Findings from the A Demographic and

National Agricultural Employment Profile of

Workers Survey United States Farmworkers

(NAWS) 1997-1998

Research Report No. 8

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy

Office of Program Economics

March 2000
Material contained in this publication is in

the public domain and may be reproduced,

fully or partially, without permission of the

Federal Government. Source credit is requested.

Permission is required only to reproduce any

copyrighted material contained herein.

This material will be made available to

deaf and hard of hearing individuals upon request.

Voice phone: 202-219-6197

TTY FIRS: 1-800-877-8339
Findings from the A Demographic and

National Agricultural Employment Profile of

Workers Survey United States Farmworkers

(NAWS) 1997-1998

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

ALEXIS M. HERMAN, SECRETARY

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY

EDWARD B. MONTGOMERY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

MARCH 2000

This report was produced through a collaboration of the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Assistant Secretary for

Policy, and Aguirre International, San Mateo, California.

It was written by:

Kala Mehta, Aguirre International

Susan M. Gabbard, Aguirre International

Vanessa Barrat, Aguirre International

Melissa Lewis, Aguirre International

Daniel Carroll, U.S. Department of Labor

Richard Mines, U.S. Department of Labor

The authors are grateful to Jorge Nakamoto and Alberto Sandoval, Aguirre International,

for coordinating the field interviews on which the report is based, to 4,199 farmworkers in

the United States for graciously participating in interviews during 1997-98, and to their

agricultural employers for helping survey staff reach these workers.

The authors are solely responsible for the contents of this report.
Contents iii

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................VII

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1

TOPICS COVERED.............................................................................................................. 1

SURVEY METHOD ............................................................................................................. 2

CHAPTER 1: PLACE OF BIRTH AND LENGTH OF STAY IN THE U.S.............. 5

PLACE OF BIRTH ............................................................................................................... 5

NUMBER OF YEARS TO DATE IN THE UNITED STATES....................................................... 6

CHAPTER 2: DEMOGRAPHICS, FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION...9

AGE................................................................................................................................... 9

GENDER.......................................................................................................................... 10

HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE................................................................................................ 10

CHAPTER 3: EDUCATION, LITERACY, AND ENGLISH SKILLS..................... 13

NATIVE LANGUAGE........................................................................................................ 13

EDUCATION .................................................................................................................... 13

ADULT EDUCATION ........................................................................................................ 15

LITERACY....................................................................................................................... 15

ENGLISH FLUENCY (SELF RATED)................................................................................... 17

CHAPTER 4: LABOR.................................................................................................... 19

NUMBER OF JOBS............................................................................................................ 19

MIGRATION..................................................................................................................... 20

LEGAL STATUS OF U.S. FARMWORKERS......................................................................... 22

TIME SPENT IN LABOR OVER THE YEAR......................................................................... 24

FARM WORK EXPERIENCE........................................................................26

PLANS TO CONTINUE IN FARM WORK............................................................................. 27

CHAPTER 5: CHARACTERISTICS OF FARM JOBS AND FARM CONDITIONS...29 

EMPLOYERS .................................................................................................................... 29

CROPS............................................................................................................................. 29

TASKS............................................................................................................................. 30

RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION...................................................................................... 31

HOURS WORKED AND BASIS FOR PAY............................................................................ 32

WAGES............................................................................................................................ 33

FRINGE BENEFITS............................................................................................................ 36
iv Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

HOUSING......................................................................................................................... 37

MEALS ............................................................................................................................ 37

SANITATION.................................................................................................................... 37

TRANSPORTATION........................................................................................................... 37

EQUIPMENT..................................................................................................................... 37

CHAPTER 6: INCOME AND ASSETS ....................................................................... 39

INCOME........................................................................................................................... 39

FARMWORKER ASSETS.................................................................................................... 39

USE OF SERVICES............................................................................................................ 40

APPENDIX: STATISTICAL PROCEDURES ........................................................... 43

NAWS WEIGHTING PROCEDURE.................................................................................... 43

DETERMINING STANDARD ERROR................................................................................... 43
Figures v

Table of Figures

Chart 1. Farmworker Ethnicity and Place of Birth...................................................................... 5

Chart 2. Number of Years in the United States, by Birthplace ................................................... 6

Chart 3. Foreign-Born Workers' Length of Residence in the United States............................... 7

Chart 4. Age Distribution of U.S. Farmworkers......................................................................... 9

Chart 5. Farmworker Marital Status.......................................................................................... 10

Chart 6. Number of Resident and Non-Resident Children of Farmworker Parents.................. 11

Chart 7. Native Language of U.S. Farmworkers....................................................................... 13

Chart 8. Level of Education by Place of Last Schooling.......................................................... 14

Chart 9. Participation in Adult Education Classes.................................................................... 15

Chart 10. Participation in Adult Education by Years of Schooling............................................ 16

Chart 11. U.S. Farmworkers With Fluency in English, by Place of Birth and Ethnicity............ 17

Chart 12. Number of Jobs Held by U.S. Farmworkers in One Year........................................... 19

Chart 13. Migration and U.S. Farmworkers................................................................................ 20

Table 1. Defining Migrant Travel Patterns ............................................................................... 21

Chart 14. Farmworkers' Home Base .......................................................................................... 21

Chart 15. Percent Distribution of Farmworkers by Current Legal Status.................................. 22

Chart 16. Percent Distribution of Farmworkers’ Legal Status by Method of Application........ 23

Chart 17. Time Spent in Farm Work in the Year Prior to Interview by Farmworker

 Place of Birth.............................................................................................................. 24

Table 2. Distribution of Weeks Spent in Various Activities: Three Periods Compared........... 25

Table 3. Monthly Activity of Farmworkers, 1997.................................................................... 26

Table 4. Years of Farm Work and Average Age by Method of Legalization........................... 26

Chart 18. Crops in Which Farmworkers are Employed............................................................. 29

Chart 19. Crops in Which FLC Employees Work ..................................................................... 30

Chart 20. Tasks in Which Farmworkers are Employed............................................................. 31

Chart 21. Basis for Pay, All Farm Jobs...................................................................................... 32

Chart 22. Earnings Per Hour, by Task and Employer Type....................................................... 33

Table 5. Farmworker Nominal and Real Hourly Wages (Based on 1998).............................. 34
vi Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

Chart 23. Hourly Nominal and Real Wages (Based on 1998)................................................... 34

Table 6. Average Hourly Earnings of Crop Workers and Workers in the Nonfarm Private

 Sector........................................................................................................................... 35

Chart 24. Average Hourly Earnings of Crop Workers and Other Workers in the Private Sector

................................................................................................................................................ 35

Chart 25. Workers who Report Receiving Fringe Benefits, by Employer Type ....................... 36

Chart 26. Incomes Below Poverty Level, by Family Size ......................................................... 40

Chart 27. Households Receiving Payments From "Contribution-Based" Programs................. 40

Chart 28. Households Receiving "Needs-Based" Government Services................................... 41

Table A.1. Means and Standard Errors for Continuous and Dichotomous Variables..............44
Executive Summary vii

Executive Summary

This is Report Number 8 in a series of publications based on the findings of the National

Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS), a nationwide, random survey on the demographic and

employment characteristics of hired crop workers. This report, like those before it, finds that

several long-standing trends characterizing the farm labor workforce and the farm labor market

continue. It finds that farmworker wages have stagnated, annual earnings remain below the

poverty level, farmworkers experience chronic underemployment and that the farm workforce

increasingly consists of young, single males who are recent immigrants.

In 1997-98, most farmworkers (60%) held only one farm job per year and the majority

(70%) had learned about their current job through informal means, such as through a friend, a

relative or a workmate. On average, farmworkers were employed in agriculture for less than half

of a year (24 weeks). Even in July, when demand for farm labor peaks in many parts of the

country, just over half of the total farm labor workforce held agricultural jobs. On average,

farmworkers supplemented their agricultural earnings with five weeks of nonfarm employment

in the U.S.

The number of weeks this workforce is employed each year in farm and nonfarm jobs in

the U.S. has been declining. Since 1990-92, the average work year in agriculture has decreased

from 26 to 24 weeks while the number of weeks in nonagricultural employment has decreased

from eight to five. At the time of the 1997-98 interviews, farmworkers had worked, on average,

a total of just eight years in agriculture.

Over the period of the 1990’s, with a strong economy and greater, increasingly

widespread prosperity, farmworker wages have lost ground relative to those of workers in the

private, nonfarm sector. Since 1989, the average nominal hourly wage of farmworkers has risen

by only 18 percent (from $5.24 to $6.18), about one-half of the 32 percent increase for

nonagricultural workers. Adjusted for inflation, the average real hourly wage of farmworkers (in

1998 dollars) has dropped from $6.89 to $6.18. Consequently, farmworkers have lost 11 percent

of their purchasing power over the last decade.

Fifty-two percent of all farmworkers were married, and the majority (61%) had incomes

below the poverty level. For the past decade, the median income of individual farmworkers has

remained less than $7,500 per year while that of farmworker families has remained less than

$10,000. Despite the fact that the relative poverty of farmworkers and their families has grown,

their use of social services remains low and, for some programs, has even declined. For instance,

in both 1994-95 and 1997-98, just 20 percent of all farmworkers reported having received

unemployment insurance. Likewise, in both periods, just 10 percent reported receiving benefits

from the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program. Use of Medicaid and food stamps has

decreased over time. In 1994-95, 15 percent of all those interviewed reported receiving

Medicaid and food stamps versus 13 percent and 10 percent, respectively, in 1997-98.
viii Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

Other measures of economic well being indicate that farmworkers are increasingly

disadvantaged. In 1994-95, nearly half (49%) of all farmworkers owned a vehicle, a figure that

dropped to 44 percent in 1997-98. More workers now rely on employers, contractors, and

coworkers for transportation to work. Another large change was in home ownership. In 1994-

95, one third of all farmworkers owned or were buying a home in the U.S. By 1997-98, only

half as many (14%) so reported.

These trends are consistent with the finding that a large share of the farm workforce

consists of recent immigrants. In 1997-98, 27 percent of all those interviewed had entered the

U.S. within the previous two years. Many of these new workers (33%) had no previous

experience working in agriculture. Among all farmworkers interviewed in 1997-98, 52 percent

lacked work authorization.

NAWS findings of low wages, underemployment, and low annual incomes of U.S. crop

workers are indicative of a national oversupply of farm labor. Low annual income, in turn, most

likely contributes to the instability that characterizes the agricultural labor market, as farm

workers seek jobs paying higher wages and offering more hours of work.

The National Agricultural Workers Survey profiles characteristics of crop workers and

their jobs: important components of the supply side of the farm labor market. Labor markets,

however, reflect the interaction of labor supply and demand. A study of the demand for farm

labor, and how it would likely change as the farm labor supply changed, is beyond the scope of

the NAWS. Such a study, however, would complement the farm worker data collected via the

NAWS and help point the way to an agricultural labor market that promotes stable employment,

higher wages and a legal, domestic workforce. 
Introduction 1

Introduction

Farmworkers in the United States perform numerous important tasks necessary for

cultivating and harvesting a large share of the nation’s food supply. This report presents current

information on the characteristics and work patterns of those who perform crop work in the

United States (U.S.). It is intended to provide data for policy makers, researchers, agricultural

producers/employers, employer associations, and organizations providing services to

farmworkers.

The National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) is a national survey of farmworkers

in crop agriculture. The NAWS collects extensive data from this population concerning basic

demographics, legal status, education, family size and household composition, wages and

working conditions in farm jobs, and participation in the U.S. labor force. Information for this

report was obtained from 4,199 interviews with workers in the United States during fiscal years

1997 and 1998.

Initially, the NAWS was commissioned by the Department of Labor (DOL) as part of its

response to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). The original purposes

were to monitor turnover of seasonal agricultural service workers in order to identify emerging

shortages between 1990 and 1993 and to monitor seasonal agricultural wages and working

conditions. Since that time, several other federal agencies have participated in the development

of the NAWS questionnaire by contributing questions to assist them in better serving their

farmworker constituencies.

The NAWS interviews workers performing crop agriculture.1 The definition of crop

work by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) includes “field work” in the vast majority

of nursery products, cash grains, and field crops, as well as in all fruits and vegetables. Crop

agriculture also includes the production of silage and other animal fodder. The population

sampled by NAWS consists of nearly all farmworkers in crop agriculture, including field

packers, and supervisors, and even those simultaneously holding nonfarm jobs. However, the

sample excludes secretaries and mechanics, and H-2A temporary farmworkers. The NAWS does

not sample unemployed agricultural workers.

Topics Covered

This report is organized into six chapters. Chapters 1 through 3 provide information about

the farmworkers, themselves, including demographic characteristics, family composition,

national origin, education, and language proficiency.

 

1

 All crops included in Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 01.
2 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

Chapters 4 and 5 describe the labor force participation of U.S. crop workers.2 Chapter 4

gives an overview of worker participation in the farm labor force. Chapter 5 outlines the

characteristics of farm jobs held by workers in the survey, including crop and task, weekly hours,

wages and benefits, and working conditions.

Chapter 6 contains information on farmworkers’ income, assets, and use of social

services. It covers personal income, assets in the United States and home country, family

poverty status, and use of government and private social services.

The text and figures summarize worker responses to interview questions, in some cases

aggregated by important subgroups of the population. An appendix describes statistical

conventions followed in analyses throughout this report.

Survey Method

During fiscal years 1997 and 1998, the NAWS randomly selected and interviewed more

than 2,000 crop workers across the United States each year. The multi-stage sampling procedure

is designed to account for seasonal and regional fluctuations in the level of farm employment.

The NAWS is designed to obtain a nationally representative sample of crop workers.

Seasonal fluctuations in the agricultural work force are captured by three interviewing

cycles lasting 10 to 12 weeks each. Cycles begin in February, June, and October. The number

of interviews conducted during a cycle is proportional to the amount of crop activity at that time

of the year.

The amount of crop activity during each season of the year is approximated using

administrative data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census of Agriculture. All states

in the continental U.S. are divided into 12 regions, aggregated from the 17 agricultural regions

used by the USDA. Within these regions, a roster of 47 Crop Reporting Districts (CRD)

containing 288 counties was selected. For each cycle, no fewer than two CRD were selected

randomly for each region.

Multi-stage sampling is used to choose respondents in each cycle. The number of sites

selected is also proportional to the amount of farm work being done during the cycle. The

likelihood of a given site being selected varies with the size of its seasonal agricultural payroll.

Because some states such as California and Florida have relatively high agricultural payrolls

throughout the year, several CRDs in these states are selected for interviews during each cycle.

Within each CRD, a county is selected at random. Farm employers within each of the selected

counties are chosen randomly from public agency records. Principle among these are

unemployment insurance files, Agricultural Commissioners’ pesticide registrations, and lists

 

2

 The terms “farmworker” and “crop worker” are interchangeable in this report.
Introduction 3

maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and various state agencies. The availability of these

data varies by state. NAWS staff review and update these lists annually in the field.

Once the sample is drawn, NAWS interviewers contact the selected agricultural

employers, explain the purpose of the survey, and obtain access to the work site in order to

schedule interviews. Interviewers then go to the farm, ranch, or nursery, explain the purpose of

the survey to workers, and ask a random sample of them to participate. Interviews are conducted

in the workers’ home or at another location of the worker’s choice.

The 4,199 personal interviews on which this report is based were conducted in 85

counties between October 1, 1996 and September 30, 1998.
4 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998
Chapter 1: Place of Birth and Length of Stay in the U.S. 5

Summary of Findings

ÿ 81 percent of all farmworkers in 1997-98 were foreign-born

ÿ 77 percent of all farmworkers were Mexican-Born

ÿ A disproportionate share of foreign-born farmworkers had either immigrated within

the previous two years or had resided in the U.S. for more than 15 years.

Chapter 1: Place of Birth and Length of Stay in the U.S.

Chart 1. Farmworker Ethnicity and Place of Birth

Place of Birth

Eighty-one percent of all farmworkers were foreign-born. The vast majority of the

foreign-born (95%) were from Mexico, comprising three quarters of the farm workforce in 1997-

98. The remainder were from other parts of Latin America (2%), Asia (1%), and other countries

(1%).

US-Born White

7%

US-Born Hispanic

9%

US-Born African American

1%

Other US-Born

2%

Latin American Born

2%

Mexican Born

77%

Asian Born

1%

Other Foreign-Born

1%
6 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

About 19 percent of all farmworkers were U.S.-born. U.S.-born Whites accounted for

just 7 percent of all farmworkers, while U.S.-born Hispanics, African Americans and others

made up the remaining 12 percent (see Chart 1).

Number of Years to Date in the United States

Foreign-born farmworkers had spent an average of 10 years in the United States at the

time of the interview. This figure largely reflects the experience of the dominant group, the

Mexican-born. By comparison, Central Americans averaged 6 years and Southeast Asians 8

years in the U.S. In contrast, smaller groups such as Asians, Pacific Islanders, and South

American individuals typically had been in the U.S. more than 10 years (see Chart 2).

Chart 2. Number of Years in the United States, by Birthplace

In 1997-98, the foreign-born farm workforce was dominated by two main groups:

newcomers who had arrived in the United States within the last two years, and those who had

resided in the U.S. for fifteen years or more. Newcomers accounted for one-third, and those

resident 15 years or more another quarter of the foreign-born workforce (see Chart 3).

15

10

8

6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Pacific Islands

Mexico

South East Asia

Central America

Place of Birth

Average Number of Years
Chapter 1: Place of Birth and Length of Stay in the U.S. 7

Chart 3. Foreign-Born Workers' Length of Residence in the United States

32%

9%

17%

15%

27%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

0-2 3-4 5-9 10-14 15+

Number of Years

Percent of Foreign-Born Workers
8 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998
Chapter 2: Demographics, Family and Household Composition 9

Summary of Findings

ÿ Farmworkers are young: their average age is 31, and half of all farmworkers are

under 29 years of age.

ÿ Eighty percent of farmworkers are men.

ÿ One-half of all farmworkers are married, and slightly less than one-half are

parents.

ÿ Among farmworker parents, half are not accompanied by their children.

Chapter 2: Demographics, Family and Household Composition

Age

Chart 4. Age Distribution of U.S. Farmworkers

As might be expected in a physically intense occupation, the farmworker population was

relatively young. Approximately 79 percent of all farmworkers were between the ages of 18 and

44. Six percent were between the ages of 14 and 17, and 15 percent were 45 and above (see

Chart 4). The median age of all farmworkers was 29.

6%

9%

21%

31%

18%

9%

5%

1%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

14-17 18-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Age

Percent of US Farm Workers
10 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

Gender

Just 20 percent of U.S. farmworkers were women. Female farmworkers differed in some

key respects from males. They were more likely to be U.S.-born (34% vs. 15%), and tended to

be somewhat older (median age 31 vs. 28).

Household Structure

Slightly over half (52%) of farmworkers were married; another 43 percent were single,

while the remaining 5 percent were widowed, separated or divorced (see Chart 5). Female

farmworkers were more likely than males to be married (60% vs. 50%).

Many married farmworkers did not routinely reside with their nuclear families. Fully 45

percent of those with a spouse and offspring were not residing with them at the time of the

interview. Ninety percent of the non-resident families lived in Mexico. Most single, childless

farmworkers lived with people who were not part of their nuclear family.

Farmworking women were more likely than men to reside with their nuclear families

(74% vs. 27%). Ninety-eight percent of childless, married farmworking women lived with their

spouses, as compared with just half of comparable men. Ninety-one percent of mothers, as

compared with just 42 percent of fathers, lived with their children. 

Chart 5. Farmworker Marital Status

Widowed/Divorced/ 

Separated

5%

Single

43%

Married 

52%
Chapter 2: Demographics, Family and Household Composition 11

Although this is a young population (median age was 29) and 43 percent were single,

nearly half (45%) of all farmworkers had children. About 24 percent had children with whom

they resided, 21% had children resident elsewhere, and a small fraction (1%) lived with some,

but not all, of their children.

Of those farmworkers who were parents, roughly a third each reported having one, two,

and three or more children. The likelihood of separation from their children appears to increase

with family size. Just 5 percent of intact farmworker families, as compared with 11 percent of

those living apart from their children, had 5 or more offspring (see Chart 6).

Chart 6. Number of Resident and Non-Resident Children of Farmworker Parents

34%

30%

20%

11%

5%

29% 30%

19%

12% 11%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

1 2 3 4 5 & over

Number of Children of Farmworker Parents

Percent of US Farm Workers 

Resident

Non-Resident
12 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998
Chapter 3: Education, Literacy, and English Skills 13

Summary of Findings

ÿ Five out of six farmworkers spoke Spanish (84%).

ÿ Farmworkers typically had completed 6 years of education.

ÿ Just one-tenth of foreign-born farmworkers spoke or read English fluently.

Chapter 3: Education, Literacy, and English Skills

Native Language

Chart 7. Native Language of U.S. Farmworkers

Spanish was the predominant native language of farmworkers (84%), followed by

English (12%). The remaining 4 percent reported native languages such as: Tagalog, Ilocano,

Creole, and Mixtec (see Chart 7).

Education

The median highest grade of schooling completed by farmworkers was 6th grade.

Twenty percent had completed less than 3 years of schooling, while just 15 percent had

completed 12 years or more.

Spanish

84%

Other

4%

English

12%
14 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

Chart 8. Level of Education by Place of Last Schooling

Farmworkers who completed their last year of schooling abroad reported a significantly

lower median level of education than those who had completed their schooling in the United

States (6th vs. 11th grade) (see Chart 8). Consequently, native English speakers had a higher

median level of education than native Spanish speakers (12th vs. 9th grade). Place of birth,

however, did not appear to be the determining factor: the medians for U.S.-born and foreign -

born individuals were nearly identical (7th vs. 6th grade). Education levels were lowest for those

educated in a country where the language of instruction differed from their native tongue. For

instance, the vast majority (90%) of non-Spanish speakers educated in Mexico completed less

than 6th grade.

Seventy-three percent of all U.S. farmworkers completed their education in Mexico, as

compared with just 21 percent in the U.S. Only a small fraction completed their education in

Puerto Rico (3%), Central America (2%), Southeast Asia (1%) or the Pacific Islands (1%).

20%

38%

27%

15%

3%

9%

49%

39%

19%

50%

22%

9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0-3 4-7 8-11 12+

Years Completed

Percent of U.S. Farm Workers

All Workers

Educated in U.S.

Educated Abroad
Chapter 3: Education, Literacy, and English Skills 15

Adult Education

Chart 9. Participation in Adult Education Classes

One-fifth of all farmworkers had taken at least one adult education class. The most

popular of these were high school equivalency (GED) classes (9%) and English classes (8%). A

smaller share had taken college and university classes (3%), various other classes (2%) or

citizenship, job training and adult basic education (1% each) (see Chart 9). 

The likelihood of their attending adult education classes increased with years of basic

schooling. Nearly half of all farmworkers who attended adult education classes had also

attended school for 12 or more years (see Chart 10).

Literacy

Defining literacy is a difficult task. However, some accepted indicators (grade level,

educational achievement, self-assessment) give a basis for inferring the English reading, writing,

and speaking skills of the farmworkers surveyed.

22%

9%

8%

3%

2%

1%

1%

1%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Any Adult Education

GED

English

College/Univ.

Other

Citizenship

Job Training

Adult Basic Education

Type of Classes

Percent of US Farm Workers
16 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

Chart 10. Participation in Adult Education by Years of Schooling

Although years of schooling completed do not necessarily correlate with present abilities

to read and write, school completion data provide some indication of ability to process and use

printed information. Under one method of appraisal, 3 adults are divided into three major groups:

C Totally Illiterate - person has skills below the fourth grade level and cannot

acquire information through print.

C Functionally Illiterate - person can read between the fourth and seventh grade

levels.

C Marginally Literate - person can read between the eighth and twelfth grade levels,

but lacks the twelfth grade equivalence needed in a complex technological

society.

By this standard, most farmworkers (85%) would have difficulty obtaining information

from printed materials in any language. Those with between 8 and 12 years of education (27%)

would be considered marginally literate; those with between 4 and 7 years (38%) would be

considered functionally illiterate, and those with less than a fourth grade education (20%) would

be considered totally illiterate.

4

 Many of these workers, however, have valued qualifications not

reflected in grade level or literacy.

 

3

 Jeanne Chall, director of Harvard University’s Reading Laboratory. Source: LSCA Programs: An Action

Report II, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C., April 1989, p. 3.

4

 Other classification systems, such as the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), through the National

Center for Education Statistics (NCES), define literacy broadly, as using printed and written information to function

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

No schooling 1-3 4-7 8-11 12+

Years of Schooling

Percent of US Farm Workers

7%

9% 10%

34%

47%
Chapter 3: Education, Literacy, and English Skills 17

English Fluency (Self rated)

Chart 11. U.S. Farmworkers With Fluency in English, by Place of Birth and

Ethnicity

Most crop work does not require English fluency and literacy, since foremen and

managers commonly hire and supervise in the workers’ native languages. Nonetheless, NAWS

respondents were asked, "How well do you speak English?" and "How well do you read

English?" Chart 11 demonstrates how differently various ethnic groups responded to this

question. As might be expected, almost all U.S.-born non-Hispanics reported that they could read

and speak English "well." Three-fifths of U.S.-born Hispanic farmworkers responded that they

 

effectively in society, not merely as an ability to read at a particular grade level. The NALS contains several

categories of literacy, including prose literacy (ability to use information from text sources such as books and

newspapers), document literacy (ability to use information from sources such as maps, tables, and forms), and

quantitative literacy (ability to perform arithmetic functions, such as balancing a checkbook). These categories,

however, take a battery of tests to evaluate, and are not available through the NAWS instrument.

99%

62%

4% 2%

36% 40%

98%

60%

4% 3%

36% 40%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

U.S., NonHispanicU.S., Hispanic Mexico Non-Mexican

Born Latino

Asia Haiti

Place of Birth

Percent of Farmworkers

Speak Read
18 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

could read and speak English well. Less than 5 percent of Mexican-born and other Latin

American-born farmworkers reported they could read and speak English well. One-third of

Asian-born farmworkers responded that they could read and speak English well. Almost all of

the foreign-born farmworkers who said that they could speak (94%) or read (87%) English well

had lived in the United States for 5 years or more.
Chapter 4: Labor 19

Summary of Findings

ÿ Sixty percent of all farmworkers held just one U.S. farm job per year.

ÿ During the course of the year, they spent approximately half of their time doing

farm work.

ÿ Fifty-six percent of all farmworkers migrate, whether within the United States

and/or internationally.

Chapter 4: Labor

Number of Jobs

Chart 12. Number of Jobs Held by U.S. Farmworkers in One Year

The 4,199 interviewed farmworkers reported having held a total of 7,697 U.S. farm jobs.

Fully 60 percent reported holding just one farm job during the previous year. Thirty-three

percent had held 2 to 3 jobs, and just 7 percent had held four or more (see Chart 12). Two-thirds

of those who had discontinuous work experience left their jobs for reasons beyond their control,

i.e., because they were laid off or the season ended. Other work-related reasons included

quitting (no reason specified) (5%), change of jobs (4%) and being fired (less than 1%).

1 job

60%

2-3 jobs

33%

4-5 jobs

6%

6+ jobs

1%
20 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

Relatively few cited personal reasons such as moving (5%), vacation (5%), family

responsibilities (3%), school (2 %), health (1%), or retirement (less than 1%).5

Migration

 Chart 13. Migration and U.S. Farmworkers

As the figures in Chart 13 demonstrate, the majority (56%) of U.S. farmworkers had to

travel to secure employment. The NAWS has defined a migrant farmworker as one who travels

more than 75 miles to obtain a job in U.S. agriculture.6 Various patterns of migration are

elaborated further in Table 1.

 

5 Because the NAWS only interviews employed farmworkers, it is impossible to determine the

exact reason for high farmworker turnover.

6

 Migrant Farmworkers: Pursuing Security in an Unstable Labor Market. Research Report 5.

U.S. Department of Labor, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office of Program

Economics (1994).

Non Migrants

44%

Shuttle Migrants

39%

Follow the Crop

17%
Chapter 4: Labor 21

Table 1. Defining Migrant Travel Patterns

Resides in location

less than 75 miles

from all his/her U.S.

farm jobs

Resides in location

more than 75 Miles

from any of his/her

U.S. farm jobs

All farm jobs are

less than 75 miles

apart

Non Migrant Shuttle Migrant

Has at least two

Farm Jobs more

than 75 Miles apart

Follow the Crop

Migrant

Follow the Crop

Migrant

Follow-the-crop migrants, like those portrayed in Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath,

comprised 17 percent of the farm workforce. More than twice as many (39%) were shuttle

migrants, moving between two or more jobs clustered at a location far from their home base.

Among all farmworkers, 42 percent maintained their home outside the United States, where

during the off-season, they can live inexpensively and/or supplement their farm earnings with

nonagricultural work (see Chart 14). This inclination to shuttle between countries appears to

diminish with exposure to life in the United States. Half (51%) of all recently-arrived

farmworkers, i.e., those resident in the U.S. two years or less, but just one third (33%) of those

resident longer than two years reported being international shuttlers. Only 44 percent of all

farmworkers were nonmigrants.

Chart 14. Farmworkers’ Home Base

United States

58%

Abroad

42%
22 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

Age and place of birth also appear to influence a worker’s propensity to migrate for employment.

Migrant farmworkers were, on average, slightly younger than non-migrants. The median age of

follow-the-crop migrants was 26 years, as compared with 27 years for shuttle migrants, and 31

for non-migrants. This age differential is echoed in other indices of farmworker activity, since

older workers tend to be the most settled.

Nine out of ten follow-the-crop and shuttle migrants, but just two thirds of non-migrant

farmworkers, were foreign-born. Newly migrant farmworkers, with less than one year of

agricultural experience in the U.S., spent an average of 17 weeks per year doing farmwork.

Their counterparts, with several years of farm experience, averaged 26 weeks of such work

annually. The work schedules of non-migrants were the most stable, averaging 32 weeks per

year of agricultural employment. 

Legal Status of U.S. Farmworkers

The NAWS interview requested information on the farmworker’s U.S. citizenship or visa

type and status to identify whether the individual was authorized to work in the United States,

and, if so, how he or she originally obtained legal status. In 1997-98, 52 percent of hired

farmworkers lacked work authorization, 22 percent were citizens and 24 percent were legal

permanent residents (see Chart 15). The remaining 2 percent comprised individuals with

temporary work permits, such as foreign students, refugees and asylees, and persons who had

pending applications for adjustment of status under family preference. Between 1996 and 1998,

the share of workers who were unauthorized increased by 1 percentage point per year.7

Chart 15. Percent Distribution of Farmworkers by Current Legal Status

Unauthorized

52%

Citizen

22%

LPR

24%

Other

2%

 

7

 The unauthorized component increased from 50% in 1996 to 51% in 1997.
Chapter 4: Labor 23

Farmworkers interviewed in the NAWS obtain their legal status and authorization to

work through several means. In 1997-98, 40 percent of work-authorized farmworkers were

citizens by birth. Thirty-three percent had obtained residency under the Special Agricultural

Worker (SAW) program8; 22 percent had obtained residency under family reunification

programs and 5 percent qualified for work as either a foreign student, refugee, asylee, or

someone whose adjustment of status was pending under family sponsorship (see Chart 16).

Chart 16. Percent Distribution of Farmworkers’ Legal Status by Method of

Application9

Citizen by Birth

40%

SAW

33%

Family

22%

Other

5%

 

8

 With the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA, P.L. 99-603)

nearly 1.1 million undocumented migrants were legalized under the Special Agricultural Worker

(SAW) program.

9 The reported percentages are based on work-authorized farmworkers.
24 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

Time Spent in Labor Over the Year

Chart 17. Time Spent in Farm Work in the Year Prior to Interview by Farmworker

Place of Birth

Underemployment is widespread within the farm workforce. In 1997-98, farmworkers

spent, on average, about 47 percent of their time in U.S. farm work, 24 percent of their time

living abroad, 19 percent of their time residing but not working in the U.S., and 8 percent of their

time in U.S. nonfarm employment. Time spent working in U.S. agriculture varied by place of

birth: non-Mexican-born Latinos spent the largest proportion of their year (56%) in farmwork.

By comparison, Mexican-born and U.S.-born farmworkers spent 48 and 46 percent of their year

in farmwork, respectively, while Asian-born farmworkers spent just 43 percent (see Chart 17).

Overall, there is evidence that the average number of weeks worked in agriculture has

been dropping. Table 2 (below) shows that it has decreased from 26 in 1990-92 to 24 in 1996-

98. Over the same period, the average number of weeks worked by U.S.-born farmworkers fell

from 24 to 23, and that of foreign-born farmworkers fell from 28 to 25.

29%

6%

33%

46%

12%

15%

6%

48%

18%

11%

56%

11% 9%

32%

43%

15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Farm Work Non-Farm

Work

Not Working Abroad

Activity

Percent of U.S. 

Farmworkers

U.S.-Born

Mexican-Born

Non-Mexican Latino

Asian-Born
Chapter 4: Labor 25

Table 2. Distribution of Weeks Spent in Various Activities: Three Periods

Compared

ALL FARMWORKERS

PERIOD N Farmwork Weeks Nonfarm Work Weeks Non-Work Weeks Weeks Abroad

26.2 7.6 11.2 6.5 FY 90-92 6596

25.0 6.1 11.1 8.9 FY 93-95 7082

24.4 4.6 10.1 12.2 FY 96-98 6221

U.S. BORN

PERIOD N Farmwork Weeks Nonfarm Work Weeks Non-Work Weeks Weeks Abroad

23.6 11.5 15.0 1.4 FY 90-92 1137

21.3 9.9 17.1 2.1 FY 93-95 1884

22.5 8.2 18.8 2.0 FY 96-98 1054

FOREIGN BORN

PERIOD N Farmwork Weeks Nonfarm Work Weeks Non-Work Weeks Weeks Abroad

28.0 5.1 8.7 9.9 FY 90-92 5455

26.6 4.4 8.4 12.0 FY 93-95 5173

24.9 3.7 8.0 14.8 FY 96-98 5159

Farmworker underemployment is also evident in Table 3, which shows that even during

July, a month in which demand for farm labor peaks, only 56 percent of the entire farm

workforce were employed in agricultural jobs.

Here, too, age plays a significant role. During 1997 to 1998, farmworkers ages 18 to 21

spent the most time (32%) abroad. Older farmworkers typically spent the largest proportion of

their year in farm work. Those over 55 years of age spent an average of 55 percent of the year in

U.S. farm work, as compared to 25 percent reported by the youngest age group, 14 to 17 yearolds. 
26 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

Table 3. Monthly Activity of Farmworkers, 1997

Farmwork Non-Farm Work Non-Work Abroad TOTAL

JAN 36% 9% 22% 34% 100%

FEB 36% 9% 23% 32% 100%

MAR 40% 10% 22% 29% 100%

APR 47% 10% 20% 23% 100%

MAI 52% 11% 18% 20% 100%

JUN 58% 9% 16% 17% 100%

JUL 56% 9% 15% 20% 100%

AUG 55% 9% 16% 21% 100%

SEP 56% 7% 16% 22% 100%

OCT 52% 7% 20% 21% 100%

NOV 50% 7% 23% 21% 100%

DEC 43% 7% 23% 27% 100%

Farm Work Experience

Adult farmworkers interviewed in 1997-98 had worked an average of 8 years in U.S.

agriculture. Of those who had arrived in the U. S. within the last 2 years, 33 percent had no

previous agricultural experience. However, 30 percent of those eighteen and over had worked in

U.S. crop agriculture for more than ten years.

Table 4 highlights the relationship between age, years of work experience in the United

States, and method of legalization. As a group, unauthorized farmworkers were considerably

younger than those who were authorized to work (median age 27 vs. 36 years); they also

reported much less farm experience (4 vs. 13 years). In light of the fact that legalization

opportunities increase with time in the U.S., and that mobility is greatest at younger ages, such

differences are not surprising.

Table 4. Years of Farm Work and Average Age by Method of Legalization

Method of

Legalization

Percentage by

Method of

Legalization

Average Number of

Years Working in

Agriculture

Average

Age

Citizens 19.4% 10 32

SAWS 16.0% 16 39

Family Programs 10.5% 12 37

Other Authorized 2.6% 14 39

All authorized 48.5% 13 36

Unauthorized 51.5% 4 27

All farmworkers 100% 8 31
Chapter 4: Labor 27

Plans to Continue in Farm Work

Farmworkers were asked how long they expected to continue in farm work. Only about

half (54%) stated intentions to continue for more than five years or as long as they were able.

Twenty-seven percent intended to continue in this line of work for less than 3 years.

 To explore their ability to find work elsewhere in the United States, the NAWS asked

about respondents’ contacts in the nonfarm sector. Overall, 59 percent reported having relatives

or close friends who performed nonfarm work in the United States. Respondents were also

asked if they could obtain a U.S.-based nonfarm job within one month. Only 35 percent said

they could, and 24 percent responded that they did not know.
28 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998
Chapter 5: Characteristics of Farm Jobs and Farm Conditions 29

Summary of Findings

ÿ Nineteen percent of the U.S. farmworkers interviewed by the NAWS were

employed by farm labor contractors.

ÿ Sixty-one percent worked in fruits, nuts, or vegetables.

ÿ One-third of the jobs were in crop harvest, and one-quarter were in semiskilled technical jobs.

ÿ Three out of four farmworkers were paid by the hour, with an average hourly

wage of $ 5.94.

ÿ Although 20 percent reported being covered by unemployment insurance, just

5 percent reported being covered by employer provided health insurance.

Chapter 5: Characteristics of Farm Jobs and Farm Conditions

Employers

In 1997-98, four out of five U.S. farmworkers were hired directly by agricultural

employers or farmers; the remaining one fifth were hired by Farm Labor Contractors (FLC).

Farm labor contractors serve as intermediaries, often hiring, firing and supervising work in the

workers' native language.

Crops

Chart 18. Crops in Which Farmworkers are Employed

Fruits & Nuts

33%

Vegetables

28%

Horticulture

14%

Other Crops

9%

Field Crops

16%
30 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

About 33 percent of all farmworkers worked in fruit and nut crops, 28 percent in

vegetables, 16 percent on field crops, 14 percent in horticulture and the remaining 9 percent in

other crops (see Chart 18). FLC employees were more frequently employed in field crops,

horticulture, and other crops, while those hired directly by growers were more likely to work in

fruits, nuts, and vegetables (see Chart 19).10

Chart 19. Crops in Which FLC Employees Work

Tasks

About 32 percent of all workers took part in harvest tasks. Only 22 percent engaged in

pre-harvest tasks such as hoeing, thinning, and transplanting; 15 percent engaged in post-harvest

tasks such as field packing, sorting, or grading. Twenty five percent did semi-skilled or skilled

technical production tasks, such as irrigating, operating machinery, and pruning. The remaining

6 percent of workers performed other tasks, of which less than 1 percent involved supervision

(see Chart 20). Proportionately more directly hired workers than FLC employees engaged in

harvest tasks (35% versus 22%).

 

10 Fourteen percent of directly hired farmworkers worked in field crops, 34 percent in fruits and

nuts, 13 percent in horticulture, 31 percent in vegetables, and 8 percent in other crops.

Fruits & Nuts

26%

Other Crops

12%

Horticulture 

19%

Vegetables

19%

Field Crops

24%
Chapter 5: Characteristics of Farm Jobs and Farm Conditions 31

Chart 20. Tasks in Which Farmworkers are Employed

Recruitment and Retention

Most U.S. farmworkers (70%) found out about their current farm job through a friend,

relative, or workmate. Twenty-five percent applied for the job on their own, while just 1 percent

were recruited by a farm labor contractor or his/her foreman and a similar share were referred by

the employment service. The remaining 3 percent reported miscellaneous methods of locating

their job.

 Just 14 percent of all farmworkers worked for their employer year-round. About 83

percent did so on a seasonal basis. Of these seasonal workers, 33 percent had contacted their

employer themselves. Another 32 percent were recruited through someone other than the

employer. In 6 percent of all cases, the employer recruited the worker directly before the

previous season was over. Employers also recruited many workers in the off-season by

telephone (19%) or letter (1%). About 8 percent did not know how they had been recruited or

reported some other form of contact.

Pre-Harvest

22%

Harvest

32%

Semi-Skilled

25%

Other

6%

Post-Harvest

15%
32 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

Hours Worked and Basis for Pay

Farmworkers interviewed in 1997-98 worked an average of 38 hours per week. The

majority (56%) worked between 31 and 50 hours, while nearly a third (30%) worked 30 hours or

less and 15 percent worked more than 50 hours. Seventy-seven percent of the farmworkers were

paid by the hour, 20 percent by the piece and a small percentage (2%) by a combination of these

methods (see Chart 21).

Chart 21. Basis for Pay, All Farm Jobs

Farmers and farm labor contractors do not appear to rely on distinctly different methods

of payment. However, the prevalence of piece rates (as compared with hourly wages) does vary

considerably by crop. Whereas about 20 percent of all farmworkers were paid by the piece, this

share varied from 25 percent in fruits, nuts and vegetables to just 10 percent in field crops,

horticulture and other crops. The tasks for which farmworkers were most likely to be paid by the

piece were harvest tasks (36%). Almost all of those engaged in pre- and post-harvest tasks were

paid by the hour (95%). Farmworker supervisors were universally paid by the hour.

77%

20%

2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Hourly Piece Rate Combination

Percent of US Farm Workers 
Chapter 5: Characteristics of Farm Jobs and Farm Conditions 33

Wages

The average farmworker wage earned in 1997-98 was $5.94.11 Those hired directly by

agricultural employers were paid slightly more ($5.97) than those hired by farm labor contractors

($5.80) (see Chart 22). However, earnings varied by tasks performed. The average wage of

farmworkers performing supervisory tasks ($10.50) stands in marked contrast to all other wages.

Farmworkers who did semi-skilled work or performed post-harvest tasks earned an average of

$5.91. Farmworkers engaged in harvest tasks and other tasks earned slightly more, $6.15 and

$6.06, respectively, while pre-harvest workers earned slightly less ($5.67).

These wages were observed over the same two-year time frame in which two changes in

the federal minimum wage took place. On October 1 1996, the federal minimum wage was

increased from $4.25 to $4.75. Subsequently, the minimum wage was increased to $5.15 on

September 1 1997. Using these cut-off levels, slightly more than one-tenth of all farmworkers

earned less than the minimum wage (12%).

Chart 22. Earnings Per Hour, by Task and Employer Type

Hourly wage information over the ten-year period 1989 to 1998 demonstrates that the

purchasing power of farm wages has been declining. In constant 1998 dollars, farmworker

hourly wages have dropped from $6.89 to $6.18, a decline of more than 10 percent (see Table 5

and Chart 23). During the same 1989-1998 period, the average farm wage dropped from 54

percent of that earned by production workers in the private, nonfarm sector to just 48 percent

(see Table 6 and Chart 24).

 

11 Average hourly wage is constructed from normal hourly wages as well as piece and

combination wages converted to the hourly basis.

$5.67 $6.15 $5.91 $5.91 $6.06

$10.50

$5.97 $5.80

$0.00

$2.00

$4.00

$6.00

$8.00

$10.00

$12.00

Pre-Harvest Harvest PostHarvestSemi-Skilled Other Supervisory Grower Labor

Contractor

Task and Employer Type

Mean Wage per Hour
34 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

Table 5. Farmworker Nominal and Real Hourly Wages (Based on 1998)

Year Nominal wages Real wages

1989 5.24 6.89

1990 5.23 6.52

1991 5.57 6.66

1992 5.33 6.19

1993 5.46 6.16

1994 5.54 6.09

1995 5.71 6.11

1996 5.67 5.89

1997 5.89 5.98

1998* 6.18 6.18

*The average hourly wages of crop workers were calculated based on data from January to

September 1998.

Chart 23. Hourly Nominal and Real Wages (Based on 1998)12

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

5.50

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998*

Real

Nominal

 

12 Consumer Price Index – Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (Current Series); U.S. All

items, 1998 = 100 – CWUR0000SAO; http://www.bls.gov/top20.html
Chapter 5: Characteristics of Farm Jobs and Farm Conditions 35

Table 6. Average Hourly Earnings of Crop Workers and Workers in the Nonfarm

Private Sector

Year

Average Hourly

Wages of Crop

Workers

Average Hourly

Wages of Production

Workers in the

Private Non-farm

Sector *

Ratio of Hourly Crop

Worker Wages to

Private Nonfarm

Worker Wages

1989 5.24 9.65 54.3%

1990 5.23 10.01 52.2%

1991 5.57 10.32 53.9%

1992 5.33 10.57 50.4%

1993 5.46 10.83 50.4%

1994 5.54 11.11 49.8%

1995 5.71 11.43 50.0%

1996 5.67 11.81 48.0%

1997 5.89 12.27 48.0%

1998** 6.18 12.78 48.4%

1989-1998

Percent

Change

17.9% 32.4% ________________

* Created by Aguirre International from BLS employer survey data: Nonfarm Payroll Statistics

from the Current Employment Statistics (National), National Employment, Hours, and Earnings:

http://www.bls.gov/top20.html

**The average hourly wages of crop workers were calculated based on data from January to

September 1998.

Chart 24. Average Hourly Earnings of Crop Workers and Other Workers in the

Private Sector

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998**

Wages in nominal dollars

Other workers

Crop Workers
36 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

Fringe Benefits

Fringe benefits are uncommon for farmworkers, and a large share did not know whether

they were entitled to such benefits. Few farmworkers (15%) received monetary bonuses from

their agricultural employers or labor contractors. Among those who did receive monetary

bonuses, 56 percent identified them as seasonal bonuses, 24 percent as holiday bonuses, 12

percent as incentive bonuses, and 7 percent as a bonus contingent on employer profits.

Unemployment insurance (UI) coverage varies by state. Forty-five percent of

farmworkers reported that they were covered by unemployment insurance. Nearly half (46%)

said they were not covered and 9 percent did not know. These proportions were comparable

between grower-hired and contractor-hired employees (see Chart 25). Workers' compensation

coverage was less prevalent. Twenty-eight percent of all farmworkers reported that they would

receive a payment if they got sick as a result of their work, 56 percent reported that they would

not, and the remaining 17 percent did not know.

Only 5 percent of those interviewed in 1997-98 stated their employer provided health

insurance for non-work related injuries or illness. Eighty-three percent said they were not

covered, and the remaining 12 percent did not know. Paid holidays and/or paid vacations were

provided to just 10 percent of all farmworkers. Eighty four percent were not provided holidays

and vacations, and the remaining 6 percent did not know.

Chart 25. Workers who Report Receiving Fringe Benefits, by Employer Type

41%

26%

4%

10%

23%

33%

9%

11%

32%

43%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

UI Workers'

Comp

Health

Insurance

Vacation Housing

Percent of US Farm Workers

Grower

Labor Contractor
Chapter 5: Characteristics of Farm Jobs and Farm Conditions 37

Housing

In 1997-98, 21percent of all farmworkers received free housing from their agricultural

employers, 7 percent rented from their employers, 47 percent rented from someone else, and 18

percent owned their own home. The remaining 7 percent had various other arrangements.

Farmworkers hired by a farm labor contractor were more likely to live in housing provided by

their employer. 

Meals

Virtually all farmworkers provided and paid for their own meals. Just 1 percent received

free meals from their employer and 2 percent paid for meals provided by their employer. In most

instances, whenever meals were provided for free, the employer was a labor contractor.

Sanitation

Although drinking water was available to most farmworkers (98%), fully 2 percent

reported not having access to drinking water at their work place. Sixteen percent reported not

having water with which to wash, and 13 percent reported that toilets were not available while at

work.

Transportation

Almost all farmworkers (99%) incurred transportation costs. Just 1 percent received

money from the employer for transportation expenses. Forty percent of farmworkers rode with

others to work, while 34 percent drove a car, 15 percent rode a labor bus, 8 percent walked and 3

percent used public transportation. Of those who did not drive a car or walk, one-third paid a fee

to the agricultural employer or contractor for a ride to work.

Equipment

Crop workers generally do not pay for their own equipment. The practice of requiring

farmworkers to supply their own equipment, however, is more common where a farm labor

contractor has hired the worker than when he/she is employed directly by the grower (33 vs.

23%). About 70 percent of those hired directly by farmers reported that the employer supplied

their equipment. Of those hired by farm labor contractors, a smaller share (55%) said their

employer paid for their equipment.
38 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998
Chapter 6: Income and Assets 39

Summary of Findings

ÿ Nearly three-quarters of U.S. farmworkers earned less than $10,000 per year.

ÿ Three out of five farmworker families had incomes below the poverty level.

ÿ More than half owned a vehicle; four out of ten foreign-born workers owned a

house in their home country.

ÿ Few workers received needs-based social services. Nearly all of these received

Food Stamps.

Chapter 6: Income and Assets

Income

The NAWS codes respondent incomes categorically, making it impossible to report exact

median incomes. Nonetheless, it is clear from these data that one half of all individual

farmworkers earned less than $7,500 per year and that one half of all farmworker families earned

less than $10,000 per year.

Consequently, 61 percent of all farmworkers, and 50 percent of those with 3 to 5 family

members, had below poverty incomes (see Chart 26). Because this index is calculated for the

household rather than the individual, household structure impacts this classification somewhat.

About 43% of childless married farmworkers fell below the poverty threshold. However, over

60% of single farmworkers, and those who were married with children, and virtually all of those

with 10 or more family members, fell below the poverty threshold. Foreign-born farmworkers

were considerably more likely to be impoverished than those born in the United States (65% vs.

42%).

Farmworker Assets

Most farmworkers (87%) owned some assets in the United States. Forty-four percent

owned a vehicle, although U.S.-born farmworkers were more likely to do so than foreign-born

workers, 63% as compared to less than 40% respectively.

Less than half of all farmworkers owned assets abroad. Forty-three percent owned or

were buying a house abroad, as compared with just 14 percent who owned, or were buying a

house in the United States.
40 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

Chart 26. Incomes Below Poverty Level, by Family Size

Use of Services

Despite the low annual incomes of farmworkers, few used contribution-based services,

such as unemployment insurance, disability insurance or social security. The service most

frequently used by farmworkers was unemployment insurance. One-fifth of all farmworkers

reported that they or someone in their family received benefits from unemployment insurance

within the past two years (see Chart 27). Just 1 percent of all farmworkers utilized disability

insurance or social security.

Chart 27. Households Receiving Payments From "Contribution-Based" Programs

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+

Number in Family

Percent of Farm Worker Households 

That Are Poor

20%

1% 1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Unemployment Ins. Disability Ins. Social Security

Service

Percent of US Farm Workers
Chapter 6: Income and Assets 41

In 1997-98, just 17 percent of all farmworkers used needs-based services. Needs-based

services include financial aid through programs such as temporary assistance to needy families

(TANF), general assistance or welfare, and publicly provided housing or medical and nutritional

assistance such as Women, Infants and Children (WIC), Food Stamps and Medicaid. Like the

use of contribution-based programs seen in Chart 27, use of needs-based services by this

population was minimal.

Thirteen percent of all farmworkers or their families used Medicaid in 1997-98. WIC

and Food Stamps were used by one in ten farmworker families. Only one in one hundred

families utilized Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Public Housing, General

Assistance or other services (see Chart 28). Two percent of farmworker households used more

than one of these services. Very few farmworkers reported receiving support from churches,

family, community organizations, or friends. Three percent of farmworkers reported receiving

support from a church, 6 percent from family, 1 percent from community organizations, 1

percent from charitable organizations, and 13 percent from friends.

Chart 28. Households Receiving "Needs-Based" Government Services

1% 1% 1% 1%

10% 10% 13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

AFDC Public

Housing

General

Assistance

Other WIC Food

Stamps

Medicaid

Service

Percent of US Farm Workers
42 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998
Appendix: Statistical Procedures 43

Appendix: Statistical Procedures

This section describes the statistical procedures used to analyze NAWS data for this

report. Further details on the statistical procedures can be obtained from the National

Agricultural Workers Survey Web site at

http://www.dol.gov/dol/asp/public/programs/agworker/naws.htm.

NAWS Weighting Procedure

According to the probability of inclusion, post-sampling weights are constructed taking

into account the year, season and region in which the farmworker was sampled as well as the

number of days per week worked by the farmworker. Details on post sampling weights can be

obtained in the Public Access Documentation located at the NAWS Web site.

Determining Standard Error

A standard error is a quantitative measure of the accuracy of a given calculation of a

statistic, such as a mean or a median. For example, if the parameter we are calculating is the

average age of the NAWS farmworker population during 1997-98, then the standard error

represents the differences between the mean obtained and the means that would be obtained by

several repetitions of the survey.

The standard error is often confused with the standard deviation. The standard deviation

is a measure of the variability relative to the mean, while the standard error is a measure of the

accuracy of a statistic. To clarify, the average age of farmworkers is 31. Calculating the

standard deviation of this variable (12.3) tells us that while the average farmworker is 31 years

old, 68 percent of all farmworkers fall between the ages of 19 and 44. In contrast to the standard

deviation, the standard error is a measure of the accuracy of the estimated average age of

farmworkers (31 years). The standard error obtained using 500 artificial replications produced a

value of 0.19. This means that if the NAWS survey were conducted 500 times, the estimate of

31 years as the average age would only change by one-fifth of one year, meaning that the

estimate is highly accurate.

Repeating the entire survey, of course, is an unfeasible option. Instead, statisticians use a

statistical technique called bootstrapping to perform experiments that simulate several surveys

from the data obtained through one survey. Table A.1 presents the means and standard errors for

the variables discussed in this report.
44 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

Table A.1. Means and Standard Errors for Continuous and Dichotomous Variables

Variable Mean/Percentage Standard Error

DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES

Age 31.30 0.1907

Gender is Female 20% 0.0056

Hispanic 90% 0.0042

Years in U.S. 9.88 0.1718

Nuclear Family Member Lives in

Household 37% 0.0075

Foreign born 81% 0.0058

Children in Household 0.53 0.0189

Total Children 1.06 0.0248

Non-Resident Children 0.53 0.0191

Family Composition

Farmworker is a Parent 45% 0.008

Lives with Parents 4% 0.0024

Married no Children 11% 0.005

Other Family Composition 40% 0.0074

100%

Marital Status

Married 52% 0.0076

Separated/Divorced/Widowed 6% 0.0038

Single 43% 0.0077

100%

Primary Language

Spanish 84% 0.0051

English 12% 0.0042

Other 5% 0.0035

100%

Place of Birth

Asian-born (inc. Pacific) 1% 0.0015

Caribbean-born Non-Latino 0% 0.0002

Haitian 0% 0.0009

Mexican-born 77% 0.0068

Non-Mexican born Latino 2% 0.0034
Appendix: Statistical Procedures 45

Place of Birth (continued)

U.S.-born African American 1% 0.0014

U.S.-born Hispanic 9% 0.0045

U.S.-born White 7% 0.0032

Other U.S.-born 2% 0.0018

Other Place of Birth 0% 0.0003

100%

Ethnicity (global)

White 63% 0.0076

Black/African American 2% 0.0023

American Indian/Alaskan

Native/Indigenous 9% 0.0035

Asian/Pacific Islander 2% 0.0016

Other 25% 0.0069

100%

Ethnicity (Hispanic)

Chicano 0% 0.001

Mexican 79% 0.0065

Mexican American 6% 0.0036

Other Hispanic 2% 0.0031

Puerto Rican 3% 0.0029

Other Ethnicity 10% 0.0042

100%

Ability to Read English

Not at All 53% 0.0078

A Little 22% 0.0069

Somewhat 7% 0.0038

Well 19% 0.0058

100%

Ability to Speak English (if English is not the primary language)

Not at All 45% 0.0077

A Little 28% 0.007

Somewhat 8% 0.0043

Well 19% 0.0057

100%

Education

Highest Grade Completed 6.91 0.0556

Adult Education 22% 0.0061
46 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

Place of Last Schooling

Asia 0% 0.0004

Central America 2% 0.0031

Caribbean 0% 0.001

Mexico 73% 0.0074

Pacific Islands 1% 0.0013

Puerto Rico 3% 0.0028

South America 0% 0.0003

South East Asia 1% 0.001

United States 21% 0.0062

Other Place of Schooling 0% 0.0004

100%

Farmworker Participation in Classes

English/ESL Classes 8% 0.0043

Citizenship Classes 1% 0.0021

Literacy Classes 0% 0.0006

Job Training Classes 1% 0.0019

GED/High School Equivalency Classes 9% 0.004

College/University Classes 3% 0.0025

Adult Basic Education Classes 1% 0.0017

Even Start Classes 0% 0.0005

Migrant Education 0% 0.0009

Other Classes 2% 0.002

INCOME AND ASSETS

Family Income Below the Poverty Line 61% 0.0077

Percentage of Farmworkers by Personal Income Categories

<$500 20% 0.0036

$500-$999 3% 0.0021

$1,000-$2,499 8% 0.0041

$2,500-$4,999 13% 0.0057

$5,000-$7,499 16% 0.0066

$7,500-$9,999 13% 0.0065

$10,000-$12,499 11% 0.0058

$12,500-$14,999 6% 0.0049

$15,000-$17,499 4% 0.0037

$17,500-$19,999 2% 0.003

$20,000-$24,999 3% 0.0027

$25,000-$29,999 1% 0.0011
Appendix: Statistical Procedures 47

Percentage of Farmworkers by Personal Income Categories (continued)

$30,000-$34,999 1% 0.0006

$35,000-$39,999 0% 0.001

>$40,000 0% 0.0004

100%

Percentage of Farmworkers by Family Income Categories

<$500 19% 0.0035

$500-$999 2% 0.0018

$1,000-$2,499 5% 0.0038

$2,500-$4,999 10% 0.005

$5,000-$7,499 13% 0.0058

$7,500-$9,999 12% 0.0063

$10,000-$12,499 11% 0.0057

$12,500-$14,999 7% 0.0048

$15,000-$17,499 5% 0.0037

$17,500-$19,999 4% 0.0036

$20,000-$24,999 5% 0.0037

$25,000-$29,999 2% 0.0022

$30,000-$34,999 2% 0.0023

$35,000-$39,999 1% 0.0016

>$40,000 3% 0.0022

100%

Assets and Dwellings

Any Assets13 87% 0.0048

Assets Abroad 45% 0.0076

Owns a Vehicle 44% 0.0077

Own a Dwelling Abroad 43% 0.0073

Own a Dwelling in U.S. 14% 0.006

Aid Received

Public Aid in Past Two Years 17% 0.0056

Use of Any Charity 22% 0.0047

Use Of Charitable Organizations 4% 0.0033

Use of Charity from Individuals 19% 0.0038

Use Needs-Based Programs 2% 0.002

Use Contribution-Based Programs 22% 0.0066

 

13 The farmworker owns at least one plot of land, house, mobile home, car/truck, business, or

other property in the United States or abroad.
48 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

Household Used the Following Benefits

AFDC 1% 0.0018

Food Stamps 10% 0.0046

Disability Insurance 1% 0.0013

Unemployment Insurance 20% 0.0065

Social Security 1% 0.0018

Veteran’s Pay 0% 0.0004

General Assistance or Welfare 1% 0.0012

Low Income Housing 1% 0.0014

Government Health Clinic 0% 0.0009

Medicaid 13% 0.0055

WIC 10% 0.0049

Disaster Relief 0% 0.0005

Legal Services 0% 0

Other Social Programs 1% 0.0021

Household Received the Following Types of Aid

Church 3% 0.0027

Family 6% 0.0023

Community Organizations 1% 0.0017

Charitable Organizations 1% 0.0014

Friends 13% 0.0032

CURRENT LEGAL STATUS AND LEGAL APPLICATION

Current Status

Citizen 22% 0.0063

Green Card 24% 0.0074

Unauthorized 52% 0.0077

Work Authorization 2% 0.0024

100%

Legal Application

Legalization Applicant 16% 0.0062

Family Program 11% 0.0054

Other Authorization 3% 0.0035

Unauthorized 52% 0.0077

Citizen by Birth 19% 0.0058

100%

Farmworkers’ Home Base

Abroad 42% 0.0072

United States 58% 0.004
Appendix: Statistical Procedures 49

Migrant Type

Follow-the-Crop 17% 0.0067

Non-Migrant/ Settled 44% 0.0082

Shuttle 39% 0.0066

100%

WORK CHARACTERISTICS

Years in Farmwork 8.15 0.1447

Hourly Wage 5.94 0.0255

Number of Weeks Spent Abroad

During year 12.53 0.1847

Number of Weeks Doing U.S.

Farmwork 24.91 0.2226

Number of Weeks Doing NonFarmwork in U.S. 4.09 0.1027

Number of Weeks Not Working in U.S. 9.82 0.1633

Hours Worked Per Week in Farmwork 38.05 0.2352

Employer is a Grower 81% 0.0053

Employer is a Farm Labor Contractor 19% 0.0053

Work for Employer on a Seasonal Basis 83% 0.0065

Work for Employer Year Round 14% 0.0064

Crop

Field Crop 16% 0.0045

Fruit & Nuts 33% 0.0075

Horticulture 14% 0.0059

Miscellaneous or Multiple Crops 9% 0.0041

Vegetables 28% 0.0073

100%

Task

Harvest 32% 0.0073

Other Tasks 6% 0.004

Post-Harvest 15% 0.0048

Pre-Harvest 22% 0.006

Semi-Skilled 25% 0.0066

Supervisory 0% 0.0003

100%

Method of Payment

Hourly 77% 0.0069

Piece 20% 0.0065
50 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

Method of Payment (continued)

Combination of Hourly & Piece 2% 0.0029

Salary 1% 0.0019

100%

Method of Transportation to Work

Car 34% 0.0075

Walk 8% 0.004

Car Pool 40% 0.0069

Public Transportation 1% 0.0009

Labor Bus 15% 0.0052

Other 2% 0.0024

100%

Transportation to Work

Pay Grower for Rides to Work 34% 0.0106

Have to Use Labor Bus (is it obligatory) 9% 0.0066

Equipment Expenses Covered By

Grower 69% 0.0072

Farmworker 14% 0.0064

Farmworker Pays Some 9% 0.0044

Equipment not Needed 8% 0.0038

Contractor 0% 0

A Friend/Relative 0% 0.0003

Other 0% 0.0004

100%

Bonus and Insurance

Health Insurance for Workplace Injuries 71% 0.0069

Unemployment Insurance 45% 0.0078

Payment for Workplace Injuries 33% 0.0082

Bonus 15% 0.0065

Paid Holidays/Vacation 11% 0.0055

Health Insurance for Off the Job

Injuries 6% 0.0045

Type of Bonus (if bonus received)

End of Season Bonus 56% 0.0177

Holiday Bonus 24% 0.0153

Incentive Bonus 12% 0.0129

Bonus Dependent on Grower Profit 7% 0.0064
Appendix: Statistical Procedures 51

Type of Bonus (continued)

Money for Transportation 0% 0.0053

Method of Contact Between Employee and Employer

(if farmwork on a seasonal basis)

Employer Contacts Worker for Future

Employment Before End of the Season 6% 0.0048

Employer Contacts Worker for Future

Employment by Letter 1% 0.003

Employer Contacts Worker for Future

Employment by Phone 19% 0.0078

Employer Contacts Worker for Future

Employment by Someone Else 32% 0.0074

Employee Contacts Employer 33% 0.0083

Method of Recruitment

Applied on Own 26% 0.0071

Day Laborer/Picked Up at a Shape Up 0% 0.0002

Recalled After Layoff 0% 0.0004

Standing Agreement 0% 0.0005

Recruited by Grower/Foreman 1% 0.0014

Recruited by FLC/Foreman 1% 0.0019

Referred by Employment Service 1% 0.0017

Referred by Welfare Office 0% 0.0005

Referred by Relative/Friend or

Workmate 70% 0.0072

Referred by Labor Union 0% 0.0006

Source of Housing

Farmworker Rents from non-Employer 47% 0.0074

Employer Provides Free Housing for

Farmworker 21% 0.0058

Farmworker Owns the House 18% 0.0064

Farmworker Rents from Employer 7% 0.0037

Employer Provides Free Housing for

Farmworker and His/Her family 3% 0.0026

Farmworker Rents from Government or

Other Institution 1% 0.0014

Farmworker Receives Free Housing

from Government or Other Institution 0% 0.0006
52 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

Source of Meals

Farmworker Provides and Pays for Own

Meals 97% 0.0036

Employer Provides but Charges for

Meals 2% 0.003

Employer Provides Farmworker Free

Meals 1% 0.0019

Employer Provides Farmworker and

His/Her Family Free Meals 0% 0.0004

100%

EXPECTATIONS OF LEAVING/CONTINUING FARMWORK

Farmworker has Relatives/Friend in

U.S. Nonfarm Work 59% 0.0074

Farmworker Believes He/She Could

Get a U.S. Nonfarm Job Within a

Month 54% 0.0082

Number of Additional Years of Anticipated Farmwork

Less Than One Year 8% 0.0041

1-3 Years 19% 0.0059

4-5 Years 4% 0.0028

Over 5 Years 7% 0.0038

Over 5 Years and as Long as Able 47% 0.0081

Other 15% 0.0055

100%

ACCESS TO WATER AND SANITATION

Drinking Water Available in the Field 98% 0.0031

Water for Washing Available in the

Field 84% 0.0047

Toilets Available in the Field 87% 0.0042