Migrant Farmworkers' Housing, Solutions

Housing for Families and Unaccompanied Migrant Farmworkers

Permission is granted ONLY to nonprofit community-based organizations to reproduce and/or adapt this document, and only for their own use.

TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS

In light of the magnitude of the problem, it might seem logical to turn to technology for assistance. However, the data search conducted by HAC staff yielded no major findings on technological solutions to provide housing for migrant farmworkers. Nevertheless, certain innovations have been used in meeting the housing needs of migrant farmworkers. In Stemilt Hill, Washington, a grower won an exemption from the Washington State Board of Health to set up tents during the summer. The grower provided canvas tents anchored to concrete pads. Each tent was accompanied by an outdoor refrigerator, grill, water spigot, electrical outlet and table. The board granted this exemption to observe the results and only allowed the tents for three weeks during the summer when weather was relatively good. Exemptions like these are rare because of the health hazards associated with this type of temporary housing, like exposure to the elements. In this case, the tents were eventually blown away by strong winds.

In Green Lake County, Wisconsin, United Migrant Opportunity Services staff found ways to reduce development costs by implementing novel solutions. For example, because of lack of infrastructure, the septic system used in the project consists of holding tanks emptied every two months. For the summer months, to avoid the prohibitive costs of air conditioning, the project designers devised ceiling exhaust fans. Windows are left open and the fans operating; the fans suck up the hot air, leaving the unit cooler. The designers also used Kemply for wall paneling. Kemply is a durable material that is much less expensive than traditional wall paneling materials. This product is used in freezers, college dorms, mobile homes, and portable offices. Because many of the innovations in the UMOS project had never been tried before with Rural Development-funded housing, the project sponsors requested many exemptions from the regulations.

Another product that is now being examined, and has a potential role in providing affordable migrant farmworker housing, was invented by the United States Department of Agriculture. Originally named spaceboard, this material is a honeycombed building product that is currently in the market under the name Gridcore. The material is hollow but strong and is environmentally sound. It has the potential of replacing wood and does not use toxic materials in production. In addition, it would be less expensive than the traditional construction materials. Presently it is mainly used for stage sets, shelving and partitions. The product is not yet available for housing construction purposes because it has not passed building code requirements such as fire retardancy and water proofing. Gridcore Systems International Corporation expects to bring the product up to code in the future.

These examples of innovations and possible technological solutions are not exhaustive. However, as mentioned above, the data search conducted by HAC staff did not yield other information. Furthermore, nonprofits contacted by HAC staff during the course of this research were unaware of any other technological solutions. One nonprofit housing developer believed technological solutions could be effective in providing farmworker housing. However, these technological solutions consisted of innovations such as those used in Project J in Green Lake County, Wisconsin, to cut down construction costs. No technological solutions for solving the lack of housing for families and unaccompanied workers as separate groups were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Migrant farmworkers travel hundreds of miles to work in fields, canneries, nurseries and processing plants to fill an obvious labor shortage in states such as Virginia, Wisconsin, and Oregon. The problem of insufficient farmworker housing is hidden behind the rolling hills of America's countryside. The need is clearly demonstrated in the previous case studies. Farmworkers cannot afford to secure housing in the traditional rental housing market as a result of low and sporadic incomes, brief occupancy periods (for migrants), and widespread discrimination on the basis of race/ethnicity, national origin, and familial status. Additionally, increasing and improving the stock of low-income housing specifically designated for farm laborers is complicated by:

• difficulty packaging financially viable projects to serve residents with especially low incomes and short occupancy periods;

• lack of subsidized funds for farm labor housing projects;

• difficulty finding and then securing land with appropriate zoning and access to utilities in agricultural areas;

• community opposition to new construction of farm labor housing (NIMBYism); and

• lack of water and sewer, access roads, and other utilities to available sites.

As a consequence of these conditions, some growers are not willing or able to provide housing, whereas others cannot or prefer not to deal with the charge of housing their workers. Nonprofits struggling with limited budgets and limited staff capacity are similarly reluctant to focus on farm labor housing, particularly for migrants. This is true even for experienced nonprofits, but some nonprofits, such as the Housing Development Corporation of Washington County, had existed only on a volunteer basis for many years before being able to hire full-time staff who could concentrate on the problem of farmworker housing.

To the extent that farmworker housing does exist, there are differences between the conditions of the housing related to whether the housing is targeted at year-round farmworkers or migrants, unaccompanied farmworkers or families. The case studies also indicate differences in quality and availability between nonprofit- and grower-sponsored housing.

Those growers providing housing do not offer their workers a choice in terms of single, mixed, or family housing because any housing is scarce, and often the main concern of both growers and migrant farmworkers is finding shelter regardless of the physical condition of the housing. While the housing need is clearly vast for both unaccompanied farmworkers and families, a perception exists among growers, nonprofits, and farmworkers themselves that unaccompanied men can withstand inadequate housing conditions better than families. Grower-provided housing for unaccompanied farmworkers is often in worse condition than that for families. Nonprofits tend to focus new housing projects on families. Finally, nonprofits are also likely to allocate a small portion of new units to migrants, but reserve the bulk of new projects for year-round workers in order to secure the project’s rental income over longer periods. Farmworkers must take what they can get.

As mentioned previously, housing availability data for both families and unaccompanied migrant farmworkers does not exist on a national level. Case studies such as those presented above provide a glimpse of the availability and affordability problem for both families and unaccompanied migrant farmworkers, but are not conclusive enough to lead to recommendations about the level of resources to be allocated to each group. Although NAWS estimates that increasing numbers of migrant farmworkers travel unaccompanied, HAC research indicates that unaccompanied migrant farmworkers would like to travel with their families more often. Other regional questions also play a role in determining a sound strategy for providing farmworker housing. Are the numbers of migrant workers expected to continue to rise in a given area? Will the kinds of crops raised, and therefore the length of the harvest season, change in the future? Will more migrants "settle out" in this area and begin to use it as a homebase? Although it is abundantly clear that more decent and affordable farm labor housing is necessary, these considerations will lead local and regional growers, nonprofits, and government entities to determine the kind of housing necessary: single-room occupancy, single-family detached, dormitories, rental programs, homeownership programs.

States and localities often do not take responsibility for meeting the housing needs of migrant families and unaccompanied workers. Often, the only entities attempting to meet housing needs are nonprofit housing developers that face tremendous constraints in developing housing. Against great odds, nonprofit developers contribute to solving the migrant housing problem by piecing together many funding sources to develop farmworker housing. All farmworker nonprofit projects visited had one funding source in common: Rural Development's 514/516 program. The nonprofit developers asserted that without this funding source, providing affordable housing for this extremely poor population would be almost impossible.

Some states have found that farm labor is essential to their agricultural industries and have taken steps to create housing opportunities.⁴³ Oregon has created a state farmworker housing tax credit that gives growers an incentive to provide farmworker housing. Budget constraints have led the legislature to reduce Oregon's farmworker housing tax credit from 50 to 30 percent at the beginning of 1996. Wisconsin is also in the process of finding solutions to the farmworker housing need. It has established a Migrant Housing Task Force that is examining the feasibility of establishing a farmworker tax credit program and other ways to provide affordable farmworker housing. Unfortunately, not enough is being done to find a solution. Site visits to three states and personal communication with agencies and individuals knowledgeable about local housing needs confirm that the problem can be overwhelming.

Often, behind decent and affordable housing there are years of struggle for the nonprofit and interested individuals. However, for nonprofits that choose to develop farmworker housing, the efforts are worthwhile and the results are impressive. Section 514/516 housing is clean, decent, safe, and affordable. Excellent farmworker housing, although not abundant, does exist thanks to committed individuals, responsible growers, nonprofit organizations and responsive government agencies.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In order to address the different housing needs of unaccompanied farmworkers and those traveling with their families, the following set of actions is recommended.

• Further research should be conducted with the different housing needs of migrant families and unaccompanied farmworkers in mind. These case studies indicate that the housing needs of migrant families and unaccompanied workers are different, and that workers might make different choices about traveling with their families if better housing were available. The extent and variety of the need are not known, however, because no current, comprehensive national data exists. The Department of Labor and NAWS already conduct some research into farmworker populations. HUD and USDA should help sponsor and take into consideration the result of research into housing needs in particular areas when determining how and where to sponsor farmworker housing. Some migrant health clinic organizations have collected sporadic data on farm labor housing conditions. The Housing Assistance Council has begun to devise a comprehensive format for such data collection and will be working with farmworker advocate organizations to gather the information on a consistent, regional basis. Financial resources from HUD and USDA would provide much-needed support for this work and help extend it throughout the country.

• Based on the results of further research, government-sponsored programs should encourage development of housing for unaccompanied farmworkers and families in proportion to the relative need. The different needs of families and unaccompanied workers should be considered when approving plans for dormitories, multi-bedroom apartments, and single-family housing. This research, while not broad enough to determine relative need, does suggest that unaccompanied farmworkers are slightly more likely than are families to live in overcrowded, structurally deficient units. However, the study also indicates that growers, nonprofit organizations, and farmworkers themselves prioritize the needs of families over those of unaccompanied workers (and certainly some housing issues which affect health are more likely to impact children than non-elderly adults). Structurally, different types of units may be more appropriate for different types of migrant groups. Multi-bedroom units in multifamily complexes and single-family detached housing with at least semi-private kitchens and baths may be more important to farmworkers traveling with their families. Multi-bedroom apartments also serve unaccompanied farmworkers well, but developers wishing to focus specifically on unaccompanied farmworkers may find dormitory-style units just as serviceable and less costly to produce than apartments.

• Growers and nonprofits alike who consider providing farm labor housing should consider possible problems in mixing unaccompanied workers with families. Where mixed housing is provided, the project manager/sponsor should encourage community-building activities, such as cookouts and recreational sports. Some farmworkers worry about exposing children to drinking or other problems among large groups of unaccompanied farmworkers. However, where social services and/or community-building activities are provided (as in Delmarva Rural Ministries’ Maryland project) relationships between families and unaccompanied workers seem relaxed.

While this research indicates some distinctions between unaccompanied farmworkers and families, its most decisive conclusion is that the farmworker housing stock in general must be preserved in good condition and expanded. Therefore, the following recommendations reflect the needs of both families and unaccompanied migrant farmworkers, based on observations of the case study sites.

• Increase funding for Rural Development Section 514/516 programs. The case studies indicate that, even when growers and nonprofits are interested in providing such housing, the economic realities of the land and housing markets make it difficult to build farmworker housing at market financing rates. The funding sources for increasing the nonprofit farm labor housing stock are few and increasingly underfunded, however. Rural Development’s Section 514/516 programs have been the single most effective enabler of the development of affordable and decent farmworker housing. Funding for these programs is budgeted for FY 1997 at $26.5 million inclusively, a 6 percent overall increase from the FY 1996 appropriation. However, the 1995 obligation of $56.3 million clearly represented a stronger commitment -- at least financially -- to meeting the vast housing needs of farmworkers.

• Set aside some HOME and CDBG funds on a national level for farm labor housing demonstration projects. Some nonprofits and local governments have found HOME and CDBG funds useful in providing gap financing to Section 514/516-financed projects and enabling water/sewer access and roads to farm labor housing sites.⁴⁴ Even for states with farmworker housing included in their Consolidated Plans, a national set-aside will make it less likely that farmworker needs are obscured by other special needs populations.

• Encourage state and local housing authorities to earmark Section 8 rental assistance for farm labor housing. As observed by housing developers in these case studies, farmworkers who must seek private rental housing often cannot afford the necessary rent levels. Even the development of nonprofit-sponsored farm labor housing is impeded by difficulty projecting high enough rental income to leverage development financing.

• Encourage states and localities to highlight and focus on meeting the needs of farmworkers in their Consolidated Plans. States with agriculturally-based economies and high farmworker populations do not always recognize the importance of farm labor to their economies. Some states have included farmworkers as a "Special Needs Population" in their Consolidated Plans and have targeted this group for housing subsidy in this way.

• Encourage state-sponsored innovations to provide incentives for growers to increase and improve farm labor housing. According to farmworkers, grower-provided housing is generally preferable to finding units in the private rental market. Grower-provided housing is more likely to be accessible to farmworkers’ job sites, and growers often provide housing at little or no cost to the farmworker. As noted in the case studies, some states have provided a state-level tax credit for farmworker rental housing investors. Such a tax credit is marketable to both nonprofit and grower sponsors of affordable housing for farmworkers.

• Increase capacity of local organizations serving farmworkers to increase the supply of affordable housing. Based on the camps observed and conversations with farmworker advocates, nonprofit-sponsored housing is often in better condition than that provided by growers. Yet many nonprofits lack full-time staff and/or familiarity with housing finance, particularly for affordable farm labor housing. Technical assistance and program outreach should be targeted to farmworker housing providers.

• Encourage state and local governments to increase high-density residential zoning in rural areas with agricultural economies to accommodate farmworker multifamily housing projects. Rural areas, particularly in agricultural regions, usually have zoning laws that do not permit many multifamily housing complexes. Housing providers in Maryland and Washington mentioned zoning restrictions as one significant barrier to developing more farm labor housing. Zoning is also a prime vehicle used by NIMBY opponents to obstruct farm labor housing.

• Allow experimentation with alternative building materials and other creative solutions for cost-cutting purposes with Rural Development- and HUD-funded projects. As shown in these case studies, developers often need to use imaginative construction methods to keep development costs down without decreasing the long-term viability and safety of the units.

• Raise awareness among public officials and the general public about the situation of farmworkers. Increase cooperation and coordination among all levels of government, nonprofits and the private sector to assess and address the need for farmworker housing. Expand outreach efforts to increase use of all federal and state housing programs by farmworkers. The case studies and background data demonstrate that obstacles to developing farm labor housing are diverse, ranging from the most local (zoning laws, NIMBYism, and land costs) to state level (limited funds for affordable housing) to nationwide (widespread discrimination against farmworkers based on familial status, national origin, and race/ethnicity). The living conditions of farmworkers observed throughout the case study sites highlight and confirm overwhelming need for social services and access to housing assistance by farmworkers. Yet data from NAWS indicates that farmworkers do not use public assistance in proportion to their need. Testimony from advocates and farmworkers themselves also indicates that discrimination is an additional barrier to adequate housing. At a minimum, farmworker access to federal and state programs should include increased efforts by fair housing offices to educate farmworkers about their rights and improve farmworker access to the fair housing violation complaint and resolution process. The Department of Justice should employ its testing and investigation procedures to target examples of pattern or practice discrimination on behalf of farmworkers. With coalition work, nonprofits, growers and government agencies can mitigate these problems. Wisconsin’s farm labor laws provide an excellent model for other states seeking to improve the situation and self-sufficiency of farmworkers.

On to Bibliography

Back to table of contents