Millions of adolescents in this country work to earn spending money, gain responsibility and independence, help their parents financially, or enhance their educational experience. Although these children work in all different industries, those working in agriculture as migrant or seasonal workers (those constantly on the move to stay employed or those who are only able to find intermittent employment) or whose parents work as migrant and seasonal workers may face economic, social, and educational challenges that distinguish them from children working in other industries. Over the years, commissions, farmworker advocates, and policymakers have commented on the conditions of hired agricultural workers. Although the exact number of workers in agriculture is difficult to estimate, the Commission on Agricultural Workers in 1992 reported that the United States had about 2.5 million hired agricultural workers. Other sources report that the majority of hired agricultural workers work in producing crops, such as fruits and vegetables, and in horticulture. Even though defining agriculture is difficult, it is generally acknowledged to be a high-hazard industry; in 1995, the incidence rate (the number of injuries and illnesses for every 100 workers) for agriculture was 9.7, higher than private industry’s in general (8.1), and third in severity behind manufacturing (11.6) and construction (10.6). Many federal and state agencies are responsible for enforcing laws that protect workers—including children—in agriculture. The Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) is responsible for enforcing the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the federal law that establishes child labor and other labor standards (for example, the minimum wage) governing employers engaged in interstate commerce. WHD is also responsible for enforcing the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA), which governs housing, transportation, and other work conditions for agricultural workers. In addition, state labor departments are responsible for enforcing their own child labor and other laws that apply to children and others working in agriculture. Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)—along with its state counterparts—is generally responsible for enforcing safety and health standards for workers of all ages in all industries, although in 1997 Labor transferred some of OSHA’s authority over agricultural employers’ provision of temporary housing and field sanitation to WHD. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state agencies, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), are responsible for protecting agricultural workers from pesticide exposure.EPA’s Worker Protection Standard, enforced by state agencies under the guidance of EPA, provides for various risk-reduction practices that cover all pesticide handlers and workers involved in cultivating and harvesting crops. This standard requires employers to follow instructions on pesticide labels that specify periods of restricted entry into fields after pesticides have been applied and the use of personal protective equipment by pesticide handlers when applying pesticides or for workers who must enter treated fields before the restricted entry time has expired.Employers must also provide other services, such as basic training on pesticide hazards, information about pesticides that have been applied, and emergency assistance for treating a worker’s illness or injury. All agricultural employers, regardless of the size of their establishment, are required to provide these protective measures to their agricultural workers. Children are not distinguished from other workers. The standard largely excludes others who may be living on the farm premises who are not workers (such as family members of farm owners) or children of hired farmworkers who may be in the fields with their parents while the parents are working. Labor and the Department of Education also oversee billions of dollars in federal aid that helps educationally and economically disadvantaged children—which includes migrant and seasonal children in agriculture. While the Department of Agriculture (USDA) has no enforcement authority over agricultural employers for labor or safety and health laws that affect children or other workers, it does oversee the collection of information about selected farm characteristics such as cultivated acreage and dollar sales. In addition, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), conducts independent research on work place safety and health issues. As we and others have noted in the past, federal wage and safety and health protections are typically less stringent for agricultural workers—of all ages—compared with those for workers in other industries and, in general, agricultural workers receive lower hourly wages than workers in many other industries. FLSA exempts small agricultural employers (defined as those employers who did not use more than 500 days of agricultural labor, which equals about seven full-time workers, in any calendar quarter of the preceding calendar year) from paying the minimum wage to their employees. In addition, agricultural employers of all sizes are not required by FLSA to pay their workers overtime. Agricultural employers are also exempt from most safety and health standards enforced by OSHA, and OSHA is prohibited by an appropriations rider from conducting inspections on certain small agricultural employers (those who employ 10 or fewer workers and provide no temporary housing for those workers), even if it receives a complaint about unsatisfactory working conditions from a worker or if a worker is fatally injured. In other industries, an OSHA inspector must respond to a complaint and investigate work place fatalities. Several recent initiatives specifically address conditions affecting children. Executive Order 13045, for example, created a high-level task force composed of the Secretaries of Agriculture, Education, and Labor and the Administrator of EPA, among others. The task force is responsible for recommending actions to the President to reduce risks to children. In addition, in documents prepared in compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act), Labor’s WHD introduced a 5-year enforcement effort targeted toward employers producing particular agricultural commodities with an emphasis on detecting violations of child labor law. EPA highlighted as a guiding principle its efforts to identify and assess environmental health risks, such as pesticides, that may affect children disproportionately and pledged to develop six centers to do such research. Finally, Education reported that its goal is to help all children meet challenging academic standards to prepare them for responsible citizenship and further learning—as measured through improved high school attendance and graduation rates—particularly for those students at the greatest risk of school failure, such as children in migrant and seasonal agriculture. In 1998, the President also announced a national Child Labor Initiative to fight abusive child labor and enhance educational opportunities for children working in agriculture as migrant and seasonal workers. In response to this initiative, Labor’s WHD requested an additional $4 million in its fiscal year 1999 budget to increase the enforcement resources dedicated to detecting child labor violations in agriculture. Labor has also requested $5 million to develop a pilot program that would provide educational alternatives for migrant and seasonal agricultural child workers so they would stay in school. In its budget request, Education sought an additional $50 million for its Migrant Education Program (MEP) that would allow it to serve 70,000 to 100,000 more migrant children. We were asked to (1) determine, given the data available, the extent and prevalence of children (defined as anyone under 18) working in agriculture, including their injuries and fatalities; (2) describe and analyze the federal legislative protections and those in selected states for children working in agriculture; (3) assess the enforcement of these laws as they apply to children working in agriculture; and (4) identify federal educational assistance programs and describe how they address the needs of children in migrant and seasonal agriculture, focusing on those aged 14 to 17. On March 20, 1998, we provided preliminary results of this work (see GAO/HEHS-98-112R). We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards between October 1997 and May 1998. To determine the prevalence of child labor in agriculture and the conditions under which these children work, we obtained and evaluated data from a variety of sources, reviewed the methodologies used to collect these data, and interviewed officials responsible for collecting these data. We explored several data sources, both public and private, to determine an estimate of the number of children employed in agriculture and the hazards they face. We reviewed information and databases from the Departments of Labor, Agriculture, Commerce, HHS, and other government agencies, such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission. For example, the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Department of Labor is responsible for several main sources of data, including the Current Population Survey (CPS), the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, and the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. Labor’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy is responsible for the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS). HHS’ NIOSH, a federal agency that conducts independent research on working conditions, sponsors the National Traumatic Occupational Fatalities Surveillance System and the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, major sources of occupational fatality and injury data. We also reviewed information from private entities, such as the National Safety Council, the Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the National Farm Medicine Center, and various university studies. Although some of these sources had helpful information, we did not use all of them because of their methodological constraints or coverage limitations. For example, some estimates defined children as anyone younger than 22 years old. In other cases, the methodologies used for developing the estimates were based on so many assumptions that the reliability of the estimates was questionable. We decided to focus on those nationally representative data that provide broad coverage of work experience by age, including CPS, NAWS, Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses, National Traumatic Occupational Fatalities Surveillance System, and National Electronic Injury Surveillance System. We reviewed previously published data, extracted data from public use files, and obtained special computer runs from the responsible agencies for key data used in this report. We extracted relevant data within the constraints of sample size and privacy considerations. NAWS has been conducted by Labor’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy for about a decade. During that time the survey has evolved, making several major changes in the survey’s subject matter. The primary use of NAWS data is for describing the employment and economic situation of hired farmworkers, and not, according to Labor analysts, for estimating national totals of farmworkers or their dependents. Any estimates of this population must be derived by applying NAWS proportions to independent estimates of total farmworkers such as the estimate developed by the Commission on Agricultural Workers in 1992. We obtained from Labor a preliminary public use file of data from the survey’s inception in 1988 through 1996. Because of privacy considerations, the NAWS public use file did not contain all survey data available; it excluded personal identifiers and other information that could compromise confidentiality. Because the NAWS database has more complete information than we had in the public use file, we also requested several special tabulations of NAWS data from Labor. These tabulations help to complete the picture of the situation of hired farmworkers and their families, but often the data were too sparse to use. Although other relevant variables could be explored from NAWS, in many cases (such as ethnicity of the child or season of work), the subsamples were too small for drawing reliable inferences. For example, in one of its data collection cycles (winter), NAWS collected data from only 72 farmworkers under 18. NAWS has information about hours worked by young farmworkers during the winter data collection cycle from only 65 interviewees. When delineated by ethnicity, no category has as many as 50 cases, the minimum recommended by NAWS analysts as a basis for computations. Such a distinction could be important because foreign-born hired workers make up less than half of all young farmworkers overall but constitute three-quarters of the young farmworkers interviewed during the (combined) fall and winter data collection cycles, and the vast majority of foreign-born hired farmworkers were not enrolled in school. To describe and analyze the legislative protections for children in agriculture at the federal level and in three states—California, Florida, and Vermont—we obtained pertinent laws and reviewed key provisions covering children and others working in agriculture. During on-site interviews with federal and state enforcement officials in Washington, D.C.; California; and Florida and in telephone interviews with Vermont officials, we discussed the coverage of these laws and their application to children and others working in agriculture compared with those working in other industries. We reviewed the legislative history of FLSA, interviewed grower and labor representatives for their perspectives on the treatment of agricultural workers under the law, and discussed potential implications of any changes to the law. We also interviewed growers and their representatives, as well as farmworker advocates, for their views on the extent of child labor used in agriculture. We obtained additional information about protections at the state level for children working in agriculture and assessed how these laws were enforced. We selected three states—California, Florida, and Vermont—to discuss in detail states’ views on child labor in agriculture, what their laws provide, and how particular local conditions and challenges affect the enforcement of state laws. We used several criteria for choosing these states. First, we reviewed state laws to determine which state laws covered children working in agriculture. We omitted those states (such as Texas) in which the laws did not cover children because selecting such a state would not have been useful. We then reviewed USDA data to identify those states ranked highest in the number of hired farmworkers and farms and interviewed farmworker advocates for their opinions on where problems with child labor in agriculture were most severe. Using these criteria, we identified California and Florida as key agricultural states as well as states that many believed faced several challenges in detecting illegal child labor in agriculture. We selected another state—Vermont—to provide a contrast in laws and experiences with those of Florida and California. A large percentage of acreage in Vermont is farmed, and Vermont relies heavily on agriculture but has few reported hired workers. To assess the enforcement of these laws as they apply to children working in agriculture, we obtained and reviewed established policies and procedures for federal and state enforcement agencies for conducting inspections and obtained and reviewed historical enforcement statistics from federal and state agencies responsible for enforcing child labor and other safety and health laws in the agricultural industry. Through interviews with enforcement officials in Washington, D.C.; California; Florida; and Vermont, we identified issues that could affect their ability to detect illegal child labor in agriculture. To identify and describe how federal educational assistance programs address the needs of school-aged (ages 6 through 17) children working in agriculture or whose parents work in agriculture, we conducted a literature review and interviewed education and program officials to understand the academic challenges facing these children. We identified the main federal programs that provide direct assistance to these children and determined the level of program information available about the population served. For the two largest programs serving migrant and seasonal workers aged 14 through 17—Education’s MEP and Labor’s Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Program (MSFWP)—we obtained and reviewed historical program data; interviewed program officials in Washington, D.C.; California; Florida; and Vermont; and reviewed key program operations to be considered when assessing the type and availability of program data and outcome measures. Although several major sources of data provide nationally representative estimates of the number of children working in agriculture, each has limitations that could result in undercounting. Data are also limited concerning aspects of such children’s working conditions and the frequency of their work-related injuries and illnesses. Nonetheless, available data indicate that children working in agriculture have more severe injuries and a disproportionate share of fatalities compared with children working in other industries. Two nationally representative sources of data on agricultural employment are CPS and NAWS. These surveys use different sampling techniques and cover different groups of workers, but both provide national estimates of children working in agriculture (see table 2.1). Estimates derived from CPS show that, on average, about 155,000 15- to 17-year-olds worked in agriculture in 1997. Most of these workers (about 116,000) were wage and salary workers (that is, hired farmworkers); about 24,000 were self-employed and 15,000 were unpaid family workers. Annual averages between 1992 and 1997 generally showed little change in the overall number of these workers. A second CPS estimate shows that in the past few years, about 300,000 of all 15- to 17-year-olds who worked at some point during the year (hired workers, self-employed, and family members) reported that they held an agricultural job the longest. This estimate comes from a yearly collection of work experience data and is distinguished from the point estimates mentioned above because it represents work experience for an entire year. The number who work at any time during the year is much higher than the number who work in any given week. CPS has limitations that probably underestimate the total number of children working in agriculture. For example, CPS collects labor force information only on individuals 15 and older; it does not collect information on workers 14 years old or younger. In addition, because CPS is a household survey that relies on address lists and for which most of the interviewing is done by telephone, certain groups are harder to interview. These could include migrants, those not living in established residences, those without ready access to telephones, and foreign-born or non-English-speaking individuals—conditions that apply to many farmworkers. The Department of Labor’s NAWS is an agricultural payroll-based survey conducted since 1988. Recent NAWS estimates indicate that, on average, about 128,500 14- to 17-year-old hired farmworkers were working in crop production from 1993 to 1996. These children make up about 7 percent of all hired farmworkers working on crops. Because of the small sample size, NAWS trend data must be interpreted carefully; however, these data show a slight increase in the number of child farmworkers from an earlier period, when about 5 percent of hired crop workers were 14 to 17 years old (about 91,000). About 70 percent of these young farmworkers are male. Moreover, NAWS data indicate that older children are more likely to work than younger children. Farmworkers interviewed for NAWS indicated that while few of their children under age 14 work, about 8 percent of their children aged 14 and 15 work, and 17 percent of their children aged 16 and 17 work, mostly at farm jobs. NAWS data also show a growing proportion of workers between 14 and 17 years old working away from their parents as unaccompanied minors. Recent NAWS estimates show them to total about 3 percent of all hired farmworkers (about 47,000) but more than a third of all 14- to 17-year-old farmworkers. This trend is consistent with the experiences of enforcement officials and farmworker advocates, who noted an increase in young men entering the country illegally without their parents to do agricultural work. Though NAWS collects detailed information about certain agricultural workers, it also has limitations. For example, NAWS focuses solely on hired crop farmworkers; thus, it includes no agricultural workers who are self-employed or unpaid family workers or those hired farmworkers working with livestock. In addition, NAWS interviews only workers 14 years of age and older. Furthermore, NAWS has an extremely complex sampling design and small sample sizes, which may lead to imprecise estimates for some individual variables such as school enrollment or employment levels for different ethnic groups of workers for different data collection cycles. As a result, NAWS data also may underreport the total number of children working in agriculture. Data documenting the hours children work and the kinds of activities they do are limited. Both CPS and NAWS collect some information about the work of children employed in agriculture; nonetheless, this information has the same limitations as the overall employment estimates. Available data, however, show that children work a substantial amount of time and their work is seasonal, physically demanding, and primarily in vegetable crops. CPS data show that about half of young agricultural workers work more than 3 months during the year, and NAWS data indicate that, on average, agricultural workers aged 14 to 17 work about 31 hours per week. Some NAWS data can be separated into three broad ethnicity categories: U.S.-born Hispanics, U.S.-born non-Hispanics, and those born outside of the United States. As a result, NAWS identifies that young foreign-born workers work somewhat longer hours than U.S.-born workers—35 hours compared with 27 hours. Neither CPS nor NAWS, however, provides information about the time of day this work takes place, so determining when these hours were worked (for instance, during school hours, early morning, or evenings) is impossible. CPS data show that children’s work is mainly seasonal, with large increases in employment during the summer months. NAWS data confirm this pattern. NAWS has three data collection cycles during the year: fall, winter, and spring/summer. NAWS data indicate that nearly twice as many young agricultural workers work in the spring/summer cycle as in the fall cycle; few work in the winter. Because the NAWS spring/summer data collection cycle extends from mid-May to the end of July, however, it is an imprecise measure of summer jobs because it includes the end of the school year. These data indicate that children are working during the seasons when school is in session. Some data are available on the general duties children perform, but these data are based on a small number of respondents and only general categories of work. According to NAWS, a substantial portion—about 40 percent—of young agricultural workers aged 14 to 17 work at harvesting tasks, which are generally considered to be some of the most physically demanding in crop work. According to Labor officials, harvesting tasks are activities associated with harvesting the crops, such as bending, stooping, or climbing ladders to pick crops, or carrying buckets of picked crops to transporting vehicles. No nationally representative estimates exist, however, on specific tasks children perform (such as driving tractors) for determining whether children are doing certain tasks before they are legally allowed to do so. NAWS also provides limited data on which crops children work, but these data are also based on a small number of respondents. According to NAWS, about 40 percent of the young agricultural workers work on vegetables and about 20 percent work on fruits and nuts. Agriculture is a hazardous industry, with one of the highest rates of injuries, fatalities, and lost workdays for employees generally. Available data indicate that although the relative number of injuries of children working in agriculture is not as high as that for those working in other industries, the severity tends to be greater and these children have a disproportionate number of fatalities. Although a number of data sources document injuries and illnesses to children working in agriculture, methodological constraints result in estimates that may understate injuries to and fatalities of these children. For 1992 through 1995, BLS data show that between 400 and 600 workers under 18 suffered work-related injuries each year while working in agriculture. In addition, recent estimates from NIOSH show that the estimated injury rate for 14- to 17-year-old workers in agriculture was 4.3 per 100 full-time-equivalent workers—less than the rate of 5.8 for 14- to 17-year-old workers in all industries. Fractures and dislocations, however, were more common in agriculture (14 percent) than in other industries (3 percent), which indicates that agricultural injuries tend to be more severe than those in other industries. Available data show that children working in agriculture account for about 25 percent of all fatalities of children working in all industries. BLS data show that between 1992 and 1996, 59 children under 18 died while working as hired agricultural workers. CPS data, however, show that 15- to 17-year- olds working as hired agricultural workers make up only 4 percent of all 15- to 17-year-old hired workers. BLS data indicate that many of these fatalities involved transportation incidents, often overturned vehicles. In addition, NIOSH reported recently that work-related deaths of children aged 16 and 17 working in agriculture accounted for about 30 percent of all work-related deaths in this age group between 1980 and 1989 (in cases for which industry information was known). Children’s exposure to pesticides also poses serious concerns. EPA, a major source of national data on children’s exposure to pesticides, is required to collect data on occupational and nonoccupational exposure to pesticides. According to EPA, between 1985 and 1992, over 750 cases of occupational exposure occurred involving children under 18, which accounted for about 4 percent of all reported cases. Our review of records from the past several years from the California and Florida pesticide incident monitoring systems from which EPA’s data derive show that 1 percent or less of such exposure involved individuals under 18. These databases are limited, however, and officials agreed that they may not capture all exposure, especially exposure to children. For example, the EPA database neither includes data from all states nor differentiates between exposure occurring on a farm or in some other location. Although the data provide indications of the hazards that agricultural work poses for children, the data are most likely understated because of difficulty relating the injury, illness, or fatality to the work place. First, employers self-report much of the data on occupational injuries, so whether employers always report events accurately is unknown. Accuracy may be especially affected if an injury or fatality involves transient or undocumented workers or if an employer or child is not covered by applicable workers’ compensation, child labor, or safety and health laws.Second, health practitioners may have difficulty determining whether an injury to a young child is occupationally related. This is especially true of chronic injuries or illnesses from sustained exposure to pesticides. Several concerns have been raised about whether health care professionals are adequately trained to recognize the effects of pesticide exposure on children or know the appropriate questions to ask to determine whether the exposure is work related. Third, children commonly work with their hired farmworker parents on evenings or weekends but are not considered to be official employees. As a result, their injuries, illnesses, or fatalities are probably not reflected in available data. Labor and NIOSH are leading efforts to improve our knowledge about farmworkers’ working conditions. The information gathered through these efforts could lay the groundwork for nationwide programs to improve data collection and prevent children’s agricultural injuries. These efforts will improve the overall level of information about farmworkers in general and provide additional information about children’s agricultural injuries. Labor’s proposed fiscal year 1999 budget includes an increase of about $800,000 in funding for NAWS. According to Labor officials, this increase was requested as a part of the President’s Child Labor Initiative and seeks to expand NAWS coverage for all agricultural crop workers, including children. The funding, if provided, would be used to double the sample size from about 2,500 interviews per year to 5,000 and refine the sampling procedure to allow easier computation of confidence intervals. Under this funding, Labor may also undertake other activities specific to obtaining detailed information about children’s work experience—such as expanding the survey to include workers under 14 or including a proportionately greater number of workers under 18 to allow for greater reliability of key data variables. Labor and NIOSH are also implementing an interagency agreement under which NIOSH will provide funding for an expanded survey that will yield additional safety and health data. Several groups have noted the need for a better understanding of the magnitude and scope of children’s agricultural injuries, improved targeted research and prevention efforts, and an assessment of the progress made over time. In the mid-1990s, representatives from a variety of public and private, academic and industrial, medical, and educational organizations formed the National Committee for Childhood Agricultural Injury Prevention. Through consensus, the Committee refined and prioritized recommendations for action. Working with NIOSH, the Committee’s work culminated in a National Action Plan that specified 13 objectives and 43 recommended action steps for meeting those objectives. Among those recommendations was that the Congress designate NIOSH to lead an effort to establish and maintain a national system for preventing children’s agricultural injury. The National Action Plan recommended a systematic approach, including research, education, program interventions, and public policy. Subsequently, the Congress allocated $5 million in 1996 to NIOSH to support an initiative to prevent children’s agricultural injuries. This effort is envisioned as a 5-year initiative with annual funding of $5 million. The NIOSH initiative seeks to address critical data needs, such as surveillance of agriculture-related injuries, health implications of pesticide exposure, and consequences of farm injuries. This initiative will also establish an infrastructure to make better data available for developing and improving prevention efforts and encourage the use of effective prevention strategies by the private and public sectors. As part of the initiative, NIOSH is conducting or supporting research in the following areas: migrant and seasonal worker injury surveillance, risk-factor research, outcomes research, intervention strategies, migrant workers’ health, pesticide exposure in children, ergonomics, farm children’s attitudes and behaviors, and evaluation of safety and health educational programs. These research projects are limited in scope but should improve knowledge about promising strategies and may lead to improved data collection, more effective interventions, and better injury prevention programs nationwide. FLSA and state laws provide less protection for children working in agriculture than they do for children working in other industries; therefore, children may work in agriculture in settings that would be illegal in other industries. Nonetheless, FLSA’s current provisions are more protective now than when the law was first passed 60 years ago and reflect the dynamic changes that are transforming U.S. agriculture and the increased national emphasis on the safety, health, and academic achievement of children. The Congress enacted FLSA in 1938 to provide protections for children and others working in all industries. The need to impose restrictions on child labor in agriculture was recognized by President Roosevelt who sent a message to the Congress urging it to pass legislation to, among other things, protect against “the evil of child labor” in factories and on farms. Nonetheless, 60 years after FLSA was passed, although it covers children working in both agriculture and other industries, children working in agriculture are legally permitted to work at younger ages, in more hazardous occupations, and for longer periods of time than children working in other industries. For example, a 13-year-old may not, under federal law, be employed to perform clerical work in an office but may be employed to pick strawberries in a field. A 16-year-old may not operate a power saw in a shop or a forklift in a warehouse but may operate either on a farm. Finally, under current law, a 14-year-old hired to work in a retail establishment may work only between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. (9 p.m. in the summer) and may not work more than 18 hours in a school week or 3 hours in a school day; the same child may work an unlimited number of hours picking grapes as long as he or she is not working during school hours. As shown in table 3.1, in agriculture, children as young as 12 years old may work in any nonhazardous occupation with the parents’ written consent or if working on a farm that employs their parent as long as the work is done outside of school hours. On small farms, children even younger than 12 may work with their parents’ written consent. In nonagricultural industries, the youngest age at which a child may work is 14 (outside of school hours) and, even then, only in specified allowable occupations. In agriculture, children who work on a farm owned by their families may work at any age. In other industries, children under 16 employed by their parents may perform any work as long as it is not in mining or manufacturing and has not been declared hazardous by the Secretary of Labor. As indicated in table 3.1, children as young as 16 may work in agriculture in any capacity, including in some occupations declared hazardous by the Secretary of Labor, such as operating certain tractors, cotton pickers, hay balers, power post drivers, trenchers or other earth-moving equipment, forklifts, or power-driven saws; or driving a bus, truck, or automobile. In nonagricultural industries, children generally may not perform such tasks until age 18. Furthermore, in agriculture, parents do not have to adhere to hazardous occupation requirements, which means a parent may allow his or her 7-year-old to operate a power saw or drive a tractor, although a parent would not be able to allow his or her 7-year-old to operate a similar machine in a nonagricultural setting. Table 3.1 illustrates that a child under 16 may generally work in agriculture for an unlimited number of hours as long as the child is not working during school hours. Conversely, in other industries, a 14- or 15-year-old child may only work for a limited number of hours not only when school is in session, but also when it is not in session. Children who work for their families—in any industry—may work an unlimited number of hours. Thirty-four states have laws that provide some protections for children working in agriculture. State laws play an important role in supplementing FLSA’s protections because they may apply to those employers not covered under FLSA. Moreover, if an employer is covered under FLSA and the state laws, the more stringent provision applies. In other words, in a state with a law with provisions that are more protective than FLSA’s, the state provision would apply. Much like FLSA, however, state laws generally provide less protection to children working in agriculture than to children working in other industries. With the exception of states such as Florida (whose child labor law generally applies equally to children working in all industries), in general, state protections provided to children working in agriculture are less stringent than those for children working in other industries. Sixteen states have no protections at all for children working in agriculture, and over half of the 34 states that do have protections for children working in agriculture allow them to work more hours per day or per week than children in other industries. For example, California allows exemptions for employers operating agricultural packing plants to employ 16- and 17-year- olds during any day when school is not in session for up to 10 hours per day during peak harvest seasons. Although these exemptions are only to be granted if they do not materially affect the safety or welfare of the children and are needed by the employer to prevent undue hardship, California labor officials said, after an initial inspection of the employer, they generally grant all requests for such exemptions. In addition, most of these states allow children in agriculture to work in hazardous occupations at younger ages than children in other industries. Compared with FLSA, about two-thirds of the 34 states allow children to work at about the same ages (12 to 14), although several allow younger children to work in agriculture. For example, Vermont has no lower age limitation for children working in agriculture outside of school hours. More protective than FLSA, most of these states limit the number of hours a child under 16 may work in agriculture. For example, California prohibits a child under 16 from working more than 18 hours a week while school is in session. Florida prohibits a child under 16 from working more than 15 hours a week when school is in session and does not even allow 16- or 17-year-olds to work during school hours as allowed by FLSA and other states. Moreover, in California, all children who wish to work in any industry (including agriculture) must be issued a work permit verifying their age and specifying the hours they are permitted to work. If the number or range of hours on the permit are more stringent than those allowed by California law, then those on the work permit are what the employers are held to. Over 70 percent of these 34 states provide either the same or less protection as FLSA for agricultural child workers regarding the occupations they may perform. Several, however, have more stringent protections. For example, Florida prohibits anyone under 18 from operating or helping operate a tractor of a certain size; any trencher or earth-moving equipment; any harvesting, planting, or plowing machine; or any moving machinery (FLSA allows 16-year-old agricultural workers to operate this type of equipment). California has also instituted what it calls an agricultural “zone of danger” provision that prohibits children under 12 from working or accompanying an employed parent near unprotected water hazards, unprotected chemicals, or moving equipment. FLSA as originally enacted provided few restrictions on the use of child labor in agriculture, probably reflecting the conditions existing in U.S. agriculture at the time. Since FLSA’s original passage, however, the Congress has repeatedly revised FLSA’s protections for children working in agriculture to provide more protections regarding children’s ages, working hours, and types of occupations they may perform. These changes accompanied dynamic changes in the U.S. agricultural industry and increased public concern for children’s safety and education. FLSA as originally enacted only prohibited children from working in agriculture during the hours they were legally required to attend school, although it provided many additional protections for children working in other industries. Several conditions existing at that time may explain why children working in agriculture were treated differently from children working in other industries: Significance of small farm production: When FLSA was passed, small and family farmers formed an important part of the U.S. agricultural industry. Given the industry’s seasonality and instability and the interest in preserving its economic viability, restricting the use of labor, especially child labor, may have placed undue economic and other hardships on these farmers. Benefits to children of agricultural work: When FLSA was enacted, agriculture may have been considered to provide a beneficial work environment for children. In addition, because agriculture had lower levels of mechanization and use of pesticides than it does today and was performed out of doors, it may have provided a safer alternative for children than other industries. In fact, one view expressed at the time was that work on the farm was free from the moral turpitude of city sweatshops and that farm labor taught children valuable lessons and skills. Little national emphasis on academic achievement: Few compulsory education attendance requirements existed during the 1930s, and children were expected to find work at the earliest age possible. Because the use of child labor in many industries was common and accepted, children were likely to stop attending school at 14 or 15 to work or take over the family farm. Since the 1930s, several dynamic changes have taken place not only in the U.S. agricultural industry, but also in the emphasis our nation has placed on children’s health, safety, and academic achievement. During this same period, the Congress has amended FLSA on several occasions and has provided children working in agriculture with additional protections. These changes, which addressed limiting the hours and ages that children may work and the type of work that they may perform, reflected the changing views about the industry and the focus on children’s safety and academic achievement. The legislative changes include the following: Prohibition against work during school hours (1949): FLSA was expanded to prohibit children from working during school hours. Before this, children working in agriculture were only excluded from coverage “while not legally required to attend school.” In other words, children not legally required to attend school could work at any time. Under the 1949 amendment, these children, though not required to attend school under state law, were still prohibited from working as agricultural employees during school hours. Prohibition on work in hazardous occupations (1966): FLSA was expanded to prohibit children under 16 from working in various hazardous agricultural occupations. Before this amendment, children of any age could perform any occupation. This change most likely reflected the growing awareness that the agricultural industry was becoming more mechanized and was increasing the use of pesticides, which posed possibly greater dangers to young children. Prohibition on the employment of young children (1974): FLSA was expanded to prohibit the employment of children under 12 (except if working on the family farm or on a small farm with parental consent). The law also prohibited children working at age 12 or 13 unless a parent consented or employment was on the same farm on which a parent worked. Following are changes in the agricultural industry and in the importance of children’s safety and academic achievement: Decline of the small farmer: The agricultural sector as a percentage of total U.S. economic activity dropped from 27 percent in 1930 to 16 percent in 1990. Meanwhile, the number of farms declined from over 6 million in 1930 to about 2 million in 1992. As the number of farms declined, the relative size of farms (in market value of agricultural products sold in 1982 dollars) increased substantially; the market value of a farm in 1930 was less than $10,000, but by 1992 it was over $80,000. In 1995, 6 percent of farms accounted for almost 60 percent of production. In addition, over half of the hired workforce works on farms employing more than 10 workers.Today, rural communities obtain less of their income from farms, and farmers are leasing out their acreage to large agricultural producers to reduce costs and increase production efficiencies. Enhanced national focus on safety and health of children: During these years, scientific and technological innovations have led to greater use of machinery and pesticides to protect and preserve agricultural commodities. As a result, the country became more aware of and concerned with workers’ health in general and the special needs of children. Pesticides’ effect on children has prompted much study and concern. Researchers continue to identify relationships between health problems and occupational exposure to pesticides or farm work, such as physically demanding farm tasks that hired children do, for example, kneeling or bending for long time periods. Partly because of these dangers, some agricultural producers have policies not to hire anyone under 18. Greater national emphasis on children’s academic achievement: The nation has placed great importance on children’s academic achievement by establishing compulsory education requirements and seeking to improve school attendance rates; graduation rates; and reading, math, and science skills. Educators and policymakers have realized that ensuring a skilled labor force requires better preparing children for an increasingly competitive global marketplace. In addition, researchers have found that children’s working more than 20 hours a week adversely affects their educational achievement; however, according to NAWS, hired agricultural workers aged 14 to 17 work over 30 hours a week when they work. Weaknesses in current enforcement and data collection procedures limit enforcement agencies’ ability to detect all violations of illegal child labor in agriculture. The characteristics of the agricultural industry and its workforce pose several challenges to enforcement agencies for effectively detecting violations of child labor laws. However, resources devoted to agriculture by federal and selected state enforcement agencies have declined in the past 5 years as have the number of cases of detected agricultural child labor violations. In addition, WHD and the states lack procedures necessary for detecting illegal child labor in agriculture, and enforcement agencies are not following established coordination procedures for facilitating detection of illegal child labor in agriculture. Moreover, enforcement databases lack information on children’s involvement in many violations, and data limitations may affect WHD’s ability to assess its progress in reducing illegal child labor in agriculture. The agricultural industry poses several challenges to enforcement agencies because agricultural work is unstable, its work locations are dispersed, and it offers few benefits or little job security. In addition, agricultural workers often have reason to avoid enforcement authorities (see table 4.1). Enforcement authorities must deal with these challenges to effectively detect violations of child labor or other labor or safety and health laws. The number of recorded inspections in agriculture by WHD, OSHA, EPA, and the states in our review has generally declined in the past 5 years, resulting in fewer opportunities to find potential child labor violations. The number of WHD inspections of the agricultural industry declined from about 5,400 in fiscal year 1993 to 3,500 in fiscal year 1997. Although these inspections accounted for about 14 percent of all inspections in the 5-year time period, the percentage of annual inspections devoted to agriculture declined. In the same period, the percentage of direct enforcement hours devoted to enforcement of child labor law by WHD in all industries stayed at about 8 percent; however, in fiscal year 1997, it was less than 6 percent. Although the decline in agricultural inspections must be viewed in light of declines in WHD enforcement resources over the decade and new responsibilities assigned to WHD, the decline in agricultural inspections was greater than the relative decline in the number of inspectors, for example. Inspections devoted to agriculture declined similarly in California, a state we reviewed. In addition, Florida and Vermont, the other states we reviewed, did not track agricultural inspections or devoted relatively few resources to agriculture in the past 5 years. OSHA and EPA, which are responsible for enforcing safety and health laws and regulations for agricultural workers, have also devoted declining resources to agriculture in the past 5 years. Although these agencies have no responsibility for detecting child labor violations, farmworker advocates have said the presence—or absence—of other enforcement agencies in agriculture affects the number of violations of all labor laws, including child labor. In addition, because enforcement agencies have established procedures calling for referrals of potential violations of respective laws, OSHA or its state counterpart if detecting a potential child labor violation during one of its agricultural inspections could refer the violation to WHD or the state enforcement agency. In the past 5 years, OSHA and its state counterparts conducted less than 3 percent of all their inspections in agriculture, and, while the total number of inspections OSHA conducted in all industries declined by almost 11 percent, the number conducted in agriculture declined almost by half. States, with guidance and funding from EPA, have also reduced the number of inspections conducted in agriculture—from about 11,000 in fiscal year 1993 to 7,000 in fiscal year 1997, accounting for about 15 percent of the federally funded inspections by states during this period. According to WHD officials, one of the first things inspectors do in every inspection is determine whether children are present, which means that WHD looks for violations of child labor law in every inspection. WHD and state enforcement agencies, according to our review, however, detected few cases of child labor violations in the past 5 years, and the number of cases has generally declined during this period. In fact, WHD detected agricultural child labor violations in less than 1 percent of all agricultural inspections conducted between fiscal years 1993 and 1997. Recently, the Secretary of Labor said that it was difficult to know whether the decline in the number of recorded child labor violations was due to WHD’s reduced enforcement activity or a reflection of actual conditions. As shown in table 4.2, WHD detected agricultural child labor violations in only 14 cases (involving 22 children) in fiscal year 1997 under FLSA, which was a decline from the 54 cases (involving 146 children) in fiscal year 1993. Texas had the most WHD cases (44), followed by New Mexico (24), Florida (14), California (12), and Georgia (11). The other states had six or fewer cases each. Most violations involved children too young to work, and about 40 percent of the violations involved children working in vegetable commodities (such as onions, tomatoes, and peppers); another 30 percent involved children working in grain production; 10 percent involved children working in berry planting or harvesting. Similar to the federal experience, states in our review also reported declining cases of child labor violations in agriculture (California) or reported few or no violations (Florida and Vermont). ( For more information on these states’ experiences with child labor in agriculture, see app. I.) In addition, according to WHD officials, when they target enforcement activities to detect violations of child labor laws, they see little evidence of violations; the work these children are doing is often within the confines of FLSA. If FLSA’s nonagricultural protections for child labor were applied to agriculture, the number of violations found would increase, WHD officials said. Nonetheless, as a result of WHD’s first few salad bowl enforcement activities in Texas, New Mexico, and Louisiana, WHD found about 40 children working illegally in the fields, more than found in all of fiscal year 1997. The special challenges presented by the agricultural industry, its dangerous nature as evinced by high injury and fatality rates for its child workers, and its relatively larger number of child workers compared with other industries indicate an important role for enforcement agencies for detecting violations. The limited resources enforcement agencies have devoted to agricultural inspections in general and the decline in such resources in the past few years mean that inspectors must be as efficient as possible when in the field if they are to detect illegal child labor in agriculture. In addition, documented procedures must provide clear guidance to inspectors so they know what to do to detect violations. WHD and the states we reviewed, however, lack documented procedures for use during agricultural inspections to determine whether a child is too young to be working or whether a child is, in fact, working—key conditions required for demonstrating that a violation has occurred. In addition, even though WHD has established coordination procedures with other federal and state enforcement agencies for conducting joint inspections, referring potential child labor cases to appropriate agencies, and exchanging information to facilitate enforcement efforts, these procedures are not being followed routinely. Finally, it is not clear whether the criteria WHD uses for determining where and when to conduct inspections reflect the potential presence of children. The two key conditions required for inspectors to document child labor violations are the child is (1) underage and (2) works for the employer. Although federal and selected state enforcement agencies have general procedures that inspectors must follow for all inspections to detect and document child labor violations, these procedures do not account for the special conditions facing labor law enforcement in agriculture and therefore may be insufficient to detect illegal agricultural child labor. WHD’s Field Operations Handbook specifies policies and procedures for inspectors to follow for all inspections. For documenting child labor violations under FLSA, the handbook requires inspectors to independently verify a child’s age through a birth certificate, passport, or some other valid document to determine if the child is old enough to be working or performing a certain task. The states in our review have similar requirements. Both federal and state enforcement officials said, however, that the lack of this kind of documentation or the use of fraudulent documentation is common for children working in agriculture. In many cases, inspectors cannot find adequate documentation to independently verify a child’s age. Neither WHD nor the states we reviewed had documented procedures for instructing inspectors in handling this situation, although WHD officials said they had verbally conveyed to inspectors the importance of conducting other activities (such as interviewing workers or teachers) to independently verify a child’s age. Given the constrained and declining resources allocated to agriculture, inspectors may not be able to perform these additional activities, especially since they are not specified in official agency documentation. In these cases, inspectors would not be able to cite an employer for an FLSA child labor violation. If an employer does not have a child’s age on file as required by FLSA, an inspector may cite the employer for a record-keeping violation, which carries a maximum initial civil monetary penalty of $275. Enforcement action may end at that point if the inspector cannot independently verify the child’s age. The lack of documented procedures for additional activities for verifying the child’s age suggests that at least, in some cases, inspectors would detect a record-keeping violation rather than a child labor violation. The second condition required for inspectors to document a child labor violation is that the child is working. Children working under their parents’ payroll number or helping out before or after school and on weekends are common work arrangements in this industry. Therefore, documents such as payroll records may not reflect children’s work. These are the types of records, however, that enforcement guidance requires inspectors to examine for initially determining whether children are working. Neither WHD nor these states have issued formal documented procedures for instructing inspectors in situations in which they sense children are working at the work site such as interviewing workers off site. WHD officials said they have trained inspectors and issued informal guidance in the past to inspectors about what activities to perform during agricultural inspections to address these problems. Our review of this guidance failed to identify any such specific instruction to inspectors for detecting illegal child labor or actions inspectors should take when available information fails to identify a child’s work history. WHD officials said, however, that some inspectors have used videotapes to document children working, and, under the salad bowl initiative, inspectors have used still photographs to document children working. Without documented, official procedures, however, and given the scarce resources allocated to agriculture and the low incidence of detected child labor violations, little assurance exists that all inspectors are taking photographs, interviewing workers, or doing other activities necessary for systematically and consistently documenting violations. Inspectors may not be detecting violations because procedures WHD has established for facilitating coordination with other federal and state enforcement agencies are not always being followed. The patchwork of laws, many federal and state agencies involved, limited resources each agency has devoted to agriculture, and characteristics of this industry make coordination and cooperation vital for detecting illegal child labor in agriculture. WHD has acknowledged the role of coordination in helping to identify child labor and other violations by establishing agreements with the state labor enforcement agencies, OSHA and its state counterparts, and the Department of Justice’s Immigration and Naturalization Service, among others. These agreements establish an understanding that cooperative efforts are to be taken to ensure that the employment conditions of agricultural workers, including children, fully comply with federal and state statutes. Among other things, the agreements call for (1) referring complaints of or suspected violations of applicable statutes, when appropriate, to the agency with jurisdiction; (2) conducting joint investigations of employers when appropriate; or (3) exchanging records and information, including information on which employers have been cited or subject to remedial or punitive sanctions. According to our interviews with federal and state officials and a review of available data, agencies’ actions fell short of the agreements’ requirements, and, in many cases, no controls were in place to alert WHD that procedures were not being followed. Enforcement officials we interviewed generally could not recall any specific cases they had referred or that had been referred to them regarding illegal child labor in agriculture. In addition, databases maintained by WHD and other enforcement agencies collect little information on referrals given or received, although at least one agreement specifies that agencies establish systems to monitor and track referrals. Moreover, several officials told us that if they were not legally responsible for looking for children during agricultural inspections, they would probably not even recognize a potential child labor case so they would most likely not refer it. Furthermore, enforcement officials also disagreed about who has jurisdiction for particular cases or for certain employers. WHD officials could not identify whether a procedure existed for determining how to handle case referrals, and at least one state enforcement agency told us that WHD hesitated to take such referrals. At least some of the agreements between WHD and state labor agencies call for joint inspections to present a unified front to employers and take advantage of the varying strengths of federal and state laws. Other than as a part of California’s Targeted Industries Partnership Program (TIPP),however, officials believe few, if any, joint inspections have been conducted by WHD and the states. In addition, databases do not consistently identify whether inspections are conducted jointly. Even TIPP is not as unified an effort as it used to be, according to California’s state Commissioner of Labor. TIPP calls for federal and state agencies to develop their inspection agendas together and provide staff from federal and state agencies for all inspections. What actually happens, however, is that each agency develops its inspection agenda for the year and agrees to do joint inspections when possible. A comparison of the number of TIPP inspections conducted (from California’s database) with the number of inspections conducted by California’s WHD (from WHD’s database) highlighted fewer inspections performed by WHD than California, even though both agencies are supposed to be involved in all TIPP inspections. A general lack of communication and exchange of information exists among WHD and OSHA, EPA, and selected state enforcement agencies. Even in TIPP, which is a key example of federal-state cooperation, individuals from both federal and state enforcement agencies involved told us of difficulties exchanging information and coordinating enforcement agendas. In addition, neither California nor Florida labor officials had been involved in any of WHD’s decisionmaking about which employers to target or when or how to conduct the inspections under the salad bowl initiative. In June 1998, WHD held a half-day stakeholders meeting in Washington, D.C., to discuss enforcement priorities for the next several years. According to several state representatives present, although this event was a positive step toward enhancing communication with the states, it appeared that WHD had already decided on its priorities because little time was allotted for state input and feedback. Inspections may not be conducted where and when children are most likely to be working, possibly resulting in the detection of fewer child labor violations. According to WHD officials, WHD targets its agricultural inspections to employers with a history of low-wage payments, those who use imported workers, or those with excessive injury rates but not necessarily to those who are suspected of employing children. In addition, WHD officials acknowledged that finding children requires inspectors to be in the fields early in the morning or on weekends, but it is not clear how many of WHD’s agricultural inspections in the past 5 years have been conducted at those times. Because staffing decisions are made by local WHD offices, it is also unknown whether WHD’s staff, which is bilingual (over 25 percent, according to WHD), is involved in agricultural inspections to help communicate with workers. For example, although the salad bowl initiative has a major emphasis on identifying illegal child labor, these commodities were not chosen because of the likely presence of children; and the commodities covered under this initiative (cucumbers, lettuce, onions, garlic, and tomatoes) may not be the only ones on which children work. WHD officials said the criteria for selecting the employers and work places that produce these commodities were the low-wage nature of the work, compliance history of these types of employers, and widespread production of these commodities; therefore, many WHD local offices could be involved in the initiative. However, employers in cucumbers do typically employ families, according to reports officials have heard. Prior enforcement data indicate that children also work on commodities, such as peppers and grains, and farmworker advocates said that children also probably work in berries. Therefore, the salad bowl inspections may not be targeting the major employers of child workers. In addition, officials did not know the number of WHD’s bilingual inspectors involved in the salad bowl inspections, so whether inspectors will be able to talk to workers to identify potential violations is unclear. Because the enforcement databases used by WHD and other enforcement agencies do not provide information on children’s involvement in particular violations, the extent to which children are involved in other labor law violations in agriculture is underreported. FLSA requires employers to have the age of their child workers on file. If employers do not do this, they may be cited for a record-keeping violation under FLSA—the only record-keeping violation under FLSA that has a civil monetary penalty. The information recorded on the violation would not, however, identify this as a labor violation. Because of the characteristics of this industry and its workforce and the lack of documented procedures for inspectors in conducting additional activities to independently verify the children’s age, inspectors sometimes use this particular provision to cite employers who cannot be cited for child labor violations because of the missing records. WHD, however, cannot identify the number of record-keeping violations involving children each year. In addition, WHD’s penalty database (a separate financial database that tracks all penalties assessed and collected) does not identify specific violations; therefore, WHD cannot determine the amount of penalties assessed or collected resulting from record-keeping violations involving children. The lack of information about FLSA violations involving children indicates that WHD is underestimating the amount of child labor activities that violate FLSA. Children’s involvement in violations of laws other than FLSA’s child labor provisions is unknown because enforcement agencies, such as WHD, OSHA, and EPA, have traditionally had a narrow view of what constitutes illegal child labor. WHD is the only federal enforcement agency required to collect any age information on individuals involved in violations but only does so when inspectors believe a potential child labor violation may exist. Because other agencies do not have to identify child labor violations, they do not collect age information on individuals involved in violations. These practices may obscure violations of other labor or safety and health laws involving children. If these agencies’ data systems could identify the extent to which violations of these other laws involve children, enforcement efforts could be targeted to those employers or areas that systematically exploit working children. Citations issued by WHD to employers for not paying their workers the minimum wage may involve a substantial number of children. Minimum-wage violations occur when employer records reflect wages paid only to the parent when the work was actually performed not only by the parent, but also by a child. In addition, unaccompanied minors (which NAWS reported made up a significant portion of hired farmworkers between 14 and 17 years of age) may be especially susceptible to being paid less than the minimum wage because of their youth and lack of adult supervision and protection. NAWS reported that about 8 percent of 14- to 17-year-old hired farmworkers reported they do not receive the minimum wage. Although WHD found over 350 minimum-wage violations for agricultural employers in fiscal year 1997, WHD has no data on the number of citations, if any, issued for minimum-wage violations that involved children. If such data were available, it would not only better reflect children’s involvement in all violations, but it might also reveal the extent to which agricultural employers may purposely exploit families and their children in this way or systematically prey on younger workers. In addition, other types of labor law violations most likely involve children. Last year, WHD found more than 900 MSPA violations (MSPA requires employers to provide promised wages, adequate housing conditions, and safe transportation). OSHA found over 175 violations of employers not providing hired farmworkers adequate housing conditions, but the extent to which the violations involve children under 18 is unknown. NAWS reported that over a quarter of farmworkers had children living with them and about a tenth of farmworkers interviewed said that at least occasionally they took children 5 years of age or younger to the fields with them when they worked. Moreover, NAWS data show that about 9 percent of young agricultural workers help to apply or otherwise work with pesticides, but they are less likely to have been trained in pesticide handling than older workers. Finally, EPA rarely collects specific information on the type of violations under the use provision of the Worker Protection Standard, although state agencies may collect such data; children’s involvement in these violations, however, is not captured. The Secretary of Labor has stated that reducing illegal child labor in agriculture is a major agency priority, and, under the Results Act, WHD has committed to a 5-year effort to reduce such labor. WHD collects a considerable amount of information on its enforcement activities regarding child labor. It has several different databases in operation; however, several inconsistencies, omissions, and other limitations in these databases may affect the usefulness of the data for program oversight. WHD has committed, through the Results Act, to developing new databases by the year 2002, but it is unclear whether these new databases will address these limitations. For example, data from WHD’s enforcement database were internally inconsistent or were not comparable with other databases, which affects their usefulness for program evaluation. Data for historic yearly inspections conducted, violations detected, and children involved changed in different data runs provided by WHD. Officials said this was to be expected because the system is updated continuously. In another instance, a case that WHD headquarters data showed to be a violation was not a violation according to the local WHD office that investigated the case. Large discrepancies also existed between the historical number of inspections conducted by WHD in California and those recorded by California for TIPP. For example, 286 WHD inspections were conducted in agriculture in fiscal year 1997 compared with 455 TIPP inspections in calendar year 1997, even though WHD and California labor inspectors should be involved in all TIPP inspections. Neither federal nor state officials could sufficiently explain these discrepancies. Also, despite the amount of data collected by WHD, it has been unable to determine which child labor violations resulted in civil monetary penalties. According to WHD officials, its financial database (which tracks the civil monetary penalties assessed on employers for violations of FLSA, MSPA, and other laws) is not comparable with its enforcement database. If the databases were comparable, WHD could determine which violations have resulted in which penalties. WHD officials said the only way they could determine penalties for individual violations would be to manually review individual case files. This inability to compare and disaggregate types of violations with penalties is related to an issue that surfaced in 1997—that agricultural employers were being assessed lower penalties than employers in other industries for similar child labor violations. The social and economic disadvantages experienced by many children in migrant and seasonal agriculture place them at great risk of academic failure. Although both Education and Labor administer programs that target children with educational and economic disadvantages, the extent to which children involved in migrant and seasonal agricultural work participate in, or are helped by, these programs is generally unknown. Except for the programs that target only migrant and seasonal farmworkers and their children, Education and Labor’s program information does not classify participants by occupational status. Even those few programs that target children working in agriculture or children whose parents work in migrant and seasonal agriculture have limited data. Of these programs, Education’s MEP and Labor’s MSFWP are the largest ones providing services to youths in the critical ages of 14 to 17, the ages when students are most likely to drop out of school. In the case of MEP, decentralization and flexibility complicate the collection of data needed to measure results. In the case of MSFWP, the program’s focus on adults’ employment needs discourages the collection or analysis of information on children. Poverty, limited English ability, and rural and social isolation place children in migrant and seasonal agricultural work—like any other group of children affected by these social conditions—at considerable risk of academic failure. For these children, however, the difficulties associated with these social conditions are compounded by mobility and other conditions of agricultural work that result in school enrollment rates and high school completion rates among the lowest in the nation. For example, according to one source, 45 percent of migrant youths had dropped out of school, entering the full-time workforce without the credentials and skills needed to compete for any but the lowest paying jobs. Migrant children in agriculture experience two types of mobility that compound the other social problems they face. The first type concerns moves from one geographical area to another. For low-income children, particularly those who are migrant workers or children of migrant workers, schooling is frequently interrupted and school days are lost because of moves among school districts and states. Migrant children move, on average, 1.2 times a year. Such moves not only disrupt schooling, but also often prevent the development of social and community ties that can facilitate school attendance and educational achievement. The second type of mobility concerns movement in and out of schools. Economic pressures drive many of these children, particularly those aged 14 and older, from the schools into the fields. According to some estimates, between 169,000 and 200,000 youths were working in agricultural migrant jobs, and, of this group, almost half were living independently; that is, their families were not with them. Although girls are less likely than boys to work in agriculture, girls’ schooling can nonetheless also be interrupted because they must care for other family members. Working long hours can also negatively affect the academic performance of young farmworkers. To the extent that children are working instead of attending school, they cannot benefit from school-based programs or interventions. Even if children are attending school, working too much can interfere with their learning. Research findings indicate that working more than 20 hours a week during the school year can negatively affect student achievement to a significant degree. NAWS data show, however, that many children in agriculture work 35 hours a week or more. Although some of these work hours might be during the summer, peak demand periods for agricultural work also take place during the fall and spring when the school year begins and ends. Children in agriculture are less likely to be graduated from high school and to attend school than are other groups of youngsters, although estimates vary. For example, estimates of dropout rates ranging from 45 to 90 percent have been cited for migrant and seasonal agricultural workers. In comparison, data from the 1990 Decennial Census indicate that dropout rates of 16- to 24-year-old individuals ranged from 10.3 percent for non-Hispanic white youths to 30.5 percent for Hispanic youths. For low-income Hispanics, the rate increased to 35.5 percent, far lower than the rates reported for migrant youths, although these groups have common ethnic and income characteristics. Although school attendance is a problem for all children in agriculture, it is particularly so for children of foreign-born agricultural workers. According to NAWS data, the children of farmworkers born in the United States are twice as likely as the children of foreign-born farmworkers to be enrolled in U.S. schools in the prior 12 months. Seventy-six percent of children of U.S.-born non-Hispanic farmworkers were enrolled in school compared with 34 percent of children of foreign-born farmworkers. For children who are farmworkers, school attendance rates are even more problematic. According to NAWS, about 68 percent of 14- to 17-year-old farmworkers born in the United States were enrolled in school when they were interviewed compared with 16 percent of farmworkers in this age group born outside the United States. The years between ages 14 to 17 are critical educational years because during these years youths are most likely to drop out of school. For many of these youths, the pressures to leave school may be particularly great. Beginning around age 14, these youths become legally and competitively employable for farm work, which allows them to supplement their family’s income, and, in some cases, to try to achieve economic independence. Meanwhile, some of these youths, particularly those who are older and overaged for their grade, may associate school experiences with failure and the opportunity for them to be graduated might appear remote. For example, according to NAWS, more than 90 percent of farmworkers’ children aged 13 or younger who were in school were “on grade level,” that is, had completed a grade appropriate to their age, but this measure dropped to about 80 percent for 14- to 16-year-old students and to 71 percent for 17-year-old students. Education and Labor administer many programs that target educationally and economically disadvantaged children and youth. Tables 5.1 and 5.2 list major programs that provide direct educational services of about $14 billion to millions of educationally and economically disadvantaged youths of all ages, including those we defined as school aged (6 to 17). Children and youths in agriculture are eligible for services from all these programs on the same basis as others—except for those programs that specifically target children in agriculture. Program data that describe the participation of children in migrant and seasonal agriculture is only available from programs that target only these groups such as MEP, the Migrant High School Equivalency Program, and MSFWP. Although Education does not collect program data on the participation of migrant children in the programs that do not specifically target migrant children, data from a national program evaluation suggest that migrant children may not receive services from many of these programs to the extent that they are eligible. A 1992 assessment found that only about half of the migrant students receiving services from MEP who were also eligible for services funded through the title I program received title I services. In addition, about 9 percent of the students receiving assistance through MEP participated in the federal bilingual education program (although about 84 percent come from families that speak little or no English), and only 5 percent of children receiving assistance from MEP were in special education (compared with about 10 percent of all school-aged children). Interviews with Education officials indicated that migrant children may continue to be underrepresented in programs that do not specifically target these children. Although programs administered by Labor collect extensive information on participants, data from these programs, except for MSFWP, do not classify participants according to whether they are in migrant or seasonal agriculture. For example, data collected by the Job Training Partnership Act’s (JTPA) title II-C program for economically disadvantaged youths classifies participants on their status regarding 13 employability barriers, including substance abuse, lack of significant work history, and homelessness, and on 19 other characteristics, including family composition, reading skill level, and preprogram hourly wage but does not classify individuals who are migrant or seasonal agricultural farmworkers. In contrast to services from Education’s title I and special education programs that are available through almost every school district nationwide, accessibility issues limit the potential of Labor programs to help youths in migrant and seasonal agriculture. First, to establish eligibility, youths must have records that document their citizenship or work authorization, work experience, and family income level. Second, the number of individuals who want to participate in these programs far exceeds the number that can be served. For example, funds for JTPA title II-C are available to serve only 5 to 10 percent of the eligible population. Third, distance and transportation costs may prevent these youths from participating because services are not available in all farm communities. Finally, the design of some programs limits their ability to serve agricultural workers. For example, JTPA title II-B, the Summer Youth Employment and Training Program, offers only summer services, which is when youths are most likely to be working in agriculture. Although we do not know the extent to which migrant and seasonal farmworker youths participate in job training programs that do not specifically target them, only 8 percent of the individuals under age 22 who terminated from MSFWP in 1996 participated concurrently in any other federally funded training program while they were receiving services from MSFWP. In comparison, 19 percent of out-of-school youths served by the JTPA II-C program received concurrent services from another federal program. Of the key educational and labor programs that serve disadvantaged youths, MEP and MSFWP are the largest that target youths in migrant and seasonal agriculture. These programs, therefore, have the most potential to provide educational opportunities to these youths between the ages of 14 and 17 who may be at the greatest risk of educational failure. Program operations and associated data limitations preclude, however, measuring program results for these youths. MEP, the largest Education program that targets these youths, is a federal assistance program administered largely by the states. Within broad federal guidelines, state educational agencies (SEA) determine how funds will be redistributed to the local educational agencies (LEA) and other eligible entities and, in cooperation with LEAs, decide how MEP funds can best be used to support state and local programs to help migrant children. This decentralization and flexibility limit the ability to evaluate MEP on a national level because program goals and activities vary by site. In addition, because MEP is an assistance program, its effects cannot be separated from those of the much larger state and local efforts that it supports. The Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, which reauthorized MEP, requires recipients of MEP funds to give priority for services to eligible children who are failing, or at risk of failing, to meet the state’s educational standards and to those who are currently migrant and whose education has been disrupted during the regular school year. Under these priorities, however, the parameters of state and local decisionmaking are broad. States and localities determine if funds will be used for regular term or summer term activities, which grade levels will be served, which instructional or supportive activities will be provided and by what type of service provider, and whether funds will be used to provide separate services or combined with other funds to support common activities. As a result of this flexibility, the probability that a child will be identified as eligible for MEP services and the type of services that will be received depend largely on where the child attends school because SEAs and school districts differ in the emphasis placed on recruiting, the age group recruited, and the services provided. Typically, active outreach takes place only in areas that have received MEP funds. Some outreach efforts are aimed at particular age groups, such as preschool children or out-of- school youths. In general, national program data from recent years indicate that proportionately more children in grades 1 to 6 are served than those in other grades. Also, although the percentage of preschool participants has increased, the percentage of secondary school participants has actually decreased. MEP’s effects on educational outcomes are difficult to measure because MEP funds are used in combination with funds from state, local, and other federal programs to achieve common educational goals. The relatively small size of MEP’s contribution adds to this difficulty. Estimated resources available from MEP, an average of $400 per participant, constitute only a small fraction of the resources that a participant typically receives through state and local school programs. Because of this, MEP funds are generally used to provide educational activities that improve children’s achievements in regular classroom activities. Usually, these activities consist of academic tutoring; before- and after-school programs; professional development activities for educators; and supplemental services such as health, social service, outreach, and coordination services. If schools meet certain criteria, they may combine MEP funds with other federal, state, and local sources to support activities that aim to improve the learning of all children in the school, including those who are not educationally disadvantaged. In school year 1995-96, 1,541 schools used MEP funds to support schoolwide efforts. No program data are available to assess state compliance with MEP’s legislatively mandated service priorities or to measure MEP results. Education collects a considerable amount of information from the states on MEP participation, staffing, and services, and has for many years, but these data cannot be used to measure program accomplishments or states’ progress in meeting national service objectives. Although the Improving America’s Schools Act requires states to give priority in the MEP program to serving students who are achieving at low levels and who have moved within the academic term, Education collects no data on either of these characteristics. The lack of achievement data is understandable because of the decentralized nature of U.S. education.Collecting data on mobility, however, is feasible and would provide information to determine the extent to which states are following national priorities. Before 1993, Education routinely collected counts of MEP participants according to their status as actively or formerly migrant. As we and others have reported, this distinction is important because MEP has historically served more children classified as formerly migrant than children classified as currently migrant, suggesting that some children may have gotten priority because they were not mobile and therefore easier to serve. Education has begun several initiatives designed to obtain information on the academic achievement of migrant children and to increase information on the use of MEP funds. Such information will most likely facilitate program assessment in future years. By the year 2000, Education plans to collect data from each state on the results of assessments of student proficiency in meeting state standards. Results will be reported in a way that allows data to be disaggregated for various student populations, including migrant students. Thus, outcome information on the academic level of all migrant children will be available, and changes in proficiency can be measured over time. Education’s Planning and Evaluation Service is completing a congressionally mandated study of the relationship between schoolwide programming, in which funds from several programs are combined to improve services for all students and for migrant children. This study will address questions about possible changes in the levels of services provided migrant children as a result of schoolwide programming. In addition, Education plans to use its standard data collection systems for collecting additional information on migrant children. This information will include counts and descriptions of services received by migrant students from funding sources other than MEP; the types of activities undertaken by school districts; information on record transfer practices; and district-level counts of migrant children in summer and regular term programs. Education also now publishes individual state profiles as part of the state title I Migrant Participation Report, providing policymakers and practitioners with state-by-state descriptions of services provided by MEP. MSFWP is a federally administered employment and training program for individuals aged 14 and older that has traditionally focused on the employment needs of adults. Reflecting this focus, MSFWP does not report information for participants aged 14 to 17 or track program results separately for this age group. Although many believe that MSFWP can play a key role in improving the employability of these youths, the focus on adults constrains the resources available for youths and the attention given to them. Consequently, Labor has neither established nor encouraged service delivery standards or outcome measures for youths under 18. Unlike other JTPA programs that serve either children or adults, MSFWP has the broad mission of serving both youths and adults. It is a job training program designed to help migrant and seasonal agricultural workers aged 14 and older obtain or retain upgraded agricultural employment or nonagricultural employment. It also aims to provide educational and support services to farmworkers and their families that contribute to their occupational development, upward mobility, and economic self- sufficiency. The program is administered through discretionary grants awarded by Labor to 52 grantees who are held accountable for complying with many uniform federal regulations and meeting national performance outcome standards. The program’s procedures, operations, and outcome measures primarily reflect the employment needs of adult participants, and Labor has not developed separate requirements, guidelines, or outcome measures to gauge its effectiveness in serving youths. For example, youths must meet the same eligibility requirements as adults, even though such requirements may deter some youths from participating. This can be a particular deterrence for unaccompanied youths because they often have no receipts to document earnings or records to verify family earnings. In addition, grantees are held accountable for meeting or exceeding two national program outcome measures, regardless of the age mix of participants served. These outcome measures—placement rates and the average wage at placement—reflect employment rather than educational goals. Education-related outcomes, such as returning to full-time school, completing high school or entering other training, are also reported for participants by grantees, but these outcomes are not used to measure program results. These employment-related outcome measures may be more appropriate for adults than youths. Although adult and some youth participants may want jobs, academic instruction and work-related behavioral skills outcome measures may be more appropriate for most youths because their work experience is probably more limited than adults’ and the job market they will face in the future will probably be more competitive. This may be the case for out-of-school youths especially, who will probably need additional education and skills to find long-term productive employment. MSFWP resources are not adequate to serve all eligible adults, much less all eligible youths, and the lack of resources might have a larger impact on youths’ program participation than adults’. Program officials told us that MSFWP often operates as a “triage program” because resources are not adequate to serve all who are eligible. Although officials could not tell us the number of eligible individuals who were denied services or their characteristics because this information is not collected, they agreed that the demand for MSFWP services exceeds available resources. Expenditure constraints apply to all grantees, regardless of the ages of individuals served. Consequently, decisions might be made favoring the participation of more employable individuals, which might exclude those under 18. In addition to inadequate MSFWP funds, the availability of external funding limits program participation. Although grantees may receive funds from other federal, state, or local programs, almost all rely heavily on MSFWP funds. A 1994 MSFWP evaluation found that, from a sample of 18 grantees, 6 had limited in-kind or no resources other than MSFWP funds and an additional 8 grantees received external funding that made up 15 percent or less of their total budget. Four, however, received substantial external resources that made up 50 percent or more of their budget. According to most estimates, however, the need for services has increased in the last few years, while resources have not. For example, grantees in California told us that the availability of external funds, including funds from Education, has declined, while the funding level of MSFWP declined from 1995 to 1996 but has remained level since. Program officials said that limited resources seriously affected their ability to serve youths because they hesitated to divert funds from adults to youths, who might be better served in schools. They indicated that priority for services is given to adults who have less access to alternative programs and who may be more likely to benefit from the services than youths. Officials mentioned that a program set-aside, such as the one that exists for Native American youths, would allow them to provide services to youths that would not detract from the services they offer to adults. Educators, farmworker advocates, and others believe that MSFWP provides essential services for youths, particularly out-of-school youths, because program services are geographically accessible to agricultural workers and the program recognizes the special educational and economic needs of these youths (for example, basic education instruction and evening classes). The grantees we visited in California and Florida said MSFWP can play an important role in furthering the educational achievement of these youths. Although grantees collect age data on each participant, Labor collects and reports participation and outcome data in only three age groups—all participants under 22, a category that combines the experiences of school-aged youths with young adults (those aged 22 to 44) and those aged 45 and over. Labor does not disaggregate data for individuals aged 14 to 17. Without national program information for the 14- to 17-year-old group, Labor and other groups cannot assess program involvement or outcomes for youths alone. The lack of national program or outcome data for this population may not reflect current MSFWP operations. MSFWP is authorized to serve youths as young as 14 and is serving many youths or young adults. Although no national data are available to show the number of program participants aged 14 to 17, the data that are available show that 3,657—over 30 percent of program terminees in 1996—were 21 years old or younger. Moreover, data from one grantee we visited showed that 17 percent of MSFWP participants were under 18, and, of these, 31 percent were under 16. Evidence also indicates that youths may require different training and supportive service experiences than adults. At the MSFWP sites we visited, trainers and administrators told us that young participants stayed in the program longer and required more expensive services than older participants. Others believed that teenage participants required combinations of services that were hard to provide under current guidelines. Because the needs of youths might differ from those of adults, participation and outcome data breakdowns for ages 14 to 17 may be necessary to verify whether the program is helping youths and to identify services that are most likely to affect youths positively. Such information would also be useful for determining whether a special allotment of funds to be set aside to serve only youths would be an appropriate way to provide services to these youths. Labor officials stated that this information may be helpful but that approval from the Office of Management and Budget would be required to alter the type of data Labor collects from grantees. In response to the President’s Child Labor Initiative, Labor, in its fiscal year 1999 budget has requested an additional $5 million from the Congress to support a pilot and demonstration project for 14- to 18-year-old dependents of migrant agricultural workers. This project aims to develop innovative strategies to decrease child labor in agriculture through economic and educational incentives, including subsidized nonagricultural employment and individualized educational opportunities, additional to those provided by the child’s assigned school, that provide credit for graduation. Because this program will most likely target youths with characteristics like those of young MSFWP participants, an analysis of MSFWP data on participation, services, and outcomes for youths in this age range could demonstrate what combinations of job training activities and supportive services have been most associated with positive educational and employment outcomes. Sixty years after the passage of FLSA, questions about the conditions of children employed as migrant and seasonal agricultural workers continue to surface. Although basic, reliable data on the number of children working in agriculture, their duties, and the consequences to their health and safety are limited, available data indicate that these children tend to be at greater risk of serious injury and death than those employed in other industries. In addition, children hired to work in agriculture receive less protection under the law than children who work in other industries. Furthermore, weaknesses in enforcement and data collection procedures indicate that violations of child labor law may not be detected, or the violations reported may not accurately reflect the extent to which children are employed illegally. Moreover, although Labor and Education administer many programs that target educationally and economically disadvantaged children generally, we know little about whether those programs are helping children in migrant and seasonal agriculture overcome the serious educational challenges they face. Several changes could improve Labor’s detection of illegal child labor in agriculture and thus improve the protection of these children’s health, safety, and educational opportunities. The procedures WHD currently has for identifying a child’s age and employment history do not account for potentially fraudulent or missing age documentation or ambiguous employment relationships, which are common to this industry. As a result, WHD inspectors probably miss potential violations of illegal child labor in agriculture. National guidance for inspectors that specifies what activities they should conduct to address these conditions would enable WHD to detect more violations. In addition, WHD and other enforcement agencies are not taking advantage of the procedures established to facilitate enforcement, such as referring potential cases, conducting joint inspections, or exchanging information. This situation results in confusion and lost opportunities for detecting potential violations. If WHD followed these procedures and, as required in some cases, ensured that systems provided information to determine whether such procedures were being followed, it would also bolster detection of illegal child labor in agriculture by more efficiently using resources. Labor has an excellent opportunity to improve its processes with its salad bowl enforcement initiative. The issuance of documented procedures that should be followed for adequately identifying children’s ages and employment would ensure that inspectors act in a systematic, consistent way to detect illegal child labor. In addition, because a specific number of these inspections are to be conducted, WHD should be able to work with other federal and state labor agencies to conduct joint inspections, exchange information, and determine the best way to make sure these procedures are followed on an agencywide basis. We realize that establishing and following such procedures may affect the level of resources allocated to agriculture and child labor, resulting in a possible decrease in enforcement activity in other areas. Such tradeoffs, however, are inherent in establishing enforcement priorities, and Labor has already established the reduction of illegal child labor in agriculture as a key enforcement priority. The Secretary established this priority, which is indicated by the salad bowl enforcement initiative and by Labor’s fiscal year 1999 requested budget increase to enhance enforcement in agriculture. In that respect, Labor already plans to increase its allocation of enforcement resources to agriculture and child labor; improved guidance to inspectors and emphasis on coordination would ensure more efficient use of those resources. WHD’s reporting of violations involving children could also be improved. Methods used by WHD and others to collect data on enforcement actions understate the extent to which children are involved in the hundreds of other labor law violations, such as record-keeping and minimum-wage violations, that are detected each year. The lack of such data masks the true extent of labor law violations involving children. WHD’s inability to identify the number of FLSA child labor record-keeping violations is mainly a data problem because WHD’s data system does not identify any record-keeping violations, even though FLSA child labor record-keeping violations have a civil monetary penalty. WHD needs to establish a way to identify the number of child labor FLSA record-keeping violations detected each year to provide more complete information about the types of FLSA child labor violations as well as better reflect the level and type of child labor violations detected by WHD. Regarding the identification of other labor law violations involving children, WHD already looks for child labor in every inspection it conducts, and, according to WHD officials, inspectors will try to identify the ages of children on site and their conditions of work. Because these procedures are already in place, it would appear that for minimum wage and other labor laws under WHD’s authority, WHD inspectors may be able to obtain age information. This kind of information would help Labor and policymakers better understand the extent to which labor law violations involve children. Such information, for example, could help evaluate the validity of the view held by many that some agricultural employers systematically target children to pay them less than the minimum wage or pay a family of workers wages that do not reflect the entire family’s work. The availability of such information could also help WHD identify regulatory or enforcement actions to correct this problem. We recognize the collection of this information may cause additional work for inspectors and may result in other unanticipated difficulties. For that reason, we believe this data collection effort could be tested during salad bowl inspections. During these inspections, WHD inspectors could obtain information on violations involving any individuals under 18 to determine what resources would be needed in collecting such age information. After WHD has tested this procedure and determined the results of these activities, Labor could determine whether it would be worthwhile to collect such information for all agricultural inspections. Labor could also assess the impact of MSFWP on the educational opportunities of children in migrant and seasonal agriculture aged 14 to 17. Although the program serves children as young as 14, program administrators have traditionally focused on adults’ employment needs, which has affected the program’s ability and desire to serve children. Yet, the program may have a special role for serving children aged 14 to 17—especially those who may not be in school, who may already be working, or who cannot be served by traditional education-related programs—and, in fact, this program serves a substantial number of children and young adults. Local programs maintain data on participation, service provision, and outcomes for children in migrant and seasonal agriculture in this age range, but Labor collapses the data into broad age groupings (such as ages 14 to 22) when it collects the data. If Labor developed and analyzed information on youths aged 14 to 17, it would help resolve the disagreement about the program’s role in serving this age group within its broad mandate of serving both youths and adults. If the data indicate that this program plays an important role in providing services to children, it will help decisionmakers determine the most appropriate program orientation for children and adults. Changes in enforcement and data collection procedures will improve the detection and reporting of illegal child labor in agriculture; however, our review indicates that protections provided by FLSA to children working as hired migrant and seasonal agricultural workers in today’s modern agricultural environment may not be adequate. In addition, these protections may be inconsistent with the increased emphasis on the safety, health, and academic achievement of children. The rise in dominance of large agricultural producers and the associated decline in the number of small and family farms has created a new type of child labor on U.S. farms. These children or their parents work in agriculture on a migrant or seasonal basis, and, unlike in the past, most are not related through family or community ties with their employers. In addition, many young agricultural workers live independently of their families. Growing reliance on mechanization and pesticides has increased the safety and health hazards associated with agricultural work. Current laws allow children to work in agriculture at younger ages, for longer hours, and in more dangerous occupations than children working in other industries. As we have reported, children working in agriculture are more likely to have severe work-related injuries and work-related deaths than children working in other industries. Furthermore, they are less likely to be enrolled in school and less likely to be graduated from high school than other children. Given the changing character of the agriculture industry, the allowable working conditions for child agricultural workers may be contributing to the health, safety, and education problems that these children face. Considering the evolutionary changes that are transforming the agricultural industry and the increased emphasis on the safety, health, and academic achievement of children, the Congress may wish to formally reevaluate whether FLSA adequately protects children who are hired to work as migrant and seasonal farmworkers. To improve Labor’s detection and reporting of illegal child labor in agriculture, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor direct the Assistant Secretary of Employment Standards to take the following actions: issue national enforcement procedures specifying the actions WHD inspectors should take during agricultural inspections when documentation for verifying a child’s age is missing or potentially fraudulent or when existing documentation does not reflect a child’s possible employment; take steps to ensure that procedures specified in the existing agreements among WHD and other federal and state agencies—especially regarding referrals to and from other agencies, joint inspections, and exchange of information—are being followed and, as required in some agreements, are being recorded and tracked; develop a method for identifying the number of record-keeping violations resulting from employers not having children’s ages on file as required by FLSA; and test the feasibility of collecting data on the number of minimum-wage and other labor law violations that involve individuals under 18. We also recommend that the Secretary of Labor direct the Assistant Secretary of the Employment and Training Administration to develop and analyze data on MSFWP services and outcomes for children aged 14 to 17 to determine the number of these children served, the services provided, and the outcomes experienced by these children. We provided copies of this report to USDA, EPA, the Departments of Labor and Education, and the states included in our review for comment. EPA, Education, and the states provided technical comments to improve the clarity and accuracy of the report, which were incorporated as appropriate. USDA concurred with our recommendations (see app. II). In its response, Labor concurred with the intent of our recommendation to issue national enforcement guidance specifying the actions WHD inspectors should take during agricultural inspections to verify a child’s age or employment status (see app. III). Labor has, in fact, provided additional guidance on this matter on the regional level in at least two regions, and the Department said it will determine if additional guidance is needed. We believe this recently issued guidance includes the additional procedures necessary to better detect illegal child labor in agriculture. At this time, however, the guidance has only been distributed to particular WHD local offices. Although this represents a positive first step toward implementing our recommendation, we still believe that this guidance needs to be issued to all WHD inspectors so they can systematically and consistently take these actions to adequately detect illegal child labor in agriculture. Labor also concurred with our recommendation aimed at ensuring that coordination procedures specified in existing agreements with federal and state agencies are followed, recorded, and tracked. It said that WHD does have specific procedures for responding to and issuing case referrals and is now streamlining this process. As we reported, however, whether these procedures are followed is not always evident. Ideally, in streamlining these procedures and implementing this recommendation, WHD will focus on documenting adherence to these procedures to preclude the communication problems we detected among WHD and other agencies. Regarding our recommendations to develop a method for identifying the number of FLSA child labor record-keeping violations and to test the feasibility of collecting data on children’s involvement in other violations, Labor acknowledged that such data may be beneficial but identified cost and the practicality of collecting such information as major issues requiring consideration. We agree that these are important issues, but given the Results Act environment that seeks to encourage data-driven measurable goals and objectives, the emphasis WHD has placed on detecting illegal agricultural child labor and WHD’s efforts to revise its databases to better reflect enforcement activities and outcomes, we still believe that collecting this information—even on a limited basis—would enhance the agency’s efforts to protect children from exploitation in the work place. In addition, the lack of data contributes to the general lack of information about the nature, magnitude, and dynamics of illegal child labor in the United States. Only WHD, as an enforcement agency tasked with protecting children, can collect these kind of data. Although NAWS may be useful for understanding some aspects of the child labor problem, its self-reporting nature and sampling limitations make it less appropriate for grasping issues concerning illegal employment of children. Labor did not directly comment on our recommendation to develop and analyze data on MSFWP services and outcomes for children aged 14 to 17 to determine the number of these children served, services provided, and outcomes achieved by these children. Labor said, however, that this information is included in the aggregated data collected on all participants aged 14 to 22. We recognize this, and, in fact, the inability to isolate information on children aged 14 to 17 is the main reason why we are making this recommendation. By combining the experiences of youths with adults, Labor cannot analyze the services provided to participants under 18. Labor also raised several issues related to our characterization of WHD’s enforcement efforts. For example, it disagreed with our observation that the decline in enforcement resources devoted to agriculture resulted in fewer opportunities to find potential child labor violations. Instead, Labor asserted that no direct correlation exists between the decline in resources devoted to agricultural inspections and WHD’s ability to detect potential child labor violations. Although we agree that detecting illegal child labor is not solely determined by the number of inspections conducted, we know from experience that when WHD targets particular commodities or employers with additional inspection resources, it has found a substantially larger number of violations—as evinced by the ongoing salad bowl initiative and past child labor targeting efforts. Furthermore, Labor highlighted the additional resources it has requested for fiscal year 1999 to better detect illegal child labor in agriculture, which indicates Labor’s belief that increased resources are important to detecting illegal child labor. Labor also provided technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate.

Summary: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed: (1) the extent and prevalence of children working in agriculture, including their injuries and fatalities; (2) the federal legislative protections and those in selected states for children working in agriculture; (3) the enforcement of these laws as they apply to children working in agriculture; and (4) federal educational assistance programs and how they address the needs of children in migrant and seasonal agriculture, focusing on those aged 14 to 17. GAO noted that: (1) according to one nationally representative estimate, about 116,000 15- to 17-year-olds worked as hired agricultural workers in 1997; (2) this estimate may undercount the number of children employed in agriculture because of methodological limitations in making the estimates; (3) of all children working in agriculture, between 400 and 600 suffer work-related injuries each year; (4) between 1992 and 1996, 59 children lost their lives while working in agriculture; (5) changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) have resulted in more protection for children working in agriculture than when the law was first passed; (6) nevertheless, FLSA and state laws provide less protection for children working in agriculture than for children working in other industries; (7) consequently, children may work in agriculture under circumstances that would be illegal in other industries; (8) weaknesses in current enforcement and data collection procedures limit the Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division's (WHD) ability to detect violations involving children working in agriculture; (9) enforcement activities devoted to agriculture have declined in the past 5 years, as has the number of detected cases of agricultural child labor violations; (10) WHD has not established the procedures necessary for documenting whether children are working in agriculture in violation of child labor laws, nor has it routinely followed established procedures for facilitating enforcement coordination for better detecting illegal child labor in agriculture; (11) WHD's enforcement database does not identify all child labor-related violations under FLSA, nor can WHD and other enforcement agencies identify the extent to which children are involved in other types of labor law violations; (12) the Departments of Education and Labor have many programs to improve educational opportunities for disadvantaged school-aged children; however, few of these programs specifically target migrant and seasonal agricultural child workers or children of such workers, and most collect no information on the number of such children served; and (13) even for the two largest programs that target some or all of this population, program operations and subsequent data limitations impede a national evaluation of these programs' results for this target population.