# 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 2000Material 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 Susa n 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**  T OPICS C OVERED
................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 1 S URVEY M ETHOD
................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 2
**CHAPTER 1: PLACE OF BIRTH AND LENGTH OF STAY IN THE U.S ..............**  **5** P LACE OF B IRTH
................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 5 N UMBER OF Y

EARS TO DATE IN THE U NITED S TATES
................................ ....................... 6 **CHAPTER 2: DEMOGRAPHICS, FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION... 9**  A GE
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 9 G ENDER
................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 10 HOUSEHOLD S TRUCTURE
................................ ................................ ................................ 10 **CHAPTER 3: EDUCATION, LITERACY, AND ENGLISH SKILLS .....................**  **13** N ATIVE L

ANGUAGE
................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 13 E DUCATION
................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 13 A DULT E DUCATION
................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 15 L ITERACY
................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 15 E NGLISH F LUENCY (S ELF RATED )

................................ ................................ ................... 17
**CHAPTER 4: LABOR ................................**  **................................ ................................**  **.... 19**  N UMBER OF J OBS
................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 19 MIGRATION
................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 20 L EGAL S TATUS OF U.S. FARMWORKERS
................................ ................................ ......... 22 T IME S PENT IN L

ABOR O VER THE Y EAR
................................ ................................ ......... 24 F ARM W ORK E

XPERIENCE ........................................................................26 P LANS TO C ONTINUE IN F ARM W ORK
................................ ................................ ............. 27
**CHAPTER 5: CHARACTERISTICS OF FARM JOBS AND FARM CONDITIONS...29** E MPLOYERS
................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 29 C ROPS
................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 29 T ASKS
................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 30 R ECRUITMENT AND R ETENTION
................................ ................................ ...................... 31 HOURS W ORKED AND B ASIS FOR P AY
................................ ................................ ............ 32 WAGES
................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 33 F RINGE B ENEFITS
................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 36iv Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998

HOUSING
................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 37 MEALS
................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 37 S ANITATION
................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 37 T RANSPORTATION
................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 37 EQUIPMENT
................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 37
**CHAPTER 6: INCOME AND ASSETS ................................**  **................................ .......**  **39** INCOME
................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 39 F ARMWORKER ASSETS
................................ ................................ ................................ .... 39 USE OF S ERVICES
................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 40
**APPENDIX: STATISTICAL PROCEDURES ................................**  **........................... 43**  NAWS WEIGHTING P ROCEDURE
................................ ................................ .................... 43 DETERMINING S TANDARD E RROR
................................ ................................ ................... 43Figures 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)

.............................. 34vi 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..............44Executive 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: 1997-1998Chapter 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 Stat es 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 AmericaPlace of Birth

Average Number of YearsChapter 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 YearsPercent of Foreign-Born Workers8 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998Chapter 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+ AgePercent of US Farm Workers10 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 ParentsPercent of US Farm Workers

Resident Non-Resident12 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998Chapter 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 (6 th vs. 11th grade) (see Chart 8) . Consequently, native English speakers had a higher median level of education than native Spanish speakers (12 th vs. 9 th 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 (7 th 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 6 th grade. Seventy-three percent of all U.S. farmworkers comp leted 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 CompletedPercent of U.S. Farm Workers

All Workers Educated in U.S. Educated AbroadChapter 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 EducationType of Classes

Percent of US Farm Workers16 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 SchoolingPercent 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., NonHispanic U.S., Hispanic Mexico Non-Mexican Born Latino Asia Haiti

Place of BirthPercent of Farmworkers

Speak Read18 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) program 8 ; 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 Application 9

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, thereis 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-BornChapter 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 31Chapter 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: 1997-1998Chapter 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. T he 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 CombinationPercent of US Farm WorkersChapter 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 PostHarvest Semi-Skilled Other Supervisory Grower Labor Contractor Task and Employer TypeMean Wage per Hour34 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.htmlChapter 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 Workers36 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 HousingPercent of US Farm Workers

Grower Labor ContractorChapter 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: 1997-1998Chapter 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 FamilyPercent of Farm Worker HouseholdsThat Are Poor

20%

1% 1% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unemployment Ins. Disability Ins. Social Security ServicePercent of US Farm WorkersChapter 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
ServicePercent of US Farm Workers42 Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey: 1997-1998Appendix: Statistical Procedures 43



### Appendix: Statistical Procedures This section describes the statistical procedur es 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% 0.0034Appendix: 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% 0.006146 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% 0.0011Appendix: 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 Assets 13 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% 0.004Appendix: 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 0.2226Number 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% 0.006550 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% 0.0064Appendix: 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% 0.000652 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