United States

Department of

Agriculture

Economic

Research

Service 

Economic

Research

Report

Number 60 

July 2008

William Kandel

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, 

A 2008 Update
www.ers.usda.gov

You can find additional information about ERS publications, 

databases, and other products at our website.

Visit Our Website To Learn More!

National Agricultural Library

Cataloging Record:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age,

disability, and, where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental 

status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, 

or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public 

assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons 

with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program 

information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or 

call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer.

Kandel, William

 Profile of hired farmworkers, a 2008 update.

 (Economic research report (United States. Dept. of Agriculture. Economic Research Service); no. 60)

 1. Agricultural laborers—United States—Economic conditions.

 2. Migrant agricultural laborers—United States—Economic conditions.

 3. Agricultural laborers, Foreign—United States—Economic conditions.

 I. United States. Dept. of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. 

 II. Title.

Photo credit: Ken Hammond, USDA.

www.ers.usda.g s.usda.gov

Recommended format for citation:

Kandel, William. Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update, 

Economic Research Report No. 60, Economic Research Service, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 2008.
United States

Department

of Agriculture

www.ers.usda.gov

A Report from the Economic Research Service

Abstract

Hired farmworkers make up a third of the total agricultural labor force and are critical 

to U.S. agricultural production, particularly in labor-intensive sectors such as fruits and 

vegetables. The hired farmworker labor market is unique because it includes a large 

population of relatively disadvantaged and often unauthorized workers, a portion of 

whom migrate to, and within, the United States. Recent economic and demographic 

trends, such as changing agricultural production methods that permit year-round employment, expanding immigrant populations in nonmetropolitan counties, and growing 

concerns over U.S. immigration policies, have elicited increased interest in hired farmworkers. This 2008 profile serves as an update to the 2000 Economic Research Service 

analysis of the 1998 Current Population Survey using current data with expanded 

sections on legal status, poverty, housing, and use of social services. 

Keywords

Hired farmworkers, farm labor, agriculture, migrant, immigrant, farm structure, demography, legal status, employment, poverty, housing, social services, health

Acknowledgments

This report benefited substantially from comments by Philip L. Martin, University of 

California, Davis; Cornelia Flora, Iowa State University; Bruce Goldstein, Farmworker 

Justice, James Hrubovcak, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Chief 

Economist; and from the following at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service: Mary Ahearn, Eldon Ball, Mary Bohman, Robert Gibbs, Robert 

Hoppe, Carol Jones, Barry Krissoff, Jack Runyan (retired), Patrick Sullivan, and Steven 

Zahniser. The author also would like to thank Daniel Carroll from the U.S. Department 

of Labor for access to the most recent and restricted National Agricultural Workers 

Survey (NAWS) data and Mark Aitken from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), for technical assistance and special 

tabulations of NASS data. Finally, I gratefully acknowledge Angela Anderson for editorial assistance, and Susan DeGeorge for graphics, layout, and cover design.

William Kandel

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, 

A 2008 Update

Economic 

Research 

Report

Number 60

July 2008
ii

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Table of Contents

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Total Estimates of Hired Farmworkers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Farm Structure and Labor Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Geography of Farm Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Legal Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Migration Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Housing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Use of Social Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Findings and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Appendix 1: About the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Appendix 2: Estimating Total Numbers of Hired Farmworkers . . . . . . . . 55

Appendix 3: A Brief History of Farm Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
iii 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Summary

Current estimates indicate that more than 1 million hired farmworkers are 

employed in U.S. agriculture. Economic and demographic trends have elicited an increased interest in hired farmworkers, including the impact they 

have on U.S. agricultural production. While productivity gains have gradually reduced the total agricultural labor force, hired farmworkers continue to 

play an important role in this industry.

What Is the Issue?

Hired farmworkers make up a third of the total agricultural labor force and 

are critical to U.S. agricultural production, particularly for labor-intensive 

sectors such as fruits and vegetables. The hired-farmworker labor market is 

unique because it includes a relatively disadvantaged and sometimes mobile 

workforce, a large proportion of whom lack authorization to work in the 

United States. Although agriculture employs less than 2 percent of the U.S. 

labor force, recent economic and demographic trends such as agricultural 

production methods that permit year-round employment, expanding immigrant populations in nonmetropolitan counties, and growing concerns over 

U.S. immigration policies have increased interest in hired farmworkers. 

What Did the Study Find?

•	 In 2006, an average 1.01 million hired farmworkers made up a third

of the estimated 3 million people employed in agriculture. The other 

2.05 million included self-employed farmers and their unpaid family 

members. 

•	 Productivity gains have gradually reduced the total agricultural labor

force and the number of hired farmworkers within it. 

•	 Expanding nonfarm economic opportunities for farmers and their family

members have increased farmers’ reliance on hired farm labor. 

•	 Despite new patterns of Hispanic population settlement in rural areas,

the geographic distribution of farmworkers has not changed significantly 

in the past decade. California, Florida, Texas, Washington, Oregon, and 

North Carolina account for half of all hired and contracted farmworkers.

•	 Hired farmworkers are disadvantaged in the labor market relative to most

other U.S. wage and salary workers. On average, hired farmworkers 

are younger, less educated, more likely to be foreign-born, less likely 

to speak English, and less likely to be U.S. citizens or to have a legally 

authorized work permit. 

•	 According to the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS), which

offers the most precise data available on farmworker legal status, half of 

all hired crop farmworkers lack legal authorization to work in the United 

States. 

•	 Farmworker unemployment rates are double those of all wage and salary

workers, but vary considerably by individual characteristics. Those 

working in field crops have twice the unemployment rate of livestock 

workers.
iv

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60 

Economic Research Service / USDA

•	 Hired farmworkers earn less than other workers. Median weekly earnings

of full-time farmworkers are 59 percent of those for all wage and salary

workers. Poverty among farmworkers is more than double that of all

wage and salary employees.

•	 Hired farmworkers who migrate between work locations are disadvantaged in the labor market and earn less than settled farmworkers.

Disadvantages include poorer health and challenges to migrant children

attending school.

•	 Housing conditions of farmworkers have historically been substandard

because of crowding, poor sanitation, poor housing quality, proximity to

pesticides, and lax inspection and enforcement of housing regulations.

•	 Agricultural work is among the most hazardous occupations in the

United States, and farmworker health remains a considerable occupational concern. Farmworkers face exposure to pesticides, risk of heat

exhaustion and heat stroke, inadequate sanitary facilities, and obstacles

in obtaining health care due to high costs and language barriers.

•	 Hired farmworkers use select social services, such as Food Stamps,

Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Nutrition Program, Medicaid,

and free school lunches, at higher rates than other wage and salary

employees. Within the noncitizen crop farmworker population, authorized workers use those services at higher rates than unauthorized

workers. Citizen farmworkers, whose poverty rates are a third those

of noncitizen farmworkers, use such programs less than authorized

noncitizen workers.

How Was the Study Conducted?

Principal data sources for this study include the Current Population Survey

(CPS) March Supplement and Earnings File, NAWS, and the Census of

Agriculture. Empirical support came from extensive research literature on

hired farmworkers, including a previous Economic Research Service study

that served as a baseline for elements of this report. CPS data allow for

comparisons between hired farmworkers and workers in other occupations.

This report used all other wage and salary workers as a reference group

in order to compare the status of hired farmworkers relative to the total

employed U.S. population (excluding farmworkers). In certain cases, hired

farmworkers were compared with other occupations of similar skill levels.

Within each of the two groups consisting of farmworkers and other wage

and salary employees as a group, CPS data also permit comparisons between

workers with and without citizenship. Such comparisons are not equivalent to comparing authorized and unauthorized workers, but because legal

status is such a critical socioeconomic characteristic, the citizen/noncitizen

comparisons offer additional insight. NAWS data distinguished how hired

crop farmworkers differ by unauthorized, authorized, and citizen legal status.

Finally, data from the Census of Agriculture and the Agricultural Resource

Management Survey place farm labor within the broader context of the agricultural sector.
1 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Introduction

Hired farmworkers make up an estimated third of the total U.S. agricultural 

labor force and are critical to U.S. agricultural production, especially for 

labor-intensive agricultural sectors such as fruits and vegetables. A steadily 

increasing U.S. population, growing demand for labor-intensive crops, and 

a continually consolidating farm sector have stabilized the demand for hired 

farm labor in the past decade. 

Changing geographic patterns of immigrant settlement in rural areas have 

increased the visibility of immigrants (Kandel and Cromartie, 2004). 

Changing production methods now permit year-round production for some 

farm enterprises, which has helped increasing numbers of formerly migratory 

workers settle permanently in nonmetropolitan counties. 

The hired-farmworker labor market is unique in several respects: 

1. Many farmworkers are mobile, traversing State and national boundaries. 

However, only an estimated 12 percent are “follow-the-crop” farmworkers who follow well-established migrant streams corresponding to 

agricultural production cycles. 

2.Roughly half of all hired farmworkers in the United States lack legal 

authorization according to the U.S. Department of Labor, making their 

employment status tenuous and work circumstances and conditions more 

difficult. 

3. Hired farmworkers face a challenging work environment that may 

include hazardous work conditions, low pay, and substandard housing 

conditions.

Consequently, while critical to many agricultural sectors, hired farmworkers 

remain among the most economically disadvantaged working groups in the 

United States. This relative position within the U.S. occupational structure 

has changed little over time (McWilliams, 1935; Griffith and Kissam, 1995). 

Safety improvements notwithstanding, agriculture remains one of the most 

hazardous industries in the Nation, and farmworkers encounter relatively 

unique risks from pesticides as well as conventional hazards from heavy 

equipment operation and physically strenuous labor (U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, 1998). Moreover, unauthorized workers fail 

to qualify for some social programs or choose not to use them for fear of 

deportation.
2

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Total Estimates of Hired Farmworkers

In 2006, an average of 1.01 million hired farmworkers made up a third of 

the estimated 3 million people employed in agriculture. The other 2.05 

million included self-employed farmers and their unpaid family members.1

This report focuses exclusively on the characteristics and well-being of 

hired farmworkers. The 1.01 million figure is one of several cross-sectional 

estimates—ranging from 691,000 to as much as 1.4 million depending on the 

data source (see Appendix 2)—for the average number of hired farmworkers 

employed at any point throughout the year. Depending on the month or 

agricultural cycle, such estimates can change substantially. Moreover, high 

employment turnover means that an estimated 2.0 to 2.5 unique workers fill 

each farmworker job slot over the course of a year (Khan et al., 2003).

USDA’s Farm Labor Survey remains the most accurate source of data on 

total counts of hired farmworkers. Other data sources and estimates yield 

different total counts of hired farmworkers (see Appendix 1), and each offers 

useful statistics on the characteristics and well-being of hired farmworkers. 

Current Population Survey (CPS) data, either from the 12-month Earnings 

File or the March Supplement, provide information on demographic and 

labor market characteristics and earnings. CPS data allow for comparisons 

between hired farmworkers and all wage and salary workers. Within each 

of these two employee subsets, CPS data also allow comparisons between 

workers with citizenship and those without. Such comparisons are not equivalent to comparing authorized and unauthorized workers, but because legal 

status is a critical socioeconomic characteristic, the citizen versus noncitizen 

comparison offers useful insights. The National Agricultural Workers Survey 

(NAWS) data provide more detailed information on legal status, but are 

limited to hired crop farmworkers and exclude hired livestock farmworkers. 

Census of Agriculture data and information from the Agricultural Resource 

Management Survey (ARMS) offer total labor costs per farm and information on farm structure.

1The 1.01 million figure is a rounded 

average of the four quarterly 2006 

Farm Labor Report figures for hired 

farmworkers produced by the USDA’s 

National Agricultural Statistics Service 

(NASS). This figure is comprised of 

two groups: farmworkers hired directly 

by farm operators (752,000) and agricultural service workers hired on a contract or fee basis (256,000) (see Glossary). The 3.06 million figure represents 

the sum of the 1.01 million figure plus 

a simple linear extrapolation to 2006 

from the last available annual figures 

for self-employed and nonpaid family 

farmworkers collected by NASS from 

2000 to 2002. NASS no longer collects 

data on this group of farmworkers, 

only hired farmworkers. Despite this 

limitation, we use the NASS data series 

because it provides historical context 

since 1950. See Appendixes 1 and 2 for 

more information on estimates of the 

total number of people employed in the 

agricultural sector. 
3 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Farm Structure and Labor Demand

Demand for hired farmworkers reflects structural changes in agricultural 

production and food consumption of an ever-growing U.S. and world population. Post World War II American agriculture has been characterized by 

increases in labor productivity, brought about through technological innovation (Dimitri et al., 2005; Fuglie et al., 2007). As a result, agricultural production now occurs on fewer and often larger farms. Data from the Census of 

Agriculture indicate that between 1950 and 2002 average farm size more than 

doubled, from 216 to 444 acres, while the total number of farms declined 

from to 5.5 to 2.1 million (Hoppe and Korb, 2005). Small farms, defined as 

those with sales of less than $250,000 annually, still account for over 90 percent of all farms, but produce less than 30 percent of all agricultural output.

Declining farm employment reflects these trends (fig. 1). In 1950, the 

Census of Agriculture recorded almost 10 million people working on farms, 

including over 7.6 million farmers and their family members and 2.3 million 

hired farmworkers. Since that time, the number of family members and 

hired farmworkers has declined consistently to a total of just over 3 million 

in 2006. This corresponds to a drop in the proportion of the U.S. labor force 

employed in the agricultural sector from 12.5 percent in 1950 to less than 1.5 

percent in 2006 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). 

While declines in total farmworkers have leveled off since 1985, two unmistakable farm labor trends during the 20th century include a gradual decline in 

the use of labor inputs in general, and, for labor inputs used, a growing reliance on nonfamily hired farm labor (fig. 2). From 1950 to 2006, according 

1950 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 2000 06

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

7.6

2.33

6.35

2.04

5.17

1.89

4.13

1.48

3.35

1.17

3.06

1.31

2.42

1.37

2.02

1.34

2.01

1.15

1.98

1.12

2.06

1.13

2.05

1.01

Figure 1

Total family and hired farmworkers on U.S. farms, 1950-2006

Number of farmworkers (millions)

Notes: Family farmworkers include self-employed farmers and unpaid family members. Hired farmworkers include direct 

hires and agricultural service workers who are often hired through labor contractors. The 2006 family farmworkers figure 

of 2.05 million is estimated from a simple linear extrapolation from the last available annual figures for self-employed and 

nonpaid family farmworkers collected by NASS from 2000 to 2002.

Source: Farm Labor Survey, National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA.

Family farmworkers

Hired farmworkers
4

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

to the Farm Labor Survey (FLS), the average number of family farmworkers 

per farm declined 27 percent, from 1.35 to 0.98, while the average number 

of hired farmworkers per farm increased from 0.41 to 0.59, between 1950 

and 1985, before declining to 0.48 in 2006. As a consequence, the ratio of 

hired farmworkers to total farmworkers has increased from roughly l in 4 in 

1950 to 1 in 3 in 2006. Moreover, because the FLS is a cross-section estimate 

at various points during the year and hired farmworkers are often seasonal 

workers, notwithstanding the recent increase in year-round workers, the total 

number of hired farmworkers over the course of a year is likely to be significantly higher than the FLS estimates. 

Labor occupies a prominent place as the third largest production expense 

(considering all cash and noncash expenses, such as capital depreciation), 

behind feed and capital depreciation for the agricultural sector as a whole 

(fig. 3). For 2007, employee compensation for hired labor is forecast to 

be $22.8 billion. After declining for decades, labor’s share of U.S. farm 

expenses began increasing in the mid-1980s. Consequently, any factors 

affecting the farm labor supply—such as minimum wage increases, changes 

in labor demand from other industries employing low-skilled workers (e.g., 

construction, manufacturing), or new immigration policies—will alter farm 

profitability and viability among agricultural sectors heavily reliant on farm 

labor. Growers who specialize in vegetables, fruits and nuts, and horticultural 

products, for which labor costs range from 30 to 40 percent of total expenses, 

are especially sensitive to fluctuations in the cost and availability of labor. 

Growing reliance on foreign-born, hired farmworkers became firmly institutionalized at the outset of World War II with the Bracero Program, an immigration-related farm labor policy that allowed agricultural growers to hire 

Mexican workers to make up for war-induced labor shortfalls. This program 

lasted 22 years, from 1942 until 1964, when several factors including public 

Figure 2

Average number of family and hired farmworkers per farm, 1950-2006

Number of farmworkers per farm

1950 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 2000 06*

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

1.35

0.41

1.36

0.44

1.4

0.51

1.23

0.44

1.14

0.4

1.21

0.52

0.99

0.56

0.88

0.59

0.94

0.53

0.96

0.54

0.95

0.52

0.98

0.48

Family farmworkers

Hired farmworkers

* Based on linear projection of earlier trends.

Notes: Family farmworkers include self-employed farmers and unpaid family members. Hired farmworkers include direct 

hires and agricultural service workers who are often hired through labor contractors.

Source: Farm Labor Survey, National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. 
5 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

concern over abusive labor practices, the rising use of unauthorized labor, 

and the growing farm labor movement convinced Congress to terminate 

it (Martin, 2003; Massey et al., 2002). During the Bracero Program and 

following its demise, unauthorized immigration to the United States grew, 

becoming an established trend by the 1980s. The Immigration Reform and 

Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), which was intended to reduce unauthorized 

immigration, regularized the legal status of over 1 million hired farmworkers 

between 1986 and 1989, but also increased penalties to employers who hired 

unauthorized workers. Nevertheless, after a brief respite, unauthorized immigration increased and continues to occur in substantial numbers.

Agricultural producers have become accustomed to having a large pool of 

hired farmworkers available, and they continue to utilize a largely immigrant 

workforce that includes many who lack authorization to work in the United 

States. Despite increased border and employer enforcement policies, close 

to half of all farmworkers are unauthorized. While agricultural tasks for 

some crops have been automated, some growers contend that the expense 

of mechanization for other, currently labor-intensive products such as tree 

fruit and horticulture would prevent them from remaining competitive with 

foreign producers (American Farm Bureau Federation, 2006). Other research 

suggests that growers could adjust to smaller workforces with labor-efficient 

technologies and management practices (Martin, 2007). Both arguments 

remain untested because growers have relied upon a relatively ample labor 

supply (Levine, 2007)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Corn

Soybeans

General cash grains

Wheat

Hogs

Cattle

General livestock

Tobacco, cotton, peanuts

Other field crops

Poultry

Dairy

All farm

Fruits, vegetables, nursery

Source: ERS analysis of 1996 and 2006 ARMS data. 

Percent

Figure 3

Labor’s share of total cash expenses, by agricultural product, 1996 and 2006

1996 2006
6

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Geography of Farm Labor

The geographic distribution of the hired farm labor force reflects the total 

quantity of agricultural production and the kind of crops grown in an area 

(fig. 4). Certain crops are more labor intensive. One way to put this in context 

is to compare labor expenses to cash receipts. For the United States, the total 

farm labor expense in 2006 was $24.4 billion—amounting to 10.2 percent 

of total agricultural commodity cash receipts. But, in California, which has 

the highest cash receipts of any State and produces many labor-intensive 

products (such as dairy, grapes, and greenhouse/nursery), total farm labor 

expense amounted to 22.3 percent of the total value of agricultural cash 

receipts for 2006. In contrast, in Iowa, farm labor expense totaled 2.5 percent 

of cash receipts. Iowa has the third highest total cash receipts, but grows 

primarily non-labor-intensive agricultural commodities (such as corn, hogs, 

and soybeans). 

Since 1980, the geographic distribution of farmworkers has shifted, with 

proportions declining in both the South and Midwest and increasing in the 

West and Southwest. Roughly 60 percent of all hired farmworkers currently 

work in crops and 40 percent work in livestock. Most hired crop farmworkers 

are located disproportionately in the Southwest, with California and Texas 

accounting for almost a third of the $22 billion spent on hired farm and 

contract farm labor expenses in the United States in 2002 (fig. 5).

Northeast Midwest South West Southwest

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

3.2

4.0 8.3

11.8

12.1

9.7

7.0

5.1 25.1

13.6

Percent

Figure 4

Hired farmworkers by geographic region and product type, 2006

Livestock Crops

Notes: The sum of all figures equals 100 percent. We altered the four standard Census 

regions (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West) by identifying a 5-state Southwest region, 

extracted from the West and South regions, that includes Arizona, California, Colorado, 

New Mexico, and Texas (see Glossary). The percentages of farmworkers in each 

geographic region from the 2006 CPS Earnings File in this chart match, within 1 percent, 

the same geographic distribution of farm labor expenses found in the 2002 Census of 

Agriculture. 

Source: ERS analysis of annual averages from 2006 Current Population Survey Earnings. 
7 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

$ million

Idaho

Nebraska

Iowa

Illinois

Pennsylvania

New York

Minnesota

Michigan

Wisconsin

North Carolina

Oregon

Texas

Washington

Florida

California

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

5,983

403

438

440

447

472

479

489

505

536

618

683

1,043

1,143

1,580

Figure 5

Top 15 States for hired farm and contract farm labor expenses, 2002

Source: ERS analysis of 2002 Census of Agriculture data. 
8

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

2“Hispanic” is a pan-ethnic term that 

encompasses people whose origins include Mexico, Central America, South 

America, and the Caribbean. People 

who self-identify as Hispanic or Latino 

may be of any race. Hispanic farmworkers in the CPS are overwhelmingly 

of Mexican origin (94.5 percent) and 

Central and South American origin (3.4 

percent). According to the CPS data, 84 

percent of Hispanic hired farmworkers 

were born in Mexico. In contrast, 94 

percent of non-Hispanic hired farmworkers were born in the United States.

Demographic Characteristics

The demographic profile of hired farmworkers contributes to their economic 

disadvantage relative to most other wage and salary workers in the United 

States (table 1). On average, they are younger, less educated, more likely 

to be foreign-born, and less likely to be citizens or authorized to work in 

the United States. The extent of this disadvantage depends on which data 

are used to represent the hired-farmworker population (Larson et al., 2002). 

We used CPS data to compare hired farmworkers with all wage and salary 

workers, but these data reflect characteristics of more established residents 

willing to respond to formal, repeated home-based interviews. To obtain 

an additional measure of relative disadvantage among unauthorized farmworkers, we present figures for each group by citizenship status. Presenting 

characteristics by citizenship status is not equivalent to presenting them by 

legal status, because many noncitizens possess legal authorization to work in 

the United States. Nevertheless, given the lack of complete legal status information, citizenship status roughly approximates the degree to which differences in authorized versus unauthorized status differentiate the farmworker 

population. 

Hired farmworkers differ from other wage and salary workers, as a group, 

due to the gender imbalance of the hired farm workforce. Obstacles to international migration and the close living and working conditions of most U.S. 

farmworkers often present difficult or untenable circumstances for potential 

female migrants and their families. Hence, most hired farmworkers are men. 

Approximately 1 of every 5 hired farmworkers is female, compared with 

gender parity found among wage and salary workers in general.

Farm labor is physically demanding, and hired farmworkers tend to be 

younger than other wage and salary workers, in general. Visible differences between these two groups appear at the ends of the age distribution: 

the proportion of farmworkers in the youngest age group exceeds that of 

wage and salary workers in general, while the proportion in the oldest age 

group trails that of other wage and salary workers. Despite youth and gender 

imbalance, over half of all farmworkers are married, and in this respect 

they closely resemble all wage and salary workers (see box, “Children in 

Agricultural Labor”).

The racial and ethnic makeup of the hired farm labor force has changed 

significantly in recent decades, the most consequential transformation being 

the increasing proportion of Hispanic farmworkers.2 According to 2006 CPS 

data, 43 percent of all hired farmworkers are Hispanic: for hired crop and 

hired livestock workers, the figures are 56 and 26 percent Hispanic, respectively (data not shown). Almost all noncitizen farmworkers are Hispanic. 

Yet, since noncitizens comprise only about a third of all farmworkers, the 

total CPS figure of 43 percent continues to differ substantially from the 2006 

NAWS figure of over 80 percent for hired crop farmworkers. Survey methodology explains the discrepancy between these two national data sets. CPS 

data are collected from households each month over a 16-month period and, 

therefore, reflect characteristics of more established residents. NAWS data, 

on the other hand, are collected at the worksite and are therefore more likely 

to capture persons who have less stable living arrangements and who tend 
9 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Table 1 

Demographic characteristics of hired farmworkers and 

all wage and salary workers as a group, by citizenship status, 2006

Hired Wage & salary 

farmworkers workers

Noncitizen Citizen Total Noncitizen Citizen Total

Percent

Citizenship status 37.6 62.4 100.0 9.2 90.8 100.0

 

Sex 

Male 82.7 79.9 80.9 63.6 50.7 52.1

Female 17.3 20.1 19.1 36.4 49.3 47.9

 

Median age (years) 34 34 34 34 40 40

 

Age distribution 

Between ages 15-21 4.2 21.7 15.1 4.9 7.0 6.9

Between ages 21-44 74.0 46.4 56.4 72.9 52.9 54.7

Over age 44 21.8 31.9 28.1 22.3 40.1 38.4

 

Hispanic ethnicity 94.6 12.0 43.0 61.8 9.1 13.7

 

Race 

White 94.3 90.2 91.7 73.4 82.4 81.6

Black 0.6 6.0 4.0 8.3 12.4 11.9

Native American 2.1 1.0 1.4 0.9 0.7 0.7

Asian 3.0 2.9 2.9 17.5 4.6 5.7

 

Educational attainment 

Less than 9th grade 63.4 9.9 30.0 22.2 1.4 3.5

9-12 yrs, no diploma 15.4 24.5 21.1 15.6 7.8 8.6

High school graduate 15.9 35.7 28.2 26.2 30.0 29.6

Some college 5.4 30.0 20.7 36.0 60.8 58.3

 

Country of birth 

Mexico 90.3 5.3 37.3 41.2 1.2 5.1

All other countries 9.7 2.0 4.9 58.8 6.6 11.3

United States 0.0 92.6 57.8 0.0 92.2 83.6

 

Year entered U.S.

(for foreign born) 

Before 1986 17.5 72.5 23.5 15.7 60.4 35.5

1986-1995 29.2 21.1 28.3 29.6 28.6 29.1

1996-2005 53.3 6.4 48.2 54.7 11.0 35.3

 

Spanish only 

household 64.0 4.1 26.7 30.7 1.3 4.0

 

Marital status 

Married 62.5 46.9 52.7 60.3 55.3 55.7

Div./wid./sep. 8.2 9.7 9.1 8.9 15.3 14.7

Never married 29.3 43.4 38.1 30.8 29.4 29.6

 

Children under 

18 in household 46.7 29.2 35.8 42.4 34.5 35.2

Source: ERS analysis of annual averages from 2006 Current Population Survey Earnings 

File data.
10

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

to avoid participation in more formal data collection efforts (Mehta et al., 

2000). 

Hispanic ethnicity is particularly important. Because of the large proportion 

of foreign-born Hispanic farmworkers, many of whom originate from poor 

rural Latin American communities, measuring Hispanic ethnicity is critical 

for accurately profiling this workforce. NAWS data illustrate how hired crop 

farmworkers increasingly originate from Mexico, a trend that became especially pronounced during the 1990s when a growing service sector created 

plentiful alternatives to farm labor employment for low-skilled, native-born 

workers (fig. 6). 

Other racial and ethnic changes also merit attention. Data from the 1987 CPS 

(not shown) indicate that non-Hispanic Blacks, mostly in the South, made up 

8 percent of the hired-farmworker population (Oliveira and Cox, 1990). That 

figure has since declined to 4 percent (table 1). The small Native American 

and Asian populations of hired farmworkers did not change significantly in 

2006.

The education gap between Hispanics and non-Hispanics is due largely to the 

high proportion of recently arrived, foreign-born Hispanics, many of whom 

originate from rural communities with limited education and work opportunities. The average educational attainment in such communities is 9 years of 

The youth portion of the farm labor force is notable. NAWS data indicate 

that between 1989 and 2006, on average, children under age 18 made up 

5.5 percent of the hired crop farmworker labor force. These children were 

equally divided by gender as well as by legal status. NAWS data indicate 

fluctuations in the proportion of child farmworkers and an overall decline 

since 1995. 

Farmwork provides opportunities for young people to earn money while 

in school or during the summer, and children under age 18 often work 

on their parents’ farms. The median weeks per year worked by children 

(11.1) is about a third that of adults (29.9), according to NAWS data for 

1989-2006. Nevertheless, several studies indicate a lack of safeguards to 

fully protect children (Edid, 1994; Rothenberg, 1998; NIOSH, 2003). 

In several comprehensive reports, the U.S. Government Accountability 

Office (GAO, 1998; 2002) detailed the prevalence of agricultural child 

labor legislative protections and their enforcement, and Federal educational assistance programs for children in migrant and seasonal agriculture. The GAO reports raise several concerns, including lack of accurate 

head counts due to incomplete data; lack of legal protections for children 

working in agriculture compared with other industries; lack of labor regulation enforcement; and lack of information to assess the effectiveness of 

education and labor programs for children in agriculture.

Children in Agricultural Labor
11 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

education, the equivalent of U.S. middle school. The education gap is particularly pronounced for “entry-level” occupations, like farmwork, which attract 

the newest immigrants. It becomes less pronounced and occurs farther down 

the education continuum for all wage and salary workers who include large 

proportions of native-born Hispanics (fig. 7). Results displayed by Hispanic 

ethnicity closely resemble those by citizenship status (table 1).

1989 91 93 95 97 99 2001 03 05

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Figure 6

Nationality of crop farmworker population, 1989-2006

Source: ERS analysis of National Agricultural Workers Survey data, 1989-2006

Percent

Mexico

USA

All other

Hispanic

Below 9th grade

High school, no diploma

High school graduate

Some college

Hired farmworkers All wage and salary workers

Non-Hispanic Hispanic Non-Hispanic

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percent

Figure 7

Educational attainment by Hispanic ethnicity, 2006

Source: ERS analysis of annual averages from 2006 Current Population Survey 

Earnings File data.
12

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Legal Status

Legal status influences economic and social well-being through its impact 

on outcomes ranging from social service eligibility, employment, residential 

mobility, working conditions, and wages (Isé and Perloff, 1995; RiveraBatiz, 1999; Kossoudji and Cobb-Clark, 2000). Legal status is a perpetual 

concern for farmworkers and growers alike. For farmworkers, unauthorized 

status means facing a greater likelihood of unfair labor practices and deportation (Rothenberg, 1998; Martin, 2003). Growers, in turn, are concerned about 

having sufficient numbers of workers during critical work periods as well 

as complying with Federal and State administrative requirements to ensure 

workers are authorized to work in the United States.

While CPS data do not distinguish between authorized and unauthorized 

status among those lacking U.S. citizenship, they provide some sense of 

relative scale. Roughly 40 percent of all hired farmworkers are noncitizens 

compared with 10 percent of all wage and salary workers. The NAWS 

contacts a higher proportion of unauthorized workers than the CPS and 

distinguishes their status from legally authorized workers or citizens (fig. 8). 

According to NAWS data for 2004-2006, roughly 50 percent of all hired crop 

farmworkers lacked authorized status. This higher rate also reflects a higher 

proportion of Hispanic workers in the NAWS than in the CPS.

Like most unauthorized immigrants, unauthorized farmworkers rely on 

changes in U.S. immigration policies for opportunities to obtain legal status. 

For instance, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which 

included the Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) legalization provision, 

regularized the status of over 1 million unauthorized farmworkers at the 

Figure 8

Legal compostion of recent hired crop farmworkers, 

by year of entry into the United States

Percent

0

100

40

20

80

60

Pre−1971 1971 1976 1981

Year first entered the United States

1986 1991 1996 2001

89 93 89 85

54

29

14

2

11 7 11 15

46

71

86 98

Note: The three most current years of data are used to increase the precision of these 

estimates by reflecting the most recently surveyed hired crop farmworkers.

Source: ERS analysis of National Agricultural Workers Survey data, 2004-2006.

Authorized Unauthorized
13 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

end of the 1980s (Massey et al., 2002). Applicants who could prove they 

had worked in the United States between 1985 and 1986 were granted legal 

status. Since then, however, unauthorized farmworkers have not been offered 

special provisions to obtain legal status, and the majority who entered since 

1990 remain unauthorized (fig. 9) (see box, “The H-2A Visa Program for 

Temporary Agricultural Workers”).

The unauthorized proportion of foreign-born workers tends to be higher 

in agriculture than in other industries because agriculture has served as a 

point-of-entry into the U.S. labor market for unauthorized immigrants. A 

review of hired crop farmworker legal status from the end of IRCA’s legalization provisions in 1989 to the present shows that as the older cohorts of 

Unauthorized

Authorized

Citizen

Figure 9

Legal status of hired crop farmworkers, 1989-2006

Percent of hired farmworkers

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Source: ERS analysis of National Agricultural Workers Survey data, 1989-2006.

1989 91 93 95 97 99 2001 03 05

Figure 10

Hired crop farmworkers’ expectations of obtaining 

nonfarm U.S. employment within a month, by legal status, 1989-2006

Percent who expect they could find employment

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Note: Values are averaged over 3 years to smooth fluctuations.

Source: ERS analysis of National Agricultural Workers Survey data, 1989-2006.

1989 91 93 95 97 99 2001 03 05

Citizen

Authorized

Unauthorized
14

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

The H-2A visa program, operated cooperatively by 

the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and the U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services Division of the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), processed 

over 64,000 agricultural worker applications in 2006 

(DOL, 2007). This class of nonimmigrant admission 

that originated in 1943 was converted into a specific 

Federal legal provision in 1952, revised by IRCA, 

and amended by subsequent legislation. It permits 

employers to hire temporary foreign-born workers for 

up to 1 year with possible extensions for up to 3 years. 

H-2A visa holders are considered nonimmigrants 

because they are admitted temporarily to perform 

work; immigrants by contrast are admitted to the 

United States as legal permanent residents.

To hire these workers, employers must demonstrate 

they lack a sufficient and timely supply of locally 

available qualified U.S. workers, and that using foreign 

workers would not adversely affect wages and working 

conditions of comparably employed U.S. workers. 

H-2A workers must earn the higher of the prevailing 

industry wage, the Federal or State minimum wage, 

or an Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) which is 

an average hourly wage rate based on data collected 

by USDA, and employers must provide them with 

detailed earnings statements when paid.

Employers are required to provide H-2A workers 

with a series of benefits, including housing that meets 

Federal standards for noncommuting workers, transportation for commuting workers, transportation to 

workers’ home countries or next employment locations, either food preparation facilities or three meals 

per day, and workers’ compensation insurance. U.S. 

workers must be offered the same benefits as H-2A 

workers.

Employers must apply to the DOL and their State 

Workforce Agency 45 days prior to hiring. After 

employers have met certain working condition stipulations, the DOL “certifies” within 7 days that there 

are not enough U.S. workers to fill these positions 

through State and employer recruitment during this 

period and that the presence of H-2A workers will 

not adversely affect local wages. Once filed, over 90 

percent of employer applications are approved for 

most of the jobs requested. Following successful certification, the employer next petitions the Citizenship 

and Immigration Services Division of DHS. Approved 

petitions are sent to the appropriate consulates 

where workers apply for visas. At the port of entry, 

a Customs and Border Protection officer authorizes 

a traveler’s admission into the United States and the 

period of time that the individual bearer of the nonimmigrant visa is allowed to remain in the United States 

for that visit.

Although less than 5 percent of all hired farmworkers 

are hired through the program, it remains controversial. Obstacles for farm operators wishing to use the 

H-2A visa program include: 

•	Complicated paperwork;

•	Requirements to try domestic worker recruitment

before utilizing the program; 

•	Requirements to anticipate future labor demand;

•	The requirement to pay the higher of the prevailing

industry wage, the Federal or State minimum 

wage, or the AEWR; and 

•	Unwanted attention from advocacy groups and

unions reviewing publicly accessible H-2A 

requests. 

Farmworker advocates and unions have also been critical of the program, arguing that it lacks fundamental 

protections to prevent foreign workers from being 

mistreated and exploited (GAO, 1997; Griffith, 2006; 

Southern Poverty Law Center, 2007).

At the time this report was written, Congress was 

considering the Agricultural Job Opportunities, 

Benefits and Security Act legislation known as 

AgJobs that includes three major changes to the H-2A 

program. These include: 

1. Allowing farmers to assert, rather than certify, that 

they have unfilled worker positions; 

2. Allowing farmers to pay a housing allowance 

rather than provide actual housing; and 

3. Eliminating or freezing the AEWR (Martin, 2007). 

The H-2A Visa Program for Temporary Agricultural Workers
15 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

farmworkers cycle out of agriculture and obtain jobs in other industries, the 

remaining workers are recent arrivals who lack legal status.

Unauthorized workers have fewer avenues for economic mobility outside 

of agricultural work, and their own perceptions of the U.S. labor market 

reflect these circumstances (fig. 10). Initially, after IRCA, 58 percent of all 

unauthorized hired crop farmworkers felt they could obtain a nonfarm job 

within a month, a proportion 7 percentage points lower than that of authorized workers. By 2006, the gap between the two groups had widened to 

15 percentage points despite a recent upsurge in both groups’ expectations. 

While trend-lines fluctuated similarly for both groups from 1989 to 2006, the 

diverging outcomes indicate a growing rift of economic prospects between 

those with authorized legal status and those without it.
16

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Employment

In addition to describing populations, demographic characteristics effectively predict economic outcomes. Age, educational attainment, employment 

experience, English language ability, and legal status all strongly influence 

earnings and occupational mobility. The disadvantaged demographic profile 

described earlier for hired farmworkers relative to all wage and salary 

workers in the U.S. labor force often translates into less favorable employment characteristics (table 2).

Farmworkers typically have more gaps in employment than nonfarm wage 

and salary workers and fewer opportunities to earn additional compensation. 

They are twice as likely to have schedules that either vary or exceed 50 hours 

per week, corresponding to sudden requirements of agricultural production. Yet among farmworkers, noncitizens are more likely to be employed 

40 hours per week and less likely to have more flexible or more demanding 

work schedules. Noncitizen farmworkers are also more likely to be employed 

full-time. Part-time farmworkers who are citizens have a median age (18) 

that is half that of noncitizen part-time farmworkers (37), suggesting a 

greater presence of high-school or college-age workers among part-time 

workers with citizenship.

Table 2 

Select employment characteristics of hired farmworkers and all other 

wage and salary workers as a group, by citizenship status, 2006

Hired Wage and salary 

farmworkers workers

Noncitizen Citizen Total Noncitizen Citizen Total

Percent

Hours worked prior week 

Hours vary 13.6 22.0 18.8 7.1 8.1 8.0

Less than 35 hours 5.4 18.6 13.6 10.6 14.9 14.5

Between 40-50 hours 70.7 41.0 52.2 76.7 69.5 70.1

More than 50 hours 10.3 18.4 15.4 5.6 7.6 7.4

 

Employment status 

Full-time 93.7 75.0 82.4 88.1 83.0 83.5

Part-time 6.3 25.0 17.6 11.9 17.0 16.5

 

Salary status1 

Hourly wage worker 75.9 55.7 63.1 68.3 58.8 59.7

Nonhourly worker1 24.1 44.3 36.9 31.7 41.2 40.3

 

Have more than one job 0.3 7.1 4.5 2.9 5.6 5.3

 

Receive overtime pay, 

tips, commissions 7.0 5.1 5.8 9.9 14.9 14.3

 

Union membership 1.7 2.2 2.0 6.3 12.6 12.0

1For wage and salary workers, nonhourly worker status usually refers to salaries. For hired farmworkers, it refers to both salaries and piece-rate earnings. The latter are often significantly lower. 

Source: ERS analysis of annual averages from 2006 Current Population Survey Earnings File 

data. 
17 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Farmworkers are about as likely as other wage and salary workers to earn 

hourly wages and, despite low earnings, are also about as likely to have only 

one job at any given time. Yet, because of the seasonal nature of farmwork, 

they are more likely to have a succession of jobs over a given time period. 

Hired farmworkers are less likely to earn overtime pay, tips, or commissions, 

or to join labor unions. NAWS data (not shown) also indicate a low proportion of union coverage for hired farmworkers.

CPS data indicate that when farmworkers are employed, they have relatively 

stable work schedules. However, due to the seasonal nature of their work, 

hired farmworkers, on average, experience rates of unemployment double 

those of wage and salary workers, in general, a difference that varies by 

demographic and economic characteristics (table 3). For instance, the unemployment rate of female farmworkers exceeds by threefold that of all female 

wage and salary workers. This relative disadvantage also accrues to workers 

who are over age 44, Hispanic, noncitizen, and foreign-born. Farmworkers 

with at least 9 years of schooling, on the other hand, experience unemployment rates that are comparable to those of all wage and salary workers. A 

number of these characteristics overlap. Recent international migrants, who 

are also likely to be younger, Hispanic, less educated, and unauthorized, face 

the greatest challenges obtaining employment.

Among hired farmworkers, unemployment rates also vary by sector and 

occupation. Those working in field crops have average unemployment rates 

more than quadruple those of livestock workers, owing to the more seasonal 

nature of field crop work. Nonsupervisory farmworkers have 2.5 times the 

unemployment rate of managers and supervisors.

Unemployment characteristics also reflect greater employment instability 

over the course of a year (table 4). Hired farmworkers are more likely to have 

terminated employment due to layoffs or the conclusion of a temporary job 

and less likely to have quit or previously been employed full-time prior to 

searching for work. 

Lower unemployment durations of farmworkers reflect several factors, 

including low barriers to entry for farm labor and the inability of hired farmworkers to remain unemployed for extended periods. Longer unemployment 

spells among hired farmworkers, many of whom are foreign-born, increase 

the chance that some of these workers will return to their countries of origin. 

When that occurs, such workers effectively remove themselves from the pool 

of potential survey respondents and, consequently, any and all resulting official statistics. 

The unemployment rate for hired farmworkers (fig. 11) was among the 

highest for all major occupations in 2006 and stems mainly from farmwork’s 

seasonality. When employed, hired farmworkers work for roughly the same 

number of hours per week as other workers, yet total employment levels for 

hired farmworkers vary according to season. For example, NASS data for 

2006 indicate that 1,195,000 hired farmworkers were employed in mid-July, 

compared with 796,000 in mid-January.

Hired farmworkers have historically earned relatively low wages (Griffith 

and Kissam, 1995; Rothenberg, 1998; Martin, 2003; Martin et al., 2006). 
18

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Table 3 

Unemployment rate by economic and demographic characteristics of 

hired farmworkers and all wage and salary workers, 

by citizenship status, 2006

Hired Wage and salary 

farmworkers workers

Noncitizen Citizen Total Noncitizen Citizen Total

Percent

All workers 9.9 7.7 8.5 4.3 4.5 4.5

 

Sex 

Female 17.6 11.6 13.7 5.1 4.3 4.4

Male 8.1 6.6 7.2 3.8 4.7 4.6

 

Age distribution 

Between ages 15-21 14.3 10.8 11.2 7.0 9.7 9.6

Between ages 21-44 8.3 8.8 8.3 4.0 4.8 4.7

Over age 44 14.3 4.5 7.6 4.6 3.2 3.3

 

Hispanic ethnicity 

Hispanic 9.5 15.0 10.5 4.4 4.9 4.8

Non-Hispanic 17.3 6.6 7.0 4.1 4.5 4.5

 

Race 

White 9.6 7.5 8.3 4.3 3.9 4.0

Black I/C 9.8 10.9 6.1 8.3 8.1

Native American 0.0 13.0 6.1 5.8 8.0 7.7

Asian 21.5 7.6 13.6 3.2 3.6 3.5

 

Educational attainment 

Less than 9th grade 12.0 11.7 12.0 5.1 5.7 5.7

9-12 years, no diploma 9.6 9.3 9.4 5.6 10.1 9.4

High school graduate 4.2 7.5 6.8 4.0 5.6 5.5

Some college 0.5 5.1 4.7 3.3 3.2 3.2

 

Year entered U.S. 

(for foreign-born) 

Before 1986 13.3 10.3 12.3 4.9 3.0 3.6

1986-1995 13.0 11.2 12.8 4.3 3.2 4.0

1996-2005 7.0 5.4 6.9 4.1 4.0 4.1

 

Marital status 

Married 8.5 5.0 6.6 3.9 2.7 2.8

Div./wid./sep. 11.3 9.3 10.0 5.1 5.2 5.2

Never married 12.4 10.1 10.7 4.8 7.4 7.1

 

Industrial sector 

Crops 12.8 12.1 12.4 N/A N/A N/A

Livestock 1.1 3.7 3.1 N/A N/A N/A

 

Occupation 

Farmworkers 10.5 8.6 9.4 N/A N/A N/A

Managers/supervisors 2.1 4.1 3.7 N/A N/A N/A

Notes: N/A – not applicable. I/C – insufficient cases. 

Source: ERS analysis of annual averages from 2006 Current Population Survey Earnings File 

data.
19 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Table 4 

Reasons for unemployment and duration of unemployment, 2006

Hired Wage and salary 

farmworkers workers

Noncitizen Citizen Total Noncitizen Citizen Total

Percent

Reasons for unemployment 

Lost job—laid off 47.2 32.3 38.9 17.0 14.0 14.5

Lost job—other reason 1.3 12.8 7.7 25.0 27.3 26.9

Temporary job ended 31.4 17.5 23.7 13.8 10.0 10.5

Quit 3.4 2.4 2.9 9.9 13.6 13.2

Job re-entrants1 16.7 35.0 26.9 34.3 35.1 34.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 

Duration of unemployment 

0-3 months 27.9 36.5 32.7 30.1 25.5 26.0

4-6 months 18.4 20.2 19.4 17.7 17.3 17.4

7-12 months 19.0 13.9 16.2 20.7 21.3 21.2

13+ months 34.6 29.4 31.7 31.6 35.9 35.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Median (months) 8 4 6 7 8 8

1“People who previously worked at a full-time job lasting 2 weeks or longer, but are out of the 

labor force prior to beginning to look for work” (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2005). 

Source: ERS analysis of annual averages from 2006 Current Population Survey Earnings File 

data.

Management, financial

Professional specialties

Installation, maintenance

Office, administrative

All occupations

Sales

Production

Services

Transport, material moving

Construction, extraction

Hired farmwork

Other farming, fishing, forestry

0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

2.2

2.2

3.8

4.3

4.5

5.2

5.7

6.2

6.5

7.5

8.5

11.5

Figure 11

Unemployment rates by occupation, 2006

Source: ERS analysis of annual averages from 2006 Current Population Survey Earnings File data.

Percent unemployment
20

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

3Reconciling the national agricultural labor expenditure reported in 

the ARMS and that based on median 

weekly earnings reported in the Current Population Survey multiplied by 

the total number of farmworkers is 

complicated by several issues. Farmers 

reporting their labor expenses in the 

ARMS include payroll taxes not paid 

to workers and contract labor expense. 

In addition, published reports using 

ARMS data often report labor expenses 

that include a measure of the opportunity costs of unpaid/family farmworkers. 

Removing these supplemental expenses 

yields a figure that coincides with the 

weekly earnings figures reported in 

this report from the Current Population 

Survey Earnings File data. 

According to CPS data, median weekly earnings of full-time farmworkers are 

59 percent of those for all wage and salary workers (table 5). The earnings 

gap between the two groups is smaller in the Midwest where farmworker 

earnings exceed the national farmworker median. The gap is greater for 

farmworkers in the Northeast whose earnings trail the national farmworker 

median, while those of all wage and salary workers exceed the national 

median. Within the farmworker population, supervisory and managerial 

personnel earn 57 percent more than nonsupervisory workers, and livestock 

workers, who often have more stable employment, earn roughly 24 percent 

more than crop workers.3

Over time, wages and earnings of hired farmworkers vary as immigration 

policies tighten or loosen the labor supply (fig. 12). Between the end of the 

Bracero Program in 1964 and passage of IRCA in 1986, unauthorized migration steadily increased and hired farmworker real wages either stabilized 

or dropped in response (Massey et al., 2002). Following IRCA, real wages 

increased only slightly until increased border enforcement policies in the 

mid-1990s restricted the flow of unauthorized workers. Average real wages 

increased 10 percent between 1995 and 2000. Since the events of 9/11, 

real wages have continued to increase as the number of hired farmworkers 

Table 5 

Median weekly earnings by employment characteristic 

for full-time hired farmworkers, by citizenship status, 2006

Hired Wage and salary 

farmworkers workers

Noncitizen Citizen Total Noncitizen Citizen Total

Dollars

All workers 340 470 400 480 700 673

 

Industrial sector 

Crops 318 462 360 N/A N/A N/A

Livestock 400 480 448 N/A N/A N/A

 

Occupation 

Farmworkers 338 440 382 N/A N/A N/A

Managers/supervisors 408 625 598 N/A N/A N/A

 

Full-time status 

Full-time 340 470 400 480 700 673

Part-time 270 150 150 213 204 204

 

Geographic region 

Northeast 280 475 420 538 769 750

Midwest 384 525 500 500 692 680

South 320 433 385 470 654 635

West 353 462 390 480 704 686

Southwest 350 466 384 440 731 673

 

Hourly wage 

Median 7.50 10.00 8.00 10.00 13.00 13.00

Mean 7.84 10.43 8.95 11.95 15.25 14.82

Note: N/A – not applicable. 

Source: ERS analysis of annual averages from 2006 Current Population Survey Earnings 

File data.
21 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

declined. Hired-farmworker hourly wages, which are measured in NASS’s 

Farm Labor Survey, the CPS, and the NAWS, would be substantially higher 

if they did not include a large proportion of unauthorized workers whose 

average wages are lower than those of authorized workers.

Hired farmworkers not only earn less, on average, than wage and salary 

workers as a group, but crop farmworkers also earn less than workers in 

similar low-skill occupations (fig. 13). Wages remain low in spite of the 

fact that labor analysts consider farmwork among the most arduous and 

1975 80 85 90 95 2000 06

9.11 8.95

8.28 8.51 8.65

9.48 9.87

Figure 12

Real hourly wages (2005) for all hired farmworkers, 1975-2006

Notes: Figures reflect wages paid to hired crop and hired livestock farmworkers, as well as

supervisory and nonsupervisory workers. Nominal dollars were converted to real dollars 

using the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Source: National Agriculture Statistics Service, USDA.

Dollars

Figure 13

Median weekly earnings across select low-skill occupations, 2006

Median weekly earnings (dollars)

Dishwashers

Crop farmworkers

Maids

Groundskeepers

Janitors

Livestock farmworkers

All low−skilled

Security guards

Material movers

Construction workers

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

320

350

360

400

420

425

435

480

480

520

Note: Weekly earnings include wages, bonuses, overtime pay, tips, and other forms of 

monetary compensation.

Source: ERS analysis of annual averages from 2006 Current Population Survey Earnings 

File data.
22

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

hazardous occupations. Factors accounting for the relatively low earnings of 

farmworkers, include: a high proportion of unauthorized workers who have 

fewer options to seek employment in other industries; the use of farm labor 

contractors who reduce the hourly pay of hired farmworkers in exchange for 

arranging employment with growers; and, in the case of small farms, exemption from Federal minimum wage laws.

Demographic characteristics also influence hired-farmworker earnings and 

their relative difference compared to earnings of other wage and salary 

workers (table 6). The earnings gap shrinks for people who are similarly 

disadvantaged, namely the youngest, least-educated, and unauthorized 

workers. Otherwise, the average earnings gap does not vary substantially 

across most demographic characteristics. Based on the characteristics of race 

and ethnicity, Hispanics incur the smallest wage differences and Asians the 

largest for farm versus nonfarm employment.

Another way to compare hired-farmworker earnings with the rest of the U.S. 

labor force is to place them in the context of an earnings distribution (fig. 

14). The range of earnings for all wage and salary employees, divided into 

10 even deciles, serves as the baseline for this comparison. If the distribution 

of hired-farmworkers’ earnings is then superimposed over that of all wage 

and salary workers, we can see that while supervisory farmworker earnings 

roughly mimic those of all wage and salary workers, nonsupervisory farmworker earnings concentrate at the lower end, with over 80 percent falling 

within the first four deciles of the U.S. workforce.

<$219 $219−

$319

$320−

$399

$400−

$499

$500−

$599

$600−

$711

$712−

$864

$865−

$1,057

$1,058−

$1,441

>$1,442

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Hired farmworkers − nonsupervisory

Hired farmworkers − supervisory

All wage/salary workers

Figure 14

Distribution of hired farmworkers and all wage and salary workers, 

by average weekly earnings decile

Percent

Source: ERS analysis of annual averages from 2006 Current Population Survey Earnings File data.
23 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Table 6

Median weekly earnings, by demographic characteristic 

for full-time hired farmworkers, by citizenship status, 2006

Hired Wage and salary

farmworkers workers Ratio

Noncitizen Citizen Total Noncitizen Citizen Total

Dollars

All workers 340 470 448 480 700 788 0.57

 

Sex 

Female 290 420 350 420 613 600 0.58

Male 350 480 400 490 794 750 0.53

 

Age distribution 

Between ages 15-21 280 350 312 340 355 350 0.89

Between ages 21-44 340 480 400 480 673 640 0.63

Over age 44 360 481 442 500 783 769 0.57

 

Hispanic ethnicity 

Hispanic 340 414 350 400 576 480 0.73

Non-Hispanic 360 481 475 680 720 720 0.66

Race 

White 340 485 400 440 728 692 0.58

Black I/C 360 360 480 568 560 0.64

Native American 330 385 330 420 557 531 0.62

Asian 400 413 400 748 769 760 0.53

 

Marital status 

Married 350 500 404 500 784 760 0.53

Div./wid./sep. 338 542 438 450 670 650 0.67

Never married 320 400 369 415 560 538 0.69

 

Educational attainment 

Less than 9th grade 336 322 336 394 440 400 0.84

9-12 years, no dipl. 350 440 400 400 425 406 0.99

High school grad 384 500 462 450 577 560 0.83

Some college 350 560 500 750 823 808 0.62

 

Country of birth 

Mexico 340 430 350 400 520 405 0.86

All other countries 350 507 360 560 748 646 0.56

United States N/A 475 475 N/A 700 700 0.68

 

Year entered U.S. 

(for foreign-born) 

Before 1986 346 432 360 506 730 673 0.53

1986-1995 350 485 350 480 650 543 0.64

1996-2006 336 I/C 338 460 537 480 0.70

Note: N/A= not applicable. I/C = insufficient cases. 

Source: ERS analysis of annual averages from 2006 Current Population Survey Earnings File data.
24

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Migration Patterns

Hired farmworkers further differentiate themselves from most other wage 

and salary workers because they include large numbers of mobile or migrant 

workers. The NAWS data set includes information on migration patterns of 

hired crop farmworkers, and it distinguishes between six different migrant 

types based on settlement, international orientation, and number of work 

locations (fig. 15). 

Settled workers, the 

largest group of hired 

crop farmworkers, represent nonmigratory hired 

farmworkers. Shuttler 

migrants migrate between 

their homes and a single 

location. To qualify as 

shuttler migrants, they 

must travel at least 75 

miles to reach their location and must work only 

within a 75-mile radius 

of that location. NAWS 

further distinguishes 

between shuttler migrants 

within the United States 

and international shuttler migrants who have 

crossed an international 

border within 12 months 

since they were surveyed. 

Thus, workers who 

have homes near Philadelphia but travel to Lancaster County in central 

Pennsylvania for 3 months to harvest vegetables are classified as U.S. shuttler migrants. 

Although follow-the-crop migrants embody the popular conception of hired 

farmworkers, they actually comprise less than 12 percent of this workforce. Follow-the-crop workers travel to multiple U.S. farm locations for 

work, frequently migrating in consistent geographic patterns according to 

agricultural season requirements. Like shuttler migrants, follow-the-crop 

migrants travel more than 75 miles to a work location, but unlike shuttler 

migrants, they travel to multiple U.S. farm locations. NAWS also distinguishes between U.S. and international follow-the-crop migrants. Finally, 

newcomers, which NAWS classifies as international migrants, are foreignborn farmworkers residing in the United States less than 1 year and whose 

shuttler or follow-the-crop migration patterns remain undetermined at the 

time of the NAWS survey.

After 1989, the proportion of migrant crop farmworkers increased following 

the passage of IRCA and then declined in the late 1990s (fig. 16). IRCA 

effectively legalized large numbers of hired farmworkers, who consequently 

Settled

53%

Newcomer

15%

U.S. shuttler

7%

International 

shuttler

14%

International 

follow-the-crop

3%

U.S.

follow-the-crop

8%

Figure 15

Hired crop farmworkers by migrant type, 

1989-2006 averages

Notes: The National Agricultural Workers Survey does not survey 

hired livestock workers.

Source: ERS analysis of National Agricultural Workers Survey 

data, 1989-2006.
25 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

4Note that wages for 2006 differ from 

those recorded in table 7 which represents data from 1989 to 2006. Note 

also that NAWS data represent only 

hired crop farmworkers, and not crop 

and livestock farmworkers, as does the 

CPS.

gained sectoral and geographic mobility to seek better paying jobs. Yet, 

increasing use of year-round production techniques and greater border 

enforcement starting in the mid-1990s have reduced the proportion of 

migrating farmworkers. 

Migrating hired farmworkers exhibit different demographic and employment 

profiles from settled farmworkers: they are younger, more likely to be male, 

and more often Hispanic (table 7). Disadvantages in the U.S. labor market 

include fewer years of education, less U.S. experience, less knowledge of 

English, and greater likelihood of being unauthorized (66 percent versus 27 

percent). In addition, migrant farmworkers are twice as likely to work for 

labor contractors, who, in turn, must be reimbursed (Taylor and Thilmany, 

1993; Rothenberg, 1998; Martin, 2003). Migrant farmworkers consequently 

earn less than settled farmworkers. In 2006, the most recent year for which 

NAWS data are available, average hourly wages for migrant and nonmigrant crop farmworkers were $7.52 and $8.53, respectively, a 13-percent 

difference.4 Low wages of migrant farmworkers are compounded by an 

annual work schedule that includes half as many workweeks as for settled 

farmworkers.

Farmworker poverty, like low wages, has been documented extensively. 

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2006), the poverty 

rate for farming, fishing, and forestry exceeds that of all other general occupation categories (fig. 17). This is the case for both men and women, as 

well as across four racial and ethnic categories (White, Black, Asian, and 

Hispanic, not shown). 

Figure 16

Hired crop farmworkers by migrant type, trends, 

and 3-year moving average, 1989-2006

Percent of all hired farmworkers

Note: Values are averaged over 3 years to smooth fluctuations.

Source: ERS analysis of National Agricultural Workers Survey data, 1989-2006.

1989 91 93 95 97 97 2001 03 05

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Settled Newcomer International shuttler International follow-the-crop

U.S. shuttler U.S. follow-the-crop
26

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Table 7

Select demographic, employment, and health characteristics 

of hired crop farmworkers, by migrant status, 1989-2006 averages

Migrants Nonmigrants

Demographic characteristics 

Median age 27 32

Percent female 14.0 29.3

Percent married 52.3 57.1

Percent Hispanic 95.3 68.1

Number children 17 and 

 younger doing farmwork 0.57 0.17

 

Employment characteristics

Median years of education 6 9

Median years of U.S. experience 3 8

Percent with no knowledge of English 66.9 33.1

Percent unauthorized 66.2 27.1

Percent employed by labor contractors 25.9 14.2

Mean wage $6.05 $6.55

Median wage $5.55 $6.00

Median number of weeks worked previous year 19.6 38.9

 

Health characteristics

Percent with health insurance 9.1 35.3

Percent who have used health services in 

 past 2 years 29.1 60.9

Percent reporting health condition in past 2 years 9.7 19.8

Source: ERS analysis of National Agricultural Workers Survey data, 1989-2006.

Percent

Figure 17

Poverty rates by general occupational category, by sex, 2004

Source: “A Profile of the Working Poor,” U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2006).

8.0

13.5

17.5

13.5

8.3

11.6

5.9

9.8

5.3

7.1

4.3

5.2

4.2 4.2 4.8

3.8

1.7 2.2 2.1 1.5

Male Female

Farming

Services

Construction

Transportation

Production

Sales, office

Maintenance

Administration

Professional

Management
27 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Morever, when this poverty rate is disaggregated by occupation category and 

citizenship status, the rate for noncitizen hired farm laborers jumps to 25.3 

percent and 27.2 percent for men and women, respectively, compared with 

9.7 percent and 8.7 percent for citizen male and female farm laborers (fig. 18).

Disadvantages from migrant status extend beyond monetary compensation 

to health vulnerability. Less than a tenth of migrant farmworkers have health 

insurance, which partly explains low health service utilization rates compared 

with settled migrants. Another reason for lower rates may be that fewer 

migrant farmworkers report health problems—about half the percentage of 

settled migrants—owing to their relative youth and fewer years of farm labor 

experience.

Children of migrant workers also face numerous challenges. In addition 

to growing up in households with higher rates of poverty and substandard 

housing, they are also much more likely than the average child to move 

from their home schools to new schools with different curricula, testing 

requirements, and credit accrual rates (Baca, 2004). Migrant children must 

constantly adjust to new environments, and American schools do not use a 

viable national system for transferring records (Government Accountability 

Office (GAO), 1998). Despite over 30 years of concerted investment by the 

U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Migrant Education, which facilitates educational attainment for this target population, rural migrant students 

continue to confront some of the most daunting learning challenges of any 

student population in the Nation (Salinas and Franquíz, 2004).

Percent

Figure 18

Poverty status for hired farmworkers, by citizenship status, 

occupation category, and sex, 2006

Note: Current Population Survey data are aggregated to increase statistical reliability.

Source: ERS analysis of 2005, 2006, and 2007 Current Population Survey March 

Supplement data.

Labor Management

Noncitizen Citizen Non−citizen Citizen

25.3

27.2

9.7 8.7

7.0

0.0

2.1

0.7

Male Female
28

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Housing Conditions

Many studies have documented substandard housing conditions for hired 

farmworkers (McWilliams, 1935; GAO, 1971; GAO, 1989; Griffith and 

Kissam, 1995; Rothenberg, 1998; Martin, 2003). Farmworkers earn relatively 

little and either cannot afford or choose not to purchase more expensive 

temporary housing, relying on what is provided for them by farm operators 

and Federal and State government agencies. They often confront substandard housing quality, crowding, deficient sanitation, proximity to pesticides 

(which is especially harmful for children), and lack of inspection and 

enforcement (GAO, 2000; National Center for Farmworker Health, 2001; 

Housing Assistance Council, 2001; Quandt et al., 2004; USDA, 2004; Early 

et al., 2006; Lu et al., 2006; Bradman et al., 2007; Gentry et al., 2007). 

CPS data indicate that housing for hired farmworkers differs from that of 

all workers as a group (table 8). Because hired farmworkers earn less, work 

shorter periods, and move frequently, they are more likely to live in crowded 

conditions, less likely to own their own homes, more likely to receive free 

housing, and more likely to live in mobile homes. Differences in housing 

tenure by citizenship status are particularly striking.

Farmworker housing studies that capture unauthorized workers more accurately portray more substantial differences (National Center for Farmworker 

Health, 2001). For example, data from a national survey of 4,600 housing 

units by the Housing Assistance Council (2001), a nonprofit housing research 

and advocacy organization, records aspects of housing conditions that affect 

Table 8 

Select household and housing characteristics 

for hired farmworkers and all U.S. households, 2005-2007

Hired All U.S. 

farmworkers households

Noncitizen Citizen Total Noncitizen Citizen Total

Number

Household composition 

Average people 

 in household 4.7 3.4 3.9 3.9 3.0 3.1

Average families 

 in household 1.8 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.2

 

Percent

Housing tenure 

Own housing 24.0 69.2 52.6 40.7 74.3 71.2

Rent housing 61.8 17.6 33.9 57.1 23.6 26.8

Rent housing – no cash 12.7 12.5 12.6 0.8 0.9 0.9

Public housing 1.4 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.1 1.1

 

Housing type 

House or apartment 80.6 88.7 85.7 96.6 95.6 95.7

Mobile home, trailer, 

 other 19.4 11.3 14.3 3.4 4.4 4.3

Note: Current Population Survey data are aggregated to increase statistical reliability. 

Source: ERS analysis of 2005, 2006, and 2007 Current Population Survey March Supplement 

data. 
29 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

5NAWS data on hired crop farmworkers 

from 1989 to 2006 indicate this figure 

stands at 85 percent.

hired farmworkers, but are not captured by other datasets, such as residential 

exposure to pesticides (table 9).

Because of lower earnings and a greater likelihood of remitting earnings to 

family members in their countries of origin, unauthorized workers are more 

likely to conserve earnings by living in overcrowded housing. Housing 

Assistance Council data suggest that half of all hired crop farmworkers live 

in overcrowded conditions5 compared with 3 percent of all wage and salary 

workers. The data also indicate that the prevalence and degree (number of 

people sharing a room) of overcrowding vary according to legal status, with 

unauthorized workers experiencing higher rates than authorized and citizen 

workers (data not shown).

A limited housing supply hinders those wishing to purchase homes, particularly in rural agricultural areas and where large groups of farmworkers have 

settled with their families to become year-round residents. Migrant workers 

may be unable to meet credit checks, provide requested deposits, or engage 

in extended contracts. Landlords may be reluctant to rent to hired farmworkers out of fear that they may overcrowd rental units as an economic 

strategy. In some cases, housing may be in such short supply that hired 

farmworkers must remain homeless for extended periods, obtaining shelter 

wherever they can—including in fields, in cars, or under bridges (GAO, 

1989; USDA, 2004).

Migrant housing is regulated under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural 

Worker Protection Act (MSPA), whose rules are enforced by the Wage 

and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Employment 

Standards Administration. States also have their own housing laws, and farm 

operators must abide by the more stringent of the laws. Farm operators are 

not required to provide farmworker housing, but if they do, they are required 

to ensure that their housing complies with substantive Federal and State 

safety and health standards. Yet, according to these same regulations, such 

protections apply only to farmworkers hired directly by farm operators, not 

to individuals hired through labor contractors. 

From the farm operator perspective, migrant housing represents a considerable capital investment to meet temporary housing demands during laborintensive processes such as planting or harvesting. Farmers are more likely to 

make such investments for year-round workers. In one government survey, 

growers cited the H2-A visa program’s housing provision requirement for 

their lack of program participation (GAO, 1989). Farmworker housing, therefore, remains a contentious issue, encompassing ongoing challenges for both 

Table 9

Select statistics on housing conditions

Characteristic of housing unit Migrants Nonmigrants

Percent

Overcrowded 52 3

Lacks stove 10 1

Directly adjacent to 

pesticide application 26 N/A

Note: N/A—not available. 

Source: Housing Assistance Council 2001.
30

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

farm operators—who may invest in it and are required to meet Federal and 

State farmworker housing guidelines if they do—and farmworkers and their 

advocates, who contend that much of it is substandard. 

USDA administers a well-established Federal program known as the Section 

514/516 Farm Labor Housing Program which provides funding to buy, 

build, improve, or repair housing for farm laborers (USDA, 2004; Housing 

Assistance Council, 2006). In addition, some States with the largest populations of hired farmworkers, such as Florida and California, have created 

model programs and led efforts to provide affordable housing and workable 

housing code enforcement (National Center for Farmworker Health, 2001). 

Assessments of farmworker housing in agricultural areas offer thorough 

descriptions of local conditions and policy recommendations for improvements (Housing Assistance Council, 1997; Washington State Housing 

Finance Commission (WSHFC), 2006; Strochlic et al., 2007).
31 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

6In order to present incident and fatality 

rate data across the most recent 10-year 

period, this section focuses on statistics 

by industry rather than by occupation. 

Within the agriculture industry sector, 

fatality rates vary substantially by 

subsector. In 2006, both forestry (85.6), 

and fishing and hunting (95.9) displayed significantly higher fatality rates 

than crop production (33.0), animal 

production (16.2), or support activities (26.3). The two former subsectors, however, account for less than 10 

percent of all employment within the 

agricultural sector. Moreover, within 

the agricultural sector are numerous occupations for which fatality and injury 

rates can differ considerably. Forestry, 

fishing, and hunting occupations have 

much higher rates that reflect industry 

differences noted above. In addition, 

ranchers, farmers, and managers have 

a combined rate (29.6) that is notably 

higher than that of miscellaneous farmworkers (21.7).

Health

Agriculture is among the more hazardous industries in the United States, 

and farmworker health remains a considerable occupational concern for this 

sector (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 1992; 

Pratt and Hard, 1998; Loh and Richardson, 2004). While farmworkers face 

workplace hazards similar to those found in other industrial settings, such as 

working with heavy machinery and hard physical labor, they also confront 

factors more common to agricultural production such as pesticide exposure, 

sun exposure, inadequate sanitary facilities, and crowded and/or substandard 

housing. Young farmworkers face greater risks of agricultural industry accidents because of their lack of experience. 

A number of Federal and State programs serving the general public and/or 

farmworkers provide medical care as well as financial support for disabled 

workers. These include Medicaid, Social Security, State farmworker housing 

programs, and the Migrant Health Program. Yet, inadequate enforcement 

of Federal regulations and lack of program participation put farmworkers, 

particularly migrant farmworkers, at greater health risk (Sakala, 1987; GAO, 

1992; Reeves and Schafer, 2003; Shipp et al., 2005). Apart from government 

programs, hired farmworkers typically cannot afford quality health care and 

often work in locations with limited access to medical facilities. 

Two key indicators measuring occupational health risk include fatalities 

and the incidence of injuries and illnesses.6 Data from the 1996 and 2006 

Department of Labor’s Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries indicate 

that in many industrial sectors, fatalities have declined following general 

improvements in occupational safety. The data, however, do not indicate 

the same degree of improvement for the agricultural sector, where fatality 

rates have increased (fig. 19).7 This outcome is consistent with other government research on fatalities among foreign-born workers, whose increasing 

incidence of occupational fatalities exceeds their increasing proportion in 

the U.S. labor force (Dong and Platner, 2004; Loh and Richardson, 2004; 

Richardson et al., 2004). As a result, between 1996 and 2001, the agriculture, 

forestry, and fishing sector, which employed less than 2 percent of the U.S. 

workforce, accounted for a disproportionate 13 percent of all fatal occupational injuries (Loh and Richardson, 2004). 

The agricultural sector also exhibits some of the highest rates of occupational 

injuries and illnesses of all industrial sectors (fig. 20). These incidents have 

declined consistently over time, following similar patterns in other industrial 

sectors. 

Data from NAWS illustrate the pervasiveness of some physical ailments 

(table 10), although comparisons are complicated by the lack of data for the 

U.S. employed population. Some rates, such as 8 percent of respondents 

reporting skin problems or 20 percent reporting musculoskeletal problems 

within the past year, are above national averages (Villarejo and Baron, 1999). 

Twelve percent of all farmworkers responding to the survey indicated they 

had worked with pesticides in the previous 12 months. Even relatively low 

levels of incidents, such as treatment for pesticide exposure, have considerable implications for long-term health (GAO, 1992). About 3 percent of 

7While changes between 2 selected 

years may reflect random fluctuation, 

the trend between these points across 

all 10 years does not reflect a clear 

trend downward or upward. Note that 

between 2002 and 2003, the BLS revised its industrial classifications from 

the SIC to the NAICS typology. Such 

a change does not significantly hamper 

comparisons across time at the level of 

industrial sector aggregation presented. 

The two agricultural subsectors of crop 

and livestock agriculture presented 

were not affected by the change in classification systems.
32

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

26.8 27.8

22.2

29.4

13.9

10.8

13.1

14.8

5.4 4.8 3.5 2.7 2.1 3.1 2.2 2.0 1.5 1.2

Fatalities per 100,000 FTE workers

Figure 19

Fatality rates, by industrial sector, 1996 and 2006

Note: FTE=full-time equivalent.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Survey of Occupational Injuries, 1996-2006.

Mining

Agriculture,

forestry, fishing

Construction

Transportation,

utilities

Wholesale trade

Manufacturing

Retail trade

Services

FIRE

1996 2006

381

183

372

220

296

195

251

141

245

139

232

135

199

137

184

105

70

45

Injuries and illnesses per 100,000 FTE workers

Figure 20

Incidences of injuries and illnesses involving days away from work, by industrial 

sector, 1996 and 2006

Mining

Construction

Transportation, 

utilities

Agriculture,

forestry, fishing

Wholesale trade

Manufacturing

Retail trade

Services

FIRE

1996 2006

Note: FTE=full-time equivalent. Estimates for the agricultural sector exclude farms with fewer than 11 employees 

and include injuries for farm operators as well as all farm labor.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses in 

cooperation with participating State agencies.
33 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

those using pesticides were under age 18, making the consequences of such 

occupational hazards longer lasting over the course of these workers’ lives 

(GAO,2000).

The absence of adequate plumbing facilities at agricultural worksites poses 

health hazards for workers who constantly work in soiled conditions, particularly those who work with pesticides (fig. 21). Lack of drinking water poses 

a significant health threat to farmworkers who face hazards of dehydration 

and heat stroke. When NAWS data were first collected, 15 percent of all 

workers cited a lack of toilets and 20 percent a lack of washing water. Those 

rates have declined significantly in subsequent years. While 1 in 4 workers 

complained about the lack of at least one of the three sanitary facilities noted 

in 1989, the figure had fallen to 1 in 10 by 2006. NAWS data also indicate 

that workers lacking legal status are about 50 percent more likely to lack 

access to a sanitary facility than workers with legal status (data not shown).

NAWS data also report what crop farmworkers cited as obstacles to their 

obtaining health care (table 11). Two-thirds of all farmworkers cited costs, 

and almost a third cited language barriers to explain their inability to obtain 

Table 10

Select health indicators for hired crop farmworkers

Unauthorized Authorized Citizen All

Percent

Physical ailments1 

Had any work-related injury or 

 accident in past 12 months 1.4 2.3 2.2 1.8

Experienced wheezing or 

 whistling in chest at any time 4.9 5.9 6.1 5.4

Had any skin problem in 

 past 12 months 7.9 7.7 9.0 8.1

Had any musculoskeletal 

 problem in past 12 months 17.8 21.6 21.9 19.7

Pesticide application2 

Used (loaded, mixed, or applied 

 pesticides) in past 12 months 5.9 12.6 5.9 12.3

Under age 21; used pesticides 

 in past 12 months 7.6 0.3 6.2 5.5

Under age 18; used pesticides 

 in past 12 months I/C I/C I/C 2.8

Treated for pesticide exposure 

 in past 12 months (1999-2003) 0.9 0.6 1.3 0.9

Pesticide training3

Received training in safe use of 

 pesticides in last 12 months 

 (2002-2006) 65.1 77.2 71.1 69.4

Used pesticides in past 12 

 months and received training 

 during same period 87.8 92.7 95.8 93.1

11999-2004. 

2 1999-2006. 

3 1994-2004 except last question, 2002-2006. 

Note: I/C— insufficient cases. 

Source: National Agricultural Workers Survey, 1989-2006.
34

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

health care when needed. Within the hired crop farmworker population, 

unauthorized workers were almost twice as likely as authorized workers and 

three times as likely as citizen workers to report such obstacles.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

No drinking water

No toilets

No washing water

At least one missing

Figure 21

Unsanitary conditions for hired crop farmworkers, 1989-2006

Percent

Note: Values are averaged over 3 years to smooth fluctuations. Questions on drinking water 

availability did not appear on National Agricultural Workers Survey until 1999.

Source: ERS analysis of National Agriculutral Workers Survey data, 1989-2006.

1989 91 93 95 97 99 2001 03 05

Table 11

Reasons given by hired crop farmworkers for inaccessible health care

Unauthorized Authorized Citizen All

Percent

Too expensive 59 73 68 64

Don’t speak my language 38 20 3 29

Other 22 23 26 23

Don’t know where services located 14 3 4 10

I’m unauthorized and they don’t 

treat me well 12 1 0 7

Transportation 8 4 6 7

Don’t feel welcome 5 6 3 5

Don’t understand my problems 4 4 2 4

Don’t have services needed 2 2 5 2

Will lose my job 2 2 1 2

Health center not open 

when needed 2 1 2 2

 

Percent experiencing obstacles 

to health care access 42 24 14 29

Notes: The question on obstacles to health care access was not asked prior to 1993. Columns 

do not equal 100 percent because respondents could check off more than one reason. 

Source: National Agricultural Workers Survey, 1993-2006.
35 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

NAWS data indicate that almost three-quarters of crop farmworkers possess 

some type of health insurance in case of injury, and almost half receive some 

compensation from their employer while recuperating if injuries prevent 

them from working (table 12). Few workers receive health insurance for nonwork-related injuries or illnesses. Access to programs varies according to 

legal status, a reflection of U.S. experience and the ability to obtain employment with firms that offer such benefits (table 13).

Health insurance benefits provided in case of an injury should be distinguished from general health insurance. Only a fourth of crop farmworkers 

surveyed by NAWS between 2000 and 2006 stated that they had general 

health insurance. Farmworkers estimated the health insurance coverage of 

their spouses at roughly the same proportion, and farmworkers’ children, 

who are often eligible for government support, were twice as likely to have 

health insurance.

Other farmworker health concerns not addressed in this report include dental 

health, tuberculosis, and mental illness (Arcury and Quandt, 1998; Villarejo, 

2003). Health practitioners also cite HIV/AIDS as a growing concern among 

the farmworker population that may have repercussions in countries of origin 

(Sanchez et al., 2004). Several studies indicate that farmworkers are less 

likely than other wage and salary employees to receive financial or disability 

support from the Social Security program when they retire or become 

disabled (GAO, 1992; Lacar, 2001). 

Table 12

Employer financial support for injured farmworkers, by legal status

Unuthorized Authorized Citizen All

Percent

Health insurance if injured on 

the job and sick from work 67.0 76.7 78.7 73.5

Workers’ compensation if injured 

on the job and sick from work 36.8 46.9 59.7 47.2

Health insurance if injured off the 

job and sick from work 4.5 11.8 16.0 9.5

Source: National Agricultural Workers Survey, 1989-2006.

Table 13

Health insurance coverage of farmworkers and their family members, 

by legal status

Unuthorized Authorized Citizen All

Percent

Farmworker has health insurance 9.8 29.4 51.7 24.5

Spouse has health insurance 11.0 31.5 58.0 28.7

Children have health insurance 36.4 58.3 76.3 52.7

Note: This particular health insurance question was not asked prior to 2000. 

Source: National Agricultural Workers Survey, 2000-2006.
36

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Use of Social Services

Given their health hazards and substantially lower wages, hired farmworkers would be expected to utilize public services at higher rates than 

nonagricultural wage and salary workers. However, roughly half of all crop 

farmworkers and an undetermined yet substantial proportion of livestock 

farmworkers lack legal authorization, which limits their access to certain 

Federal public services. States may have eligibility requirements for their 

programs that permit unauthorized resident participation or that differ significantly from those of Federal programs. In all cases, previous research shows 

that unauthorized U.S. residents utilize public services less than authorized 

residents or citizens because of concerns about possible deportation (Chavez, 

1997; Berk and Schur, 2001; Kullgren, 2003).

Yet, according to CPS data, which capture only a small portion of the unauthorized population, utilization is more prevalent among hired farmworkers 

and their households than for all wage and salary workers (table 14). In addition, utilization is more prevalent among noncitizens than citizens for both 

groups of workers. Farmworker households, on average, have 50 percent 

more children under age 15, and those children are twice as likely to receive 

Medicaid and qualify for free/reduced-price school lunch. One benefit of 

the School Lunch Program is that farmworkers’ children apparently enjoy 

the benefits of regular hot school meals at least as much as children of 

other wage and salary workers. Farmworker households do not appear to 

benefit more than the broader employed population from housing assistance 

programs and Medicare. They are far more likely to receive food stamps, 

WIC, and Medicaid owing, in part, to eligibility of citizen children for these 

programs. Receipt of unemployment, workers’, and disability compensation 

is roughly 50 percent higher for hired farmworkers than for wage and salary 

employees in general. 

One cannot make inferences about the utilization rates of unauthorized 

workers from CPS data because the noncitizen category includes authorized 

and unauthorized workers. NAWS data, however, provide evidence of clear 

differences in public service utilization by legal status (fig. 22). According to 

these data, which capture unauthorized, authorized, and citizen legal statuses, 

authorized crop farmworkers show above-average participation in five social 

welfare programs captured in the NAWS data compared with unauthorized 

workers who show below-average participation. Citizen farmworkers, whose 

poverty rates are a third of noncitizen farmworkers, utilize these programs 

less than authorized workers.
37 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Table 14 

Use of social services by child, household, employment, 

and household structure category, 2005-2007

Hired All U.S. 

farmworkers households

Noncitizen Citizen Total Noncitizen Citizen Total

Percent

Children 

Children in household 

 covered by Medicaid 27.9 10.3 16.6 16.0 6.2 7.1

Children who qualify 

 for free/reduced lunch 79.1 36.5 53.1 55.1 22.1 25.9

Children who usually 

 eat a hot lunch 78.3 75.2 76.4 71.5 65.4 66.1

Households 

Renters living in 

 public housing 2.0 2.3 2.1 2.4 4.2 3.9

Renters receiving govt. 

 housing assistance 0.5 0.7 0.6 1.3 2.1 1.9

Anyone in household 

 receives food stamps 10.2 4.5 6.5 4.6 3.4 3.5

Anyone in household 

 receives WIC 21.2 7.6 14.2 10.4 7.0 7.4

Anyone in household 

 covered by Medicare 4.3 13.1 10.0 6.0 9.8 9.4

Anyone in household 

 covered by Medicaid 40.6 20.8 27.8 24.8 11.9 13.0

 

Employment 

Anyone in household 

 receives unempl. comp. 8.4 9.0 8.8 3.9 5.9 5.7

Anyone in household 

 receives workers’ comp. 2.4 2.2 2.3 1.3 1.4 1.4

Anyone in household 

 receives dis. benefits 1.6 1.3 1.4 0.7 1.0 1.0

 

Number

Household structure 

Average number under 

 age 15 per household 1.40 0.71 0.96 0.99 0.65 0.68

Average number of 

 families in household 1.71 1.16 1.35 1.46 1.20 1.22

Note: Current Population Survey data are aggregated to increase statistical reliability. 

Source: ERS analysis of 2005, 2006, and 2007 Current Population Survey March Supplement 

data.
38

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Percent

Figure 22

Social service utilization of crop farmworkers, 

by legal status, 2004-2006

Food Stamps Unemployment

insurance

Social

Security

Medicaid

Citizen

Authorized

Unauthorized

WIC

Notes: Social service utilization by farmworkers occurs within the 2 years before the interview. 

Unauthorized immigrants are eligible for WIC and citizen children of unauthorized immigrants 

are eligible for Food Stamps and Medicaid.

Source: ERS analysis of combined National Agricultural Workers Survey data, 2004-2006.
39 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Findings and Implications

In the past several decades, the U.S. economy has undergone enormous 

changes, including broad-based industrial restructuring, service sector 

growth, technological innovation, and expanding globalization. Within the 

agricultural sector, technological change has increased productivity while 

reducing the use of farm labor. Future demand for hired farm labor depends 

on the relative weights of several opposing trends: 

•	Increased mechanization, technological advances, and growing acceptance and consumption of imported food, reducing the demand for hired 

farm labor; and

•	Increased farm consolidation and greater consumer demand for yearround fresh fruits, vegetables, and more labor-intensive organic produce, 

maintaining or increasing the demand for hired farmworkers.

Contrasting these dynamic trends are the conditions and circumstances for 

hired agricultural workers who, as a group, remain among the most disadvantaged employees in the United States. Compared with workers in other 

sectors of the economy, a substantial proportion of farmworkers are foreign 

born and lack legal status, English language facility, and U.S. working or 

living experience. They are also younger and possess less education than 

most U.S. workers. 

Agricultural work often serves as an entry point into the U.S. labor market 

and one from which significant numbers of workers exit when other more 

remunerative, less arduous, and more stable employment becomes available. 

Compared with many other wage and salary workers, hired farmworkers face 

more physically grueling and hazardous working conditions and substandard 

living conditions. Despite improvements in policy and labor enforcement, 

numerous studies demonstrate that farmworkers continue to be subjected to 

a range of unfair labor practices (Commission on Security and Cooperation 

in Europe, 1993; Edid, 1994; Griffith and Kissam, 1995; Rothenberg, 1998; 

Ruckelshaus and Goldstein, 2002; Martin, 2003; Southern Poverty Law 

Center, 2007). Hired farmworkers use social services at higher rates than 

other wage and salary workers, as a group, although access is limited by the 

unauthorized legal status of many.

Demands for changes to current immigration policies in the wake of a rapidly 

growing and geographically diverse foreign-born population, the events of 

9/11, and discussions surrounding agricultural legislation such as the 2008 

Farm Bill have increased the visibility of the hired-farm labor population 

among policymakers and the general public. 

As of early 2008, several proposed immigration law reforms had been 

offered, notably AgJobs which is directly related to agricultural workers. 

Representing a compromise between growers, farm labor advocates, and 

Federal legislators, the AgJobs legislation would provide farmworkers with 

temporary citizenship status and the possibility of obtaining permanent legal 

residence in the United States. 
40

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

AgJobs would also restructure the existing H-2A visa program to reduce 

administrative burdens for growers, while increasing legal protections 

for workers. The H-2A visa program, which in 2005 involved 64,000 

workers out of an estimated 2.5 million engaged in hired farmwork (less 

than 2 percent), remains the only legally sanctioned guestworker program. 

According to both growers and worker advocates, however, the program 

remains flawed. Growers object to what they consider cumbersome administrative requirements, while farmworker advocates contend that the program 

invites pervasive abuses through a lack of regulatory enforcement. To 

address border security and immigration challenges, President Bush recently 

issued a directive to the Department of Labor to review H-2A program regulations and institute changes that tackle concerns of both growers and farm 

labor advocates.

Current legislative and public debates on immigration reform underscore the 

importance of unauthorized workers to certain sectors of the U.S. economy, 

particularly agriculture. Several studies based on the experience with IRCA 

estimate that if unauthorized workers were granted legal status, their agricultural wages would increase significantly, and they may be less likely to 

take seasonal agricultural production jobs (Taylor, 1992; Koussoudji and 

Cobb-Clark, 2000). Hence, those employing seasonal workers would face 

the greatest financial challenges resulting from labor market constriction due 

to immigration reform (American Farm Bureau Federation, 2006). Owneroperators are likely to adjust over time by acquiring additional capital equipment, switching commodities, or possibly ceasing agricultural production.

Hired crop farmworkers, on the other hand, display consistency regarding 

their expectations for future farmwork (fig. 23). NAWS data suggest that 

over 80 percent of all workers expect to continue doing farmwork for 4 or 

more years from the time they were surveyed. Except for a decline during 

1995-2000, these expectations have remained stable over the entire 17-year 

Figure 23

Expectations of future crop farm employment, 1989-2006

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1989 91 93 95 97 99 2001 03 05

Note: Values are averaged over 3 years to smooth fluctuations. 

Source: ERS analysis of National Agricultural Workers Survey data, 1989-2006.

4+ years

1-3 years Less than 1 year
41 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

NAWS data collection span. This suggests that, while a portion of hired 

farmworkers cycle through agricultural employment, using farm labor as 

a stepping stone to other opportunities within the U.S. labor market, most 

expect to remain in the agricultural sector for the foreseeable future.

Implications for change in farm labor and immigration policy extend beyond 

U.S. borders. An estimated 8 of every 10 hired farmworkers are foreign-born. 

Many have families in their countries of origin that they support through 

remitted earnings. Consequently, changing employment conditions for farmworkers in the United States can have economic consequences for communities in other countries.

One important finding relates to the shift from seasonal to year-round agricultural employment. Results show that migrant hired farmworkers work half 

as many weeks per year as nonmigrant hired farmworkers. Current research 

and industry trends indicate a growing tendency to switch from seasonal to 

year-round workers, corresponding in part to growing year-round domestic 

demand for fresh fruits and vegetables. In turn, migrant workers are settling 

permanently in places where they previously worked temporarily (DOL, 

2005). 

As seasonal workers transition into year-round workers by performing other 

tasks, both farm operators and hired farmworkers benefit—the former from a 

more stable and available workforce and the latter from improved economic 

conditions. The Department of Labor reports a correlation between the 

number of years worked for a single employer and the likelihood of working 

year round. Year-round workers also report higher rates of pay and greater 

benefits (DOL, 2005).

While this report attempts to provide a reasonably broad overview of the 

hired-farmworker population, an exhaustive survey of all issues related 

to this population is beyond its scope (Goldstein et al., 2006). Topics not 

mentioned include farmworker mental health; food security of farmworker 

families; nutrition, given the pervasiveness of fast food diets among farmworkers (Poss and Pierce, 2003; Cason et al., 2003; Weigel, 2007); substance 

abuse, gangs, and sexually transmitted diseases in migrant farmworker 

communities; farmworker youth education and health outcomes; and State 

variation in workers’ compensation coverage.

Six States – California, Florida, Washington, Texas, Oregon, and North 

Carolina – account for half of the Nation’s expenditure on hired labor. Any 

innovative or “best practices” and regulations that these States develop 

regarding hired farmworkers may provide lessons and set standards and innovations for the rest of the country.
42

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

References

Allen, Richard, and Virginia Harris. What We Know About the Demographics 

of U.S. Farm Operators, paper presented at the 2005 Agricultural Outlook 

Conference, Crystal City, VA. Available at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/

Publications/2002/Other_Analysis/demographicpaper022505.pdf.

American Farm Bureau Federation. Impact of Migrant Labor Restrictions on 

the Agricultural Sector, 2006. 

Arcury, T., and S. Quandt. “Occupational and Environmental Health Risks in 

Farm Labor,” Human Organization 57(3): 331–4, 1998.

Baca, Leonard. “Foreword,” Scholars in the Fields: The Challenges 

of Migrant Education, Cynthia Salinas and María E. Franquíz (eds.), 

Charleston, WV: Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), 

Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools, 2004.

Berk, Marc L., and Claudia L. Schur. “The Effect of Fear on Access to Care 

Among Undocumented Latino Immigrants,” Journal of Immigrant Health 

3(3): 1096-4045, 2001.

Bradman A., D. Whitaker, L. Quiros, R. Castorina, B.C. Henn, N. 

Nishioka, J. Morgan, D.B. Barr, M.E. Harnly, J.A. Brisbin, L.S. Sheldon, 

T.E. McKone, and B. Eskanazi. “Pesticides and their Metabolites in the 

Homes and Urine of Farmworker Children Living in the Salinas Valley, 

CA,” Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 

17(4):331-49, 2007.

Cason, K.L., S. Nieto-Montenegro, A. Chavez-Martinez, N. Lee, and 

A. Snyder. “Dietary Intake and Food Security Among Migrant Farmworkers 

in Pennsylvania,” unpublished technical report, joint ERS Food and Nutrition 

Research Small Grants Program, 2003.

Chavez, Leo. Shadowed Lives: Undocumented Immigrants in American 

Society, New York: Harcourt Brace, 1997.

Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Migrant Farmworkers 

in the United States, Implementation of the Helsinki Accords, Briefings, U.S. 

Government Printing Office, 1993. 

Dimitri, Carolyn, Anne Effland, and Neilson Conklin. The 20th Century 

Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy, Economic Information 

Bulletin No. 3, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 

2005.

Dong, X., and J.W. Platner. “Occupational Fatalities of Hispanic 

Construction Workers From 1992 to 2000,” American Journal of Industrial 

Medicine 45:45–54, 2004. 

Early J., S.W. Davis, S.A. Quandt, P. Rao, B.M. Snively, and T.A. Arcury. 

“Housing Characteristics of Farmworker Families in North Carolina,” 

Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 8(2):173-84, 2006.
43

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Edid, Maralyn. Farm Labor Organizing: Trends and Prospects, Ithaca, NY: 

ILR Press, 1994.

Fuglie, Keith O., James M. MacDonald, and Eldon Ball. Productivity Growth 

in U.S. Agriculture, Economic Brief No. 9, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service, 2007.

Gentry, A.L., J.G. Grzywacz, S.A. Quandt, Davis, S.W., and, T.A. Arcury. 

“Housing Quality Among North Carolina Farmworker Families, Journal of 

Agricultural Safety and Health, 13(3):323-37, 2007.

Goldstein, Bruce, Ed Kissam, Mark Miller, and Rick Mines. Proposed 

National Farmworker Research Agenda: Topics, Methodologies, and 

Institutional Framework, Oakland, CA: Aguirre International and The 

Farmworker Justice Fund, 2006.

Government Accountability Office (GAO). Impact of Federal Programs to 

Improve the Living Conditions of Migrant and Other Seasonal Farmworkers, 

Report No. B177486, 1971. 

______. Immigration Reform: Potential Impact on West Coast Farm Labor, 

Report HRD 89/89, 1989. 

______. Hired Farmworkers: Health and Well-being at Risk, Report 

HRD-92-46, 1992. 

______. H2-A Agricultural Guestworker Program: Changes Could Improve 

Services to Employers and Better Protect Workers, Health and Human 

Services Division Report No. 98-20, 1997. 

______. Child Labor in Agriculture: Changes Needed to Better Protect 

Health and Educational Opportunities, Report GAO/HEHS-98-193, 1998. 

______. Pesticides: Improvements Needed to Ensure the Safety of 

Farmworkers and Their Children, Report GAO/RCED-00-40, 2000.

______. Child Labor: Labor Can Strengthen Its Efforts to Protect Children 

Who Work, Report GAO-02-880, 2002. 

______. Decennial Census: Lessons Learned for Locating and Counting 

Migrant and Seasonal Farm Workers, Report GAO-03-605, 2003. 

Griffith, David. American Guestworkers: Jamaicans and Mexicans in the 

U.S. Labor Market, University Park, PA: Penn State University Press, 2006.

Griffith, David, and Ed Kissam. Working Poor: Farmworkers in the United 

States, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1995.

Hoppe, Robert A., and Penni Korb. “Large and Small Farms: Trends and 

Characteristics,” Structural and Financial Characteristics of U.S. Farms: 

2004 Family Farm Report, David E. Banker and James M. MacDonald 

(eds.), AIB-797, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research 

Service, 2005.
44

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Housing Assistance Council. Housing for Families and Unaccompanied 

Migrant Farmworkers, 1997. 

______. No Refuge from the Fields: Findings from a Survey of Farmworker 

Housing Conditions in the United States, 2001. 

_____. USDA Section 514/516 Farmworker Housing: Existing Stock and 

Changing Needs, 2006. 

Isé, S., and J. Perloff. “Legal Status and Earnings of Agricultural Workers,” 

American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77:375-86, 1995.

Kandel, William, and John Cromartie. New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement 

in Rural America, RDRR-99, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service, 2004.

Khan, M. Akhtar, Philip Martin, and Phil Hardiman. California’s Farm 

Labor Markets: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Employment and Earnings 

in 1991, 1996, and 2001, Sacramento, CA: Applied Research Unit, Labor 

Market Information Division, California Employment Development 

Department, 2003.

Kossoudji, Sherrie A., and Deborah A. Cobb-Clark. “IRCA’s Impact on the 

Mobility and Occupational Concentration of Newly Legalized Men,” Journal 

of Population Economics, 13: 81-98, 2000.

Kullgren, Jeffrey T. “Restrictions on Undocumented Immigrants’ Access 

to Health Services: The Public Health Implications of Welfare Reform,” 

American Journal of Public Health, 93(10): 1630-33, 2003.

Lacar, Marvi S. “The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act of 1996: Implications for Hispanic Migrant 

Farmworkers,” Working Paper No. 53, Lansing, MI: Julien Samora Research 

Institute, Michigan State University, 2001.

Larson, Janelle M., Jill L. Findeis, Hema Swaminathan, and Qiuyan Wang. 

“A Comparison of Data Sources for Hired Farm Labor Research: The NAWS 

and the CPS,” The Dynamics of Hired Farm Labor, Jill L. Findeis, Ann M. 

Vandeman, Janelle M. Larson, and Jack L. Runyan (eds.), New York, NY: 

CABI Publishing, 2002.

Levine, Linda. Farm Labor Shortages and Immigration Policy, RL30395, 

Congressional Research Service, 2007.

Loh, Katherine, and Scott Richardson. “Foreign-born Workers: Trends in 

Fatal Occupational Injuries, 1996-2001,” Monthly Labor Review (June): 

42-53, 2004.

Lu C., R.A. Fenske, N.J. Simcox, and D. Kalman. “Pesticide Exposure of 

Children in an Agricultural Community: Evidence of Household Proximity 

to Farmland and Take Home Exposure Pathways,” Environmental Research, 

84(3):290-302, 2006.
45

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Martin, Philip. Promise Unfulfilled: Unions, Immigration, and the Farm 

Workers, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003.

______. “Immigration Reform: Implications for Agriculture,” Agricultural 

and Resource Economics Update, Davis, CA: University of California, 

Giannini Foundation, 2006.

______. “Immigration Reform, Agriculture, and Rural Communities,” 

Choices 22(1): 43-47, 2007.

______. “Farm Labor Shortages: How Real? What Response?” 

Backgrounder, Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies, November 

2007.

Martin, Philip, Michael Fix, and J. Edward Taylor. The New Rural Poverty: 

Agriculture and Immigration in California, Washington, DC: Urban Institute 

Press, 2006.

Massey, Douglas S., Jorge Durand, and Nolan J. Malone. Beyond Smoke 

and Mirrors: Mexican Immigration in an Era of Economic Integration, New 

York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2002.

McWilliams, Carey. Factories in the Fields, Berkeley, CA: University of 

California Press, 1935.

Mehta, K., S.M. Gabbard, V. Barrat, M. Lewis, D. Carroll, and R. 

Mines. Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 

1997-1998: A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States 

Farmworkers, U.S. Department of Labor, 2000.

National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Data downloaded on May 

29, 2007 from http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/graphics/data/

fl_qtrwk.txt.

National Center for Farmworker Health. Migrant Health Issues, National 

Advisory Council on Migrant Health by the National Center For Farmworker 

Health, Inc., Buda, TX, 2001.

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Papers and 

Proceedings of the Surgeon General’s Conference on Agricultural Safety and 

Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication number 92-105, Cincinnati, OH: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, 1992.

______. NIOSH Alert: Preventing Deaths, Injuries, and Illnesses of Young 

Workers, Publication number 2003-128, Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department 

of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

2003. 

Oliveira, Victor J., and E.J. Cox. The Agricultural Workforce of 1987: A 

Statistical Profile, AER-609, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic 

Research Service, 1990.
46

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Poss, J.E., and R. Pierce. “Characteristics of Selected Migrant Farmworkers 

in West Texas and Southern New Mexico,” Californian Journal of Health 

Promotion, 1(2): 138-147, 2003.

Pratt, S.G., and D.L. Hard. “Injury Risk Factors Associated with Agricultural 

Workplace Fatalities,” Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, Special 

Issue (1): 29-38, 1998.

Quandt S.A., T.A. Arcury, Rao P. Snively, D.E. Camann, A.M. Doran, A.Y. 

Yau, J.S. Hoppin, and D.S. Jackson. “Agricultural and Residential Pesticides 

in Wipe Samples from Farmworker Family Residences in North Carolina and 

Virginia,” Environmental Health Perspectives, 112(3):382-7, 2004.

Reeves, Margaret, and Kristin S. Schafer. “Greater Risks, Fewer Rights: U.S. 

Farmworkers and Pesticides,” International Journal of Occupational and 

Environmental Health, 9(1):30-39, 2003. 

Richardson, David B., Dana Loomis, James Bena, and A. John Bailer. “Fatal 

Occupational Injury Rates in Southern and Non-Southern States, by Race 

and Hispanic Ethnicity,” American Journal of Public Health, 94:1756-1761, 

2004.

Rivera-Batiz, F. “Unauthorized Workers in the Labor Market: An Analysis of 

the Earnings of Legal and Illegal Mexican Immigrants in the United States,” 

Journal of Population Economics, 12(1):91-116, 1999.

Rothenberg, Daniel. With These Hands: The Hidden World of Migrant 

Farmworkers Today, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.

Ruckelshaus, Catherine, and Bruce Goldstein. “From Orchards to the 

Internet: Confronting Contingent Work Abuses,” New York: National 

Employment Law Project, 2002. 

Runyan, Jack. Profile of Hired Farmworkers, 1998 Annual Averages, 

AER-790, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 

2000.

Sakala, Carol. “Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers in the United States: 

A Review of Health Hazards, Status, and Policy,” International Migration 

Review, 21(3): 659-687, 1987.

Salinas, Cynthia, and María E. Franquíz (eds.). Scholars in the Field: The 

Challenges of Migrant Education, Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on 

Rural Education and Small Schools, 2004.

Sanchez, Melissa, George F. Lemp, Carlos Magis-Rodriguez, Enrique BravoGarcia, Susan Carter, and Juan D. Ruiz. “The Epidemiology of HIV Among 

Mexican Migrants and Recent Immigrants in California and Mexico,” 

Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 37(S4):S204-S214, 

2004.

Shipp, Eva M., Sharon P. Cooper, Keith D. Burau, and Jane N. Bolin. 

“Pesticide Safety Training and Access to Field Sanitation Among Migrant 
47

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Farmworker Mothers from Starr County, Texas,” Journal of Agricultural 

Safety and Health, 11(1): 51−60, 2005.

Southern Poverty Law Center. Close to Slavery: Guestworker Programs in 

the United States, Mobile, AL, 2007.

Strochlic, Ron, Don Villarejo, Sandra Nichols, Cathy Wirth, and Raoul 

Liévanos. An Assessment of the Demand for Farm Worker Housing in Napa 

Valley, Davis, CA: California Institute for Rural Studies, 2007.

Taylor, J. Edward. “Earnings and Mobility of Legal and Illegal Immigrant 

Workers in Agriculture,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74: 

889-896, 1992.

Taylor, J. Edward, and Dawn Thilmany. “Worker Turnover, Farm Labor 

Contractors, and IRCA’s Impact on the California Farm Labor Market,” 

American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75(2): 350-360, 1993.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rural Development. Building a 

Better Future for Farmworkers, Report PA1669, 2004. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. “Technical Documentation,” 

Summary File 3, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, 2002.

______. American FactFinder: http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.

html?_lang=en, accessed April 9, 2007.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Occupational 

Research Agenda (NORA): Update, July 1998, Report No. 98-134, 1998. 

U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). National Agricultural Workers Survey

2001-2002, 2005. 

______. H-2A Regional Summary, Fiscal Year 2006, Annual, http://www.

foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/h-2a_region2006.cfm, accessed November 5, 

2007.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. A Profile of the 

Working Poor, 2004, Report 994, 2006.

______. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, 

1996 and 2006. 

______. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Survey of Occupational Injuries and 

Illnesses, 1996 and 2006.

Villarejo, D. “The Health of U.S. Hired FarmWorkers,” Annual Review of 

Public Health, 24:175–93, 2003.

Villarejo, D., and S.L. Baron. “The Occupational Health Status of Hired 

Farmworkers,” Occupational Medicine: State of the Art Reviews, 14: 613-35, 

1999.
48

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Washington State Housing Finance Commission (WSHFC). A Short History 

of Migrant Farmworker Housing in Washington State, 2006.

Weigel, M. Margaret, Rodrigo X. Armijos, Yolanda Posada Hall, Yolanda 

Ramirez, and Rubi Orozco. “The Household Food Insecurity and Health 

Outcomes of U.S.–Mexico Border Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers,” 

Journal of Immigrant Minority Health, 9:157–169, 2007.
49 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Glossary

Agricultural service workers—Refers to farm-related services performed 

on a farm or ranch on a contract or fee arrangement. This mainly includes 

activities performed by contract workers on fruit, vegetable, or berry operations. It also includes custom work that might require specialized equipment, 

veterinarian work, sheep shearing, milk testing, or other farm-related activities performed on a farm or ranch on a fee rather than hourly basis.

Annual average number of hired farmworkers—The average number of 

hired farmworkers employed per week during 1998.

Contract labor—Refers to contract workers who are paid by a crew leader, 

contractor, cooperative, or other person with a formal agreement with a 

farmer or rancher. Examples include pruning, weeding, or harvesting fruit 

and vegetable crops.

Geographic regions—Five regions using the States of the four principal 

Census regions and creating a fifth Southwest region with States from the 

South and West:

Northeast—Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New 

Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

South—Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Midwest—Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

West—Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming.

Southwest—Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas.

Crops—Two general categories: 

Field crops refer to wheat, rice, corn, soybeans, barley, dry beans, rye, 

sorghum, cotton, popcorn, tobacco, or similar crops. 

Other crops refer to vegetables, melons, berry crops, grapes, tree nuts, 

citrus fruits, deciduous tree fruits, avocados, dates, figs, olives, nursery, 

or greenhouse crops. This category also includes potatoes, sugar crops, 

hay, peanuts, hops, mint, and maple syrup.

Full-time workers—Persons who usually work 35 hours or more per week. 

Persons working less than 35 hours per week are considered part-time.

Hired farmworkers—Employed persons who, during the survey week, did 

farmwork for cash wages or salary, or did not work but had farm jobs from 

which they were temporarily absent. Hired farmworkers include persons who 

manage farms for employers on a paid basis, supervisors of farmworkers, and 

farm and nursery workers.
50

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Hispanic—A pan-ethnic term that encompasses people whose origins 

include Mexico, Central America, South America, and the Caribbean. People 

who self-identify as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race.

Industry—Hired farmworkers were classified according to the industry of 

the establishment where they worked:

Crop production—Establishments primarily engaged in producing 

crops, plants, vines, and trees (excluding forestry operations).

Livestock production—Establishments primarily engaged in the 

keeping, grazing, or feeding of livestock.

Other agricultural establishments—Establishments primarily engaged 

in agricultural services.

Legal status—Legal status is comprised of three categories: citizens, authorized or documented workers, and unauthorized or undocumented workers. 

Citizens acquire their citizenship either by being born in the United 

States or by naturalizing, and thereby converting their citizenship to the 

United States from another country through legal processes. 

Authorized workers acquire their legal status to work in the United 

States through legal channels such as the H-2A visa program, the Special 

Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, through amnesty programs such 

as the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as political refugees, and through other legal programs.

Unauthorized workers do not have the legal right to work in the United 

States, and unless they have valid tourist or student visas, they possess 

no right to live in the United States.

Livestock—Includes poultry, cattle, hogs, sheep, goats, and other animals 

raised for profit.

Median weekly earnings—The value that divides the earnings distribution into two equal parts, earnings above the median and earnings below the 

median. “Earnings” refers to weekly earnings the farmworker usually earns 

at a farm job, before deductions, and includes overtime pay or commissions.

Race—The Census Bureau defines race by dividing the population into 

the following groups: American Indian and Alaska Native; Asian; Black or 

African American; Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander; and White. 

For the first time in 2000, the Bureau recorded numerous multi-racial categories. For the sake of brevity in this report, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islanders were included in the Asian race category, and multi-racial categories were assigned their primary racial group. Race, which the Census Bureau 

describes as a “non-scientific socio-political construct” needs to be distinguished from ethnicity, which typically refers to “heritage, nationality group, 

lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person’s parents or ancestors 

before their arrival in the United States” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2002). 
51 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Unemployed—Persons 15 years of age and older who, during the survey 

week, were:

1) Unemployed--on layoff; or

2) Unemployed--looking for employment.

Wage and salary workers—Persons 15 years of age and older who, during 

the survey week:

1) Did any work as paid employees; or

2) Were not working, but had jobs or businesses from which they were 

temporarily absent because of illness, bad weather, vacation, labormanagement disputes, or personal reasons, whether they were paid for 

the time off or were seeking other jobs.
52

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Appendix 1: About the Data

No single source provides all the necessary detail for understanding farm 

labor supply, demand, wages, earnings, benefits, and characteristics at 

the national level. Consequently, the intent of this report is to construct a 

coherent profile of hired farmworkers using data from the following key 

sources of information. 

The National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) collects detailed 

information on individual farmworkers, including legal status, critical characteristics for researchers of immigrant workers as well as farm labor. Since 

1989, it has been conducted annually in three cycles of 10 to 12 weeks under 

contract to the Department of Labor. Its information is made available to 

the public via periodic research reports and a public-use data set. NAWS 

provides the most detailed data on the social and economic characteristics of 

field workers working in crop (but not livestock) production. NAWS collects 

data from personal interviews with between 1,518 and 3,600 randomly 

selected crop field workers. It does not, however, collect data on livestock 

farmworkers who make up an estimated 40 percent of the hired-farmworker 

population. It provides demographic and employment characteristics of 

workers, including literacy and education, family composition, earnings, 

assets, use of social services, employment history, and job characteristics. 

NAWS also collects information on migrant farmworkers – defined as 

workers who traveled 75 miles or more from home while looking for work 

or from job-to-job during the year. Not all questions have been asked in all 

17 years of NAWS data collection. For this report, ERS obtained access to 

restricted NAWS data from the U.S. Department of Labor, which permitted 

analysis though 2006 as well as analysis of data not available to the general 

public. NAWS data through 2006 are now available from the DOL web site.

The Current Population Survey (CPS) provides employment and demographic information on the entire U.S. workforce, allowing comparative 

analyses between farmworkers and other occupation and industry groups. 

It is conducted each month by the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) using a probability sample of about 57,000 households 

designed to represent the U.S. civilian noninstitutional population. Once 

selected, a household is interviewed for 4 consecutive months, dropped from 

the survey for 8 months, and then interviewed for a final 4 months. A fourth 

of the sample changes monthly. This strategy allows the Census Bureau to 

obtain month-to-month and year-to-year comparisons with minimal inconvenience to any one household. Because it is conducted monthly for the 

same households over 16 months, the survey undercounts unauthorized and 

foreign-born persons who migrate frequently and are reluctant to participate in formal Government questionnaires. The Census Bureau has since 

improved the weights used in the CPS so that total population figures and 

proportions match those of the decennial census and annual estimates. While 

totals may agree, demographic characteristics bias toward more established 

Hispanics with legal status.

The CPS obtains data on different topics over the course of each year. The 

CPS March Supplement provides detailed information on the labor force, 

employment, unemployment, and demographic characteristics. The CPS 
53 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Earnings File contains additional information about hours worked per week 

and earnings collected from workers in about a quarter of CPS households 

(those in either their fourth or eighth month in the sample). The 2006 CPS 

earnings microdata file used in this report includes 12 months of data and 

consists of all records from the monthly samples of CPS households asked 

the additional questions during that time period. The data file contained information on 706,974 people, including 4,625 employed as hired farmworkers. 

Data comparisons in the analysis are based on differences significant at the 

95 percent or higher level of confidence.

The Farm Labor Survey (FLS) provides total numbers of farmworkers 

obtained from farm establishments. Four times a year, the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) surveys 

about 14,500 farms in all States except Alaska. The survey provides quarterly 

estimates of the number of hired workers, the percentage of workers who are 

migrant, and average weekly hours worked. The FLS also provides average 

wage rates for hired workers by type (field, livestock, supervisor, and other) 

for 16 separate States and 15 regions. These figures are used by public and 

private entities to compute national wage indices and establish labor laws 

and regulations, including determining the number of replenishment workers 

admitted into the United States to offset domestic shortages and establishing 

minimum wage rates for agricultural workers.

It should be noted that “hired workers” refers to all types of workers on the 

farm, including bookkeepers, secretaries, and mechanics, as well as persons 

who pay themselves regular salaries, such as partners or corporate shareholders. Surveys answered by employers are far more likely to account for 

unauthorized workers than surveys administered to farmworkers themselves.

The Census of Agriculture offers the most complete geographic coverage 

of hired and contract farm labor use as measured by labor expenditures, and 

is currently the only national level data source that offers consistent farm 

labor information at the county and State level. Every 5 years, NASS sends 

a survey to U.S. farms and ranches. In 2002, the year of the most recent 

data available, 2.8 million questionnaires were mailed out to farms, defined 

as “any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural products were 

produced and sold, or normally would have been sold, during the census 

year.” The Census of Agriculture provides separate estimates of expenses for 

hired workers, contract labor, and specialized “custom-hire” services at the 

national, State, and county level. Expenditure data are reported across several 

identifiers, including: 3-digit Standard Industrial Classification of farms, the 

value of agricultural products sold, the size of farms in acres, the type of 

organization, and select operator characteristics. The Census of Agriculture 

also reports the number of hired workers, separated by whether they worked 

less than 150 days or 150 days or more. As with the Farm Labor Survey, 

the data refer to all hired workers on the farm, including those generally not 

considered hired farmworkers. 

Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS)

Conducted annually since 1985 by the Economic Research Service (ERS) 

and NASS, ARMS collects data to measure the financial condition (farm 

income sources, expenses, assets, and debts) and operating characteristics 
54

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

of farm businesses, the cost of producing agricultural commodities, and the 

well-being of farm operator households. The target population of the survey is 

operators associated with farm businesses representing agricultural production 

in the 48 contiguous States. Included in the farm operations data collected 

for each farm is information about cash wages paid to hired labor during 

the calendar year. ARMS data represent another source of information for 

corroborating statistics on the cost of hired farm labor across a range of farm 

characteristics. 

These data sets provide information for different subgroups within the entire 

population of persons employed in agriculture (app. fig. 1). This latter population can be divided into two general groups: self-employed farm operators 

and their unpaid family members and hired farmworkers. Farmworkers may 

be divided according to crop and livestock production. A substantial proportion of workers in both sectors lack authorization to work in the United States.

Each of these data sources offer a different perspective on agricultural 

farmworkers, and it remains the challenge of researchers to synthesize this 

information for their specific objectives. The Census of Agriculture and FLS 

provide perhaps the most accurate figures on overall numbers of workers, 

while CPS and NAWS offer detailed characteristics of workers themselves. 

The latter data set includes information on legal status, while the former 

offers comparability with workers in other occupations.

Note: Social service utilization by farmworkers occurs within 2 years of being interviewed. 

Unauthorized immigrants are eligible for WIC and citizen children of unauthorized immigrants 

are eligible for Food Stamps and Medicaid.

Source: ERS analysis of combined National Agricultural Workers Survey data, 2004-2006.

Hired livestock

farmworkers

Hired crop

farmworkers

Unauthorized

workers

Self-employed farmers and 

unpaid family members

All persons employed in agriculture

Appendix figure 1

Venn diagram of persons working in agriculture
55 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

1Hired farmworker figures from 

NASS’s Farm Labor Survey are comprised of two groups of employees: 

farmworkers hired directly by farm 

operators and agricultural service employees. The latter group consists primarily of contract workers as well as a 

smaller proportion of “fee-for-service” 

and custom work employees. In 2006, 

the 1,009,000 figure included 752,000 

direct hire employees and 257,000 

agricultural service employees.

Appendix 2: Estimating Total Numbers 

of Hired Farmworkers

Total estimates of hired farmworkers consist of two categories. The first is a 

cross-sectional estimate that describes, on average, the total number of hired 

farmworkers at any given point in time. Turnover in farmwork is considerable, and several persons may hold a single hired-farmworker position 

during a year. For instance, one crew of hired farmworkers planting a crop 

in the spring may differ from another crew of hired farmworkers harvesting 

that same crop in the autumn. The second category is an annual estimate 

of the total number of workers over the course of a year that did some type 

of farmwork. Cross-sectional estimates are usually derived directly from 

national-level survey data by Government agencies. Annual estimates, which 

often rely on such data, involve additional assumptions, take into account 

part-time work and contract labor, and are typically produced independently. 

Cross-sectional national-level surveys may not accurately count hired farmworkers for several reasons. First, a substantial number of hired farmworkers 

are seasonal migrants who often fail to be recorded in cross-sectional 

surveys. Second, roughly half of all hired farmworkers are unauthorized 

workers according to the most reliable data available on the legal status of 

farmworkers. Workers without legal status fear deportation and, not surprisingly, have lower rates of participation in formal surveys (GAO, 2003). 

Third, surveys use different definitions of hired farmworkers. As a result, 

different national-level surveys yield different estimates of hired farmworkers (app. table 1).1 

Data from the Farm Labor Survey illustrate the degree of seasonal variation 

in farmworker counts, with the highest numbers registering during agriculturally productive summer months and the lowest numbers registering 

during winter (app. fig. 2). Each annual figure from this data source represents an average of four quarterly estimates. Between 2000 and 2006, those 

quarterly figures ranged from a low of 759,000 (January 2005) to a high of 

1,377,000 (July 2000). 

Annual estimates of total hired farmworkers are typically computed using 

indirect methods. The Census of Agriculture, for example, reports farm labor 

expenditures for crop and livestock farms, but it does not provide data on the 

number of farm labor hours worked to allow the derivation of the number of 

Appendix table 1

Cross-sectional estimates of total hired farmworkers, 

by data source

Source Estimate Year

Current Population Survey, 

March 2006 Supplement 691,000 2005

Current Population Survey 

Earnings File, 2006 729,000 2005

Farm Labor Survey (NASS), 

2006 1,009,000 2006

Estimate by Martin (2006) 1.0-1.4 million 2006
56

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

farmworkers (by dividing the former by the latter and assuming stable wage 

rates). 

Martin (2006) has used mixed data approaches effectively. For example, 

by combining data from the Census of Agriculture, CPS, FLS, and NAWS, 

Martin estimates there were roughly 2.5 million hired farmworkers in 2002, 

1.8 million of whom worked in crops and the other 700,000 in livestock. 

Given the consistent decline in cross-sectional averages over the past decade, 

this figure has probably diminished. Based on the 2.5 million total worker 

figure, Martin (2006) estimates the annual number of unauthorized agricultural workers in crops and livestock between 1 and 1.4 million.

Estimating the total number of persons employed in agriculture is similarly 

challenging. For instance, NASS, which continues to collect data on hired 

farmworkers through the FLS, discontinued counts of all other persons 

employed on farms (self-employed farmers and their unpaid help) in 2002. 

Yet in 2001, the last year it obtained quarterly data, it counted 2,047,000 

self-employed farmers and their unpaid family members. The 2004 ARMS 

data, however, indicated 3,220,000 total farm operators, distributed among 

primary operators, secondary operators, spouses, and other employees 

(Hoppe et al., 2007). The 2002 Census of Agriculture indicated a total of 

3,115,000 farm operators (Allen and Harris, 2005). Neither ARMS nor 

Census of Agriculture figures included hired farmworkers. The difference 

in estimates of total farm operators between the FLS and the other two 

estimates stem, in large part, from differences in measurement and definition. The Farm Labor Survey is a random-sample survey that captures, at 

four points each year, the number of persons employed on the farm, not all 

persons involved in farm production over the course of the year. Nonprimary 

farm operators, which according to the 2002 Census of Agriculture number 

about 925,000 persons, are less likely to be captured in surveys of farm oper- July July July July July July July

700

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

1,500

Hired farmworkers (thousands)

Appendix figure 2

Number of hired farmworkers, by quarter, 2000-2006

Source: Farm Labor Survey, National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA, 2000-2006.
57 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

ators on any given day because of their secondary role in farm operations. In 

contrast, the Census of Agriculture, conducted every 5 years, enumerates all 

farm operators who produce at least $1,000 worth of agricultural products. 

Procedures for this objective are more extensive than those used for quarterly FLS. In addition, the 2002 Census of Agriculture was the first to ask 

about secondary operators, which consequently increased the total number 

of farm operators from 1,911,000 in 1997 to 3,115,000 in 2002. Clearly, 

expanding the scope of who is considered a farm operator explains why, after 

decades of declines, their number increased over this period (see box, “How 

Definitions Alter Estimates of Total U.S. Farmworkers”).

To illustrate how farmworker definitions can affect estimates, data 

from the 2006 CPS March Supplement was used to derive the 691,000 

farmworkers noted. Farmworkers were defined using two criteria, one 

for occupation and another for industry. The March CPS data indicated 

that an estimated 932,000 persons held positions as managers, supervisors, or miscellaneous workers, and did so within the industries of crop 

production, animal production, and support activities for agriculture and 

forestry. This definition excludes technical occupations such as agricultural inspectors, graders, and sorters of agricultural products, and it also 

excludes industries such as fishing and logging.

Having narrowed occupation and industry definitions, the estimate was 

further refined using employment criteria. First, the calculation excluded 

unemployed workers and workers not in the labor force. This reduces the 

932,000 figure by roughly 15 percent, to just under 800,000. Next, selfemployed persons were excluded, such as farm operators, and only wage 

and salary workers were retained. This reduces the 800,000 figure by an 

additional 13 percent to yield a final total farmworkers count of 691,000. 

This figure differs substantially from the estimate by Passel (2006) of 

839,000 agricultural workers that is based on less restrictive definitions 

and uses 2005 March CPS data. These differences illustrate the challenge 

of obtaining standard and comparable estimates on the number of farmworkers, even with the use of established national-scale surveys.

How Definitions Alter Estimates 

of Total U.S. Farmworkers
58

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

Appendix 3: A Brief History of Farm Labor

1860s-1880s: Farming becomes a large scale industry, particularly in 

California. Native Americans and later Chinese are recruited to work on U.S. 

farms to meet a growing national demand for fruit. By 1886 in California, 7 

out of every 8 farmworkers are Chinese.

1890s: In California, growing numbers of Japanese workers are recruited for 

agricultural work, then gradually replaced with workers from Pakistan and 

India.

1917-1921: The first guestworker program admits 51,000 Mexican guestworkers during World War I.

1920s: In California, growing numbers of Filipino workers and a small 

number of Mexican workers are recruited for agricultural work.

1924: Border Patrol established between Mexico and the United States.

1930s: Numbers of white tenant farmers and share-croppers increase during 

the Great Depression after many sell their own farms and begin working as 

migrant farmworkers.

1938: The Fair Labor Standards Act creates standards applicable to all 

workers and governs minimum wages, maximum hours allowable without 

overtime pay, child labor, and recordkeeping. Agricultural employers using 

less than 500 man-days of agricultural labor during any calendar quarter (six 

or more workers each day of the week for 13 weeks; 79 percent of all farms 

in 1997) are exempt from minimum wage provisions, as are all range livestock producers.

1942-1964: The Bracero Program, initiated to help alleviate wartime labor 

shortages, allows agricultural producers to import 4.6 million Mexican 

workers over 22 years for seasonal farm work. The program continues after 

World War II at the request of producers, but is terminated in 1964 for a 

variety of reasons related to flaws in the program and broader societal trends.

1947: The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

sets risk and benefit standards for pesticide use. It was amended by the 

Environmental Protection Agency in 1972, 1974, and 1992.

1960s-1970s: Union activity increases among farmworkers, as does unauthorized migration and use of labor contractors. 

1963: Congress passes the first Federal law regulating farm labor contractors, 

the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act (FLCRA). This Act was revised 

10 years later and then replaced by the current law in 1983.

1970: The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) is enacted to ensure 

safe and healthful working conditions for all U.S. workers.

1970s-1990s: As African Americans move into other industries, immigrants 

primarily from Latin America migrate toward jobs in agriculture.
59 

Profile of Hired Farmworkers, A 2008 Update / ERR-60

Economic Research Service / USDA

1983: The Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act is 

enacted to provide migrant and seasonal farmworkers with protections 

concerning transportation, housing, pay, and working conditions. The act 

also requires farm labor contractors to register with the U.S. Department 

of Labor. Farm operators employing less than 500 man-days under the Fair 

Labor Standards Act of 1938 are exempt.

1986-1989: Roughly 2.7 million unauthorized workers in the United States 

received legal amnesty through the Immigration Reform and Control Act 

(IRCA) of 1986 which included a Special Agricultural Workers (SAW) 

legalization program for persons able to demonstrate agricultural employment prior to 1985-86. Anticipated improvements in farmworker wages and 

benefits failed to materialize with a rebounding ample supply of unauthorized workers, prompting many agricultural workers to seek employment in 

nonagricultural industries in regions outside the Southwest.

1996: The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 

(IIRIRA) sets new guidelines for border enforcement and controls to verify 

eligibility for employment and social services. Border control is increased 

substantially, benefits available to immigrants are reduced, and a pilot 

program is established allowing employers and public agencies to check 

applicant eligibility.

Sources: Griffith and Kissam, 1995; Runyan, 2000; Martin, 2003; Martin et 

al., 2006.