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. CASE STUDIES: Part 2 Most of the agricultural activity in Wisconsin takes place in the South Central part of the state in the counties of Dodge, Waushura, Green Lake, Outagamie, Columbia, Jefferson, Dane and Marquette. As do most other states, Wisconsin relies on migrant farmworkers to do the labor-intensive seasonal work required by the agricultural industry. According to estimates from United Migrant Opportunity Services (UMOS), between 8,000 and 10,000 migrant farmworkers and family members come every year to work in Wisconsin's canneries and fields between the months of March and December. More than 90 percent of the migrant farmworkers in Wisconsin come from Texas. UMOS staff estimates that approximately 95 percent of migrant farmworkers are Hispanic. Crops farmed by migrant workers include Christmas trees, apples, peas, sweet corn, cucumbers, onions, spinach, celery and other vegetables. Estimates of migrant farmworker median income in Wisconsin are between $6,000 and $9,000 per year. This is well below the $29,442 median annual income for the state of Wisconsin.29 A family of five wanting to rent a three-bedroom apartment would have to pay approximately $635 a month.30 This amount represents 83 to 125 percent of a migrant farmworker family's income, well beyond the 30 percent federal guideline. Affordability is clearly a great problem in these migrant-dependent counties. Another problem in the region is housing availability. According to a report on the housing opportunities in the Beaver Dam area, rural markets seem to have a low year-round demand for housing, and any available opportunities cater to a regional population that changes little over time.31 Farmworkers not housed in farm labor camps face tremendous challenges when looking for housing in the private market. Most places in Wisconsin require a one-year lease, which most farmworkers are unable to sign. Landlords require a deposit that is often equivalent to the first month's rent. If farmworkers lack transportation they are limited to searching for housing in places close to work. They face prejudice by landlords because of their race and national origin and because of the size of the family or group.32 Finally, they lack knowledge of housing opportunities because most housing in rural areas is not advertised and information about availability is passed through word of mouth.33 It is not unusual to find accounts of farmworker arrests when they sleep in parks or reports of farmworkers living in cars, barns, or caves. This situation is especially true for migrant farmworkers who travel to Wisconsin unsolicited in the hope of finding work. "Freelance" workers have the most difficult time because they are looking for housing and employment simultaneously. In Wisconsin, however, migrant farmworkers are better protected by state laws than in most other states. The Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations (DILHR) plays an active role in enforcing and implementing all laws that pertain to farmworkers. The Department has a variety of progressive employment laws. For example, a contractor is required to register and to obtain a certificate of registration from DIHLR. State law requires a certified contractor to carry the permit and exhibit it to any person with whom he or she plans to deal as a contractor prior to doing so. Even more unusual is the law that says that a written work agreement must exist between the worker and the employer. The written agreement is a contract signed by the employee and the employer at the time of hiring, and must contain the following:
Wisconsin also has in place an unusual farm labor housing code which is enforced by DIHLR. Every farm labor camp must be registered with the state and follow the requirements to maintain it in good standing. As of January 1, 1996, changes to the farm labor housing code passed by the Wisconsin legislature became completely applicable to farm labor camps throughout the state. The new regulations include more square footage per person and a minimum of seven-foot-high ceilings. The new rules no longer allow privies or portable toilets; they require mechanical or automatic washers; they require a sink with hot and cold running water in every unit with cooking equipment; pesticides may never be stored in a housing area; and every building must have permanent heating equipment that can maintain the temperature at 70 degrees. Farm labor housing is inspected by four DIHLR employees who divide the camps by region. DIHLR inspectors are responsible for enforcing the housing code and the migrant labor laws. In total, the four inspectors are responsible for more than 100 camps and for approximately 4,500 workers. One inspector stated that she was responsible for covering 24 camps and approximately 1,800 workers in five counties. Inspectors are clearly under great stress to cover as much area as possible, especially during the peak agricultural season. The establishment of the Migrant Housing Task Force is a positive step towards solving the lack of affordable migrant farmworker housing. The Task Force was created in the fall of 1994 by the Migrant Labor Council to articulate how the lack of housing is a barrier to the agricultural industry. The Task Force discovered through a survey sent out to 170 growers that, of the housing now provided by growers, 78.5 percent is for singles and 21.5 percent is for families. Even more useful is the finding that presently at least 348 additional units are needed to meet the demand for seasonal housing. Of those units needed, 260 are for unaccompanied workers and 88 for families. The Task Force is now in the process of working on a strategic plan to be presented to the Migrant Labor Council, which is a legally appointed Council of the state legislature and has the authority to make recommendations to DILHR on migrant issues. The major piece in the strategic plan is to add units to the housing stock through efforts undertaken by cooperative migrant, private, nonprofit and government initiatives. The main goal of the strategic plan is to provide safe, decent and affordable housing for migrants in the State of Wisconsin. To accomplish this, the Task Force is studying the feasibility of establishing a state farm labor housing tax credit. It is also investigating ways to work with the Wisconsin Manufacturing Association and with the farming industry. Another factor contributing to the welfare of farmworkers in Wisconsin is the existence of United Migrant Opportunity Services, Inc. (UMOS). UMOS is a statewide nonprofit organization providing services for migrant and seasonal farmworkers, Hispanics and other low-income minority populations throughout the state of Wisconsin. UMOS provides a comprehensive range of services including employment, education, training, health promotion, disease prevention and other social services. It is the only nonprofit organization in the state that incorporates serving the migrant population in its mission. As the only organization serving this population, UMOS is in an advantageous position because it can gather valuable data on the health, housing and educational needs of farmworkers. Additionally, there is no competition for dollars with organizations providing similar services. More importantly, farmworkers have access to different types of services and information from any of the eight UMOS locations throughout the state without the fragmentation that results from having various service providers. Furthermore, as a statewide organization, it is able to coordinate its advocacy efforts effectively on behalf of farmworkers at a local and statewide level. One major dilemma that all those concerned with the welfare of farmworkers must face is this: whether to allow farmworkers to continue living in substandard, unsanitary and overcrowded conditions or to report housing code violators at the risk that the housing will be shut down and the farmworkers will have nowhere to go. UMOS' position is that it will pursue and cooperate in any investigation that will enforce the state and county housing codes. Their policy, succinctly put, is "some housing -- no one should have to live in." In Wautoma, Wisconsin, this policy was implemented. A trailer park slum in which about half the tenants were farmworkers was officially shut down. This was accomplished after a UMOS employee contacted the local authorities on behalf of farmworkers who had complained about the housing. They had reported conditions of filth, violations of the state's plumbing and electrical codes, missing doors and windows and cockroaches. There was a report of children becoming ill because cockroaches had crawled into their nose and ear cavities. The owner of the property was directed by DILHR to cease renting the units, without success. The trailer park closed down only temporarily. This occurrence led to the harassment of the UMOS employee who had carried out the complaint. She was threatened and physically shoved by farmworkers desperate for housing. They blamed her for their displacement. A few months later the trailer park was again open, and UMOS staff was hesitant to become involved directly by filing a complaint. The UMOS legal counsel, the county's district attorney, and the DIHLR general counsel cooperated to shut it down. This is an example of the complexity of the dilemma that many nonprofits, government agencies, and other concerned individuals encounter when deciding whether to take action against inadequate housing. Grower-Provided Farm Labor Camps Wisconsin has over 100 registered labor camps which are inspected by DIHLR. HAC staff visited five grower-provided farm labor camps and one nonprofit-provided camp. To gain access to camps in Dodge, Columbia, Waushara, and Green Lake Counties, HAC staff enlisted the assistance of outreach workers from UMOS. The outreach workers were asked to take HAC staff to camps ranging from "excellent" to "bad" conditions. Table 3 highlights the conditions of six of the seven camps visited and provides information on the farmworkers there.35 As in Virginia, homebases for farmworkers included Florida, Texas, and Mexico. One farmworker did not have a permanent homebase. The average age was 33 years. Traveling times varied from one month to 12 years, and expected absences from homebases ranged from four to eight months. According to those interviewed, female farmworkers are more likely to travel with their families than are male farmworkers. Some men feel that they cannot bring their wives because they are not legal residents, but would bring them otherwise. Most farmworkers expected to have from one to four jobs during the year. Some did not work but traveled with their families, and some were still looking for work. All the farmworkers in the grower-provided housing said it was easy to find housing because they had a contract which included housing. One farmworker in the grower-provided housing, however, said that the first year she came to Wisconsin was extremely difficult because she and her family did not know where to look. In subsequent years, it became easier. In contrast to the workers in the grower-provided housing, the farmworkers at a nonprofit-sponsored emergency shelter center for migrant farmworkers said finding housing was extremely difficult for them because they were new to the area. The following sections will describe the camps individually and the housing conditions for families and unaccompanied workers at each of these locations (for more details see Table 3). Camp D was privately financed by the grower corporation. It provides 32 units of family housing for 110 persons, and is one of the best farm labor housing facilities observed by HAC staff during the course of this research. It is clean, comfortable, and new. The corporation’s human resources manager guided HAC researchers through the project and expressed satisfaction at being able to provide good quality housing for the migrant farmworkers. The housing is free of charge. This project houses families only. The grower indicated that there was a need for family housing in the area, and that they wished they could provide more because a waiting list exists for unaccompanied migrant farmworkers who would like to bring their families. The cost of another, similar project would be approximately $1 million; the grower cannot afford it presently. However, the manager stressed that, in Wisconsin, providing quality housing was key to attracting the best workers. According to UMOS, this camp is an example of one of the growers making a significant effort to supply housing for its employees. In addition to the family units mentioned above, the grower provides some scattered units for families and is exploring other possibilities, like rehabilitating an old farm owned by the company. It also provides housing to unaccompanied workers at a different site (Camp E). HAC researchers were unable to tour these facilities extensively. However, the housing facilities for the unaccompanied migrant farmworkers resemble a hangar filled with what seem to be endless rows of bunk beds. No privacy exists whatsoever, except for the makeshift curtains the farmworkers have created with sheets. HAC researchers observed that the grower’s quality of family housing is much higher than that for unaccompanied workers. It is clear that the grower’s priority at the moment is to provide quality housing for families. However, it is also important to note that until two years ago, the quality of housing for families working for this grower was very poor. When asked why they had not mixed unaccompanied workers with families, the management responded that they thought there would be too many problems housing the two groups in the same facilities. Camp F houses both families and unaccompanied workers, 153 adults and 66 children. The crewleader guided HAC staff through the camp which consists of trailers and two-room apartments. The apartments are reserved for families and the trailers for unaccompanied workers. According to the crewleader, the family apartments are more spacious. From the outside they appeared to be in better condition than the trailers. The family apartments consist of two bedrooms, a tiny kitchen and dining area. The apartments are extremely small and need minor repairs. Bathrooms are outside in common areas. The crewleader in this camp said that in the month of July three families had come looking for housing, but he had none and so had turned them away. Camps G and H consist of mixed housing. Although the structures of the housing are in only mild disrepair, overcrowding continues to be an issue. At Camp G, 13 people share one unit. At Camp H, three families share a three-bedroom apartment. Like Camp F, these sites are in acceptable physical condition. Camp I is one of the worst camps observed by HAC researchers. Eleven unaccompanied men live in a four-bedroom house provided by the grower at no cost to the farmworkers. Although the house has a spacious kitchen and living room, it is extremely dilapidated. The kitchen is dirty; the ceiling, walls and floors have cracks; the paint on the exterior of the house is peeling. One of the men in the house prefers to sleep in his car because he said his car is more comfortable, but uses the bathroom and kitchen. When questioned about his preference for living in mixed or singles camps, this man said he prefers living in a singles camp, even though he loves children, because families are too vigilant of their children sometimes. He added that it really does not make a difference where single men live because if they lack housing it is much easier for the unaccompanied men to sleep wherever it is necessary. For a family, he said, this would be more difficult. This type of sympathy for families is prevalent among many of the unaccompanied men who spoke with HAC staff. Nonprofit Farm Labor Housing UMOS is actively involved in developing housing solutions. When this research was conducted, negotiations were taking place to obtain Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for land acquisition. UMOS staff was also exploring the possibility of acquiring a camp to renovate it. UMOS has also produced one farmworker housing project, hereafter referred to as Project J. These 32 units of farmworker housing are used as emergency shelter for migrant farmworkers. The housing consists of two-bedroom units with kitchens and dining areas; the 16 newest units also have bathrooms. Laundry facilities exist and a UMOS service office providing social services and job referrals is on site. Project J houses unaccompanied men and families. However, the majority of the tenants are families. To alleviate the need for temporary housing in emergency situations, UMOS has resorted to leasing motel units. Using a grant from Pillsbury Corporation, UMOS leased ten motel rooms for the entire month of July. The hotel units do not have cooking facilities, can only accommodate up to four persons in a two-bedroom unit, and are more costly over the long term than other housing; however, they provide an alternative to homelessness. This is one solution (albeit temporary and limited) that UMOS staff has employed to attack the farmworker housing problem in Wisconsin. Conclusions The seven sites visited in South Central Wisconsin vary widely in quality. Differences in the housing conditions vary for camps that house unaccompanied farmworkers or families. Camp D (grower-sponsored family housing) and Project J (nonprofit-sponsored mixed housing) provide excellent living conditions. Camps F, G, and H, all of which mix family and unaccompanied farmworker housing, are in acceptable physical condition, although overcrowding persists. Camp E for singles, like Camp I, provides extremely poor housing facilities for unaccompanied farmworkers. Although the survey sent out to growers by the Migrant Housing Task Force estimates that more housing units are needed by unaccompanied workers, there appears to be more perceived demand for family housing. Based on field research observations and conversations with growers, housing managers, UMOS staff, and farmworkers, the conditions of farmworker housing and well-being in Wisconsin vary widely. For the most part, however, farmworkers in Wisconsin fare better than other farmworkers in the other case study sites visited. This appears to be a result of the state employment and housing migrant laws, the existence of UMOS and the relatively low numbers of farmworkers entering the state every year. It is apparent that cooperation between government agencies, growers and UMOS also plays a large role in solving the problems faced by migrant farmworkers who come to harvest Wisconsin's crops. Table 3: Samples of Grower-and Nonprofit-Sponsored Housing in South Central Wisconsin
|