**Table 2. Educational and labor characteristics of occupied youths between 18-35 years of age of ENCEL 2017, by sex, ethnic background, migratory status and intensity of PROSPERA’s treatment**

|||||ENC|EL 2017 (n=<br>Non-|3,310)|Non-|Low<br>treatment|High<br>treatment|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Variables of interest|Total<br>(n=3,310)|Females<br>(n=1,276)|Males<br>(n=2,034)|Indigenous<br>(n=865)|indigenous<br>(n=2,445)|Migrant<br>(n=760)|migrant<br>(n=2,267)|intensity<br>(n=1,623)|intensity<br>(n=1,683)|
|Average age|25.98|26.04|25.94|26.22|25.90|26.22|25.83|25.34|26.61|
|Single (%)|38.88|39.98|38.17|37.31|39.42|26.58|45.35|42.21|35.65|
|Years of schooling|9.27|9.73|8.98|9.13|9.31|10.02|8.99|9.56|8.99|
|Studies and works (%)|3.66|5.58|2.46|3.13|3.85|4.87|2.96|5.61|1.78|
|Only works (%)|96.34|94.42|97.49|96.87|96.11|95.13|97.04|94.39|98.16|
|Age at first employment|15.78|16.89|15.07|15.82|15.76|16.51|15.53|15.9|15.65|
|Labor position (%)||||||||||
|Employers|0.85|1.02|0.74|0.70|0.90|1.19|0.75|0.68|1.01|
|Wage-earning|79.91|75.10|82.88|78.40|80.41|81.90|79.39|80.66|79.14|
|Self-employed|15.85|19.70|13.47|16.96|15.48|15.19|15.83|15.70|16.03|
|Without pay|3.39|4.18|2.91|3.95|3.20|1.72|4.02|2.97|3.81|
|Monthly labor income|3405.68|2929.30|3690.26|2991.29|3539.56|4344.84|3060.23|3400.62|3391.24|
|Average ISEI|23.70|27.12|21.56|23.02|23.94|27.90|21.89|24.40|23.01|
|With health services (%)*|16.49|14.43|17.78|12.92|17.75|30.65|11.17|17.67|15.34|

* Includes medical services of IMSS, ISSSTE, Local ISSSTE, PEMEX, Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Navy, universities and private. Source: Own elaboration from ENCEL 2017.

The more important contrasts can be observed when comparing youths who migrated from their localities of origin, with those who still reside in them. In comparison to non-migrants, the migrants presented better education and labor characteristics: a greater proportion attended school, have had an additional year of schooling, had a labor income that is 40% higher, have occupations of higher status, and the portion that have access to health services is three times greater.

The more favorable labor characteristics observed with migrants may be associated with the change of context of labor insertion because the youths who migrated from their place of origin now settled predominantly in urban localities with lower levels of marginalization. Of the migrants in the study’s sample, 73.9% currently live in an urban locality and 49.5% in a metropolitan area, with the Mexico City Metropolitan Area being the greatest recipient, containing 20.5% of the migrants. Furthermore, only 28.2% of the migrants live in localities with high or very high level of marginalization, while 96.4% of the non-migrants do.<sup>32</sup> In the case of the intensity of PROSPERA’s treatment subgroups, it appears that only the group with low treatment intensity includes a greater percentage of youths that are single and whom are currently studying in addition to working.<sup>33</sup>

> 32 The marginalization data correspond to CONAPO from 2010.

> 33 In this case, for the treatment intensity data, the weights described in the following section are not applied.

19