ABUNDANT FIELDS, MEAGER SHELTER: FINDINGS FROM A SURVEY OF FARMWORKER HOUSING IN THE EASTERN MIGRANT STREAM

© Housing Assistance Council, 2000

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Working in partnership with Farmworker Health Services, Inc. (FHSI), a healthcare outreach organization serving migrant and seasonal farmworkers, the Housing Assistance Council (HAC) performed a survey of farmworker housing conditions in the Eastern migrant stream from December 1997 through October 1998.¹ The purpose of this survey was to determine the typical structural, ownership, quality and cost characteristics of housing occupied by migrant and seasonal farmworkers in the Eastern migrant stream. FHSI provides outreach workers to clinics that serve farmworkers throughout the Eastern migrant stream. FHSI staff completed housing surveys while performing their healthcare outreach duties. The survey results support journalistic accounts that note farmworkers are among the nation’s poorest and worst-housed groups.

Migrant farmworkers typically reside during winter in "home base" communities in Florida, Texas, southern California, or in Mexico or other Central American or Caribbean nations. As the growing season progresses in the spring and summer, they relocate to points north. These migration pattern north from home bases are referred to as migrant streams. The Eastern migrant stream runs from Florida to New England, the Midwestern stream from Texas to the Northern Plains states, and the Western stream from southern California to the Pacific Northwest. Eastern stream states in which surveys were conducted include Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina and Virginia. Nationwide, there are between four and five million migrant and seasonal farmworkers, and approximately 1.1 million farmworkers work in the Eastern migrant stream.²

SURVEY FINDINGS

The survey collected information on 1,566 housing units occupied by farmworkers. These units housed 8,965 people, of which 7,381 were adults and 1,584 were children. Children were present in 36 percent of the units surveyed.³

Mobile homes and dormitory or barracks units were the most common structure types. Mobile homes were 32 percent of survey units, and dormitory or barracks units were 30 percent of units surveyed. Employers owned 55 percent of the units.

Crowding

Crowding was prevalent and severe in the housing units surveyed. Crowded units are those with a mean of more than one person per room, excluding kitchens and bathrooms. For all types of units besides dormitories and barracks, there was a mean of 2.1 people per room. Excluding dormitories and barracks, almost 85 percent of all units were crowded. Among crowded units, more than 50 percent had children present.

Appliances and Fixtures

Most units had a stove, refrigerator, bathtub and toilet. However, 275 units, or 17.6 percent, had at least one of these appliances and fixtures broken. Only 41 percent of units had access to a telephone, either in the unit or accessible at the site. Only 25 percent had laundry machines available to residents.

Housing Quality Items

Overall, 39 percent of survey units were directly adjacent to fields where pesticides were applied. In Virginia, 93 percent of housing units were located adjacent to fields. Children lived in over 27 percent of all survey units adjacent to fields.

Serious structural problems were evident in 27 percent of the survey units. More than 43 percent of the units had windows with broken glass or screens, and more than 49 percent had significant areas of peeling paint on their exteriors. Over 80 percent of the units (1,261 units) had at least one exterior problem, and 29 percent (454 units) had four or more exterior problems. Over 35 percent of units with at least one quality problem had children present (152 units). Of the 205 units with six or more exterior problems, 64 units, or over 31 percent, had children present.

Interior problems were also prevalent in the survey units. Over 36 percent of the units had peeling paint or broken plaster, and almost 35 percent had evidence of water leakage. Over 66 percent of the units (1,036 units) had at least one interior problem, and almost 29 percent (450 units) had three or more problems. Of the units with three or more interior problems, 152, or almost 34 percent, had children present. Almost 20 percent of all units (309 units) had both four or more exterior problems and three or more interior problems.

Mobile homes examined in the survey were more likely to have significant exterior and interior problems than other types of units. Between one third and one half of all mobile home units had problems on most of the exterior quality measures. Although all 1,566 survey units had a mean of 1.7 interior problems per unit, mobile homes (498 units) had a mean of 2.3 interior problems per unit.

Severely Inadequate Housing

The exterior and interior problems examined in HAC’s survey correspond closely to many of the housing problems examined in the American Housing Survey (AHS) to determine the presence of substandard housing. Among all the units in HAC’s farmworker housing survey, almost 38 percent were severely inadequate using the AHS measures for physical quality. Private market housing⁴ was particularly likely to be substandard, with almost 45 percent of private market units severely inadequate. Mobile homes were the type of unit most likely to be severely inadequate, and over 53 percent of mobile homes surveyed were in this condition.

Of all severely inadequate units, almost 90 percent were crowded. Severely inadequate units made up over 43 percent of all crowded units. Almost 44 percent of cost-burdened households lived in severely inadequate units. Over 49 percent of units with households experiencing crowding and cost burden were severely inadequate.

Children were living in over 42 percent of the severely inadequate units. Additionally, units with numerous serious problems were very likely to have children living in them. Children were living in over 44 percent of the units that were both severely inadequate and crowded. Among the units that were severely inadequate, crowded, and whose households had housing cost burden, over 68 percent had children present.

Income, Housing Cost, and Housing Cost Burden

The median monthly income for farmworker respondents was $850. Median income reported for the current month (the month respondents were surveyed) fluctuated substantially from month to month, ranging from a low of $550 in June 1998 to a high of $1,000 for both August and October 1998. The median monthly housing cost was $200. The median cost for employer- owned housing was $0, because 63 percent of employer-owned units were provided free of charge. Among units for which employers charged rent the median cost was $200. Private market housing had a median cost of $460.

Farmworker households, which include groups of single men sharing a unit, paid a mean of 16 percent of their monthly income for housing.⁵ Among all the households surveyed, 14 percent had housing cost burden, which means paying more than 30 percent of their monthly income for housing. Excluding units provided free of charge, 22 percent of households had housing cost burden. Farmworker households living in private market units were more likely to have housing cost burden, with almost 23 percent of private market units occupied by households with this problem. Among all cost-burdened households, 66 percent had children present, and over 79 percent of cost-burdened households in private market housing included children.

The relatively low rates of cost burden among farmworker households surveyed were most likely due to the fact that many employer-owned units were provided free of charge, and to crowding, since many wage earners sharing units would reduce their individual portion of the housing cost. Among all survey units, there was a mean of 4.5 wage earners per housing unit. Private market units had a mean of 3.9 wage earners per housing unit. Over 74 percent of units with cost-burdened households were crowded.

Residence Patterns

Among the Eastern stream states, the mean length of stay in all units was 5.3 months. Florida had the longest mean length of stay, at 6.7 months. New York and Connecticut had the shortest, at 2.5 and 3.0 months respectively. These patterns are consistent with the growing seasons within the Eastern migrant stream, with a shorter season farther north, and a longer season in Florida. The longer length of stay for farmworkers in Florida also reflects the fact that many farmworkers who migrate throughout the Eastern migrant stream maintain their permanent home, or home base, in this state.

The survey asked for place of last residence. In Florida, 19 percent of respondents last lived outside the United States. Among Florida respondents, 11 percent last lived in a U.S. state outside the Eastern migrant stream, such as Michigan, California, Oregon or Texas. In upstream states, almost 27 percent of respondents last lived outside the United States, and 7 percent last lived in a U.S. state outside the Eastern migrant stream.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS

The findings from this survey of farmworker housing conditions in the Eastern migrant stream suggest a number of policy implications. Adjustments to government housing support at the federal, state and local levels may bring greater resources to bear in a more efficient manner to improve the conditions documented in HAC’s survey. Increased government funding for farmworker housing development and rehabilitation is an important policy implication given the prevalence of crowded and substandard conditions found in the survey.

• The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Housing Service (RHS) administers the only federal programs providing development funding for farm labor housing. The Section 514 program (1 percent loans to growers or nonprofit groups) and the Section 516 program (grants to nonprofit groups for up to 90 percent of development cost, often used in conjunction with a Section 514 loan) provide the deep subsidies necessary for rents affordable to low-income farmworkers. Section 514/516 projects may also use RHS Section 521 rental assistance to reduce the rent burden for farmworker tenants. These programs received total appropriations for FY2000 of approximately $40 million. The conditions documented in HAC’s survey attest to the need to improve the stock of decent, affordable farmworker housing. Increased funding for these programs would provide vital resources for developing safe, decent, affordable farmworker housing.


• RHS also administers funding for mutual self-help housing developments, where low- and very low-income households contribute “sweat equity” by helping build their homes, thereby lowering the cost of homeownership. In conjunction with Section 502 direct loans, which can have an effective interest rate as low as 1 percent, homeownership can become a reality even for very low-income households. While not used exclusively for farmworkers, the mutual self-help housing program has been an effective tool for improving the quality and quantity of farmworker housing in many areas of the country. Increasing funding for these programs will allow many farmworker families, especially in home base states like Florida or upstream areas where migrants are “settling out,” to achieve the American Dream of homeownership, reduce their reliance on employers to provide housing, and avoid having to accept poor quality units in the private market.


• The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) HOME program, a federal housing block grant administered by states in rural areas and local governments in urbanized areas, provides substantial support for affordable housing development around the country. Priorities for use of these funds are set by states and local participating jurisdictions in Consolidated plans. Groups like farmworkers may be designated as having special housing needs, and projects serving groups so designated may receive priority for HOME funding. Some states with large farmworker populations have not listed farmworkers as a group with special housing needs. Other states that do list farmworkers as a special needs population do not provide any significant priority for funding farmworker housing applications. On the one hand, HUD can encourage states to include farmworkers as a special needs population in their Consolidated Plans and to provide priority for using HOME funds for farmworker housing projects. HUD could also seek a national setaside of HOME funds for farmworker housing. This would be especially useful for nonprofit housing groups working in areas where there is substantial local resistance to developing farmworker housing, a very common phenomenon even in areas heavily dependent on farm labor in their agricultural economies.⁶ The HOME program received an appropriation of $1.6 billion for FY2000, and a 1 percent setaside would yield $16 million for farmworker housing development. Establishing such a setaside would require a statutory change.


• Legislation reforming many public and assisted housing programs was attached to the FY1999 HUD appropriation. One measure adopted in the 1998 Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act (QHWRA) abolished the federal preferences that local housing authorities used to administer their public housing and Section 8 rental assistance waiting lists. Housing authorities may now either continue using the federal preferences or adopt their own local preferences. Housing authorities serving agricultural areas could adopt a preference for farmworkers. This would reduce the time that farmworker applicants must spend on waiting lists for housing assistance. In addition, Section 8 rental assistance vouchers are portable, which means this form of housing assistance can be particularly helpful to migrant farmworkers. Most housing authorities require a one year lease for Section 8 clients. Housing authorities in home base states like Florida could reduce the required length of the lease for farmworker clients and work with housing authorities in upstream states to coordinate service to migrant farmworkers with Section 8 vouchers.


• Growers have sought various reforms to the H2A Temporary Foreign Agricultural Worker program (H2A) that allows them to recruit temporary foreign workers when an area experiences an agricultural labor shortage. One of the reforms sought by growers is to remove or limit their obligation to provide housing for these workers, or to at least allow growers to provide guestworkers with vouchers or cash to rent housing in the private market. However, HAC’s survey indicates that private market housing occupied by farmworkers is more expensive and in much poorer condition overall than employer- owned housing. Removing the employer obligation to provide housing to H2A workers will therefore likely impose substantial hardship on these farm laborers.


• Most states with a substantial agricultural sector require employer-owned housing to comply with codes and undergo inspection, which probably accounts for the overall better quality of grower-owned housing compared to private market housing. Many rural areas have limited housing codes, and few resources to enforce the codes they have. Stronger code enforcement for private market housing, and more substantial penalties for landlords who will not comply with housing codes, could promote greater maintenance of these properties.


• The prevalence of peeling paint raises the issue of lead poisoning, particularly in cases where children are present and units lack adequate sanitary facilities. HUD provides funding for lead abatement efforts, but could target some of this funding to organizations working in areas with large farmworker populations. This could be done either through a setaside or by providing some form of application priority, such as additional points when scoring requests, to mitigate this potential hazard in farmworker housing.


• The housing problems documented in HAC’s survey have implications for the work of other farmworker service networks, particularly healthcare providers. Poor housing contributes to a number of health problems, and children living in crowded or substandard conditions are likely to be particularly impacted. At the federal level, there is an Interagency Committee on Migrants that meets quarterly. At these meetings, representatives from the different federal agencies that administer farmworker service programs, and staff from national nonprofit organizations serving farmworkers, meet to share information and explore different avenues of collaboration. However, there is less collaboration at the state, regional, and local levels. In many cases, for example, healthcare outreach workers who encounter poor housing conditions are unaware of housing resources available in their service area. Federal, state, or local support to facilitate collaborative ventures between different farmworker service organizations could improve dissemination of information about resources available to farmworkers and improve the extent and quality of service delivery.


• HAC’s survey also points to the need for additional research on farmworker housing. HAC’s methodology, while producing a rich body of information on the surveyed units, did not yield the kind of information appropriate for use in allocating federal funds between different states or regions. A more extensive national survey that includes every state, using a methodology generating a statistically random sample, would prove more useful in targeting limited federal farmworker housing resources. In addition, more detailed market studies in major agricultural areas are needed to assess the unique housing needs of farmworkers in these regions. These kinds of studies are necessary so that local housing organizations can better assess what kinds of housing are needed (for singles or for families, for migrants or for year-round residents), and what areas within a local housing market have the greatest need for new or rehabilitated housing.

Back to press release.

Back to HAC home page.

This document best viewed with a monitor resolution of 800 x 600.