Health and Well-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 on Aging 

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 and well-being of the nation’s hired farmworkers. 

Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report 

until 30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies to other interested parties and 

make copies available to others who request them. If you have questions about this report, 

please call me at (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 States have had poor 

living and working conditions. During the 19609, their hardships, including 

exposure to harmful pesticides and limited health care, became a national 

concern. Thirty years later, these hardships continue to raise both public 

and congressional concern. 

The Chairman of the House Select Committee on Aging and the former 

Chairman of the House Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families 

the Chairmen of the House Committee on Education and Labor and its Sub 

committee on Human Resources; and Representative Jim Jontz asked us to 

provide information on the extent to which federal laws, regulations, and 

programs protect the health and well-being of hired farmworkers. GAO provided this information at hearings on July 17, 199 1 .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 1.5 to 2.5 million. Migrant 

farmworkers are a subpopulation 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 every year. Many hired farmworkers work in fields without 

drinking water, handwashing facilities, or toilets. Some families 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 may work in the fields because 

the families need the money or lack access to 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, as well as those that safeguard 

children from abusive labor practices. Programs that serve the general 

population or all workers include the Medicaid program, which pays for 

‘Farmworkers Face Gaps in Protection and Barriers to Benefits (GAO/T-HRD-91-40, July 17,199l). 

Page 2 GAO/HBD-92.46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Risk 
Executive 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 a worker’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 care to those hired farmworkers who are 

migrants. 

Results in Brief Hired farmworkers are not adequately protected by federal laws, 

regulations, and programs; therefore, their health and well-being are at 

risk. Hired farmworkers go into fields sprayed with pesticides, but many 

have no knowledge of the specific chemicals they are exposed to or the 

potential health effects, Field sanitation on many small farms may be inadequate, constituting a serious 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 because they 

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 less financial support when they retire or become disabled. 

GAO’s Analysis 

Inadequate Protection 

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 each year 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 a label include a pesticide’s active ingredients and warnings, as well as precautionary statements concerning a pesticide’s toxicity; however, hired farmworkers generally do not have access to 

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 Risk 
Executive Summary 

the identities and specific hazards of the pesticides to which they are 

exposed. 

In addition, workplace protection provided by the 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 has agreed 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 of which will be effective in 1992, should 

increase protection to these farmworkers. However, many pesticides have 

not been fully tested to determine their harmful effects. (See pp.12-18.) 

Inadequate Field Sanitation Federal regulations on field 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 

access to 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 3 1 percent of those surveyed worked in fields 4 

without drinking water, handwashing facilities, or toilets. (See pp.18-20.) 

Less Protection for 

Children on Farms 

Federal labor law and child labor regulations permit children to work in 

agriculture at a younger age than in other industries. The minimum age at 

which children can work in hazardous occupations-such as mining and 

logging-is 18. However, 16-year-olds are allowed to do hazardous farm 

work, such as operating tractors, hay bailers, or grain combines. 

Furthermore, the minimum age at which children can work in 

‘Occupational Safety & Health: OSHA Action Needed to Improve Compliance With Hazard Communication Standard (GAO/HRD-92-8, Nov. 26, 1991), p. 3, states that both OSHA and GAO found a 

substantial number of employers out of compliance with the OSHA standard. 

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

nondangerous occupations is either 14 or 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 age standards differ, 

in part, to exclude family farms from federal regulation. (See pp.20-23.) 

Medical Needs Not Met by 

Federal Health Care 

Programs 

Hired farmworkers have limited access to Medicaid assistance. Many are 

ineligible for the program because they are undocumented aliens or 

unqualified for cash assistance programs. In addition, state enrollment procedures and other administrative requirements pose a barrier to eligible 

migrant farmworkers. This is because some of these farmworkers leave the 

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 a patient with an out-of-state Medicaid card. 

Most migrant farmworkers do not receive medical services provided by the 

Migrant Health Program’s rural health clinics. The Department of Health 

and Human Services estimates that because of budget constraints, the program serves less than 15 percent of the nation’s migrant farmworkers. (See 

pp.24-25.) 

Fewer Social Security 

Benefits 

Many hired farmworkers who have retired or become disabled, as well 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 because their employers do not report all 

their earnings to the Social Security Administration (SSA). SSA data for 1989 

show that agricultural employers were at least three times as likely as other 

employers to not report or underreport their employees’ earnings. (See 

p.26.) 

Recommendations This report provides GAO’S analyses of information on the 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 

Less Protection for Children on Farms 20 Protection 

Chapter 3 24 

Many Hired Medical Needs Unmet by Federal Heakh Care Programs 24 

Farmworkers Do Not FuII Social Security Benefits Not Received 26 

Receive Federal Health 

Care Assistance and Full 

Social Security 

Chapter 4 

Summary Observations 

27 

Appendixes Appendix I: Hired Farmworker Housing 28 

Appendix II: Federal Training and Employment Programs 34 

Appendix III: Children in Agriculture 35 

Appendix IV: Major Contributors to This Report 38 4 

Related GAO Produds 40 

Tables Table 1.1: List of Selected Federal Laws, Programs, and 

Agencies That Protect or Assist Hired Farmworkers 

10 

FigtlES Figure 2.1: Warning Sign in California Posted in Field Treated 

With Pesticides 

15 

Figure 2.2: Toilet Facilities in the Field 

Figure 2.3: Seven-Year-Old Boy Working on Farm in Ohio 

Figure I. 1: Substandard Housing in Which Hired 

Farmworkers Live 

19 

22 

30 

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

Figure 1.2: Scenes From 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 Safety and Health Administration 

Social Security Administration 

Supplemental Security Income 

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

Introduction 

Hired farmworkers receive some protection and assistance under various 

federal laws, regulations, and programs. Some of these cover workers in all 

occupations or the general population; others cover primarily hired farmworkers or migrant farmworkers. Yet, many hired farmworkers face the 

hardships of substandard living and working conditions. Many, especially 

migrant farmworkers, receive low wages, are exposed to health hazards, 

and are homeless or live in substandard housing (see app. I). Hired farmworkers may need job search and placement assistance because much 

hired farm work is characterized by unstable and short-term employment 

(see app. 11). In addition, their children, who may be working or staying in 

the fields because the family needs the money or lacks access to child care 

facilities, are subject to educational disadvantages and health risks from 

injuries and pesticides (see app. III). 

Hired farmworkers are people who harvest crops and do other farm work 

for wages. Estimates of the size of the hired farmworker population range 

from about 1.5 to 2.5 million.’ Many hired farmworkers are employed for 

only part of the year because of the seasonal nature of agriculture. Those 

who are willing to travel for agricultural work become migrant and take up 

temporary residence at their work sites. Hereafter, the terms migrant 

farmworkers and migrants are used to refer to the subpopulation of hired 

farmworkers who are migrant or seasonal or both. 

Estimates of the size of the migrant farmworker subpopulation vary 

widely-between 1 and 4 million-because some include dependents of 

migrants and migrants who are undocumented aliens. Migrant farmworkers are predominately young married Hispanic men with families2 

The annual average earnings of these farmworkers are low, and many families are among the working poor.3 Adult migrant farmworkers on average 

have completed 8 or fewer years of formal education.4 

4 

For more than a century, many hired farmworkers, particularly migrants, 

have experienced difficult living and working conditions. Periodic reports 

on the plight of migrant farmworkers began in the 1940s. During the 

196Os, the difficult lives of migrant farmworkers became a national 

‘Victor J. Oliveira, Trends in the Hired Farm Work Force, 1946-8’7 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Economic Research Service, Apr. 1989), p. 3; andFarm Labor (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agricultural Statistics Service, Nov. 13, 1990), p. 1. 

‘Office of Program Economics, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Findings From the 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 Risk 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

concern, which led to 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, as well 

as those that safeguard children from abusive labor practices. Programs 

that serve the general population or all workers include (1) the Medicaid 

program, which pays for medical care for eligible low-income people; 

(2) Social Security insurance programs, which pay cash benefits to eligible 

retired and disabled workers and survivors based on a worker’s lifetime 

earnings; (3) the Social Security Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, which provides cash assistance 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 and job search assistance for migrant farmworkers, 

and health care for migrant farmworkers. (See table 1.1.) 

Page 9 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Risk 
Chapter 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 514 and 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: This list includes only those federal laws and programs we reviewed. 

The states also have a role in protecting and assisting hired farmworkers. 

Under certain conditions, states may have regulations that are more stringent than federal regulations for pesticide use and job safety and health. 

States protect employed children through their own child labor laws. Medicaid is a state-administered program, and within broad federal guidelines, 

each state designs its own program. Five states have programs that offer 

Page 10 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Risk 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

financial assistance for constructing and rehabilitating housing for hired 

farmworkers. 

Objective, Scope, and The Chairman of the House Select Committee on Aging and the former 

Methodology Chairman of the House Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families; 

the Chairmen of the House Committee on Education and Labor and its Subcommittee on Human Resources; and Representative Jim Jontz asked us to 

provide information on the extent to which federal laws, regulations, and 

programs protect the health and well-being of hired farmworkers. 

To accomplish this objective, we reviewed selected federal laws, 

regulations, and programs that affect hired farmworkers. We also reviewed 

our own past work as welI as documents, 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 of federal 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 have on hired farmworkers’ living and working conditions. We 

did not address the impact of other important factors, such as the supply of 

hired farmworkers, the state of the country’s economy, or the costs associated with increased regulation and enforcement. Our review was also 

limited by the lack of reliable national data on health problems, including 

pesticide poisonings; mortality rates; and other issues affecting hired farmworkers. When we cite data from the literature, the information represents 

the most current available at the time of our review. Our work was carried l 

out from January to August 199 1 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

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

Hired Farmworkers Are Given Inadequate 

Protection 

The health and well-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 by federal 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 age than 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 of which 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 

Exposure to 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 a number of acute health effects: 

these include upper respiratory tract, skin, and eye irritation; 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 

* ‘I 
Chapter 2 

Hired Fsrmworkem Are Given Inadequate 

Protection 

In addition, some studies 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 of their 

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 each year 

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 of the children interviewed 

had worked in fields still wet with pesticides, and 40 percent had been 

sprayed while in the fields.2 

Role of Federal Agencies EPA is authorized to regulate pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended (7 U.S.C. 136et seq.), and 

the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended (21 U.S.C. 301 eJ 

seq.). EPA registers pesticide products for specified uses before they may 

6 sold, specifies the terms and conditions of their use prior 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, and Wyoming) by state regulatory agencies that have cooperative 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) is authorized to adopt and enforce 

specific standards to help ensure a safe and healthful workplace for 

employees. Also under the act, more stringent state regulations may be 

permitted in those states with state job safety and health plans approved by 

OSHA. Currently, 23 states have OsHn-approved state plans. In those states 4 

‘Studies include (1) Natural Resources Defense Council, Intolerable Risk: Pesticides in Our Children’s 

Food (Wash., DC.: 1989); (2) S. Murphy, “Pesticides,” Casarett and J. Douh in Toxicology, eds., C.D. 

Klaasen, M.O. Amdur, and J. Doulf (New York, N.Y.: Macmillan, 1986); (3) Tracy Freedman and David 

Weir, “Polluting the Most Vulnerable,” 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 and 72-73. However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for 

protecting workers against pesticide hazards are based on adult exposure only and give no special consideration to children. EPA believes that studies monitoring field exposure to pesticides and laboratory 

animal studies on age-related toxic effects indicate no reason to specifically regulate children differently from adulta. 

‘Susan Pollack and others, “Pesticide Exposure and Working Conditions among Migrant Farmworker 

Children in Western New York State,” presented at the American Public Health Association Annual 

Meeting, 1990. 

Page 13 GAOMRLI-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Risk 
Chapter 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 and training 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 on the premise that workers have both a need 

and a right to know the identities and hazards of chemicals, including pesticides, they work with. OSHA has determined that when both employers and 

workers have access to this necessary information, the workplace occurrence of illnesses and injuries from chemicals will be reduced. Of the 23 

states with OS&+approved state job 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 

Pesticide Hazards to 

Hired Farmworkers 

Many hired farmworkers are given insufficient information about the hazardous chemicals to which they are exposed. They generally do not have 

access to the product label for a given pesticide. EPA requires that every 

pesticide product bear a label 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 may fear that requesting label information from employers could jeopardize their jobs. Even if they receive 

label information, they may be unable to read or understand it. EPA agrees 

that hired farmworkers need unhampered access to label or productspecific information that they can understand. 

In addition to its labeling requirements, EPA has specific 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 of the pesticides to which they are 

exposed. The standards require that agricultural employers provide timely 

warning to hired farmworkers who are expected to work in a field treated 

30ccupational Safety & Health: OSHA Action Needed to Improve Compliance With Hazard Communication Standard (GAO/HRD-92-8, Nov. 26, 1991), p. 3, states that both OSHA and GAO found a 

substantial number of employers out of compliance with HCS. In surveying a random sample of 

employers, GAO found 68 percent of small employers (those with 10 or fewer employees) and 52 percent of all employers to be out of compliance 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 

Flgl ate 2.1: Warning Sign in California 

POE rted In Field Treated Wlth Pestlcldes 

or to be treated with a pesticide. Warnings may be given orally or by 

posting signs at usual entry points to the field (see fig. 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 be entered without protective clothing, the time period during which a field should be vacated, 

and actions to take in case of 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 its worker 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 has subsequently 

worked to revise its standards. Some modified 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 have to 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 and treat poisonings. 

OSHA's HCS requires employers in manufacturing and nonmanufacturing 

industries to inform their workers in writing of the names of the chemicals 

being used, the potential dangers of exposure, emergency and first-aid procedures, and other appropriate protective measures. This transmittal of 

information is to be accomplished primarily through container labeling, 

data sheets for 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 HCS with regard to hired farmworkers 

exposed to pesticides. OSHA believes that 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 

some jurisdictional issues concerning pesticides at federal and state levels. 8 

One example of potential jurisdictional difficulties is Texas, which does not 

have an osr%approved state plan. In 1988, Texas passed a state law 

requiring that farmers and hired farmworkers receive information about 

pesticides and their health effects. The state, after passing this law similar 

to the HCS, adopted implementing regulations that were consistent with 

FIFRA. Some believe 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 Risk 
Chapter 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 of the specific chemicals they are exposed to or the potential 

health risks. A 1988 study of 460 hired farmworkers in Washington found 

that 89 percent did not know the name of a single pesticide they had been 

exposed to, and 76 percent had never received any information on appropriate measures for protection.4 

Inadequate Regulations on 

Reentry Periods and 

Protective Clothing 

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 have dried or dusts 

have settled.” 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, as defined in the regulations, 

consists of a hat, long-sleeved shirt, long pants, and shoes and socks. EPA'S 

pending regulations change minimum protective clothing requirements to 

correspond with the toxicity level of the 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, and when they are, the fines are too 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 a warning letter for a first offense. 

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

Page 17 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Risk 
Chapter 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 

Many Pesticides in Use pesticide products currently in use have not been completely tested to 

determine their harmful effects. As a result, the Congress mandated that 

older pesticides be retested. 

EPA registers a pesticide for a specified use before 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 also takes into account the economic, social, and 

environmental costs and benefits for the use of the 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 a few months to several years to complete, may be 

required to support a pesticide registration. 

Because the data supporting older pesticides registrations are incomplete 

or inadequate by present scientific standards, the Congress mandated, in 

1972, that EPA reassess the safety of already-registered pesticides and 

reregister them. Approximately 20,000 registered pesticide products are 

subject to the reregistration process. In our 1986 review of the 

reassessment and reregistration effort, we found that most pesticides had 

not been fully 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 a preliminary 

stage in assessing the 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’ield Sanitation 

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 a serious 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 of toilets 

also contributes to the spread of communicable diseases and may increase 

the risk of urinary tract infection. 

5Pesticides: EPA’s Formidable Task to Assess and Regulate Their Risks (GAOAZCED-86-125, Apr. 18, 

1986), p. 3. 

‘Reregistration and Tolerance Reassessment Remain 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 :Illtle 88 In the FM Id 

Regulations adopted under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 

require agricultural employers who employ more than 10 farmworkers to 

provide drinking water, handwashing facilities, and toilets (see fig. 2.2 for 

required toilets). Farms with 10 or fewer workers are exempt from field 

sanitation standards. The intent of the exemption is to avoid placing an 

undue financial burden on small farms and to comply with an annual 

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 Risk 
chapter 2 

Hired Farmworkers Am Given Inadequate 

Protection 

As a result of the exemption, many hired farmworkers on small farms may 

not have access to toilets and other basic sanitation facilities. In addition, 

compliance with field sanitation standards by larger farms with more than 

10 workers 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, 3 1 percent of those 

surveyed work in fields without one or more basic sanitation facilities. 

States with osn&approved state plans can establish their own field 

sanitation standards. Of 21 states with state field sanitation standards, 4 

(Alaska, Arizona, Oregon, and Washington) require compliance on farms 

that employ 10 or fewer workers. In North Carolina, where farms with 

more than 10 workers must follow state field sanitation standards, a 1990 

study found that only 4 percent of the hired farmworkers surveyed had 

access to drinking water, as welI as handwashing and toilet facilities.7 

Less Protection for 

Children on Farms 

Many children work on farms. Their health and well-being are at risk from 

farm injuries and exposure to pesticides. These children are less protected 

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 of the 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 care facilities. 

Agriculture has been found to be the 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.O In a 1990 study of migrant children working on farms in western a 

New York, one-third of the children had been injured while working during 

the past year.lO 

7Maureen Sweeney and Stephen Ciesieski,Where Work Is Hazardous to Your Health (Raleigh, North 

Carolina: Farmworkers Legal Services of North Carolina, Apr. 1990), p. v. 

&rhe National Child Labor Committee is a child labor advocacy group for youth-related issues, 

including education, job tralnii, and employment. 

‘Frederick P. Rivara, “Fatal and Nonfatal Farm Il\jurles to Children and Adolescents in the United 

States,” Pediatrics, Vol. 76 (Oct. 1985), pp. 567-73. 

“Pollack and others, “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 is the @irnary federal law regulating working 

conditions and wages of American workers, including children. Labor is 

responsible for the administration and enforcement of the act. Regulations 

issued under the act set a minimum age requirement for work in certain 

occupations. For work that Labor has determined hazardous, age limits are 

higher than for nonhazardous work. 

Federal child labor regulations allow children to work in agriculture at a 

younger age than in other industries. The minimum age at which children 

can work in hazardous occupations-such as mining and logging-is 18. 

But 1 6-year-olds are allowed to do hazardous farm work-such as operating a tractor, hay bailer, or grain combine. Furthermore, on farms either 

owned or operated by their parents, children of any age can do hazardous 

farm work. Minimum age standards 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 age at which minors can work in nonhazardous occupations other than agriculture is 14 or 16. Children younger than 14, 

however, can do nonhazardous farm work under certain conditions (see 

fig. 2.3): Minors at the age of 12 or 13 can work in agriculture outside 

school hours with parental consent. Children of any age can work on family 

farms. 

Page 2 1 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Risk 
Chapter 2 

Hired Farmworkers Are Given Inadequate 

Protection 

Figure 2.3: Sevenon Farm In I Ohlo .Year- BOY :klng 

Photograph by Ken Light 

Labor’s enforcement of federal child labor provisions may be ineffective. 

The National Child Labor Committee estimates that each year, there are at 

least 100,000 minors illegally working on farms and 1 million 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 all workplaces covered by FLSA. In 

1990, penalties for child labor violations averaged $2 12 a violation. Labor 

acknowledged that its penalties were inadequate to deter violations. As part 

of the fiscal year 199 1 budget legislation, the Congress gave Labor the 

Page 22 

4 

GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Risk 
Chapter 2 

Hired Fannworkere Are Given Inadequate 

Protection 

authority to increase the maximum civil monetary penalty for a nonwillful 

violation from $1,000 to $10,000 for each child.” Despite this new 

authority, Labor generally has increased assessed penalties by far smaller 

amounts for violations that do not involve a serious 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 Do Not Receive 

Federal Health Care Assistance and Full 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 have not fully reported their earnings. Some do not receive SSI 

because they are unaware of the program or their eligibility. 

Medical Needs Unmet Medicaid, as a federal-state entitlement program, pays for 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 eliPrograms gible for Medicaid, people must be citizens or nationals of the United States 

or aliens with a satisfactory immigration status1 People who qualify for 

cash assistance under either the Aid to Families With Dependent Children 

(AFDC) program or the SSI program are generally eligible for Medicaid. To 

qualify for AFJX, people have to meet the program’s definition of membership in a family with dependent children. To qualify for SSI, people have to 

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 because they either are 

undocumented aliens or do not qualify for the AF’DC or SSI program. Estimates of the percentage of the hired farmworker population who are 

undocumented aliens are as high as 50 percent. Many hired farmworkers 

who are currently employed are ineligible for AFDC or SSI benefits because 

their incomes are too high to qualify for cash assistance. Labor’s 1990 

nationwide survey of migrant farmworkers found that only 3 percent of 

migrant farmworker households had received AFDC benefits during the past 

2 years. Furthermore, currently employed hired farmworkers are unlikely 

to meet the SSI program’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. Some migrant farmworkers who apply for Medicaid leave 

the state before the 45-day period, allowed by federal regulations, for Medicaid application processing elapses. Others who have Medicaid coverage 

‘Medicaid covers treatment for emergency medical conditions of undocumented aliens who otherwise 

meet the program’s eligibility criteria. 

2Medicaid can cover people who do not qualify for AF’DC or SSI assistance but who have relatively large 

medical bills. 

Page 24 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Rick 
Chapter 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 states who 

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. States are not required to make these agreements, however, and may choose not to make them because of additional costs and 

administrative problems. The three states with the most migrant farmworkers-California, Florida, and Texas-do not have interstate agreements with other states. 

Data on the number of hired farmworkers nationwide who have Medicaid 

coverage are not available. In a 1982 study, less than 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 get the health services 

they need. Poor and uninsured migrant farmworkers have reduced access 

to physician care and hospital services.4 In Labor’s 1990 survey of migrant 

farmworkers nationwide, about half of these workers and their families had 

incomes below the poverty level, with the median family income between 

$7,500 and $10,000 a year. Furthermore, in the survey, about four out of 

five migrant farmworkers did not have employer-provided health 

insurance. 

Recognizing that migrant farmworkers and their families do not have 

access to the same health 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 is a primary source of health care for migrant farmworkers. However, the Department of Health and Human Services reports that budget constraints limit 

the program to serving less than an estimated 15 percent of the country’s 

migrant farmworkers. 

a 

“Peter S. K. Chi, “Medical Utilization Patterns of Migrant Farm Workers in Wayne County, New York,” 

Public Health Reportu, Vol. 100 (Sept.-Oct. 1985), pp. 480-90. 

4David R. Smith, M.D., “Hospitalization Access for Patients of Migrant Health Centers and Combined 

Migrant and Community Health Centers,” Clearinghouse Review (Summer 1986), pp. 513-I 4, and 

Peter S. K. Chi, “Medical Utilization” (Sept.-Oct. 1985), pp. 480-90. 

Page 25 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Risk 
Chapter 3 

Many Hired Farmworkers Do Not Receive 

Federal Health Care Assistance and Full 

Social Security 

I?ull Social Security 

Benefits Not Received 

Many hired farmworkers who are retired or disabled, as well as survivors 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 as to survivors; these benefits are based on a worker’s lifetime 

earnings, as reported by his or her employer. However, if an employer does 

not report some or any of a worker’s earnings, he or she will not receive 

full Social Security benefits. 

Hired farmworkers are more likely than other workers to receive less than 

the Social Security benefits to which these farmworkers are entitled; this is 

because their employers do not report all their earnings to SSA. SSA data for 

1989 show that agricultural employers were at least three times as likely as 

other employers to not report or underreport their employees’ earnings, 

said an SSA official. As a result of underreporting of wages 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 on the same 

basis as blind or disabled adults. Most hired farmworkers who are currently 

employed earn too much to qualify for SSI. However, some hired farmworkers who have stopped working because of age, blindness, or disability 

can qualify for SSI. Blind or disabled children of hired farmworkers can also 

qualiiy for SSI. 

However, of those who qualify for SSI, some do not receive SSI support 

because they are unaware of the program or their eligibility. In 1990, we 

reported that most of the SSA district managers we surveyed believe there is 

a continuing need to inform the public about SSI.6 The managers acknowl- a 

edged a particular need for outreach to the rural poor and the 

non--English-speaking populations. Given that hired farmworkers often live 

in rural areas and are non-English speaking, many are unaware of the SSI 

program. 

%e Social Security Administration’s Supplemental Security Income Outreach Activities 

(GAO/T-HRD-90-22, Apr. 5, 1990), pp. i and 4. 

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

Summary Observations 

Many of the nation’s hired farmworkers face the hardships of substandard 

living and working conditions: Pesticides poison hired farmworkers every 

year, and fields without sanitation facilities expose these workers to many 

health hazards. Some families have no homes or live in overcrowded and 

unsanitary housing. Many hired farmworkers do not get needed medical 

services and their entitled Social Security benefits. Their children, who 

often work in the fields, are exposed to the same poor 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 need for adequate living 

and working conditions often goes unmet. The health and well-being of 

hired farmworkers, as a group, 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 and working 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 be slow in coming. Given the 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 on to the consumer; this, in turn, may 

affect the United States’s competitiveness in the agricultural sector. Nonetheless, a balance must be struck 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 

Shortage of Housing for The number of hired farmworkers in need of housing exceeds the 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 of the estimated 1.2 milhon migrant farmworkers who require 

h0using.l In more recent data for California, Oregon, and Washington, 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 less than 30 percent of the annual migrant farmworkers in those three states, excluding dependents who migrate with the 

workers.z 

Agricultural employers recognize that the lack of housing is a serious 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 be occupied during 

a short harvest season. In addition, employers may hesitate to provide 

housing because of the administrative problems associated with operating 

housing, such as applying 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. 

Some employer-provided housing does exist, but economic disincentives 

have created a trend, 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 states through the Department of Labor’s 

Employment Services. Few employers hire farmworkers through these 

means. 

Hired farmworkers, particularly migrants, also face barriers to obtaining l 

housing in the local private housing markets. Small rural communities may 

not have enough rental units available to accommodate a large 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, Rosemary Schmidt, and Howard Mitzel,National Farmworker Housing Study. Study 

of Housing for Migrant and Settled Farmworkers (Rosslyn, Virginia: InterAmercia Research Associates, 

Inc., Dec. 1980), pp. i and 53. 

“Immigration Reform: Potential Impact on West Coast Farm Labor (GAOiHRD-89-89, Aug. 17, 1989), 

p.69. 

Page 28 GAOMRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Risk 
Appendlx I 

Hired Farmworker Housing 

Limited Government 

Assistance for Hired 

Farmworker Housing 

Federal funding to construct and rehabilitate hired farmworker housing 

has been cut substantially over the past decade, from $68.7 million in 1979 

to $22.0 million in 1990. Agricultural employer associations have suggested 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 and their families. In 1988, the centers provided 

housing for 12,324, of which 7,010 were adults and the rest were minors. 

Five states (California, Florida, Ohio, Oregon, and Virginia) 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 of the 

in Poor Condition housing that hired farmworkers occupy is deficient, crowded, and unsanitar-y. These observations are from 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 (See fig. I. 1.) A family may have to 

sleep on a dirt floor in a l-room house with no furniture, running water, or 

electricity. 

31mmigration Reform: Potential Impact on West Coast Farm Labor (GAO/HRD-89-89, Aug. 17, 1989), 

p. 74. 

4Reports include (1) Joseph 0. Prewitt Diaz, Robert T. Trotter II, and Vidal A. Rivera, Jr.,The Effects of 

M&ration on Children: An Ethnographic Study (State College, Pennsylvania: Centro De Estudios Sobre 

la Migration, 1989), pp. 65-56; (2)lmmigration Reform: Potential impact of West Coast Farm Labor 

(GAO/HRD-89-89, Aug. 17,1989), pp. 74-76; (3) State of California Department of Housing and Community Development, Migrant Farmworker Housing in California (Sacramento, California: State of California, 1988), p. 4; (4) Ken Pallack, Oregon Farm Labor Housing Survey (Newberg, Oregon: CASA of 

Oregon, Jan. 1991) p. 14; and (5) Edward F. Dement,Out of Sight, Out of Mind An Update on Migrant 

Farmworker Issues in Today’s Agricultural Labor Market (Raleigh, North Carolina: National Governors’ 

Association, Aug. 1986), p. 38. 

Page 29 GAOjHRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Risk 
Appendix I 

Hired Farmworker Housing 

Figure I.1 Substandard Housing In Which Farmworkers Live 

Lynda Diane Mull, Association of Farmworker Opportunity 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. Of the private rental housing surveyed, 65 percent was in 

need of significant repairs. Most of the 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 of those surveyed lived in housing provided by employers (see fig. 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: CASA of Oregon, Jan. 1991). 

‘OffIce of Program Economics, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Findings From the National 

&ricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 1990 (U.S. Department of Labor, July 1991), p. 73. 

Page 3 1 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, Proteus Employment Opportunities Inc., Iowa 

Page 32 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Risk 
Appendix I 

Hired Farmworker Housing 

We and others have reported that enforcement of federal regulations for 

hired farmworker housing has been limited, in part because of the 

unavailability of resources for enforcement.’ If housing regulations were 

better enforced, however, this could worsen the housing shortage as agricultural employers who provide housing may shut down substandard 

housing rather than make costly repairs. 

‘Reports include (1) Edward Dement, Out of Sight, Out of Mind: An Update on Migrant Farmworker 

Issues in Today’s Agricultural Labor Market (Raleigh, North Carolina: National Governors’ Association, 

Aug. 1985), p. 38; (2) Immigration Reform, -p. 72; and (3) Susan Peck, California Farmworker 

3 (Davis, California: California Institute for Rural Studies, Feb. 1989), pp. 14, 15, and 30. 

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

Federal Training and Employment Programs 

Some analysts are concerned that the principal federal training program 

for migrant farmworkers cannot serve the current migrant farmworker 

population because of insufficient funds. Section 402 of the Job Training 

Partnership Act (JTPA) (P.L. 97-300) provides job training and job search 

assistance to migrant farmworkers who are unemployed or underemployed. Since the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 

1986 (IRCA), over 900,000 undocumented alien farmworkers have obtained 

satisfactory immigration status and are eligible for training and assistance 

under JTPA. Even though the Congress has allocated additional section 402 

funds to serve this expanded client population, funds are most likely insufficient to serve all eligible migrant farmworkers. In 1989, we estimated that 

JTPA overall served about 6 percent of the total estimated population of eligible clients, including migrant farmworkers1 

The principal federal job placement program-Labor’s Employment 

Service-is not as effective as it should be, advocacy groups and agricultural employer representatives said, in finding hired farmworkers who need 

jobs and matching them with employers who need workers. Only 1 percent 

of migrant farmworkers, Labor’s 1990 national survey of migrant workers 

indicated, found jobs through the Employment Service, Agricultural 

employers generally do not use the Employment Service, representatives 

of agricultural employer associations said, because obtaining workers, particularly outside their localities, is a cumbersome process. In part because 

of the availability of undocumented alien farmworkers, agricultural 

employers may have little incentive to use the Employment Service to hire 

domestic farmworkers. 

‘Job Training Partnership Act: Services and Outcomes for Participanty With Differing Needs 

(GAO/HRD-89-62, June 9, 1989), p. 33. 

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

Chi.l&en in Agriculture 

In some hired farmworker families, young children must work in the fields 

so that their families can earn enough to survive. Children as young as 10, 

a 1989 study on the effects of migration on children found, sometimes 

work in the fields to contribute to the family inc0me.l Some children may 

not be hired laborers, but their presence in the fields usually means that 

they will help their parents with the field work (see fig. III. 1). 

‘Diaz, Trotter II, and Rivera, Jr.,The Effects of Migration on Children, pp. 63 and 66. 

Page 35 GAO/HRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Risk 
Appendix III 

Children in Agriculture 

‘lgure III.1 : Young 

Drange Grove 

Child I n Florlda 

Lonny Shavelson, Impact Visuals 

Note: Without child care, some children must go to the fields with their parents. 

Page 36 GAOfHRD-92-46 Hired Farmworkers’ Health at Risk 
Appendix III 

Children in Agriculture 

On the 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 of the 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 age of 

15 in 1980. Of these, 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 need to 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 because frequent moves interrupt their education and may delay their 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 Head Start is a federally funded child development program that provides educational and 

health services for low-income migrant children below the age of 6. 

““A Survey of California Farmworkers’ Child Care Needs: A Special Report-1980,” (Sacramento: Cahfornia State Department of Education, 1980, pp. 1 and 13). 

4Joseph 0. Prewitt Diaz, Robert T. Trotter II, and Vidal A. Rivera, Jr.,The Effects of Migration on Children: An Ethnographic Study (State College, Pennsylvania: Centro de Estudios Sobre la Migration, 

1989), p. 106. 

(GAO/BRD- 86-106BR, June 23,1986) and 

New York State Education Department, Migrant Attrition Project (Oneonta, New York: State University 

of New York at Oneonta, Aug. 10,1987), executive summary. 

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

Major Contributors to This Report 

San Francisco 

Regional Office 

Robert L. MacLafferty, Assistant Director, (4 15) 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 Risk 
A 

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

, 
1 

J’ Related GAO 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 on West 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*ottttt itrg Of’f’iw 

W;witittgt.ott, I).( :. %OMH 

Ol‘f’ic~ittl Httsinws 

htt:tlt.y for I’rival tb I Iw $:100