Download:
pdf |
pdfFindings from the
National Agricultural
Workers Survey (NAWS)
2019–2020:
A Demographic and
Employment Profile of
United States Farmworkers
Research Report No. 16
Material contained in this publication is in the public domain and may be reproduced, fully or
partially, without permission of the Federal Government. Source credit is requested. Permission
is required only to reproduce any copyrighted material contained herein.
This material will be made available to deaf and hard of hearing individuals upon request.
Voice phone: 1-202-219-6197
TTY FIRS: 1-800-877-8339
Findings from the
National Agricultural Workers
Survey
(NAWS) 2019–2020
A Demographic and
Employment Profile
of United States Farmworkers
January 2022
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, Office of Policy Development and Research by JBS International, Inc., under
contract #GS-10F-0285K. Since contractors conducting research and evaluation projects under
government sponsorship are encouraged to express their own judgment freely, this report does
not necessarily represent official opinion or policy of the U.S. Department of Labor.
It was written by:
Amanda Gold, JBS International
Wenson Fung, JBS International
Susan Gabbard, JBS International
Daniel Carroll, U.S. Department of Labor
The authors are grateful to Jorge Nakamoto and Alberto Sandoval of JBS International for
coordinating the field interviews on which the report is based as well as to the interviewers and
support staff of JBS International. The authors also thank the 2,172 U.S. farmworkers who
graciously participated in an interview during 2019–2020 and the agricultural employers who
helped survey staff reach the workers.
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
Topics Covered ........................................................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 1: Birthplace, Work Authorization, and Migrant Types .............................................. 3
Summary of Findings:................................................................................................................. 3
Place of Birth .............................................................................................................................. 3
Ethnicity and Race ...................................................................................................................... 4
Foreign-born Workers’ First Arrival to the United States .......................................................... 5
Work Authorization .................................................................................................................... 6
Migrant Farmworkers ................................................................................................................. 7
CHAPTER 2: Demographics, Family Size, Children, and Household Structure ......................... 10
Summary of Findings:............................................................................................................... 10
Gender and Age ........................................................................................................................ 10
Marital Status and Family Type................................................................................................ 11
Children and Household Structure ............................................................................................ 11
CHAPTER 3: Language, Education, and English Skills .............................................................. 13
Summary of Findings:............................................................................................................... 13
Primary Language ..................................................................................................................... 13
English Language Skills ........................................................................................................... 13
Education .................................................................................................................................. 15
CHAPTER 4: Housing Characteristics and Distance to Work ..................................................... 17
Summary of Findings:............................................................................................................... 17
Location of Housing and Payment Arrangement...................................................................... 17
Type of Housing ....................................................................................................................... 19
Household Crowding ................................................................................................................ 20
Distance to Work and Transportation ....................................................................................... 21
CHAPTER 5: Employment Patterns and Farm Job Characteristics ............................................. 22
Summary of Findings:............................................................................................................... 22
Type of Employer and Job Recruitment ................................................................................... 22
Primary Crops and Farm Job Tasks .......................................................................................... 22
Basis for Pay and Hours Worked .............................................................................................. 23
Wages ........................................................................................................................................ 25
Worksite Availability of Water and Toilets .............................................................................. 26
Pesticide Training ..................................................................................................................... 26
Insurance Benefits ..................................................................................................................... 26
CHAPTER 6: Employment Experience........................................................................................ 29
Summary of Findings:............................................................................................................... 29
Number of U.S. Farm Employers in Previous 12 Months ........................................................ 29
Number of Years with Current Farm Employer ....................................................................... 29
Weeks and Days of Farm Work in Previous 12 Months .......................................................... 30
Years of U.S. Farm Work Experience ...................................................................................... 32
Other Work History .................................................................................................................. 32
Plans to Remain in Farm Work ................................................................................................. 34
CHAPTER 7: Non-Crop Work Activities During the Year ......................................................... 37
Summary of Findings:............................................................................................................... 37
Time Spent Not Employed or Abroad in Previous 12 Months ................................................. 37
Non-Crop Work in Previous 12 Months ................................................................................... 38
Reasons for Leaving Non-Crop Work in Previous Year .......................................................... 40
Periods of Unemployment During the Year ............................................................................. 40
CHAPTER 8: Income, Assets, and Use of Assistance Programs ................................................. 41
Summary of Findings:............................................................................................................... 41
Income....................................................................................................................................... 41
Assets in the United States and Abroad .................................................................................... 43
Use of Contribution- and Need-Based Programs...................................................................... 43
CHAPTER 9: Health Care in the United States............................................................................ 45
Summary of Findings:............................................................................................................... 45
Health Insurance Coverage for Farmworkers and Family Members ........................................ 45
APPENDIX A: Methodology ....................................................................................................... 49
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 49
Stratification.............................................................................................................................. 49
Sampling within Strata.............................................................................................................. 49
APPENDIX B: Map of the NAWS Migrant Streams ................................................................... 52
APPENDIX C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables ........................................... 53
Chapter 1 ................................................................................................................................... 53
Chapter 2 ................................................................................................................................... 55
Chapter 3 ................................................................................................................................... 57
Chapter 4 ................................................................................................................................... 58
Chapter 5 ................................................................................................................................... 62
Chapter 6 ................................................................................................................................... 65
Chapter 7 ................................................................................................................................... 69
Chapter 8 ................................................................................................................................... 71
Chapter 9 ................................................................................................................................... 74
APPENDIX D: Data on National Demographic and Employment Characteristics since 1989 ... 76
Table 1: Farmworker Demographics, National Estimates, Eight Time Periods* ..................... 76
Table 2: Farmworker Employment Characteristics, National Estimates, Eight Time Periods*80
Table of Figures
Figure 1.1: Place of Birth, 2019–2020 ............................................................................................ 4
Figure 1.2: Years Since First Arrival to the United States, 2019–2020 ......................................... 6
Figure 1.3: Distribution of Settled and Migrants, 2019–2020 ........................................................ 8
Figure 1.4: Distribution of Migrant Types (As Percent of Migrants), 2019–2020 ......................... 8
Figure 1.5: Distribution of Migrant Types According to Their Migrant Travel Patterns (As
Percent of Migrants), 2019–2020 ................................................................................................... 9
Figure 2.1: Age Distribution of Farmworkers, 2019–2020 .......................................................... 10
Figure 2.2: Number of Minor Children in the Household of Farmworkers, 2019–2020.............. 11
Figure 2.3: Percent of Farmworkers Unaccompanied by Nuclear Family, 2019–2020 ............... 12
Figure 3.1: Farmworkers' Self-Reported English Speaking and Reading Ability, 2019–2020 .... 14
Figure 3.2: Among Farmworkers Whose Primary Language Is Spanish, Self-Reported Spanish
Speaking and Reading Ability, 2019–2020 .................................................................................. 15
Figure 3.3: Distribution of Highest Grade Completed by Farmworkers, 2019–2020 .................. 16
Figure 4.1: Percent of Farmworkers Who Lived in Employer-Provided Housing, 2019–2020 ... 18
Figure 4.2: Housing Arrangement, 2019–2020 ............................................................................ 19
Figure 4.3: Type of Housing, 2019–2020 ..................................................................................... 20
Figure 4.4: Type of Housing by Length of Time in the United States, 2019–2020 ..................... 20
Figure 5.1: Primary Crop at Time of Interview, 2019–2020 ........................................................ 23
Figure 5.2: Primary Task at Time of Interview, 2019–2020 ........................................................ 23
Figure 5.3: Average Number of Hours Worked in Week Prior to Interview by Crop and Task at
Time of Interview, 2019–2020 ..................................................................................................... 24
Figure 5.4: Average Number of Hours Worked in Week Prior to Interview by Farmworker
Characteristic, 2019–2020 ............................................................................................................ 25
Figure 5.5: Average Hourly Wage by Farmworker Characteristic, 2019–2020 ........................... 26
Figure 5.6: Percent of Farmworkers Whose Employer Offers Health Insurance, 2019–2020 ..... 28
Figure 6.1: Percentage Distribution of Number of Farm Work Employers in Previous 12 Months
by Farmworker Characteristic, 2019–2020................................................................................... 29
Figure 6.2: Percentage Distribution of Number of Years with Current Farm Employer, 2019–
2020............................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 6.3: Average Number of Weeks of Farm Work in Previous 12 Months, by Farmworker
Characteristic, 2019–2020 ............................................................................................................ 31
Figure 6.4: Average Number of Days Worked Per Week at Current Farm Job and Average
Number of Days of Farm Work in Previous 12 Months by Farmworker Characteristic, 2019–
2020............................................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 6.5: Years U.S. Farm Work Experience, 2019–2020 ........................................................ 32
Figure 6.6: U.S. Non-Crop Work Experience, 2019–2020........................................................... 33
Figure 6.7: Last Time Parents Did Hired Farm Work in United States, 2019–2020 .................... 34
Figure 6.8: Plans to Remain in Farm Work by Place of Birth and Work Authorization, 2019–
2020............................................................................................................................................... 35
Figure 6.9: Plans to Remain in Farm Work by Migrant Status, Gender, and Educational
Attainment, 2019–2020................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 6.10: Plans to Remain in Farm Work by Age Group, 2019–2020 .................................... 36
Figure 7.1: Average Number of Weeks Not Employed and Abroad in Previous 12 Months, 2019–
2020............................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 7.2: Percent of Farmworkers Who Held a Non-Crop Job the Previous Year, 2019–2020 39
Figure 7.3: Types of Non-Crop Jobs Held in Previous 12 Months, 2019–2020 .......................... 40
Figure 8.1: Percent of Farmworkers with Total Family Income Below Poverty Level by Family
Size, 2019–2020 ............................................................................................................................ 42
Figure 8.2: Percent of Farmworkers with Total Family Income Below Poverty Level by
Farmworker Characteristic, 2019–2020........................................................................................ 43
Figure 8.3: Assets in the United States, 2019–2020 ..................................................................... 43
Figure 8.4: Percent of Farmworkers Who Reported That a Member of the Household Received
Benefits from Contribution- or Needs-Based Programs in the Last Two Years, 2019–2020 ...... 44
Figure 9.1: Percent of Farmworkers with Health Insurance, 2019–2020 ..................................... 46
Figure 9.2: Sources of Farmworkers' Health Insurance, 2019–2020 ............................................ 47
Figure 9.3: Sources of Farmworkers' Spouses’ Health Insurance, 2019–2020 ............................ 47
Figure 9.4: Sources of Farmworkers' Children’s Health Insurance, 2019–2020 .......................... 48
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is the sixteenth in a series of Department of Labor publications on the demographic
and employment characteristics of hired agricultural workers in the United States. It examines
recent information on the demographics and employment characteristics of those who perform
crop work. The report focuses on findings for the period covering fiscal years 2019 and 2020.
These findings are based on data collected from face-to-face interviews with 2,172 crop
farmworkers through the U.S. Department of Labor’s National Agricultural Workers Survey
(NAWS) between October 1, 2018, and September 30, 2020. The sample does not include
farmworkers with H-2A visas.
Birthplace, Ethnicity, and Race
Almost two-thirds (63%) of farmworkers interviewed in fiscal years 2019–2020 were born in
Mexico, 30 percent were born in the United States or Puerto Rico, 5 percent were born in Central
America, and the remainder originated from various other regions, including South America, the
Caribbean, Asia, and the Pacific Islands. Seventy-eight percent of all farmworkers were
Hispanic. Among U.S.-born farmworkers, 32 percent were Hispanic. In terms of race, nearly
one-third of farmworkers self-identified as White (33%), and nearly two-thirds categorized their
race with an “other” response (66%). Ten percent of farmworkers were self-identified as
indigenous.
Work Authorization and Number of Years in the United States
U.S. citizens (by birth or naturalization), lawful permanent residents (green card holders), and
those whose visas include work authorization can legally work in the United States. More than
half of all farmworkers surveyed in 2019–2020 were authorized to work in the United States
(56%); 36 percent were U.S. citizens, 19 percent were lawful permanent residents, and 1 percent
had work authorization through some other visa program. Among citizens, 85 percent were born
in the United States, and 15 percent were naturalized citizens.
On average, foreign-born farmworkers interviewed in 2019–2020 first came to the United States
21 years before being interviewed. Most respondents had been in the United States at least 10
years (85%), with 70 percent arriving 15 years or more prior to their NAWS interview. One
percent 1 of foreign-born farmworkers were in their first year in the United States. Eighty-five
percent of farmworkers were settled workers, and 15 percent were migrants.
Estimates with relative standard errors (RSE) higher than 30 percent are identified throughout this report. The RSE
is calculated by dividing the standard error of the estimate (mean or percentage) by the estimate itself. Estimates
with RSEs greater than 30 percent but no more than 50 percent are published but should be used with caution.
Estimates with RSEs greater than 50 percent are considered statistically unreliable and are suppressed. The estimate
of percent of workers who had work authorization through some other visa program has an RSE of 31 percent to 50
percent and should be interpreted with caution.
1
i
Demographics and Family Composition
Males comprised 66 percent of farmworkers in 2019–2020. Farmworkers had an average age of
41. Thirty-seven percent of farmworkers were under the age of 35, 44 percent were ages 35 to
54, and 19 percent were age 55 or older.
Fifty-seven percent of farmworkers were married. The percentage of farmworkers who were
parents were similar to previous years (50% in both 2017–2018 and 2019–2020). At the time
they were interviewed, farmworker parents with minor children living with them had an average
of two minor children. Among these parents, 68 percent had 1 or 2 minor children in their
household, 22 percent had 3 minor children, and 10 percent had 4 or more minor children.
Thirty-eight percent of farmworkers were living apart from all nuclear family members at the
time of their interview (i.e., were unaccompanied). Seventy-six percent of these unaccompanied
farmworkers were single without children, 14 percent were parents, and 10 percent had a spouse
but no children.
Language and Education
In 2019, 62 percent of NAWS respondents said that Spanish was the language in which they
were most comfortable conversing, 25 percent said English was, 6 percent said both Spanish and
English, 6 percent said more than one language (excluding Spanish/English bilingual), and 1
percent reported an indigenous language. 2 In rating their English language skills, 29 percent of
farmworkers reported they could not speak English “at all,” 39 percent said they could speak
English “a little” or “somewhat,” and 32 percent said they could speak English “well.” In terms
of their ability to read English, 40 percent of farmworkers reported they could not read English
“at all.” 29 percent said they could read English “a little” or “somewhat,” and 31 percent said
they could read English “well.”
The average level of formal education completed by farmworkers was ninth grade. Four percent
of farmworkers reported having no formal schooling, and 35 percent reported completing the
sixth or a lower grade. Twenty-two percent of farmworkers said they completed grade 7, 8, or 9,
and 26 percent said they completed grade 10, 11, or 12. Fourteen percent of farmworkers
reported completing some education beyond high school.
Housing
Fifty-three percent of farmworkers interviewed in 2019–2020 reported living in housing rented
from someone other than their employer (relative or non-relative), 31 percent of farmworkers
said they lived in a home owned by themselves or a family member, and 1 percent said they paid
rent for housing provided by the government, a charity, or other organization. Fourteen percent
of farmworkers lived in employer-provided housing; 11 percent received it free of charge, and 3
percent paid rent either directly or via payroll deduction.
Fifty-six percent of all farmworkers reported living in detached, single-family houses, 21 percent
said they lived in mobile homes, 20 percent lived in apartments, and 3 percent 3 lived in various
other types of housing including duplexes or triplexes, dormitories or barracks, and motels or
2
3
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
ii
hotels. Thirty percent of farmworkers lived in “crowded” dwellings, defined as housing units in
which the number of persons per room was greater than one.
Distance to Work and Transportation
When asked how far their current farm job was from their current residence, 12 percent of
farmworkers reported that they lived where they worked, 72 percent lived fewer than 25 miles
from their current farm job, and 14 percent lived between 25 and 49 miles from work. Seventythree percent of farmworkers drove a car to work, 8 percent rode with others, 1 percent 4 walked
or took public transportation, and 7 percent rode with a “raitero.” 5
Job Characteristics and Employment History
In 2019–2020, 88 percent of farmworkers were employed directly by growers, and 12 percent
were employed by farm labor contractors. At the time of interview, 20 percent of farmworkers
were working in vegetable crops, 38 percent in fruit and nut crops, and 24 percent in horticulture.
Another 14 percent were working in field crops, and 3 percent were working in mixed crops.
Twenty-eight percent of farmworkers were performing pre-harvest tasks, 20 percent were
harvesting crops, 21 percent were performing post-harvest activities, and 31 percent were
performing technical production tasks.
In the 12 months prior to being interviewed, respondents spent an average of 39 weeks employed
in farm worked and performed an average of 227 days of farm work. Farmworkers worked an
average of 4 days per week for their current employer and reported an average of 46 work hours
in the previous week. Most farmworkers said their basis for pay was an hourly wage (82%), and
all farmworkers reported earning an average of $13.59 per hour. Forty-five percent of
farmworkers said they were covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) if they were to lose their
current job, 79 percent said they would receive workers’ compensation if they were injured at
work or became ill as a result of their work, and 28 percent reported that their employer offered
health insurance for injury or illness suffered while not on the job.
Eighty-three percent of farmworkers reported having worked for a single farm employer in the
previous 12 months, 11 percent had worked for 2 employers, and 6 percent had worked for 3 or
more farm employers. At the time of interview, farmworkers had been employed by their current
farm employer for an average of 8 years. Most farmworkers interviewed in 2019–2020 expected
to continue doing farm work for more than 5 years or as long as possible (79%).
In the year prior to their NAWS 2019–2020 interview, farmworkers spent an average of 8 weeks
living in the United States but not working and 2 weeks abroad. Twenty-two percent of
farmworkers held at least one non-crop job in the previous 12 months, and those who held a noncrop job worked an average of 24 weeks in non-crop production employment.
Income and Assets
Farmworkers’ mean and median personal income in the previous calendar year was in the range
of $20,000 to $24,999. Eight percent of farmworkers said their total personal income was less
than $10,000, 20 percent said they had personal incomes of $10,000 to $19,999, 30 percent had
personal incomes of $20,000 to $29,999, and 32 percent reported that their total personal income
4
5
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
“Raitero” is the word for a person who charges a fee for providing a ride to work.
iii
was $30,000 or more. Five percent of farmworkers reported not having worked at all during the
prior calendar year.
Farmworkers’ mean and median total family income the previous calendar year was in the range
of $25,000 to $29,999. Three percent of farmworkers reported no family income for the prior
year, 19 percent said their total family income in the prior year was less than $20,000, another 23
percent had a family income of $20,000 to $29,999, and 50 percent had a family income of
$30,000 or more. 6 Twenty percent of farmworkers had family incomes in the previous year
below the poverty level.
Approximately three-quarters of farmworkers stated that they owned or were buying at least one
asset in the United States (81%). The most common assets were a vehicle (reported by 80% of
farmworkers) or a home (reported by 22% of farmworkers).
In 2019–2020, 13 percent of farmworkers reported that someone in their household received a
benefit from at least one contribution-based program, including disability insurance, UI, and
Social Security. Eight percent of households received payments from UI, 4 percent received
Social Security payments, and 1 percent received payments from disability insurance. Sixty-three
percent of farmworkers reported that they or someone in their household used at least one type of
public assistance program in the previous two years. The most common public assistance
programs used were Medicaid (44%), public health clinics (33%), Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program (SNAP, 13%), and Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC, 9%).
Health Care
Forty-eight percent of farmworkers interviewed in 2019–2020 reported having health insurance.
Among them, 26 percent said their employer provided the insurance, 39 percent reported having
insurance provided by the government, 13 percent said they or their spouse paid for insurance
themselves, 7 percent reported having insurance under their spouse’s employer’s plan, 12 percent
reported that they were covered by a family member other than the spouse (e.g. a parent), and 7
percent reported that some other entity paid for their insurance. 7 Among farmworkers with
spouses, 56 percent said their spouse had health insurance. Among farmworkers with minor
children in the United States or Puerto Rico, 88 percent reported that all their children had health
insurance, 3 percent 8 reported that some of their children had health insurance.
Five percent of workers reported that they did not know their family income for the prior year. Less than one
percent declined to state their family income.
7
Percentages sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could select all that apply.
8
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
6
iv
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Department of Labor’s National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) is an
employment-based, random-sample survey of U.S. farmworkers that collects demographic,
employment, and health data in face-to-face interviews. The survey began in Federal Fiscal Year
1989; since then, more than 70,000 workers have been interviewed. The primary purposes of the
NAWS are to monitor the terms and conditions of agricultural employment and assess the
conditions of farmworkers. The survey also generates information for various Federal agencies
that oversee farmworker programs.
The NAWS is a survey of hired workers employed in crop and crop-related work at the time of
interview. To be interviewed, workers must be hired by an eligible establishment and working at
an eligible task. Eligible establishments are those classified in the North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) as Crop Production (NAICS code 111) or as Support Activities
for Crop Production (NAICS code 1151). NAICS 111 includes establishments such as farms,
orchards, groves, greenhouses, and nurseries primarily engaged in growing crops, plants, vines,
or trees and their seeds. NAICS 1151 includes establishments primarily engaged in providing
support activities for growing crops. Examples of support activities include supplying labor,
aerial dusting or spraying, cotton ginning, cultivating services, farm management services,
planting crops, and vineyard cultivation services.
Eligible tasks include work in all phases of crop production (pre-harvest, harvest, and postharvest), as well as supervising workers, operating machinery, and packing crops. Workers who
pack crops, however, are interviewed only if the packing facility at which they are employed is
on or adjacent to the sampled crop producer, and the facility is owned by and primarily packs
crops for that producer.
The NAWS sampling universe does not include:
• persons employed at eligible establishments who do not perform crop-related work, such
as secretaries or mechanics, unless such workers also perform crop-related work; and
• Farmworkers with an H-2A visa (a temporary-employment visa for foreign agricultural
workers). The Employment and Training Administration (Department of Labor) is
currently assessing the feasibility of including H-2A farmworkers in future survey waves.
The NAWS is unique for its broad coverage of the characteristics of hired farmworkers and their
dependents and its nearly year-round interviewing schedule. Data are collected throughout the
year, over three cycles, to reflect the seasonality of agricultural production and employment. The
NAWS differs from many Federal worker surveys in that it is an establishment survey (workers
are sampled at their workplaces), only currently employed persons are sampled, and data are
collected through face-to-face interviews with farmworkers.
The NAWS sample includes both migrant and seasonal farmworkers. The use of an employerbased sample rather than a household-based sample increases the likelihood that migrant workers
will be interviewed in the NAWS. Multi-stage sampling is implemented to account for seasonal
and regional fluctuations in the level of farm employment. To capture seasonal fluctuations in
1
the agricultural work force, the sampling year is divided into three interviewing cycles. For each
cycle, there are six levels of selection: 9
• region;
• single counties or groupings of counties called farm labor areas (FLA), which constitute
the primary sampling unit;
• county;
• ZIP Code region;
• employer; and
• respondent.
The NAWS has benefited from collaboration with multiple Federal agencies, which continue to
share in the design of the questionnaire. Information provided through the NAWS informs the
policies and programs of the many Federal government agencies that protect and provide
services to migrant and seasonal farmworkers and their dependents.
Topics Covered
This report presents information collected from face-to-face interviews with 2,172 farmworkers
interviewed between October 1, 2018, and September 30, 2020. It is organized into nine
chapters, each beginning with a summary of the chapter’s key findings.
Chapters 1 through 3 summarize the demographic characteristics of crop farmworkers, including
place of birth, ethnicity and race, work authorization, gender, age, marital status, household size
and structure, education, and language ability. Chapter 4 discusses farmworkers’ housing,
including the type of housing, the location of their housing in relation to their jobs, and
crowding. Chapter 5 summarizes the characteristics of farm jobs, including crops and tasks, job
recruitment, hours and wages, and benefits. Chapter 6 gives an overview of farmworkers’
participation in U.S. agricultural employment and Chapter 7 discusses workers’ participation in
non-crop employment, including farm jobs in other types of agriculture and periods of
unemployment. Chapter 8 presents information on farmworkers’ income, assets, and use of
assistance programs, and Chapter 9 summarizes health insurance coverage for farmworkers and
their family members, health care utilization in the United States, and barriers to health care
access.
The report also contains four appendices: Appendix A describes the procedures used to select the
sample, Appendix B displays a map of the NAWS migrant streams, Appendix C contains a table
of the percentages and means of the principal variables presented in the report, and Appendix D
contains tables of demographics and employment characteristic covering eight periods from
1989 to 2020.
9
A full description of the survey's sampling design is available in the Statistical Methods of the National
Agricultural Workers Survey
(https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/naws/pdfs/NAWS_Statistical_Methods_AKA_Supporting_Statement_
Part_B.pdf).
2
Chapter 1: Birthplace, Work Authorization, and Migrant Types
CHAPTER 1: Birthplace, Work Authorization, and Migrant Types
Summary of Findings:
• About 6 in 10 farmworkers surveyed were born in Mexico (63%).
• Seventy-eight percent of all farmworkers were Hispanic. Among U.S.-born workers, 32
percent were Hispanic.
• Thirty-three percent of farmworkers self-identified as White, fewer than 1 percent as Black
or African American, 10 and 66 percent of respondents did not select a category; instead, they
described race with an open-ended “other” response.
• Ten percent of farmworkers were identified as indigenous.
• Farmworkers in their first year in the United States comprised only 1 percent 11 of the hired
crop labor force.
• Over half of all farmworkers had work authorization (56%).
• Most farmworkers were settled workers (85%). Fifteen percent were migrants.
Place of Birth
More than 6 in 10 farmworkers interviewed in 2019–2020 were born in Mexico (63%), almost
one-third were born in the United States or Puerto Rico (30%), and 5 percent were born in
Central America (Figure 1.1).
10
11
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
3
Chapter 1: Birthplace, Work Authorization, and Migrant Types
Figure 1.1: Place of Birth, 2019–2020
About two-thirds of farmworkers are from Mexico.
Mexico, 63%
Central
America,
5%
United
States/Puerto
Rico, 30%
Ethnicity and Race
Hispanic origin, as defined in the United States, can be viewed as the heritage, nationality group,
lineage, or country of birth of the person or the person’s parents or ancestors. 12 Foreign-born
workers may more readily identify with a national origin rather than an abstract ethnicity concept
such as Hispanic or Latino. Workers born in the United States or those who have been in the
United States for several years might have a better understanding of the U.S-based ethnicity label
system.
To capture Hispanic identity, farmworkers were asked to indicate which of a variety of
categories best described them. Seventy-eight percent identified themselves as members of a
Hispanic group: 60 percent as Mexican, 10 percent as Mexican-American, and the remaining 8
percent as Chicano, Puerto Rican, or other Hispanic. Among U.S.-born workers, 32 percent selfidentified as Hispanic—18 percent as Mexican-American, 5 percent 13 as Mexican, and 9 percent
as Puerto Rican, Chicano, or other Hispanic.
Farmworker respondents were also asked to indicate the race with which they identify.
Respondents had the opportunity to choose one or more race categories from the standard list
Humes, K. R., Jones, N. A., and Ramirez, R. R. (2011). Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010. 2010
Census Briefs (p. 2).
13
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
12
4
Chapter 1: Birthplace, Work Authorization, and Migrant Types
required by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Thirty-three percent of all respondents
in 2019–2020 self-identified as White, fewer than 1 percent as Black or African American, 14 and
66 percent of respondents gave an answer not on the standard list.
The categories used in the NAWS questions on ethnicity and race might not be intuitively
understood by indigenous individuals who identify themselves as members of a specific
community or language group rather than a more generic racial group, such as indigenous.
Beginning in 2005, the NAWS began supplementing the question on primary language use with
questions that ask about all adult languages spoken as well as childhood language exposure. 15
The NAWS uses a combination of the responses to these questions and the question about race to
identify farmworkers who are indigenous, and, in 2019–2020, ten percent of NAWS respondents
were identified as indigenous.
Foreign-born Workers’ First Arrival to the United States
While not a measure of continued residence, data on the month and year a foreign-born
farmworker first entered the United States provides some information about migration history.
For example, time in the United States since first arrival can serve as a measure of attachment to
the farm workforce. However, a farmworker could have been in the U.S. for some time before
joining the farm workforce.
On average, foreign-born farmworkers interviewed in 2019–2020 first came to the United States
21 years before being interviewed. Most respondents had been in the United States for at least 10
years (85%), with 71 percent arriving at least 15 years prior to their NAWS interview (Figure
1.2). One percent 16 of farmworkers interviewed first arrived in the United States in the year
predating their interview.
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
Gabbard, S., Kissam, E., Glasnapp, J., Nakamoto, J., Saltz, R., Carroll, D. J., & Georges, A. (November, 2012).
Identifying Indigenous Mexicans and Central Americans in Surveys. International Conference on Methods for
Surveying and Enumerating Hard-to-Reach Populations (November, 2012) New Orleans, LA.
16
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has a RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
14
15
5
Chapter 1: Birthplace, Work Authorization, and Migrant Types
Figure 1.2: Years Since First Arrival to the United States, 2019–2020
85 percent of foreign-born farmworkers
had been in
the United States for at least 10 years.
<1 year, 1%a
1-4 years, 9%
5-9 years, 6%
10-14 years, 14%
15-19 years, 19%
20-29 years, 30%
30-39 years, 14%
40+ years, 8%
0%
a
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
Foreign-born respondents were asked to report where they lived (state/department/province)
before coming to the United States. Among Mexico-born workers interviewed in 2019–2020,
most came from the states of Michoacán (20%), Guanajuato (11%), Oaxaca (14%), Jalisco (9%),
Baja California (6%), and Guerrero (6%). The greatest proportion of Mexico-born farmworkers
originated from the Western Central region (42%), 30 percent came from Northern Mexico, and
another 28 percent came from Southern Mexico. 17
Work Authorization
A series of related questions in the survey provides a picture of whether respondents born abroad
have US work authorization. These questions address the citizenship and visa status of those who
are not US citizens by birth (naturalized citizen, lawful permanent resident, border crossing-card
holder, applicant for residency, temporary visa holder, or not holding a valid visa) and, when
applicable, the date and program under which the individual applied for work authorization. In
addition, respondents born abroad are asked whether they have authorization to work in the
United States. To be classified as work-authorized, a worker must provide consistent answers
that conform to visa regulations. For example, a worker who reports work authorization from a
17
The Western Central region of Mexico includes the states of Colima, Guanajuato, Jalisco, and Michoacán. The
Northern region includes the states of Aguascalientes, Baja California, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Mexico City, Durango,
Estado de Mexico, Hidalgo, Nayarit, Nuevo Leon, Queretaro, San Luis Potosi, Sinaloa, Sonora, Tamaulipas, and
Zacatecas. The Southern region of Mexico includes the states of Campeche, Chiapas, Guerrero, Morelos, Oaxaca,
Puebla, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, Tlaxcala, Veracruz, and Yucatan.
6
Chapter 1: Birthplace, Work Authorization, and Migrant Types
visa program that expired before he or she entered the country would be classified as
unauthorized.
Fifty-six percent of farmworkers interviewed had work authorization in 2019–2020. 18 Among
the 36 percent who were U.S. citizens, 85 percent were born in the United States, and 15 percent
were naturalized citizens. The remainder of the work-authorized population consisted mainly of
lawful permanent residents (19%) with 1 percent authorized through some other visa program.
Migrant Farmworkers
The definition of “migrant” has varied across Federal government agencies and programs that
provide services to migrant and seasonal farmworkers. The NAWS has defined a migrant as a
person who reported jobs that were at least 75 miles apart or who reported moving more than 75
miles to obtain a farm job during a 12-month period. 19
Interpreting migration patterns requires some caution. Since the analysis presented here covers
only one year of farm employment data, these definitions describe movement during that
particular year. The discussion below assumes that most of the workers making a move during
the year were cyclical migrants. However, some portion of these workers might have been
making a permanent move.
For this report, migrant farmworkers were categorized according to their migrant travel patterns.
Migration consisted of moving from a “home base,” the location where the migrant spent the
greatest amount of time during the year preceding his/her NAWS interview, to one or more
destinations where work was available. Shuttle migrants were workers who did not work on a
U.S. farm at their home base, but who traveled 75 miles or more to do farm work in a single U.S.
location, and worked only within a 75-mile radius of that location. Follow-the-crop migrants
were workers who traveled to multiple U.S. farm locations for work. Follow-the-crop migrants
might or might not have done U.S. farm work at their home base. This report further classifies
migrants into domestic migrants (those who traveled solely within the United States in the 12
months preceding their interview to do farm work) or international migrants (those who crossed
the U.S. border to do farm work).
Fifteen percent of farmworkers interviewed in 2019–2020 were migrants (see Figure 1.3).
Among them, nearly half (46%) were domestic (48%) were international migrants (4% 20
international follow-the-crop and 44% international shuttle migrants), and 6 percent were
newcomers who had been in the U.S. less than a year (see Figures 1.4 and 1.5).
The sample does not include farmworkers with H-2A visas.
Migrant programs often use a 24-month look-back period in their definitions of migrant. The NAWS collects data
about travel to another city to do farm work during the 12 months preceding the NAWS interview and the 12 months
prior to that. In 2019–2020, 19 percent of farmworkers reported that they traveled to another city to do farm work
sometime during the previous 24 months.
20
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
18
19
7
Chapter 1: Birthplace, Work Authorization, and Migrant Types
Figure 1.3: Distribution of Settled and Migrants, 2019–2020
Newcomer
1%
Settled
85%
Domestic
Migrant
7%
Migrants
15%
International
Migrant
7%
Figure 1.4: Distribution of Migrant Types (As Percent of Migrants), 2019–2020
Nearly half of migrants were international.
International
Migrants, 48%
Domestic
Migrants, 46%
Migrant
Newcomers, 6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
8
Chapter 1: Birthplace, Work Authorization, and Migrant Types
Figure 1.5: Distribution of Migrant Types According to Their Migrant Travel Patterns (As
Percent of Migrants), 2019–2020
Most international migrants
were shuttle migrants.
International
Follow-the-Crop Migrants, 4%a
International Shuttle
Migrants, 44%
Domestic
Follow-the-Crop Migrants, 21%
Domestic Shuttle
Migrants, 25%
Migrant Newcomers,
6%
0%
a
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
9
Chapter 2: Demographics, Family Size, and Children and Household Structure
CHAPTER 2: Demographics, Family Size, Children, and Household
Structure
Summary of Findings:
• Sixty-six percent of interviewed farmworkers were men.
• Farmworkers’ average age was 41, and median age was 39.
• Fifty-seven percent of all farmworkers were married.
• Fifty percent of all farmworkers had children.
• Thirty-eight percent of farmworkers were living apart from all nuclear family members at the
time of their interview. Seventy-six percent of unaccompanied farmworkers were single
workers without children, 14 percent were parents, and 10 percent had a spouse but no
children.
Gender and Age
In 2019–2020, the U.S. crop labor force was predominantly male (66%) and had an average age
of 41 and median age of 39. Just more than one-third of farmworkers were under the age of 35
(37%), and 19 percent were age 55 or older (Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1: Age Distribution of Farmworkers, 2019–2020
Over a third of farmworkers were younger than 35.
14-19 years old, 5%
20-24 years old, 9%
25-34 years old, 23%
35-44 years old, 26%
45-54 years old, 18%
55-64 years old, 14%
65 years or older, 5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
In 2019–2020, unauthorized workers were younger than authorized workers (an average of 39
and 42 years of age respectively) and newcomers to U.S. farm work (i.e., those arriving in the
United States within the year prior to interview) were younger than experienced workers (an
10
Chapter 2: Demographics, Family Size, and Children and Household Structure
average of 28 and 41 years of age respectively). The average age of males and females was
nearly the same – 41 and 39 years, respectively.
Marital Status and Family Type
More than half of farmworkers interviewed in 2019–2020 were married (57%), and half of all
farmworkers were parents (50%). Among parents, 75 percent were married or living together, 11
percent were single, and 15 percent were separated, divorced, or widowed.
Children and Household Structure
In 2019–2020, farmworker parents with minor children living in their household had an average
of 2 minor children living with them at the time they were interviewed. Sixty-eight percent of
these parents had 1 or 2 minor children living with them (32% and 36% respectively), 22 percent
had 3 minor children, 7 percent had 4 minor children, and 3 percent 21 had 5 or more minor
children (Figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2: Number of Minor Children in the Household of Farmworkers, 2019–2020
Most farmworker parents with minor children had
one or two minor children in their household.
1 child, 32%
2 children, 36%
3 children, 22%
4 children, 7%
5+ children, 3%a
0%
a
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
21
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
11
Chapter 2: Demographics, Family Size, and Children and Household Structure
Of parents with children under the age of 18, 43 percent had children younger than age 6, 72
percent had children ages 6–13, and 42 percent had children ages 14–17. Three percent 22 of
parents lived away from some of their minor children, and 14 percent lived away from all of their
minor children. Migrant parents were nearly four times more likely than settled parents to be
living away from all their minor children (43% and 11% respectively).
“Unaccompanied” farmworkers, defined as those who were living apart from all nuclear family
members (parents, siblings, spouse, and children) at the time of their interview, comprised 38
percent of the U.S. crop labor force in 2019–2020. Migrant workers were much more likely than
settled workers to be unaccompanied (69% and 33% respectively) as were men when compared
to women (42% and 31% respectively). See Figure 2.3. Most of the unaccompanied were single
workers without children (76%), 14 percent were parents, and 10 percent had a spouse but no
children.
Figure 2.3: Percent of Farmworkers Unaccompanied by Nuclear Family, 2019–2020
Male and migrant farmworkers were more
likely to be unaccompanied by nuclear family.
All farmworkers, 38%
Male, 42%
Female, 31%
Migrant, 69%
Settled, 33%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Among farmworker parents in 2019–2020, nearly all mothers (94%) and almost 9 of 10 fathers
(86%) were accompanied by at least some nuclear family members. Similarly, among married
workers without children, 77 percent of women and 81 percent of the men were accompanied at
the time of the interview.
22
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
12
Chapter 3: Language, Education, and English Skills
CHAPTER 3: Language, Education, and English Skills
Summary of Findings:
• Approximately two-thirds of surveyed farmworkers reported that Spanish is their primary
language (62%).
• Thirty-two percent of workers reported that they could speak English “well,” and 29 percent
said, “not at all.” Thirty-one percent reported that they could read English “well” while 40
percent said, “not at all.”
• The average level of formal education completed by farmworkers was ninth grade.
Primary Language
In 2019–2020, two-thirds of farmworkers said that Spanish was the language in which they were
most comfortable conversing (62%), 25 percent said English was, 6 percent said both Spanish
and English, 6 percent said more than one language (excludes Spanish/English bilingual), and 1
percent reported an indigenous language. 23 Among workers born in Mexico or Central America,
nearly all reported that Spanish was their primary language (87%). Of the remainder, fewer than
1 percent 24 said that English was their primary language, 25 3 percent said both Spanish and
English (bilingual), 8 percent said more than one language, fewer than 1 percent 26 said
indigenous, and fewer than 1 percent 27 said other language.
English Language Skills
Farmworkers were asked two questions about their English fluency: “How well do you speak
English?” and “How well do you read English?” In 2019–2020, 29 percent of workers responded
that they could not speak English “at all,” 26 percent said they could speak English “a little,” 12
percent said they could speak English “somewhat,” and 32 percent said they could speak English
“well.” Regarding their ability to read English, 40 percent of farmworkers reported they could
not read English “at all,” 19 percent said they could read English “a little,” 10 percent said they
could read English “somewhat,” and 31 percent said they could read English “well” (Figure
3.1). 28
Estimates should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
Estimates should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
25
Estimates should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
26
Estimates should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
27
Estimates should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
28
Respondents’ self-reports of language proficiency might be higher or lower than their actual proficiency.
23
24
13
Chapter 3: Language, Education, and English Skills
Figure 3.1: Farmworkers' Self-Reported English Speaking and Reading Ability, 2019–2020
Farmworkers reported a greater ability to
speak English than to read English.
Not at all
Ability to
Speak English
Ability to
Read English
29%
A little
Somewhat
26%
40%
Well
12%
19%
10%
32%
31%
Farmworkers who reported having a primary language other than English were asked to indicate
how well they could speak and read in that language. Among workers whose primary language
was Spanish, nearly all reported they could speak Spanish “well” (98%). In describing their
Spanish reading ability, 85 percent responded “well,” 8 percent replied “somewhat,” 6 percent
replied “a little,” and 2 percent replied “not at all” (Figure 3.2).
14
Chapter 3: Language, Education, and English Skills
Figure 3.2: Among Farmworkers Whose Primary Language Is Spanish, Self-Reported
Spanish Speaking and Reading Ability, 2019–2020
Farmworkers reported a greater ability to
speak Spanish than to read Spanish.
Not at all
A little
Somewhat
Well
2%a
Ability to
Speak Spanish
Ability to
Read Spanish
a
98%
2%
6%
8%
85%
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 percent to 50 percent.
Education
In 2019–2020, farmworkers’ average educational attainment was ninth grade. Four percent of
workers reported that they had no formal schooling, and 35 percent reported that they completed
the 6th grade or lower. Twenty-two percent of workers said they completed grade 7, 8, or 9, and
26 percent said they completed grade 10, 11, or 12. Fourteen percent of farmworkers reported
completing some education beyond high school (Figure 3.3).
15
Chapter 3: Language, Education, and English Skills
Figure 3.3: Distribution of Highest Grade Completed by Farmworkers, 2019–2020
Farmworkers' average educational
attainment was 9th grade.
No schooling, 4%
K-6th grade, 35%
7th-9th grade, 22%
10th-12th grade, 26%
13 grades or more, 14%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
The highest grade completed varied by place of birth. On average, the highest grade completed
by workers born in the United States was 12th, and the highest grade completed by workers born
in Mexico or other countries was 7th. Most U.S.-born farmworkers completed the 12th grade or
higher (75%) as did 14 percent of Mexico-born workers.
16
Chapter 4: Housing Characteristics
CHAPTER 4: Housing Characteristics and Distance to Work
Summary of Findings:
• Sixteen percent of farmworkers lived in a dwelling owned or administered by their current
employer—13 percent on the farm of the grower for whom they were working and 3 percent
off the farm.
• Fifty-six percent of workers lived in detached, single-family houses.
• Just fewer than a third of farmworkers lived in a dwelling defined as crowded (30%).
• Seven in 10 workers lived fewer than 25 miles from their current farm job (72%), and 14
percent lived between 25 and 49 miles from work. Twelve percent of workers lived where
they worked.
• Seventy-three percent of workers drove a car to work, 7 percent rode with a “raitero,” 29 and 2
percent took a labor bus, truck, or van.
Location of Housing and Payment Arrangement
Surveyed farmworkers provided information about their housing situation (arrangement,
location, type, and occupancy) while working at their current farm job. Sixteen percent of
farmworkers lived in employer-provided housing (i.e., property owned or administered by their
current employer), including 13 percent on the farm of the grower for whom they were working
and 3 percent off the farm. The remaining 83 percent of workers lived in a property not owned or
administered by their current employer.
The proportion of workers living in employer-provided housing (either on or off the employer’s
farm) varied across the Eastern, Midwest, and Western migrant streams, 30 with 18 percent of
workers in the Eastern stream interviewed in 2019–2020 reporting that they lived in employerprovided housing, 31 percent of workers in the Midwest migrant stream, and 10 percent in the
Western migrant stream (Figure 4.1).
“Raitero” is the word for a person who charges a fee for providing a ride to work.
Migrant streams are one way of showing usual patterns of migration and the linkages between downstream and
upstream states that many migrants travel in search of farm work. While these patterns are typical, some migrants
may cross streams in their search for work. A map of the NAWS migrant streams can be found in Appendix B.
29
30
17
Chapter 4: Housing Characteristics
Figure 4.1: Percent of Farmworkers Who Lived in Employer-Provided Housing, 2019–2020
Employer-provided housing was most
common in the Midwest Stream.a
All Farmworkers, 16%
Eastern Stream, 18%
Midwest Stream, 31%
Western Stream, 10%
0%
a
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
A map of the NAWS migrant streams can be found in Appendix B.
In addition to information about the location of their housing, farmworkers provided information
about the payment arrangements for their housing. In 2019–2020, more than half of all
farmworkers reported living in housing rented from someone other than their employer (53%);
31 percent of workers said they lived in a home owned by themselves or a family member; 1
percent said they paid rent for housing provided by the government, a charity, or other
organization; and 14 percent of workers lived in employer-provided housing. Among those
living in employer-provided housing, 11 percent received housing free of charge, 3 percent paid
rent either directly or via payroll deduction, and fewer than 1 percent 31 had other arrangements
with their employers.
Migrant workers were more than four times as likely as settled workers to live in employerprovided housing free of charge (30% and 7% respectively) and half as likely than settled
workers to live in a home they or a family member owned (17% 32 and 34% respectively). See
Figure 4.2.
31
32
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
18
Chapter 4: Housing Characteristics
Figure 4.2: Housing Arrangement, 2019–2020
Migrant farmworkers were more likely to
live in employer-provided housing.
All farmworkers, 11%
Free employer-provided
housing
Migrant, 30%
Settled, 7%
All farmworkers, 31%
Home owned by farmworker/
family member
Migrant, 17%a
Settled, 34%
All farmworkers, 53%
Rent from non-employer/
non-relative
Migrant, 45%
Settled, 54%
0%
a
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 percent to 50 percent.
Farmworkers who reported paying for their housing were asked how much they paid at their
current residence, including for their family if their family lived with them. Six percent 33
reported paying less than 200 dollars per month, 16 percent said they paid 200–399, 26 percent
paid 400–599 dollars per month, and 51 percent paid 600 dollars or more per month.
Type of Housing
In 2019–2020, more than half of farmworkers reported living in detached, single-family houses
(56%), 21 percent said they lived in mobile homes, and another 20 percent lived in apartments.
The remaining 3 percent 34 lived in other types of housing. 35
Migrant workers were just as likely as settled workers to report living in detached, single-family
homes (56% and 56% respectively), mobile homes (22% and 21% respectively), or apartments
(18% and 20% respectively). Unauthorized workers were less likely than authorized workers to
reside in single-family homes (41% and 69% respectively) and more likely to live in mobile
homes (25% and 17% respectively) and apartments (29% and 13% respectively). See Figure 4.3.
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
35
Other types of housing in which farmworkers reported living included a duplex or triplex, dormitory or barracks,
motel or hotel, or “other.”
33
34
19
Chapter 4: Housing Characteristics
Figure 4.3: Type of Housing, 2019–2020
a
b
Type of Housing
Single family
home
Mobile home
Apartment
Other
All
Farmworkers
56%
Migrant
56%
Settled
56%
Authorized
69%
Unauthorized
41%
22%
18%
21%
20%
17%
13%
1%
25%
29%
5%a
21%
20%
3%a
b
b
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 percent to 50 percent.
Estimate is suppressed because it has an RSE greater than 50 percent.
Among immigrant farmworkers, the proportion living in single-family homes increased with the
number of years living in the United States. Among immigrants who first arrived in the United
States fewer than 10 years ago, 43 percent lived in single-family homes compared to 45 percent
of those that had been in the United States between 10 and 19 years and 57 percent of those who
had been in the United States at least 20 years (see Figure 4.4).
Figure 4.4: Type of Housing by Length of Time in the United States, 2019–2020
a
b
Type of Housing
Single family home
Mobile home
Apartment
Other
In United States
Less than 10 Years
43%
17%
28%
b
In United States
10-19 Years
45%
23%
31%
b
In United States
20 Years or More
57%
25%
15%
3% a
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 percent to 50 percent.
Estimate is suppressed because it has an RSE greater than 50 percent.
In 2019–2020, farmworkers reported having an average of six rooms in the dwellings they lived
in, including an average of three bedrooms, one or two bathrooms, one kitchen, and one “other”
room. Nearly all workers said there was at least one bathroom in their living unit (>99%) and at
least one kitchen (>99%).
Household Crowding
The measure of crowding used for this report is based on the one-person-per-room definition of
the U.S. Census Bureau, Census of Housing. 36 Persons-per-room was calculated by summing the
number of rooms (excluding bathrooms, but including kitchens) that respondents said they had in
their current living quarters, then dividing the number of persons that respondents said slept in
those rooms by the total number of rooms. Dwellings in which the number of persons per room
was greater than one were considered crowded.
In 2019–2020, 30 percent of farmworkers lived in crowded dwellings. Migrant workers lived in
crowded dwellings with greater frequency than settled workers (39% compared to 28%), and
U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division. (2011, October 31). Crowding
(http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/crowding.html).
36
20
Chapter 4: Housing Characteristics
unauthorized workers were nearly twice as likely as authorized workers to live in crowded
dwellings (41% and 21% respectively).
Distance to Work and Transportation
When asked how far their current farm job was from their current residence, 12 percent of
farmworkers in 2019–2020 reported living where they worked, 35 percent said they lived within
9 miles of their job location, 37 percent between 10 and 24 miles from work, 14 percent between
25 and 49 miles from work, and 3 percent 37 50 or more miles from work.
Farmworkers used various modes of transportation to get to work. In 2019–2020, 73 percent of
workers reported that they drove a car to work (even though 80% of workers said they owned a
car or truck, as discussed in chapter 8), and 10 percent said they walked or took public transit.
Seventeen percent of workers did not provide their own transportation but commuted via rides
with others (8%); rides with a “raitero” 38 (7%); or rides on a labor bus, truck, or van (2%).
Among workers who did not provide their own transportation, 4 percent 39 reported that it was
mandatory or obligatory for them to use their current mode of transportation. Thirty-three
percent of workers who did not provide their own transportation reported having to pay a fee for
these rides to work, and 37 percent said they paid, but only for gas. Thirty percent said they paid
no fee for their rides with the “raitero,” on the labor bus, or with others.
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
“Raitero” is the word for a person who charges a fee for providing a ride to work.
39
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
37
38
21
Chapter 5: Employment Patterns and Farm Job Characteristics
CHAPTER 5: Employment Patterns and Farm Job Characteristics
Summary of Findings:
• Nearly 9 in 10 surveyed farmworkers were employed directly by growers (88%), and 12
percent were employed by farm labor contractors.
• At the time of interview, 38 percent of farmworkers were working in fruit and nut crops, 20
percent in vegetable crops, and 24 percent in horticulture. Fourteen percent were working in
field crops, and 3 percent were working in mixed crops.
• At the time of interview, 28 percent of farmworkers were performing pre-harvest tasks, 20
percent were harvesting crops, 21 percent were performing post-harvest activities, and 31
percent were performing technical production tasks.
• Most farmworkers reported that their basis for pay was an hourly wage (82%). Workers
reported earning an average of $13.59 per hour at their current farm job.
• Forty-five percent of farmworkers reported that they were covered by Unemployment
Insurance (UI) if they were to lose their current job, 79 percent said they would receive
workers’ compensation if they were injured at work or became ill as a result of their work,
and 28 percent said their employer offered health insurance for injury or illness suffered
while not on the job.
Type of Employer and Job Recruitment
Most farmworkers in 2019–2020 were employed directly by growers 40 (88%); farm labor
contractors employed the remaining 12 percent. About 6 in 10 workers reported that they found
their current job via references from friends or relatives (57%), and one-third secured their job
after applying for it on their own (32%). Eight percent of workers were recruited by a grower,
foreman, or labor contractor, and the remaining 3 percent were referred to their job by an
employment service or welfare office, were hired under union-employer agreements, or found
their job via some “other” means.
Primary Crops and Farm Job Tasks
At the time they were interviewed in 2019–2020, 82 percent of farmworkers reported working in
fruits, nuts, vegetables, and horticultural crops (38% in fruits and nuts, 20% in vegetables, and
24% in horticulture). Fourteen percent held jobs in field crops, and 3 percent worked in mixed
crops or other crops. Workers employed by farm labor contractors were more likely than those
employed directly by growers to work in vegetable crops (27% 41 compared to 19%) and more
likely than directly-hired workers to work in fruit and nut crops (67% compared to 34%).
Migrant farmworkers worked in vegetable crops with a higher frequency than settled workers
(28% and 18% respectively) but were less likely than settled workers to have jobs in horticultural
crops (18% and 26% respectively; Figure 5.1).
Growers include owners of establishments (i.e., farms, orchards, greenhouses, and nurseries) that engage
primarily in growing crops, plants, or trees, but can also include other types of crop producers, such as packers,
shippers, or distributors.
41
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
40
22
Chapter 5: Employment Patterns and Farm Job Characteristics
Figure 5.1: Primary Crop at Time of Interview, 2019–2020
a
b
Crop at Time
of Interview
Fruits and Nuts
Horticulture
Vegetables
Field Crops
Miscellaneous/
Multiple
All
Farmworkers
38%
24%
20%
14%
3%
Employed
by Grower
34%
27%
19%
16%
4%
Employed
by Farm
Labor
Contractor
67%
Migrant
Settled
Farmworkers Farmworkers
33%
39%
18%
26%
28%
18%
a
19%
13%
a
2%
4%
b
27%a
b
b
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 percent to 50 percent.
Estimate is suppressed because it has an RSE greater than 50 percent.
Over the course of a year and even in a single day, farmworkers potentially perform a wide
variety of tasks. In the NAWS, interviewers record the task the respondent was performing just
prior to the interview. Among all farmworkers interviewed in 2019–2020, 28 percent performed
pre-harvest tasks such as hoeing, thinning, and transplanting; 20 percent harvested crops; 21
percent performed post-harvest activities such as field packing, sorting, and grading; and 31
percent of workers performed technical production tasks such as pruning, irrigating, and
operating machinery. Workers employed by farm labor contractors were more likely than
directly-hired workers to perform harvest tasks (28% compared to 19%), while similar
proportions of migrant and settled farmworkers performed harvest tasks (19% and 20%).
Migrant farmworkers were more likely than settled farmworkers to perform post-harvest tasks
(31% compared to 19%). Workers employed by farm labor contractors were more likely than
directly-hired workers to perform technical production tasks (38% compared to 31%), while
settled workers were more likely than migrant workers to perform technical production tasks
(33% compared to 24%; Figure 5.2).
Figure 5.2: Primary Task at Time of Interview, 2019–2020
Primary Task at
Time of Interview
Pre-harvest
Harvest
Post-harvest
Technical Production
All
Farmworkers
28%
20%
21%
31%
Employed
by Grower
29%
19%
22%
31%
Employed
by Farm
Labor
Contractor
17%a
28%
b
38%
Migrant
Settled
Farmworkers Farmworkers
26%
28%
19%
20%
31%
19%
24%
33%
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has a RSE of 31 percent to 50 percent.
b
Estimate is suppressed because it has a RSE greater than 50 percent.
a
Basis for Pay and Hours Worked
Most farmworkers in 2019–2020 reported that their basis for pay was an hourly wage (82%).
Eight percent of workers were paid a salary, and 7 percent were paid exclusively by the piece.
23
Chapter 5: Employment Patterns and Farm Job Characteristics
Respondents worked an average of 46 hours in the previous week at their current farm job.
Agricultural employers’ labor needs can vary by season, crop, and task, and workers are
sometimes needed for longer than normal hours over short periods of time. The data reflect the
fluctuating nature of labor use. For example, workers who were harvesting field crops at the time
they were interviewed in 2019–2020 reported working an average of 51 hours in the previous
week. Workers who performed pre-harvest tasks (such as thinning and transplanting) in
horticulture, on the other hand, reported an average of 46 hours of work the previous week
(Figure 5.3).
Figure 5.3: Average Number of Hours Worked in Week Prior to Interview by Crop and
Task at Time of Interview, 2019–2020
Crop
Field Crops
Fruit and Nut Crops
Horticulture
Vegetable Crops
Miscellaneous/
Multiple
Pre-Harvest
Tasks
56
44
46
45
58
Harvest
Tasks
51
41
39
43
33
Post-Harvest
Tasks
52
46
55
45
47
Technical
Production Tasks
51
45
43
55
45
The average number of hours worked in the previous week also varied by workers’ age, gender,
U.S. farm work experience, and payment type. Respondents ages 18 to 21 reported the fewest
hours (an average of 44), and workers ages 25 to 34 and ages 51 to 54 both reported the most
hours (an average of 48). Males reported working an average of 48 hours in the previous week,
and females reported an average of 44 hours. Farmworkers with fewer than 2 years of experience
reported the fewest hours of work the previous week (an average of 44), while those with 11 or
more years of experience reported the most hours (an average of 47). Farmworkers paid a salary
reported the greatest number of hours the previous week (an average of 51). Workers paid by the
piece averaged 41 hours, those paid by the hour averaged 47 hours, and those paid a combination
of hourly wage and piece rate averaged 38 hours of work the previous week (Figure 5.4).
24
Chapter 5: Employment Patterns and Farm Job Characteristics
Figure 5.4: Average Number of Hours Worked in Week Prior to Interview by Farmworker
Characteristic, 2019–2020
Farmworker
Characteristic
14-17 years old
18-21 years old
22-24 years old
25-34 years old
35-44 years old
45-50 years old
51-54 years old
55-64 years old
65 or more years old
Male
Female
Less than 2 years of farm work experience
2-4 years farm work experience
5-10 years farm work experience
11-20 years farm work experience
21-30 years farm work experience
31 or more years farm work experience
Paid by the hour
Paid by the piece
Paid combination hourly wage and piece rate
Paid salary or other
Average Number of
Hours Worked in Week
Prior to Interview
45
44
45
48
47
47
48
45
45
48
44
44
46
46
47
47
47
47
41
38
51
Wages
When asked how much they were earning per hour at their current farm job, farmworkers in
2019–2020 reported an average of $13.59. 42 Workers who were being paid by the hour earned an
average hourly wage of $13.05, and those being paid by the piece earned an average of $14.63
per hour.
Hourly wages increased with respondents’ number of years working for their current employer.
Workers who had been with their current employer 1 to 2 years earned an average of $12.97 per
hour, those working for their current employer 3 to 5 years earned an average of $13.44 per hour,
and those with 6 to 10 years earned an average of $13.93 per hour. Workers who had worked for
their current employer 11 years or more earned the highest hourly wage, an average of $14.26
per hour.
Piece rate and combination wages were converted to an hourly wage, then averaged with the wages of workers
who were paid by the hour.
42
25
Chapter 5: Employment Patterns and Farm Job Characteristics
Among the tasks respondents reported performing at the time they were interviewed, those who
worked in harvest tasks earned the highest average hourly wage, $15.37. Pre-harvest workers
earned an average of $12.87 per hour, post-harvest workers earned an average of $12.57 per
hour, and those who worked in technical production tasks earned an average of $13.80 per hour
(Figure 5.5).
Figure 5.5: Average Hourly Wage by Farmworker Characteristic, 2019–2020
a
Farmworker
Characteristic
All farmworkers
Paid by the hour
Paid by the piece
Paid combination hourly wage and piece rate
Salary or Other
With current employer 1 to 2 years
With current employer 3 to 5 years
With current employer 6 to 10 years
With current employer 11 or more years
Performed pre-harvest tasks at time of interview
Performed harvest tasks at time of interview
Performed post-harvest tasks at time of interview
Performed technical production tasks at time of interview
Average
Hourly Wage
$13.59
$13.05
$14.63
$21.73a
$17.43
$12.97
$13.44
$13.93
$14.26
$12.87
$15.37
$12.57
$13.80
2 percent of farmworkers reported being paid a combination hourly wage and piece rate at their current farm job.
Worksite Availability of Water and Toilets
NAWS respondents were asked if their current farm employer provided the following items at
the worksite every day: drinking water and cups, a toilet, and water for washing hands. Ninetytwo percent of farmworkers in 2019–2020 reported that they were provided with drinking water
and disposable cups every day, and 5 percent said they were provided water only. A notable
share of workers said that their employer provided no water and no cups (3%). Nearly all
workers affirmed that they were provided a toilet every day (99%) and water for washing their
hands (99%).
Pesticide Training
The NAWS asks all respondents whether, at any time in the last 12 months, their current
employer provided them with training or instruction in the safe use of pesticides. In 2019–2020,
68 percent of farmworkers reported that they did receive this type of training.
Insurance Benefits
NAWS respondents were asked whether they were covered by UI if they were to lose their
current job. Forty-five percent of farmworkers interviewed in 2019–2020 said “yes,” 50 percent
26
Chapter 5: Employment Patterns and Farm Job Characteristics
said “no,” and 5 percent did not know. 43 Workers with authorization to work in the United States
were far more likely than unauthorized workers to report that they would be covered by UI (77%
and 6% respectively). Of the 50 percent of respondents who reported that they would not be
covered by UI, 81 percent were unauthorized and would not qualify for the benefit were it
provided.
When asked whether they would receive workers’ compensation if they were injured at work or
got sick as a result of their work, approximately 8 in 10 farmworkers said “yes” (79%), 8 percent
said “no,” and 13 percent did not know. 44 Furthermore, when asked whether their employer
provided health insurance or paid for medical treatment for injury or illness suffered while off
the job (regardless of whether or not the worker accepted or used the insurance), 28 percent
confirmed that their employer offered such a benefit, 61 percent said their employer did not, and
11 percent were unsure. Authorized workers were more likely than unauthorized workers to
report that they were covered by workers’ compensation insurance (83% and 75% respectively),
and authorized workers were more likely than unauthorized workers to say that their employer
offered health insurance for non-work-related injury or illness (33% and 21% respectively). See
Figure 5.6. A discussion of farmworkers’ participation in health insurance coverage for
themselves and their family members can be found in Chapter 9.
UI coverage varies by state. For agricultural labor in the majority of states, employers are required to pay UI taxes
if they paid wages in cash of $20,000 or more for agricultural labor in any calendar quarter in the current or
preceding calendar year, or who employed 10 or more workers on at least 1 day in each of 20 different weeks in the
current or immediately preceding calendar year. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration. (2017). Comparison of State Unemployment Insurance Laws
(https://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/pdf/uilawcompar/2017/complete.pdf, p. 1-2).
44
The rules for workers’ compensation coverage for agricultural workers vary among states. In 14 states, Puerto
Rico and the Virgin Islands, rules require employers to cover seasonal agricultural workers to the same extent as all
other workers. In an additional 21 states, employers provide workers’ compensation but coverage is limited to
certain classifications of agricultural employers or workers such as the number of full-time workers employed.
Fifteen states have optional coverage, allowing employers to elect to provide workers’ compensation coverage to
their employees, though the coverage is not required by law. In many of these states, workers’ compensation is
required for employers in other industries but optional for agriculture. A Guide to Workers' Compensation for
Clinicians Serving Agricultural Workers
(http://www.farmworkerjustice.org/sites/default/files/Workers%20Comp%20Guide%20FINAL%20%281%29.pdf).
Farmworker Justice and Migrant Clinicians Network (2015).
43
27
Chapter 5: Employment Patterns and Farm Job Characteristics
Figure 5.6: Percent of Farmworkers Whose Employer Offers Health Insurance, 2019–2020
Authorized farmworkers had greater access to Unemployment
Insurance, workers' compensation insurance, and health
insurance.
All farmworkers, 45%
Unemployment
Insurance
Authorized, 77%
Unauthorized, 6%
All farmworkers, 79%
Workers'
compensation
insurance
Authorized, 83%
Unauthorized, 75%
All farmworkers, 28%
Health insurance for
non-work-related
injury or illness
Authorized, 33%
Unauthorized, 21%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
28
Chapter 6: Employment Experience
CHAPTER 6: Employment Experience
Summary of Findings:
• Eighty-three percent of farmworkers interviewed worked for a single farm employer in the
previous 12 months, and 17 percent worked for two or more employers.
• Farmworkers averaged 8 years of employment with their current farm employer
• Farmworkers worked an average of 39 weeks in the previous 12 months.
• Farmworkers worked an average of four days per week for their current employer and an
average of 227 days in farm work in the previous 12 months.
• Farmworkers with a full year or more of farm work experience had an average of 18 years of
U.S. farm work experience.
• Workers with more years of experience worked more days in the previous 12 months.
• Four-fifths of workers interviewed (79%) expected to continue doing farm work for at least
another 5 years.
Number of U.S. Farm Employers in Previous 12 Months
Farmworkers in 2019–2020 worked for an average of 1 U.S. farm employer 45 in the 12 months
prior to being interviewed. Eighty-three percent of workers reported having worked for only 1
farm employer, 11 percent worked for 2 employers, and 6 percent worked for 3 or more farm
employers in the previous 12 months.
Unauthorized workers were more likely than authorized workers to have worked for more than 1
farm employer in the previous 12 months (19% compared to 15%), and migrant workers were
almost twice as likely as settled workers to have had more than 1 farm employer in the previous
12 months (27% compared to 15%). See Figure 6.1.
Figure 6.1: Percentage Distribution of Number of Farm Work Employers in Previous 12
Months by Farmworker Characteristic, 2019–2020
a
Number of
Farm Employers
One
Two
Three or more
All
Farmworkers
83%
11%
6%
Migrant
73%
19%
8%
Settled
85%
9%
5%
Authorized
85%
11%
4%a
Unauthorized
81%
11%
8%
Estimates should be interpreted with caution because they have RSEs of 31 percent to 50 percent.
Number of Years with Current Farm Employer
In 2019–2020, farmworkers reported working for their current farm employer for an average of
eight years. 46 About 5 in 10 said they had been with their current employer for fewer than 5
years (49%), and more than 2 in 10 said they had been with their current farm employer for 11 or
more years (27%). See Figure 6.2.
An employer can be either a farm owner or a farm labor contractor. While a worker employed by a farm labor
contractor may work on more than one farm in a year, a single labor contractor is counted as one employer.
46
Any employment for at least one day in the year qualifies as one year.
45
29
Chapter 6: Employment Experience
Figure 6.2: Percentage Distribution of Number of Years with Current Farm Employer,
2019–2020
Half of farmworkers had worked for their current farm
employer for fewer than five years.
1 year or less, 18%
2-4 years, 31%
5-10 years, 24%
11-20 years, 17%
21+ years, 9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Weeks and Days of Farm Work in Previous 12 Months
During the previous year, farmworkers spent an average of 39 weeks (75% of the year)
employed in U.S. farm work, with farm work participation varying depending on workers’ work
authorization, migrant status, and place of birth. Authorized workers, migrant workers, and U.S.born workers worked fewer weeks in farm work (averages of 35, 28, and 33 weeks respectively)
than unauthorized workers, settled workers, and foreign-born workers (averages of 44, 41, and
42 weeks respectively). Youth farmworkers between the age of 14 and 17 were employed the
fewest weeks in farm jobs, averaging 18 weeks of farm work in the previous 12 months, and
workers aged 25 to 50 and over 50 worked the most, averaging 41 weeks in the previous 12
months (Figure 6.3).
30
Chapter 6: Employment Experience
Figure 6.3: Average Number of Weeks of Farm Work in Previous 12 Months, by
Farmworker Characteristic, 2019–2020
Farmworker Characteristic
All farmworkers
Migrant
Settled
Authorized
Unauthorized
U.S.-born
Foreign-born
14-17 years old
18-24 years old
25-50 years old
Over 50 years old
Average Weeks of Farm
Work in Previous 12 Months
39
28
41
35
44
33
42
18
28
41
41
For their employer at the time of interview, farmworkers reported working an average of four
days per week 47 (see Figure 6.4). Over the previous 12 months, respondents worked an average
of 227 days in farm work, with averages varying depending upon workers’ work authorization,
migrant status, and place of birth. Unauthorized workers, settled workers, and foreign-born
workers averaged a greater number of days than did their counterparts: Unauthorized workers
worked an average of 256 days and authorized workers an average of 204 days; settled workers
averaged 238 days while migrant workers averaged 166 days; foreign-born workers worked an
average of 244 days and U.S.-born workers an average of 189 days (Figure 6.4).
Figure 6.4: Average Number of Days Worked Per Week at Current Farm Job and Average
Number of Days of Farm Work in Previous 12 Months by Farmworker Characteristic,
2019–2020
Farmworker Characteristic
All farmworkers
Migrant
Settled
Authorized
Unauthorized
U.S.-born
Foreign-born
Average Days
Worked Per Week
Current Farm Job
4
5
4
4
5
4
5
Average Days of Farm
Work in Previous 12 Months
227
166
238
204
256
189
244
Farmworkers’ approximate number of workdays per year was calculated using information on each employer the
respondent had in the 12-month retrospective work history. Total workdays is the sum across all of a respondent’s
employers of the workdays for each employer, calculated from employment dates, number of days worked per week,
and number of weeks worked per employer.
47
31
Chapter 6: Employment Experience
Years of U.S. Farm Work Experience
Farmworkers with a full year or more of farm work experience had an average of 18 years of
U.S. farm work experience. Thirty-two percent of farmworkers with a full year or more of farm
work experience had worked 1 to 10 years in farm jobs, another 50 percent had worked 11 to 30
years in farm jobs, and 18 percent had worked more than 30 years in farm jobs (Figure 6.5).
Figure 6.5: Years U.S. Farm Work Experience, 2019–2020
More than two-thirds of farmworkers had more than ten
years of U.S. farm work experience.a
1 year, 7%
2-4 years, 10%
5-10 years, 15%
11-20 years, 32%
21-30 years, 18%
31+ years, 18%
0%
a
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Among workers with at least one year of U.S. farm work experience.
Years of U.S. farm work experience and farm workdays per year were positively correlated.
Respondents who had between 1 and 5 years of farm work experience worked an average of 181
days in farm work in the previous 12 months, while those with 11 years or more of experience
averaged 251 days of farm work.
U.S. farm work experience was also related to work authorization. Thirty-eight percent of those
with 1–9 years of experience were unauthorized as were 49 percent of those with 10 years or
more of experience.
Other Work History
Farmworkers were asked to report the approximate number of years they had performed noncrop work in the United States. Fifty percent of farmworkers in 2019–2020 reported at least 1
32
Chapter 6: Employment Experience
year of non-crop work 48 (Figure 6.6), and they had an average of 8 years of non-crop work
experience.
Figure 6.6: U.S. Non-Crop Work Experience, 2019–2020
Half of farmworkers had performed
non-crop work in the United States.
No U.S. non-crop work experience, 50%
1 year U.S. non-crop work experience, 10%
2-10 years U.S. non-crop work experience, 29%
11+ years U.S. non-crop work experience, 11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Farmworkers were also asked to indicate the last time their parents did hired farm work in the
United States. Fifty-four percent of workers said “never,” 12 percent reported that their parents
were doing U.S. farm work “now” or within the last year, 3 percent said their parents last did
U.S. farm work 1 to 5 years ago, 3 percent said their parents last did U.S. farm work 6 to 10
years ago, and 27 percent reported that their parents last did U.S. farm work 11 or more years
ago. U.S.-born farmworkers reported parents doing U.S. farm work with greater frequency than
foreign-born farmworkers (54% and 42% respectively). See Figure 6.7.
48
Any year in which 15 days of non-crop work were performed counts as one year of non-crop work.
33
Chapter 6: Employment Experience
Figure 6.7: Last Time Parents Did Hired Farm Work in United States, 2019–2020
a
Last Time Parents Did U.S. Farm Work
Never
Now/within last year
1 to 5 years ago
6 to 10 years ago
More than 10 years ago
Don’t know
All
Farmworkers
54%
12%
3%
3%
27%
1%
U.S.-Born
45%
21%
1%a
5%a
26%
2%a
Estimates should be interpreted with caution because they have RSEs of 31 percent to 50 percent.
Foreign-Born
57%
8%
3%
3%
28%
<1%a
Plans to Remain in Farm Work
When asked how long they expected to continue to do farm work, 79 percent of workers
interviewed in 2019–2020 believed they would continue for more than 5 years, and most workers
indicated that they would continue as long as they are able to do the work (76%). Four percent of
respondents said they would continue working in agriculture for less than one year, 11 percent
planned to remain in farm work for 1 to 3 years, and 5 percent said they would continue in farm
work for 4 to 5 years. See Figure 6.8. Further breakdown of workers’ plans to remain in farm
work by place of birth, work authorization, migrant status, gender, educational attainment, and
age are shown in Figures 6.8–6.10. Workers who were not born in the U.S. or were unauthorized
were more likely to plan to work as long as they are able and less likely to plan to work for 1–3
years (Figure 6.8). Settled workers and those with educational attainment of 12th grade or less
were more likely to plan to work for as long as they are able, and a similar percentage of males
and females reported they plan to work as long as they are able (Figure 6.9). When looking at
age groups, younger workers are more likely to report that they plan to work for 1–3 years
compared to older workers, and older workers are more likely to report that they plan to work for
as long as they are able to compared to younger workers (Figure 6.10).
34
Chapter 6: Employment Experience
Figure 6.8: Plans to Remain in Farm Work by Place of Birth and Work Authorization,
2019–2020
All
Farmworkers
U.S.
Born
Less than one year
4%
8%
2%a
6%
1%a
1-3 years
11%
19%
7%
14%
7%
4-5 years
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%
Over 5 years
Over 5 years/as long as I
am able
Other
3%
6%a
2%
4%a
2%
76%
61%
82%
70%
84%
b
b
b
b
b
Number of Years
Foreign
Authorized
Born
Unauthorized
Estimates should be interpreted with caution because they have RSEs of 31 percent to 50 percent.
Estimates are suppressed because number of responses is fewer than 4 or relative standard errors for the estimates
are greater than 50%.
a
b
Figure 6.9: Plans to Remain in Farm Work by Migrant Status, Gender, and Educational
Attainment, 2019–2020
Number of Years
Did Not
Completed
Complete
12th grade
12th
or more
grade
3%a
6%
Settled
Migrant
Male
Female
Less than one year
3%
11%a
4%
3%a
1-3 years
4-5 years
Over 5 years
Over 5 years/as long as I am
able
Other
10%
4%
3%a
16%
7%a
11%
5%
3%a
11%
5%
2%
9%
4%
1%
16%
6%
6%a
79%
57%
76%
76%
83%
62%
1%a
b
1%a
b
<1%a
b
b
Estimates should be interpreted with caution because they have RSEs of 31 percent to 50 percent.
Estimates are suppressed because number of responses is fewer than 4 or relative standard errors for the estimates
are greater than 50%.
a
b
35
Chapter 6: Employment Experience
Figure 6.10: Plans to Remain in Farm Work by Age Group, 2019–2020
Age groups
Less than one year
1-3 years
4-5 years
Over 5 years
Over 5 years/as long as I am
able
Other
14-17
46%a
35%a
18-24
8%
30%
5%a
2%a
25-50
2%a
8%
4%
2%a
Over 50
b
46%
84%
77%
b
b
<1%a
b
b
b
b
8%
6%
b
Estimates should be interpreted with caution because they have RSEs of 31 percent to 50 percent.
Estimates are suppressed because number of responses is fewer than 4 or relative standard errors for the estimates
are greater than 50%.
a
b
36
Chapter 7: Non-Crop Work Activities During the Year
CHAPTER 7: Non-Crop Work Activities During the Year
Summary of Findings:
• During the previous year, surveyed farmworkers spent an average of 39 weeks employed in
farm work and 13 weeks not employed in farm work, including an average of 8 weeks living
in the United States while not working and 2 weeks abroad.
• Twenty-two percent of farmworkers said they held at least one U.S. non-crop job during the
previous year.
• The most common types of non-crop jobs held were mechanic, repair, or maintenance jobs
(46%) and non-crop agriculture jobs (20%).
• About 7 in 10 farmworker respondents reported at least 1 period in the 12 months prior to
their interview during which they did not work (66%), and these workers averaged 15 weeks
without employment. Fourteen percent of these respondents said they received UI during at
least one of their periods of unemployment.
Time Spent Not Employed or Abroad in Previous 12 Months
During the previous year, farmworkers spent an average of 39 weeks employed in farm work and
13 weeks not employed in agriculture. On average, they lived in the United States but did not
work for approximately 8 weeks (15% of the year) and were abroad for an average of 2 weeks
(4% of the year). The number of weeks spent not working and time abroad varied depending on
workers’ work authorization, migrant status, and place of birth. Unauthorized, settled, and
foreign-born farmworkers spent, on average, fewer weeks in the United States not working (6, 7,
and 6 weeks respectively) than authorized, migrant, and U.S.-born farmworkers (9, 10, and 11
weeks respectively). Migrant workers averaged 11 weeks abroad during the previous year.
Youth farmworkers between the ages of 14 and 17 had the most weeks spent not working while
in the United States—35 weeks, or more than two-thirds of the year. Respondents ages 18 to 24
spent an average of 14 weeks not working and 3 weeks 49 abroad, and respondents ages 25 years
and older averaged 5 to 8 weeks in the United States not working and 2 weeks abroad (Figure
7.1).
49
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
37
Chapter 7: Non-Crop Work Activities During the Year
Figure 7.1: Average Number of Weeks Not Employed and Abroad in Previous 12 Months,
2019–2020
Farmworker Characteristic
a
b
All farmworkers
Migrant
Settled
Authorized
Unauthorized
U.S.-born
Foreign-born
14-17 years old
18-24 years old
25-50 years old
Over 50 years old
Weeks in United States
and Not Working
8
10
7
9
6
11
6
35
14
5
8
Weeks Abroad
2
11
b
3
1
b
2
b
3
2a
2
Estimates should be interpreted with caution because they have RSEs of 31 percent to 50 percent.
Estimate is suppressed because it has an RSE greater than 50 percent.
Non-Crop Work in Previous 12 Months
Twenty-two percent of farmworkers reported at least one job during the previous year that was
not in U.S. crop production. U.S.-born workers were three times more likely than foreign-born
workers to have had a non-crop job in the previous 12 months (42% compared to 14%), and
authorized workers were more than three times as likely as unauthorized workers to have had a
non-crop job (33% compared to 10%). See Figure 7.2.
38
Chapter 7: Non-Crop Work Activities During the Year
Figure 7.2: Percent of Farmworkers Who Held a Non-Crop Job the Previous Year, 2019–
2020
Approximately a quarter of farmworkers held a non-crop
job in the previous year.
All farmworkers, 22%
U.S.-born, 42%
Foreign-born, 14%
Authorized, 33%
Unauthorized, 10%
Migrant, 22%
Settled, 22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
The 22 percent of farmworkers who reported doing non-crop work during the previous year
spent an average of 24 weeks in non-crop employment, and they held an average of 1 non-crop
job. The most common types of non-crop jobs 50 were mechanic, repair, or maintenance jobs
(46%) and non-crop agriculture (20%). Twelve percent did structural or extractive work; 51 10
percent held a sales, service, or production job in the food industry; 8 percent 52 held a sales,
service, or manufacturing job in a non-food industry; 3 percent 53 had a professional, technical, or
managerial job; and 15 percent held other types of jobs, including clerical, government service,
health, arts and entertainment, and transportation (Figure 7.3).
Some non-crop jobs are farm jobs in other types of agriculture.
Structural jobs, as coded in the NAWS, include working in construction. Extractive jobs involve the removal of
raw materials from the earth. Examples of extractive processes include oil and gas extraction, mining, dredging and
quarrying. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/extractive-industry.html
52
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
53
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
50
51
39
Chapter 7: Non-Crop Work Activities During the Year
Figure 7.3: Types of Non-Crop Jobs Held in Previous 12 Months, 2019–2020
Type of Non-Crop Joba
a
b
Mechanic/Repair/Maintenance
Non-Crop Agriculture
Structural/Extractive Work
Food Industry -Sales/Service/Production
Non-food Industry-Sales/Service/Manufacturing
Professional/Technical/Manager
Other
Percent of Workers Who
Held At Least One NonCrop Job
46%
20%
12%
10%
8%b
3%b
15%
Respondents may have reported multiple types of jobs.
Estimates should be interpreted with caution because they have RSEs of 31 percent to 50 percent.
Reasons for Leaving Non-Crop Work in Previous Year
Among the 22 percent of farmworkers who reported doing non-crop employment during the
previous year, 53 percent left at least one of their non-crop jobs. The NAWS sample includes
only farmworkers actively employed in crop agriculture at the time of interview. However, some
workers hold non-crop jobs and farm jobs simultaneously, and some perform non-crop work for
their agricultural employers, thus changing jobs but not separating from the employer.
Whenever respondents reported having separated from an employer, they were asked the reason
why. Approximately 7 in 10 workers (69%) who left a non-crop employer during the previous
year reported leaving for voluntary reasons (“family responsibilities,” “school,” “moved,”
“health reasons,” “vacation,” “retired,” “quit,” or “changed jobs”). More than one quarter of
workers (30%) said their exits from non-crop work were involuntary in nature (“lay off/end of
season” or “fired”). The remaining workers reported both voluntary and involuntary leaves from
non-crop work.
Periods of Unemployment During the Year
About 7 in 10 farmworker respondents in 2019–2020 reported at least 1 period in the 12 months
prior to their interview during which they did not work (66%), and these respondents averaged
15 weeks without employment. Each time a respondent reported a period of not working during
the 12-month retrospective work history (66%), the respondent was asked about receiving UI
benefits during that time. Fourteen percent of these respondents said “yes,” they had received UI
benefits during at least one of their periods of unemployment.
40
Chapter 8: Income, Assets, and Use of Assistance Programs
CHAPTER 8: Income, Assets, and Use of Assistance Programs
Summary of Findings:
• Interviewed farmworkers’ mean and median personal incomes the previous year were in the
range of $20,000 to $24,999. Eight percent of workers earned less than $10,000; 32 percent
earned $30,000 or more.
• Farmworkers’ mean and median total family incomes the previous year were in the range of
$25,000 to $29,999. Nineteen percent of farmworkers reported total family income of less
than $20,000, another 23 percent said their family income was $20,000 to $29,999, and 50
percent had a family income of $30,000 or more.
• One-fifth of farmworkers had family incomes below the poverty level (20%).
• Eighty-one percent of farmworkers said they owned or were buying at least one asset in the
United States. The most common assets listed were a vehicle (reported by 80% of workers)
or a type of dwelling, such as a house, mobile home, condominium, or apartment (22% of
workers).
• Thirteen percent of farmworkers reported that they or someone in their household had
received some form of benefit from a contribution-based program in the previous 2 years; 63
percent said someone in their household had received some form of benefit from a needsbased program in the previous 2 years.
Income
Farmworkers were asked to report their total personal income in the calendar year prior to the
year in which they were interviewed. Rather than providing a specific sum, respondents
answered the question by indicating a range in which their income fell. Farmworkers’ mean and
median personal incomes the previous year were in the range of $20,000 to $24,999. Five
percent of farmworkers interviewed in 2019–2020 reported not working at all during the prior
calendar year, 8 percent said their total personal income was less than $10,000, 20 percent said
they had personal incomes of $10,000 to $19,999, another 30 percent reported personal incomes
of $20,000 to $29,999, and 32 percent reported total personal income of $30,000 or more. Four
percent of farmworkers said they were unsure of their personal income for the previous year.
In addition to the question about personal income, workers were asked to report their total family
income in the previous calendar year. For this question as well, respondents answered by
indicating a range in which their income fell. Workers’ mean and median total family incomes in
the previous year were in the range of $25,000 to $29,999. Three percent of farmworkers
reported that they or their family had no earned income during the previous calendar year. Six
percent of workers said their total family income the prior year was less than $10,000, 13 percent
said their family income was $10,000 to $19,999, 23 percent had a family income of $20,000 to
$29,999, and 50 percent had a family income of $30,000 or more. Five percent of farmworkers
reported not knowing their family’s total income for the previous year.
To determine farmworkers’ poverty status, each worker’s total family income was compared to a
poverty threshold based on family size 54 from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Family size is defined as the number of family members who are living in the United States and who depend on
the farmworker’s income. Income was imputed for farmworkers with no income information.
54
41
Chapter 8: Income, Assets, and Use of Assistance Programs
Services’ poverty guidelines 55 for the calendar year preceding the interview. 56 Using this method,
20 percent of farmworkers in 2019–2020 were found to have family incomes below the poverty
threshold.
Below-poverty income was more common among farmworkers with larger families (see Figure
8.1). Almost half of farmworkers with a family size of 6 or more had incomes below the poverty
level (44%). 57 Farmworkers with a family size of one also had an elevated poverty rate (24%).
Migrant workers’ family incomes fell below poverty at a much greater rate than settled workers’
(44% compared to 16%). See Figure 8.2.
Figure 8.1: Percent of Farmworkers with Total Family Income Below Poverty Level by
Family Size, 2019–2020
Families size of six or more were more likely to have
family incomes below the federal poverty level.
Family size of 1, 24%
Family size of 2, 9%
Family size of 3, 26%
Family size of 4, 20%
Family size of 5, 13%
Family size of 6 or more, 44%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Note: For family size of three, the 26% estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to
50 percent.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines (https://aspe.hhs.gov/prior-hhs-povertyguidelines-and-federal-register-references).
56
Workers’ family income and poverty levels were based on their income in the United States but were not adjusted
for time in the United States. For additional information on the limitations of using traditional poverty statistics with
migrant populations please see Pena’s (2013) article on “Poverty Measurement for a Binational Population.”
57
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
55
42
Chapter 8: Income, Assets, and Use of Assistance Programs
Figure 8.2: Percent of Farmworkers with Total Family Income Below Poverty Level by
Farmworker Characteristic, 2019–2020
Migrant and unauthorized farmworkers were more likely
to have family incomes below the federal poverty level.
All Farmworkers, 20%
Migrant, 44%
Settled, 16%
Authorized, 20%
Unauthorized, 21%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Assets in the United States and Abroad
Respondents were asked about assets they own or are buying in the United States and, if foreignborn, in their home country. In 2019–2020, more than three-quarters of all farmworkers said they
owned or were buying at least one asset in the United States (81%). U.S.-born workers were
more likely to report that they owned or were buying an asset in the United States (86%)
compared to foreign-born workers (79%). Among all workers, the most commonly held asset in
the United States was a car or truck (80%) followed by housing (22%). See Figure 8.3. U.S.-born
workers were more likely to own or be buying housing in the United States (29%) than were
foreign-born workers (19%).
Figure 8.3: Assets in the United States, 2019–2020
Type of Asset in the United States
Any asset
A car or truck
A type of housing (house, mobile home,
condominium, apartment)
Percent of Farmworkers
81%
80%
22%
Use of Contribution- and Need-Based Programs
In 2019–2020, farmworkers were asked whether they or anyone in their household received
assistance from either contribution- or need-based programs in the two-year period preceding the
interview. Contribution-based benefits include disability insurance, Unemployment Insurance,
Social Security, and veterans’ pay. Thirteen percent of the farmworkers reported someone in
43
Chapter 8: Income, Assets, and Use of Assistance Programs
their household receiving a benefit from at least one contribution-based program. Eight percent
of farmworkers reported that they or a family member received payments from UI, 4 percent said
someone in their household received Social Security payments, and 1 percent said they or a
family member received payments from disability insurance.
Need-based benefits include financial assistance through programs such as Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), general assistance or welfare, and publicly provided
housing or medical and nutritional assistance such as Medicaid, Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP). 58 In 2019–2020, 63 percent of farmworkers reported that they or someone in
their household used at least one type of need-based assistance in the previous two years. The
programs most commonly used were Medicaid (44%), public health clinics (33%), SNAP (13%),
WIC (9%), and welfare (general assistance) or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) (2% 59). See Figure 8.4.
Figure 8.4: Percent of Farmworkers Who Reported That a Member of the Household
Received Benefits from Contribution- or Needs-Based Programs in the Last Two Years,
2019–2020
a
Contribution- and Need-Based Programs Utilized
Any contribution-based program
UI
Social Security
Disability
Any need-based program
Medicaid
Public health clinic
SNAP
WIC
Welfare (general assistance) or TANF (Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families)
Percent of Farmworkers
13%
8%
4%
1%
63%
44%
33%
13%
9%
2%a
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 percent to 50 percent.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP was named The Federal Food Stamps Program until
October 2008.
59
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 percent to 50 percent.
58
44
Chapter 9: Health Care in the United States
CHAPTER 9: Health Care in the United States
Summary of Findings:
• Forty-eight percent of surveyed farmworkers reported having health insurance and 56 percent
said their spouse had health insurance.
• Eighty-eight percent of farmworkers said all of their children had health insurance, and 3
percent 60 said only some of their children had health insurance.
• The top providers of farmworker’s health insurance were government program (39%) and
their employer (26%).
Health Insurance Coverage for Farmworkers and Family Members
The NAWS had several questions about health insurance. One question asked workers to
indicate who in their family had health insurance in the United States. Forty-eight percent of
workers responded that they, themselves, had health insurance. Authorized workers and settled
workers were much more likely to report having health insurance (68% and 49% respectively)
than unauthorized workers and migrant workers (22% and 41% respectively). See Figure 9.1.
60
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
45
Chapter 9: Health Care in the United States
Figure 9.1: Percent of Farmworkers with Health Insurance, 2019–2020
Half of farmworkers had health insurance.
All farmworkers, 48%
Authorized, 68%
Unauthorized, 22%
Settled, 49%
Migrant, 41%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Farmworkers who reported having health insurance were asked to identify their providers
(multiple providers could be reported). Thirty-nine percent reported insurance provided by the
government, 26 percent said their employer provided them with health insurance, 13 percent said
they or their spouse paid for insurance themselves, 12 percent said they were covered by their
parents’ or family’s plan, 7 percent said they had insurance under their spouse’s employer’s plan,
and 7 percent indicated some other insurance source 61 (Figure 9.2).
“Other” sources included the Affordable Care Act, private health insurance companies (e.g., Aetna, Blue Cross),
charity, and retirement/pension plans.
61
46
Chapter 9: Health Care in the United States
Figure 9.2: Sources of Farmworkers' Health Insurance, 2019–2020
a
b
Source of Farmworker’s Health Insurancea,b
Government program
Farmworker’s employer
Farmworker’s/Spouse’s self-purchased plan
Parent’s/Family’s plan
Spouse’s employer
Other
Percent of Farmworkers
39%
26%
13%
12%
7%
7%
Among the 48 percent of farmworkers who reported having health insurance.
Farmworkers might have health insurance through more than one source.
Of the 58 percent of farmworkers who had a spouse, 56 percent reported that their spouse had
health insurance. Among spouses with health insurance, 43 percent received their health
insurance through a government program, 27 percent were insured through the spouse’s
employer, 14 percent were covered by the farmworker’s employer plan, 12 percent were covered
by a self-purchased plan, and 7 percent indicated some other source (Figure 9.3). Authorized
workers reported that their spouses had health insurance twice as frequently as unauthorized
workers (74% and 37% respectively).
Figure 9.3: Sources of Farmworkers' Spouses’ Health Insurance, 2019–2020
a
b
Source of Spouse’s Health Insurancea,b
Government program
Spouse’s employer
Farmworker’s employer
Farmworker’s/Spouse’s self-purchased plan
Other
Percent of Farmworkers
43%
27%
14%
12%
7%
Among the 58 percent of farmworkers who reported that their spouse had health insurance.
Spouses may have health insurance through more than one source.
Among the 41 percent of farmworkers with minor children, most reported that all of their
children had health insurance (88%) while 3 percent 62 reported that only some of their children
had health insurance. Most of these workers said their children’s health insurance was provided
by government programs (84%). Twelve percent reported that their children were insured
through their employer or their spouse’s employer, and 4 percent 63 said their children were
covered by insurance that the farmworker and/or their spouse purchased on their own (Figure
9.4). Fewer authorized workers reported that all or some of their children had health insurance
than unauthorized workers (88% and 95% respectively).
62
63
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
47
Chapter 9: Health Care in the United States
Figure 9.4: Sources of Farmworkers' Children’s Health Insurance, 2019–2020
a
b
Source of Children’s Health Insurancea,b
Government program
Farmworker’s/Spouse’s employer
Farmworker’s/Spouse’s self-purchased plan
Other
Percent of Farmworkers
84%
12%
4% 64
2%
Among the 91 percent of farmworkers who reported that all or some of their children had health insurance.
Children may have health insurance through more than one source.
64
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has an RSE of 31 to 50 percent.
48
Appendix A: Methodology
APPENDIX A: Methodology
Overview
The NAWS data come from a nationally representative, random sample of crop farmworkers.
During 2019-2020, the NAWS used stratified, multi-stage sampling to account for seasonal and
regional fluctuations in the level of farm employment. The stratification included three
interviewing cycles per year and 12 geographic regions, resulting in 36 time-by-space strata. For
each interviewing cycle, NAWS staff drew a random sample of locations for each of the 12
regions. Together, the 12 regions have a universe of 928 Farm Labor Areas (FLA). FLAs were
single- or multi-county sampling units that form the survey’s primary sampling units (PSUs).
Counties were the secondary level sampling units, ZIP Code regions were the third, agricultural
employers were the fourth, and workers were the fifth.
Stratification
Interviewing Cycles
To account for industry seasonality, interviews were conducted 3 times each year in cycles
lasting 4 months. The cycles started in February, June, and October. The number of interviews
conducted in each cycle was proportional to the number of agricultural field workers employed
at that time of the year. The USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) provided
the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) with the agricultural employment figures
for workers hired by agricultural producers, which came from the USDA’s Farm Labor Survey
(FLS). Figures for workers employed by farm labor contractors were obtained from the BLS
Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW).
Regions
Regional stratification entailed defining 12 distinct agricultural regions based on the USDA’s
17 agricultural regions. At the start of the survey in 1988, the 17 regions were collapsed into 12
by combining those regions that were most similar based on statistical analysis of cropping
patterns. In each cycle, all 12 agricultural regions were included in the sample. The number of
interviews per region was proportional to the size of the seasonal farm labor force in that region
at that time of the year, as determined by the NASS and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
using information obtained from the Farm Labor Survey and QCEW.
Sampling within Strata
Farm Labor Areas (FLAs)
Each region was composed of several single- or multi-county sampling units called FLAs. There
were 928 FLAs that form a universe from which sampling locations were selected. FLAs are
aggregates of counties roughly similar in size with similar farm labor usage. FLA size is more
homogeneous within region than across regions.
The FLA size measure is an estimate of the amount of farm labor in the FLA during a cycle. In
this case, the measure was based on the hired and contract labor expenses from the most recent
Census of Agriculture (CoA) available at the time the sample was drawn. The CoA labor
expenses were adjusted using seasonality estimates that identified the percentage of labor
49
Appendix A: Methodology
expenses that fell into each of the NAWS cycles—fall, spring and summer. The seasonality
estimates were based on monthly data from the QCEW and were constructed by aggregating the
reported monthly employment for each month included in the corresponding NAWS cycle (e.g.,
June, July, August, and September for the summer cycle). The share of employment
corresponding to each cycle became an FLA’s seasonality estimate.
FLAs were selected in two stages. In the first stage, a roster of approximately 15 FLAs per cycle
and region stratum was selected. In the second stage, all FLAs on each stratum roster were
randomly sorted.
Counties
Selecting counties within FLAs was done using an iterative sampling procedure to ensure that an
adequate number of counties was selected for each region. In most cases, interviews were
completed in the first county within each FLA, and no additional counties were needed.
However, because there was tremendous uncertainty about the number of workers in a county,
additional counties were occasionally needed to complete the county allocation. Counties were
selected one at a time, without replacement, using probabilities proportional to the size of each
county’s farm labor expenditures. Interviews began in the first selected county. If the work force
within the county was depleted before all the allocated interviews in the FLA were completed,
interviewing moved to the second randomly selected county on the list, and so forth, until all
allocated interviews were completed. In FLAs where farm work was sparse, interviewers might
have had to travel to several counties to encounter sufficient workers to complete the FLA
allocation.
ZIP Code Regions
Prior to generating lists of employers, sampled counties were divided into ZIP Code regions,
which were smaller areas based on geographic proximity. A small county might be a single ZIP
code region while a large county might have multiple regions. In a county with multiple ZIP
Code regions, the regions were designed to be roughly equal in size.
Where there were multiple ZIP Code regions in a county, the regions were randomly sorted to
produce a list that determined the order in which the areas would be visited. Field staff contacted
agricultural employers in the first ZIP Code region on the list and moved down the list, following
the random order, until the interview allocation for the FLA was filled or the county’s workforce
was exhausted.
Employers
Within each selected ZIP Code region, interviewers received a list of randomly sorted
agricultural employers. The list was compiled from marketing and administrative lists of
employers in crop agriculture. An important component of the list was employer names in
selected North American Industrial Classification Codes that the BLS provided directly to the
contractor per the terms of an interagency agreement between the ETA and the BLS.
Workers
Once the randomly selected employer was located, the NAWS interviewer explained the purpose
of the survey and obtained access to the work site to schedule interviews. If the employer was not
familiar with his or her work force, the interviewer sought the name of the manager, personnel
50
Appendix A: Methodology
manager, farm labor contractor, or crew leader who could help construct a sampling frame of the
workers in the operation. Interviewers documented the number of workers employed on the day
of worker selection to construct worker selection probabilities.
When the number of workers available for interview was greater than the number of interviews
allocated, the selection of workers for interview followed specific sampling instructions designed
by a sampling statistician to ensure selection of a random sample of workers at each selected
employer. Only workers employed in agriculture at the time of the interview were included in the
sample. Selected workers were usually interviewed at the worksite, either before or after work or
during breaks. Respondents might have also been interviewed at another location if that was
more convenient for them. Respondents received a 20-dollar honorarium for participating in the
survey.
Weighting
The NAWS used a variety of weighting factors to construct weights for calculating unbiased
population estimates.
• Sampling weights were calculated based on each sample member’s probability of selection at
the FLA, county, ZIP Code region, employer, and worker levels.
• Non-response factors were used to correct sampling weights for deviations from the sampling
plan, such as discrepancies in the number of interviews planned and collected in specific
locations.
• Post-sampling adjustment factors were used to adjust the weights given to each interview to
compute unbiased population estimates from the sample data.
A full explanation of how the weights were calculated can be found in the Statistical Methods of
the National Agricultural Workers Survey available at the U.S. Department of Labor,
Employment and Training Administration’s National Agricultural Workers Survey website
(https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/naws/pdfs/NAWS_Statistical_Methods_AKA_Sup
porting_Statement_Part_B.pdf).
Reliability of Estimates
One measure of sampling error is the relative standard error (RSE), a measure of relative
dispersion of the data. The RSE is calculated by dividing the standard error of the estimate
(mean or percentage) by the estimate itself and reporting the result as a percentage. Higher RSE’s
indicate that the estimate of the mean might not represent the true mean of the distribution of
responses. 65
For reporting data, the NAWS has adopted the following data suppression rules.
• Estimates with RSEs greater than 30 percent but no more than 50 percent are published
but should be used with caution.
• Estimates with RSEs greater than 50 percent are considered statistically unreliable and
are suppressed.
Sommer, J. E., Green, R, and Korb, P (1998). Structural and Financial Characteristics of U.S. Farms, 1995: 20th
Annual Family Farm Report to Congress
(https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/42178/32556_aib746_002.pdf?v=42487). Agriculture Information
Bulletin No. (AIB-746), 118 pp, December 1998 (p. 62).
65
51
Appendix B: Map of the NAWS Migrant Streams
APPENDIX B: Map of the NAWS Migrant Streams
52
Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
APPENDIX C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
The following tables list the names, descriptions, and categories of the key variables analyzed for this report, as well as the estimates (percentages or
means) reported and the 95-percent confidence limits, standard errors, and relative standard errors (RSEs) of the estimates. Estimates with RSEs
greater than 30 percent are identified throughout the tables. The RSE is calculated by dividing the standard error of the estimate by the estimate itself.
Estimates with RSEs greater than 30 percent but no more than 50 percent are published but should be used with caution; these are identified with a
superscript ‘a.’ Estimates based on fewer than 4 observations or with RSEs greater than 50 percent are considered statistically unreliable and are
suppressed from the tables. Suppressed statistics are indicated with a ‘b.’
Chapter 1
Variable
A07
A07
A07
Variable Description
Country of birth
Country of birth
Country of birth
Variable Level(s)
US or Puerto Rico
Mexico
Central America
Other (South America,
Caribbean, South East Asia,
Pacific Islands, Asia)
Hispanic
Mexican American
Mexican
Chicano, Puerto Rican, or
other Hispanic
Not Hispanic or Latino
A07
HISP
B01
B01
Country of birth
Hispanic
Hispanic category
Hispanic category
B01
B01
Hispanic category
Hispanic category
B02
B02
Race
Race
B02
Race
White
Black/African American
American Indian/Alaska
Native
B02
B02
INDIGENOUS
Race
Race
Farmworker is indigenous
Other
Refused to answer
Farmworker is indigenous
Number of
Observations
572
1,467
115
Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
30%
63%
5%
Standard
Error
2.9%
2.6%
1.5%
95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
24%
58%
2%
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
36%
69%
8%
Relative
Standard
Error
10%
4%
28%
18
1,771
240
1,359
b
78%
10%
60%
b
2.4%
1.5%
2.4%
b
74%
7%
55%
b
83%
13%
65%
59%
3%
15%
4%
172
400
8%
22%
1.6%
2.4%
5%
17%
12%
26%
19%
11%
654
30
33%
<1%a
2.4%
0.2%
28%
<1%
38%
<1%
7%
35%
4
b
b
b
b
50%
1,481
1
165
66%
b
10%
2.4%
b
1.7%
62%
b
6%
71%
b
13%
4%
97%
17%
53
Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
Number of
Observations
1,598
8
117
93
217
Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
21
1%a
9%
6%
14%
Standard
Error
0.57
0.2%
1.3%
0.8%
1.7%
95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
19
<1%
6%
4%
11%
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
22
1%
12%
7%
18%
Relative
Standard
Error
3%
39%
15%
15%
12%
Variable
USSTAY
USSTAY
USSTAY
USSTAY
USSTAY
Variable Description
Years in US
Years in US
Years in US
Years in US
Years in US
Variable Level(s)
Average
Less than 1 year (newcomer)
1-4 years
5-9 years
10-14 years
USSTAY
USSTAY
USSTAY
USSTAY
B18
(by A07)
B18
(by A07)
B18
(by A07)
B18
(by A07)
B18
(by A07)
B18
(by A07)
CURRSTAT
CURRSTAT
Years in US
Years in US
Years in US
Years in US
State of birth (by country of
birth)
State of birth (by country of
birth)
State of birth (by country of
birth)
State of birth (by country of
birth)
State of birth (by country of
birth)
State of birth (by country of
birth)
Current work authorization
Current work authorization
15-19 years
20-29 years
30-39 years
40+ years
Baja California (among
country of birth is Mexico)
Guanajuato (among country
of birth is Mexico)
Guerrero (among country of
birth is Mexico)
Jalisco (among country of
birth is Mexico)
Michoacán (among country
of birth is Mexico)
Oaxaca (among country of
birth is Mexico)
Citizen
Lawful permanent resident
284
428
301
150
19%
30%
14%
8%
1.4%
2.1%
1.3%
1.1%
17%
25%
11%
6%
22%
34%
16%
10%
7%
7%
9%
13%
50
6%
1.3%
3%
8%
23%
199
11%
1.5%
8%
14%
13%
88
6%
1.0%
4%
8%
19%
131
9%
1.6%
6%
12%
17%
330
20%
1.9%
16%
24%
9%
179
704
467
14%
36%
19%
2.3%
3.2%
2.1%
10%
29%
15%
19%
42%
23%
16%
9%
11%
CURRSTAT
CURRSTAT
MIGRANT
Current work authorization
Current work authorization
Migrant
Other work authorized
Unauthorized
Migrant
33
935
319
1%
44%
15%
0.3%
4.1%
1.9%
<1%
36%
11%
2%
52%
19%
28%
9%
13%
54
Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
Chapter 2
Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
66%
34%
41
5%
9%
Standard
Error
3.0%
3.0%
0.58
1.1%
1.2%
95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
60%
28%
39
3%
7%
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
72%
40%
42
7%
12%
Relative
Standard
Error
4%
9%
1%
21%
13%
Variable
GENDER
GENDER
AGE
AGE
AGE
Variable Description
Gender
Gender
Age
Age
Age
Variable Level(s)
Male
Female
Average
14-19
20-24
Number of
Observations
1,574
598
2,170
83
171
AGE
AGE
AGE
AGE
AGE
MARRIED,
FWPARENT
MARRIED,
FWPARENT
MARRIED,
FWPARENT
MARRIED,
FWPARENT
Age
Age
Age
Age
Age
Farmworker is married,
Farmworker is a parent
Farmworker is married,
Farmworker is a parent
Farmworker is married,
Farmworker is a parent
Farmworker is married,
Farmworker is a parent
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 and over
458
549
459
345
105
23%
26%
18%
14%
5%
1.6%
1.8%
1.3%
1.3%
1.0%
20%
22%
15%
12%
3%
26%
30%
20%
17%
7%
7%
7%
7%
9%
19%
Married, parent
870
37%
2.2%
33%
42%
6%
Married, no children
447
19%
1.6%
16%
22%
8%
Unmarried, parent
232
13%
1.5%
10%
16%
12%
Unmarried, no children
619
31%
2.1%
27%
35%
7%
55
Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
Variable
HKIDLT18
(by
FWPARENT)
HKIDLT18
(by
FWPARENT)
HKIDLT18
(by
FWPARENT)
HKIDLT18
(by
FWPARENT)
HKIDLT18
(by
FWPARENT)
HKIDLT18
(by
FWPARENT)
ACCOMP
ACCOMP
Variable Description
Number of children under
age 18 in the household (by
farmworker is a parent)
Number of children under
age 18 in the household (by
farmworker is a parent)
Number of children under
age 18 in the household (by
farmworker is a parent)
Number of children under
age 18 in the household (by
farmworker is a parent)
Number of children under
age 18 in the household (by
farmworker is a parent)
Number of children under
age 18 in the household (by
farmworker is a parent)
Nuclear family lives in
household
Nuclear family lives in
household
Variable Level(s)
Number of
Observations
Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
Standard
Error
95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
Relative
Standard
Error
Average (among farmworker
parents)
867
2
0.1
2
2
3%
1 child (among farmworker
parents)
299
32%
3.2%
25%
38%
10%
2 children (among
farmworker parents)
306
36%
2.9%
31%
42%
8%
3 children (among
farmworker parents)
157
22%
3.0%
16%
28%
14%
4 children (among
farmworker parents)
84
7%
1.4%
4%
10%
20%
5 or more children (among
farmworker parents)
21
3%a
1.0%
1%
5%
35%
Unaccompanied
791
38%
2.0%
34%
42%
5%
Accompanied
1,381
62%
2.0%
58%
66%
3%
56
Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
Chapter 3
Number of
Observations
457
1,411
23
10
151
Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
25%
62%
1%a
1%a
6%
Standard
Error
2.4%
2.5%
0.2%
0.2%
0.8%
95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
20%
57%
<1%
<1%
4%
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
30%
67%
1%
1%
8%
Relative
Standard
Error
10%
4%
33%
40%
14%
87
6%
1.5%
3%
9%
27%
Highest grade completed
Highest grade completed
Highest grade completed
Highest grade completed
Highest grade completed
More than one language
Average
No schooling
K-6th grade
7th-9th grade
10th-12th grade
2,171
91
813
424
603
9
4%
35%
22%
26%
0.2
0.7%
2.3%
1.6%
2.3%
8
2%
30%
19%
21%
9
5%
40%
25%
30%
2%
20%
7%
7%
9%
HIGHGRDE
B07
B07
B07
B07
B08
Highest grade completed
Ability to speak English
Ability to speak English
Ability to speak English
Ability to speak English
Ability to read English
13 grades or more
Not at all
A little
Somewhat
Well
Not at all
240
577
640
296
657
808
14%
29%
26%
12%
32%
40%
1.7%
2.6%
1.7%
1.3%
2.6%
2.8%
10%
24%
23%
10%
27%
34%
17%
35%
30%
15%
37%
45%
12%
9%
6%
11%
8%
7%
B08
B08
B08
B22b
B22b
B23b
Ability to read English
Ability to read English
Ability to read English
Ability to speak Spanish
Ability to speak Spanish
Ability to read Spanish
A little
Somewhat
Well
Somewhat
Well
Not at all
B23b
B23b
B23b
Ability to read Spanish
Ability to read Spanish
Ability to read Spanish
A little
Somewhat
Well
497
233
631
20
1,385
31
77
19%
10%
31%
2%a
98%
2%
6%
1.4%
1.2%
2.5%
0.7%
0.7%
0.5%
0.8%
16%
7%
26%
1%
96%
1%
4%
22%
12%
36%
4%
99%
3%
7%
8%
13%
8%
36%
1%
23%
14%
129
1,167
8%
85%
1.3%
1.8%
5%
81%
10%
88%
17%
2%
Variable
PRIMLANG18
PRIMLANG18
PRIMLANG18
PRIMLANG18
PRIMLANG18
PRIMLANG18
HIGHGRDE
HIGHGRDE
HIGHGRDE
HIGHGRDE
HIGHGRDE
Variable Description
Adult primary language
Adult primary language
Adult primary language
Adult primary language
Adult primary language
Adult primary language
Variable Level(s)
English
Spanish
Indigenous
Other
Bilingual Spanish/English
57
Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
Chapter 4
Variable
D35trend
Variable Description
Location of housing
while at current farm
job
Location of housing
while at current farm
job
Location of housing
while at current farm
job
Location of housing
while at current farm
job
D33a
Payment arrangement
for living quarters
D33a
Payment arrangement
for living quarters
D35trend
D35trend
D35trend
D33a
D33a
D33a
D33a
Payment arrangement
for living quarters
Payment arrangement
for living quarters
Payment arrangement
for living quarters
Payment arrangement
for living quarters
Variable Level(s)
Number of
Observations
Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
Standard
Error
95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
Relative
Standard
Error
Off farm, in property not
owned by current employer
1,735
83%
1.9%
79%
86%
2%
Off farm, in property
owned by current employer
58
3%
0.8%
1%
5%
28%
On farm of employer I
currently work for
321
13%
1.5%
10%
16%
12%
Other
EMPLOYER-PROVIDED:
I pay for housing provided
by my employer
EMPLOYER-PROVIDED:
I receive free housing from
my employer
I pay for housing provided
by govt, charity, other
organization
I (or family member) own
the house
I rent from nonemployer/non-relative
26
2%a
0.5%
<1%
3%
34%
99
3%
0.5%
2%
5%
16%
274
11%
1.6%
7%
14%
15%
30
1%
0.3%
1%
2%
25%
690
31%
2.1%
27%
36%
7%
1,068
53%
2.8%
47%
58%
5%
Other
8
1%a
0.4%
<1%
2%
49%
58
Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
Variable
D50MTCOD
D50MTCOD
D50MTCOD
D50MTCOD
D50MTCOD
D50MTCOD
D34trend
D34trend
D34trend
D34trend
D54a
D54b
D54c
D54f
Variable Description
How much paid for
housing per month
(coded)
How much paid for
housing per month
(coded)
How much paid for
housing per month
(coded)
How much paid for
housing per month
(coded)
How much paid for
housing per month
(coded)
How much paid for
housing per month
(coded)
Type of housing
Type of housing
Type of housing
Type of housing
Number of bedrooms
in current living
quarters
Number of bathrooms
in current living
quarters
Number of kitchens in
current living quarters
Number of other rooms
in current living
quarters
Variable Level(s)
Number of
Observations
Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
Standard
Error
95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
Relative
Standard
Error
Under $200
55
6%a
2.5%
1%
11%
40%
$200-299
99
6%
0.8%
4%
8%
13%
$300-399
127
10%
1.2%
7%
12%
12%
$400-499
122
13%
2.2%
9%
18%
17%
$500-599
161
13%
1.5%
10%
16%
11%
$600 or more
Single-family home
Mobile home
Apartment
Other (includes duplex or
triplex, dormitory or
barracks, motel or hotel,
and ‘other’)
584
1,226
523
383
51%
56%
21%
20%
4.5%
3.1%
2.0%
2.2%
42%
50%
17%
15%
60%
62%
25%
24%
9%
5%
9%
11%
35
3%a
1.3%
<1%
5%
46%
Average
2,169
3
0.04
3
3
2%
Average
2,170
2
0.03
1
2
2%
Average
2,170
1
<1
1
1
0%
Average
2,167
1
0.05
1
1
5%
59
Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
Variable
CROWDED1
D37a
D37a
D37a
D37a
D37a
D37
D37
D37
D37
D37
D37
D38a
Variable Description
Household is crowded,
based on US Census
Bureau definition of a
crowded household as
one in which the
number of persons per
room exceeds one
Distance of current
farm job from current
residence
Distance of current
farm job from current
residence
Distance of current
farm job from current
residence
Distance of current
farm job from current
residence
Distance of current
farm job from current
residence
Mode of transportation
to work
Mode of transportation
to work
Mode of transportation
to work
Mode of transportation
to work
Mode of transportation
to work
Mode of transportation
to work
Transport is mandatory
Variable Level(s)
Number of
Observations
Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
Standard
Error
95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
Relative
Standard
Error
Crowded
538
30%
2.5%
25%
34%
8%
I'm located at the job
314
12%
1.5%
9%
15%
12%
Within 9 miles
774
35%
2.4%
30%
39%
7%
10-24 miles
763
37%
2.7%
32%
43%
7%
25-49 miles
277
14%
1.9%
10%
17%
14%
50+ miles
43
3%a
0.9%
1%
4%
34%
Drive car
1,564
73%
1.8%
69%
77%
2%
Walk
205
9%
1.2%
6%
11%
14%
Ride with others
167
8%
1.1%
6%
11%
13%
Labor bus, truck, van
56
2%
0.4%
1%
3%
22%
Raitero
157
7%
0.9%
5%
9%
14%
Public transportation, other
Yes
21
15
1%a
4%a
0.5%
1.7%
<1%
<1%
2%
7%
39%
42%
60
Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
Variable
D38
D38
D38
Variable Description
Pay a fee for rides to
work
Pay a fee for rides to
work
Pay a fee for rides to
work
Variable Level(s)
Number of
Observations
Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
Standard
Error
95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
Relative
Standard
Error
No
126
30%
3.0%
24%
36%
10%
Yes, a fee
127
33%
3.7%
26%
41%
11%
Yes, just for gas
133
37%
4.4%
28%
46%
12%
61
Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
Chapter 5
Variable
FLC
FLC
D30
D30
D30
D30
D30
CROP
CROP
CROP
CROP
CROP
TASK
TASK
TASK
TASK
D04
Variable Description
Employer is a farm labor
contractor
Employer is a farm labor
contractor
How current job was
obtained
How current job was
obtained
How current job was
obtained
How current job was
obtained
How current job was
obtained
Primary crop at time of
interview
Primary crop at time of
interview
Primary crop at time of
interview
Primary crop at time of
interview
Primary crop at time of
interview
Primary task at time of
interview
Primary task at time of
interview
Primary task at time of
interview
Primary task at time of
interview
Number of hours worked
the previous week at
current farm job
Number of
Observations
Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
Standard
Error
95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
Relative
Standard
Error
1,917
88%
2.8%
83%
94%
3%
Employer: Farm labor contractor
255
12%
2.8%
6%
17%
24%
Applied for the job on my own
730
32%
2.0%
28%
36%
6%
Recruited by a grower/his foreman
Recruited by farm labor
contractor/his foreman
Referred by the employment
service, welfare office, labor union,
other means
Referred by
relative/friend/workmate
129
6%
1.4%
4%
9%
21%
28
2%a
0.6%
<1%
3%
37%
51
3%
0.5%
2%
4%
17%
1,232
57%
2.9%
51%
62%
5%
Field crops
313
14%
2.1%
10%
18%
14%
Fruits and nuts
869
38%
3.8%
31%
46%
10%
Horticulture
476
24%
4.3%
16%
33%
18%
Vegetables
417
20%
3.1%
14%
26%
15%
Miscellaneous or multiple crops
97
3%
0.7%
2%
5%
22%
Pre-harvest
628
28%
2.5%
23%
33%
9%
Harvest
475
20%
2.5%
15%
25%
12%
Post-harvest
319
21%
2.0%
17%
25%
10%
Technical
750
31%
2.7%
26%
37%
9%
Average
2,147
46
1.5
43
49
3%
Variable Level(s)
Employer: Grower, nursery,
packing house
62
Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
Variable
D11
D11
Variable Description
Basis of pay
Basis of pay
D11
D11
Basis of pay
Basis of pay
Hourly wage for primary
task
Employer provides clean
drinking water and
disposable cups every day
Employer provides clean
drinking water and
disposable cups every day
Employer provides clean
drinking water and
disposable cups every day
Employer provides a toilet
every day
Employer provides water
to wash hands every day
Current employer
provided training in safe
use of pesticides in last 12
months
Covered by
Unemployment Insurance
Covered by
Unemployment Insurance
Covered by
Unemployment Insurance
Receive workers’
compensation if injured at
work or get sick as a
result of work
Receive workers’
compensation if injured at
work or get sick as a
result of work
WAGET1
NS01
NS01
NS01
NS04
NS09
NT02a
D26
D26
D26
D23
D23
Number of
Observations
1,825
141
Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
82%
7%
Standard
Error
2.1%
1.7%
95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
78%
4%
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
87%
11%
Relative
Standard
Error
3%
24%
50
151
2%a
8%
0.8%
1.4%
1%
5%
4%
11%
36%
17%
Average
2,111
$13.59
0.2
13
14
1%
No water, no cups
91
3%
0.7%
1%
4%
26%
Yes, water only
103
5%
1.0%
3%
7%
22%
Yes, water and disposable cups
1,965
92%
1.3%
90%
95%
1%
Yes
2,146
99%
0.1%
99%
100%
<1%
Yes
2,147
99%
0.2%
99%
100%
<1%
Yes
1,527
68%
2.8%
63%
74%
4%
No
1,059
50%
3.9%
42%
58%
8%
Yes
1,029
45%
3.8%
38%
53%
8%
Don’t know
84
5%
0.8%
3%
6%
18%
No
137
8%
1.5%
5%
11%
19%
Yes
1,767
79%
2.2%
75%
84%
3%
Variable Level(s)
By the hour
By the piece
Combination hourly wage and piece
rate
Salary or other
63
Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
Variable
D23
D24
D24
D24
Variable Description
Receive workers’
compensation if injured at
work or get sick as a
result of work
Employer provides health
insurance or pays for
health care for injuries or
illness while off the job
Employer provides health
insurance or pays for
health care for injuries or
illness while off the job
Employer provides health
insurance or pays for
health care for injuries or
illness while off the job
Variable Level(s)
Number of
Observations
Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
Standard
Error
95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
Relative
Standard
Error
Don’t know
268
13%
1.8%
9%
16%
14%
No
1,370
61%
2.4%
56%
66%
4%
Yes
605
28%
2.6%
23%
33%
9%
Don’t know
196
11%
1.7%
8%
14%
16%
64
Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
Chapter 6
Variable
NUMFEMPL
NUMFEMPL
NUMFEMPL
NUMFEMPL
D27
D27
D27
D27
D27
D27
FWWEEKS
C10
FWRDAYS
Variable Description
Number of farm employers
in previous 12 months
Number of farm employers
in previous 12 months
Number of farm employers
in previous 12 months
Number of farm employers
in previous 12 months
Number of years with current
employer
Number of years with current
employer
Number of years with current
employer
Number of years with current
employer
Number of years with current
employer
Number of years with current
employer
Number of weeks of farm
work the previous year
Number of work days per
week
Number of farm work days
the previous year
Variable Level(s)
Number of
Observations
Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
Standard
Error
95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
Relative
Standard
Error
Average
2,172
1
0.03
1
1
2%
1 employer
1,840
83%
1.7%
80%
87%
2%
2 employers
228
11%
1.5%
8%
14%
14%
3 or more employers
104
6%
0.7%
4%
7%
12%
Average
2,140
8
0.4
7
9
5%
1 year or less
286
18%
1.6%
15%
21%
9%
2-4 years
659
31%
2.1%
27%
35%
7%
5-10 years
538
24%
1.5%
21%
27%
6%
11-20 years
420
17%
1.4%
15%
20%
8%
21 or more years
237
9%
1.2%
7%
12%
12%
Average
2,172
39
1.1
37
41
3%
Average
2,171
4
0.1
4
5
3%
Average
2,171
227
6.8
214
241
3%
65
Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
Variable
NUMYRSFW
(by NEWFWKR)
NUMYRSFW
(by NEWFWKR)
NUMYRSFW
(by NEWFWKR)
NUMYRSFW
(by NEWFWKR)
NUMYRSFW
(by NEWFWKR)
NUMYRSFW
(by NEWFWKR)
NUMYRSFW
(by NEWFWKR)
Variable Description
Number of years since first
did farm work (by new
farmworker: less than 1 year,
1 year, more than 1 year)
Number of years since first
did farm work (by new
farmworker: less than 1 year,
1 year, more than 1 year)
Number of years since first
did farm work (by new
farmworker: less than 1 year,
1 year, more than 1 year)
Number of years since first
did farm work (by new
farmworker: less than 1 year,
1 year, more than 1 year)
Number of years since first
did farm work (by new
farmworker: less than 1 year,
1 year, more than 1 year)
Number of years since first
did farm work (by new
farmworker: less than 1 year,
1 year, more than 1 year)
Number of years since first
did farm work (by new
farmworker: less than 1 year,
1 year, more than 1 year)
Variable Level(s)
Number of
Observations
Estimate
(Percentage or
Mean)
Standard
Error
95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
Relative
Standard
Error
Average (among
one or more years
of farm work)
2,101
18
0.6
17
19
3%
1 year (among
one or more years
of farm work)
109
7%
0.9%
5%
9%
14%
202
10%
1.2%
8%
12%
12%
341
15%
1.8%
12%
19%
12%
626
32%
2.7%
27%
37%
9%
376
18%
1.4%
15%
20%
8%
447
18%
1.6%
15%
21%
8%
2-4 years (among
one or more years
of farm work)
5-10 years
(among one or
more years of
farm work)
11-20 years
(among one or
more years of
farm work)
21-30 years
(among one or
more years of
farm work)
31 or more years
(among one or
more years of
farm work)
66
Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
Variable
B12
B12
B12
B12
B12
B13
B13
B13
B13
B13
B13
Variable
Description
Number of years of
non-crop work in the
US
Number of years of
non-crop work in the
US
Number of years of
non-crop work in the
US
Number of years of
non-crop work in the
US
Number of years of
non-crop work in the
US
Last time parents did
hired farm work in
the US
Last time parents did
hired farm work in
the US
Last time parents did
hired farm work in
the US
Last time parents did
hired farm work in
the US
Last time parents did
hired farm work in
the US
Last time parents did
hired farm work in
the US
Variable Level(s)
Number of
Observations
Estimate
(Percentage or
Mean)
Standard
Error
95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
Relative
Standard
Error
None
1,063
50%
2.4%
45%
55%
5%
1 year
219
10%
1.3%
7%
13%
13%
2-10 years
593
29%
1.7%
25%
32%
6%
11 or more years
Average, among those with
at least 1 year on non-crop
work in the US
199
11%
1.3%
8%
13%
12%
1,011
8
0.6
7
9
7%
Never
1,103
54%
2.1%
49%
58%
4%
Now/within the last year
294
12%
1.3%
9%
15%
11%
1-5 years ago
62
3%
0.5%
1%
4%
21%
6-10 years ago
55
3%
0.8%
2%
5%
22%
11 or more years ago
640
27%
1.5%
24%
30%
6%
Don’t know
17
1%
0.4%
1%
2%
29%
67
Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
Variable
E02
E02
E02
E02
E02
E02
Variable Description
How long expect to
continue doing farm
work
How long expect to
continue doing farm
work
How long expect to
continue doing farm
work
How long expect to
continue doing farm
work
How long expect to
continue doing farm
work
How long expect to
continue doing farm
work
Variable
Level(s)
Number of
Observations
Estimate
(Percentage or
Mean)
Standard
Error
95% Lower
Confidence Limit
95% Upper
Confidence Limit
Relative
Standard
Error
Less than one
year
63
4%
0.8%
2%
5%
22%
1-3 years
229
11%
1.3%
8%
14%
12%
4-5 years
105
5%
0.8%
3%
6%
16%
Over 5 years
57
3%
0.9%
1%
5%
30%
Over 5 years/as
long as I am able
1,685
76%
2.2%
72%
80%
3%
Other
15
b
b
b
b
63%
68
Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
Chapter 7
Variable
HasNFLeave
(by NFWEEKS)
Variable Description
Number of weeks living in
the US but not working the
previous year
Number of weeks abroad
the previous year
Number of weeks of noncrop work the previous year
Number of weeks of noncrop work the previous year
Number of non-crop jobs
the previous year
Left at least one non-crop
employer in the previous
year (by number of weeks
of non-crop work the
previous year)
NFleaves
(by HasNFLeave)
Type of leave from noncrop work (by left at least
one non-crop employer in
the previous year)
NFleaves
(by HasNFLeave)
Type of leave from noncrop work (by left at least
one non-crop employer in
the previous year)
NWWEEKS
ABWEEKS
NFWEEKS
NFWEEKS
NUMNFJOBS
NFleaves
(by HasNFLeave)
HadNW
Type of leave from noncrop work (by left at least
one non-crop employer in
the previous year)
Had at least one period of
not working in previous
year
Variable Level(s)
Number of
Observations
Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
Standard
Error
95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
Relative
Standard
Error
Average
2,172
8
0.6
6
9
8%
Average
2,172
2
0.5
1
3
26%
NFWEEKS>0
Average, among those with
NFWEEKS>0
Average, among those with
NFWEEKS>0
422
22%
2.1%
18%
27%
10%
422
24
1.4
22
27
6%
422
2
0.1
1
2
3%
191
53%
4.5%
44%
62%
8%
58
30%
3.3%
23%
36%
11%
129
69%
3.5%
61%
76%
5%
4
2%a
0.8%
<1%
4%
46%
1,449
66%
2.8%
60%
71%
4%
Left at least one non-crop
employer in the previous
year (among NFWEEKS>0)
All leaves from non-crop
work were involuntary
(among left at least one noncrop employer in the
previous year)
All leaves from non-crop
work were voluntary
(among left at least one noncrop employer in the
previous year)
Both voluntary and
involuntary leaves from
non-crop work (among left
at least one non-crop
employer in the previous
year)
Yes
69
Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
Variable
WeeksNotWorking
RecvdUI
Variable Description
Number of weeks not
working in previous year
Received unemployment
during at least one period of
not working
Variable Level(s)
Average, among those who
had at least one period of
not working in previous year
Yes (among those who had
at least one period of not
working in previous year)
Number of
Observations
Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
Standard
Error
95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
Relative
Standard
Error
1,449
15
1.0
13
17
7%
199
14%
2.9%
8%
19%
21%
70
Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
Chapter 8
Variable
G01
G01
G01
G01
G01
G01
G01
G01
G01
G01
G01
G01
G01
G01
G01
G01
G01
Variable Description
Total personal income the
previous year
Total personal income the
previous year
Total personal income the
previous year
Total personal income the
previous year
Total personal income the
previous year
Total personal income the
previous year
Total personal income the
previous year
Total personal income the
previous year
Total personal income the
previous year
Total personal income the
previous year
Total personal income the
previous year
Total personal income the
previous year
Total personal income the
previous year
Total personal income the
previous year
Total personal income the
previous year
Total personal income the
previous year
Total personal income the
previous year
Variable Level(s)
Number of
Observations
Average
2,021
Median
Did not work at all the
previous year
2,021
Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
11 ($20,000
to $24,999)
11 ($20,000
to $24,999)
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
12 ($25,000
to $29,999)
12 ($25,000
to $29,999)
Relative
Standard
Error
0.2
95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
11 ($20,000 to
$24,999)
11 ($20,000 to
$24,999)
57
5%
0.9%
3%
6%
20%
$500-$999
4
b
b
b
b
69%
$1,000-$2,499
13
1%a
0.5%
<1%
2%
46%
$2,500-$4,999
31
2%
0.7%
1%
4%
30%
$5,000-$7,499
36
2%
0.3%
1%
2%
22%
$7,500-$9,999
47
3%
1.0%
1%
5%
30%
$10,000-$12,499
74
5%
1.0%
3%
7%
23%
$12,500-$14,999
84
4%
0.6%
3%
5%
16%
$15,000-$17,499
111
4%
0.6%
3%
5%
14%
$17,500-$19,999
149
7%
1.0%
5%
9%
13%
$20,000-$24,999
364
15%
1.2%
12%
17%
8%
$25,000-$29,999
333
16%
1.9%
12%
19%
12%
$30,000-$34,999
270
12%
1.5%
9%
15%
12%
$35,000-$39,999
200
8%
0.9%
7%
10%
10%
Over $40,000
305
11%
1.3%
9%
14%
12%
Standard
Error
0.2
2%
2%
71
Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
Variable
G01
G01
G03
G03
G03
G03
G03
G03
G03
G03
G03
G03
G03
G03
G03
G03
G03
G03
G03
Variable Description
Total personal income the
previous year
Total personal income the
previous year
Family’s total income the
previous year
Family’s total income the
previous year
Family’s total income the
previous year
Family’s total income the
previous year
Family’s total income the
previous year
Family’s total income the
previous year
Family’s total income the
previous year
Family’s total income the
previous year
Family’s total income the
previous year
Family’s total income the
previous year
Family’s total income the
previous year
Family’s total income the
previous year
Family’s total income the
previous year
Family’s total income the
previous year
Family’s total income the
previous year
Family’s total income the
previous year
Family’s total income the
previous year
Number of
Observations
Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
Standard
Error
95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
Relative
Standard
Error
75
4%
0.8%
2%
6%
21%
Refused to answer
16
0.3%
2,016
Median
Did not work at all the
previous year
2,016
0.3
<1%
12 ($25,000 to
$29,999)
12 ($25,000 to
$29,999)
1%
13 ($30,000
to $34,999)
13 ($30,000
to $34,999)
39%
Average
1%a
12 ($25,000
to $29,999)
12 ($25,000
to $29,999)
42
3%
0.7%
2%
4%
23%
$1,000-$2,499
13
1%a
0.4%
<1%
2%
38%
$2,500-$4,999
24
2%a
0.6%
1%
3%
34%
$5,000-$7,499
25
1%
0.3%
<1%
2%
27%
$7,500-$9,999
29
2%a
0.9%
1%
4%
37%
$10,000-$12,499
44
4%
1.0%
1%
6%
29%
$12,500-$14,999
48
2%
0.5%
1%
3%
21%
$15,000-$17,499
58
3%
0.5%
2%
3%
18%
$17,500-$19,999
98
5%
0.7%
3%
6%
16%
$20,000-$24,999
263
11%
1.2%
9%
14%
11%
$25,000-$29,999
242
11%
1.2%
9%
13%
11%
$30,000-$34,999
244
9%
0.9%
8%
11%
9%
$35,000-$39,999
208
8%
0.8%
6%
9%
10%
Over $40,000
720
32%
2.6%
27%
38%
8%
Refused to answer
17
1%a
0.3%
<1%
1%
37%
Variable Level(s)
Don’t remember (don’t
know)
0.2
2%
2%
72
Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
Variable
G03
FAMPOV
ASSETUS
G06a
G06d
G06h
G04c
G04d
G04e
G04b
G04i
G04j
G04k
G04r
Variable Description
Family’s total income the
previous year
Family income below the
poverty level
Assets in US
Type of US asset
Type of US asset
Type of US asset
Type of contribution-based
program household member
utilized in the last 2 years
Type of contribution-based
program household member
utilized in the last 2 years
Type of contribution-based
program household member
utilized in the last 2 years
Type of need-based program
household member utilized
in the last 2 years
Type of need-based program
household member utilized
in the last 2 years
Type of need-based program
household member utilized
in the last 2 years
Type of need-based program
household member utilized
in the last 2 years
Type of need-based program
household member utilized
in the last 2 years
Number of
Observations
Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
Standard
Error
95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
Relative
Standard
Error
93
5%
0.9%
3%
6%
18%
Below poverty level
Any US asset
Plot of land
Car or truck
A type of housing, such as a
house, mobile home,
condominium, or apartment
343
1,749
89
1,712
20%
81%
4%
80%
2.4%
1.9%
0.7%
1.9%
15%
77%
3%
76%
25%
85%
6%
84%
12%
2%
17%
2%
511
22%
1.7%
19%
26%
8%
Disability insurance
38
1%
0.4%
1%
2%
26%
Unemployment Insurance
200
8%
1.7%
5%
12%
20%
Social Security
61
4%
0.9%
2%
6%
24%
Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program
265
13%
1.6%
10%
16%
12%
Public health clinics
640
33%
2.5%
28%
38%
8%
Medicaid
950
44%
2.3%
40%
49%
5%
WIC
Welfare (general assistance)
or Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF)
244
9%
1.0%
8%
11%
10%
23
2%a
0.6%
1%
3%
35%
Variable Level(s)
Don’t remember (don’t
know)
73
Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
Chapter 9
Variable
A21a
A23a1
A23a2
A23a3
A23a4
A23a5
A23a6
A23a7
A21b
A23b1
A23b2
A23b3
A23b4
A23b5
A23b6
Variable Description
Farmworker has health
insurance
Who pays for farmworker’s
health insurance
Who pays for farmworker’s
health insurance
Who pays for farmworker’s
health insurance
Who pays for farmworker’s
health insurance
Who pays for farmworker’s
health insurance
Who pays for farmworker’s
health insurance
Who pays for farmworker’s
health insurance
Spouse has health insurance
Who pays for spouse’s
insurance
Who pays for spouse’s
insurance
Who pays for spouse’s
insurance
Who pays for spouse’s
insurance
Who pays for spouse’s
insurance
Who pays for spouse’s
insurance
Variable Level(s)
Number of
Observations
Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
Standard
Error
95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
Relative
Standard
Error
Yes
1,058
48%
2.2%
44%
52%
5%
Farmworker
120
12%
2.0%
8%
16%
17%
Farmworker’s spouse
8
<1%a
0.2%
<1%
1%
31%
Farmworker’s employer
Farmworker’s spouse’s
employer
324
26%
3.0%
20%
32%
12%
70
7%
1.5%
4%
10%
23%
Government
408
39%
3.7%
31%
46%
10%
Other
Farmworker’s
parents’/family’s plan
Yes
92
7%
1.4%
4%
10%
20%
69
1,361
12%
58%
2.5%
2.2%
7%
54%
17%
63%
21%
4%
Farmworker
62
9%
2.4%
4%
14%
27%
Farmworker’s spouse
23
3%
1.0%
1%
5%
30%
Farmworker’s employer
Farmworker’s spouse’s
employer
126
14%
2.5%
9%
19%
18%
142
27%
3.5%
20%
34%
13%
Government
318
43%
3.7%
36%
51%
9%
Other
66
7%
1.3%
4%
9%
19%
74
Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables
Variable
Variable Description
A21c2
Children have health
insurance
A21c2
A23c1
A23c2
A23c3
A23c4
A23c5
A23c6
Children have health
insurance
Who pays for children’s
insurance
Who pays for children’s
insurance
Who pays for children’s
insurance
Who pays for children’s
insurance
Who pays for children’s
insurance
Who pays for children’s
insurance
Number of
Observations
Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
Standard
Error
95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
Relative
Standard
Error
797
88%
3.3%
82%
95%
4%
29
3%a
1.1%
1%
5%
33%
Farmworker
31
3%a
1.1%
1%
5%
34%
Farmworker’s spouse
7
b
b
b
b
52%
Farmworker’s employer
Farmworker’s spouse’s
employer
41
3%
0.8%
1%
4%
27%
75
10%
2.4%
5%
14%
25%
Government
672
84%
2.8%
78%
89%
3%
Other
21
2%
0.3%
<1%
2%
19%
Variable Level(s)
Yes, all have it (among those
who have minor children in
the U.S. or Puerto Rico)
Yes, only some have it
(among those who have
minor children in the U.S. or
Puerto Rico)
75
Appendix D: Data on National Demographic and Employment Characteristics
APPENDIX D: Data on National Demographic and Employment Characteristics since 1989
Table 1: Farmworker Demographics, National Estimates, Eight Time Periods*
Characteristic
U.S.-born
Fiscal Years
1989-1991
40%
Fiscal Years
1998-2000
17%
Fiscal Years
2007-2009
29%
Fiscal Years
2010-2012
26%
Fiscal Years
2013-2014
27%
Fiscal Years
2015-2016
25%
Fiscal Years
2017-2018
32%
Fiscal Years
2019-2020
30%
Foreign-born
60%
83%
71%
74%
73%
75%
68%
70%
Authorized
86%
46%
52%
50%
53%
51%
64%
56%
Unauthorized
14%
54%
48%
50%
47%
49%
36%
44%
Place of birth: United States/Puerto Rico
40%
17%
29%
26%
27%
25%
32%
30%
Place of birth: Mexico
54%
79%
68%
67%
68%
69%
64%
63%
Place of birth: Central America
2%
2%
3%
6%
4%
6%
3%
5%
Place of birth: Other
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
(b)
Current work authorization: U.S. citizen
(by birth or naturalization)
Current work authorization: Lawful
permanent resident (green card)
43%
20%
33%
29%
31%
29%
38%
36%
13%
25%
18%
19%
21%
21%
24%
19%
Current work authorization: Other work
authorized
Current work authorization: Unauthorized
29%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
14%
54%
48%
50%
47%
49%
36%
44%
Migrant type: Settled (did not migrate)1
59%
45%
74%
79%
84%
81%
87%
85%
Migrant type: Shuttle migrant
(a)
23%
22%
12%
14%
10%
10%
8%
11%
3
Migrant type: Follow-the-crop migrant
14%
10%
5%
6%
4%
6%
4%
4%
Migrant type: Foreign-born newcomer
4
4%
22%
9%
2%
2%
4%
2%
1%
Male
73%
80%
78%
73%
72%
68%
69%
66%
Average age
33
31
36
37
38
38
41
41
2
76
Appendix D: Data on National Demographic and Employment Characteristics
Characteristic
Age: 14-17
Fiscal Years
1989-1991
4%
Fiscal Years
1998-2000
5%
Fiscal Years
2007-2009
3%
Fiscal Years
2010-2012
2%
Fiscal Years
2013-2014
1%
Fiscal Years
2015-2016
3%
Fiscal Years
2017-2018
3%
Fiscal Years
2019-2020
2%(a)
Age: 18-19
8%
9%
6%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
Age: 20-24
19%
21%
16%
14%
12%
11%
8%
9%
Age: 25-34
32%
31%
26%
27%
27%
26%
21%
23%
Age: 35-44
19%
19%
21%
25%
24%
23%
23%
26%
Age: 45-54
10%
9%
18%
17%
18%
19%
24%
18%
Age: 55-64
6%
4%
8%
9%
11%
11%
14%
14%
Age: 65 or older
1%
1%
2%
2%
3%
4%
4%
5%
Age first worked in U.S. agriculture:
Before age 14
no data
8%
8%
7%
6%
6%
5%
8%
Age first worked in U.S. agriculture: At
age 14-18
no data
33%
32%
32%
34%
29%
32%
32%
Age first worked in U.S. agriculture: At
age 19-21
no data
18%
19%
17%
17%
18%
17%
19%
Age first worked in U.S. agriculture: At
age 22-24
no data
12%
11%
10%
12%
12%
11%
11%
Age first worked in U.S. agriculture: At
age 25 or older
no data
28%
31%
33%
31%
35%
35%
31%
Average highest grade completed in
school
Highest grade completed: No schooling
8th
7th
8th
8th
8th
8th
9th
9th
5%
4%
5%
4%
3%
4%
2%
4%
Highest grade completed: 1st to 3rd
13%
14%
11%
12%
10%
11%
9%
10%
Highest grade completed: 4th to 7th
30%
41%
32%
30%
28%
28%
27%
27%
Highest grade completed: 8th to 11th
26%
27%
24%
23%
26%
26%
24%
27%
Highest grade completed: 12th (high
school graduate)
Highest grade completed: 13 or more
(college)
20%
10%
19%
19%
21%
21%
24%
19%
6%
4%
9%
12%
11%
10%
12%
14%
77
Appendix D: Data on National Demographic and Employment Characteristics
Characteristic
Fiscal Years
1989-1991
35%
Fiscal Years
1998-2000
48%
Fiscal Years
2007-2009
35%
Fiscal Years
2010-2012
30%
Fiscal Years
2013-2014
27%
Fiscal Years
2015-2016
30%
Fiscal Years
2017-2018
23%
Fiscal Years
2019-2020
29%
32%
27%
27%
31%
32%
32%
28%
26%
9%
7%
8%
9%
11%
9%
13%
12%
23%
18%
30%
30%
31%
29%
36%
32%
38%
59%
45%
40%
38%
41%
33%
40%
18%
21%
20%
24%
23%
24%
21%
19%
5%
5%
6%
7%
9%
7%
11%
10%
English reading ability (self-reported):
Well
Family composition: Married parent
40%
16%
29%
29%
30%
28%
35%
31%
44%
42%
45%
47%
48%
41%
39%
37%
Family composition: Married, no children
14%
10%
14%
12%
15%
15%
18%
19%
Family composition: Unmarried parent
8%
5%
8%
8%
9%
13%
11%
13%
Family composition: Single, no children
34%
43%
33%
32%
27%
30%
32%
31%
Median personal income range (all
income sources)
Average personal income range (all
income sources)
Median family income range (all income
sources)
Average family income range (all income
sources)
$5,000$7,499
$5,000$7,499
$7,500$9,999
$10,000$12,499
$7,500$9,999
$7,500$9,999
$7,500$9,999
$10,000$12,499
$15,000$17,499
$15,000$17,499
$17,500$19,999
$17,500$19,999
$12,500$14,999
$15,000$17,499
$17,500$19,999
$17,500$19,999
$15,000$17,499
$17,500$19,999
$20,000$24,999
$20,000$24,999
$17,500$19,999
$17,500$19,999
$20,000$24,999
$20,000$24,999
$20,000$24,999
$20,000$24,999
$25,000$29,999
$25,000$29,999
$20,000$24,999
$20,000$24,999
$25,000$29,999
$25,000$25,999
English speaking ability (self-reported):
Not at all
English speaking ability (self-reported):
A little
English speaking ability (self-reported):
Somewhat
English speaking ability (self-reported):
Well
English reading ability (self-reported):
Not at all
English reading ability (self-reported): A
little
English reading ability (self-reported):
Somewhat
78
Appendix D: Data on National Demographic and Employment Characteristics
Characteristic
Fiscal Years
1989-1991
no data
Fiscal Years
1998-2000
55%
Fiscal Years
2007-2009
33%
Fiscal Years
2010-2012
31%
Fiscal Years
2013-2014
30%
Fiscal Years
2015-2016
32%
Fiscal Years
2017-2018
22%
Fiscal Years
2019-2020
20%
28%
21%
21%
20%
19%
14%
18%
13%
Share of families that received benefits
from need-based programs6
Ethnicity: Mexican-American
20%
22%
31%
46%
50%
55%
54%
63%
10%
5%
6%
7%
9%
9%
11%
10%
Ethnicity: Mexican
53%
81%
65%
65%
65%
65%
61%
60%
Ethnicity: Chicano
1%
1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
1%
1%
<1%(a)
Ethnicity: Puerto Rican
2%
1%
1%(a)
1%(a)
1%(a)
1%(a)
(b)
(b)
Ethnicity: Other Hispanic
4%
2%
4%
7%
5%
8%
4%
7%
Ethnicity: Not Hispanic or Latino
30%
10%
24%
20%
20%
16%
23%
22%
Accompanied (respondent was living
with at least one nuclear family member
at the time of interview)
Among parents, share accompanied
60%
37%
52%
57%
61%
60%
62%
62%
74%
59%
72%
82%
83%
85%
91%
89%
Share of families with below poverty
level income
Share of families that received benefits
from contribution-based programs5
(a)
(a)
*Table 1 illustrates weighted data on farmworkers from the Employment and Training Administration's National Agricultural Workers Survey, Public Data, Fiscal Years (FY)
1989-2020.
a Estimates should be interpreted with caution because they have relative standard errors between 31 and 50 percent.
b Estimates are suppressed because they are based on fewer than four observations or have relative standard errors greater than 50 percent.
1 Settled farmworkers are employed at locations that are within 75 miles of each other.
2 Shuttle migrants have a home base where they do not engage in farm work and have one farm work location that is more than 75 miles from the home base. They might hold
multiple farm jobs at the farm work location, but those jobs are within 75 miles of each other.
3 Follow-the-crop migrants have at least two farm jobs that are separated by more than 75 miles.
4 Newcomers are foreign-born farmworkers whose first arrival to the United States occurred within the year preceding the interview and whose migration patterns have not yet
been established.
5 Contribution-based benefits include programs to which the recipient or their employer contributed such as disability insurance, Unemployment Insurance, or Social Security.
6 Need-based benefits include financial assistance through programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), general assistance or welfare, and publicly
provided housing or medical and nutritional assistance such as Medicaid, Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), and Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
79
Appendix D: Data on National Demographic and Employment Characteristics
Table 2: Farmworker Employment Characteristics, National Estimates, Eight Time Periods*
Characteristic
Fiscal Years
1989-1991
Fiscal Years
1998-2000
Fiscal Years
2007-2009
Fiscal Years
2010-2012
Fiscal Years
2013-2014
Fiscal Years
2015-2016
Fiscal Years
2017-2018
Fiscal Years
2019-2020
Employment type at current farm job:
Directly-hired
Employment type at current farm job:
Labor-contracted
84%
73%
88%
88%
85%
80%
89%
88%
16%
27%
12%
12%
15%
20%
11%
12%
Average number of years of U.S. farm
work experience
10
8
13
12
14
14
16
17
Years of U.S. farm work experience: 0-1
10%
26%
14%
10%
7%
11%
8%
6%
Years of U.S. farm work experience: 2-4
25%
24%
18%
17%
14%
17%
14%
15%
Years of U.S. farm work experience: 5-10
30%
22%
23%
29%
25%
22%
18%
17%
Years of U.S. farm work experience: 1120
Years of U.S. farm work experience: 21
or more
Average number of years with current
farm employer
22%
18%
23%
25%
28%
24%
27%
31%
13%
10%
22%
20%
25%
25%
33%
31%
5
3
6
6
7
7
8
8
Years with current farm employer: 0-1
37%
44%
27%
25%
23%
26%
22%
18%
Years with current farm employer: 2-4
32%
36%
33%
33%
32%
32%
28%
31%
Years with current farm employer: 5-10
19%
14%
23%
25%
24%
22%
24%
24%
Years with current farm employer: 11-20
9%
5%
12%
13%
15%
14%
16%
17%
Years with current farm employer: 21 or
more
Average hourly earnings at current farm
job
Paid below the minimum wage at current
farm job
3%
1%
5%
4%
6%
6%
10%
9%
$5.15
$6.52
$9.14
$9.38
$10.20
$10.61
$12.32
$13.59
8%
6%
2%
4%
2%
3%(a)
(b)
(b)
80
Appendix D: Data on National Demographic and Employment Characteristics
Characteristic
Fiscal Years
1989-1991
Fiscal Years
1998-2000
Fiscal Years
2007-2009
Fiscal Years
2010-2012
Fiscal Years
2013-2014
Fiscal Years
2015-2016
Fiscal Years
2017-2018
Fiscal Years
2019-2020
Average number of days worked on a
farm last 12 months
159
153
194
187
192
192
198
227
Average number of weeks worked on a
farm last 12 months
28
27
35
34
35
33
35
39
Average number of hours worked per
week at current farm job
40
41
45
44
44
45
45
46
Number of hours worked per week at
current farm job: 1-20
15%
10%
4%
4%
6%
6%
5%
4%
Number of hours worked per week at
current farm job: 21-40
43%
43%
36%
42%
42%
36%
37%
39%
Number of hours worked per week at
current farm job: 41-50
23%
29%
35%
29%
28%
30%
30%
31%
Number of hours worked per week at
current farm job: 51-60
10%
11%
17%
19%
17%
21%
21%
14%
Number of hours worked per week at
current farm job: More than 60
8%
6%
8%
6%
7%
7%
6%
11%(a)
Average number of days worked per
week at current farm job
no data
5
6
5
5
5
4
4
Median number of days worked per week
at current farm job
no data
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Number of days worked per week at
current farm job: 1-5 days
no data
54%
42%
50%
50%
46%
57%
55%
Number of days worked per week at
current farm job: 6-7 days
no data
46%
58%
50%
50%
54%
43%
45%
81
Appendix D: Data on National Demographic and Employment Characteristics
Characteristic
Fiscal Years
1989-1991
Fiscal Years
1998-2000
Fiscal Years
2007-2009
Fiscal Years
2010-2012
Fiscal Years
2013-2014
Fiscal Years
2015-2016
Fiscal Years
2017-2018
Fiscal Years
2019-2020
Average number of hours worked per
day**
Number of hours worked per day: 1-6
no data
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
no data
19%
12%
11%
15%
15%
12%
11%
Number of hours worked per day: 6.1-8
no data
44%
43%
50%
46%
40%
46%
46%
Number of hours worked per day: 8.1-10
no data
28%
35%
30%
31%
37%
34%
33%
Number of hours worked per day: 10.114**
Average number of farm employers in the
last 12 months
no data
8%
10%
9%
9%
8%
8%
9%(a)
2.14
1.57
1.29
1.29
1.34
1.32
1.29
1.25
Number of farm employers in the last 12
months: 1
Number of farm employers in the last 12
months: 2
Number of farm employers in the last 12
months: 3
Number of farm employers in the last 12
months: 4
Number of farm employers in the last 12
months: 5 or more
52%
65%
81%
81%
79%
80%
81%
83%
21%
21%
13%
13%
13%
13%
12%
11%
10%
8%
4%
4%
5%
4%
4%
4%
6%
3%
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%(a)
10%
2%
1%
1%(a)
1%
1%
(b)
1%(a)
Primary crop at current farm job: Field
12%
16%
16%
17%
13%
10%
13%
14%
Primary crop at current farm job: Fruit or
nut
Primary crop at current farm job:
Horticulture
Primary crop at current farm job:
Vegetable
Primary crop at current farm job:
Miscellaneous/multiple
28%
37%
35%
34%
41%
32%
41%
38%
18%
16%
20%
23%
22%
19%
22%
24%
35%
25%
23%
24%
21%
37%
20%
20%
6%
6%
5%
3%
3%
3%
4%(a)
3%
82
Appendix D: Data on National Demographic and Employment Characteristics
Characteristic
Fiscal Years
1989-1991
Fiscal Years
1998-2000
Fiscal Years
2007-2009
Fiscal Years
2010-2012
Fiscal Years
2013-2014
Fiscal Years
2015-2016
Fiscal Years
2017-2018
Fiscal Years
2019-2020
Primary task at current farm job: Preharvest
Primary task at current farm job: Harvest
20%
20%
27%
34%
26%
30%
23%
28%
41%
29%
27%
22%
23%
17%
24%
20%
Primary task at current farm job: Postharvest
Primary task at current farm job:
Technical (e.g., equipment operator)
13%
10%
18%
17%
18%
25%
19%
21%
18%
23%
25%
27%
33%
29%
34%
31%
Primary task at current farm job:
Supervisor
Primary task at current farm job: Other
1%
(b)
<1%
(b)
(b)
(b)
(b)
0%
7%
18%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Current farm employer provides health
insurance or pays for health care for a
non-work-related injury or illness [D24]:
No
Current farm employer provides health
insurance or pays for health care for a
non-work-related injury or illness [D24]:
Yes
Current farm employer provides health
insurance or pays for health care for a
non-work-related injury or illness [D24]:
Don't know
Current farm employer provides health
insurance or pays for health care for a
work-related injury or illness [D22]: No
no data
79%
72%
70%
78%
71%
59%
61%
no data
7%
18%
19%
14%
18%
32%
28%
no data
14%
11%
11%
9%
11%
8%
11%
38%
22%
10%
14%
13%
9%
4%
12%
Current farm employer provides health
insurance or pays for health care for a
work-related injury or illness [D22]: Yes
46%
64%
74%
69%
70%
76%
89%
79%
Current farm employer provides health
insurance or pays for health care for a
work-related injury or illness [D22]:
Don't know
16%
14%
16%
17%
18%
14%
8%
9%
83
Appendix D: Data on National Demographic and Employment Characteristics
Characteristic
Fiscal Years
1989-1991
Fiscal Years
1998-2000
Fiscal Years
2007-2009
Fiscal Years
2010-2012
Fiscal Years
2013-2014
Fiscal Years
2015-2016
Fiscal Years
2017-2018
Fiscal Years
2019-2020
Workers' Compensation coverage at
current farm job [D23]: No
66%
40%
19%
18%
21%
16%
5%
8%
Workers' Compensation coverage at
current farm job [D23]: Yes
24%
38%
60%
60%
51%
62%
85%
79%
Workers' Compensation coverage at
current farm job [D23]: Don't know
9%
22%
21%
22%
28%
22%
10%
13%
Unemployment Insurance coverage at
current farm job: No
38%
55%
49%
53%
50%
52%
41%
50%
Unemployment Insurance coverage at
current farm job: Yes
51%
37%
48%
44%
46%
43%
55%
45%
Unemployment Insurance coverage at
current farm job: Don't know
10%
8%
3%
3%
3%
5%
4%
5%
Mode of transportation to work: Drive a
car
Mode of transportation to work: Walk
46%
34%
56%
55%
59%
58%
69%
73%
7%
8%
8%
8%
7%
6%
9%
Mode of transportation to work: Public
transportation (bus, train, etc.)
<1%
1%
(b)
(b)
<1%
<1%
(b)
(b)
Mode of transportation to work: Labor
bus, truck, van
15%
17%
4%
6%
6%
6%(a)
4%
2%
Mode of transportation to work: 'Raitero'
no data
no data
18%
21%
13%
15%
10%
7%
Mode of transportation to work: Ride
with others (share ride)
29%
36%
13%
9%
14%
13%
10%
8%
Mode of transportation to work: Other
4%
4%
1%
1%(a)
1%(a)
1%
1%(a)
1%(a)
Pay a fee for rides to work: No
80%
50%
27%
28%
37%
32%
38%
30%
Pay a fee for rides to work: Yes, a fee
20%
45%
38%
31%
29%
28%
22%
33%
Pay a fee for rides to work: Yes, just for
gas
no data
5%
35%
41%
34%
39%
40%
37%
7%
(a)
(a)
84
Appendix D: Data on National Demographic and Employment Characteristics
Characteristic
Fiscal Years
1989-1991
Fiscal Years
1998-2000
Fiscal Years
2007-2009
Fiscal Years
2010-2012
Fiscal Years
2013-2014
Fiscal Years
2015-2016
Fiscal Years
2017-2018
Fiscal Years
2019-2020
Share of farmworkers who have health
insurance, taking into account all provider
sources, including the respondent's
employer, self-insurance, the government,
the spouse's employer, etc. [A21a]: No
no data
76%
66%
68%
65%
53%
43%
52%
Share of farmworkers who have health
insurance, taking into account all provider
sources, including the respondent's
employer, self-insurance, the government,
the spouse's employer, etc. [A21a]: Yes
Share of farmworkers who have health
insurance, taking into account all provider
sources, including the respondent's
employer, self-insurance, the government,
the spouse's employer, etc. [A21a]: Don't
know
no data
24%
33%
31%
35%
47%
56%
48%
no data
1%(a)
1%
1%(a)
<1%(a)
1%(a)
1%(a)
(b)
Share who held a non-farm job in the last
12 months
Average number of non-farm work weeks
last 12 months
31%
15%
19%
28%
25%
24%
31%
22%
22
24
26
26
25
25
25
24
Plans to continue working in agriculture:
Less than 1 year
9%
7%
3%
2%
3%
4%
5%
4%
Plans to continue working in agriculture:
1-3 years
Plans to continue working in agriculture:
4-5 years
Plans to continue working in agriculture:
More than 5 years
12%
18%
16%
13%
12%
12%
10%
11%
7%
5%
5%
3%
4%
4%
4%
5%
4%
5%
9%
3%
2%
2%
3%
3%
Plans to continue working in agriculture:
Over five years and as long as able to do
the work
Plans to continue working in agriculture:
Other
65%
56%
64%
76%
76%
74%
78%
76%
4%
9%
4%
3%
2%
3%
1%(a)
(b)
85
Appendix D: Data on National Demographic and Employment Characteristics
Characteristic
Fiscal Years
1989-1991
Fiscal Years
1998-2000
Fiscal Years
2007-2009
Fiscal Years
2010-2012
Fiscal Years
2013-2014
Fiscal Years
2015-2016
Fiscal Years
2017-2018
Fiscal Years
2019-2020
Could find a non-farm job within a
month: No
Could find a non-farm job within a
month: Yes
Could find a non-farm job within a
month: Don't know
28%
37%
33%
51%
47%
43%
33%
32%
51%
39%
44%
32%
36%
45%
58%
57%
20%
24%
23%
17%
17%
12%
10%
11%
*Table 2 illustrates weighted data on farmworkers from the Employment and Training Administration's National Agricultural Workers Survey, Public Data, Fiscal Years (FY)
1989-2020.
**Values greater than 14 for number of hours worked per day were set to missing.
a Estimates should be interpreted with caution because they have relative standard errors between 31 and 50 percent.
b Estimates are suppressed because they are based on fewer than four observations or have relative standard errors greater than 50 percent.
86
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | Findings from the National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 2019–2020 |
| Subject | A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States Farmworkers |
| Author | Amanda Gold,Wenson Fung,Susan Gabbard,Daniel Carroll |
| File Modified | 2022-10-11 |
| File Created | 2022-05-17 |