Findings from the NAWS 2015-2016

Findings from the
National Agricultural
Workers Survey (NAWS)
2015-2016:
A Demographic and
Employment Profile of
United States Farmworkers

Research Report No. 13

Material contained in this publication is in the public domain and may be reproduced, fully or
partially, without permission of the Federal Government. Source credit is requested. Permission
is required only to reproduce any copyrighted material contained herein.
This material will be made available to deaf and hard of hearing individuals upon request.
Voice phone: 202-219-6197
TTY FIRS: 1-800-877-8339

Findings from the
National Agricultural Workers
Survey
(NAWS) 2015-2016

A Demographic and
Employment Profile
of United States Farmworkers

January 2018
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:
Trish Hernandez, JBS International
Susan Gabbard, JBS International
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 5,342 U.S. crop workers who
graciously participated in an interview during 2015-2016, and the agricultural employers who
helped survey staff reach the workers.

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... i
Topics Covered ........................................................................................................................... ii
CHAPTER 1: Birthplace, Employment Eligibility, and Migrant Types ........................................ 1
Summary of Findings:................................................................................................................. 1
Place of Birth .............................................................................................................................. 1
Ethnicity and Race ...................................................................................................................... 2
Foreign-born Workers’ First Arrival to the United States .......................................................... 3
Work Authorization .................................................................................................................... 4
Migrant Farmworkers ................................................................................................................. 5
CHAPTER 2: Demographics, Family Size, and Children and Household Structure ..................... 7
Summary of Findings:................................................................................................................. 7
Gender and Age .......................................................................................................................... 7
Marital Status and Family Type .................................................................................................. 8
Children and Household Structure .............................................................................................. 8
CHAPTER 3: Language, Education, and English Skills .............................................................. 10
Summary of Findings:............................................................................................................... 10
Primary Language ..................................................................................................................... 10
English Language Skills ........................................................................................................... 10
Education .................................................................................................................................. 12
Adult Education ........................................................................................................................ 13
CHAPTER 4: Housing Characteristics and Distance to Work ..................................................... 15
Summary of Findings:............................................................................................................... 15
Location of Housing and Payment Arrangement...................................................................... 15
Type of Housing ....................................................................................................................... 17
Household Crowding ................................................................................................................ 18
Distance to Work and Transportation ....................................................................................... 19
CHAPTER 5: Employment Patterns and Farm Job Characteristics ............................................. 20
Summary of Findings:............................................................................................................... 20
Type of Employer and Job Recruitment ................................................................................... 20
Primary Crops and Farm Job Tasks .......................................................................................... 20
Basis for Pay and Hours Worked .............................................................................................. 21

Wages ........................................................................................................................................ 23
Monetary Bonuses .................................................................................................................... 24
Worksite Availability of Water and Toilets .............................................................................. 24
Pesticide Training ..................................................................................................................... 25
Insurance Benefits ..................................................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 6: Employment Experience........................................................................................ 27
Summary of Findings:............................................................................................................... 27
Number of U.S. Farm Employers in Previous 12 Months ........................................................ 27
Number of Years with Current Farm Employer ....................................................................... 27
Weeks and Days of Farm Work in Previous 12 Months .......................................................... 28
Years of U.S. Farm Work Experience ...................................................................................... 29
Other Work History .................................................................................................................. 30
Plans to Remain in Farm Work................................................................................................. 32
CHAPTER 7: Non-Crop Work Activities During the Year ......................................................... 33
Summary of Findings:............................................................................................................... 33
Time Spent Not Employed or Abroad in Previous 12 Months ................................................. 33
Non-Crop Work in Previous 12 Months ................................................................................... 34
Reasons for Leaving Non-Crop Work in Previous Year .......................................................... 35
Periods of Unemployment During the Year ............................................................................. 35
CHAPTER 8: Income, Assets, and Use of Assistance Programs ................................................. 36
Summary of Findings:............................................................................................................... 36
Income....................................................................................................................................... 36
Assets in the United States and Abroad .................................................................................... 38
Use of Contribution- and Need-Based Programs...................................................................... 39
CHAPTER 9: Health Care in the United States............................................................................ 40
Summary of Findings:............................................................................................................... 40
Health Insurance Coverage for Farmworkers and Family Members ........................................ 40
Health Care Utilization and Barriers to Health Care ................................................................ 42
APPENDIX A: Methodology ....................................................................................................... 46
Overview ................................................................................................................................... 46
Stratification.............................................................................................................................. 46
Sampling within Strata.............................................................................................................. 47
APPENDIX B: Map of the NAWS Migrant Streams ................................................................... 50
APPENDIX C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables .......................................... 51

Chapter 1 ................................................................................................................................... 51
Chapter 2 ................................................................................................................................... 53
Chapter 3 ................................................................................................................................... 55
Chapter 4 ................................................................................................................................... 56
Chapter 5 ................................................................................................................................... 59
Chapter 6 ................................................................................................................................... 62
Chapter 7 ................................................................................................................................... 65
Chapter 8 ................................................................................................................................... 66
Chapter 9 ................................................................................................................................... 68

Table of Figures
Figure 1.1: Place of Birth, 2015-2016 ........................................................................................... 2
Figure 1.2: Years Since First Arrival to the United States, 2015-2016 .......................................... 4
Figure 1.3: Distribution of Migrant Types (As Percent of Migrants), 2015-2016 ......................... 6
Figure 1.4: Distribution of Migrant Types According To Their Migrant Travel Patterns (As
Percent of Migrants), 2015-2016 .................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2.1: Age Distribution of Farmworkers, 2015-2016 ............................................................. 7
Figure 2.2: Number of Minor Children in the Household of Farmworkers, 2015-2016 ................ 8
Figure 2.3: Percent of Farmworkers Unaccompanied by Nuclear Family, 2015-2016 .................. 9
Figure 3.1: Farmworkers' Self-Reported English Speaking and Reading Ability, 2015-2016..... 11
Figure 3.2: Among Farmworkers Whose Primary Language Is Spanish, Self-Reported Spanish
Speaking and Reading Ability, 2015-2016 ................................................................................... 12
Figure 3.3: Distribution of Highest Grade Completed by Farmworkers, 2015-2016 ................... 13
Figure 3.4: Percent of Farmworkers Who Attended Adult Education Classes, 2015-2016 ......... 14
Figure 3.5: Percent of Farmworkers Who Attended At Least One Adult Education Class in the
United States, 2015-2016 .............................................................................................................. 14
Figure 4.1: Percent of Farmworkers Who Lived in Employer-Provided Housing, 2015-2016 .... 16
Figure 4.2: Housing Arrangement, 2015-2016 ............................................................................. 17
Figure 4.3: Type of Housing, 2015-2016...................................................................................... 18
Figure 4.4: Type of Housing by Length of Time in the United States, 2015-2016 ...................... 18
Figure 5.1: Primary Crop at Time of Interview, 2015-2016 ......................................................... 20
Figure 5.2: Primary Task at Time of Interview, 2015-2016 ......................................................... 21
Figure 5.3: Average Number of Hours Worked in Week Prior to Interview by Crop and Task at
Time of Interview, 2015-2016 ...................................................................................................... 22
Figure 5.4: Average Number of Hours Worked in Week Prior to Interview by Farmworker
Characteristic, 2015-2016 ............................................................................................................. 22
Figure 5.5: Average Hourly Wage by Farmworker Characteristic, 2015-2016 ........................... 23
Figure 5.6: Types of Cash Bonuses Farmworkers Received, 2015-2016 ..................................... 24
Figure 5.7: Percent of Farmworkers Whose Employer Offers Health Insurance, 2015-2016 ...... 26
Figure 6.1: Percentage Distribution of Number of Farm Work Employers in Previous 12 Months
by Farmworker Characteristic, 2015-2016 ................................................................................... 27
Figure 6.2: Percentage Distribution of Number of Years with Current Farm Employer, 20152016............................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 6.3: Average Number of Weeks of Farm Work in Previous 12 Months, by Farmworker
Characteristic, 2015-2016 ............................................................................................................. 28

Figure 6.4: Average Number of Days Worked Per Week and Average Number of Days of Farm
Work in Previous 12 Months by Farmworker Characteristic, 2015-2016 .................................... 29
Figure 6.5: Years U.S. Farm Work Experience, 2015-2016 ......................................................... 30
Figure 6.6: U.S. Non-Crop Work Experience, 2015-2016 ........................................................... 31
Figure 6.7: Last Time Parents Did Hired Farm Work in United States, 2015-2016 .................... 31
Figure 7.1: Average Number of Weeks Not Employed and Abroad in Previous 12 Months, 20152016............................................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 7.2: Percent of Farmworkers Who Held a Non-Crop Job the Previous Year, 2015-2016 34
Figure 7.3: Types of Non-Crop Jobs Held in Previous 12 Months, 2015-2016 ........................... 35
Figure 8.1: Percent of Farmworkers with Total Family Income Below Poverty Level by Family
Size, 2015-2016 ............................................................................................................................ 37
Figure 8.2: Percent of Farmworkers with Total Family Income Below Poverty Level by
Farmworker Characteristic, 2015-2016 ........................................................................................ 38
Figure 8.3: Assets in the United States, 2015-2016 ...................................................................... 38
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, 2015-2016 ....... 39
Figure 9.1: Percent of Farmworkers with Health Insurance, 2015-2016 ...................................... 41
Figure 9.2: Sources of Farmworkers' Health Insurance, 2015-2016 ............................................ 41
Figure 9.3: Sources of Farmworkers' Spouses’ Health Insurance, 2015-2016 ............................. 42
Figure 9.4: Sources of Farmworkers' Children’s Health Insurance, 2015-2016 .......................... 42
Figure 9.5: Visited a U.S. Health Care Provider in the Last Two Years by Health Insurance
Status, 2015-2016 ......................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 9.6: Type of U.S. Health Care Provider Visited by Health Insurance Status, 2015-2016 44

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is the thirteenth in a series of Department of Labor publications on the demographic
and employment characteristics of hired agricultural workers in the United States (U.S.). It
examines recent information on the demographics and employment characteristics of those who
perform U.S. crop work. The primary focus of this report is the presentation of findings for the
period covering fiscal years (FY) 2015 and 2016. These findings are based on data collected
from face-to-face interviews with 5,342 crop farmworkers through the U.S. Department of
Labor’s National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) between October 1, 2014 and
September 30, 2016.
Birthplace, Ethnicity, and Race
Sixty-nine percent of hired farmworkers interviewed in FYs 2015-2016 were born in Mexico, 24
percent were born in the United States, 1 percent were born in Puerto Rico 1, 6 percent were born
in Central America, and a small portion (1%) originated from various other regions, including
South America, the Caribbean, Asia, and the Pacific Islands. Eighty-three percent of all
farmworkers were Hispanic. Among U.S.-born workers, 35 percent were Hispanic. In terms of
race, nearly a quarter of farmworkers self-identified as White (24%), and nearly three quarters
categorized their race with an open-ended “other” response (73%). Six percent of farmworkers
were identified as indigenous.
Employment Eligibility and Number of Years in the United States
Just more than half of all farmworkers in 2015-2016 had work authorization (51%): 29 percent
were U.S. citizens, 21 percent were legal permanent residents, and 1 percent had work
authorization through some other visa program. Among citizens, 85 percent were born in the
U.S. and 15 percent were naturalized citizens.
On average, foreign-born farmworkers interviewed in 2015-2016 first came to the United States
18 years before being interviewed. Most respondents had been in the United States at least 10
years (78%), with 58 percent arriving 15 years or more prior to their NAWS interview. Four
percent of farmworkers were in their first year in the United States. Eighty-one percent of
farmworkers were settled workers and 19 percent were migrants.
Demographics and Family Composition
Males comprised 68 percent of the hired crop labor force in 2015-2016. Farmworkers were
relatively young, their average age being 38. Forty-four percent of workers were under the age of
35, 41 percent were ages 35 to 54, and 14 percent were age 55 or older.
Fifty-seven percent of farmworkers were married and 55 percent had children. At the time they
were interviewed, farmworker parents with minor children living with them had an average of 2
minor children. Among these parents, 67 percent had 1 or 2 minor children in their household, 23
percent had 3 minor children, and 10 percent had 4 or more minor children.
Forty percent of farmworkers were living apart from all nuclear family members at the time of
their interview (i.e. were unaccompanied). Seventy-three percent of these unaccompanied
1

Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has a RSE of 31 to 50 percent.

i

workers were single without children, 20 percent were parents, and 7 percent had a spouse but no
children.
Language and Education
In 2015-2016, 77 percent of farmworkers said that Spanish was the language in which they are
most comfortable conversing, 21 percent said English was, and 1 percent reported an indigenous
language. In rating their English language skills, 30 percent of farmworkers reported that they
could not speak English “at all”, 41 percent said they could speak English “a little” or
“somewhat”, and 29 percent said they could speak English “well”. In terms of their ability to
read English, 41 percent of workers reported they could not read English “at all”, 30 percent said
they could read English “a little” or “somewhat”, and 28 percent said that they could read
English “well”.
The average level of formal education completed by farmworkers was eighth grade. Four percent
of workers reported that they had no formal schooling and 37 percent reported that they
completed the sixth grade or lower. Nineteen percent of workers said they completed grade 7, 8,
or 9, and 30 percent said they completed grade 10, 11, or 12. Ten percent of workers reported
completing some education beyond high school. Thirty-five percent of workers reported having
taken at least one adult education class in the United States.
Housing
Fifty-four percent of farmworkers interviewed in 2015-2016 reported that they lived in housing
they rented from someone other than their employer, 28 percent of workers 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. Sixteen percent of workers lived in
employer-provided housing: 11 percent received it free of charge, 2 percent paid rent either
directly or via payroll deduction, and 4 percent had other arrangements with their employers that
were not specified.
Fifty-seven percent of all farmworkers reported living in detached, single-family houses, 20
percent said they lived in mobile homes, 20 percent lived in apartments, and 4 percent lived in
various other types of housing including duplexes or triplexes, dormitories or barracks, and
motels or hotels. Thirty-three 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, 11 percent of
workers reported that they lived where they worked, 70 percent lived fewer than 25 miles from
their current farm job, and 16 percent lived between 25 and 49 miles from work. Fifty-eight
percent of workers drove a car to work, 13 percent rode with others, 8 percent walked or took
public transportation, and 15 percent rode with a “raitero” 2.
Job Characteristics and Employment History
In 2015-2016, 80 percent of farmworkers were employed directly by growers and 20 percent
were employed by farm labor contractors. At the time of interview, 37 percent of farmworkers
2

“Raitero”, derived from “ride”, is the Spanish word for a person who charges a fee for providing a ride to work.

ii

were working in vegetable crops, 32 percent in fruit and nut crops, and 19 percent in horticulture.
Another 10 percent were working in field crops and 3 percent were working in mixed crops.
Thirty percent of farmworkers were performing pre-harvest tasks, 17 percent were harvesting
crops, 25 percent were performing post-harvest activities, and 29 percent were performing
technical production tasks.
In the 12 months prior to being interviewed, respondents spent an average of 33 weeks employed
in farm work and performed an average of 192 days of farm work. Workers worked an average
of 5 days per week for their current employer and reported an average of 45 work hours in the
previous week. The majority of workers said that their basis for pay was an hourly wage (88%),
and workers reported earning an average of $10.60 per hour. Forty-three percent of farmworkers
said that they were covered by Unemployment Insurance (UI) if they were to lose their current
job, 62 percent said they would receive workers’ compensation if they were injured at work or
became ill as a result of their work, and 18 percent reported that their employer offered health
insurance for injury or illness suffered while not on the job.
Farmworkers in 2015-2016 worked for an average of 1 U.S. farm employer in the 12 months
prior to being interviewed. Eighty percent of workers reported having worked for only 1 farm
employer in the previous 12 months, 13 percent worked for 2 employers, and 7 percent had 3 or
more farm employers. At the time of interview, farmworkers had been employed by their current
farm employer for an average of 7 years. The majority of farmworkers interviewed in 2015-2016
expected to continue doing farm work for more than 5 years (76%).
In the year prior to their NAWS interview, workers spent an average of 11 weeks living in the
United States but not working and 3 weeks abroad. Twenty-four percent of farmworkers held at
least 1 non-crop work job in the previous 12 months, and those who held a non-crop job worked
an average of 25 weeks in non-crop employment.
Income and Assets
Farmworkers’ mean and median personal incomes the previous year were in the range of
$17,500 to $19,999. Fourteen percent of workers said their total personal income was less than
$10,000, 29 percent said they had personal incomes of $10,000 to $19,999, another 29 percent
had personal incomes of $20,000 to $29,999, and 14 percent reported that their total personal
income was $30,000 or more. Nine percent of workers reported that they did not work at all
during the prior calendar year.
Workers’ mean and median total family incomes the previous year were in the range of $20,000
to $24,999. Six percent of workers said that they did not work in the prior year, twenty-seven
percent said that their total family income the prior year was less than $20,000, another 27
percent had a family income of $20,000 to $29,999, and 32 percent had a family income of
$30,000 or more 3. Thirty-three percent of farmworkers had family incomes below the poverty
level.

3

An additional 8 percent of workers reported that they did not know their family income for the prior year.

iii

Approximately two-thirds of farmworkers stated that they owned or were buying at least one
asset in the United States (68%). The most common assets were a vehicle (reported by 63% of
workers) or a home (reported by 18% of workers).
In 2015-2016, 14 percent of farmworkers reported that someone in their household received a
benefit from at least one contribution-based program, including disability insurance, UI, or
Social Security. Ten percent of households received payments from UI, three percent received
Social Security payments, and one percent received payments from disability insurance. Fiftyfour 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 programs
utilized were Medicaid (44%), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, 18%),
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC, 17%), and
public health clinics (10%).
Health Care
Forty-seven percent of farmworkers interviewed in 2015-2016 reported that they had health
insurance. Among them, 29 percent said their employer provided the insurance, 43 percent
reported that they had insurance provided by the government, 12 percent said that they or their
spouse paid for insurance themselves, 6 percent reported that they had insurance under their
spouse’s employer’s plan, 6 percent reported that they were covered by a family member other
than the spouse, such as a parent, and another 7 percent reported that some other entity paid for
their insurance 4. Among workers with spouses, 56 percent said their spouse had health insurance.
Among workers with minor children in the US or Puerto Rico, 89 percent reported that all of
their children had health insurance, 3 percent reported that some of their children had health
insurance, and 7 percent reported that none of their children had health insurance.
Sixty-three percent of farmworkers used a health care provider in the United States sometime in
the last two years. The last time they visited a health care provider, 40 percent of workers went to
a private medical doctor’s office or private clinic, 34 percent said they visited a community
health center or migrant health clinic, 12 percent saw a dentist, 11 percent went to a hospital, and
3 percent went to some other health care provider.
Thirty-four percent of farmworkers paid for their last health care visit out of their own pockets,
22 percent said that they had Medicaid or Medicare, 13 percent reported that the cost was
covered by health insurance provided by their employer, and 11 percent said the majority of the
cost was covered by health insurance that they or their family had purchased themselves. An
additional nine percent of workers stated that they went to a public clinic that did not charge for
the visit, three percent reported that they used some combination of sources to pay, they were
covered by worker’s compensation, or that they were billed for service but did not pay, and the
remaining seven percent provided a variety of other responses. The most common difficulty
farmworkers said they faced when they needed to access health care was that health care visits
were too expensive (reported by 23% of respondents).

4

Percentages sum to more than 100 percent because respondents could select all that apply.

iv

INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Department of Labor’s National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) is an
employment-based, random-sample survey of U.S. crop workers that collects demographic,
employment, and health data in face-to-face interviews. The survey began in Federal Fiscal Year
(FY) 1989; since then over 66,000 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 who are currently employed in crop and crop-related
work. 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 comprises establishments such as farms,
orchards, groves, greenhouses, and nurseries that are 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
• crop workers with an H-2A visa (a temporary-employment visa for foreign agricultural
workers).
Both migrant and seasonal crop workers are sampled in the NAWS.
The NAWS is unique for its broad coverage of the characteristics of hired crop workers 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: 1) it is an establishment survey
(workers are sampled at their workplaces); 2) only currently employed persons are sampled; and
3) data is collected through face-to-face interviews with farmworkers.
The use of an employer-based 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 the agricultural work force, the sampling year
is divided into three interviewing cycles. For each cycle, there are six levels of selection:
i

•
•
•
•
•
•

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.

A full description of the survey's sampling design is available in the Statistical Methods of the
National Agricultural Workers Survey
(https://www.doleta.gov/pdf/NAWS%20Statistical%20Methods%20AKA%20Supporting%20St
atement%20Part%20B.pdf).
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 5,342 crop workers
interviewed between October 1, 2014 and September 30, 2016. It is organized into nine chapters,
each beginning with a summary of the chapter’s key findings. The report also contains three
appendices: Appendix A describes the procedures used to select the sample, Appendix B
displays a map of the NAWS migrant streams, and Appendix C contains a table of the
percentages and means of the principle variables presented in the report.
Chapters 1 through 3 summarize the demographic characteristics of 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 types of housing they live in, the location of their housing in relation to their jobs,
and crowded conditions. 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.

ii

Chapter 1: Birthplace, Employment Eligibility, and Migrant Types

CHAPTER 1: Birthplace, Employment Eligibility, and Migrant Types
Summary of Findings:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Nearly 7 in 10 hired farmworkers were born in Mexico (69%).
Eighty-three percent of all farmworkers were Hispanic. Among U.S.-born workers, 35
percent were Hispanic.
Twenty-four percent of farmworkers self-identified as White, one percent as American
Indian or Alaska Native, and three percent as Black or African American. Seventy-three
percent of respondents categorized their race with an open-ended “other” response.
Six percent of farmworkers were identified as indigenous.
Farmworkers who were in their first year in the United States comprised only four percent of
the hired crop labor force.
Just more than half of all farmworkers had work authorization (51%).
The vast majority of farmworkers were settled workers (81%). Nineteen percent were
migrants.

Place of Birth
Nearly 7 in 10 hired farmworkers interviewed in 2015-2016 were born in Mexico (69%), onequarter were born in the United States (24%), 1 percent were born in Puerto Rico 5, 6 percent
were born in Central America, and a small portion (1%) originated from various other regions,
including South America, the Caribbean, Asia, and the Pacific Islands (figure 1.1).

5

Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has a RSE of 31 to 50 percent.

1

Chapter 1: Birthplace, Employment Eligibility, and Migrant Types

Figure 1.1: Place of Birth, 2015-2016

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. 6 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, may 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. Eighty-three percent of workers identified themselves as
members of a Hispanic group: 65 percent as Mexican, 9 percent as Mexican-American, and the
remaining 9 percent as Chicano, Puerto Rican, or other Hispanic. Among U.S.-born workers, 35
percent self-identified as Hispanic: 20 percent as Mexican-American, 4 percent as Mexican, and
11 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
6

Humes, K. R., Jones, N. A., and Ramirez, R. R. (2011). Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010. 2010
Census Briefs (p. 2).

2

Chapter 1: Birthplace, Employment Eligibility, and Migrant Types

required by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Twenty-four percent of all respondents
in 2015-2016 self-identified as White, 1 percent as American Indian or Alaska Native, and 3
percent as Black or African American 7. Nearly three-quarters of respondents gave an answer not
on the standard list (73%). Among them, 84 percent classified their race as Latino or Hispanic
(including Latino/a, Hispanic, Hispano/a, Mexican, Mexicano/a, Mexican-American, and
Chicano), 10 percent referenced their complexion (including moreno/a and café), 3 percent
identified with an indigenous group, 2 percent identified with their Central American origin
(Guatemalan, Honduran, and Salvadoran), and another 1 percent provided a variety of other
responses (examples include American, Filipino, and Portuguese).
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 adult languages spoken as well as childhood language exposure. 8 The
NAWS uses a combination of the responses to these questions and the question about race to
identify farmworkers who are indigenous, and in 2015-2016, 6 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.
On average, foreign-born farmworkers interviewed in 2015-2016 first came to the United States
18 years before being interviewed. The vast majority of respondents had been in the United
States at least 10 years (78%), with more than half arriving at least 15 years prior to their NAWS
interview (58%). Farmworkers who first arrived in the United States in the year predating their
interview comprised 3 percent of workers interviewed in 2015-2016 (figure 1.2).

7

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 3 percent of workers who identified as Black or African American has a RSE of 31 percent to 50 percent and
should be interpreted with caution.
8
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.

3

Chapter 1: Birthplace, Employment Eligibility, and Migrant Types

Figure 1.2: Years Since First Arrival to the United States, 2015-2016

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 2015-2016,
most came from the states of Michoacán (20%), Guanajuato (15%), Jalisco (10%), Oaxaca (7%),
and Guerrero (7%). The greatest proportion of Mexico-born farmworkers originated from the
Western Central region (47%), 28 percent came from Northern Mexico, and another 25 percent
came from Southern Mexico 9.
Work Authorization
A series of related questions in the survey provides a picture of whether foreign-born
respondents have work authorization. These questions address the foreign-born worker’s existing
status (citizen, legal permanent resident, border crossing-card holder, applicant for residency,
temporary visa holder, or unauthorized) and, when applicable, the date and program under which
the individual applied for legal status. In addition, each foreign-born respondent is asked whether
he or she has authorization to work in the United States. To be classified as work authorized, a
worker must provide consistent answers, and answers that conform to visa regulations. For
example, a worker who reports work authorization from a visa program that expired before he or
she entered the country would be classified as unauthorized.

9

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.

4

Chapter 1: Birthplace, Employment Eligibility, and Migrant Types

Fifty-one percent of the hired crop labor force had work authorization in 2015-2016. U.S.
citizens comprised 29 percent of the work-authorized population and among them, 85 percent
were born in the United States and 15 percent were naturalized citizens. The remainder of the
work authorized population consisted mainly of legal permanent residents (21%) and 1 percent
had work authorization 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 10.
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, a portion of these workers may have been making a
permanent move.
For the purpose of 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 destination locations 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. Followthe-crop migrants were workers who traveled to multiple U.S. farm locations for work. Followthe-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).
Nineteen percent of farmworkers interviewed in 2015-2016 were migrants. Among them, nearly
half were domestic migrants (27% domestic follow-the-crop and 21% domestic shuttle
migrants), a third were international migrants (3% international follow-the-crop and 32%
international shuttle migrants), and 18 percent were newcomers who had been in the U.S. less
than a year (see figures 1.3 and 1.4).

10

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 also the 12
months prior to that. In 2015-2016, 24 percent of farmworkers reported that they traveled to another city to do farm
work sometime during the previous 24 months.

5

Chapter 1: Birthplace, Employment Eligibility, and Migrant Types

Figure 1.3: Distribution of Migrant Types (As Percent of Migrants), 2015-2016

Figure 1.4: Distribution of Migrant Types According To Their Migrant Travel Patterns
(As Percent of Migrants), 2015-2016

6

Chapter 2: Demographics, Family Size, and Children and Household Structure

CHAPTER 2: Demographics, Family Size, and Children and Household
Structure
Summary of Findings:
•
•
•
•

Sixty-eight percent of farmworkers were men.
Farmworkers were relatively young: their average age was 38.
Fifty-seven percent of farmworkers were married and 55 percent had children.
Forty percent of farmworkers were living apart from all nuclear family members at the time
of their interview. Seventy-three percent of the unaccompanied were single workers without
children, 20 percent were parents, and 7 percent had a spouse but no children.

Gender and Age
In 2015-2016, the U.S. crop labor force was predominantly male (68%) and relatively young,
with an average age of 38. Just under half of all workers were under the age of 35 (44%) and 14
percent were age 55 or older (figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1: Age Distribution of Farmworkers, 2015-2016

In 2015-2016, unauthorized workers were younger than authorized workers (an average of 36
and 41 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
average of 25 and 39 years of age respectively). The average age of males and females was
nearly the same – 38 and 39 years respectively.
7

Chapter 2: Demographics, Family Size, and Children and Household Structure

Marital Status and Family Type
More than half of farmworkers interviewed in 2015-2016 were married (57%) and more than
half were parents (55%). Among parents, 76 percent were married or living together, 14 percent
were single, and 10 percent were separated, divorced, or widowed.
Children and Household Structure
In 2015-2016, 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-seven percent of
these parents had 1 or 2 minor children living with them (29% and 38% respectively), 23 percent
had 3 minor children, 7 percent had 4 minor children, and 2 percent had 5 or more minor
children (figure 2.2).
Figure 2.2: Number of Minor Children in the Household of Farmworkers, 2015-2016

Of parents with children under the age of 18, 53 percent had children younger than age 6, 65
percent had children ages 6-13, and 38 percent had children ages 14-17. Three percent of parents
resided with only some of their minor children and 17 percent lived away from all their minor
children. Migrant parents were nearly three times more likely than settled parents to be living
away from all their minor children (37% and 13% 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 40
8

Chapter 2: Demographics, Family Size, and Children and Household Structure

percent of the U.S. crop labor force in 2015-2016. Migrant workers were much more likely than
settled workers to be unaccompanied (61% and 35% respectively) as were men when compared
to women (49% and 23% respectively). See Figure 2.3. The majority of the unaccompanied were
single workers without children (73%), 20 percent were parents, and 7 percent had a spouse but
no children.
Figure 2.3: Percent of Farmworkers Unaccompanied by Nuclear Family, 2015-2016

Among farmworker parents in 2015-2016, nearly all mothers (98%) and approximately threequarters of fathers (77%) were accompanied by at least some nuclear family members. Similarly,
among married workers without children, 95 percent of women and 75 percent of the men were
accompanied at the time of the interview.

9

Chapter 3: Language, Education, and English Skills

CHAPTER 3: Language, Education, and English Skills
Summary of Findings:
•
•
•
•

Approximately three-quarters of farmworkers reported that Spanish is their primary language
(77%).
Twenty-nine percent of workers reported that they could speak English “well” and 30 percent
said “not at all”. Twenty-eight percent reported that they could read English “well” while 41
percent said “not at all”.
The average level of formal education completed by farmworkers was eighth grade.
Thirty-five percent of workers reported having taken at least one adult education class in the
United States.

Primary Language
In 2015-2016, approximately three-quarters of farmworkers said that Spanish was the language
in which they are most comfortable conversing (77%), 21 percent said English was, and 1
percent reported an indigenous language 11. Among workers born in Mexico or Central America,
nearly all reported that Spanish was their primary language (97%). Of the remainder, one percent
said that English was their primary language and two percent reported an indigenous language as
the one in which they are most comfortable conversing.
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 2015-2016, 30 percent of workers responded
that they could not speak English “at all”, 32 percent said they could speak English “a little”, 9
percent said they could speak English “somewhat”, and 29 percent said they could speak English
“well”. Regarding their ability to read English, 41 percent of workers reported they could not
read English “at all”, 24 percent said they could read English “a little”, 7 percent said they could
read English “somewhat”, and 28 percent said they could read English “well” (figure 3.1). 12

11

Indigenous languages reported by farmworkers interviewed in 2015-2016 include Acateco, Amuzgo, Chatino,
Chuj, Mam, Nahuatl, Popti, Purepecha/Tarasco, Tlapaneco, and Triqui.
12
Respondents’ self-reports of language proficiency could be higher or lower than their actual proficiency.

10

Chapter 3: Language, Education, and English Skills

Figure 3.1: Farmworkers' Self-Reported English Speaking and Reading Ability, 2015-2016

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, 81 percent responded with “well”, 10 percent replied with “somewhat”,
7 percent said “a little”, and 2 percent replied with “not at all.” 13 (figure 3.2).

13

Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has a RSE of 31 to 50 percent.

11

Chapter 3: Language, Education, and English Skills

Figure 3.2: Among Farmworkers Whose Primary Language Is Spanish, Self-Reported
Spanish Speaking and Reading Ability, 2015-2016

a

Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has a RSE of 31 percent to 50 percent.

Education
In 2015-2016, farmworkers’ average educational attainment was eighth grade. Four percent of
workers reported that they had no formal schooling and 37 percent reported that they completed
the 6th grade or lower. Nineteen percent of workers said they completed grade 7, 8, or 9, and 30
percent said they completed grade 10, 11, or 12. Ten percent of farmworkers reported
completing some education beyond high school (figure 3.3).

12

Chapter 3: Language, Education, and English Skills

Figure 3.3: Distribution of Highest Grade Completed by Farmworkers, 2015-2016

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. Approximately 7 in 10 U.S.-born farmworkers completed
the 12th grade or higher (68%), as did 18 percent of Mexico-born workers and 21 percent of
workers born in other countries.
Adult Education
In 2015-2016, 35 percent of farmworkers reported having taken at least one adult education class
in the United States. The most common classes were English (12%), job training (14%), college
or university classes (7%), and high school equivalency (GED) classes (3%). Small shares of
workers (2%) reported taking other types of classes (figure 3.4).

13

Chapter 3: Language, Education, and English Skills

Figure 3.4: Percent of Farmworkers Who Attended Adult Education Classes, 2015-2016
Type of Classa
Any adult education
English/ESL
Job training
College/University
GED, HS equivalency
Citizenship
Other
a

Percent of Farmworkers
35%
12%
14%
7%
3%
2%
2%

Farmworkers may have attended multiple types of classes.

Farmworkers with the most formal education were the most likely to attend U.S. adult education
classes. The rate of attendance among those who had completed the 12th grade was almost twice
as high as those who had not (53% and 27% respectively). Similarly, workers born in the United
States were more likely than those born abroad to report having attended some type of adult
education class (47% and 31% respectively), as were authorized workers when compared to
unauthorized workers (39% and 30% respectively). See figure 3.5.
Figure 3.5: Percent of Farmworkers Who Attended At Least One Adult Education Class in
the United States, 2015-2016

14

Chapter 4: Housing Characteristics

CHAPTER 4: Housing Characteristics and Distance to Work
Summary of Findings:
•
•
•
•
•

Fifteen percent of farmworkers lived in property owned or administered by their current
employer: 12 percent on the farm of the grower for whom they were working and 4 percent
off the farm.
Fifty-seven percent of workers lived in detached, single-family houses.
One-third of farmworkers lived in a dwelling defined as “crowded” (33%).
Seven in 10 workers lived fewer than 25 miles from their current farm job (70%) and 16
percent lived between 25 and 49 miles from work. Eleven percent of workers lived where
they worked.
Fifty-eight percent of workers drove a car to work, 15 percent rode with a “raitero” 14, and 6
percent took a labor bus, truck, or van.

Location of Housing and Payment Arrangement
Farmworkers provided information about their housing situation (arrangement, location, type,
and occupancy) while working at their current farm job. Fifteen percent of farmworkers lived in
employer-provided housing (i.e., property owned or administered by their current employer): 12
percent on the farm of the grower for whom they were working and 4 percent off the farm. The
remaining 84 percent of workers lived in property not owned or administered by their current
employer.
Employer-provided housing (either on or off the employer’s farm) was most common in the
Eastern migrant stream 15, with 24 percent of farmworkers interviewed in 2015-2016 reporting
that they lived in employer-provided housing, compared to 15 percent of workers in the Midwest
migrant stream and 12 percent in the Western migrant stream (figure 4.1).

14

“Raitero”, derived from “ride”, is the Spanish 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.
15

15

Chapter 4: Housing Characteristics

Figure 4.1: Percent of Farmworkers Who Lived in Employer-Provided Housing, 2015-2016

a

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 they had for their housing. In 2015-2016, more than half of all
farmworkers reported that they lived in housing that they rented from someone other than their
employer (54%), 28 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 sixteen percent of workers lived in employer-provided housing.
Among those living in employer-provided housing, 11 percent received it free of charge, 2
percent paid rent either directly or via payroll deduction, and 4 percent had other arrangements
with their employers.
Migrant workers were nearly 3 times more likely than settled workers to live in employerprovided housing that they received free of charge (22% and 8% respectively) and far less likely
than settled workers to live in a home that they or a family member owned (16% and 31%
respectively). See figure 4.2.

16

Chapter 4: Housing Characteristics

Figure 4.2: Housing Arrangement, 2015-2016

Farmworkers who reported that they paid for their housing were asked how much they paid at
their current residence, including for their family if their family lived with them. Nine percent
reported that they paid less than 200 dollars per month, approximately a third said they paid 200399 dollars per month (32%), 24 percent paid 400-599 dollars per month, and 35 percent paid
600 dollars or more per month.
Type of Housing
In 2015-2016, more than half of farmworkers reported living in detached, single-family houses
(57%), 20 percent said they lived in a mobile home, and another 20 percent lived in an
apartment. The remaining four percent lived in various other types of housing. 16
Migrant workers were slightly less likely than settled workers to report living in detached,
single-family homes (54% and 57% respectively) or apartments (17% and 20% respectively),
and slightly more likely than settled workers to live in mobile homes (22% and 19%
respectively). Unauthorized workers were less likely than authorized workers to reside in singlefamily homes (47% and 66% respectively) and more likely to live in mobile homes (24% and
15% respectively) and apartments (25% and 15% respectively). See figure 4.3.

16

Other types of housing in which farmworkers reporting living included a duplex or triplex, dormitory or barracks,
motel or hotel, or “other”.

17

Chapter 4: Housing Characteristics

Figure 4.3: Type of Housing, 2015-2016
Type of Housing
Single family
home
Mobile home
Apartment
Other

All
Farmworkers
57%

Migrant
54%

Settled
57%

Authorized
66%

Unauthorized
47%

20%
20%
4%

22%
17%
7%

19%
20%
4%

15%
15%
4%

24%
25%
5%

Among immigrant farmworkers, the proportion living in single-family homes increased with the
number of years living in the United States. The majority of immigrant workers who had been in
the United States at least 20 years resided in single-family homes (57%), and about half of
immigrant workers living in the United States for fewer than 20 years lived in single family
homes (49% of those in the United States for fewer than 10 years and 50% of those in the United
States for 10-19 years). See figure 4.4.
Figure 4.4: Type of Housing by Length of Time in the United States, 2015-2016
Type of Housing
Single family home
Mobile home
Apartment
Other

In United States
Less than 10 Years
49%
21%
26%
4%

In United States
10-19 Years
50%
21%
26%
4%

In United States
20 Years or More
57%
24%
16%
4%

In 2015-2016, farmworkers reported an average of six rooms in the dwellings in which they
lived: an average of three bedrooms, one bathroom, 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 17. 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 2015-2016, 33 percent of farmworkers lived in crowded dwellings. Migrant workers lived in
crowded dwellings with greater frequency than settled workers (45% compared to 31%), and
unauthorized workers were nearly twice as likely as authorized workers to live in crowded
dwellings (44% and 23% respectively).

17

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).

18

Chapter 4: Housing Characteristics

Distance to Work and Transportation
When asked how far their current farm job was from their current residence, 11 percent of
farmworkers in 2015-2016 reported that they lived where they worked, 31 percent said they lived
within 9 miles of their job location, 39 percent lived between 10 and 24 miles from work, 16
percent lived between 25 and 49 miles from work, and 3 percent 18 lived 50 or more miles from
work.
Farmworkers used various modes of transportation to get to work. In 2015-2016, 58 percent of
workers reported that they drove a car (63% of workers said they owned a car or truck, as
discussed in chapter 8) and 8 percent said they walked or took public transit. Thirty-three percent
of workers did not provide their own transportation but commuted via rides with others (13%),
rides with a “raitero” 19 (15%), or rides on a labor bus, truck or van (6% 20).
Among workers who did not provide their own transportation, seven percent reported that it was
mandatory or obligatory for them to use their current mode of transportation. Twenty-eight
percent of these workers reported having to pay a fee for these rides to work and 39 percent said
they paid, but only for gas. Thirty-two percent said they paid no fee for their rides with the
“raitero”, on the labor bus, or with others.

18

The estimate of 3 percent of farmworkers who reported living 50 or more miles from their current farm job should
be interpreted with caution because it has a RSE of 31 percent to 50 percent.
19
“Raitero”, derived from “ride”, is the Spanish word for a person who charges a fee for providing a ride to work.
20
The estimate of 6 percent of farmworkers who reported that their mode of transportation to work was a labor bus,
truck, or van should be interpreted with caution because it has a RSE of 31 percent to 50 percent.

19

Chapter 5: Employment Patterns and Farm Job Characteristics

CHAPTER 5: Employment Patterns and Farm Job Characteristics
Summary of Findings:
•
•
•
•
•

Eight in 10 farmworkers were employed directly by growers (80%); 20 percent were
employed by farm labor contractors.
At the time of interview, 32 percent of farmworkers were working in fruit and nut crops, 37
percent in vegetable crops, and 19 percent in horticulture. Ten percent were working in field
crops and three percent were working in mixed crops.
At the time of interview, 30 percent of farmworkers were performing pre-harvest tasks, 17
percent were harvesting crops, 25 percent were performing post-harvest activities, and 29
percent were performing technical production tasks.
The majority of farmworkers reported that their basis for pay was an hourly wage (88%).
Workers reported earning an average of $10.60 per hour at their current farm job.
Forty-three percent of farmworkers reported that they were covered by Unemployment
Insurance (UI) if they were to lose their current job, 62 percent said they would receive
workers’ compensation if they were injured at work or became ill as a result of their work,
and 18 percent reported that their employer offered health insurance for injury or illness
suffered while not on the job.

Type of Employer and Job Recruitment
Most farmworkers in 2015-2016 were employed directly by growers 21 (80%); farm labor
contractors employed the remaining 20 percent. Nearly 7 in 10 workers reported that they found
their current job via references from friends or relatives (69%) and approximately one-quarter
got their job after applying for it on their own (24%). Five percent of workers were recruited by a
grower, foreman, or labor contractor, and the remaining two 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 2015-2016, 88 percent of farmworkers reported working in
fruits, nuts, vegetables, and horticultural crops (32% in fruits and nuts, 37% in vegetables, and
19% in horticulture). Ten percent held jobs in field crops and three percent worked in mixed
crops or other crops. Workers employed by farm labor contractors were nearly twice as likely as
those employed directly by growers to work in vegetable crops (61% compared to 31%), and
about equally as likely as directly-hired workers to work in fruit and nut crops (35% compared to
31%). Migrant farmworkers worked in vegetable crops with greater frequency than did settled
workers (45% and 34% respectively), but were less likely than settled workers to have jobs in
horticultural crops (14% and 20% respectively). See figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1: Primary Crop at Time of Interview, 2015-2016

21

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.

20

Chapter 5: Employment Patterns and Farm Job Characteristics

Crop at Time
of Interview
Fruits and Nuts
Horticulture
Vegetables
Field Crops
Miscellaneous
a
b

All
Farmworkers
32%
19%
37%
10%
3%

Employed
by Grower
31%
23%
31%
12%
3%

Employed
by Farm
Labor
Contractor
35%
a

61%
1%b
1%b

Migrant
Settled
Farmworkers Farmworkers
33%
32%
14%
20%
45%
34%
7%
10%
b
1%
3%

Estimate is suppressed because it has a RSE greater than 50 percent.
Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has a RSE of 31 percent to 50 percent.

Crop work encompasses a wide variety of tasks. Thirty percent of the farmworkers interviewed
in 2015-2016 performed pre-harvest tasks such as hoeing, thinning, and transplanting, 17 percent
harvested crops and 25 percent performed post-harvest activities such as field packing, sorting,
and grading. Another 29 percent of workers performed technical production tasks such as
pruning, irrigating, and operating machinery. Workers employed by farm labor contractors were
slightly more likely than directly-hired workers to perform pre-harvest tasks (32% compared to
29%), and migrant workers were more likely than settled workers to perform harvest tasks (22%
compared to 15%) or post-harvest tasks (29% compared to 24%). Directly-hired workers were
more likely than contracted workers (30% and 23% respectively), and settled workers were more
likely than migrant workers (31% and 28% respectively), to perform technical production tasks.
See figure 5.2.
Figure 5.2: Primary Task at Time of Interview, 2015-2016

Primary Task at
Time of Interview
Pre-harvest
Harvest
Post-harvest
Technical Production
a

All
Farmworkers
30%
17%
25%
29%

Employed
by Grower
29%
17%
24%
30%

Employed
by Farm
Labor
Contractor
32%
17%
28%a
23%

Migrant
Settled
Farmworkers Farmworkers
30%
30%
22%
15%
29%
24%
18%
31%

Estimate should be interpreted with caution because it has a RSE of 31 percent to 50 percent.

Basis for Pay and Hours Worked
The vast majority of farmworkers in 2015-2016 reported that their basis for pay was an hourly
wage (88%). Four percent of workers were paid a salary, seven percent were paid exclusively by
the piece, and one percent were paid a combination of hourly wage and piece rate.
Respondents worked an average of 45 hours in the previous week at their current farm job.
Agricultural employers’ labor needs 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
21

Chapter 5: Employment Patterns and Farm Job Characteristics

interviewed in 2015-2016 reported working an average of 54 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 38 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, 2015-2016
Crop
Field Crops
Fruit and Nut Crops
Horticulture
Vegetable Crops
Miscellaneous Crops

Pre-Harvest
Tasks
52
43
38
44
43

Harvest
Tasks
54
42
44
50
46

Post-Harvest
Tasks
48
39
40
44
35

Technical
Production Tasks
53
44
41
53
48

The average number of hours worked in the previous week also varied by workers’ age, gender,
U.S. farm work experience, and whether they were paid hourly or by the piece. Respondents
ages 14 to 17 reported the fewest, at an average of 35 hours, and workers ages 18 to 34 reported
the most, at an average of 46 hours. Males reported working an average of 46 hours in the
previous week and females reported an average of 40 hours. In terms of number of years of U.S.
farm work experience, workers with fewer than 2 years of experience reported the fewest hours
of work the previous week, at an average of 41 hours, and those with at least 5 years of
experience reported the most, at an average of 45 hours. Farmworkers paid a salary reported the
greatest number of hours the previous week, at an average of 47. Workers paid by the piece
averaged 40 hours, those paid by the hour averaged 45 hours, and those paid a combination of
hourly wage and piece rate averaged 39 hours of work the previous week (figure 5.4).
Figure 5.4: Average Number of Hours Worked in Week Prior to Interview by Farmworker
Characteristic, 2015-2016
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

Average Number of
Hours Worked in Week
Prior to Interview
35
46
46
46
45
45
42
43
41
46
40
41
22

Chapter 5: Employment Patterns and Farm Job Characteristics

Farmworker
Characteristic
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
44
45
45
45
45
45
40
39
47

Wages
When asked how much they were earning per hour at their current farm job, farmworkers in
2015-2016 reported an average of $10.60. 22 Workers who were being paid by the hour earned an
average hourly wage of $10.35 and those being paid by the piece earned an average of $10.58
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 $9.89 per
hour, those working for their current employer 3 to 5 years earned an average of $10.64 per hour,
and those working for their current employer 6 to 10 years earned an average of $10.76 per hour.
Workers who had worked for their current employer 11 years or more earned the highest hourly
wage, averaging $11.92 per hour.
Among the tasks respondents reported performing at the time they were interviewed, those who
worked in harvest tasks earned the highest average hourly wage, at $11.42. Pre-harvest workers
earned an average of $10.47 per hour, post-harvest workers earned an average of $10.33 per
hour, and those who worked in technical production tasks earned an average of $10.51 per hour
(figure 5.5).
Figure 5.5: Average Hourly Wage by Farmworker Characteristic, 2015-2016
Farmworker
Characteristic
All farmworkers
Paid by the hour
Paid by the piece
Paid combination hourly wage and piece rate
With current employer 1 to 2 years
With current employer 3 to 5 years

Average
Hourly Wage
$10.60
$10.35
$10.58
$16.93a
$9.89
$10.64

22

Piece rate and combination wages were converted to an hourly wage, then averaged with the wages of workers
who were paid by the hour.

23

Chapter 5: Employment Patterns and Farm Job Characteristics

Farmworker
Characteristic
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
$10.76
$11.92
$10.47
$11.42
$10.33
$10.51

a

One percent of farmworkers reported being paid a combination hourly wage and piece rate at their
current farm job.

Monetary Bonuses
In 2015-2016, 27 percent of farmworkers reported receiving a cash bonus from their current farm
employer as part of their compensation package, 63 percent said they received no cash bonus,
and 10 percent did not know. Workers who reported being paid a bonus were asked to identify
all the types of bonuses they received. Fifty-four percent said they received a holiday bonus, 30
percent received an end-of-season bonus, 12 percent received an incentive award, and 4 percent
received a bonus contingent upon grower profits (figure 5.6). Workers employed directly by
growers reported that they were paid a bonus nearly 5 times more frequently than those
employed by farm labor contractors (32% and 7% respectively).
Figure 5.6: Types of Cash Bonuses Farmworkers Received, 2015-2016
Receiveda

Type of Bonus
Holiday bonus
End-of-season bonus
Incentive bonus
Bonus dependent on grower profit
Other type of bonus
a

Percent of
Farmworkers
54%
30%
12%
4%
1%

Among workers who reported being paid a bonus. Multiple responses were allowed.

Worksite Availability of Water and Toilets
NAWS respondents were asked if their current farm employer provided the following items at
the worksite every day: 1) drinking water and cups, 2) a toilet, and 3) water for washing hands.
Eighty-nine percent of farmworkers in 2015-2016 reported that they were provided with drinking
water and disposable cups every day, and five percent said they were provided water only. A
notable share of workers said that their employer provided no water and no cups (6%). Nearly all
workers affirmed that they were provided a toilet every day (97%) and with water for washing
their hands (97%).

24

Chapter 5: Employment Patterns and Farm Job Characteristics

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 2015-2016,
57 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-three percent of farmworkers interviewed in 2015-2016 said “yes”, 52 percent
said “no”, and 5 percent did not know. 23 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 (80%
and 5% respectively). Of the 43 percent of respondents who reported that they would not be
covered by UI, 88 percent were unauthorized and would not qualify for the benefit.
When asked if they would receive workers’ compensation if they were injured at work or got
sick as a result of their work, approximately 6 in 10 farmworkers said “yes” (62%), 16 percent
said “no”, and 22 percent did not know. 24 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), 18 percent
confirmed that their employer offered such a benefit, 71 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 (68% and 56% respectively)
and to say that their employer offered health insurance for non-work-related injury or illness
(23% and 13% respectively). See figure 5.7. A discussion of farmworkers’ possession of health
insurance coverage for themselves and their family members can be found in chapter 9.

23

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).
24
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).

25

Chapter 5: Employment Patterns and Farm Job Characteristics

Figure 5.7: Percent of Farmworkers Whose Employer Offers Health Insurance, 2015-2016

26

Chapter 6: Employment Experience

CHAPTER 6: Employment Experience
Summary of Findings:
•

Eighty percent of farmworkers worked for 1 farm employer in the previous 12 months, and
workers had been employed with their current farm employer for an average of 7 years.
Farmworkers worked an average of five days per week for their current employer and an
average of 196 days in farm work in the previous 12 months.
Farmworkers with a full year or more of farm work experience had an average of 16 years of
U.S. farm work experience. Workers with more years of experience worked more days in the
previous 12 months.
Three-fourths of workers interviewed (76%) expected to continue doing farm work for at
least 5 years.

•
•
•

Number of U.S. Farm Employers in Previous 12 Months
Farmworkers in 2015-2016 worked for an average of 1 U.S. farm employer 25 in the 12 months
prior to being interviewed. Eighty percent of workers reported having worked for only 1 farm
employer, 13 percent worked for 2 employers, and 7 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 (27% compared to 14%), and migrant workers were
more than twice as likely as settled workers to have had more than 1 farm employer in the
previous 12 months (36% compared to 17%). See figure 6.1.
Figure 6.1: Percentage Distribution of Number of Farm Work Employers in Previous 12
Months by Farmworker Characteristic, 2015-2016
Number of
Farm Employers
One
Two
Three or more

All
Farmworkers
80%
13%
7%

Migrant
64%
21%
15%

Settled
83%
11%
5%

Authorized
73%
17%
10%

Unauthorized
86%
10%
4%

Number of Years with Current Farm Employer
In 2015-2016, farmworkers reported working for their current farm employer for an average of 7
years. 26 Nearly 6 in 10 stated that they had been with their current employer for fewer than 5
years (58%) and 2 in 10 said that they had been with their current farm employer for 11 years or
more (20%). See figure 6.2.

25

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.
26
Any employment for at least one day in the year qualifies as one year.

27

Chapter 6: Employment Experience

Figure 6.2: Percentage Distribution of Number of Years with Current Farm Employer,
2015-2016

Weeks and Days of Farm Work in Previous 12 Months
During the previous year, farmworkers spent an average of 33 weeks (63% of the year)
employed in U.S. farm work, with farm work participation varying depending on workers’ legal
status, migrant status, and place of birth. Authorized workers, migrant workers, and U.S.-born
workers worked fewer weeks in farm work (averages of 30, 24, and 28 weeks respectively) than
unauthorized workers, settled workers, and foreign-born workers (averages of 36, 36, and 35
weeks respectively). Youth farmworkers, between the age of 14 and 17, were employed the
fewest weeks in farm jobs, averaging 13 weeks of farm work in the previous 12 months, and
workers aged 25 to 50 worked the most, averaging 36 weeks in the previous 12 months (figure
6.3).
Figure 6.3: Average Number of Weeks of Farm Work in Previous 12 Months, by
Farmworker Characteristic, 2015-2016
Farmworker Characteristic
All farmworkers
Migrant
Settled
Authorized
Unauthorized
U.S.-born

Average Weeks of Farm
Work in Previous 12 Months
33
24
36
30
36
28
28

Chapter 6: Employment Experience

Farmworker Characteristic
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
35
13
23
36
35

Farmworkers’ approximate number of work days was calculated using employment dates and
average weeks per employer as recorded in the 12-month retrospective work history. For their
employer at the time of interview, farmworkers reported working an average of five days per
week. Over the previous 12 months, they worked an average of 196 days in farm work, with
averages varying depending upon workers’ legal status, 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 215 days and
authorized workers an average of 178 days; settled workers averaged 210 days while migrant
workers averaged of 144 days; foreign-born workers worked an average of 209 days and U.S.born workers and average of 158 days (figure 6.4).
Figure 6.4: Average Number of Days Worked Per Week and Average Number of Days of
Farm Work in Previous 12 Months by Farmworker Characteristic, 2015-2016
Farmworker Characteristic
All farmworkers
Migrant
Settled
Authorized
Unauthorized
U.S.-born
Foreign-born

Average Days
Worked Per Week
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

Average Days of Farm
Work in Previous 12 Months
196
144
210
178
215
158
209

Years of U.S. Farm Work Experience
Farmworkers with at full year or more of farm work experience had an average of 16 years of
U.S. farm work experience. Forty-two percent of farmworkers with a full year or more of farm
work experience had worked 1 to 10 years in farm jobs, another 42 percent had worked 11 to 30
years in farm jobs, and 16 percent had worked more than 30 years in farm jobs (figure 6.5).

29

Chapter 6: Employment Experience

Figure 6.5: Years U.S. Farm Work Experience, 2015-2016

a

Among workers with at least one year of U.S. farm work experience.

Farmworkers with more years of experience were more likely to have authorization to work in
the United States; 52 percent of workers with 10 years or more of farm work experience were
work-authorized, while 46 percent of those with one to nine years of experience had work
authorization. Additionally, farmworkers with more years of experience performed more days of
farm work during the previous year. Respondents who had between 1 and 5 years of farm work
experience worked an average of 166 days in farm work in the previous 12 months, while those
with 11 years or more of experience averaged 232 days of farm work.
Other Work History
Farmworkers were asked to report the approximate number of years they had done non-crop
work in the United States. Forty-five percent of farmworkers in 2015-2016 reported at least 1
year of non-crop work 27 (figure 6.6), and they had an average of 8 years of non-crop work
experience.

27

Any year in which 15 days of non-crop work were performed counts as one year of non-crop work.

30

Chapter 6: Employment Experience

Figure 6.6: U.S. Non-Crop Work Experience, 2015-2016

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”, 15 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, 4 percent said their parents last did U.S. farm work 6 to 10
years ago, and 23 percent reported that their parents last did U.S. farm work 11 or more years
ago. U.S.-born farmworkers reported with much greater frequency than foreign-born
farmworkers that their parents did hired farm work in the United States at some time (61% and
40% respectively). See figure 6.7.
Figure 6.7: Last Time Parents Did Hired Farm Work in United States, 2015-2016
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%
15%
3%
4%
23%
1%a

U.S.-Born
37%
24%
3%
2%
32%
2%a

Foreign-Born
59%
12%
3%
4%
21%
<1%
31

Chapter 6: Employment Experience
a

Estimates should be interpreted with caution because they have RSEs of 31 percent to 50 percent.

Plans to Remain in Farm Work
When asked how long they expected to continue to do farm work, 76 percent of workers
interviewed in 2015-2016 believed they would continue for more than 5 years, most of whom
indicated further that they would continue as long as they are able to do the work (74%). Four
percent of respondents stated that they would continue working in agriculture for less than one
year, 12 percent planned to remain in farm work for 1 to 3 years, 4 percent stated that they would
continue in farm work for 4 to 5 years, and 3 percent were unsure.

32

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, farmworkers spent an average of 11 weeks living in the United
States but not working and 3 weeks abroad.
Twenty-four 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 (36%) and non-crop agriculture jobs (24%).
Nearly 7 in 10 farmworker respondents reported at least 1 period in the 12 months prior to
their interview during which they did not work (69%), and these workers averaged 20 weeks
without employment. Fifteen 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 lived in the United States but did not work for
approximately 11 weeks (21% of the year) and were abroad for an average of 3 weeks (6% of the
year). Number of weeks of not working and time spent abroad varied depending on workers’
legal status, migrant status, and place of birth. Unauthorized, migrant, and foreign-born
farmworkers spent, on average, fewer weeks in the United States not working (9, 10, and 10
weeks respectively) than authorized, settled, and U.S.-born farmworkers (13, 11, and 14 weeks
respectively). Migrant workers spent more than four times as much time abroad during the
previous year (14 weeks) than farmworkers as a whole (3 weeks).
Youth farmworkers between the ages of 14 and 17 had the greatest number of weeks not working
while in the United States: 36, or more than two-thirds of the year. Respondents ages 18 to 24
spent an average of 14 weeks not working and 6 weeks abroad, and respondents aged 25 years
and older averaged 9 to 10 weeks in the United States but not working and 2 to 3 weeks abroad
(figure 7.1).
Figure 7.1: Average Number of Weeks Not Employed and Abroad in Previous 12 Months,
2015-2016
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

Weeks in United States
but Not Working
11
10
11
13
9
14
10
36
14
9
10

Weeks Abroad
3
14
<1a
3
3
1a
3
b

6
2
3
33

Chapter 7: Non-Crop Work Activities During the Year
a
b

Estimates should be interpreted with caution because they have RSEs of 31 percent to 50 percent.
Estimate is suppressed because it has a RSE greater than 50 percent.

Non-Crop Work in Previous 12 Months
Twenty-four percent of farmworkers reported at least one non-crop job in the United States
during the previous year. U.S.-born workers were nearly 3 times more likely than foreign-born
workers to have had a non-crop job in the previous 12 months (45% compared to 17%) and
authorized workers were twice as likely as unauthorized workers to have had a non-crop job
(31% compared to 16%). See figure 7.2.
Figure 7.2: Percent of Farmworkers Who Held a Non-Crop Job the Previous Year, 20152016

The 24 percent of farmworkers who reported doing non-crop work during the previous year
spent an average of 25 weeks in non-crop employment and they held an average of 2 non-crop
jobs. The most common types of jobs they held were mechanic, repair, or maintenance jobs
(36% of workers) and other types of non-crop agricultural jobs 28 such as livestock, forestry and
fisheries (24%). Sixteen percent did structural or extractive work 29, 14 percent held a sales,
service, or production job in the food industry, 13 percent held a job sales, service, or
manufacturing job in a non-food industry, 4 percent had a professional, technical, or managerial

28 Since the survey’s inception, crop workers have been asked about jobs they’ve had outside of crop agriculture.
Some non-crop jobs are farm jobs in other types of agriculture.
29 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

34

Chapter 7: Non-Crop Work Activities During the Year

job, and 9 percent held other types of jobs, including clerical, government service, health, arts
and entertainment, and transportation (figure 7.3).
Figure 7.3: Types of Non-Crop Jobs Held in Previous 12 Months, 2015-2016
Type of Non-Crop Joba
Mechanic/Repair/Maintenance
Non-Crop Agriculture
Structural/Extractive Work
Food Industry -Sales/Service/Production
Non-food Industry-Sales/Service/Manufacturing
Professional/Technical/Manager
Other
a

Percent of Workers Who
Held At Least One NonCrop Job
36%
24%
16%
14%
13%
4%
9%

Respondents may have reported multiple types of jobs.

Reasons for Leaving Non-Crop Work in Previous Year
Fifty-six percent of workers who had non-crop employment during the previous year 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 separating from an employer, they were asked the reason why.
Approximately six in ten workers (58%) who left a non-crop employer during the previous year
reported leaving for voluntary reasons (“family responsibilities”, “school”, “moved”, “health
reason”, “vacation”, “retired”, “quit”, or “changed jobs”). Another third of workers (33%) said
that their leaves from non-crop work were involuntary in nature (“lay off/end of season” or
“fired”). 30
Periods of Unemployment During the Year
Nearly 7 in 10 farmworker respondents in 2015-2016 reported at least 1 period in the 12 months
prior to their interview during which they did not work (69%), and these respondents averaged
20 weeks without employment. Each time a respondent reported a period of not working during
the 12-month retrospective work history, the respondent was asked about receiving UI benefits
during that time. Fifteen percent of these respondents said “yes”, that they received UI benefits
during at least one of their periods of unemployment.

30

The remaining workers reported both voluntary and involuntary leaves from non-crop work, but this estimate is
suppressed because it has a RSE greater than 50 percent.

35

Chapter 8: Income, Assets, and Use of Assistance Programs

CHAPTER 8: Income, Assets, and Use of Assistance Programs
Summary of Findings:
•
•

•
•
•

Farmworkers’ mean and median personal incomes the previous year were in the range of
$17,500 to $19,999. Fourteen percent of workers earned less than $10,000; 14 percent earned
$30,000 or more.
Workers’ mean and median total family incomes the previous year were in the range of
$20,000 to $24,999. Twenty-seven percent of farmworkers reported total family income of
less than $20,000, another 27 percent said their family income was $20,000 to $29,999, and
32 percent had a family income of $30,000 or more.
One-third of farmworkers had family incomes below poverty (33%).
Sixty-eight percent of farmworkers stated that they owned or were buying at least one asset
in the United States. The most common assets were a vehicle (reported by 63% of workers)
or a house (18% of workers).
Fourteen percent of farmworkers reported that they or someone in their household received
some form of benefit from a contribution-based program in the previous two years; 54
percent said someone in their household received some form of benefit from a needs-based
program in the previous two 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 $17,500 to $19,999. Nine
percent of farmworkers interviewed in 2015-2016 reported that they did not work at all during
the prior calendar year, 14 percent said their total personal income was less than $10,000, 29
percent said they had personal incomes of $10,000 to $19,999, another 29 percent had personal
incomes of $20,000 to $29,999, and 14 percent reported that their total personal income was
$30,000 or more. Five percent of farmworkers said they were unsure of what their personal
income was 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
the previous year were in the range of $20,000 to $24,999. Six percent of farmworkers reported
that they/their family had no earned income during the previous calendar year. Eight percent of
workers said that their total family income the prior year was less than $10,000, 19 percent said
their family income was $10,000 to $19,999, 27 percent had a family income of $20,000 to
$29,999, and 32 percent had a family income of $30,000 or more. Eight percent of farmworkers
reported that they did not know their family’s total income the previous year.

36

Chapter 8: Income, Assets, and Use of Assistance Programs

To determine farmworkers’ poverty status, a poverty threshold was calculated for each worker
based on the worker’s family size 31 and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’
poverty guidelines 32 for the calendar year preceding the interview. The worker’s family income
was then compared to this poverty threshold 33. Using this method, 33 percent of farmworkers in
2015-2016 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 two-thirds of farmworkers with a family size of 6 or more had incomes below the
poverty level (65%), compared to approximately one-third of farmworkers with a family size of
3 (36%) or 4 (34%). Likewise, migrant workers’ family incomes fell below poverty at a much
greater rate than settled workers’ family incomes (52% compared to 28%), and unauthorized
workers were more likely than authorized workers to have below-poverty household incomes
(38% and 28% respectively). See figure 8.2.
Figure 8.1: Percent of Farmworkers with Total Family Income Below Poverty Level by
Family Size, 2015-2016

31

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.
32
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines (https://aspe.hhs.gov/prior-hhs-povertyguidelines-and-federal-register-references).
33
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.”

37

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, 2015-2016

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 2015-2016, approximately two-thirds of all farmworkers stated
that they owned or were buying at least one asset in the United States (68%). U.S.-born workers
reported with greater frequency that they owned or were buying an asset in the United States
(75%) than did foreign-born workers (66%). Among all workers, the most commonly held asset
in the United States was a car or truck (63%), followed by a house (18%), and a mobile home
(6%). See figure 8.3. U.S.-born workers were more likely to own or be buying a house in the
United States (27%) than were foreign-born workers (15%).
Figure 8.3: Assets in the United States, 2015-2016
Type of Asset in the United States
Any asset
A car or truck
A house
A mobile home
A plot of land

Percent of Farmworkers
68%
63%
18%
6%
2%

Thirty percent of foreign-born workers reported that they owned or were buying at least one
asset abroad. The most frequently reported was a house (26%), followed by land (11%), and a
car or truck (3%).

38

Chapter 8: Income, Assets, and Use of Assistance Programs

Use of Contribution- and Need-Based Programs
In 2015-2016, 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. Fourteen percent of the farmworkers reported that someone in their household
received a benefit from at least one contribution-based program, including disability insurance,
UI, or Social Security. Ten percent of farmworkers reported that they or a family member
received payments from UI, three percent said that someone in their household received Social
Security payments, and one percent reported that 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) 34. In 2015-2016, 54 percent of the farmworkers reported that they or someone
in their household used at least one type of public assistance program in the previous two years.
The programs most commonly utilized were Medicaid (44%), SNAP (18%), WIC (17%), and
public health clinics (10%). 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,
2015-2016
Contribution- and Need-Based Programs Utilized
Any contribution-based program
UI
Social Security
Disability
Any need-based program
Medicaid
SNAP
WIC
Public health clinic

Percent of Farmworkers
14%
10%
3%
1%
54%
44%
18%
17%
10%

34

The Federal food stamps program was renamed to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP as of
October 1, 2008.

39

Chapter 9: Health Care in the United States

CHAPTER 9: Health Care in the United States
Summary of Findings:
•

•
•

•
•

Forty-seven percent of farmworkers reported that they had health insurance, 56 percent said
their spouse had health insurance, and 93 percent reported that all (89%) or at least some
(3%) of their children had health insurance.
Sixty-three percent of farmworkers used a health care provider in the United States sometime
in the last two years.
The last time they visited a health care provider, 40 percent went to a private medical
doctor’s office or private clinic, 34 percent said they visited a community health center or
migrant health clinic, 12 percent saw a dentist, 11 percent went to a hospital, and 3 percent
visited other providers such as a healer, chiropractor, or emergency room.
Approximately one-third of farmworkers paid for their last health care visit out of their own
pockets (34%): 26 percent were uninsured so they had to pay the whole fee; 8 percent had
insurance so their out-of-pocket expense was likely a co-payment.
The most common difficulty farmworkers faced when they needed to access health care was
that health care visits were too expensive (23%).

Health Insurance Coverage for Farmworkers and Family Members
There were several questions on the survey about health insurance. One question asked workers
to indicate who in their family had health insurance in the United States. Forty-seven percent of
workers responded that they, themselves, had health insurance. Authorized workers and settled
workers were much more likely to report having health insurance (69% and 50% respectively)
than unauthorized workers and migrant workers (24% and 34% respectively). See figure 9.1.

40

Chapter 9: Health Care in the United States

Figure 9.1: Percent of Farmworkers with Health Insurance, 2015-2016

Farmworkers who reported having health insurance were asked to identify the source(s) that
provided it (multiple sources could be reported). Forty-three percent reported that they had
insurance provided by the government, 29 percent said their employer provided them with health
insurance, 12 percent said that they or their spouse paid for insurance themselves, 6 percent
reported that they had insurance under their spouse’s employer’s plan, another 6 percent reported
that they were covered by their parents’ or family’s plan, and 7 percent indicated some other
source 35 (figure 9.2).
Figure 9.2: Sources of Farmworkers' Health Insurance, 2015-2016
Source of Farmworker’s Health Insurancea,b
Farmworker’s/Spouse’s self-purchased plan
Farmworker’s employer
Spouse’s employer
Government program
Parent’s/Family’s plan
Other
a

Percent of Farmworkers
12%
29%
6%
43%
6%
7%

Among the 47 percent of farmworkers who reported that they had health insurance.

35

“Other” sources included the Affordable Care Act, private health insurance companies (e.g., Aetna, Blue Cross),
charity, and retirement/pension plans.

41

Chapter 9: Health Care in the United States
b

Farmworkers may have health insurance through more than one source.

Of the 59 percent of farmworkers who had a spouse, 56 percent reported that their spouse had
health insurance. Among spouses with health insurance, 54 percent received the insurance
through a government program, 9 percent were covered by a self-purchased plan, 19 percent
were insured through the spouse’s own employer, 14 percent were covered by the farmworker’s
employer plan, and 8 percent indicated some other source (figure 9.3). Authorized workers
reported that their spouses had health insurance at nearly twice the frequency of unauthorized
workers (74% and 38% respectively).
Figure 9.3: Sources of Farmworkers' Spouses’ Health Insurance, 2015-2016
Source of Spouse’s Health Insurancea,b
Farmworker’s/Spouse’s self-purchased plan
Farmworker’s employer
Spouse’s employer
Government program
Other
a
b

Percent of Farmworkers
9%
14%
19%
54%
8%

Among the 56 percent of farmworkers who reported that their spouse had health insurance.
Spouses may have health insurance through more than one source.

Among the 44 percent of farmworkers with minor children, the vast majority reported that all of
their children had health insurance (89%) while 3 percent reported that only some of their
children had health insurance. The majority of these workers said their children’s health
insurance was provided by government programs (86%). Ten percent of the workers reported
that their children were insured through their employer or their spouse’s employer, and two
percent said their children were covered by insurance that the worker and/or their spouse
purchased on their own (figure 9.4). Nearly equal percentages of authorized and unauthorized
workers reported that all or some of their children had health insurance (94% and 92%
respectively).
Figure 9.4: Sources of Farmworkers' Children’s Health Insurance, 2015-2016
Source of Children’s Health Insurancea,b
Farmworker’s/Spouse’s self-purchased plan
Farmworker’s/Spouse’s employer
Government program
Other

Percent of Farmworkers
2%
10%
86%
2%

a

Among the 93 percent of farmworkers who reported that all or some of their children had health
insurance.
b
Children may have health insurance through more than one source.

Health Care Utilization and Barriers to Health Care
In 2015-2016 farmworkers were asked whether, at any time in the 2 years prior to being
interviewed, they had used any type of health care services from doctors, nurses, dentists, clinics,
or hospitals in the United States. Sixty-three percent of farmworkers responded that they had.
42

Chapter 9: Health Care in the United States

Workers who had health insurance reported more frequently that they utilized health care
services (77%) than did workers who did not have health insurance (51%). See figure 9.5.
Figure 9.5: Visited a U.S. Health Care Provider in the Last Two Years by Health Insurance
Status, 2015-2016

Farmworkers who reported seeking health care in the United States sometime in the last two
years were asked what kind of health care provider they used the last time they saw one. Forty
percent of workers who had a health care visit said that the last time they used a provider they
went to a private medical doctor’s office or private clinic. Thirty-four percent said they visited a
community health center or migrant health clinic, 12 percent saw a dentist, and 11 percent went
to a hospital. The remaining three percent of workers reportedly used another type of provider,
including a healer or “curandero”, an emergency room, a chiropractor, or a naturopath.
The type of health care provider visited depended on farmworkers’ health insurance status.
Insured workers were more likely than uninsured workers to visit a private provider (50%
compared to 27%) and less likely to visit a community health center or migrant health clinic
(26% of insured workers compared to 45% of uninsured workers). See figure 9.6.

43

Chapter 9: Health Care in the United States

Figure 9.6: Type of U.S. Health Care Provider Visited by Health Insurance Status, 20152016

Farmworkers who reported seeking health care in the United States sometime in the last two
years were also asked who paid the majority of the cost for their last health care visit. Thirty-four
percent of workers responded that they paid out of their own pockets: 26 percent were uninsured
so they had to pay the fee in whole out of pocket; 8 percent had insurance so their out-of-pocket
expense was likely a co-payment. Twenty-two percent said that they had Medicaid or Medicare,
11 percent said the majority of the cost was covered by health insurance that they or their family
had purchased themselves, and 13 percent of workers reported that the cost was covered by
health insurance provided by their employer. Nine percent of the workers stated that they went to
a pubic clinic that did not charge for the visit, three percent reported that they used some
combination of sources to pay, they were covered by worker’s compensation, or that they were

44

Chapter 9: Health Care in the United States

billed for service but did not pay, and the remaining seven percent provided a variety of other
responses 36.
Regardless of whether they reported having used a U.S. health care provider sometime in the last
two years, farmworkers were asked to name the types of difficulties they faced when they needed
to access health care in the United States. The most common response, provided by 23 percent of
all farmworkers interviewed in 2015-2016, was that health care visits were too expensive and
they had no insurance to cover the costs. Also among the most common responses were language
incompatibility between farmworkers and health care providers (indicated by 1% of workers)
and distance from providers or transportation difficulties (also indicated by 1% of workers).
Thirteen percent of the workers were unable to name any specific barriers because they reported
they had never needed health care in the United States.

36
Farmworkers who responded with “other” when asked who paid the majority of the cost for their last health care
visit specified their response in the following ways: low income program; insurance through a former employer,
other employer, labor union, or pension plan; automobile insurance; coverage through the ACA; medical coupon;
military insurance or the VA; and medical insurance with no specification about whether it was self-purchased or
employer provided.

45

Appendix A: Methodology

APPENDIX A: Methodology
Overview
The NAWS is a nationally representative, random sample of farmworkers. During 2015-2016,
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 497 Farm Labor Areas (FLAs). FLAs were single- or multi-county
sampling units which 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.
The number of interviews allocated to each region was based on regional farmworker
employment data, the number of hired agricultural workers from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s (USDA) Farm Labor Survey (FLS) plus the number of contract workers from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW).
Similarly, the number of interviews allocated to each FLA was proportional to the number of
hired and contract crop workers employed at that time of the year. The FLA size measure (farm
labor) was obtained by multiplying a seasonality estimate, derived primarily from the QCEW,
by local farm labor expenditure data, from USDA’s Census of Agriculture (CoA). The
interview allocations were thus proportional to stratum size.
In each FLA, county, and ZIP Code region, a simple random sample of agricultural employers
was drawn from a universe list compiled mainly from public agency records. NAWS
interviewers then contacted the sampled growers or farm labor contractors, arranged access to
the work site, and drew a random sample of workers at the work site. Thus, the sample included
only farmworkers actively employed in crop agriculture at the time of the interview.
Stratification
Interviewing Cycles
To account for the seasonality of the industry, interviews were conducted 3 times each year, in
cycles lasting 10 to 12 weeks. 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 FLS. Figures
for workers employed by farm labor contractors were obtained from the BLS QCEW. In FYs
2015 and 2016, the NAWS visited a total of 168 interviewing locations. The locations were
similarly apportioned among the cycles using NASS data.
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
46

Appendix A: Methodology

patterns (e.g., Mountain I and Mountain II). 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
BLS using information obtained from the FLS and QCEW.
Sampling within Strata
Farm Labor Areas
Each region was composed of several single- or multi-county sampling units called FLAs. There
are 497 FLAs that form a universe from which sampling locations were selected. These FLAs
are aggregates of counties that have similar farm labor usage and are roughly similar in size.
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 particular
cycle. In this case, the measure was based on the hired and contract labor expenses from the
most recent CoA available at the time the sample was drawn. The CoA labor expenses were
adjusted using seasonality estimates that identified the percentage of labor 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 percentage of employment corresponding to
each cycle became a 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 the FLAs on each stratum roster were
assigned a random number and sorted in the order of the random numbers assigned.
Counties
To select counties, an iterative sampling procedure was used to ensure that an adequate number
of counties was selected for each region. In most cases, interviews were completed in the first
county 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 the allocated interviews
were completed. In FLAs where farm work was sparse, interviewers may 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 and the number of employers in the
area. Some counties were comprised of a single ZIP Code region (for example, in the case of a
small county) or multiple ZIP Code regions (for example, when a county is large). In a county
with multiple ZIP Code regions, the regions were designed to be roughly equal in size.

47

Appendix A: Methodology

When 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/her work force, the interviewer sought the name of the packinghouse manager,
personnel 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 in order 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 who were 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 may have also been interviewed at another location
if that was more convenient for them. Respondents received a $20 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 level.
• 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 in
order 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.doleta.gov/agworker/naws.cfm).

48

Appendix A: Methodology

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. The higher the
RSE, the less well the estimate represents individual items in the sample. 37
For the purpose of 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.

37

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).

49

Appendix B: Map of the NAWS Migrant Streams

APPENDIX B: Map of the NAWS Migrant Streams

50

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% confidence limits, standard errors, and relative standard errors (RSEs) of the estimates. Estimates with RSEs higher
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 superscript ‘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
INDIGENOUS
USSTAY
USSTAY
USSTAY
USSTAY

Race
Farmworker is indigenous
Years in US
Years in US
Years in US
Years in US

Other
Farmworker is indigenous
Average
Less than 1 year (newcomer)
1-4 years
5-9 years

Number of
Observations
1,239
3,809
238

Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
25%
69%
6%

Standard
Error
1.8%
1.8%
0.8%

95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
21%
65%
5%

95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
28%
72%
8%

Relative
Standard
Error
7%
3%
13%

56
4,447
464
3,581

1%
83%
9%
65%

0.1%
1.6%
1.0%
1.8%

<1%
80%
8%
61%

1%
87%
11%
68%

21%
2%
10%
3%

402
866

9%
17%

0.9%
1.6%

7%
13%

11%
20%

10%
9%

1,337
142

24%
3%a

1.6%
1.0%

20%
1%

27%
5%

7%
34%

45

1%

0.2%

<1%

1%

29%

3,794
388
4,097
35
217
454

73%
6%
18
3%a
6%
13%

1.8%
0.9%
0.5
1.3%
0.7%
1.2%

69%
5%
17
1%
4%
11%

77%
8%
19
6%
7%
15%

3%
14%
3%
38%
11%
9%

51

Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables

Variable
USSTAY
USSTAY
USSTAY
USSTAY
USSTAY
B18
(by A07)
B18
(by A07)
B18
(by A07)
B18
(by A07)
B18
(by A07)
CURRSTAT
CURRSTAT
CURRSTAT
CURRSTAT
MIGRANT

Variable Description
Years in US
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)
Current status
Current status
Current status
Current status
Migrant

Variable Level(s)
10-14 years
15-19 years
20-29 years
30-39 years
40+ years
Guanajuato (among country
of birth is Mexico)
Guerrero (among country of
birth is Mexico)
Jalisco (among country of
birth is Mexico)
Michoacan (among country
of birth is Mexico)
Oaxaca (among country of
birth is Mexico)
Citizen
Legal permanent resident
Other work authorized
Unauthorized
Migrant

Number of
Observations
783
760
930
645
273

Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
20%
20%
19%
13%
6%

Standard
Error
1.5%
2.2%
1.1%
1.0%
0.7%

95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
17%
16%
17%
11%
5%

95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
23%
24%
21%
15%
7%

Relative
Standard
Error
7%
11%
6%
8%
12%

593

15%

1.2%

13%

17%

8%

230

7%

1.0%

5%

8%

15%

360

10%

1.5%

7%

13%

15%

705

20%

1.5%

17%

23%

7%

376
1,554
1,085
50
2,601
786

7%
29%
21%
1%
49%
19%

0.9%
1.9%
1.7%
0.1%
1.9%
1.9%

6%
26%
18%
<1%
46%
15%

9%
33%
24%
1%
53%
23%

12%
6%
8%
19%
4%
10%

52

Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables

Chapter 2
Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
68%
32%
38
7%
11%

Standard
Error
2.9%
2.9%
0.5
0.9%
1.1%

95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
62%
27%
37
5%
9%

95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
73%
38%
39
9%
14%

Relative
Standard
Error
4%
9%
1%
13%
10%

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
4,206
1,136
5,338
205
498

AGE
AGE
AGE
AGE
AGE
MARRIED,
FWPARENT
MARRIED,
FWPARENT
MARRIED,
FWPARENT
MARRIED,
FWPARENT
HKIDLT18
(by
FWPARENT)
HKIDLT18
(by
FWPARENT)
HKIDLT18
(by
FWPARENT)
HKIDLT18
(by
FWPARENT)
HKIDLT18
(by
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
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)

25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 and over

1,358
1,276
1,104
693
204

26%
23%
19%
11%
4%

1.3%
1.2%
1.6%
0.8%
0.6%

23%
20%
16%
9%
2%

29%
25%
22%
12%
5%

5%
5%
9%
7%
17%

Married, parent

2,364

41%

1.6%

38%

44%

4%

Married, no children

929

15%

1.1%

13%

17%

7%

Unmarried, parent

558

13%

1.3%

11%

16%

10%

Unmarried, no children

1,478

30%

1.5%

27%

33%

5%

Average (among farmworker
parents)

2,232

2

0.04

2

2

2%

1 child (among farmworker
parents)

732

29%

1.7%

25%

32%

6%

2 children (among
farmworker parents)

793

38%

1.9%

35%

42%

5%

3 children (among
farmworker parents)

476

23%

2.0%

19%

27%

9%

4 children (among
farmworker parents)

177

7%

0.9%

6%

9%

13%

53

Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables

Variable
HKIDLT18
(by
FWPARENT)
ACCOMP
ACCOMP

Variable Description
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

5 or more children (among
farmworker parents)

54

2%

0.4%

1%

3%

19%

Unaccompanied

2,038

40%

1.8%

37%

44%

5%

Accompanied

3,304

60%

1.8%

56%

63%

3%

54

Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables

Chapter 3
Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
21%
77%
1%
8
4%

Standard
Error
1.7%
1.8%
0.3%
0.1
0.7%

95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
18%
74%
1%
8
3%

95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
25%
81%
2%
9
5%

Relative
Standard
Error
8%
2%
20%
2%
16%

Variable
PRIMLANG
PRIMLANG
PRIMLANG
HIGHGRDE
HIGHGRDE

Variable Description
Adult primary language
Adult primary language
Adult primary language
Highest grade completed
Highest grade completed

Variable Level(s)
English
Spanish
Indigenous
Average
No schooling

Number of
Observations
1,111
4,094
109
5,342
207

HIGHGRDE
HIGHGRDE
HIGHGRDE
HIGHGRDE
ADULTED
ADULTED

Highest grade completed
Highest grade completed
Highest grade completed
Highest grade completed
Attended any adult education
Attended any adult education

K-6th grade
7th-9th grade
10th-12th grade
13 grades or more
No
Yes

2,152
1,042
1,421
520
3,356
1,986

37%
19%
30%
10%
65%
35%

1.6%
1.2%
1.2%
1.0%
1.6%
1.6%

33%
17%
28%
8%
62%
31%

40%
22%
32%
12%
69%
38%

4%
6%
4%
10%
2%
5%

B03a
B03b
B03d

Yes
Yes
Yes

754
138
823

12%
2%
14%

0.9%
0.5%
1.5%

10%
1%
11%

14%
3%
17%

8%
21%
11%

B03e
B03f
B03j
B07
B07

Attended English/ESL
Attended citizenship classes
Attended job training
Attended GED, high school
equivalency
Attended college/university
Attended ‘other’
Ability to speak English
Ability to speak English

Yes
Yes
Yes
Not at all
A little

174
329
134
1,440
1,841

3%
7%
2%
30%
32%

0.5%
1.0%
0.3%
1.9%
1.5%

2%
5%
1%
26%
29%

4%
9%
2%
33%
35%

14%
15%
16%
6%
5%

B07
B07
B08
B08
B08
B08

Ability to speak English
Ability to speak English
Ability to read English
Ability to read English
Ability to read English
Ability to read English

Somewhat
Well
Not at all
A little
Somewhat
Well

597
1,436
2,084
1,434
407
1,383

9%
29%
41%
24%
7%
28%

0.8%
1.9%
2.1%
1.3%
0.7%
1.8%

8%
25%
37%
21%
5%
25%

11%
33%
45%
26%
8%
32%

9%
6%
5%
5%
10%
6%

55

Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables

Chapter 4
Variable

D35

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

D33a

Payment arrangement for
living quarters

D35
D35

D33a
D33a

D33a
D33a
D33a
D33a
D50MTCOD
D50MTCOD
D50MTCOD
D50MTCOD
D50MTCOD
D50MTCOD
D34a
D34a

Payment arrangement for
living quarters
Payment arrangement for
living quarters
Payment arrangement for
living quarters
Payment arrangement for
living quarters
Payment arrangement for
living quarters
Payment arrangement for
living quarters
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

Number of
Observations

Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)

Standard
Error

95% Lower
Confidence
Limit

95% Upper
Confidence
Limit

Relative
Standard
Error

4,206

84%

1.3%

82%

87%

2%

166

4%

0.8%

2%

5%

23%

930

12%

1.0%

10%

14%

9%

170

2%

0.4%

1%

3%

18%

785

11%

1.1%

8%

13%

10%

187

4%

0.8%

2%

5%

21%

49

1%

0.2%

<1%

1%

24%

1,396

28%

1.7%

25%

32%

6%

2,725

54%

1.8%

50%

57%

3%

Other

23

1%a

0.2%

<1%

1%

30%

Under $200

260

9%

1.1%

7%

11%

12%

$200-299

422

18%

2.2%

13%

22%

12%

$300-399

434

14%

1.2%

12%

16%

8%

$400-499

341

13%

2.0%

9%

16%

16%

$500-599

382

11%

1.4%

8%

14%

13%

$600 or more
Single-family home
Mobile home

1,116
2,930
1,177

35%
57%
20%

2.2%
1.8%
1.4%

31%
53%
17%

40%
60%
22%

6%
3%
7%

Variable Level(s)
Off farm, in property not
owned by current employer
Off farm, in property owned
by current employer
On farm of employer I
currently work for
EMPLOYER-PROVIDED: I
pay for housing provided by
my employer
EMPLOYER-PROVIDED: I
receive free housing from my
employer
EMPLOYER-PROVIDED:
Other arrangement
I pay for housing provided by
govt, charity, other
organization
I (or family member) own the
house
I rent from nonemployer/non-relative

56

Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables

Variable
D34a

Variable Description
Type of housing

D34a

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
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

D54a
D54b
D54c
D54f

CROWDED1
D37a
D37a
D37a
D37a
D37a
D37
D37
D37
D37
D37

Number of
Observations
963

Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
20%

Standard
Error
1.4%

95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
17%

95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
22%

Relative
Standard
Error
7%

265

4%

0.6%

3%

5%

14%

Average

5,334

3

0.04

3

3

2%

Average

5,328

1

0.02

1

2

1%

Average

5,331

1

0.01

1

1

1%

Average

5,318

1

0.05

1

1

6%

Crowded

1,687

33%

1.6%

30%

36%

5%

I'm located at the job

878

11%

1.0%

9%

13%

9%

Within 9 miles

1,723

31%

1.8%

28%

35%

6%

10-24 miles

1,980

39%

1.9%

35%

43%

5%

25-49 miles

661

16%

1.7%

13%

20%

11%

50+ miles

93

3%a

1.2%

0%

5%

47%

Drive car

3,305

58%

2.1%

54%

62%

4%

Walk

543

7%

0.7%

5%

8%

10%

Ride with others

565

13%

1.4%

10%

16%

11%

Labor bus, truck, van

204

6%a

1.8%

2%

9%

33%

Raitero

617

15%

1.6%

12%

18%

10%

Variable Level(s)
Apartment
Other (includes duplex or
triplex, dormitory or barracks,
motel or hotel, and ‘other’)

57

Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables

Variable
D37
D38a
D38
D38
D38

Variable Description
Mode of transportation to
work
Transport is mandatory
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

Public transportation, other
Yes
No
Yes, a fee
Yes, just for gas

71
69
437
383
576

1%
7%
32%
28%
39%

0.2%
1.7%
4.0%
3.6%
3.9%

1%
3%
25%
21%
32%

2%
10%
40%
35%
47%

20%
25%
12%
13%
10%

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
D11

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
Basis of pay

Number of
Observations

Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)

Standard
Error

95% Lower
Confidence
Limit

95% Upper
Confidence
Limit

Relative
Standard
Error

4,680

80%

3.1%

74%

86%

4%

662

20%

3.1%

14%

26%

15%

1,226

24%

2.3%

20%

29%

9%

286

4%

0.5%

3%

5%

12%

79

1%

0.3%

1%

2%

23%

116

2%

0.3%

1%

3%

16%

3,629

69%

2.1%

65%

73%

3%

Field crops

654

10%

1.3%

7%

12%

14%

Fruits and nuts

1,996

32%

2.9%

26%

38%

9%

Horticulture

1,067

19%

2.1%

15%

23%

11%

Vegetables

1,418

37%

3.3%

30%

43%

9%

Miscellaneous crops

207

3%

0.5%

2%

4%

20%

Pre-harvest

1,635

30%

2.1%

25%

34%

7%

Harvest

930

17%

1.8%

13%

20%

11%

Post-harvest

819

25%

3.3%

18%

31%

13%

Semi-skilled

1,952

29%

2.4%

24%

33%

8%

Average
By the hour

5,196
4,699

45
88%

0.6
1.7%

43
84%

46
91%

1%
2%

Variable Level(s)
Employer: Grower, nursery,
packing house
Employer: Farm labor
contractor
Applied for the job on my
own
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

59

Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables

Variable
D11

Variable Description
Basis of pay

D11
D11

Basis of pay
Basis of pay
Hourly wage for primary
task
In last 12 months, received
money bonus from current
employer
In last 12 months, received
money bonus from current
employer
In last 12 months, received
money bonus from current
employer
Holiday bonus
Incentive bonus
Dependent on grower profit
End of season bonus
Other bonus
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

WAGET1

D20

D20

D20
D21a
D21b
D21c
D21d
D21f

NS01

NS01

NS01
NS04
NS09

NT02a
D26

Number of
Observations
268

Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
7%

Standard
Error
1.6%

95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
4%

95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
10%

Relative
Standard
Error
23%

56
309

1%
4%

0.3%
0.6%

<1%
3%

2%
6%

29%
13%

Average

5,215

$10.60

$0.13

$10.35

$10.86

1%

No

2,867

63%

2.0%

59%

67%

3%

Yes

2,258

27%

1.7%

24%

31%

6%

Don’t know
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

212
1,184
238
95
686
33

10%
54%
12%
4%
30%
1%

1.8%
2.5%
1.7%
0.9%
2.3%
0.3%

7%
49%
9%
2%
25%
1%

14%
59%
15%
6%
34%
2%

18%
5%
15%
22%
8%
22%

No water, no cups

322

6%

1.2%

3%

8%

21%

Yes, water only

297

5%

0.7%

4%

6%

14%

Yes, water and disposable
cups

4,713

89%

1.4%

87%

92%

2%

Yes

5,163

97%

0.8%

95%

99%

1%

Yes

5,181

97%

0.8%

96%

99%

1%

Yes

3,575

57%

2.8%

51%

63%

5%

No

2,817

52%

2.0%

48%

56%

4%

Variable Level(s)
By the piece
Combination hourly wage
and piece rate
Salary or other

60

Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables

Variable
D26
D26

D23

D23

D23

D24

D24

D24

Variable Description
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
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

Yes

2,384

43%

1.8%

40%

47%

4%

Don’t know

128

5%

1.2%

3%

7%

23%

No

773

16%

1.9%

12%

20%

12%

Yes

3,541

62%

2.1%

58%

66%

3%

Don’t know

1,022

22%

1.6%

19%

26%

7%

No

3,930

71%

2.0%

67%

75%

3%

Yes

960

18%

1.6%

15%

21%

9%

Don’t know

442

11%

1.4%

8%

13%

13%

61

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
NUMYRSFW
(by
NEWFWKR)
NUMYRSFW
(by
NEWFWKR)
NUMYRSFW
(by
NEWFWKR)

Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)

Standard
Error

95% Lower
Confidence
Limit

95% Upper
Confidence
Limit

Relative
Standard
Error

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
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

Average

5,342

1

0.03

1

1

3%

1 employer

4,265

80%

1.6%

77%

83%

2%

2 employers

689

13%

1.0%

11%

15%

7%

3 or more employers

388

7%

0.9%

5%

9%

12%

Average

5,308

7

0.3

6

7

5%

1 year or less

817

26%

2.0%

22%

30%

8%

2-4 years

1,770

32%

1.4%

30%

35%

4%

5-10 years

1,319

22%

1.4%

19%

25%

6%

11-20 years

912

14%

1.2%

11%

16%

9%

21 or more years

490

6%

0.6%

5%

7%

9%

Average

5,342

33

1.0

31

35

3%

Average

5,339

5

0.1

5

5

1%

Average

5,341

196

6.0

185

208

3%

Average (among one or more
years of farm work)

5,126

16

0.4

16

17

3%

1 year (among one or more
years of farm work)

232

5%

0.6%

4%

7%

11%

Number of years since first
did farm work (by new

2-4 years (among one or
more years of farm work)

506

13%

1.0%

11%

15%

8%

62

Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables

Variable

NUMYRSFW
(by
NEWFWKR)
NUMYRSFW
(by
NEWFWKR)
NUMYRSFW
(by
NEWFWKR)
NUMYRSFW
(by
NEWFWKR)
B12
B12
B12
B12

B12
B13
B13
B13
B13
B13

Variable Description
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 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

Variable Level(s)

Number of
Observations

Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)

Standard
Error

95% Lower
Confidence
Limit

95% Upper
Confidence
Limit

Relative
Standard
Error

5-10 years (among one or
more years of farm work)

1,029

24%

1.5%

21%

27%

6%

11-20 years (among one or
more years of farm work)

1,489

26%

1.3%

23%

28%

5%

21-30 years (among one or
more years of farm work)

918

16%

1.2%

14%

18%

8%

31 or more years (among one
or more years of farm work)

952

16%

1.0%

14%

18%

6%

None

2,629

55%

1.8%

51%

58%

3%

1 year

545

9%

0.8%

7%

11%

9%

2-10 years

1,314

26%

1.3%

24%

29%

5%

11 or more years
Average, among those with
at least 1 year on non-crop
work in the US

503

10%

1.0%

8%

12%

10%

2,362

8

0.5

7

9

7%

Never

2,724

54%

1.6%

51%

57%

3%

Now/within the last year

651

15%

1.0%

13%

17%

7%

1-5 years ago

187

3%

0.4%

2%

4%

13%

6-10 years ago

254

4%

0.5%

3%

5%

13%

11 or more years ago

1,420

23%

1.4%

21%

26%

6%

63

Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables

Variable
B13
E02
E02
E02
E02
E02
E02

Variable Description
Last time parents did hired
farm work in the US
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

Don’t know

38

1%a

0.3%

<1%

2%

33%

Less than one year

136

4%

0.7%

3%

5%

16%

1-3 years

593

12%

1.0%

10%

14%

8%

4-5 years

213

4%

0.5%

3%

5%

13%

Over 5 years
Over 5 years/as long as I am
able

135

2%

0.4%

1%

3%

19%

4,111

74%

1.6%

71%

77%

2%

Other

139

3%

0.7%

2%

5%

21%

64

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-cropemployer 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

5,342

11

0.8

9

13

8%

Average

5,342

3

0.5

2

4

19%

NFWEEKS>0
Average, among those with
NFWEEKS>0
Average, among those with
NFWEEKS>0

1,197

24%

1.4%

21%

26%

6%

1,197

25

1.2

23

28

5%

1,197

2

0.1

1

2

4%

547

56%

3.4%

50%

63%

6%

177

33%

4.1%

25%

41%

12%

347

58%

4.9%

48%

67%

8%

23

b

b

b

b

55%

3,376

69%

1.6%

66%

72%

2%

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

65

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

3,376

20

1.1

17

22

6%

540

15%

1.7%

12%

19%

11%

95% Upper
Confidence
Limit
10 ($17,500
to $19,999)
10 ($17,500
to $19,999)

Relative
Standard
Error

0.2

95% Lower
Confidence
Limit
10 ($17,500
to $19,999)
10 ($17,500
to $19,999)

Chapter 8
Variable
G01
G01
G01
G01
G01
G01
G01
G01
G03
G03
G03
G03
G03

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
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

Variable Level(s)

Number of
Observations

Average

4,927

Median
Did not work at all the
previous year

4,927

Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)
10 ($17,500
to $19,999)
10 ($17,500
to $19,999)

172

9%

1.5%

6%

12%

16%

Less than $10,000

445

14%

1.3%

12%

17%

9%

$10,000-$19,999

1,586

29%

1.6%

25%

32%

6%

$20,000-$29,999

1,906

29%

1.5%

26%

32%

5%

$30,000 or more
Don’t remember (don’t
know)

990

14%

1.0%

13%

16%

7%

206

0.8%

4,911

Median
Did not work at all the
previous year

4,911

0.1

3%
11 ($20,000
to $24,999)
11 ($20,000
to $24,999)

6%
11 ($20,000
to $24,999)
11 ($20,000
to $24,999)

19%

Average

5%
11 ($20,000
to $24,999)
11 ($20,000
to $24,999)

128

6%

1.1%

4%

8%

19%

Less than $10,000

275

8%

0.9%

6%

10%

11%

$10,000-$19,999

1,082

19%

1.3%

17%

22%

7%

Standard
Error
0.1

0.1

1%
2%

1%
1%

66

Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables

Variable
G03
G03
G03
FAMPOV
ASSETUS
G06a
G06b
G06c
G06d

G04c

G04d

G04e

G04b

G04i

G04j

G04k

Variable Description
Family’s total income the
previous year
Family’s total income the
previous year
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 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

Variable Level(s)

Number of
Observations

Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)

Standard
Error

95% Lower
Confidence
Limit

95% Upper
Confidence
Limit

Relative
Standard
Error

$20,000-$29,999

1,577

27%

1.4%

25%

30%

5%

$30,000 or more
Don’t remember (don’t
know)

1,977

32%

1.6%

28%

35%

5%

269

8%

1.8%

4%

11%

24%

Below poverty level
Any US asset
Plot of land
House
Mobile home
Car or truck

1,242
3,885
137
1,001
382
3,645

33%
68%
2%
18%
6%
63%

1.9%
2.1%
0.4%
1.5%
0.7%
1.7%

29%
64%
1%
15%
5%
60%

37%
72%
3%
21%
7%
67%

6%
3%
18%
8%
11%
3%

Disability insurance

81

1%

0.3%

1%

2%

21%

Unemployment Insurance

561

10%

1.3%

8%

13%

12%

Social Security

113

3%

0.6%

2%

4%

20%

Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program

837

18%

1.4%

15%

21%

8%

Public health clinics

541

10%

1.5%

7%

13%

15%

Medicaid

2,262

44%

1.9%

41%

48%

4%

WIC

824

17%

1.3%

14%

19%

7%

67

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
A21c2
A21c2
A23c1
A23c2

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
Children have health
insurance
Children have health
insurance
Who pays for children’s
insurance
Who pays for children’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

2,373

47%

2.0%

43%

51%

4%

Farmworker

268

10%

1.3%

8%

13%

12%

Farmworker’s spouse

45

1%

0.2%

1%

2%

18%

Farmworker’s employer
Farmworker’s spouse’s
employer

730

29%

2.9%

23%

34%

10%

183

6%

1.2%

4%

9%

19%

Government

871

43%

3.3%

37%

50%

8%

Other
Farmworker’s
parents’/family’s plan
Yes

198

7%

0.9%

5%

8%

13%

145
1,728

6%
56%

1.1%
2.2%

4%
52%

9%
61%

18%
4%

Farmworker

113

4%

0.6%

3%

6%

14%

Farmworker’s spouse

76

4%

1.1%

2%

7%

26%

Farmworker’s employer
Farmworker’s spouse’s
employer

203

14%

2.4%

9%

18%

17%

369

19%

2.4%

14%

24%

12%

Government

861

54%

2.9%

48%

59%

5%

Other

136

8%

1.1%

6%

10%

14%

Yes, all have it

2,036

89%

1.5%

87%

92%

2%

Yes, only some have it

105

3%

0.6%

2%

4%

17%

Farmworker

49

1%

0.3%

1%

2%

22%

Farmworker’s spouse

24

1%a

0.3%

<1%

2%

35%

68

Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables

Variable
A23c3
A23c4
A23c5
A23c6
NQ01
NQ03b
NQ03b

Variable Description
Who pays for children’s
insurance
Who pays for children’s
insurance
Who pays for children’s
insurance
Who pays for children’s
insurance
Utilized health care service
in last 2 years
Type of health care provider
at last visit
Type of health care provider
at last visit

NQ05

Type of health care provider
at last visit
Type of health care provider
at last visit
Type of health care provider
at last visit
Type of health care provider
at last visit
Who paid majority of cost of
last health care visit
Who paid majority of cost of
last health care visit
Who paid majority of cost of
last health care visit
Who paid majority of cost of
last health care visit
Who paid majority of cost of
last health care visit
Who paid majority of cost of
last health care visit

NQ05

Who paid majority of cost of
last health care visit

NQ03b
NQ03b
NQ03b
NQ03b
NQ05
NQ05
NQ05
NQ05
NQ05

Number of
Observations

Estimate
(Percentage
or Mean)

Standard
Error

95% Lower
Confidence
Limit

95% Upper
Confidence
Limit

Relative
Standard
Error

Farmworker’s employer
Farmworker’s spouse’s
employer

73

5%a

1.7%

2%

9%

32%

110

5%

0.8%

3%

6%

18%

Government

1,848

86%

1.9%

83%

90%

2%

Other

52

2%

0.7%

1%

4%

30%

Yes

3,322

63%

1.7%

60%

66%

3%

Community health center
Private doctor's office/private
clinic
Healer/curandero, ER,
chiropractor/naturopath,
other

1,039

33%

2.1%

29%

37%

6%

1,378

40%

1.7%

37%

44%

4%

115

3%

0.5%

2%

4%

15%

Hospital

320

11%

1.3%

8%

13%

12%

Migrant health clinic

72

1%

0.3%

1%

2%

21%

Dentist
Paid the bill out of own
pocket

396

12%

1.3%

9%

14%

11%

1,209

34%

1.7%

30%

37%

5%

Medicaid/Medicare

534

22%

2.4%

18%

27%

11%

Public clinic/did not charge
Employer provided health
plan
Self or family bought
individual health plan

319

9%

1.0%

7%

11%

11%

498

13%

1.4%

10%

16%

10%

389

11%

1.3%

9%

14%

12%

Other
Billed but did not pay,
workers’ compensation, or
combination of sources

247

7%

1.0%

5%

9%

14%

134

3%

0.5%

2%

4%

14%

Variable Level(s)

69

Appendix C: Index of Percentages and Means for Key Variables

Variable

NQ10a

NQ10b

NQ10e

NQ10f

NQ10g

NQ10h

NQ10i

MQ10j

NQ10l

NQ10m

Variable Description
Main difficulties faced when
needing to access health care
in the US
Main difficulties faced when
needing to access health care
in the US
Main difficulties faced when
needing to access health care
in the US
Main difficulties faced when
needing to access health care
in the US
Main difficulties faced when
needing to access health care
in the US
Main difficulties faced when
needing to access health care
in the US
Main difficulties faced when
needing to access health care
in the US
Main difficulties faced when
needing to access health care
in the US
Main difficulties faced when
needing to access health care
in the US
Main difficulties faced when
needing to access health care
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

No transportation, too far
away

44

1%

0.3%

<1%

1%

30%

Don't know where services
are available

26

<1%a

0.1%

<1%

1%

36%

They don't speak my
language

64

1%

0.3%

1%

2%

22%

They don't treat me with
respect

11

<1%a

0.1%

<1%

<1%

34%

They don't understand my
problems

14

<1%a

0.2%

<1%

1%

38%

I'll lose my job

7

<1%a

0.03%

<1%

<1%

44%

Too expensive/no insurance

1,415

23%

1.4%

21%

26%

6%

Other
I'm undocumented/no papers
(that's why they don’t treat
me well)

57

1%

0.2%

<1%

1%

29%

48

<1%a

0.4%

<1%

2%

31%

692

13%

1.3%

10%

16%

10%

I don't know, I've never
needed it

70