Jobs prove no protection against social exclusion for young people in rural areas

Young people are less likely to find themselves out of work for long in rural areas than in towns and cities. But housing shortages, transport problems and the prevalence of low-paid jobs mean that work is often no protection against social exclusion.

The difficulties faced by young people in rural areas where relatively few jobs come with long-term career prospects are highlighted in two studies carried out in Scotland for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. The research suggests that opportunities for young people to improve their skills are limited and that many small, rural employers have poor knowledge of the Government’s ‘New Deal’ training programme.

A study by researchers at the University of Glasgow, based on a survey and in-depth interviews with 18 to 24 year olds who had recently been unemployed, found that those from rural areas shared many problems with their counterparts in towns and cities. But there were further difficulties linked to geographical isolation and the narrow range of job and training opportunities available:

• Young people in rural areas were more likely to be in settled work six months after a spell of unemployment than those in urban areas. Young women were especially likely to find work quickly, because of the demand for labour in tourism and other service industries.
• Few firms employed large numbers of young people and there were relatively few ‘quality’ jobs available with career prospects. Some rural employers relied heavily on seasonal workers and most said the demand for qualified workers was low.
• Although many young people interviewed had worked in seasonal or part-time jobs, very few had found them a stepping stone to permanent, full-time employment. This was especially true of part-time workers, where a lack of alternative child care facilities placed a major barrier in the way of women.
• Many rural employers showed poor knowledge of the New Deal – which the Government introduced a few months before the start of the research. Even those who were aware of the programme gave reasons for not getting involved. These included inability to meet minimum training requirements and difficulty providing access to external training.
• Inadequate or costly transport limited young people’s job opportunities. Even when transport was available, employers tended to be wary about hiring anyone who would have to make a long or complex journey to work.

Fred Cartmel, co-author of the research said: “In each of the four rural areas that we studied, the firms employing young people tended to be small and young people within those companies tended to occupy the most insecure positions. The employers’ view that demand for young people was concentrated in low-skilled jobs was borne out by the experiences of young people who frequently complained about the poor quality of employment opportunities.”

Parallel research by a team from the University of Edinburgh in two rural towns, underlined the difficulties that young people faced with transport and housing, as well as employment. In particular:

• Many of the young people interviewed were still ‘living cheaply’ with their parents. Young people setting up on their own often had no choice but private-rented accommodation - much of it located on outlying farms and estates, and sometimes lacking mains water or gas.
• Informal networks of friends, relatives and other contacts played an important part in finding both private rented housing and jobs. Another consequence of living in tightly-knit communities was that young people with a ‘bad’ reputation (including those with learning difficulties, poor mental health or drug problems) found it difficult - if not impossible - to find housing or a job.
• Employment experiences varied according to young people’s educational backgrounds. 

• Graduates mainly looked for jobs in the national labour market. Although many had returned to their rural homes for a while after graduating, the main reason given was to live cheaply with parents while paying off student debt.
• Those who did not go to college tended to live with their parents to an older age. Parents commonly received only ‘digs’ money – in effect, providing subsidised accommodation and food. 
• A significant minority had left higher education without graduating. The most common reasons given for ‘dropping out’ were money problems, wrong choice of course and ‘too much partying with too little work’.

Stephen Pavis, co-author of the study, said: “The lack of diversity in the rural labour market was a major issue for young people, so that those who lacked qualifications found themselves trapped in poorly-paid, low-quality employment. Simply getting a job was not enough to avoid being socially excluded. Low incomes meant owner-occupation was beyond their reach and they were not judged a high enough priority for the limited public sector housing available.”