NBSffi 73-248

A Survey of the Sanitary

Conditions of Migrant

Labor Camps

Charles Fried, Robert Ramsburg, Stephen Butler

Technical Analysis Division

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

August 1973

Final Report

Prepared for Community Health Services

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

Washington, D. C. 20201

NBSIR 73-248

A SURVEY OF THE SANITARY

CONDITIONS OF MIGRANT

LABOR CAMPS

Charles Fried, Robert Ramsburg, Stephen Butler

Technical Analysis Division

Institute for Applied Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

August 1973

Final Report

Prepared for Community Health Services

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

Washington, D. C. 20201

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. Frederick B. Dent, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Richard W. Roberts. Director

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

At the request of the Community Health Service (CHS) , a study team

from the Technical Analysis Division (TAD) of the National Bureau of

Standards devised a survey instrument and conducted a field assessment

of the sanitary conditions of migrant housing. The survey team:

(1) Developed a sampling plan for the field survey.

(2) Constructed a questionnaire designed to allow laymen to

evaluate sanitary conditions in the migrant camps o The

questionnaire was designed with the aid of specialists

in migrant housing.

(3) Selected camps which would be visited. The selection was

intended to reflect migrant living conditions from as many

regions of the country as possible.

(4) Performed on site field visits to camps in California, Texas,

Florida, New York, Michigan, Maryland, Virginia and New Jersey.

(5) Analyzed and provided a summary of the survey findings.

(6) Recommended changes to the survey procedure which could be

included in the design of future studies.

The instrument for evaluating the camps was based on the checklist

procedure used by sanitarians for inspecting migrant camps. It contained

questions in the following areas:

(1) General information,

(2) Water supply,

(3) Toilet or privies,

(4) Bathing and laundry facilities,

(5) Sewage disposal,

(6) Housing and screening

(7) Living/sleeping quarters,

ii
I
(8) Cooking facilities,

(9) Garbage disposal , and

(10) General camp area.

Although one o£ the major purposes of the study was the design and

field testing of a survey instrument, the data collected in the course

of the field test is reported. This preliminary data is divided into

two classes:

(1) Data from camps selected at random from counties containing

a high concentration of camps. The selections were made

prior to the visits of the survey team.

(2) Data from camps chosen by the local sanitarians. The basis

of selection for these latter camps was left to the local

sanitarian.

A few of the findings from camps that were randomly selected are:

251 of the camps had no refrigerators

491 of the camps had no screen doors

611 of the camps had garbage and debris strewn about

13% of the camps dumped sewage directly into open streams

26% of the toilet facilities were judged dirty and foul smelli

36% of the toilet facilities provided no toilet paper

86% of the camps did not use privies

100% of the camps had electricity

The survey team made a number of proposals for improving the

procedures and the questionnaires for surveys as a result of the

experience gained in the first survey. These include:

(1) All data should be collected by members of the survey team

to avoid possible biases from external sources.

iii
(2) Timing of visits should be arranged to reflect the stage of

camp occupancy: (a) prior to occupancy; (b) at an early

stage; (c) at peak occupancy; and (d) a late stage of occupancy

before the camp closes.

(3) Geographically isolated camps should be included in the survey.

(4) Subjectivity of the survey team members should be minimized

through such procedures as: (a) reduction in the number of

questions requiring subjective judgment; (b) a training stage

for the survey team to insure that they all respond to similar

aspects of camps in the same way; and (c) normalization of the

interviewer's responses to eliminate the effects of his personal

biases.

(5) Future surveys should provide quantitative measures of over- crowding and adequacy of ventilation.

(6) Two types of questionnaires should be devised—one for family

type camps and one for single person canps.

(7) The section on sewage disposal should be expanded, and qualified

sanitary engineers should be consulted on the writing of

questions pertaining to sewage disposal and communicable disease

iv
CONTENTS

Page

Executive Summary ii

1.0. Introduction 2

2.0. Procedures Used in Study 4

2.1. Selection Procedures 4

2.1.1. Selection of Area for Survey 4

2.1.2. Selection of Canps to Be Visited 6

2.2. Procedure Following the Selection of Can^s 10

2.2.1. Travel to Preselected Campsites 10

2.2.2. Procedure in Using the Questionnaire to

Evaluate Migrant Housing 11

3.0. Construction of Questionnaire 14

3.1. Background to the Development of the Questionnaire ... 14

3.2. Testing and Redevelopment of the Contents of the

Questionnaire 16

3.3. Description of Questionnaire Sections 17

3.3.1. General Information 17

3.3.2. Water Supply 17

3.3.3. Toilets and Privies 18

3.3.4. Bathing and Laundry Facilities 18

3.3.5. Sewage Disposal 18

3.3.6. Housing and Screening 18

3.3.7. Living/Sleeping Quarters 19

3.3.8. Cooking Facilities 19

3.3.9. Garbage Disposal 19

v
CONTENTS (continued)

Page

3.3.10. General Canp Area 20

4.0. Sairpling Procedure and Analysis o£ Results 21

4.1. Background of the Sampling Plan 21

4.2. Selection o£ Canps and Method o£ Analysis 21

4.3. Conputational Formulas Enployed in Analysis 24

5.0. Review of Survey Findings , 28

5.1. Overview 28

5.2. Sections of the Survey 28

5.2.1. Water Supply 28

5.2.2. Toilets and Privies 30

5.2.3. Bathing and Laundry Facilities 33

5.2.4. Sewage Disposal 35

5.2.5. Housing and Screening 35

5.2.6. Living/Sleeping Quarters 39

5.2.7. Common Cooking Facilities 40

5.2.8. Garbage Disposal 41

5.2.9. General Camp Area 41

6.0. Proposed Inprovements to Procedures for Conducting

the Survey 42

6.1. Purpose of the 'Field Investigation 42

6.2. Suggested Changes to Procedures 42

6.2.1. Nfembers of the Survey Team 42

6.2.2. Time of Visit to Migrant Camps 43

vi
CONTENTS (continued)

Page

6.2.3. Collection of Data From Isolated Canps 44

6.2.4. Consistency of Reports Made by Survey

Team Members 44

7.0. Proposed Inprovements to the Questionnaire ^6

7.1. Purpose of the Development of the Test

Instrument

7.2. Suggested Changes to Questionnaire 46

7.2.1. Measure of Overcrowding

7.2.2. Measure of Ventilation 46

7.2.3. Types of Questionnaires Used 47

7.2.4. Enlargement of Sewage Disposal System 47

8.0. References 48

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Summary of Data Analysis A-1

Appendix B - Questionnaire Used in Survey B-1

Appendix C - Sanple Suggestion Forms C-1

Appendix D - Table of Random Permutations D-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1. Regions Selected for the Survey and

States Selected for Visits from Within

a Region 5

Table 2.2. Principle State Official Responsible for

Migrant Housing in States Included in Survey 7

Table 2.3. Counties Selected for the Survey 8

Table 5.1. Types of Housing Shown as a Percentage of the

Total Number of Housing Units Observed

vii
CONTENTS (continued)

Page

Table 5.2. Types of Housing Found in Migrant Labor

Cairps 36

L Table 5.3. Principle Construction Material o£ Housing

Shown as a Percentage of the Total

Building Surveyed 36

Table 5.4. Principle Construction Materials Used in

Migrant Labor Canp Buildings 37

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1. Location of Counties Selected for Field

Visits 9

Figure 5.1. Sources of Water Supply 29

Figure 5.2. Percentage of Can^s with Water Piped

into Living Quarters ^0

Figure 5.3. Percentage of Camps with Inadequately Screened

Toilet Facilities ^2

Figure 5.4. Percentage of Camps Where the Migrant

Must Walk More Than 100 ft. to Bathe 34

Figure 5.5. Percentage of Camps Where There are No Hooks

for Hanging Clothes 34

Figure 5.6. Types of Floors Found in Bathing Facilities 34

Figure 5.7. Conparison of Random vs. Non-Random on Items of

Windows, Screens and Repairs 38

Figure 5.8. Comparison of Random vs. Non-Random Camps on Devices for Storing Personal Items

and Hanging Clothes 40

viii
ABSTRACT

The Community Health Service (CHS) of the Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare has been assigned the responsibility of providing

health care services to migrant farmworkers. Since poor sanitation

can be a major factor in the health of migrants, CHS requested NBS'

Technical Analysis Division (TAD) to perform a field survey of the

current state of the sanitary conditions of migrant housing.

A survey form was developed by TAD as an aid in evaluating migrant

housing. The form was derived from the checklist procedure employed

by sanitarians to determine whether migrant housing meets state and

local housing regulations.

Field visits were made to migrant labor camps in five different

regions of the United States. These regions were selected because they

contained a large number of camps open at the time of the visits.

Within each region, camps were selected on a modified random basis.

A description of the findings of the survey is provided in both

tabular and narrative fonn. A discussion of the limitations in the

procedures used in conducting the survey is also included, and changes

are suggested which could be incorporated into future surveys.

1
1.0. INTRODUCTION

.The Migrant Health Act of 1962 established a requirement for the

Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to support the provision

of health care services to migrant farmworkers and their families.

Concern for the health of migrants requires that all factors contributing to their health be considered. These factors include, among

others, the sanitary conditions of the housing in \^^ich the migrants

reside and the utilities which service these residences, such as the

water supply and refuse disposal systems.

The establishment of housing standards for migrants and the enforcement of these standards has traditionally been the responsibility of the

localities and states in which the migrants temporarily reside. IVhile

many communities have developed model building codes for both their

migrant and permanent farmworkers, there are significant disparities

between communities in the content and enforcement of these codes.

Communities differ, for example, in their interpretation of "exempt"

housing—residences to which the codes do not apply. In addition, the

enforcement of housing codes among communities is not consistent. The

sanitarian may note code violations and grant waivers, but if the period

of time that the grower has to correct the violation is excessive, or if

no attempt is made to determine if any remedial action has been taken,

the violation is effectively overlooked. Similarly, the sanitarian may

carefully inspect the migrant housing and document his findings, but

code violations will persist if judicial authorities do not prosecute

or otherwise favor the growers.

2
Since the living conditions and utilities used by migrants are

factors which contribute to their health, CHS felt that it was necessary

to determine through firsthand impartial observations what the living

conditions actually were.

The Technical Analysis Division (TAD) of the National Bureau of

Standards was asked to assist CHS in the design of a survey of the sanitary

and living conditions of migrant workers. One purpose of the first study

was to design a survey instrument used to examine conditions in the

migrant camps and to conduct a field evaluation of the instrument. The

findings of the preliminary investigation are also reported. In addition,

the field test was intended to derive procedures and sampling techniques

which CHS might apply to a longer, national investigation of migrant

workers' living conditions.

3
. 2.0. PROCEDURES USED IN SURVEY

2.1. Selection Procedures

2.1.1. Selection of Areas for Survey

In selecting the camps to be visited, the survey team was limited

by several conditions.

A major restriction was that the site visits were confined to

the last three weeks in May 1973. Preparations for the survey were also

limited to a two to three week period prior to the beginning of the

visits.

Another restriction was that camps would be observed only if

they were occupied by migrants. However, the number of migrants actually

in the camp did not have to be more than a small proportion of the listed

capacity of the camp.

The final condition was that visits should be made only to camps

with a minimum licensed capacity of 20 migrants. This restriction

severely reduced the number of available camps that the investigators

could visit in any locality.

These conditions imposed the following limitations on the

selection of camps.

1. Large areas of the country were systematically excluded

from consideration since the crops in these areas were not

ready to be harvested in May and the growers had no appreciable

need for temporary farm help. Many of the communities

visited contained large numbers of migrant labor camps,

but only a few of these camps were open. Since it was

" undesirable to inform a camp owner in advance, that a visit to his camp was scheduled, a final determination

of whether or not a camp was open could not be made until

the camp was actually visited.

4
2. Due to the brief time allowed for the survey, it was felt

that sufficient data could be collected only in localities

in which there was a concentration of migrant camps. The

costs and the time required to visit isolated camps would

have been prohibitive.

3. The restriction on the time allotted for the visits,

limited the survey to states in which the authorities could

be expected to cooperate with the survey team.*

In further discussions with CHS it was determined that the survey

would include a minimum of five states and 25 operating camps. The

survey team actually visited eight states and 52 camps. It was also

determined that data on migrant living conditions should be obtained

from as many different regions of the country as possible. Regional

differences are reflected in the length of the harvest season with its

accompanying demand for temporary farm labor and different environmental

problems for migrant housing.

The regions visited and the states selected from within the region

are shown in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1. Regions Selected for the Survey and States Selected

for Visits from within a Region

1. Northeastern United States - New York

* Mr. Paul Agnano,of CHS' Rural Health Branch, was invaluable in arranging

for the meetings with the state officials responsible for certifying

migrant housing.

**It was not possible to obtain a random selection of camps from within

the counties visited in Maryland, Virginia and New Jersey. The MidAtlantic states, therefore, are not represented in the population of

camps on which the primary data analysis was made.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Mid-Atlantic States

Southeast

North Central

South Central

Far West

Maryland, Virginia, New Jersey

Florida

Michigan

Texas

California

5
An attempt was made to include a state from the Southwest, but

states that had any appreciable number of migrants in this region had

only a few open camps. A similar attempt was made to include a state

from the Northwest, but it was found that few, if any camps, in this

region were open at the end of May.

The selection of a state from a region was made on the basis

that it contained camps which met the conditions listed at the beginning

of the section. If more than one state within a region met these

conditions, the state containing the largest number of camps for that

region was chosen. : : ;

2.1.2. Selection of Camps to Be Visited

A telephone conversation was held with the principal official

responsible for migrant health and housing in the states selected to be

visited. Table 2.2 lists these officials.* Each state official was

informed of the general purpose of the survey and the approximate dates

when the NBS representative would be in his state. He was asked to

provide a current list of all known migrant camps in his state, the

authorized capacity of each camp and the period in which the camps were

expected to be open.**

* The authors wish to acknowledge the many courtesies extended to them

by the state and local health officials in the communities that were

visited. The efforts of these officials made the visits to the migrant

camps possible.

**The listing was necessarily incomplete since it did not include "exempt"

camps, i.e. , those camps which do not have to be licensed to operate.

Camps generally fall into this category because they are occupied by

less than some minimum number of migrants at any one time. In addition

some camps operate illegally in that the owner has not applied for a license.

6
Table 2.2. Principal State Official Responsible for Migrant Housing in

the States Included in the Survey

1. Mr. Ralph Stewart, Chief

Temporary and Migrant Labor Residence Section

Department of Health

845 Central Avenue

Albany, New York

2. Mr. Norman Papsdorf , Chief

Migrant Labor Camp Section

Department of Public Health

3500 North Logan Street

Lansing, Michigan 48914

3. Mr. Warren Holm

Department of Public Health

Farmworkers Health Service

722 Capitol Mall

Sacramento, California 95814

4. Dr. David Crane, Chief

Bureau of Local Health Service

State Division of Health

1217 Pearl Street

Jacksonville, Florida

5. Mr. Troy Lowry

Coordinator of Labor Camp Inspection Program

State Department of Health

1100 West 49th Street

Austin, Texas 78756

*6. Ms. Mary Jo Garreis

Housing and Hygiene Section

Maryland State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

Baltimore, Maryland

*7. Dr. Belle Fears

District Health Office

Nassawadox, Virginia

* Although data from these states were not used in the primary data analysis

the officials in these states were especially helpful and cooperated

fully with the survey team.

7
;j Counties to be visited were selected from the lists provided by

the state officials. The basis of the selection was the concentration

of camps expected to be open at the end of May. The counties with the

highest density of open camps were chosen with at least two such counties

selected in each state. In several states, a number of counties met the

requirement for a high density clustering of open migrant camps. In

these states, the counties containing the largest number of camps were

visited. Table 2,3 lists the counties selected for the survey. Figure

2.1 shows the locations of these counties.

Table 2.3. Counties Selected for the Survey

State County

1. California a. Fresno

' b. Monterey

c. San Joaquin

2. Florida a. Collier

b. Palm Beach

3. Michigan a. Berrin

...'>-.r b. Manistee

4. New York a. Orange

b. Suffolk

5. Texas a. Castro

b. Dawson

c. Hale

. : .

• d. Lubbock

*6. Maryland a. Kent

b. Prince Georges

*7. Virginia a. Northampton

b. Accomack

*8. New Jersey a. Gloucester

b. Salem

* Data collected from these states were not used in the primary data analysis.

8
9
In order to select the individual camps which would be visited,

each eligible camp on the original list was numbered in sequence. The

camps were then chosen using a table of random permutations (Appendix D).

The selection process consisted of going through the table of random

permutations in some consistent fashion (e.g. , up and down the columns)

until a number equivalent to a camp number was reached. This camp was

then listed as one of the camps to be visited. Six camps were selected

in each county for each day that the NBS interviewer planned to be in

that county. An estimate was made that the interviewer could visit

approximately three camps in one day. The actual number visited would

depend on the size of the camps and the distance between camps. An

additional three camps were included since it was anticipated that some

of the camps, listed as operating during May, would actually be closed.

2.2. Procedure Following the Selection of Camps

2.2.1. Travel to Preselected Campsites

After the list of camps was drawn up, the state officials

responsible for the camps were called and informed as to the counties

that would be visited and the dates of the visits.

The NBS interviewers* then went to the selected states and

usually met the principal state official responsible for migrant housing.

In addition to explaining the purpose of the survey, the interviewer

emphasized that the survey was intended only to establish the facts of

In addition to the authors, the NBS study team included Mr. Donald

Corrigan of TAD.

10
migrant living conditions—the interviewer was not looking for evidence

of violations of state or local regulations. Similarly, the local health

officials were assured that the survey team was not looking for instances

of negligence by the officials themselves.

After this meeting, the interviewer traveled with the state

official to the counties shown in Table 2.3. In most cases, the

interviewer also met with the sanitarian responsible for certifying the

camps in the county that was visited. Replies to survey questions

which could only be answered by a local health official were obtained

at this time (Questions Al, A2, A7 and A8). These questions dealt with

the date and findings of the last water sample and any housing violations

noted on the last inspection.

The visitors to a migrant camp usually consisted of the NBS

representative, the state official and the local sanitarian. The camp

owner was not notified in advance, that he would be visited. However, the

owner's permission was requested before his property was entered. None

of the owners refused entry.

2.2.2. Procedure in Using the Questionnaire to Evaluate Migrant Housing

The questionnaire used by the NBS survey team is shown in

Appendix B. The areas covered by the survey included living quarters

for individual families, dormitories, and communal facilities for

bathing, laundry, kitchen, toilet and garbage disposal. In addition,

the general camp grounds were viewed along with the water source and

sewage disposal system if they were located at the camp.

11
In answering the questionnaire, the NBS representative relied

mainly on his own observations. He avoided asking questions of the can^

owner or the camp residents. Many of the questions required that a count

be made of the number of facilities at the camp, such as the number of

shower heads or mechanical washers, as well as the condition of these

facilities. Conditions associated with good sanitary practice were

recorded, such as the existence of screens and the availability of

containers with tightfitting lids for solid waste disposal.

'. In answering questions pertaining to general sanitary conditions,

the interviewer would merely note the occurrence or nonoccurrence of

the pertinent condition. For a camp to be recorded as meeting a particular

sanitary standard, all the facilities of the camp would have to exceed

the standard. For example, all of the occupied units would have to

have screens in good repair if the camp was to be considered as having

screens. Similarly, if one housing unit did not provide heat to its

occupants, the camp was classified as not providing heat to all occupants.

In some of the questions, the interviewer was required to

subjectively judge some aspect of a facility, such as whether the bedding

was clean, if the water used for laundry was hot, if the bathing facilities

were clean, etc. Prior to the actual trips, all the members of the

survey team made simultaneous visits to two camps in Maryland in order

to encourage a uniform consensus in their judgments. Unfortunately,

due to the brief time allowed for preparing for the field visits, the

survey team was unable to view a sufficient number or variety of camps.

12
A sumnary of the survey team's findings is shown in Appendix A.

A discussion of these findings is given in Section 5.0.

13
-A: 3.0. CONSTRUCTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE

3.1. Background to the Development of the Questionnaire

CHS desired that the present study provide a survey design which

would aid in the assessment of the sanitar>^ conditions of farm labor canps.

The first survey was designed to be conducted by laymen with the assistance

of professionally trained sanitarians.

The data acquired in this study and any future similar studies is

intended for use by CHS in planning and evaluating its migrant health

program. A basic assunption for the study is that there is a relationship

between sanitary conditions of migrant housing and the health of the

migrant farm workers. The survey was intended to assess only the living

and sanitary conditions of migrant housing which pertained to health and

disease control.

Familiarity with the following were required in the construction

of the questionnaire:

1. Current regulations relating to migrant farm labor canps,

2. A knowledge of generally accepted sanitary practices, and

3. Information about the living habits and life style of migrants.

The NBS survey team was assisted by several well known authorities in the

design of the survey. Although a number of prominent specialists were

consulted, three principal advisors were used. These were:

Mr. Paul Agnano, Rural Health Branch, Community Health Service,

Professor John Cookson, Department of Engineering, University of

Maryland, and

Mr. Boren Chertkov, Former legal counsel for the Senate Subcommittee

on Migrant and Seasonal Farm Worker Powerlessness.

14
These advisors provided the NBS staff with the necessary background information used to devise the questionnaire. They identified the following

basic references for the questions included in the questionnaire.

The first three references deal with migrant housing and the findings of past surveys, while the remaining ones contain administrative or

regulatory provisions for migrant housing.

1. "Pieces and Scraps: Farm Labor Housing in the United States,"

by Lee P. Reno, Rural Housing Alliance, September 1970.

Lib. Cong. No. 79-141814.

2. "Michigan Housing Report," Migrant Research Project and the

United Migrants for Opportunity, Inc., May 1970.

3. "Hearings from the Senate Subcommittee on Migrant and Seasonal

Farmworker Powerlessness." July 1970.

4. "Occipational Safety and Health Standards," Subpart J, "General

Environmental Controls," OSHA, Department of Labor, Federal

Register, Vol. 37, No. 202, October 18, 1972.

5. "Migratory Labor Camp Laws, Rules and Regulations," Texas State

Department of Health.

6. "Housing for Migrant Agricultural Workers, Labor Canp Standards,"

Department of Labor, Bulletin 235 (Revised) November 1962.

7. "Housing for Agricultural Workers," Part 620 of Chapter V,

Title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Federal Register,

Vol. 33, No. 213, October 31, 1968.

8. "Federal and State Statutes Relating to Farmworkers, A

Conpilation," report prepared for the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor of the Committee of Labor and Public Welfare,

U. S. Senate, December 1972.

9. "APHA-FHS Recommended Housing Maintenance and Occiq)ancy

Ordinance," Department of HEW, PHS Publication No. 1935,

1969.

10. "California Administrative Code, Title 25, Chapter 2, Employee

Housing," State of California, January 27, 1973.

15
After an examination o£ the above documents and discussions vdth the

advisors, it was decided that the survey instrument should be a checklist,

modeled after current state inspection forms. The same inspection forms

are designed to aid a sanitarian in determining whether the sanitary and

living conditions in a farm labor canp meet minimum legal standards. The

checklist format is especially sinple for laymen to use in evaluating

canps. Examples of the checklist forms used by inspectors in New York

and Texas are shown in Appendix C.

A preliminary checklist was developed from the source documents.

An especially useful publication was the Department of Labor Bulletin,

Nuirber 235, "Housing for Migrant Agricultural Workers, Labor Canp

Standards." This document contained a synopsis of state regulations

relating to migratory labor canps. A checklist which contained a

reasonable listing of minimum standards was developed with the assistance

of this bulletin and the descriptions of the Texas and California Codes.

3. 2. Testing and Redevelopment of the Contents of the Checklist

The first checklist developed was tested in two canps in Maryland.

Several of the questions, taken from the above documents, were found to

be awkward and susceptible to misinterpretation. In addition some questions

were difficult to answer. The checklist was revised, and questions such

as, "will the heating device maintain 65°F?" were eliminated or replaced

with non-quantitative questions such as, "is the heating device adequate?"

The revised checklist contained ten sections. These were:

A. General Information F. Housing and Screening

B. Water Supply G. Living/Sleeping Quarters

C. Toilets or Pri"vies H. Cooking Facilities

D. Bathing and Laundry Facilities I. Garbage Disposal

E. Sewage Disposal J. General Canp Area.

16
The new form was then tested in six canps in New Jersey. While still not

conpletely satisfactory, it was judged to be adequate for purposes of this

first survey. The coiipleted form used in the survey is shown in Appendix B.

3. 3. Description of Questionnaire Sections

The following is a description of each section of the questionnaire

including some of the information that the survey team hoped to acquire

when asking the questions.

3.3.1. General Information

This section contained nine questions pertaining to the surveyed

canp. It was anticipated that a state or local official would acconpany

the NBS interviewer to the canp, and that this information could be

obtained from their records. Questions pertaining to the type of crop

or to the type of migrants in the canp were included in the belief that

a subsequent analysis might indicate a relationship between canp sanitation

and these factors.

3.3.2. Water Sipply

This section was designed mainly to evaluate the supply of drinking

water. The two items which occur most frequently in state and federal

regulations on drinking water are potability of the water and adequacy

of the system. Since tests for these factors can only be done by

professional sanitarians, seven questions were devised which served as

surrogate questions for potability and adequacy.

17
3.3.3. Toilets and Privies

Questions in this section deal primarily with the cleanliness and

number of toilets and privies. Most states have some standards requiring

that those facilities be shielded from disease carrying insects and still

be readily available for use by the canp occupants.

3.3.4. Bathing and Laundry Facilities

This section is designed to aid the interviewer in recording the

cleanliness and availability of bathing and laundry facilities. Questions

were also included on the availability of hot water and the provision for

waste water runoff. The first groi^) of questions was intended to determine

if the facilities were close enough to living quarters to encourage good

sanitary practices by migrants. The questions on waste water runoff were

designed to determine if the canp contained possible breeding grounds for

disease carrying insects.

3.3.5. Sewage Disposal

A nunfcer of the questions in this section were removed after it was

found that an evaluation could not be made by laymen. The questions

included such factors as the adequacy of the drain field and its

proximity to the water supply. The changes are discussed in the section

on proposed inprovements in the checklist.

3.3.6. Housing and Screening rvjv: ^

This section deals with the types of living quarters and materials

used in the construction of the housing. The questions were designed to

18
determine whether certain desirable mininiiim features were present in the

housing. Since structural soundness is a difficult item to assess in

checklist form, the interviewer was encouraged to write qualitative remarks

on the structure. The remarks would be based on the interviewer's

observations and his limited knowledge of construction material.

3.3.7. Li"ving/Sleeping Quarters

This section was used to assess overcrowding and cleanliness in

the housing units, but overcrowding was difficult to assess in the field

survey. It was not possible to view all of the living quarters in canps

with a large number of buildings. In addition, it was difficult for a

layman to measure living space in a brief survey. As a result, the

questions on overcrowding were not as conplete as the survey team would

have desired. A typical problem found in the field survey was that it

was not possible to determine the number of migrants using a bed.

3.3.8. Cooking Facilities

Most of the questions in this section were concerned with cooking

facilities in shared kitdiens. The questions enphasized factors that

could promote the spread of disease among non- family members. In

addition, questions were included on items such as the availability of

hot and cold water and the presence of vermin in areas used to store

food.

3.3.9. Garbage Disposal

Questions in this section were designed to determine whether the

garbage facilities were adequate. Questions on the frequency of garbage

19

I
removal could not easily be answered so surrogate questions were used.

One area, relating to central garbage facilities, was investigated at

length.

3.3.10. General Camp Area

This section contained six questions on general canp-wide conditions. These items appear in nearly all relevant state and federal

regulations.

20
4.0. SAMPLING PROCEDURE AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS*

4.1. Background of the Sanpling Plan

In deriving a sanpling plan for the survey, it was determined that

the only feasible approach, given the constraints in time, was to consider

only a segment of the United States as tne population. The segment

consisted of counties within five states. The states selected usually

had the largest concentration of open migrant camps for its particular

region of the United States. The procedure used in selecting the states

is described in Section 2.0, while the states visited are shown in

Table 2.1. Within each of these states a minimum of at least two and

occasionally three counties were visited. The localities chosen in each

state were the areas having the highest known concentration of canps

open during May 1973.

Since the states and counties within the state were not selected at

random from each region, the findings from the field visits cannot

technically be generalized to the remainder of a region or to the

country as a whole. However, since the segment studied contained

especially large concentrations of canps , it is felt that the findings

are a reasonably good indication of the present state of migrant canps.

4.2. Selection of Canps and Method of Analysis

The sanpling plan considered each of the counties as a stratum

or a subunit of the population of canps studied. Within each stratum

a sanple of canps was selected according to a modified random procedure.

* The statistical procedures and notations follow the discussion on sanplin

by Kish (1)

21
Estimates of the population mean and an associated standard estimate o£

the mean was confuted for each strata. The separate estimates were then

combined to provide an estimate of the total population of canps in the

segment of the United States that was studied.

A major advantage of stratification is that the sanpling rate for

each stratum can be varied. In combining the separate estimates across

strata to obtain an estimate of the total population, the estimate obtained

from each stratum can be weighted according to the proportion of camps in

the total population located in that particular stratum.

With each stratum, the sequence of procedures was to first list

all migrant canps in that county which met the criteria of having a

legal capacity of 20 or more migrants, and which were believed to be

open at the time of the survey.* This listing was taken from the list of

all carrps sent to NBS by state officials. Then six can^s were selected

from the list for each day that the investigator planned to visit a

particular county. This selection process produced the sanple of canps

that were to be visited. - •

- '^-^

In a number of counties the local sanitarian expressed a desire to

show the investigator additional canps that had not been randomly selected.

The investigator recorded his observations for these non-random canps on

the survey instrument, following the same procedures ho used for the

randomly selected canps. A separate data analysis was made for these

* A camp listed as open meant only that the owner was legally eligible to

open the canp if he wanted to at the end of May. Many eligible camps

were not actually open since the owner's labor requirements were met by

farm laborers permanently residing in the community.

22
camps, since it was recognized that the sanitarian may have been biased

in his selection of cainps. The analysis used for these can^s is discussed

at the end of this section.

The selection process was designed to allow each eligible can^ an

equal chance of being included in the sanple of canps to be visited. The

only exception to this was that once a caiip had been selected it was not

eligible to be picked again in subsequent choices. The random selection

without replacement was acconplished with the aid of a table of random

permutations (an exanple of which is shown in i^pendix D) . A correction

factor for selecting canps without replacement was included in the formula

for the standard error of the mean.

The responses to the questions were scored in one of three ways.

Questions which proAdded descriptive information on the types of canps

visited such as capacity, types of crops grown, etc. , were tallied and

categorized according to frequency. Replies to questions that required

a yes or no answer were processed by assigning a value of 1 to each yes

reply and a value of 0 to each no reply. In a number of canps the yes /no

question was not applicable, or could not be answered. In these cases,

only those camps for which the question was applicable were used in

conputing the means and standard errors.

The results of questions to which a numerical response was required

were converted into a ratio consisting of the number of units available

to the total authorized capacity of the canp. Although the actual

number of occupants at a canp might be less than the camp's capacity, the

canp owner was still required to provide facilities for the legal capacity

of the canp.

23
4.3. Conputational Formulae Enployed in Analysis

The mean for each stratum was confuted for each question. The mean

for the numerical replies were confuted as follows

:^>' Foimila lA

n

1 s - . X ' = —Z where x ' is the estimate of the population mean derived

o n X o

f X- s from a random sanple of can^s visited within a stratum.

The mean reply for questions resulting in a yes/no answer was

conputed as

Formula IB

n n

1 s s x^' = —2y = p' where Ey is the number of canps in a stratum that were

s sanpled that replied with a yes ansj^er. p' is the

s

" proportion resulting from diAdding Zy by n^.

Following the confutation of the mean for each question in a stratum the

associated standard error for that sample mean was confuted. The formula

for the standard error for the numerical replies was:

. ' - / •. r r.; Formula 2A i . n^

Est. s.E. ') = Fa -

" ^o'^V

"

" L s n K - 1

' J

where is the total number of canps in the county

which met all the survey requirements.

The standard error for questions requiring a yes /no answer was:

Formula 2B

Est. S.E. (p') = kl - (P'CI - P')

s n - 1

24

1/ 2
The two standard error formulas are familiar formulas for the computation of the standard error with the exception of the first term on

the right which is a correction term for sampling from a finite population

without replacement.

Many of the canps listed as open during May by the state authorities

were not actually open, due to inclement weather, difficulties in obtaining

migrant labor, etc. To derive an estimate of N^, the proportion of canps

actually found to be open was multiplied by the number of potentially

open canps in the county. For exanple, the NBS investigator might have

been given a list of 12 camps to visit from a possible 60 canps in a county.

If only 9 of the 12 camps were actually found to be open, the fraction

9/12 was multiplied by 60 to obtain an estimated 45 canps open in the

county.

After the derivation of the mean and standard error of the mean for

each stratum, a mean and standard error was computed for the entire

sanple by combining the estimates across all of the strata. This combination included a weighting factor to allow for differences in the number

of canps contained in each county. The weighting factor increased the

influence of communities which contained large numbers of camps. The

weighting factor was

Formula 5

N

w^ = ^ where N is total number of eligible open canps in the

segment of the United States that was studied.

R

N = EN where R is the number of stratum.

25
The conputation of the weighted combination is given by:

Formula 4

X

R

= Ew,

'h X where x^' is the weighted estimate of the mean of the

w o entire population obtained from all of the strata visited

The conputation of the standard error for the weighted mean is given by:

Formula 5

The means and standard errors for each question were derived for

each stratum and combined according to formulas 4 and 5. The results are

shown in tabular form in Appendix A and are discussed in Section 5,

The findings are provided only for the entire population studied rather

than for individual stratum. This decision was made since in some

counties visited there were only a few canps open at the end of May.

Presenting means for this small a sar/ple would have revealed information

on individual canps. The NBS representative had assured the canp owners

that data on individual canps would be kept confidential.

The above account describes the treatment of data obtained from

canps chosen by a random sanpling technique. Data collected from canps

which were chosen by the local sanitarians were not included in this

analysis since it was felt that the selection of these canps may have

been dictated by the biases of the sanitarian to show especially good or

especially poor canps in his community. However, means were conputed on

the data collected at the non- randomly selected canps according to Formula

1. A conbined mean was then conputed in which each county visited was

Est. S.E. (^') = Ewj^^ (1 - ^s)

26
given an equal v/eight. These means are reported separately from the means

derived from the randomly selected canps.

27
5.0. REVIEW OF SURVEY FINDINGS

5.1. Overview

Each part of the questionnaire will be examined and the essential

results discussed in the following review of the survey findings. Where

appropriate, a reference will be made to state or federal regulations

with remarks on how the findings pertain to the regulation. Comparisons

will be made between the results of data collected from the random

selections of camps and camps to which the local sanitarian directed the

NBS investigator. The latter are referred to as non- random camps.

5.2. Sections of the Survey

5.2.1. Water Supply

Most state and federal regulations (2) require an adequate and

convenient supply of water. Standards for the quality of the water is

established by the local health authority. However, in 221 (7%)* of the

randomly selected camps, no water sample had been taken in the first

five months of 1973. All of these camps were occupied, and the wa'^:er was

being used without any assurance that it was safe.

As shown in Figure 5.1, the principal water source is a well

in 621 of the random camps and 56% of the non-random camps. It should

be noted that 281 (4%) of the randomly selected camps had wells which

were not properly sealed. These camps, as well as the 141 using cisterns.

* The figures in the parenthesis are the standard error of the mean

values. There is a 95% probability that the population mean lies in

a range between the sample mean and +_ 2 standard errors.

28
could be prime sources of water carried diseases if water purification

practices were inadequate.

Random Non- Random

Figure 5.1. Sources of Water Supply

A surprising 23^ of the randoi.i and 40% of the non-random camps were

linked to a public water simply. It may be assumed that this source

water is safe. All of the canps had water which was judged by the

interviewers to be clean and clear looking. Only one canp in each of the

random and non- random sanples had a public drinking cup.

A question was included as to whether a resident of the caiip had to

walk more than 100 feet to get a drink of cold water. Only 2% (0.21) of

the residents in the randomly selected canps had to walk more than 100

feet as conpared to 17% in the non-random canps. However, in 16% (1%) of

the random canps, the water supply was not working on the day the camp was

visited. Thus, in nearly 1/5 of all the canps, fresh water was not

readily available to the canp occipants.

As shown in Figure 5.2, 37% (8%) of the randomly selected canps

had water piped directly into the camp living quarters. However, this

was true for only 23% of the non-randomly selected canps. This question

29
was included since the shorter the distance that water must be carried

the less likely that it will become contaminated.

100

80 -

60

40

20 -.

Random Non- Random

23^

Figure 5.2. Percentage of Caiips with Water

Piped into Living Quarters

5.2.2. Toilets and Privies

An interesting finding of the survey was the decreased use of

privies. In some states, such as California, privies are illegal, and

growers must provide chemical toilets. The original questionnaire was

not prepared for this, so question El was rephrased to read: "Are there

any privies in this canp?" A surprising 86% (61) of the camps did not

have a single privy. The large number of canps without privies prevented

analysis of question C5 and C7 which were designed for canps with privies

Question C4 confirmed these findings on privies because in the random

sanple 851 of the toilets were flush toilets, while only 15% were privies

In the non-random sanple, 75% had flush toilets while 25% used privies.

However, toilet facilities for the migrants are far from ideal.

Eighty percent (7%) of these facilities are shared. They were generally

large washrooms in which the toilets, showers, lavatories, urinals and,

occasionally, laundry facilities were combined. Such a washroom may be

30
in the same building as the living quarters, but it was more frequently

part of a separate building. This required the migrant to walk outside

his living unit to use the washroom.

Twenty percent (71) of the canps had toilets in individual living

units. Of these, 491 had the only available drinking water tap in the

same room as the toilet.

Nearly all states have regulations regarding the maximum distance

a resident of a migrant canq? should have to walk to use the toilet

facilities. Federal requirements establish a maximum distance of 200

feet (2) . The survey indicated that 961 (2%) of the canps were in

conpliance with this standard.

Ninety-two percent (8%) of the toilet buildings (or rooms) had

ti^tfitting doors. The data further show that 16% (13%) of the randomly

selected canps lacked ventilation in the toilet rooms. In the nonrandomly selected canps only 51 showed a similar lack of proper ventilation. The canps did not do as well with regard to the screening of

toilet facilities. Figure 5.3 shows that 21% (8%) of the randomly

selected canps had unscreened openings. In the non- random canps, the

figure rises to 42%.

Federal regulations (2) state that, "an adequate and accessive

supply of toilet tissue, with holders shall be furnished." This

requirement is not found in most state codes for migrant housing.

Question C14, did not require the surveyer to record whether there was

paper and holder in every water closet, but only whether there was some

toilet paper available. Still, 36% (7%) of the randomly selected camps

and 51% of the non-randomly selected canps had no toilet paper available.

31
Non- Random

m

. . ' , Figure 5.3. Percentage o£ Camps with Inadequately

Screened Toilet Facilities

Various state regulations require from 1 toilet per 10 people

to 1 toilet per 25 people in a canp. The federal regulation (2) requires

at least 1 toilet seat for each 15 occupants. The survey showed that

there was, on the average for all canps, 1 toilet seat for every 15.6

residents. It should be noted that some of the canps did not meet

the federal regulations. One canp did not even have any usable toilets.

' Toilets can be one of the most serious sources of communicable

diseases in a migrant labor canp. Yet, 26% (21) of the facilities were

either dirty or foul smelling. In the non-randomly selected canps, the

figure was 30%. Poor maintenance and lack of local enforcement was

the probable reason for the condition of the toilets. The canp owner

frequently blamed the migrant and held him responsible for cleaning the

facilities. In some states, such as California, the canp manager is

required to designate a laborer to clean the facilities. Nevertheless,

the final responsibility for the cleanliness of a shared toilet facility

belongs to the owner.

100 "

80

60

40

20 +

Random

m

W7a

-hi
5.2.3. Bathing and Laundry Facilities

As with toilet facilities, 22% (6%) of the living quarters had

bathing and laundry facilities with hot and cold running water. Answers

to questions CI and Dl show that full services are provided when plumbing

to individual quarters is available. The primary type of bathing facility

was showers (89^) . Only 91 of the canps had tubs. Two percent of the

canps offered both showers and tubs. These figures applied to non-random

canps as well. Hot water was available in 91% (61) of the caries, and

all but one canp had some type of bathing facility available.

A migrant farm laborer spends much of his working time in the

fields exposed to dust, dirt and pesticides, some of which may be harmful

to him. Yet, in over 28% (13%) of the canps, the migrant had to walk

more than 100 feet to bathe. This is usually an outdoor walk to an

unheated facility. It is unusual for the owner to provide a changing

room, and 20% (7%) of the time there were not even hooks to hang clothes

on in the shower room. In 28% (14%) of the cases, water formed pools

due to inproper drainage on the shower room floor; and in 15% of the

bathing facilities the floor was dirt rather than cement or wood required

by most state regulations. Figures 5.4 to 5.6 depict these situations.

It is possible then, that a migrant may have to walk a great

distance in inclement weather to an overcrowded shower room where he has

to lay his clothes on a wet, dirt floor while he bathes.

Finally, 23% (13%) of the facilities were judged to be unclean

(dirty or foul smelling) , and 14% (13%) had waste water draining onto

the surface rather than into some approved sewer or septic system.

33
100 t

80

60 --

40 --

20

Random

281

Non- Random

10°^

Figure 5.4. Percentage of Camps where the Migrant

Must Walk More than 100 ft. to Bathe

100

j: 80

60

40

20

Figure 5.5.

Random Non- Random

411

20%

/A

Percentage of Camps where There Are No

Hooks for Hanging Clothes

Random

100

80

60

40

20

Non-Random

91%

74%

11%

15%

s.

/A

9%

4r

Figure 5.6. Types of Floors Found in Bathing Facilities

34
Laundry and bathing facilities are often combined, and much of

what has been said about the condition of the bathing facilities applies

to laundry facilities as well. The average number of laundry tubs

available in a camp with laundry tubs was 1 for every 15.8 migrants.

However, in 33% of the canps no tubs were provided at all. Indeed, in

17% (9%) of the camps, hot water was not available for laundering and as

with the bathing facilities the percentage of canps with surface drainage

of waste water was hig^ 19% (15%) . Ninety percent of the laundry

facilities had cement floors while 10% had dirt floors.

5.2.4. Sewage Disposal

The sewage systems were not observed to be inoperative in any

of the camps. Waste water was not seen to form pools on the ground, and

from what could be determined, sewage disposal was not a health problem

in the cajips visited.

5.2.5. Housing and Screening

A variety of housing types enploying a number of forms of building

material were provided for the migrants. Two hundred and ten buildings

in 20 randomly selected canps and 128 buildings in 21 non-randomly

selected canps were observed. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 show the type of

housing used by migrants. Tables 5.3 and 5.4 show the principal

construction material enployed.

35
Table 5.1. Types o£ Housing Shown as a Percentage of the

Total Number of Housing Units Observed

Random Non- Random

Cabins , Small Houses

Motel Style

Large Houses

Barracks Style

Others

171

20

3

14

2_

210

(8U)

(10 )

( 1 ) ( 7 )

( 1 ) iTooy

75 (59°^)

30 (23 ) 21 (16 ) 2 (15 ) 0

128 (100)

Table 5.2. Types of Housing Found in Migrant Labor Caiips

Cabins, Small Houses

Motel Style -•' >:- Large Houses

Barricks Style - Other

Random

16 camps

11 canps

2 cairps

5 canps

2 canps

(551)*

(38 )

( 6 ) (17 ) ( 7 )

Non- Random

6 camps (301)*

14 canps (70 ) 2 canps (10 ) 9 canps (45 ) 1 camp ( 5 )

Table 5.3. Principal Construction Material of Housing Shown

as a Percentage of the Total Building Surveyed

Random Non- Random

Wood

Cinder Block

Metal

Masonry

171

20

10

9

(SU)

(10 )

( 5 ) ( 4 )

81

20

2 25

(631)

(16 ) (1.5)

(19.5)

*Since some of the camps include more than one type of building and are constructed of different materials, the percentages in Tables 5.2 and

5.4 total to more than 100.

36
Table 5.4. Principal Construction Materials Used in Migrant

Labor Canp Buildings

Random Non- Random

Wood

Cinder Block

I^tal

Masonry

20 caji^s

10 canps

5 canps

2 canps

(69%)* 12 canps (60%)*

(35 ) 13 canps (65 ) (17 ) 1 camp ( 5 )

( 7 ) 6 canps (30 )

Cabins are the most comnran form of housing, while wood is the

principal construction material. There seems to be a trend towards the

use of motel style units constructed of cinder blocks in the newer canps.

The survey team reported that the housing was in good or average

condition. There was no mention of unsound buildings in their reports.

None of the living quarters had dirt floors or showed evidence of leaking

roofs. Nearly all the housing viewed by the survey team conplied with the

federal regulations requiring living units to be, "so located as to

prevent the entrance of ground and surface water" (2). Also, electricity

was available in every one of the housing units that was visited.

A problem referred to in previous surveys was the lack of

tightfitting screened doors and windows. The NBS survey supported these

reports. Buildings without tightfitting doors were found in 23 percent

(141) of the canps. One-third (41) of the canps did not have self-closing

devices on the screen doors as required by many state regulations.

Screen doors were not provided at all in 491 (141) of the canps. This

can be serious since open doors are often the major source of ventilation

*Since some of the canps included more than one type of building and are constructed of different materials, the percentages in Tables 5.2 and

5.4 total to more than 100.

37
in a housing unit on hot days. IMscreened doors, left open for ventilation

provide an easy source of entry for insects and disease carrying rodents.

Figure 5.7 shows that on questions relating to windows and screens

there were few differences between the random and non-random canps.

Nearly all state regulations require windows to be screened with at least

16 mesh screening. Actually, 19 percent (61) did not meet this requirement. Sixteen percent (10%) of the screens were in some state of

disrepair. Also, the windows in 19 percent (6%) of the canps would not

open at least half way. .....

100 --

80 --

60

40

20

Random Non-Random

19% 18% 19% 21% 26%

01

171

Figure 5.7. Conparison of Random vs. Non- Random Canps on Items

of Windows, Screens and Repairs

The absence of screens, non- fitted doors, etc., meant that the

migrants had no adequate protection against mosquitos and rodents. This

was especially serious in canps where poor refuse disposal allowed the

conditions for the breeding of disease bearing insects and rodents.

38
5.2.6. Living/Sleeping Quarters

This section was originally designed to determine the degree of

overcrowding. Most o£ the remarks that were recorded indicated that overcrowding was not a problem. However, in six canps a notation was made

that there would be extreme crowding if the canps were to accommodate

their listed capacity.

All of the state and relevant federal regulations, (2) require a

minimum seven- foot ceiling height in occipied rooms. Yet in 8% (6%) of

the camps, rooms with less than this minimum were found. There was,

however, 100^ observance of two other widely accepted regulations that

there should not be more than two tiers of bunk beds and that cots should

be at least 12 inches off the floor. Ninety-three percent (22%) of the

beds that were seen had metal frames. No substandard or unacceptable bed

frames were found. In 821 (3%) of the canps, the owner provided bedding

and/or mattresses. However, in 28% (18%) of the camps, the linen was

observed to be extremely dirty. There was only one canp, however, in

which there was any obvious indication of vermin.

The housing units that were visited appeared to be adequately

heated. About 75% (6%) had some heating devices. The remaining 25% of

the canps, were either not open during the cold season, or were located

in a climate that was reasonably warm all year.

One of the most undesirable aspects of "bullpen" housing units

is the lack of space to store personal effects. Sixty-nine percent (8%)

of the canps did not provide any place to store personal items such as

tooth paste, soap, razors, etc. Similarly, 48% (18%) of the canps did not

provide any place to hang clothes.

39
100 Random Non- Random

80 691

60

40

20 MNo

241 19%

Personal

Storage

No

Place to

Hang

Clothes

No No

Personal Place to

Storage Hang

Clothes

Figure 5.8. Conparison of Random vs. Non-Random Canps on Devices for Storing Personal Items and Hanging Clothes

5.2.7. Common Cooking Facilities

Shared kitchens, or eating areas, may be primary places for

disease transmission. Yet 22% (181) of the kitchens were not clean

In some camps, open, overflowing garbage cans and flies were observed

near the cooking area.

Every kitchen surveyed had hot and cold running water for washing

dishes and a refrigerator for storing food. However, in 251 (18%)

of the cases there were indications that the refrigerator would not keep

the food cold even though most states require that the tenperature be

kept under 45°. .

Only 491 (18%) of the canps provided adequate food storage space.

This requirement was especially inportant since exposed food could

attract rodents and disease carrying insects.

40
5.2.8. Garbage Disposal

Only 59% (13%) of the canps provided fly-tight, rodent-tight and

durable garbage cans. Only 261 (15%) of these canps made garbage can lids

available. As a result the majority of the canps seen had exposed garbage

cans vdiich can draw flies , mosquitos , and rats

A few canps had no central disposal facility but used trash

removal service instead. In 14% of the canps, the occi:5)ants had to walk

more than 100 feet to dispose of their garbage. The central facilities

consisted of dunpsters (63%) , separate buildings (9%) , and other (28%)

The other fomis of central facilities were open pits, dunps, or uncovered

trucks. The latter facilities can become breeding grounds for rodents

and insects. An especially serious factor was that in 34% of the canps

the central garbage facility was within 100 feet of a kitchen.

5.2.9. General Canp Area

All state regulations require that the canp area be well drained

and free from standing water. However, 19% (2%) of the canps were judged

to have poor drainage. In addition, 41% (13%) had uncontrolled weed

growth, and 18% (6%) had holes of at least five feet in diameter in which

water could stand after a rain. Sixty- one percent (16%) of the canps had

garbage and debris strewn about. This was strong evidence of the

generally poor maintenance practiced at some of the canps.

•41
6.0. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO PROCEDURES

^ FOR CONDUCTING THE SURVEY

6.1. Purpose of Field Investigation

One purpose of the field investigation was to determine what problems

might arise in a longer survey, and what procedures could be adopted to

inprove the accuracy of any longer survey. The following are suggestions

for inproving the procedures for any major national survey of migrant

housing. ^

' ''"--'''^ y^'- .,_>;:;.. v-hi::

6.2. Suggested Changes to Procedures

6.2.1. Members of the Survey Team

The information obtained for the survey should be collected

exclusively by members of the survey team. They should not, for exanple,

rely on external sources for water sairples or on the canp owner to provide

information on how solid waste was disposed of after it was removed from

the camp. This change is suggested due to the possible inaccuracies of

these sources and to inadequacies in the documentation of their tests.

In lieu of collecting data from these sources, it is suggested that the

survey team include one or more professionally trained sanitarians who

could perform any needed tests. : '•

If all data obtained for the survey were produced by the survey

team, there would be greater consistency in the results and conparisons

would not be confounded by testing methods, disparate definitions,

scaling differences, etc.

42
6.2.2. Time of Visit to Migrant Camps

The timing of the visits by the members of the survey team should

be adjusted to reflect the stage of occupancy of the camps. Although

some can^DS are open all year and include both permanent residents and

migrants, most migrant labor canps are open only part of the year. The

population of the camps tends to increase as the labor demands of the

grower increase - usually reaching a maximum at harvest time. A common

occurrence is that the available housing is not sufficient when there is

a large influx of migrants. At such time, the grower may use improvised

housing such as tents, or he may employ housing that has not met minimum

legal standards. These high influx periods of migrant population may be

extremely short - lasting from two to three weeks. If the survey does not

include these periods, it may not detect some of the extreme conditions

in migrant housing.

Another factor in adapting the survey to the camp habitation

cycle is to consider the period of time during which the canp has been

inhabited. Maintenance and care of the canps are minimal in many cases.

The deterioration of the camps is increased by the overcrowding and poor

sanitary habits of some of the occupants. Viewing the housing during an

early stage of occi^ancy can result in a false inference that the camp

conditions are better than they actually are during its entire period of

use.

In future surveys, the nucleus of the survey team should function

through the calendar year; it could be increased by short term hires as

43
the demands for survey members increased. The visits to migrant canps

would be designed so a record could be made of the camp's condition during

each phase of its occupancy: (a) prior to occiq)ancy; (b) at an early stage

of occupancy; (c) at peak occupancy; and finally, (d) during a later stage

of occupancy, before the camp closes. Data collected from these successive

stages would insure that any trends in sanitary conditions ate note4.

6.2.3. Collection of Data From Isolated Cairps

It is conceivable that housing conditions are especially bad for

isolated camps . The plight of the migrant in an isolated migrant camp , is

less likely to receive public attention.

In order to insure that these camps are represented in any larger

survey, it is suggested that a stratified survey design be enployed. One

level of the stratification would be the concentration of camps in the

localities surveyed. The sanpling rate within a stratum can be adjusted

for the costs of collecting data within that stratum - for exanple, a

smaller proportion of camps would be sanpled for isolated camps than for

camps located in areas of a high concentration of canps.

6.2.4. Consistency of Reports Made by the Interviewers

A feature noted in the description of the procedures was that

only some of the questions required operational procedures such as

measuring the distance between buildings. Replies to the other questions

required a subjective judgment by the interviewer. The particular disadvantage of this practice as it pertains to this first survey, is that

only one member of the NBS survey team would go to a locality such as a

44
state or county. Therefore, conclusion about the cainps in that locale

might be due to biases of the interviewer visiting the locality rather than

to the camps themselves.

In any future survey, a series of techniques should be employed

to minimize interviewer bias. These could include: (a) A reduction in

the number of questions requiring subjective judgment, (b) Exposure of all of

the survey team to a variety of canps during a training stage in order to

insure that they respond to similar aspects of the caries in the same way,

(c) Normalization of interviewer's responses. Responses of an interviewer

in a locality will be made relative to the average of all his responses,

including those made in other localities. The normalized score would

eliminate any biases ascribable to tendencies of the interviewer such as

leniency, (d) If feasible, replications of the survey would be made at

the same canp by different interviewers. Interviewers' peculiarities

would be minimized by averaging judgments across interviewers for the

same canp.

45
7.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

7.1. Purpose of the Development of Test Instrument

One major purpose of the study was to field test a survey instrument

which could be used by the survey team in evaluating migrant housing. It

was felt that as field experience with the questionnaire was gained an

improved version could be designed for future surveys. The checklist

developed for the survey had serious shortcomings-—some of \diich could

not have been anticipated before the field visits.

7.2. Suggested Changes to Questionnaire

7.2.1. Measure of Overcrowding

A principal deficiency of the survey instrument was its inability

to provide a quantitative measure of overcrowding. More time should be

spent in each canp, and the survey form should be expanded to allow for

the recording of dimensions of typical structures in the canp. In canps

where there are a large number of buildings the interviewers could

randomly select building units to visit. He would then record the number

of occi5)ants and the dimensions of the sleeping rooms in these units.

7.2.2. Measure of Ventilation

Related to the overcrowding of rooms is the adequacy of window

space and ventilation. The literature on migrant camps indicate that poor

ventilation is a prime source of the poor health of migrants. An index

of adequate ventilation would require recording the dimensions of an

inordinately large number of rooms. One possible solution might be the

use of the random sampling technique proposed for overcrowding so that

valid data could be obtained without measuring each living unit.

46
7.2.3. Types of Questionnaires Used

At least two types of questionnaires should be devised - one

for family type caii^s and one for single person canps. Some of the

data in the completed survey was ambiguous because this distinction was

not made. Similarly, two sections on kitchen facilities should be

included. The number of burners available for cookijig, for exanple, is

inportant only if the migrant prepares his own food and must share a

communal stove—but it is not inportant if the canp has a cook who prepares

food for everyone.

7.2.4. Enlargement of Sewage Disposal Section

The sewage disposal section in the survey form should be expanded.

Qualified sanitarians should contribute to this section in order that the

essential factors pertaining to the spread of contagious disease are

included.

Garbage disposal was also inadequately treated in the survey.

Questions should be included to determine the frequency of collection and

the ultimate disposal of the garbage. Answers to these questions might

be facilitated by unnanounced repeat visits to the canps.

47
8.0. REFERENCES

1. Kish, Leslie, Selection of the Sanple. In Festinger, L. and Katz,

D. (Editors) "Research Methods in the Behavioral Sciences,"

Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York 1953.

2. "Housing for Agricultural Workers". Part 620 of Chapter V, Title 20

of the Code of Federal Regulations, Federal Register, Vol. 33,

No. 213, October 31, 1968.

48
APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF DATA ANALYSIS

A-1
QUESTIONS

Number of

Responses

R NR

Percentage

of Yes

Answers

N NR

Percentage

of No

Answers

_R_ J NR

Al

A2

A3

A4,

AS,

A6,

A7,

A8.

A9.

Bl.

B2.

B3.

B4.

B5.

B6

B7

*R

**NR

Has this camp been licensed or

certified by a state or local

official?

See page A-9.

See page A-9.

See page A-9.

See page A-9.

See page A-9.

Was a water sample taken in

calendar year 1973?

Was the sample positive?

SI H{

See page A-9.

See page A-9.

If a well, is it sealed?

Is the water clear?

Does each set of living/sleepin

quarters have its own piped-in

drinking water?

Are there living/sleeping

quarters more than 100 feet

from the nearest cold drinking

water?

Are public or common drinking

cups used?

Is the water system at this

camp operating today?

29

29

25

20

29

28

28

28

26

21

13

23

22

23

23

22

99! 90!

78

1

100

72

100

37

84

Responses from random selected camps.

Responses fron non-random selected camps

85

96

23

17

94

95

1%

22

99

28

0

63

98

16

10%

0

100

15

4

77

83

96

5

6.6

0.6

3.6

0.0

0.2

6.1

1.3

A2
QUESTIONS

:2.

C5.

C6.

C7.

C8.

C9.

'ClO

Cll

C12

C13

C14

Does each living/sleeping

quarter have its own toilet?

I£ yes, is it enclosed?

If yes, is the only drinking

water for the living/sleeping

quarter in the toilet room?

See page A- 9.

Could not be analyzed due to

lack of data.

Does any resident walk more

than 200 feet to the nearest

toilet or privy?

Could not be analyzed due to

lack of data.

Does the facility have tight

fitting doors?

Is the facility ventilated?

Are there screens covering

all holes or vents?

See page A-10.

See page A-10.

See page A-10.

Is there toilet paper and

holders provided?

C15. Are the facilities clean?

Dl . Are there bathing facilities

in each living/sleeping

quarters?

!N!:iii)eiK N!^ i

|Pc rceatage

28

11

11

28

20

21

20

27

27

23^

3

23

19

19

19

23

23

29 I 23

1^

2 0%

89

49

92

84

79

64

74

22

13%

100

33

Percentage

of No

R

80'

11

51

79

95

58

48

70

22

96

8

16

21

36

26

78

87%

0

67

100

21

5

42

52

30

78

Standard

._£xj'or

6.6%

10.7

2.4

2.4

13.5

8.0

7.2

2.5

6.5

AQUESTIONS

D2. Is hot running water piped into

each living/sleeping quarter?

D3. See page A-10.

D4. Is hot running water piped into

the bathing facility?

D5. Does any resident have to walk

more than 100 feet to bathe?

D6. See page A-10.

D7. See page A- 10.

D8. Are there hooks on which to

hang clothes?

D9. See page A- 10.

DIO. Does water pool on the floor of

bathing facility?

Dll. Does waste water drain to

surface?

D12. Are bathing facilities clean?

D13. See page A-11

.

D14. See page A-11.

D15. Is hot water available for

laundering?

D16. Is hot water piped to the

laundry facility?

D17. Does the laundry facility drair

to surface?

D18. Floor of laundry facility is

earth?

Nur.iber of

Responses

R JiR_

29 231

29

29

28

27

29

29

28

26

20

22

23

21

22

22

22

22

22

22

18

18

Percentage

of Yes

Answrs

N ! NR

25:

91

28

80

28

14

77

83

80

19

18

17''

91

10

59

18

0

68

73

77

11

Percentage

of No

Ans\\^ers

R I NR

72

20

72

86

23

20

81

82

831

90

41

82

100

32

17 27

23

89

100

Standard

Error

6.0

12.8

7.2

14.8

12.7

13.0

8.6

9.2

15.3

15.3

A4
QUESTIONS

El. Are there privies?

E2. Does waste water or sewage form

pools on ground?

E3. Is the sewage system clogged,

overflowed or inoperable?

Fl. See pages 36 § 37 in text.

F2. Do any buildings have earth

floors ?

F3. Are concrete floors at least

6" off the ground?

F4. Are wooden floors at least

12" off the ground?

F5 . Can it be determined that the

roof leaks?

F6. Do all buildings have tight

fitting doors?

F7. Do the doors have self-closing

devices ?

F8. Is electricity available?

F9 . Are electrical outlets

overloaded?

FIO. Do windows open at least

1/2 way?

Fll. Do all windows have 16 mesh

screening?

F12. Are the screens in good repair

F13. Are screen doors provided?

i

Nujriber of

esponscs

R

29

29

29

28

20

14

28

29

29

29

29

29

28

26

29

I

NR

23"^

22

23

23

19

12

22

19

23

23

22

19

23

22

23

Percentage

of Yes

Ansv;e rs N

I NR

14'

95

97

13%

14

13

100

100

77

33

100

0

81

81

82

51

83

61

100

Percentage

of No

Aiswers

R__ _ NR

86'

99

100

100

100

23

67

0

0 100

83

80

73

65

19

19

18

49

871

86

87

100

95

17

39

0

100

17

20

27

35

Standard

5.6"^

1.0

1.0

14.0

4.0

0

0

6.3

6.4

9 . 7

13.1

AQUESTIONS

Nujnber of

Responses

R NR

Percentage

of Yes

Answers

N NR

Percentage

of No

Answers

Gl.

G.2

G3.

G4.

G5.

G6.

G7.

G8.

G9.

GIO.

Gil.

G12 .

G13.

G14.

G15.

G16.

Are there separate quarters

for each family?

Do any habitable rooms have

ceilings less than 7 feet

high?

Do bunk beds have more than

two tiers?

Are all beds or cots at least

12" above the floor?

Beds are made of metal frames?

Are heating devices provided?

If the answer to G6 is yes are

they gasoline fueled?

Could not be analyzed due to

;lack of data.

If there is a heating device,

is it working?

Does the owner provide bedding

or mattress?

If the answer to GIO is yes

is it dirty?

Is there evidence of vernim?

Is there a storage space for

personal health items?

Are there hooks, etc

hanging clothes?

for

Is there less than 3 feet

along one side and one end of

each bed?

Could not be analyzed due to

lack of data,^

24

2S^

28

28

29

15

21

27

20

23

24

24

18!

23

25 22

21

21

21

17

17

19

18

20

21

17

24 21

741

0

100

93

75

100

82

28

1

31

52

17

56%

0

5

too

81

0

94

84

50

0

76

71

26'

92

100

0

7

25

96

18

72

99

69

48

83

44!

96

100

95

0

19

100

16

50

100

24

29

100

A6
QUESTIONS

HI. Is the kitchen area clean?

H2. Is the kitchen sink metal or

porcelain?

H3. Is the kitchen sink pitted or

rusted?

H4. Is there a refrigerator?

H5. Are there indications that

refrigerator doesn't work?

H6. Is there hot and cold water

available under pressure?

H7. Can food be stored in vernimproof containers?

H8. Are there sleeping quarters

combined with the kitchen?

H9. Are there signs of vermin or

insect infestation?

HIO. This question could not be

analyzed due to lack of data.

11. Are vermin- tight , durable

containers provided for

garbage?

12. Do all containers have tightfitting lids?

13. Does any resident have to walk

more than 100 feet to dump

garbage?

14. Could not be analyzed due to

lack of data.

15. Is hot water available to

wash garbage cans?

Number of

Responses

R NR

14

18

14

14

14

14

14

29

28

28

27

Jj

16'

15

15

17

14

17

17

17

17

Percentage

of Yes

/\]TiSiv'ers N I NR

23

22

23

23

781

100

74

100

25

100

49

18

30

59

26

14

691

100

40

88

14

71

35

18

29

39

23

Percentage

of No

Answers

R NiP 22%

0

26

0

51

82

70

41

74

86

Standard

Error

97

31'

0

60

12

86

29

65

82

71

61

77

96

18.21

0

9.8

0

18.2

18.4

17.9

20.0

13.0

14.6

. 7

100 0.8

AQUESTIONS

16. Could not be analyzed due to

lack of data.

17. Could not be analyzed due to

lack of data.

18. Does the central facility have

a door?

19. Is the central facility

ventilated?

110. If yes to 18 is it screened?

111. Could not be analyzed to to

lack of data.

Jl. Is the camp area well drained?

J2. Is the camp near or in a swampy area?

J3. Are there uncontrolled or

noxious weeds in the camp?

J4. Are there holes at least

5 feet in diameter within 200

• feet of the camp area?

J5. Are there buildings located

near poultry or livestock

quarters?

J6. Is there loose garbage, junk,

or debris in the camp area?

Nu!nl)er of

Responses

R

29

29

29

29

29

29

2%

1

1

23

23

23

23

23

23

Percentage

of Yes

26^0

HOO

87

81

41

18

61

50^0

100

100

91

17

22

13

35

Percenta-.

of No

^

R

74%

0

13

19

99

59

82

99

39

NPx

50%

0

0

9

96

83

78

87

65

A8
A2 . Conditions

attached to

camp

certification?

6 Camps - Licenses granted only on one time basis.

2 Camps - Window space must be increased.

1 Camp - Sewer must be connected to public system,

1 Camp - Fire extinguishers needed in camp.

1 Camp - Screens needed to be repaired.

A3. Camp capacities

by geographic

> Northeas t Southeas t Far West

North

Central Mid- East

region, for R NR ' R NR R NR R NR R NR

single person 25- 50 6 0 3 1 5 1 1 0 0 4

camps 51-100 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 6

101-150 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

151 + 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 1

A4. Camp capacities Northeast South Central Far West North Central

by geographic R NR R m _R m

region, for 1-10 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0

family 11-20 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 0

camps 21+ 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 0

AS. Type of Number of Men

Men, Women,

Camp Responses Men Only Families Women Only Fami lies

Quarters R NR R NR R NR R NR K NR

29 23 541 39% 20% 9% 1% 0 2 5 % 5 2 "6 A6 . Crop worked

at camps

A9 . Sewage

systems

hooked into

the camp

Crops worked at the farms visted were: apples,

asparagus, grapes, celery, strawberries, cotton,

melons, sugar beets, sugar cane, and sod.

Number of

Responses

Public

Sewer

Pr ivate

Sewer

Sept ic

Sy s tern Other

Open

Stream

R NR

29 23

R NR

7% 30%

R NR

25% 0

R NR

37% 61%

R MR

1 8% 9 % R m13% 0

Bl. Source of Number of

the water Resp onses Well Cis tern Publ ic

supply R NR R NR R NR R NR

29 23 63% 50% 14% 4% 2 3% 40%

C4. Toilet Number of

facilities Responses Flush Privy

R NR R NR R NR

29 23 85% 87% 15% 13%

A-9
Cll. The weighted

ratio of migrants

toilet. (Based

on listed

J- capacity. No

ratio was computed

for non- random

camps.)

C12. The weighted

ratio of male

migrants/urinal.

(Based on listed

capacity. No

^ ratio was computed

- - for non- random

camps .

)

C13. The weighted ratio

of migrants/

lavatory is?

(Based on listed

capacity. No

/

• ratio was

computed for the

non- random camps.)

D3. Bathing facilities?

D6. The weighted

ratio of migrants

shower head?

(Based on listed

capacity. No

ratio was computed

for non- random

camps.)

1)7. The weighted ratio

of migrants/tub.

D9. The floor of the

bathing facility?

1 5.6 migrants

toilet

One camp, which did not have a usable toilet,

was not included in the ratio.

26.6 male migrants

urinal

Thirteen camps which had no urinals, were not

included in the ratio.

Three camps, which were family camps, were

not included in the ratio.

19.3 migrants

lavatory

Eight camps, which had no lavatories, were not

included in the ratio.

Number of

responses Showers Tubs Bath None

R NR

29 23

R NR

891 91%

R NR

9% A%

R NR

2% 0

R NR

0 4%

1 2.2 migrants

shower head

One camp, which had no working shower, was

not included in the ratio.

There were too few camps with tubs to permit

the computation of a meaningful ratio.

Number of

Responses Cement Wood Earth

R NR

29 22

R NR

741 96°^

R NR

11?; A%

R NR

15% 0

A- 10
IT

D13. The Weighted

ratio of migrants

laundry tubs?

(Based on listed

capacity. No

ratio was computed

for non-random camps.)

D14. The weighted ratio

of migrants/mechanical

washer?

(Based on listed

capacity. No ratio

was computed for

non-random camps.)

15.9 migrants

laundry tub

Seven camps, which had no laundry tubs

were not used in computing the ratio.

Two camps had no laundry facilities

at all.

25.8 migrants

mechanical washer

Fourteen camps, which had no washing

machines, were not used in computing

the ratio.

A- 11

APPENDIX B. QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN SURVEY

V

B-1
A. GENERAL INFORMATION

TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE ACCOMPANYING PUBLIC SERVANT OR PUBLIC RECORDS.

1. Has this canp been licensed, certified, or approved by a state or local

health or housing official?

2. If the "approval" granted in #1 has conditions, state them

3. The listed capacity of the canp is ?

4. If capacity is quoted in family units, how many ?

5. The canp quarters:

I 1 men only; [ | women only; | | men and women only;

I 1 families; [ [ men, women and families?

6. The type of crop worked at this cair^ is ?

7. When was the last water san^le taken ?

8. Was the result of the sample in #7 positive? Are any remarks in order?

9. The sewage system in this camp is:

[

I hooked to a public sewer;

I ) hooked to a private sewer (with treatment facilities)

;

I I a septic system; [ | a stream;

I I open ground; | | other, specify .

10. The code number is ?

B-2
B. WATER SUPPLY

1. The source o£ the water supply is a:

I I well; I I cistern; |

| stream; | { other, specify

2. If the source is a well, is it sealed?

3. The drinking water is:

j I clear; [ | turbid; | ( discolored; [ } foul smelling.

4. Does each set of living/sleeping quarters have its own piped in

drinking water supply?

5. Are there living/sleeping quarters more than 100 ft. from the

nearest cold drinking water?

6. Are public or common drinking cups used?

7. Is the water system at this camp operating today?

8 . Remarks

C. TOILETS OR PRIVIES

1. Does each living/sleeping quarter have its own toilet?

2. If the answer to #1 is yes, is the toilet enclosed in its own room?

3. If the answer to #2 is yes, is the only drinking water supply for

the living/sleeping unit in the toilet room?

THE REMAINING QUESTIONS PERTAIN TO COMMON TOILET FACILITIES.

4. The facilities available are:

I I flush toilets; | | privies; [ j other, specify .

5. Is any privy within 50 ft. of a:

[

I kitchen; [ { living/sleeping quarters; | [ well.

6. Does any resident have to walk more than 200 ft. to the nearest toilet

or privy?

B-3
C. TOILETS OR PRIVIES (CCM'INUED)

7. If there are privies, are the pits fly tight?

8. Does the facility have tight fitting doors?

9. Is the facility ventilated?

10. Does the facility have screens covering all holes or vents?

11. The total number of working toilet or privy seats is ?

12. The total number of urinals available is ?

13. The total number of wash basins available is ?

14. Is there toilet paper and holders proAdded?

15. The facilities are:

I

I clean; [ [ dirty; [ | foul smelling

16 . Remarks

:

D. BATHING AND LAUNDRY FACILITIES

1. Are there bathing facilities in each set of living/sleeping quarters?

2. Is hot, running water piped into each living/sleeping quarters?

THE REMAINING QUESTIONS PEKFAIN TO COMMDN FACILITIES

3. The bathing facilities available are:

I I showers; | [ tubs; | | other, specify .

4. Is hot, running water piped into the bathing facility?

5. Does any resident have to walk more than 100 ft. to bathe?

6. The total number of working shower heads is ?

7. The total number of tubs available is ____?

8. Are there hocks on which to hang clothes?

t-4
D. BATHING MP LAUNDRY FACILITIES (CONTINUED)

9. The floors o£ the bathing facilities are:

I 1 cement; [ | wood; | 1 earth; [ | other, specify_

10. Does water pool on the floor of the bathing facility?

11. The bathing facilities drain off to:

I [ open ground; \ [ other, specify .

12. The bathing facilities are:

\ I clean; [ | dirty; | J foul smelling

13. The total number of laundry tubs available is ?

14. If mechanical washers are available, how many are working

15. Is hot water available for laundering?

16. Is the hot water piped to the laundry facility?

17. The laundry facility drains off to:

1 I open ground; | | other, specify .

18. The floor of the laundry facility is:

1 I cement; [ _ [ wood; [ | earth; [ | other specify

19 . Remarks

E. SEWAGE DISPOSAL

1. Privy pits have been limed and back-filled after privy was moved?

2. Waste water or sewage can be seen forming pools on the ground?

3. The sewage system is clogged, over- flowed or not operating?

4 . Remarks

B-5
> F. HOUSING, SCREENING

No. of Const.

^' Type Bldgs

.

Ma terial s Usage and Remarks

Cabin (small house)

Motel or dormitory

No of rooms House (Farm or '

' Boarding)

Barricks

Trailer

Tents

Other

2. Do any buildings have earth floors?

3. Are ground level concrete floors at least 6 inches above ground?

4. Are ground level wooden floors at least 12 inches off the ground?

5. It can be determined that roof leaks?

6. Do all buildings have tight fitting doors?

7. Do the doors have self-closing devices?

8. Is electricity available?

9. There are indications that a number of electrical outlets are overloaded. Give details

LO. Are windows easy opened at least 1/2 way for Ventilation)?

II. Are all windows screened with at least 16 mesh screening?

12. Are the screens generally in good repair (no holes)?

13. Are screen doors provided?

14. No questions have been asked specifically about structural soundness,

paint, or general condition because of the innumerable variations that

could exist. Please provide detailed remarks about these items

B-6
G. LIVING/SLEEPING QUARTERS

1. Are there separate quarters for each family?

2. Do any habitable rooms have ceilings less than 7 ft. high?

3. Do bunk beds have more than two tiers? If so, how many ?

4. Are all beds and cots at least 12 inches above the floor?

5. Beds are constructed of:

I I wood; I I metal; | | other, specify .

6. Are heating deAdces provided?

7. If the answer to #6 is yes, are any gasoline fuel?

8. If the answer to #6 is no, do you find any reason to believe that

heat is needed? Describe

9. If a heating device is provided, does it work?

THE REMAINING QUESTIONS PERTAIN TO BARRICKS STYLE FACILITIES ONLY

10. Does the owner provide and maintain the bedding?

11 If the answer to #10 is yes, is the bedding dirty?

12. Does the bedding show evidence of the presence of vermin?

13. Are storage facilities provided for personal health items (soap,

tooth paste, etc)?

14. Are hooks (closets, ropes, etc) proArided for hanging up clothes?

15. Is there less than 3 feet of space along one side and one end of

each bed?

16. The number of square feet of floor space and cubic ft. of living

space are inportant for sanitary reasons. In a survey such as this

it is difficult to provide questions and space to cover all possible

variations. Provide detailed remarks on evidence of overcrowding in

family or barricks style facilities. Give dimensions and No. of

beds where known

B-7
H. COMMON COOKING FACILITIES

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Kitchen or mess hall is

I 1 dirty; foul smelling;

The kitchen sink is made of:

clean

I I metal; | j porcelain; |

| not thei'e; | | others

The kitchen sink is pitted or rusted?

There is a refrigerator for food storage?

Refrigerator is present but there are indications that it will not

keep food cold? Describe

Kitchen has hot and cold water under pressure?

Food can be stored in closed, vermin-proof containers?

Sleeping quarters are combined with communal kitchen?

There are signs of vermin or insect infestation?

Describe

The total number of stove burners or hot-plates in the carnp are

B-8
I, GARBAGE DISPOSAL

1. Are water tight, metal containers provided for garbage?

2. Do all the containers have tight fitting lids?

3. Does any resident have to walk more than 100 ft. to have access to

garbage cans? If so, how far ?

4. The number of water tight metal garbage cans available are

5. Is hot water available for washing garbage cans?

THE REMAINING QUESTIONS PERTAIN TO CENTRAL GARBAGE FACILITIES

6. The central garbage facility is a:

I

I dunpster; | | open pit or pile ; ( } separate bldg. ;

I I other, specify .

7. The central garbage area is within 100 ft. of:

I I kitchen; | | sleeping/living quarters; | [ well or cistern?

8. The central facility has no door?

9. If the central facility is a building, is it ventilated?

10. If the answer to #8 is yes, is it screened?

11. Remarks:

J. GENERAL CAMP AREA

1. Is the canp area well drained?

2. Is the canp located in or near a swampy area? If yes, how close

3. There are uncontrolled weeds, or noxious plants in the camp?

4. There are holes or depressions at least 5 feet in diameter

within 200 feet of the canp in which still water may stand?

5. Are there buildings located near poultry or livestock quarters?

If yes , how far 7

6. There is loose garbage, junk, or refuse in the canp area?

B-9

APPH^IX C. SAMPLE INSPECTION FORMS USED

BY STATE SANITARIANS

1. NEW YORK STATE INSPECTION FORM

2. TEXAS STATE INSPECTION FORM

C-1
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

MIGRANT LABOR CAMP OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE INSPECTION REPORT

NAME AND ADDRESS TOWN OR VILLAGE COUNTY CAPACITY NO. OCCUPANTS

M

0 2

3 COUNTY 5 CAMP CODE 8

PR E SE ASON I CI

MID SEASON 2 Q

POST SEASON 3

18 19-2 1 22-24 25-2«

GENERAL

Storage of garbage and other refuse Valid permit to operate 54

27 Disposol of garbage ond other refuse

55 Grounds ond common use spaces cleon

28 Plumbing fixtures ond housing

properly maintained

56 Generol super v i s ion and maintenance

29 Swimming pool/beach meets Part 6

Supervision of children under 16

re qui rement s 57 30 COMMISSARY AND SALE OF FOOD

Arrangements for medicol care and

first aid k it 31

Storage of milk, milk products,

food 58

Notice of construction; permits if requ ired 32 Adequate mechanical ref rigerot i on 59

Fire fighting equipment

33

Only pasteurized milk, milk products

sold or furni shed 60

34 Requirements of Part l4 met

61 HOUSING AND SANITATION COMMON COOKING AND DINING

Adequate floor area per person in sleeping rooms 35 Properly screened 62 Required beds and mottresses provided and in good condition 36 Dish washing facilities 63 Adequate electrical light outlets pro- vided and working 37 Adequate mechanical refrigeration 64 Stoves and heaters oi approved type. Electrical type grounded 38 Adequate area and seating facilities 65 Hot water and heating facilities prop- COOKING IN INDIVIDUAL QUARTERS

erly installed and vented 39 Adequate mechanical refrigeration Temperature at least 68°F where 66 and/or as required 40 Adequate oreo and seating facilities Screens provided tor all exterior openings 67

of living quarters 41 Dish washing facilities Water of sotisfoctory quality 42 RESPONSIBILITIES OF OCCUPANTS

Adequate hot and cold running water where required 43 Dwelling units mointained in clean and sanitary condition 69

Hot water temperature 110»F to 120''F 44 Garbage and refuse disposal

70

Method of dispensing water 45

Insects, rodents, other pests controlled 71

No common cup

46

Plumbing fixtures and housing property used and cared for 72 Woter treatment. State residual 47

Illegal heaters not in use

73

Daily woter system operating reports Cook stoves or burners not used for heot i ng 74 Disposal of all sewage and other liquid wa stes 49

Note to Key Punch Operator Autoskip to column 80 Sewage system construction and maintenance 50 Sewage system treatment and operating

reports 51

Toilets, privies, urinals properly maintained 52

Ventilation and lighting at toilets, etc. 53

REMARKS (List by numbers)

PERSON INTERVIEWED AND TITLE

WHERE INTERVIEWED DATE INTERVIEWED

INSPECTED BY ISIGNATUREI DATE INSPECTED

REP. REC'D BY (SIG.) DATE REC'D.

C-2

GEN. 112 (RE V. 1 0/7 1 )
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

MIGRANT LABOR CAMP STRUCTURAL INSPECTION REPORT

NAME AND ADDRESS TOWN OR VILLAGE COUNTY CAPACITY NO. OCCUPANTS

M

0 2

3 COUNTY 5 CAMP CODE

HOUSING

Grounds clean. Surface drainage

27

Structures eosy to keep clean 28

Sfructurolly safe, sound and in good

repair 29

Floors in good repair, smooth readily

c leanabi e 30

Ceiling height: 80% at least 7 feet 31

Adequate storage area per person 32

Sleeping quarters for parents separated

from chi Idren 33 Opposite sexes separated except for

f am i I i e s 34 Minimum 27— inch clear space above

bed surface 35

Natural light — Adequate where required 36

Natural ventilation at least 40% of win- dow orea 37

Electrical tight facilities where required 38

Wall type electrical convenience outlets where required 39

Electrical wiring properly installed and

maintai ned 40

Stoves fire protected and vented as re- quired 41 Automatic hot water and heatir>g equip- ment with safety controls 42 Outside exit above ground floor. If win- dow, max. 14 ft. above ground 43 At least 2 doors from sleeping rooms

for 10 or more persons 44 Enclosed stotrs above second floor with proper fire construction 45 F ire resi stant construction provided in housing for 15 or more

Storage of toxic and flammable substances

47

Protection from pest infestation

49

50

51

52

PRE SEASON 1 [n MID SEASON 2 POST SEASON 3 9 SANITATION

Water readily available within 100 ft. 53

Water source and storage protected 54

No cross or interconnections 55

Toilets, privies, urinals properly constructed 56 One toilet or privy seat per 15 occu pant s 57

0 ne ur I na I per 30JU men

58

Toilets withm 200 ft. Privies be- tween 50-200 ft. 59

Separate toi let fac ilities for each sex 60

One handwashing unit per 15 occupants

61

One shower head per 15 occupants

62

Separate shower facilities for each sex 63

Dry dressing space adequate

64 One laundry tray or washtub per 25

o ccupant s 65

One mechanical washer per 50 occupants

66

If mechanical washers, 1 laundry tray or tub per 100 occupants 67

69

70 COMMON COOKING AND DINING

Separate from toilet ond sleeping rooms

71 Two burners per 10 occupants or per 2 families 72 Food ond utensil storage shelves and

counter space y3 Non-absorbent, easily cleaned wall surfaces where required 74 COOKING IN INDIVIDUAL QUARTERS

Separate area 10 sq. ft. per occupant

75 Stove/hot plote with minimum of 2 burners

76 Food and utensil storage shelves and food counter 77

Space for dishwashing

78

Non-absorbent, easily cleaned wall sur- face where required

REMARKS (List by numbers)

PERSON INTERVIEWED AND TITLE

WHERE INTERVIEWED DATE INTERVIEWED

INSPECTED BY 'SIGNATURE) DATE INSPECTED

REP. REC'D BY (SIG.) DATE REC'D.

C-3 GEN. Ill (REV. 1 0/71 )
Texas State Department of Health

Migrant Labor Camp Survey and Analytical Report

NAME OF CAMP.

OWMER

LOCATION.

MANAGER^

COUNTY

PERSON CONTACTED

OTHER INFORMATION,

TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS.

/"^ A. Comp Area

1 droined

2 No eKtremo troffic or other hozord without appropriote sofeguords

3 Not located on water ihed of domestic or public water supply

4 Camp structure not located thon 200* from livestock or poultry quorters 5 Contp structure not locoted less then 200' from commerciol food processing distributing business

6 Recreotion spoce provided

7 Comp grounds mointoined in a clean, safe and sonitory condition free from rubbish, debris, waste poper, garbage and other refuse

B. Water Supply

1 From on approved source

2 Adequate supply

3 Hot and cold running water provided for bathing, laundry, and dish* woshing

4 Woter outlets within 100' of each shelter

> Droinoge facilities for overflow or spilloge from woter outlets 6 Woter under pressure in eoch unit of comps constructed after publi- cotion of Suggested Stondords for Migrotory Lobor Comps"

7 Where it is necessary to haul water, an opproved type contoiner used

Z Woter drown from containers has residual chlorine content of ot leost 0.3 ports per million 9 Common drinking cup not used

10 Woter soniple submitted for bacteriological eKominotion :) C. Excreta and Li(;uid Woste Disposal

1 Foctlities connected to public sewer, if line avoilable

2 Approved septic tank system used if no public sewer avoitoble and

conditions permitting

3 Non-wqter corrioge excreta disoosal facilities aoproved

D. Shelter

1 Structurotiy sound ond in good repair

2 Floor constructed of wood or concrete

3 Fl oor clevoted at least 6" obove overoge ground level

4 Adequote fioor space

5 Sleeping oreos separated from cooking and eating areas

6 Minimum ceiling height of 7*

7 At leott one window or skylight opening directly to the out-of-doors

fof eoch hobitoble room

S Alt living ond sleeping quorters motntoined in o cieon, sonitory

condttien

E. Meons of Egress

I Cvits to comply with Stote Fire Morshol requirements

F. Screening

1 All Outside openings screened; in good repoir

2 AM screen doors outward-opening; self closing

G. Heating

1 ^'1 quorters provided with proper I y instol led heating equipment;

poce heoters with rigid connections

2 Heoting equipment adequate to mointoin temperature of ot least 70 ^•9'««« F in climate requiring artificial heating

H. Lighting

^ *h«r« electric service is ovoiloble, each habitable room orovtded

wtiK ot leosi 1 ceiltng-type light fixture and ot leost 1 iloor or vell-typ* electricol outlet

I2

3

L \ :j 4

S

6

7 r\7J 8

1

L. D 2

34

5 r:. 1 6

I—

1

POPULATION AT PRESENT.

I. Toilets

Adequote for capacity of comp

Accessible ond locoted within 200* of door of sleeping room No privy closer than 50' to any sleeping room

For multi-family dwelling, separote toilet rooms for eocS sec

distinctly morked by sex (one unit for each 15 persons)

Urinols provided on the basis of 1 for eoch 2S men

Toilet rooms mointoineH in a clean ond sonitory condition Adequate supply of toilet poper

J. Woshrooms, Bathrooms and Loundry Tubs

Approved washing, bathing ond laundry facilities odequote te the capocity of the comp

In multiple family dwellings, separate, conviently locoted botK* rooms for eoch sex Adequate dressing spoce and odjacent to bothing focilities

Alt shower and wash fixtures with hot and cold woter under pressure

Floor drairs properly trapped Loundry ond bathing focilities maintained in a cleort and sonitory monner

K. Cooking and Eoting Facilities

1 Where there is o central mess of multi-fomily feeding operotion, the kitchen ond mess hoti constructed in occordonce with the reguiottons

of ttie State Heolth Deportment

2 Where workers are permitted or required to cook in their individuol quarters, o seporote room provided ond equipped for use os o kitchen is ovoiloble

L. Garbage Refuse Disposal

1 Garbage and refuse disposed of In occordonce wilh rules and

tyf St'?** H?'?^*h n*p<?f*'*^n* 2 Acceptable watertight metal containers with lids, provided odjocent

to eoch shelter for refuse disposol

3 Gorboge collected and properly disposed of ot leost 2 times (37) per week

4 Garboge cons cleoned thoroughly offer emptying

M. Beds ond Bedding if Furnished

1 If provided, consist of beds, cots or bunks, complete with springs ond include cleon mattresses ond mattress covers or matrres* ttz^u

filled with dean straw or other suitoble material free from dust or vermin

2 Mattresses ond mattress covers provided; mottress ticks filled with cleon strow or other suitable materiel free from dust or vefn-.tn 3 Beds, bunks or cots hove deer spoce of ot least 12"from floor 4 Mattresses ond mottress ticks treoted, as necessory, with insecti- cide to prevent vermin infestotion

5 Triple deck facilities prohibited from use

H. Insect and Rodent Control

1 Rodents, flies, mosquitoes, bed bugs ond other insect vectors of porosites under control 0. Safety ond Fire Prevention

1 First-oid focilities mointoined ond made ovoiloble for the emerger>cy treotment of injured persons

2 First-aid focilities reodily occessible for use ot all times

3 Fire-extinguishing equipment locoted not less thon

point to reoch the neorest unit 4 At leost one unit provided for eoch 1,000 squore fee* of floor spoce

c

100' from any

Date Signed .

Operotor C-4
APPENDIX D. TABLE OF MMm PERMUTATIONS

D-1
TABLE 7—Integers 1-2C0

Each one-third page is a permutation

23 62 186 81 115 60 7 119 137 109 158 147 33 44 165

50 35 21 29 8 154 117 106 169 174 127 187 2 12 76

68 78 22 103 190 141 143 179 183 57 83 9 28 99 45

68 179 "44 16 7 X17?f ^ 1 TO 11 ' o 77 53 163 140 180 79 17 185 12 110 145 159 38 85 156

161 123 75 138 104 48 105 36 82 71 x32 20 149 171 175

40 55 173 131 128 178 111 200 120 90 24 102 31 160 49

114 195 150 67 126 191 148 98 142 121 42 189 4 139 192

27 146 39 61 164 92 87 14 100 94 151 184 47 177 133

73 181 166 118 124 3 168 152 122 108 43 59 54 101 95

37 182 30 65 13 74 198 66 51 80 197 113 144 194 70

56 58 193 15 1 52 16 10 176 199 155 135 162 64 84

5 41 134 25 116 188 1 1 97 19 69 46 107 89 91 18

170 153 93 157 26

181 16 27 88 161 116 129 93 12 187 176 198 73 135 5 123 51 69 137 43 45 68 194 138 183 166 167 77 49 97

139 65 39 41 160 56 110 178 113 95 83 140 92 57 36

89 168 1

0

170 X1 97 5 62 117 X X ^ 15 3 164 3 114 119 109

151 120 156 11 154 149 54 173 40 131 13 145 58 96 32

115 177 34 87 91 78 55 175 191 7 81 162 200 157 72

197 63 48 31 80 174 193 30 100 42 19 163 6 21 HI

on 1 1 7 1 O 7 1 70 AO t n -J on 1 7A 165 122 155 171 127 132 121 lao 46 125 47 71 94 106

189 76 158 70 44 150 I4l 99 101 136 28 9 199 79 18

23 25 133 61 107 26 2i> 130 124 52 148 196 152 182 4 59 190 142 67 169 116 75 128 143 104 102 144 24 22 185

85. 8 29 188 14 184 2 37 172 38 159 50 146 35 84

186 108 86 147 82

83 37 122 104 179 96 20 26 62 31 101 16 165 150 76

124 74 93 170 50 107 45 113 168 183 6 61 57 110 149

112 77 140 163 166 103 35 156 176 154 130 40 99 119 105

7R *+ ^ D D i -> O 7 y c.

"x n i lo ft o 1 ^ o -J O 1 X ** 1X nu 102 29 80 73 167 8] 63 60 173 169 153 191 24 187 195

141 151 155 135 120 17 198 100 199 68 178 94 95 182 181

30 137 18U 177 128 190 42 82 5 118 67 162 55 18 97

148 72 117 161 41 121 32 90 125 184 159 186 2 23 88

51 4 7 109 75 64 108 142 59 152 66 134 185 164 44

188 136 132 197 144 157 85 34 196 158 3 14 12 27 87

115 111 160 172 69 192 84 200 79 145 129 139 19 194 123

13 126 70 58 49 28 39 193 48 11 147 143 36 53 21

8 127 133 174 91 171 54 65 22 146 175 52 9 86 98

106 25 1 46 131

Sample Table of Randomized Permulations

D-2
ORM NBS-114A (1-71) 2. Gov't Accession No.

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO.

NBSIR 73-248

3. Recipient's Accession No.

14. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

A Survey of the Sanitary Conditions o£ Migrant Labor

Canps

5. Publication Date August 1973

6. Performing Organization Code

7. AUTHOR(S)

Charles Fried, Robert Ramsburg and Stephen Butler

%. Performing Organization

NBSIR 73-248

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. 4314415

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

11. Contract/Grant No.

'12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address

Coimnunity Health Service

Department of Health, Education and Welfare

Washington, D. C. 20201

13. Type of Report & Period

Covered

Final

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

115, SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.) The Community Health Service (CHS) of the Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare has been assigned the responsibility of providing health care services

to migrant farmvorkers . Since poor sanitation can be a major factor in the health

of migrants, CHS requested NBS' Technical Analysis Division (TAD) to perform a field survey of the current state of the sanitary conditions of migrant housing.

A survey form was developed by TAD as an aid in evaluating migrant housing.

The form was derived from the checklist procedure enployed by sanitarians to

determine whether migrant housing meets state and local housing regulations.

Field visits were made to migrant labor canps in five different regions

of the IMited States. These regions were selected because they contained a large

number of canps open at the time of the visits. Within each region, camps were

selected on a modified random basis.

A description of the findings of the survey is provided in both tabular

and narrative form. A discussion of the limitations in the procedures used in

conducting the survey is also included^ and changes are suggested which could

be incorporated into future surveys.

17. KEY WORDS (Alphabetical order, separated by semicolons)

Health standards; migrant labor caiiqDs; questionnaire construction; regulations;

survey design

18. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

^

UNLIMITED.

1 1 FOR OFFICIAL DISTRIBUTION. DO NOT RELEASE

TO NTIS.

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCL ASSIFIED

21. NO. OF PAGES

82

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

22. Price

USCOMM-DC 66244-P7I


<

.i

4
i

i

I

!
it