The meatpacking industry employed about 123,000 production workers and had sales of about $51 billion nationwide in 1995, according to data reported by the American Meat Institute. In 1996, meatpacking plants in Nebraska and Iowa slaughtered about 23 percent of the cattle and 35 percent of the hogs slaughtered nationwide. About 36,000 workers were employed in meatpacking plants in Nebraska and Iowa in 1996, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Large meatpacking plants contribute significantly to the economies of the communities where they are located through, among other things, their large payrolls. These plants are large employers, employing 250 to 2,500 or more production workers. Production workers in meatpacking plants earned an average of about $415 per week in 1996, or about $9.82 per hour, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Entry-level workers have been paid about $6.15 to $8.20 per hour in recent years, depending upon the company and the plant’s location. The work in meatpacking plants is often hard and can be hazardous. The use of knives, hooks, and saws in hot and cold areas on wet floors presents the risk of cuts, lacerations, and slips; and the work presents the risk of repetitive stress injuries. Since the late 1980s, the industry has worked with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to reduce the incidence of injuries. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, about 22.7 of every 100 full-time meatpacking plant workers were injured during 1995. Changes in Population From 1980 to 1990—the period of the last decennial census—5 of the 16 counties with large meatpacking workforces in Iowa and Nebraska increased in population, while the remainder decreased. More specifically: In Nebraska, four of the seven counties with large meatpacking workforces experienced increases in population that exceeded the statewide increase of 0.5 percent. The population in each of the remaining three counties declined, ranging from 3.2 to 7.6 percent. In Iowa, where the population decreased 4.7 percent statewide, only one of the nine counties with large meatpacking workforces gained population, increasing by 7.9 percent. Four other counties lost population but lost less than the statewide decrease of 4.7 percent. In the remaining four counties, population losses ranged from 7.8 to 11.4 percent. Appendix II contains additional data on the overall population changes for the Nebraska and Iowa counties with large meatpacking workforces, including data from the 1980 and 1990 censuses and updated estimates from the Bureau of Census for 1996. From 1980 to 1990, minority populations, as a percentage of their respective county populations, increased in all 16 counties with large meatpacking workforces (7 in Nebraska and 9 in Iowa). In 10 of the 16 counties, these increases were greater than the statewide increases. However, as of 1990, the proportion of minority populations in most of the counties was smaller than it was in the states overall. Specifically: In Nebraska, the percentage increase in the minority population in six of the seven counties with large meatpacking workforces exceeded the statewide increase of 25.2 percent. By 1990, the percentage of the minorities in two of the seven counties exceeded the statewide minority representation of 7.5 percent. In the remaining five counties, minority representation ranged from 1.5 to 6.0 percent of the population. In Iowa, the percentage increase in the minority population in three of the nine counties with large meatpacking workforces exceeded the statewide increase of 24.8 percent. By 1990, the minority populations in three of the nine counties exceeded the statewide representation of 4.1 percent. In the remaining six counties, the minority representation ranged from 1.5 to 3.0 percent of the population. Appendix II contains additional data on the changes in minority populations for the Nebraska and Iowa counties with large meatpacking workforces, including data from the 1980 and 1990 censuses and updated estimates from the Bureau of the Census for 1996. Officials in the communities we contacted linked the population and demographic changes in their communities to changes in meatpacking plants’ workforces. Among other things, these officials noted that meatpacking plants increasingly rely on minority and immigrant employees to fill their workforces. Meatpacking company officials acknowledged the changes in their workforces, and both local officials and meatpacking company officials noted that, sometimes, not enough local area residents are available to fill plants’ job openings and that at other times, not enough local area residents are willing to fill job openings at starting pay levels. Meatpacking plants have hired increasing numbers of minority and immigrant workers from high unemployment areas, such as portions of Texas, California, North Carolina, and East Coast areas, and from Mexico, Central America, Asia, Africa, and Eastern Europe. Industry data illustrate that, in at least some cases, the changes in the makeup of a plant’s workforce can be dramatic. For example, from 1990 to 1996, the proportion of minority workers in one plant increased from 18 to 66 percent. These changes were so striking in two communities we visited that the communities requested and received special census updates—one in 1993 and the other in 1996—in an effort to gain a better understanding of the changes that their communities were experiencing due to the opening of a meatpacking plant in one community in 1990 and a plant’s expansion in the other. The census updates showed large population increases and other demographic changes for both communities. For example, the population in one community grew by 29 percent from 1990, when the plant opened, to 1993. This 3-year gain significantly exceeded the 6.2-percent population decrease for the preceding 10-year period. The community’s demographics also changed. In particular, minority populations increased from 370 to 2,213, from 1990 to 1993, or from 6 to 26 percent of the population. This increase was more than 10 times the increase during the decade prior to the plant’s opening. The turnover among meatpacking plant workers may affect changes in the population and demographics, according to the community officials with whom we spoke. The employees who leave the plants may stay in the area while the companies replace workers in the workforce. Data on the workforce’s turnover at four large meatpacking plants in Nebraska and Iowa provide a perspective on the potential impact that a meatpacking workforce can have on a community. Specifically, the annual turnover at these plants ranged from 18 to 83 percent of the workforce. One company vice president said that turnover rates of 100 percent per year have occurred. Such high turnover rates have required the hiring of as many as 500 or more workers in a single year at large plants. Some community officials told us that they have observed immigrant workers and families moving into and out of their communities. These workers are briefly employed at the meatpacking plants, often for just days or a few months. However, these officials could not estimate the size of this transient population. The following summarizes information on the changes in school enrollments, the number of Medicaid recipients, the economic conditions, and the crime rates in the Nebraska and Iowa counties with large meatpacking workforces. During the school years from 1987 to 1997, 15 of the 23 Nebraska and Iowa counties with large meatpacking workforces experienced increases in public school enrollments that were higher than those occurring statewide. More specifically: In Nebraska, 8 of the 10 counties with large meatpacking workforces had increases in student enrollments that were more than the statewide increase of 9.1 percent. These increases ranged from 11.8 to 22.1 percent. The changes in student enrollments in the remaining two counties ranged from an increase of 0.1 to 1.9 percent. In Iowa, 7 of the 13 counties with large meatpacking workforces had increases in student enrollments that were more than the statewide increase of 3.5 percent. These increases ranged from 5.2 to 23.6 percent. Student enrollments in the remaining six counties decreased from 4.4 to 26.9 percent. During the same period, the counties with large meatpacking workforces in these states also experienced increases in the number of students with limited proficiency in English. In the 10 Nebraska counties with large meatpacking workforces, the number of students with limited English proficiency jumped from a total of 227 in 1987 to about 4,600 in 1997. In 1997, Nebraska’s counties with large meatpacking workforces had a disproportionately high number of the state’s total enrollment of students with limited proficiency in English. More specifically, while these counties had only about 42 percent of the state’s total enrollment of students, they had about 74 percent of the state’s enrollment of students with limited English proficiency. Furthermore, the percentage of students having limited English proficiency significantly exceeded the statewide average of 2.1 percent of the total student enrollment in 5 of the 10 counties, ranging from 6.7 to 18 percent. In the 13 Iowa counties, the number of students with limited English proficiency increased from a total of 1,341 in 1987 to 4,464 in 1997. In 1997, Iowa’s counties with large meatpacking workforces had a disproportionately high number of the state’s total enrollment of students with limited proficiency in English. More specifically, while these counties had only about 33 percent of the state’s total enrollment of students, they had about 67 percent of the state’s enrollment of students with limited English proficiency. Furthermore, the percentage of students with limited English proficiency significantly exceeded the statewide average of 1.3 percent of the total school enrollment in 5 of the 13 counties, ranging from 3.0 to 10.5 percent. Additional information on school enrollments and students with limited English proficiency in the Nebraska and Iowa counties with large meatpacking workforces is shown in appendix III.