Housing for Families and Unaccompanied Migrant Farmworkers© Housing Assistance Council, August 1997 Permission is granted ONLY to nonprofit community-based organizations to reproduce and/or adapt this document, and only for their own use. Statistical data on farmworkers is controversial and scarce. For example, there is no universally accepted estimate of the number of farmworkers.6 However, it is known that Census data substantially undercount farmworkers. Estimates of farmworkers range from a low of 759,669, according to the Census, to a high of 4.1 million (including dependents), according to the Department of Health and Human Services.7 The more generally accepted number, however, is provided by the Commission on Agricultural Workers, which estimated 2.5 million farmworkers in its 1993 report.8 According to NAWS, migrant farmworkers made up a significant part of the farm labor population from 1989 through 1991. Forty-two percent of the farm labor force consisted of migrant farmworkers. Four out of five migrant farmworkers were men. Fifty-eight percent of migrants in the NAWS samples from 1989 through 1991 were married, but only about 40 percent traveled with their families while doing agricultural labor. NAWS estimated the number of migrant farmworkers at 670,000, using the 2.5 million benchmark. It also estimated that 410,000 dependents of migrants lived in the U.S., 340,000 of whom were children under the age of 14. The number of migrant farmworkers and dependents totaled 1,080,000.9 HOUSING NEED AND AVAILABILITY10 Ample anecdotal documentation exists about the conditions of housing available to migrant farmworkers; much of it shows the overcrowded conditions and structural deterioration in which many of them live. However, no current national data exists on the need for farmworker housing. The most recent data on the subject was produced by an unpublished report commissioned by the Farmers Home Administration in the late 1970s. The report calculated that 756,196 units were needed to meet the demand for migrant farmworker housing nationwide. Almost two decades later, that report remains the most comprehensive assessment of farmworker housing needs in the country. No indication exists that fewer units are presently needed. The need is also shown by the demand for Rural Development (formerly known as Farmers Home Administration and, more recently, Rural Economic and Community Development) programs. The only program at the national level that provides funds specifically for farmworker housing is the Section 514/516 loans and grants program, administered by Rural Housing Service (RHS), an agency of Rural Development in the United States Department of Agriculture. The housing built under this program provides safe, decent, affordable shelter to farmworkers. However, the demand for these funds greatly exceeds supply. In 1995, requests for farm labor housing loans and grants totaled $205,068,018 to provide 4,128 units. However, the appropriation in 1995 was $26,161,432, enough to fund only 550 units. The demand is nearly eight times the supply. For FY 1997, Congress has appropriated only $15 million for Section 514 loans and collapsed approximately $6 million of funding for Section 516 grants into the Rural Housing Assistance Program (RHAP), a block-granted amalgam of Section 516, Section 504 repair grants, Section 533 housing preservation grants, and other programs. The division of funding between Section 514 and Section 516 will make it difficult for individual states to accumulate and combine enough funding for farm labor housing projects. The collapsing of several programs into one RHAP which will be blockgranted to the states will also make the included programs even more vulnerable to future budget cuts.11 Very little is known about the availability of housing for families and unaccompanied workers as separate groups. Again, the Farmers Home Administration report provides the most recent data. It found that inspected houses, cabins, or duplexes (detached single-family), multi-unit residential buildings, and mobile homes were more likely to be occupied exclusively by families, rather than by unaccompanied workers. Only dormitories and barns were more likely to be occupied exclusively by unaccompanied migrant farmworkers. (See Table 1.) The study provided no information on the appropriateness of various housing structures for families and unaccompanied workers.12 Table 1: Building Type vs. Actual Use of Inspected Residential Camp Buildings13
Availability of subsidized housing to migrant farmworkers is limited as well. NAWS reports that all farmworkers are underserved by government public assistance programs of any type. Even though the poverty rate among migrant farmworkers is approximately 67 percent, less than 5 percent of farmworker households use housing subsidy programs.14 NAWS data does not provide information on housing subsidy usage by family or unaccompanied migrant workers; therefore, it is not known which group is less likely to receive this type of federal assistance. HAC staff researched background information, traveled to sites in three states, and spoke with farmworkers, nonprofit housing developers, housing managers, public agencies and other service providers. The case study sites were selected according to (1) location, (2) a large number of migrant farmworkers, (3) availability of local contacts, and (4) availability of appropriate and successful housing projects for both families and unaccompanied workers. Each of the case study sites is located within one of the major migration streams traveled by migrant farmworkers every year.15 HAC staff contacted key nonprofit organizations in the three selected case study sites. All three nonprofit organizations had developed farmworker housing and were extremely knowledgeable about farmworker needs in their area. They provided staff or contacts, who took or directed HAC researchers to labor camps, nonprofit-developed housing, and sometimes private rental housing. Housing units visited included dormitories, houses, cabins, apartments, and mobile homes. Regional contacts were asked to take HAC staff to family, mixed, and single housing facilities ranging from "bad" to "excellent" conditions in order to observe and compare housing situations of families and unaccompanied migrant farmworkers. Contacts interpreted these terms at their own discretion. In all cases, HAC staff concurred with their housing assessments. No exact measures or technical assessments of the housing conditions were made.16 The tables included in this report provide a glimpse of the situation of farmworkers and their housing situation on a very personal level. The information reported in these tables was obtained through one-on-one conversations and is not based on formal interviews. All information about farmworkers was obtained at farm labor camps. Crewleaders were contacted for permission to enter farm labor camps whenever it was deemed necessary by the regional contacts. The observations made by HAC staff are purely subjective. HAC research found that for migrant families and unaccompanied farmworkers, the most convenient and desired situation is employer-provided housing. According to conversations with farmworkers and advocates and observations during site visits, farmworkers who had been working the longest, with a few exceptions, seemed to have a set pattern of employment every year. Most often, the more experienced farmworkers who were contracted prior to traveling also had secured employer-provided housing, free or at a reduced rate. Most contracted workers were home-based migrants. Conditions of employer-provided camps varied widely. Some camps were brand new and met all housing and sanitary codes admirably, while others rivaled housing in underdeveloped countries. Regardless of the condition of the housing, workers agreed that they would rather live in unsanitary, inadequate camps than have no housing at all or pay extremely high rents (the choice really does not exist for many of them). One grower in Wisconsin who replaced old with brand new housing described how migrant farmworkers begged company employees to let them stay in the old on-site housing, which was in deplorable condition. Migrant farmworkers did this because of the lack of housing near their work. Farm labor camp living arrangements fit into one of three categories: families, singles (unaccompanied men only), and a combination of unaccompanied workers and families (mixed). The nonprofit-provided housing visited was occupied mostly by families; however, one project in Maryland rented to both unaccompanied men and families. One project in Wisconsin also rented to both unaccompanied men and women, but only because it served as emergency shelter for migrant farmworkers; tenants usually did not remain for a long period of time. Most farmworkers do not have a choice about the type of housing they will occupy in a farm labor camp; nevertheless, farmworkers did express preferences for living in mixed or homogeneous housing. Some men and women traveling with their families complained about excessive drinking and noise by unaccompanied men. Women had no other objections to living in a housing facility along with unaccompanied men. Men, however, had varied opinions. Some unaccompanied men preferred living in mixed housing because they felt a sense of community. Others disliked it because they felt that husbands were too jealous or sometimes families were too concerned about unaccompanied men being in the same facilities with their children. About half of the farmworkers did not oppose living in mixed camps. Most housing managers and crewleaders were wary of placing families and unaccompanied men in the same facility or, in the mixed developments, even in contiguous units. The perception among growers, housing managers, crewleaders and farmworkers was that unaccompanied men can withstand the lack of housing better than families with children. Among the developments observed for this research, most grower-provided housing for unaccompanied men was in poorer condition than that provided for families. Housing for unaccompanied men also lacked indoor kitchens and bathrooms more often. One grower said that it was important to provide individual kitchens in family housing. He said individual bathrooms were not provided for every unit because this would increase construction costs. Nonprofit developers noted that housing with indoor kitchens and bathrooms was equally appropriate for both families and unaccompanied workers. Both families and unaccompanied migrant farmworkers expressed great discomfort about sharing small housing units with strangers. Some men expressed concern for families living in small units without central kitchens and bathrooms. Families stated that central kitchens and bathrooms were inadequate to meet their needs because they could not look after the children in common areas as well as they could in their own units. The reaction to inappropriate housing was a feeling of extreme discomfort for both families and unaccompanied farmworkers. All regional contacts indicated that farmworkers lucky enough to obtain grower-provided or subsidized housing fared well enough to survive modestly. Others who were not so lucky spent a large portion of their earnings on housing, and often the quality was extremely poor. Nonprofit developers and other service providers also agreed that for migrant farmworkers finding housing in the rental market was a challenge, especially when they were new to the area. Migrant farmworkers face constraints such as excessive rent, substantial deposit amounts, long-term leases, lack of credit and prejudice. Those with larger families are even more disadvantaged. Frequently, large groups share a dwelling to reduce the high cost of housing, resulting in overcrowding. Often farmworkers live in overcrowded and substandard housing that does not meet many state and local housing codes.17 In all case study sites, contacts agreed that housing need was a serious problem. All the nonprofit organizations contacted for this study had developed farmworker housing to try to meet the needs of migrant farmworkers. However, they had been successful in developing only a small number of units in comparison to the existing needs. Many nonprofits faced enormous constraints in developing farmworker housing. The greatest obstacle cited by nonprofit representatives was packaging financially viable deals with the low incomes and short occupancy periods of migrant farmworkers. The nonprofit organizations stated that it would be almost impossible to develop farmworker housing projects without Rural Development funds. Repeatedly, the nonprofit developers stated that lack of funds available for farm labor housing projects was one of the major obstacles. Other constraints included difficulties in finding land, zoning laws prohibiting multifamily projects, opposition of communities to farm labor housing (NIMBY),18 lack of infrastructure (public water and sewer), and lack of nonprofit capacity. In the face of these constraints, many nonprofits and local governments are unwilling to sponsor farm labor housing projects. Even within the network of low-income housing developers, there are only a few organizations that choose to develop farmworker housing. According to nonprofit developers and farmworker housing advocates, Section 514/516 farm labor housing units have been allocated disproportionately to year-round farmworkers. The most common strategy among nonprofits has been to reserve some units in farm labor housing for migrant farmworkers, with the bulk of the units remaining for year-round farmworkers. Many times even these subsidized housing units have been unavailable to migrant farmworkers because many of them have not been in place long enough to get to the top of the long waiting lists of the programs offered by USDA and HUD.19 |