metros with the 

highest percentage of inmovers 

in the 25- to 29-year-old group. 

Each of these metros had about 

17 percent of inmovers in this 

age group. Finally, New Haven, 

CT; Bridgeport, CT; and Worcester, 

MA, are among the medium-sized 

metros with the highest percentage 

of inmovers in the 30- to 34-yearold age group. However, these three 

metros had just over 10 percent of 

their inmovers in this age grouping. 

Postrecession

In the 2010–2012 postrecession 

period, Madison, WI; Provo, UT; and 

Syracuse, NY, were among metros 

with the greatest percentage of 

Total Young Adult inmovers (about 

65 percent, 64 percent, and 63 

percent, respectively). Syracuse, NY; 

Provo, UT; and Springfield, MA, were 

among metros with the highest 

percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds. 

Each of these three metros have 

large universities or colleges located 

in the metro region. Ogden, UT; 

Honolulu, HI; and Durham-Chapel 

Hill, NC, were among medium 

metros with high percentages of 

25- to 29-year-olds. Poughkeepsie, 

NY; Bakersfield, CA; and Bridgeport, 

CT, were among metros with 

the highest percentage of 30- to 

34-year-olds. 

SMALL METROPOLITAN 

AREAS—POPULATION 

100,000 TO 499,999

Recession

In the 2007–2009 recession period, 

State College, PA; Ithaca, NY; and 

Blacksburg, VA, were among metros 

with the greatest percentage of 

Total Young Adult inmovers, about 

76.7 to 78.0 percent. Blacksburg, 

VA; State College, PA; and 

Morgantown, WV, were among small 

metros with the highest percentages 

of 18- to 24-year-old inmovers. 

Coeur d’Alene, ID; Glens Falls, 

NY; and Odessa, TX, were among 

small metros with the highest 

percentages of 25- to 29-year-old 

inmovers. Laredo, TX; Madera, 

CA; and Monroe, LA, were among 

small metros with the greatest 

percentages of 30- to 34-year-olds.

Table 4. 

Inmovers to Metros (With a Population Greater Than 100,000) by Period

Inmovers 2007–2009

Recession period Margin of error

2010–2012

Postrecession period Margin of error

Total inmovers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,747,283 52,480 11,414,533 47,616 

Total Young Adult inmovers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,792,598 30,490 5,626,816 23,734 

Total Young Adult inmovers rate (percent) . . . . . . . 49.3 0.2 49.3 0.2

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2009 and 2010–2012 American Community Survey 3-year estimates.
U.S. Census Bureau 19 Table 5. Percentage of Young Adult Inmovers of All Inmovers by Age Group, Metropolitan Size, and Period—Con. 2007–2009 Recession Period Estimates 2010–2012 Postrecession Period Estimates Metropolitan area Percent Margin of error Metropolitan area Percent Margin of error TOTAL YOUNG ADULTS Large Metro Areas Among the largest Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metro Area . . . . . . . . . Rochester, NY Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Among the smallest Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Metro Area . . Tampa-St . Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . Medium Metro Areas Among the largest Provo-Orem, UT Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Madison, WI Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toledo, OH Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Among the smallest Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Small Metro Areas Among the largest State College, PA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ithaca, NY Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA Metro Area . . . . . . Among the smallest Prescott, AZ Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Punta Gorda, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . See footnotes at end of table . 58 .1 57 .6 57 .1 37 .7 37 .6 36 .4 65 .3 62 .1 60 .3 35 .8 30 .3 28 .6 78 .0 77 .2 76 .7 28 .4 25 .0 24 .0 1 .6 2 .5 3 .1 1 .4 1 .2 1 .3 3 .1 2 .9 3 .8 2 .7 3 .2 2 .6 3 .1 4 .2 3 .4 4 .2 5 .3 4 .8 Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Metro Area . . . Rochester, NY Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH Metro Area . . . . . . . . . Tampa-St . Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Metro Area . . Madison, WI Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provo-Orem, UT Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Syracuse, NY Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . State College, PA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bloomington, IN Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA Metro Area . . . . . . Naples-Marco Island, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sebastian-Vero Beach, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Punta Gorda, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 .5 59 .7 59 .2 36 .1 35 .9 35 .8 65 .1 64 .0 63 .3 30 .5 26 .2 24 .1 84 .2 77 .8 77 .5 25 .5 23 .3 22 .4 2 .7 2 .7 1 .3 1 .6 1 .9 1 .4 2 .5 2 .7 2 .9 2 .6 2 .2 2 .1 2 .8 3 .5 4 .2 4 .3 6 .1 4 .5
20 U.S. Census Bureau Table 5. Percentage of Young Adult Inmovers of All Inmovers by Age Group, Metropolitan Size, and Period—Con. 2007–2009 Recession Period Estimates 2010–2012 Postrecession Period Estimates Metropolitan area Percent Margin of error Metropolitan area Percent Margin of error AGED 18–24 Large Metro Areas Among the largest Rochester, NY Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Metro Area . . . Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Among the smallest Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Metro Area . . Tampa-St . Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . Medium Metro Areas Among the largest Provo-Orem, UT Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toledo, OH Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Springfield, MA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Among the smallest Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Small Metro Areas Among the largest Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA Metro Area . . . . . . State College, PA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Morgantown, WV Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Among the smallest Punta Gorda, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pascagoula, MS Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aguadilla-Isabela-San Sebastián, PR Metro Area . . . . . . . . See footnotes at end of table . 37 .2 33 .9 33 .4 16 .1 15 .5 14 .5 51 .7 43 .8 42 .5 15 .0 13 .0 11 .2 67 .7 67 .1 65 .6 10 .8 10 .6 10 .3 3 .3 3 .2 3 .4 1 .3 1 .0 1 .1 3 .6 4 .0 3 .5 2 .6 2 .0 2 .0 4 .1 3 .5 4 .6 3 .8 3 .5 4 .0 Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Metro Area . . . Rochester, NY Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Juan-Caguas-Guaynabo, PR Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL Metro Area . . Las Vegas-Paradise, NV Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Syracuse, NY Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provo-Orem, UT Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Springfield, MA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . State College, PA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA Metro Area . . . . . . Bloomington, IN Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ocala, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Port St . Lucie, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Punta Gorda, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 .2 36 .9 36 .4 16 .1 15 .5 14 .7 46 .1 46 .0 43 .1 12 .0 11 .6 9 .4 75 .4 64 .9 63 .7 9 .6 8 .6 8 .5 2 .8 2 .9 3 .3 2 .3 1 .0 1 .1 3 .0 3 .1 4 .3 2 .1 1 .5 1 .3 3 .2 5 .5 3 .8 2 .6 1 .5 2 .2
U.S. Census Bureau 21 Table 5. Percentage of Young Adult Inmovers of All Inmovers by Age Group, Metropolitan Size, and Period—Con. 2007–2009 Recession Period Estimates 2010–2012 Postrecession Period Estimates Metropolitan area Percent Margin of error Metropolitan area Percent Margin of error AGED 25–29 Large Metro Areas Among the largest Salt Lake City, UT Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . Among the smallest Tucson, AZ Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jacksonville, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Metro Area . . . Medium Metro Areas Among the largest Ogden-Clearfield, UT Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bakersfield, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Among the smallest Provo-Orem, UT Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greenville-Mauldin-Easley, SC Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . Knoxville, TN Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Small Metro Areas Among the largest Coeur d’Alene, ID Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glens Falls, NY Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Odessa, TX Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Among the smallest Waco, TX Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford, VA Metro Area . . . . . . Muncie, IN Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . See footnotes at end of table . 18 .8 18 .4 18 .4 12 .3 12 .2 11 .5 17 .1 16 .9 16 .7 9 .4 9 .1 8 .5 20 .8 20 .6 19 .5 5 .2 4 .6 4 .4 1 .6 1 .6 1 .1 1 .6 1 .2 1 .6 1 .9 1 .5 1 .8 1 .3 1 .3 1 .4 4 .5 4 .2 4 .1 1 .6 1 .3 1 .8 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI Metro Area . . . . . . . . . New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Phoenix-Mesa-Glendale, AZ Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tampa-St . Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . San Juan-Caguas-Guaynabo, PR Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . Ogden-Clearfield, UT Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Honolulu, HI Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Greensboro-High Point, NC Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appleton, WI Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Monroe, MI Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fayetteville, NC Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lima, OH Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . State College, PA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 .2 17 .7 17 .6 11 .3 10 .4 10 .1 17 .8 16 .5 16 .1 9 .4 8 .9 8 .1 20 .8 17 .7 17 .5 5 .8 5 .6 4 .8 1 .3 0 .9 0 .6 0 .7 0 .9 1 .9 1 .9 1 .2 1 .7 1 .6 1 .6 1 .7 4 .0 4 .0 1 .6 3 .1 2 .4 1 .4
22 U.S. Census Bureau Table 5. Percentage of Young Adult Inmovers of All Inmovers by Age Group, Metropolitan Size, and Period—Con. 2007–2009 Recession Period Estimates 2010–2012 Postrecession Period Estimates Metropolitan area Percent Margin of error Metropolitan area Percent Margin of error AGED 30–34 Large Metro Areas Among the largest Birmingham-Hoover, AL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . . Austin-Round Rock, TX Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Among the smallest Rochester, NY Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT Metro Area . . . . Providence-New Bedford-Fall River, RI-MA Metro Area . . . Medium Metro Areas Among the largest New Haven-Milford, CT Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . Worcester, MA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Among the smallest Toledo, OH Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Springfield, MA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Provo-Orem, UT Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Small Metro Areas Among the largest Laredo, TX Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Madera-Chowchilla, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Monroe, LA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Among the smallest Gainesville, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lafayette, IN Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Altoona, PA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 .5 12 .2 12 .0 7 .6 7 .5 6 .9 11 .6 11 .4 11 .1 5 .6 5 .4 4 .1 15 .7 15 .0 13 .6 3 .1 3 .1 2 .9 1 .5 0 .7 1 .1 1 .2 1 .2 1 .3 1 .7 2 .0 1 .7 1 .3 1 .3 0 .8 4 .8 3 .1 4 .2 0 .9 0 .9 1 .7 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . . Louisville/Jefferson County, KY-IN Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sacramento–Arden-Arcade–Roseville, CA Metro Area . . . . Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, NY Metro Area . . . . Bakersfield-Delano, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . Cape Coral-Fort Myers, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Springfield, MA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota, FL Metro Area . . . . . . . . . Dalton, GA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vineland-Millville-Bridgeton, NJ Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . El Centro, CA Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terre Haute, IN Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . St . Cloud, MN Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bowling Green, KY Metro Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 .3 12 .7 11 .7 8 .0 7 .9 7 .6 13 .2 12 .2 12 .0 6 .6 6 .1 5 .8 16 .0 15 .8 15 .5 3 .5 3 .4 2 .5 1 .1 0 .8 1 .6 1 .6 0 .9 0 .9 1 .7 1 .5 1 .8 1 .6 1 .3 1 .0 6 .0 3 .2 3 .4 1 .3 1 .3 1 .3 Note: An inmover is anyone who moved from one metropolitan, micropolitan, or nonmetropolitan area to a different metropolitan area . Recession and postrecession periods use the 2010–2012 CBSA metropoli- tan names . Durham-Chapel Hill, NC, was categorized as a small-sized metro in the 2007–2009 recession period and a medium-sized metro in the 2010–2012 postrecession period . Source: U .S . Census Bureau, 2007–2009 and 2010–2012 American Community Survey 3-year estimates .
U.S. Census Bureau 23

Postrecession

In the 2010–2012 postrecession 

period, State College, PA; 

Bloomington, IN; and Blacksburg, 

VA, were among small metros 

with the largest percentage, about 

three-quarters, of Total Young 

Adult inmovers. State College, PA; 

Blacksburg, VA; and Bloomington, 

IN, were among small metros 

with shares of 18- to 24-year-old 

inmovers between 63.7 and 75.4 

percent. In fact, among the top 

small metros with the greatest 

percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds 

were locations with large colleges or 

universities. Appleton, WI; Monroe, 

MI; and Fayetteville, NC, were 

among the top small metros with 

the largest percentage of 25- to 

29-year-olds. Dalton, GA; Vineland, 

NJ; and El Centro, CA, were among 

the largest percentage of inmovers 

for small metro areas.

SUMMARY

Overall, migration for the Total 

Young Adult group decreased 

between the two periods. In 

examining the three subgroups—

small, medium, and large metros—

patterns of migration emerged. 

First, for the 18- to 24-year-old 

group, metro areas with a college or 

university appeared to be a magnet 

for this group. In fact, regardless of 

the size of the metropolitan area, 

metros with institutions of higher 

education had a large proportion 

of inmovers. As presented in 

the demographic section, 18- to 

24-year-olds were the age group 

that was most likely to move. 

This age group was also a large 

share of inmovers. Second, for the 

25- to 29-year-old age group, the 

total share of inmovers was lower 

than that of 18- to 24-year-olds, 

but higher than those aged 30-34. 

Additionally, the 25- to 29-yearold group appeared to have a 

higher percentage of inmovers to 

metros with a military presence, 

for example Ogden-Clearfield, UT, 

and Honolulu, HI. This corroborated 

previous findings that people in 

the military service were frequent 

movers.29 The importance of 

metropolitan area characteristics, 

location for universities or colleges, 

a military facility, or employment 

opportunities, are important to 

understanding the migration of 

young adults. 

CONCLUSION

Young adults have historically 

been drivers of migration and 

continue to move in great numbers 

as recent data showed. This 

report has presented differences 

in young adults’ migration rates 

when considering demographic, 

socioeconomic, and family 

characteristics, as well as the places 

29 Melanie A. Rapino and Julia Beckhusen, 

“The Migration of Military Spouses using the 

2007–2011 5-Year American Community

Survey,” Working Paper No. 2013-25,

U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2012.

young adults moved. Furthermore, 

differing migration rates across 

these characteristics were 

compounded when looking over 

time, as most young adult groups 

saw decreased migration between 

the recession and postrecession 

periods. In examining the metro 

size and its share of young adults 

who are inmovers to the metro, 

some small metros had greater 

shares when compared to larger 

metropolitan places. 

SOURCE OF

THE ESTIMATES

The American Community Survey 

(ACS) is a nationwide survey 

designed to provide communities 

with reliable and timely 

demographics, social, economic, 

and housing data for congressional 

districts, counties, places, and 

other localities every year. It has 

an annual sample size of about 3.5 

million addresses across the United 

States and Puerto Rico and includes 

both housing units and group 

quarters (e.g., nursing homes and 

prisons). The ACS is conducted in 

every county throughout the nation, 

and every municipio in Puerto 

Rico, where it is called the Puerto 

Rico Community Survey. Beginning 

in 2006, ACS data for 2005 were 

released for geographic areas with 

populations of 65,000 and greater. 

For information on the ACS sample 

design and other topics, visit 

<www.census.gov/acs/www>.
24 U.S. Census BureauSource: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2007–2009 0 500 Miles 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles 0 50 Miles Figure 14. U.S. metro average: 49.3 Metropolitan Statistical Areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of 2009. Statistical significance as compared to the U.S. metro average 70.0 – 100 50.0 – 69.9 No difference 30.0 – 49.9 0 – 29.9 Note: Data are shown for metropolitan statistical areas with a population of 100,000 or more. Yauco, PR and San Germain-Cabo Rojo, PR cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small. Percent Young Adult Inmovers by Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2007–2009 (Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)
U.S. Census Bureau 25 0 500 Miles 0 100 Miles 0 50 Miles Figure 15. 70.0 – 100 50.0 – 69.9 No difference 30.0 – 49.9 0 – 29.9 Note: Data are shown for metropolitan statistical areas with a population of 100,000 or more. Yauco, PR and San Germain-Cabo Rojo, PR cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small. 0 100 Miles Metropolitan Statistical Areas defined by the Office of Management and Budget as of 2009. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2010–2012 Statistical significance as compared to the U.S. metro average U.S. metro average: 49.3 Percent Young Adult Inmovers by Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2010–2012 (Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www/)
26 U.S. Census Bureau

ACCURACY OF

THE ESTIMATES

The data presented in this report 

are based on the ACS sample 

interviewed between 2007 and 

2009 and between 2010 and 

2012. The estimates based on this 

sample approximate the actual 

values and represent the entire 

United States and Puerto Rico 

resident household and group 

quarters population. Sampling 

error is the difference between an 

estimate based on a sample and 

the corresponding value that would 

be obtained if the estimate were 

based on the entire population (as 

from a census). Measures of the 

sampling error are provided in the 

form of margins of error for all 

estimates included in this report. 

All comparative statements in this 

report have undergone statistical 

testing, and comparisons are 

significant at the 90 percent level 

unless otherwise noted. In addition 

to sampling error, nonsampling 

error may be introduced during any 

of the operations used to collect 

and process survey data such as 

editing, reviewing, or keying data 

from questionnaires. For more 

information on sampling and 

estimation methods, confidentiality 

protection, and sampling and 

nonsampling errors, please see the 

ACS Accuracy of the Data document 

located at <www.census.gov

/acs/www/data_documentation

/documentation main>.

For more information on domestic 

migration, go to the U.S. Census 

Bureau’s Web site at <www.census

.gov/topics/population/migration

.html>, or contact the Journey to 

Work and Migration Statistics

Branch at 301-763-2454 or

<sehsd.migration@census.gov>.

SUGGESTED CITATION

Benetsky, Megan J., Charlynn 

Burd, and Melanie Rapino, “Young 

Adult Migration: 2007–2009 to 

2010–2012,” American Community 

Survey Reports, ACS-31, U.S. Census 

Bureau, Washington, DC, 2015.