# Health andWell-Being

at Risk__ _~._”
___..___ ““_.. _,__.. ._ “_,_ “. ,l..“_.

. .,““”

_ ..,.- .___.._ ._ . ,.-._, _..” .l”.._” ._._..^ ..___ -_-_-------_.--

# GAO United States

General Accounting Off’ice Washington, D.C. 20548

Human Resources Division
B-246619 February 14,1992
The Honorable Edward R. Roybal Chairman, Select Committee onAging House of Representatives
The Honorable William D. Ford Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor House of Representatives
The Honorable Patricia Schroeder Chairwoman, Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families House of Representatives
The Honorable Matthew G. Martinez Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources Committee on Education and Labor House of Representatives
The Honorable Jim Jontz House of Representatives
The Honorable George Miller House of Representatives
This report responds to your request for information on the extent to which federal laws, regulations, and programs protect the health andwell-being ofthe nation’s hired farmworkers.
Unlessyou publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 daysfrom its issue date.At that time, wewill send copies to other interested parties and make copies available to others who request them. If you havequestions about this report, please call meat (202) 275-6193. Major contributors are listed in appendix IV. Sincerely yours,

Joseph F. Delfico Director, Income Security Issues

# Executive Summary

Purpose Historically, many hired farmworkers in the United Stateshavehad poor living andworking conditions. During the 19609, their hardships, including exposure to harmful pesticides and limited health care, became anational concern. Thirty years later, these hardships continue to raise both public and congressional concern.
The Chairman ofthe House Select Committee onAging and the former Chairman of the House Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families the Chairmen ofthe House Committee on Education and Labor and its Sub committee on Human Resources; and Representative Jim Jontz asked usto provide information on the extent to which federal laws, regulations, and programs protect the health andwell-being of hired farmworkers. GAO provided this information at hearings onJuly 17, 1991.I In this report, GAO expands on the information presented there. 

# Background Hired farmworkers harvest crops and do other farm work for wages. Estimates of their number range from about 1.5to 2.5 million. Migrant farmworkers are asubpopulation of hired farmworkers, These migrants travel to find seasonal farm work and take up temporary residence at their work sites.
Poor living and working conditions make life difficult for many hired farmworkers. Exposure to pesticides threatens their health-pesticide poisonings occur everyyear. Many hired farmworkers work in fields without drinking water, handwashing facilities, or toilets. Somefamilies are homeless;others live in substandard housing. Many hired farmworkers do not get the medical services they need and the full Social Security benefits to which they are entitled. Their children-who maywork in the fields because the families needthe money or lack accessto child care facilities-are subject to educational disadvantages and health risks from injuries and pestia cides.
Hired farmworkers receive some protection and assistance under various federal laws, regulations, and programs; these cover workers in all occupations, the general population, or primarily hired farmworkers or migrant farmworkers. Laws and regulations that cover workers in all industries include those that protect workers from harmful pesticides, other toxic substances, and unsanitary work conditions, aswell asthose that safeguard children from abusive labor practices. Programs that servethe general population or all workers include the Medicaid program, which pays for

‘Farmworkers FaceGapsin Protection andBarriers to Benefits (GAO/T-HRD-91-40, July 17,199l).

Page 2 GAO/HBD-92.46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskExecutive Summary

medical care for eligible low-income people, and Social Security insurance programs, which pay cash benefits to eligible retired and disabled workers and survivors on the basis of aworker’s lifetime earnings. Programs that primarily serve hired farmworkers or migrant farmworkers and their families include hired farmworker housing programs and the Migrant Health Program, which provides health careto those hired farmworkers who are migrants.



# Resultsin Brief Hired farmworkers are not adequately protected by federal laws, regulations, and programs; therefore, their health andwell-being are at risk. Hired farmworkers go into fields sprayed with pesticides, but many haveno knowledge of the specific chemicals they are exposed to or the potential health effects, Field sanitation on many small farms may be inadequate, constituting aserious health hazard to hired farmworkers on those farms. Young children are permitted to operate tractors and do other hazardous farm work. In addition, they may be more susceptible than adults to the harmful effects of pesticides. Many hired farmworkers, particularly migrant farmworkers, may not get the health care they need becausethey do not receive medical assistance from Medicaid and the Migrant Health Program. In addition, hired farmworkers are at greater risk than other workers of getting fewer Social Security benefits than they should, which means lessfinancial support when they retire or become disabled.


# GAO’sAnalysis

InadequateProtection From Pesticides Federal laws and regulations give hired farmworkers exposed to pesticides inadequate protection, which increases the risk of pesticide poisonings among hired farmworkers. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which regulates pesticides and their uses,estimates that eachyear hired farmworkers suffer up to 300,000 acute illnesses and injuries from exposure to pesticides.
Federal laws and regulations do not ensure that hired farmworkers are given sufficient information about pesticide hazards. EPA’S standards for labeling pesticides require that alabel include apesticide’s active ingredients and warnings, aswell asprecautionary statements concerning apesticide’s toxicity; however, hired farmworkers generally do not haveaccessto the pesticide product label. EPA’S standards for protecting hired farmworkers exposed to pesticides do not require that they be informed of

page 3 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskExecutive Summary

the identities and specific hazards ofthe pesticides to which they are exposed.
In addition, workplace protection provided bythe Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), which establishes mandatory safety and health standards for employers, does not ensure that hired farmworkers receive sufficient information about pesticide hazards. One OSHA standard requires that employers in agriculture and other industries provide their employees with information and training on chemical hazards, including pesticides, in their workplaces.2 However, because of pending modified EPA standards, OSHA hasagreed to defer to EPA and not enforce its standard with regard to hired farmworkers exposed to pesticides.
In 1983, EPA recognized that its standards provided inadequate protection from pesticides for hired farmworkers. EPA based its conclusion, in part, on continuing reports of pesticide poisonings among hired farmworkers. EPA’S modified standards, some ofwhich will be effective in 1992, should increase protection to these farmworkers. However, many pesticides have not been fully tested to determine their harmful effects. (Seepp.12-18.)


## InadequateFieldSanitation Federal regulations onfield sanitation do not protect hired farmworkers on small farms. These regulations require farms that employ more than 10 workers to provide drinking water, handwashing facilities, and toilets. Workers on farms with 10 or fewer employees, however, may not have accessto these basic sanitation facilities. Smaller farms are excluded from field sanitation standards to avoid placing an undue financial burden on these farms and to comply with an annual amendment to the House appropriations bill, which prohibits Labor from regulating farms with 10 or fewer workers. The Department of Labor’s 1990 national survey of migrant farmworkers shows that 31percent ofthose surveyed worked in fields 4 without drinking water, handwashing facilities, or toilets. (Seepp.18-20.)



## LessProtection for Children on Farms Federal labor law and child labor regulations permit children to work in agriculture at ayounger agethan in other industries. The minimum ageat which children canwork in hazardous occupations-such asmining and logging-is 18. However, 16-year-olds are allowed to do hazardous farm work, such asoperating tractors, hay bailers, or grain combines. Furthermore, the minimum ageatwhich children canwork in

‘Occupational Safety& Health: OSHAAction Neededto Improve Compliance With Hazard Communication Standard (GAO/HRD-92-8, Nov. 26, 1991), p. 3,statesthat both OSHAandGAOfound a substantial number ofemployers out ofcompliance with theOSHAstandard.

Page 4 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskExecutive Sumnmy

nondangerous occupations is either 14or 16, but children younger than 14 are allowed to do nonhazardous farm work with parental consent or on farms owned or operated by their parents. Minimum agestandards differ, in part, to exclude family farms from federal regulation. (Seepp.20-23.)



## MedicalNeedsNot Met by FederalHealthCare Programs Hired farmworkers havelimited accessto Medicaid assistance. Many are ineligible for the program becausethey are undocumented aliens or unqualified for cashassistance programs. In addition, state enrollment procedures and other administrative requirements pose abarrier to eligible migrant farmworkers. This is because someofthese farmworkers leavethe state before their Medicaid applications are processed. Furthermore, those migrant farmworkers approved for Medicaid are often unable to find a health provider who will treat apatient with an out-of-state Medicaid card.
Most migrant farmworkers do not receive medical services provided bythe Migrant Health Program’s rural health clinics. The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that because of budget constraints, the program serveslessthan 15 percent ofthe nation’s migrant farmworkers. (See pp.24-25.)



## FewerSocialSecurity Benefits Many hired farmworkers who have retired or become disabled, aswell as survivors of deceased hired farmworkers, do not receive full Social Security retirement, disability, and survivors insurance benefits. Hired farmworkers are more likely than workers in other occupations to receive fewer benefits than they should becausetheir employers do not report all their earnings to the Social Security Administration (SSA). SSA data for 1989 show that agricultural employers were at leastthree times aslikely asother employers to not report or underreport their employees’ earnings. (See p.26.)



# Recommendations This report provides GAO’S analyses of information onthe extent to which federal laws, regulations, and programs protect the health and well-being of hired farmworkers. It contains no recommendations. 

# Agency Comments GAO did not solicit agency comments.

Page 5 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Rills

# Contents

Executive Summary 2 

# Chapter 1 8 

# Introduction Objective,Scope,and Methodology 11 

# Chapter 2 12 El[ked FaI-I-nworkers AI-e Inadequate Protection From Pesticides 12 

# Given Inadequate Field Sanitation Inadequate 18 LessProtection for Children on Farms 20 

# Protection Chapter 3 24 

# Many Hired Medical NeedsUnmet by Federal Heakh CarePrograms 24 

# Farmworkers Do Not FuIISocialSecurity Benefits Not Received 26 

# ReceiveFederal Health CareAssistanceand Full Social Security Chapter 4 Summary Observations 27


# Appendixes Appendix I: Hired Farmworker Housing 28 Appendix II: FederalTraining and Employment Programs 34 Appendix III: Children inAgriculture 35 Appendix IV: Major Contributors to This Report 38 

# 4 RelatedGAOProduds 40 

# Tables Table 1.1: List ofSelectedFederal Laws, Programs, and AgenciesThat Protect orAssist Hired Farmworkers 10

FigtlES Figure 2.1:Warning Signin California Postedin FieldTreated With Pesticides 15 Figure 2.2: Toilet Facilities inthe Field Figure 2.3: Seven-Year-OldBoyWorking on Farm in Ohio Figure I.1:Substandard Housing inWhich Hired Farmworkers Live 19 22 30

Page 6 GAO/H&D-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskContents

Figure 1.2:ScenesFrom Employer-Provided Housing in Good Condition 32 Figure III. 1:Young Child in Florida Orange Grove 36

Abbreviations

AFDC EPA FIFRA FLSA HCS IRCA JTPA OSHA SSA SSI Aid to Families With Dependent Children Environmental Protection Agency Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 Hazard Communication Standard Immigration Reform and Control Act Job Training Partnership Act Occupational Safetyand Health Administration Social Security Administration Supplemental Security Income

Page 7 GAOMRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskChapter 1 

# Introduction

Hired farmworkers receive someprotection and assistance under various federal laws, regulations, and programs. Someofthese cover workers in all occupations or the general population; others cover primarily hired farmworkers or migrant farmworkers. Yet, many hired farmworkers facethe hardships of substandard living andworking conditions. Many, especially migrant farmworkers, receive low wages, are exposed to health hazards, and are homeless or live in substandard housing (seeapp. I). Hired farmworkers may needjob search and placement assistance because much hired farm work ischaracterized by unstable and short-term employment (seeapp. 11).In addition, their children, who may beworking or staying in the fields becausethe family needsthe money or lacks accessto child care facilities, are subject to educational disadvantages and health risks from injuries and pesticides (seeapp. III).
Hired farmworkers are people who harvest crops and do other farm work for wages. Estimates of the sizeof the hired farmworker population range from about 1.5to 2.5 million.’ Many hired farmworkers are employed for only part ofthe year because ofthe seasonal nature of agriculture. Those who arewilling to travel for agricultural work become migrant andtake up temporary residence attheir work sites. Hereafter, the terms migrant farmworkers and migrants are usedto refer to the subpopulation of hired farmworkers who are migrant or seasonal or both.
Estimates of the sizeofthe migrant farmworker subpopulation vary widely-between 1and 4 million-because some include dependents of migrants and migrants who are undocumented aliens. Migrant farmworkers are predominately young married Hispanic menwith families2 The annual average earnings ofthese farmworkers are low, and many families are among the working poor.3Adult migrant farmworkers on average havecompleted 8 or fewer years offormal education.4 4 For more than acentury, many hired farmworkers, particularly migrants, haveexperienced difficult living andworking conditions. Periodic reports on the plight of migrant farmworkers began in the 1940s. During the 196Os,the difficult lives of migrant farmworkers became anational

‘Victor J.Oliveira, Trends in the Hired FarmWork Force, 1946-8’7(U.S.Department ofAgriculture, Economic ResearchService,Apr. 1989), p.3;andFarm Labor (U.S.Department ofAgriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Nov. 13, 1990), p. 1.
‘Office of Program Economics, Office oftheAssistant Secretaryfor Policy,Findings Fromthe National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 1990(U.S.Department of Labor, July 1991), p. 53. 3Findings,p, 53. 4Findings,p. 35.

Page 8 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskChapter 1 Introduction

concern, which ledto laws, regulations, and programs designed to improve conditions for migrant farmworkers.
Hired farmworkers receive some protection and assistance under various federal laws, regulations, and programs. Laws and regulations that cover workers in all industries include those that protect workers from harmful pesticides, other toxic substances, and unsanitary work conditions, aswell asthose that safeguard children from abusive labor practices. Programs that servethe general population or allworkers include (1) the Medicaid program, which paysfor medical carefor eligible low-income people; (2) Social Security insurance programs, which pay cash benefits to eligible retired and disabled workers and survivors based on aworker’s lifetime earnings; (3) the Social Security Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, which provides cashassistance to aged, blind, or disabled people, including children, with limited income and resources; and (4) the Employment Service program, which provides job placement services to unemployed workers. Programs that primarily serve hired farmworkers or migrant farmworkers and their families include those that provide federal assistance for the construction and rehabilitation of hired farmworker housing, job training andjob search assistance for migrant farmworkers, and health care for migrant farmworkers. (Seetable 1.1.)

Page 9 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskChapter 1 Introduction

Programs, and Agencies That Protect or Assist Hired Farmworkers Federal law or program Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 Federal agency for enforcement or administration Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA)

Medicaid program

Migrant Health Program Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (part of Department of Labor) Employment Standards Administration (part of Department of Labor) Health Care Financing Administration (part of Department of Health and Human Services) Public Health Service (part of Department of Health and Human Services) Social Security Administration (SSA) (part of Department of Health and Human Services) Social Security Retirement, Disability, and Survivors Insurance programs Social Security Supplemental SSA Security Income (SSI) program

National Housing Act, Farmers Home Administration sections 514and 516 (part of Department of programs Agriculture)

Job Training Partnership Act Employment and Training (JTPA), section 402 program Administration (part of Department of Labor) Employment Service program Employment and Training Administration (part of Department of Labor) Pays cash benefits to the eligible retired, disabled, and survivors Provides financial support to eligible low-income persons who are aged, blind, or disabled Provides financial assistance for hired farmworker housing construction and rehabilitation Provibes job training and job. search assistance to migrant farmworkers Provides a labor exchange for 4 those seeking work and

. employers with jobs to till Area of ~espqn~lblllty Regulates pesticides and their uses

Ensures safe and healthful workplaces for employees
Regulates working conditionsand wages of workers, including children Pays for medical care for eligible low-income individuals
Operates rural health clinics to serve migrant farmworkers

Note:Thislistincludesonlythosefederal lawsand programs we reviewed.

The states also havearole in protecting and assisting hired farmworkers. Under certain conditions, states may have regulations that are more stringent than federal regulations for pesticide useandjob safety and health. Statesprotect employed children through their own child labor laws. Medicaid isastate-administered program, andwithin broad federal guidelines, each state designs its own program. Fivestates haveprograms that offer

Page 10 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskChapter 1 Introduction

financial assistance for constructing and rehabilitating housing for hired farmworkers. 

# Objective, Scope,and The Chairman ofthe House Select Committee onAging and the former 

# Methodology Chairman ofthe House Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families; the Chairmen ofthe House Committee on Education and Labor and its Subcommittee on Human Resources; and Representative Jim Jontz asked usto provide information on the extent to which federal laws, regulations, and programs protect the health andwell-being of hired farmworkers.
To accomplish this objective, we reviewed selected federal laws, regulations, and programs that affect hired farmworkers. Wealso reviewed our own past work aswelI asdocuments, studies, and other data obtained from the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,Agriculture, Education, and Treasury and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In addition, we obtained general information on state laws and regulations covering hired farmworkers. To determine the extent to which the federal laws, regulations, and programs we reviewed meet hired farmworkers’ needs,we obtained the views offederal and state officials, farmworker advocates, associations of agricultural employers, and other experts.
We limited our review to the impact selected federal laws, regulations, and programs haveon hired farmworkers’ living andworking conditions. We did not address the impact of other important factors, such asthe supply of hired farmworkers, the state of the country’s economy, or the costs associatedwith increased regulation and enforcement. Our review was also limited bythe lack of reliable national data on health problems, including pesticide poisonings; mortality rates; and other issuesaffecting hired farmworkers. When we cite data from the literature, the information represents the most current available atthe time of our review. Our work was carried l out from January toAugust 1991in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 11 GAO/HID-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskChapter 2 

# Hired Farmworkers Are GivenInadequate Protection

The health andwell-being of hired farmworkers are inadequately protected by federal laws and regulations. These laws and regulations do not ensure that hired farmworkers receive sufficient information about pesticide hazards and adequate protection from them. Many hired farmworkers work on small farms that are not required byfederal law and regulations to provide field sanitation-drinking water, handwashing facilities, and toilets. ChiIdren employed in agriculture, the second most dangerous occupation in the United States, are allowed by federal law and regulations to work at a younger agethan children in other industries. 

# Inadequate Protection From Pesticides farmworkers exposed to harmful pesticides, which increases the risk of pesticide poisonings among hired farmworkers. Laws and regulations do not ensure that hired farmworkers are given sufficient information about pesticide hazards. In 1983, EPA recognized that its regulations provided hired farmworkers with inadequate protection against pesticides. New EPA regulations, some ofwhich take effect in 1992 and others later, should increase protection for hired farmworkers. However, many pesticides have not been fully tested to determine their harmful effects.



## Harmful Effects From Exposureto Pesticides People can be exposed to pesticides in the residues they touch, the air they breathe, the water they drink, and the food they eat. Hired farmworkers are often exposed to pesticide residues on crops and in the soil They can also be exposed to pesticides applied by crop-dusting aircraft and ground-rig sprayers. Pesticide exposure can result in anumber of acute health effects: these include upper respiratory tract, skin, and eyeirritation; systemic poisoning; and, occasionally, death. Studies also show that the chronic effects of some pesticides include cancer, birth defects, and neuropsychological problems. 4

Page 12 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Risk

*‘IChapter 2 Hired Fsrmworkem Are Given Inadequate Protection

In addition, somestudies found that children are at greater risk than adults from the hazards of pesticides.’ Children may be more susceptible because they absorb more pesticide per pound of body weight and because oftheir developing nervous system and organs. Furthermore, children in the fields may eat pesticide-contaminated dirt or pesticide-treated crops.

EPA, which regulates pesticides and their uses,estimates that eachyear farmworkers suffer up to 300,000 acute illnesses and injuries from exposure to pesticides. A 1990 study of migrant children working on farms in western New York found that over 40 percent ofthe children interviewed hadworked in fields still wet with pesticides, and 40 percent had been sprayed while in the fields.2



## Roleof FederalAgencies EPA isauthorized to regulate pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),asamended (7 U.S.C. 136et seq.), and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, asamended (21 U.S.C. 301eJ seq.). EPA registers pesticide products for specified usesbefore they may 6 sold, specifies the terms and conditions oftheir useprior to being marketed, and removes unreasonably hazardous pesticides from the marketplace. Enforcement of pesticide regulations under FTFRA is done in most states (except for Colorado, Nebraska, andWyoming) by state regulatory agencies that havecooperative enforcement agreements with EPA. Under FTRA,more stringent state regulations are permissible.
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) isauthorized to adopt and enforce specific standards to help ensure asafeand healthful workplace for employees. Also under the act, more stringent state regulations may be permitted in those stateswith statejob safety and health plans approved by OSHA. Currently, 23 states haveOsHn-approved state plans. In those states 4

‘Studies include (1) Natural ResourcesDefenseCouncil, Intolerable Risk: Pesticidesin Our Children’s Food (Wash.,DC.: 1989); (2) S.Murphy, “Pesticides,” CasarettandJ. Douhin Toxicology, eds.,C.D. Klaasen,M.O.Amdur, andJ. Doulf (NewYork, N.Y.: Macmillan, 1986); (3) Tracy Freedmanand David Weir, “Polluting the MostVulnerable,” Nation (May 14, 1983), p. 602; and (4) Robert C.Spear, “Farmworker Exposure to Pesticide Residues:Reflections on Differential Risk,” Banbury Report 11 (1982) pp. 67-76 and72-73. However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for protecting workers against pesticide hazardsare based onadult exposure only andgive nospecial consideration to children. EPAbelieves that studies monitoring field exposure to pesticides andlaboratory animal studiesonage-relatedtoxic effectsindicate no reasonto specifically regulate children differently from adulta. ‘Susan Pollack andothers, “Pesticide Exposure andWorking Conditions among Migrant Farmworker Children inWestern NewYork State,” presented attheAmerican Public Health Association Annual Meeting, 1990.

Page 13 GAOMRLI-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskChapter 2 Hired Farmworkers Are Given Inadequate Protection

without osm-approved state plans, state regulations are preempted by federal regulations.

OS-IA's Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) requires that employers provide their workers with information andtraining on chemical hazards, including pesticides, in the workplace.3 HCS was promulgated in 1983 to cover manufacturing workers. It was extended in 1987 to cover all workers, including those in agriculture. Employers in nonmanufacturing industries were required to be in compliance with HCS by May 1988. OSHA established the HCS based onthe premise that workers have both aneed and aright to know the identities and hazards of chemicals, including pesticides, they work with. OSHA hasdetermined that when both employers and workers haveaccessto this necessary information, the workplace occurrence of illnesses and injuries from chemicals will be reduced. Ofthe 23 stateswith OS&+approved statejob safety and health plans, 17 have adopted state standards identical to OSHA's HCS; the remaining 6 have adopted their own worker right-to-know laws.



## Insufficient Information on PesticideHazardsto Hired Farmworkers Many hired farmworkers are given insufficient information about the hazardous chemicals to which they are exposed. They generally do not have accessto the product label for agiven pesticide. EPA requires that every pesticide product bear alabel containing the product’s brand name and active ingredients, warnings and precautionary statements concerning the pesticide’s toxicity and effect on skin and eyes,first-aid procedures, and other information. Hired farmworkers mayfear that requesting label information from employers couldjeopardize their jobs. Even if they receive label information, they may be unable to read or understand it. EPA agrees that hired farmworkers need unhampered accessto label or productspecific information that they can understand.
In addition to its labeling requirements, EPA hasspecific standards for protecting workers exposed to agricultural pesticides. EPA'S worker protection standards, however, do not ensure that hired farmworkers are informed of the identities and specific hazards ofthe pesticides to which they are exposed. The standards require that agricultural employers provide timely warning to hired farmworkers who are expected to work in afield treated

30ccupational Safety& Health: OSHAAction Neededto Improve Compliance With Hazard Communication Standard (GAO/HRD-92-8, Nov. 26, 1991), p.3,statesthat both OSHAand GAOfound a substantial number ofemployers out ofcompliance with HCS.In surveying arandom sampleof employers, GAOfound 68 percent ofsmallemployers (thosewith 10or fewer employees) and52 percentofall employers to beoutofcompliance with key requirements of HCS.

Page 14 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Risk

,, : <... i’ ,.> ‘*.Chapter 2 Hired Farmworkers Are Given Inadequate Protection

Flglate 2.1: Warning Sign in California POE rtedIn Field Treated Wlth Pestlcldes or to betreated with apesticide. Warnings may begiven orally or by posting signs at usual entry points to the field (seefig. 2.1).

a

Photograph by Ken Light

Oral warnings, which are required for hired farmworkers who cannot read, must inform workers about fields that should not beentered without protective clothing, the time period during which afield should bevacated, and actions to take in caseof accidental exposure. Written warnings have no prescribed content.

Page 16 GAOLHRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Risk

.“/

,.Chapter 2 Hired Farmworkers Are Given Inadequate Protection

In 1983, EPA recognized that itsworker protection standards were inadequate to protect hired farmworkers from exposure to harmful pesticides. The agency based its conclwion in part on continuing reports of pesticide poisonings among hired farmworkers. EPA hassubsequently worked to revise its standards. Somemodified standards will be effective in 1992 and others later. The new standards will require that agricultural employers inform employees about the specific pesticides being used and the dangers from exposure. Agricultural employers will haveto provide hired farmworkers with written information, including the product’s name and active ingredients, toxicity, symptoms of overexposure, and emergency and first-aid procedures. Employers in agriculture will also be required to provide hired farmworkers with training on how to prevent exposure andtreat poisonings.

OSHA's HCS requires employers in manufacturing and nonmanufacturing industries to inform their workers in writing ofthe names ofthe chemicals being used,the potential dangers of exposure, emergency and first-aid procedures, and other appropriate protective measures. This transmittal of information isto beaccomplished primarily through container labeling, data sheetsfor material safety, and employee training. For pesticides, HCS does not ensure that hired farmworkers receive sufficient information about pesticide hazards. OS-IA exempted containers labeled in accordance with EPA requirements from additional labeling under the HCS. In addition, after reviewing EPA'S pending worker protection standards, OSHA agreed to defer to EPA and not enforce the HCSwith regard to hired farmworkers exposed to pesticides. OSHA believesthat EPA'S modified regulations, when adopted, will ensure that hired farmworkers receive information that is substantially equivalent to that required under HCS.

EPA believes that the adoption of its modified regulations will help resolve somejurisdictional issuesconcerning pesticides atfederal and state levels. 8 Oneexample of potential jurisdictional difficulties isTexas,which doesnot havean osr%approved state plan. In 1988, Texas passed astate law requiring that farmers and hired farmworkers receive information about pesticides andtheir health effects. The state, after passing this law similar to the HCS, adopted implementing regulations that were consistent with FIFRA. Somebelieve that the HCS, however, preempts the Texas law and regulations. As a result, the state may be unable to enforce its law and regulations to ensure that hired farmworkers receive sufficient information about pesticide hazards. EPA believes that its pending regulations, when adopted, could assist states like Texas in implementing their own programs for ensuring the communication of pesticide hazard information in the agricultural workplace.

Page 16 GAOMRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskChapter 2 Hired Fermworkera Are Given Inadequate Protection

Until EPA'S pending regulations are effective, many hired farmworkers will continue to receive insufficient information about pesticide hazards. Hired farmworkers go into fields sprayed with pesticides, but many have no knowledge ofthe specific chemicals they are exposed to or the potential health risks. A 1988 study of 460 hired farmworkers inWashington found that 89 percent did not know the name of asingle pesticide they had been exposed to, and 76 percent had never received any information on appropriate measures for protection.4


## InadequateRegulationson ReentryPeriodsand ProtectiveClothing When EPA acknowledged in 1983 that its regulations were inadequate to protect hired farmworkers from harmful exposure to pesticides, it noted weak restrictions on reentry to treated areas. For example, for many pesticides, regulations allow reentry after pesticide “sprays havedried or dusts havesettled.” EPA acknowledged that this is sometimes difficult to determine and, in its pending regulations, replaces this language with a minimum reentry period of 12 hours.

EPA also noted weak regulations pertaining to the protective clothing hired farmworkers must wear if they reenter treated fields before the reentry period expires. Required protective clothing, asdefined in the regulations, consists of ahat, long-sleeved shirt, long pants, and shoesand socks. EPA'S pending regulations change minimum protective clothing requirements to correspond with the toxicity level ofthe pesticide. After pending regulations are adopted, required clothing for more toxic pesticides will include chemical-resistant apparel (suit, headgear, footwear), waterproof gloves, and protective eyewear.

EPA'S enforcement efforts, which focus largely on reentry periods and protective clothing requirements, may be inadequate to ensure compliance with regulations. Penalties for noncompliance are seldom assessed,an EPA 1, official acknowledged, andwhen they are,the fines aretoo low to deter noncompliance. During 1990, EPA found noncompliance with pesticide regulations during 633 agency-initiated agricultural inspections and assessed fines in 42 of them. Few fines are levied, in part, because EPA'S practice is to give awarning letter for afirst offense.

4Michelle Mentzer andBarbara Viialba,Pesticide Exposure and Health: AStudyofWashington Farmworkers (Granger, Washington: Evergreen Legal Services,Mar. 1988), pp. 28-29.

Page 17 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskChapter 2 Hlred Farmworkers Are Given Inadeq(uate Protection

Dangers Not If’d.ly &KWII for EPA does not fully know the health risks of older pesticides. Thousands of 

## ManyPesticidesin Use pesticide products currently in usehavenot been completely tested to determine their harmful effects.As aresult, the Congress mandated that older pesticides be retested.

EPA registers apesticide for aspecified usebefore it may be sold. Registration takes place only if EPA determines that the pesticide will fulfill its intended function without causing unreasonable risk to humans or the environment. The agency alsotakes into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits for the useofthe pesticide. To evaluate pesticide risks and benefits, EPA reviews data on health and environmental effects provided by pesticide manufacturers. As many as 150 studies, which take from afew months to severalyears to complete, may be required to support apesticide registration.
Becausethe data supporting older pesticides registrations are incomplete or inadequate by present scientific standards, the Congress mandated, in 1972, that EPA reassessthe safety of already-registered pesticides and reregister them. Approximately 20,000 registered pesticide products are subject to the reregistration process. In our 1986 review ofthe reassessment and reregistration effort, we found that most pesticides had not beenfully tested and evaluated in accordance with current testing requirements.6 In 1988, FIFRA was amended to accelerate reregistration. In 1989, we found that despite some progress, EPA was still at apreliminary stage in assessingthe risks of older pesticides.6 Reregistration was to be completed in 1997. However, in September 1991, EPA reported that reregistration will extend into 1999 and beyond.



# F’ieldSanitation Inadequate Many hired farmworkers are unprotected by federal regulations for field sanitation. The absence of drinking water, handwashing facilities, and toi- a lets in fields constitutes aserious health hazard to hundreds of thousands of hired farmworkers. Insufficient drinking water may result in dehydration, heat stroke, or other heat-related illnesses. The absence of handwashing facilities contributes to the spread of communicable diseases and the retention of pesticide residues on the skin. The absence oftoilets also contributes to the spread of communicable diseasesand may increase the risk of urinary tract infection.

5Pesticides:EPA’s Formidable TasktoAssessand RegulateTheir Risks(GAOAZCED-86-125,Apr. 18, 1986), p. 3. ‘Reregistration andTolerance ReassessmentRemain Incomplete for Most Pesticides (GAO/r-RCED-89-40, May 15,1989).

Page 18 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Risk

I;’ J ,;_ (1 I” ‘. (,
.,Chapter 2 HIred Farmworkers Are Given Inadequate Protection

Flgure 2.2: Toilet Fat:Illtle88 In the FMId Regulations adopted under the Occupational Safetyand Health Act of 1970

require agricultural employers who employ more than 10farmworkers to provide drinking water, handwashing facilities, andtoilets (seefig. 2.2 for required toilets). Farms with 10or fewer workers are exempt from field sanitation standards. The intent ofthe exemption isto avoid placing an undue financial burden on small farms and to comply with anannual amendment to the House appropriations bill, which prohibits the Department of Labor from regulating farms with 10 or fewer workers.

Photograph by Roger Manley

Page 19 GAOMRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Riskchapter 2 Hired Farmworkers Am Given Inadequate Protection

As aresult ofthe exemption, many hired farmworkers on small farms may not haveaccessto toilets and other basic sanitation facilities. In addition, compliance with field sanitation standards by larger farms with more than 10workers is poor. Violations of field sanitation standards were found in 62 percent of field inspections in 1989 and in 69 percent of field inspections in 1990, said an OSHA safety specialist. In a 1990 national survey of migrant farmworkers conducted by Labor, 31percent ofthose surveyed work in fields without one or more basic sanitation facilities. Stateswith osn&approved state plans can establish their own field sanitation standards. Of21 stateswith state field sanitation standards, 4 (Alaska, Arizona, Oregon, andWashington) require compliance on farms that employ 10 or fewer workers. In North Carolina, where farms with more than 10workers must follow statefield sanitation standards, a 1990 study found that only 4 percent ofthe hired farmworkers surveyed had accessto drinking water, aswelI ashandwashing and toilet facilities.7



# LessProtection for Children on Farms Many children work onfarms. Their health andwell-being are at risk from farm injuries and exposure to pesticides. Thesechildren are lessprotected than other children by federal labor law and child labor regulations.
A 1988 unpublished survey of parents who were hired farmworkers in six states, conducted by the National Child Labor Committee, found that about one-third ofthe parents interviewed had children working in the fields.6 The prevalence of children working in agriculture is usually attributed to low family income and unavailable child carefacilities. Agriculture has been found to bethe second most dangerous occupation in the United States.Approximately 23,800 children and adolescents were iniured on farms, and 300 died from these injuries from 1979 through 1983.OIn a 1990 study of migrant children working onfarms in western a New York, one-third of the children had been injured while working during the past year.lO

7MaureenSweeneyandStephenCiesieski,Where Work Is Hazardousto Your Health (Raleigh, North Carolina: Farmworkers Legal Servicesof North Carolina, Apr. 1990), p.v. &rhe National Child Labor Committee isachild labor advocacy group foryouth-related issues, including education,job tralnii, andemployment.
‘Frederick P.Rivara, “Fatal andNonfatal Farm Il\jurles to Children andAdolescents in the United States,” Pediatrics, Vol. 76(Oct. 1985), pp. 567-73.
“Pollack andothers, “Pesticide Exposure.”

Page 20 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Risk

:Chapter 2 Hired Farmworkera Are Given Inadequate Protection

Child labor is regulated under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FUA) (29 U.S.C.ZOl-219), which isthe @irnary federal law regulating working conditions andwages ofAmerican workers, including children. Labor is responsible for the administration and enforcement ofthe act. Regulations issued under the act setaminimum agerequirement for work in certain occupations. For work that Labor hasdetermined hazardous, agelimits are higher than for nonhazardous work.
Federal child labor regulations allow children to work in agriculture at a younger agethan in other industries. The minimum ageatwhich children canwork in hazardous occupations-such asmining and logging-is 18. But 16-year-olds are allowed to do hazardous farm work-such asoperating atractor, hay bailer, or grain combine. Furthermore, on farms either owned or operated by their parents, children of any agecan do hazardous farm work. Minimum agestandards differ between agriculture and other industries, in part to exclude family farms from federal regulation.
Federal child labor regulations for nonhazardous work also specify lower age restrictions for children in agriculture than for those in other occupations. The minimum ageatwhich minors canwork in nonhazardous occupations other than agriculture is 14or 16. Children younger than 14, however, can do nonhazardous farm work under certain conditions (see fig. 2.3): Minors atthe ageof 12or 13 canwork in agriculture outside school hours with parental consent. Children of any agecanwork on family farms.

Page 21 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskChapter 2 Hired Farmworkers Are Given Inadequate Protection

Figure 2.3: Sevenon Farm InIOhlo .Year- BOY :klng

Photograph by KenLight

Labor’s enforcement of federal child labor provisions may be ineffective. The National Child Labor Committee estimates that eachyear, there are at least 100,000 minors illegally working on farms and 1million child labor violations. Limited resources and low fines for child labor violations have hampered Labor’s child labor enforcement in all industries. During 1989, Labor inspected only 1.5 percent of allworkplaces covered by FLSA. In 1990, penalties for child labor violations averaged $212aviolation. Labor acknowledged that its penalties were inadequate to deter violations. As part ofthe fiscal year 1991budget legislation, the Congress gaveLabor the

Page 22 4

GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskChapter 2 Hired Fannworkere Are Given Inadequate Protection

authority to increase the maximum civil monetary penalty for anonwillful violation from $1,000 to $10,000 for each child.” Despite this new authority, Labor generally has increased assessedpenalties by far smaller amounts for violations that do not involve aserious iqj~ry.~~

4

“Child Labor: Characteristics ofworking Children (GAO/HRD81- 83BR,June 14, 1991), pp. 2-3.
“Child Labor, pp. 2-3.

Page 23 GAOMRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Risk

# Many Hired Farmworkers DoNot Receive FederalHealth CareAssistanceandFull Social Security

Many hired farmworkers do not receive Medicaid or Migrant Health Program assistance because of either eligibility and administrative requirements or budget constraints. Many do not receive all the Social Security insurance program benefits to which they are entitled because their employers havenot fully reported their earnings. Somedo not receive SSI because they are unaware ofthe program or their eligibility.



# Medical NeedsUnmet Medicaid, asafederal-state entitlement program, paysfor medical services 

# by Federal Health Care for eligible low-income people. Within broad federal guidelines, each state 

# d esigns and administers its own Medicaid program. Generally, to be eli

# Programs gible for Medicaid, people must be citizens or nationals ofthe United States or aliens with asatisfactory immigration status1 People who qualify for cashassistance under either theAid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) program or the SSI program are generally eligible for Medicaid. To qualify for AFJX, people haveto meetthe program’s definition of membership in afamily with dependent children. To qualify for SSI, people haveto meet the program’s definition of age,blindness, or disability. To receive cash assistance under the AFDC or SSI program, people must also have income and resources that are low enough to qualify them.2 Many hired farmworkers are ineligible for Medicaid becausethey either are undocumented aliens or do not qualify for the AF’DC or SSI program. Estimates ofthe percentage ofthe hired farmworker population who are undocumented aliens are ashigh as50 percent. Many hired farmworkers who are currently employed are ineligible for AFDC or SSI benefits because their incomes aretoo high to qualify for cashassistance. Labor’s 1990 nationwide survey of migrant farmworkers found that only 3 percent of migrant farmworker households had received AFDC benefits during the past 2years. Furthermore, currently employed hired farmworkers are unlikely to meetthe SSIprogram’s definition of blindness or disability. 4
Migrant farmworkers who do qualify for Medicaid face barriers to the program posed by state enrollment procedures and other administrative requirements. Somemigrant farmworkers who apply for Medicaid leave the state before the 45-day period, allowed by federal regulations, for Medicaid application processing elapses. Others who haveMedicaid coverage

‘Medicaid coverstreatment for emergency medical conditions of undocumented alienswho otherwise meetthe program’s eligibility criteria.
2Medicaidcancover people who donot qualify forAF’DCor SSIassistancebutwho have relatively large medical bills.

Page 24 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RickChapter 3 Many Hired Farmworkers Do Not Receive Federal Health Care Assistance and Full Social Security

in one state are often unable to find health providers in other stateswho will accept an out-of-state Medicaid card.
Barriers to Medicaid created by state enrollment procedures and other administrative requirements could be removed through agreements, between two or more states, that would recognize Medicaid eligibility across state lines. Statesare not required to makethese agreements, however, and may choose not to make them because of additional costs and administrative problems. Thethree stateswith the most migrant farmworkers-California, Florida, and Texas-do not haveinterstate agreements with other states.
Data on the number of hired farmworkers nationwide who have Medicaid coverage are not available. In a 1982 study, lessthan I2 percent of migrant farmworkers in New York had Medicaid coverage.” Lack of Medicaid coverage or benefits increases the likelihood that many poor and uninsured hired farmworkers, particularly migrants, will not getthe health services they need. Poor and uninsured migrant farmworkers have reduced access to physician care and hospital services.4In Labor’s 1990 survey of migrant farmworkers nationwide, about half oftheseworkers andtheir families had incomes below the poverty level,with the median family income between $7,500 and $10,000 ayear. Furthermore, in the survey, about four out of five migrant farmworkers did not haveemployer-provided health insurance. Recognizing that migrant farmworkers and their families do not have accessto the samehealth protection and services generally available to others, the Congress established the Migrant Health Program. Through the operation of rural health clinics across the country, the program isaprimary source of health care for migrant farmworkers. However, the Department of Health and Human Services reports that budget constraints limit the program to serving lessthan an estimated 15 percent of the country’s migrant farmworkers. a

“Peter S.K.Chi, “Medical Utilization Patterns of Migrant FarmWorkers inWayneCounty, NewYork,” Public Health Reportu,Vol. 100(Sept.-Oct. 1985), pp. 480-90.
4David R.Smith, M.D., “Hospitalization Accessfor Patients ofMigrant Health CentersandCombined Migrant andCommunity Health Centers,” Clearinghouse Review (Summer 1986), pp. 513-I 4,and PeterS.K.Chi, “Medical Utilization” (Sept.-Oct. 1985), pp. 480-90.

Page 25 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskChapter 3 Many Hired Farmworkers Do Not Receive Federal Health Care Assistance and Full Social Security



# I?ullSocial Security Benefits Not Received Many hired farmworkers who are retired or disabled, aswell assurvivors of deceased hired farmworkers, do not receive the full Social Security benefits-retirement, disability, and survivors insurance-they are entitled to. Social Security pays cash benefits to the eligible retired and disabled, as well asto survivors; these benefits are based on aworker’s lifetime earnings, asreported by his or her employer. However, if an employer does not report some or any of aworker’s earnings, he or shewill not receive full Social Security benefits.
Hired farmworkers are more likely than other workers to receive lessthan the Social Security benefits to which thesefarmworkers are entitled; this is becausetheir employers do not report alltheir earnings to SSA. SSA data for 1989 show that agricultural employers were at least three times aslikely as other employers to not report or underreport their employees’ earnings, said an SSAofficial. As aresult of underreporting ofwages by agricultural employers, hired farmworkers are at greater risk of either not receiving Social Security benefits or receiving lower benefit amounts than they should.
The SSI program provides financial support to eligible low-income people who are aged, blind, or disabled. Children can qualify for SSI onthe same basis asblind or disabled adults. Most hired farmworkers who are currently employed earn too much to qualify for SSI. However, some hired farmworkers who havestopped working because of age,blindness, or disability can qualify for SSI. Blind or disabled children of hired farmworkers can also qualiiy for SSI. However, ofthose who qualify for SSI, some do not receive SSI support because they are unaware ofthe program or their eligibility. In 1990, we reported that most ofthe SSA district managers we surveyed believe there is acontinuing need to inform the public about SSI.6The managers acknowl- a edged aparticular needfor outreach to the rural poor andthe non--English-speaking populations. Giventhat hired farmworkers often live in rural areasand are non-English speaking, many are unaware ofthe SSI program.

%e SocialSecurity Administration’s Supplemental Security Income OutreachActivities (GAO/T-HRD-90-22,Apr. 5, 1990), pp. i and4.

Page 26 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskChapter 4 

# SummaryObservations

Many of the nation’s hired farmworkers facethe hardships of substandard living and working conditions: Pesticides poison hired farmworkers every year, and fields without sanitation facilities expose theseworkers to many health hazards. Somefamilies have no homes or live in overcrowded and unsanitary housing. Many hired farmworkers do not get needed medical services andtheir entitled Social Security benefits. Their children, who often work in the fields, are exposed to the samepoor conditions and may be more susceptible to health risks.
Hired farmworkers receive some protection and assistance under various federal laws, regulations, and programs, but their needfor adequate living andworking conditions often goes unmet. The health andwell-being of hired farmworkers, asagroup, are inadequately protected by federal laws, regulations, and programs. Hired farmworkers exposed to pesticides are given insufficient information about pesticide hazards, and the harmful effects of many pesticides are not fully known. Many hired farmworkers are not protected by field sanitation standards. Young children are allowed to work in agriculture, the second most dangerous occupation in the United States. In addition, many hired farmworkers do not receive federal health care assistance and Social Security benefits to which they are entitled. Historically, making changes to improve the living andworking conditions of hired farmworkers has been difficult and slow. If the Congress should consider proposals to improve hired farmworkers’ conditions, changes may again prove to beslow in coming. Giventhe federal budget deficit, there are questions about program costs and funding priorities to consider. In addition, changes that result in increased costs to the agricultural employer will most likely be passed onto the consumer; this, in turn, may affect the United States’s competitiveness in the agricultural sector. Nonetheless, abalance must bestruck between increased costs and progress toward improving hired farmworkers’ living and working conditions. a

Page 27 GAOIHRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Risk

, I

# I Hired Farmworker Housing

Shortageof Housing for The number of hired farmworkers in need of housing exceedsthe number 

# Hired Farmworkers of available housing units. The only national data on hired farmworker housing show that in 1980, available units could house only about one-third ofthe estimated 1.2 milhon migrant farmworkers who require h0using.l In more recent data for California, Oregon, andWashington, the total amount of hired farmworker housing available-including private camps, employer-provided housing, and California’s state-run camps-had the capacity to house lessthan 30 percent ofthe annual migrant farmworkers in those three states, excluding dependents who migrate with the workers.z Agricultural employers recognize that the lack of housing isaserious hardship for hired farmworkers, but employers face several disincentives to providing housing for their workers. Construction and maintenance of housing is expensive, especially if the housing wiIl only beoccupied during ashort harvest season. In addition, employers may hesitate to provide housing because ofthe administrative problems associated with operating housing, such asapplying for loans, maintaining the units, and handling hired farmworker complaints. In addition, local opposition, by using zoning regulations and denials of building permits, can prevent agricultural employers from building hired farmworker housing.
Someemployer-provided housing doesexist, but economic disincentives havecreated atrend, spanning the last two decades,toward agricultural employers’ discontinuing the provision of housing. These employers are not required to provide housing to hired farmworkers unless the employers hire them from other statesthrough the Department of Labor’s Employment Services. Few employers hire farmworkers through these means.
Hired farmworkers, particularly migrants, alsoface barriers to obtaining l housing in the local private housing markets. Small rural communities may not haveenough rental units available to accommodate alarge influx of migrant farmworkers needing temporary housing. In addition, many private rental units are unavailable to migrant farmworkers because they cannot provide deposits, meet credit checks, or make long-term rental commitments.

‘David Cavenaugh, RosemarySchmidt, and Howard Mitzel,National Farmworker Housing Study.Study of Housing for Migrant andSettled Farmworkers (Rosslyn,Virginia: InterAmercia ResearchAssociates, Inc., Dec. 1980), pp. i and53. “Immigration Reform: Potential Impact onWestCoastFarm Labor (GAOiHRD-89-89, Aug. 17, 1989), p.69.

Page 28 GAOMRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskAppendlx I Hired Farmworker Housing



# Limited Government Assistancefor Hired Farmworker Housing Federal funding to construct and rehabilitate hired farmworker housing has been cut substantially overthe past decade, from $68.7 million in 1979 to $22.0 million in 1990. Agricultural employer associations havesuggested that the federal government could help alleviate the housing shortage by making more money available for hired farmworker housing through the Farmers Home Administration.
Most states do not offer financial assistance for the development of hired farmworker housing. California, however, operates state housing centers for migrant farmworkers andtheir families. In 1988, the centers provided housing for 12,324, ofwhich 7,010 were adults andthe rest were minors. Five states (California, Florida, Ohio, Oregon, andVirginia) have hired farmworker housing programs, which offer financial assistance to groups that construct or rehabilitate hired farmworker housing.



# Much Available Housing Although some hired farmworkers live in well-kept housing, much ofthe 

# in Poor Condition housing that hired farmworkers occupy is deficient, crowded, and unsanitar-y.These observations arefrom studies we reviewed and discussions we held with farmworker advocates, agricultural employer associations, and government officials.

In 1989, deficient and overcrowded housing conditions appeared to be common for hired farmworkers, especially migrants3 Numerous studies tell of migrant farmworkers living in shacks, barns, old school buses, and other seriously substandard dwellings4 (Seefig. I.1.)A family may haveto sleep on adirt floor in a l-room housewith no furniture, running water, or electricity.

31mmigrationReform: Potential Impact onWestCoastFarm Labor (GAO/HRD-89-89,Aug. 17, 1989), p. 74. 4Reportsinclude (1) Joseph0. Prewitt Diaz, Robert T.Trotter II, andVidal A. Rivera,Jr.,The Effects of M&ration onChildren: An Ethnographic Study (StateCollege, Pennsylvania: Centro DeEstudios Sobre la Migration, 1989), pp. 65-56; (2)lmmigration Reform: Potential impact ofWestCoastFarm Labor (GAO/HRD-89-89,Aug. 17,1989), pp. 74-76; (3) StateofCalifornia Department of Housing andCommunity Development, Migrant Farmworker Housing in California (Sacramento, California: StateofCalifornia, 1988), p. 4; (4) Ken Pallack,Oregon Farm Labor Housing Survey (Newberg, Oregon: CASAof Oregon,Jan. 1991) p. 14;and (5) Edward F. Dement,Out ofSight, Outof Mind An Update onMigrant Farmworker Issuesin Today’sAgricultural Labor Market (Raleigh, North Carolina: National Governors’ Association, Aug. 1986), p.38.

Page 29 GAOjHRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskAppendix I Hired Farmworker Housing

Figure I.1Substandard Housing InWhich Farmworkers Live

Lynda Diane Mull,Association of FarmworkerOpportunity Programs

Jim Ramos, Proteus Employment Opportunities Inc., Iowa

Page 30 GAOEIRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Risk

; !‘,,L, 0 I’ ,,; ..:Appendix I Hired Farmworker Housing

The majority of hired farmworkers in Oregon, a 1991 Oregon farm labor housing survey found, live in private rental units that are overcrowded and substandard. Ofthe private rental housing surveyed, 65 percent was in need of significant repairs. Most ofthe employer-provided housing, however,was in good physical condition5 Agricultural employers are not responsible for such deficient housing, an agricultural employer organization representative said, because most hired farmworker housing is provided by private landlords. In Labor’s 1990 national survey of migrant farmworkers, about 28 percent ofthose surveyed lived in housing provided by employers (seefig. 1.2)” When agricultural employers provide housing for their workers, the employers must follow Labor standards regulating the size,safety, and sanitation of rooms and buildings.

‘Ken Pallack, Oregon Farm Labor Housing Survey (Newberg, Oregon: CASAofOregon,Jan. 1991).
‘OffIce of Program Economics, Office oftheAssistant Secretary for Policy,Findings Fromthe National &ricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 1990(U.S. Department of Labor, July 1991), p. 73.

Page 31 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Risk

..Appendix I Hired Farmworker Housing

Figure 1.2:Scenes From Employer-Provided Houslng In Good Condltlon

a

Paul Hiscocks, ProteusEmployment Opportunities Inc.,Iowa

Page 32 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskAppendix I Hired Farmworker Housing

We and others have reported that enforcement of federal regulations for hired farmworker housing hasbeen limited, in part because ofthe unavailability of resources for enforcement.’ If housing regulations were better enforced, however, this could worsen the housing shortage asagricultural employers who provide housing may shut down substandard housing rather than make costly repairs.

‘Reports include (1) Edward Dement,Outof Sight, OutofMind: An Update onMigrant Farmworker IssuesinToday’sAgricultural Labor Market (Raleigh, North Carolina: National Governors’ Association, Aug. 1985), p. 38; (2) Immigration Reform,-p.72;and(3) SusanPeck,California Farmworker 3 (Davis, California: California Institute for Rural Studies,Feb. 1989), pp. 14, 15,and30.

Page 33 GAO/H&D-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskAppendix II 

# FederalTraining 

# andEmployment Programs

Someanalysts are concerned that the principal federal training program for migrant farmworkers cannot servethe current migrant farmworker population because of insufficient funds. Section 402 ofthe Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) (P.L. 97-300) provides job training andjob search assistance to migrant farmworkers who are unemployed or underemployed. Sincethe passageof the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), over 900,000 undocumented alien farmworkers haveobtained satisfactory immigration status and are eligible for training and assistance under JTPA. Eventhough the Congress hasallocated additional section 402 funds to servethis expanded client population, funds are most likely insufficient to serveall eligible migrant farmworkers. In 1989, we estimated that JTPA overall served about 6 percent ofthe total estimated population of eligible clients, including migrant farmworkers1
The principal federal job placement program-Labor’s Employment Service-is not aseffective asit should be, advocacy groups and agricultural employer representatives said, in finding hired farmworkers who need jobs and matching them with employers who needworkers. Only 1percent of migrant farmworkers, Labor’s 1990 national survey of migrant workers indicated, found jobs through the Employment Service,Agricultural employers generally do not usethe Employment Service, representatives of agricultural employer associations said, because obtaining workers, particularly outside their localities, isacumbersome process. In part because of the availability of undocumented alien farmworkers, agricultural employers may havelittle incentive to usethe Employment Serviceto hire domestic farmworkers.

‘Job Training Partnership Act: ServicesandOutcomesfor Participanty With Differing Needs (GAO/HRD-89-62,June9, 1989), p. 33.

Page 34 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskAppendix III 

# Chi.l&eninAgriculture

In some hired farmworker families, young children must work in the fields sothat their families can earn enough to survive. Children asyoung as 10, a 1989 study onthe effects of migration on children found, sometimes work in the fields to contribute to the family inc0me.l Somechildren may not behired laborers, but their presence in the fields usually meansthat they will help their parents with the field work (seefig. III. 1).

‘Diaz, Trotter II, and Rivera,Jr.,The Effectsof Migration on Children, pp. 63and66.

Page 35 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskAppendix III Children in Agriculture

‘lgure III.1:Young Drange Grove Child n I Florlda

LonnyShavelson, ImpactVisuals

Note:Withoutchildcare, somechildren mustgotothefieldswiththeirparents.

Page 36 GAOfHRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskAppendix III Children in Agriculture

Onthe basis of interviews with hired farmworkers in six states,the National Child Labor Committee said, one-third of parents working on farms reported that their children work in the fields with them. Day care is needed for the children of hired farmworkers, farmworker advocates emphasized, to keep them out ofthe fields. The federal Migrant Head Start program, in 1990, provided child care services for over 23,000 migrant children, but migrant child care program administrators and farmworker advocates have indicated that more child care centers are needed.2 California’s hired farmworkers had over 400,000 children under the ageof 15 in 1980. Ofthese, more than 95,000 did not have day care. During the day, these children were either left alone or in the care of another young child.”
Children working in agriculture face educational risks. To supplement the family income, children may needto work in the fields before and after school or miss school completely. Children who migrate with their parents to do farm work face additional difficulties becausefrequent moves interrupt their education and may delaytheir progression to the next grade. Migrant children are usually 2 or more years below grade level in reading and mathematics skills;4 and the dropout rate for migrant students is 45 percent, much higher than the 29 percent rate for the general population.6

“Migrant HeadStart isafederally fundedchild development program that provides educational and health servicesfor low-income migrant children belowtheageof6.
““A Surveyof California Farmworkers’ Child CareNeeds:A Special Report-1980,” (Sacramento: Cahfornia State Department of Education, 1980,pp. 1and 13). 4Joseph0. Prewitt Diaz, Robert T.Trotter II, andVidal A. Rivera,Jr.,The Effects of Migration onChildren:An Ethnographic Study (StateCollege, Pennsylvania: Centro deEstudios Sobrela Migration, 1989), p. 106. (GAO/BRD- 86-106BR,June23,1986) and NewYork State Education Department, Migrant Attrition Project (Oneonta, NewYork: State University of NewYork atOneonta,Aug. 10,1987), executive summary.

Page 37 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskAppendix IV 

# Major Contributors toThis Report

SanFrancisco Regional Office Robert L. MacLafferty, Assistant Director, (415) 904-2000 Ann Lee, Evaluator-in-Charge Stephen D. Secrist, Site Senior Caikn A. Schneider, Evaluator Donya Fernandez, Evaluator

Page 33 GAO/tHW-92-48 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at RiskA

Page 39 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Risk

,1 

# J’ RelatedGAO Products

Farmworkers Face Gaps in Protection and Barriers to Benefits (GAO/T-HRD-91-40,July 17, 1991). Legal Services Corporation: Grantee Attorneys’ Handling of Migrant Farmworker Disputes With Growers. (GAO/HRD-90-144, Sept. 24,199O) Immigration Reform: Potential Impact onWest Coast Farm Labor (GAO/HRD-89-89,

Aug. 17, 1989).

A

(loaeoa) Page40 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at l&k..-- Ordering Ittfortttation

The first. copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies are $2 Mach. Ordtvs should be sent to the following address, accomI)attied hy a check or money order made out to the Superint,c?ttdent of Docutttettis, when necessary. Orders for 100 or mot-e copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 perc(vtt,.

IIS. General Ac*counting Office PA). Hox 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20877

Ordtvs may also be placed by calling (202) 275-6241..,-, l-“__,*l,l”_“_ ,.--,- ,.I”,_ __-“..--.l,.l.l” __,_. *--.-- _-._-.- II_. .--.---._ - ..- - -----..-.- ---.--...-.--- ___---.._---- ____-__-__ _.-_..___.. - ..__. I..
_. Ilttittd St,itlt*s (h~twral A\c*c*otttttitrg Of’f’iw W;witittgt.ott, I).( :. %OMH
Ol‘f’ic~ittl Httsinws htt:tlt.y for I’rival tbI Iw $:100