In this chapter we will discuss farm worker income and poverty levels,
personal assets, and the use of social insurance and social services. We
begin by examining farm worker sources of personal income including farm
and non farm earnings, and personal assets. Next, we look at family
incomes and the poverty level among farm worker households. Finally, we
look at farm worker family use of social insurance programs such as Social
Security and unemployment, as well as social service programs such as Food
Stamps and welfare payments.
- Farm workers had low individual earnings from farm work; the median
income from farm work was between $2,500 and $5,000. Three-fourths
earned less than $10,000 annually.
- Only one-fourth of the farm workers had non farm work earnings. The
median personal income from farm work and other work sources combined
was between $5,000 and $7,500.
- Few farm workers had assets. About half (49%) owned a vehicle and
about one-third owned or were buying a house or trailer in the United
States.
- Farm worker households also had low family incomes. The median was
between $7,500 and $10,000, and over three-fifths of farm worker
households were in poverty.
- Despite pervasive poverty among farm workers, few used social
insurance or social service programs.
Farm workers derived their personal income from two main sources: farm
work and non-farm work. Farm workers relied on these earnings for most of
their income as they had few income-producing assets, and, as we will
discuss later in the chapter, farm workers received little money from
social insurance or social service programs.
Combining all sources of income, most individual farm workers had low
incomes. The median personal income for farm workers was between $5,000
and $7,500. Many (28%) had personal incomes under $2,500. Almost
three-quarters had personal incomes that did not exceed $10,000, and only
one in seven had a personal income over $12,500. Moreover, median personal
incomes have remained between $5,000 and $7,500 since 1988, which means
that personal incomes, in inflation-adjusted dollars, likely fell during
this period.
There are differences in personal income levels among the various ethnic
and nationality groups. To facilitate this discussion we have categorized
farm workers into three groups: foreign-born workers (of whom 94% are
Mexican), U.S. born Hispanics (USH) and U.S. born workers who are not
Hispanic (USNH). Although all groups have median income levels which show
low individual, or personal, earnings, foreign-born workers had a higher
median personal income than the U.S. born. Foreign-born workers earned
between $5,000 and $7,500 while the U.S. born workers as a group had a
lower median income, between $2,500 and $5,000 (see Figure 3.1). The lower
median income level for U.S. born individuals overall was due to the very
low income among USH ($2,500-$5,000); USNH reported higher median
earnings, between $5,000 and $7,500.
There were also significant differences in personal income among workers
with varying immigration and citizenship status. Green card holders or
legal permanent residents (LPRs) earned between $7,500 and $10,000 a year
whereas citizens and people with other work authorizations (such as
amnesty and family unity) tended to have a lower median income of between
$5,000 and $7,500. Unauthorized workers had the lowest median income--
between $2,500 and $5,000.
Gender was also a determining factor in annual personal income. Women
farm workers had lower personal incomes than men. The median income for
women farm workers was between $2,500 and $5,000, while for men, it was
between $5,000 and $7,500.
As we shall see further on in this chapter, both for women and for the
different ethnic groups, lower individual income did not necessarily
translate to lower family income.
Farm Earnings
| Figure 3.1 |
 |
| Source: NAWS 1994-95 |
Oftentimes workers earned only part of their total personal income from
farm work. In general, the farm work portion of a worker's earnings was
quite low. The average worker took in between $2,500 and $5,000 per year
from farm work. Half (53%) earned less than $5,000 annually from farm
work. One in eight (13%) earned $5,000-$7,500; 12% made $7,500- $10,000
and another 8% earned $10,000- $12,500 in farm work.
Workers' earnings from farm work varied by place of birth and ethnic
group. Foreign-born workers earned slightly more than the U.S. born.
Foreign-born workers had median earnings between $5,000 and $7,500 while
U.S. born workers earned between $2,500 and $5,000 annually (see Figure
3.2). Among U.S. born workers farm income varies by ethnic group: USNH
earned less farm income than the USH. The median farm income for USNH was
between $1,000 and $2,500 while USH had a median annual income between
$2,500 and $5,000. Apparently, the USNH were able to earn more off farm
than the USH were; for the USH the median for their farm income was the
same as their total personal income (see discussion of Personal Income
below).
Women earned less from farm work than men. Half of women farm workers
(51%) earned less
| Figure 3.2 |
 |
| Source: NAWS 1994-95 |
than $2,500 in farm work, while the same proportion of men farm workers
(49%) earned up to $5,000. Only one in ten women (10%) earned more than
$10,000 in farm work, while two in ten (22%) men did. Women earning more
than $12,500 from farm work were rare (5%); it was more than twice as
common (13%) for a man to earn this much from farm labor.
Farm earnings varied by age as well. Wages tended to rise with age, up
to 25 years. Young farm workers tend to have very low earnings. Median
farm earnings for workers younger than 18 were between $500 and $1,000.
Farm workers between the ages of 18 and 21 had median earnings of $1,000
and $2,500. For farm workers between 22 and 24 years old, median farm
earnings rose to between $2,500 and $5,000. For farm workers over age 25,
the median farm earnings were between $5,000 and $7,500.
Farm earnings also varied greatly by region in which the interview
occurred. Workers in the Midwest had the lowest farm earnings--between
$1,000 and $2,500, and more than one-third of workers (37%) had earnings
of less than $500 a year from farm work. Workers in the Northeast and the
Southeast earned slightly more. Median farm earnings in those regions were
between $2,500 and $5,000. Workers in the Western states had the highest
earnings, although their farm incomes were still relatively low. Median
farm earnings in this region were between $5,000 and $7,500 per year.
While for most farm workers the only source of earnings was U.S. farm
work, about one-fourth of farm workers also worked in non-farm work. The
proportion of workers combining farm work and non-farm work varied by
place of birth, age, and region. U.S. born workers were twice as likely to
do non farm work than the foreign-born workers (41% and 19%,
respectively). Workers between the ages of 18 and 35 were more likely than
workers over 35 to combine farm and non-farm work (29% and 21%,
respectively). Farm workers in the Midwest and the Western Plains were
most likely to do non-farm work (43%), while smaller proportions of farm
workers in the Northwest (20%), Northeast (16%), Southeast (24%), and West
(8%) did both farm and non-farm.
Apart from personal belongings, about one-third of all farm workers had
no assets either in their home country or in the United States. About half
had no U.S. assets. In this section we focus on differences in asset
possession by ethnic and nationality groups and by legal status.
The proportion of farm workers possessing any assets depended on place
of birth and ethnicity. Almost two thirds of the U.S. born workers (66%)
had U.S. assets while only 44% of foreign-born workers possessed such
assets. However, among the U.S. born groups, USNH were most likely to hold
U.S. assets. Over three quarters (78%) of USNH had assets in the United
States while only 40 % of USH had any U.S. assets.
In regards to foreign assets, the situation was reversed. Foreign-born
workers held most of the foreign assets. Over one-third had an asset
abroad while only 4% of U.S.-born workers did. Furthermore, all U.S. born
workers with foreign assets were USH. About one eighth (12%) of the USH
possessed a foreign asset.
Looking at asset owners by legal status revealed interesting trends.
Workers holding U.S. assets were most likely to be either citizens or
LPRs, while people who had work authorization but no green card were less
likely to own a U.S. asset. Fewer than one-fourth (23%) of unauthorized
workers had any U.S. asset at all. Looking at the foreign-held assets
revealed that similar proportions of all three immigrant categories--LPRs,
work-authorized, and unauthorized workers--possessed assets in their home
countries. Over one-third of each group owned at least one foreign asset.
Citizens were least likely to have foreign assets, and as we mentioned
earlier, these citizen-held foreign assets were owned exclusively by the
USH.
The most common asset among all farmworkers was a vehicle. Almost half
(49%) of the farmworker population owned an automobile or truck. This
proportion of ownership can be viewed from another perspective; despite
the long distances many need to travel in rural farm areas, more than half
of farmworkers (51%) did not own a vehicle.
Vehicle ownership varied by place of birth and ethnicity. Workers born
in the United States were more likely to own a vehicle than those born
abroad (63% vs. 43%) (see Figure 3.3). Most of these vehicle owners were
USNH. Almost three quarters (74%) of USNH owned a car or truck and only
40% of USH owned a vehicle.
| Figure 3.3 |
 |
| Source: NAWS 1994-95 |
If we look at vehicle ownership by legal status, we notice that the
citizens and LPRs were more likely to possess a vehicle than the other
legal categories. About two-thirds of these two groups owned a vehicle
while 44% of work authorized foreign workers and 24% of unauthorized
workers had vehicles.
Since half of farmworkers did not own a vehicle, many found themselves
in a situation where they had to pay for rides to work. Almost one in five
(18%) paid for rides to work. Among the foreign-born workers, the rate was
even higher--24% paid someone for a ride to work.
Owning a dwelling was a much less common form of asset holding than
vehicle ownership. About one in six farm workers owned or was buying some
kind of dwelling in the United States. Although most of these dwellings
were permanent houses, one in every five was a mobile home. Overall, the
proportion of farm workers who owned a dwelling in the United States
(about one in six) declined slightly over time.
Twice as many U.S. born workers were home (or trailer) owners than
foreign-born workers (28% vs. 11%). Again, among U.S. born workers, more
USNH than USH owned a dwelling. One third of USNH owned a home while only
16% of USH did.
Home ownership viewed by legal status groups also revealed differences.
Twenty-eight percent of citizens owned a home, and 21% of LPRs did as
well. By contrast, only 8% of those who had work authorization and 4% of
unauthorized workers owned a home.
Shifting our discussion to homes abroad, we found that almost one-third
of foreign-born workers owned a dwelling abroad, and this proportion
(about one-third) was similar for all groups including unauthorized
workers. As expected, few U.S. born workers owned homes abroad. Still, USH
were the exception--almost one in ten owned a home abroad. Fewer women
farm workers owned homes abroad than men (6% vs. 26%).
In the sections above we discussed farm, non-farm and the total personal
income of farm workers. Here we turn our attention to total family (as
opposed to individual) income from all sources. Median total family
income--between $7,500 and $10,000--was quite low. Moreover, since 1988,
this level of income has shown no change, and, considering inflation,
income for both individuals and families has likely deteriorated in real
terms during these years.
Much of the difference in family incomes across groups was due to
differences in family composition. Workers in households with multiple
wage earners had higher family incomes than those who lived alone or had
only one wage earner in the household. For example, despite women farm
workers' lower personal incomes, when we consider total family income,
women farm workers, on average, lived in households with more income than
did the men farm workers. For men farm workers, the median income of their
families was between $7,500 and $10,000, while for families in which
female farm workers lived, the median earnings were between $10,000 and
$12,500. This higher income level was largely a reflection of the fact
that most women (approximately three quarters) lived with relatives who
were wage earners while most men (approximately two-thirds) lived on their
own without close family present.
Similarly, farmworkers differ in their living patterns and resultant
family income levels depending on where the farmworker was born and
according to his or her ethnic group. Median family income among the
U.S.-born workers was $10,000 to $12,500 a year, while families with a
foreign-born farmworker earned a median of between $5,000 and $7,500.
Among U.S.-born workers, the USH lived in households with lower income
than the USNH ($5,000-$7,500 vs. $17,500-$20,000).
Among the legal status categories, citizens and LPRs had higher median
family incomes--they earned between $10,000 and $12,500 annually. Those
with work authorization who did not have a green card earned less; their
median annual income was between $7,500 and $10,000. Unauthorized workers,
most of whom lived without family, had a much lower median family
income--between $2,500 and $5,000.
Incomes alone do not provide a complete measure of standard of living,
and measures of poverty provide one way of describing the low levels of
income in farm worker families since they account for differences in
family size while using constant dollar figures.
Overall, the farm worker population was quite poor -- over three-fifths
(61%) of the population lived below the poverty line. This level was
higher than reported for the NAWS population in 1990 when only half were
reported living in poverty.
Differences in ethnicity and place of birth were found among those who
fell below the poverty line. Forty-five percent of the U.S. born and 69
percent of the foreign-born lived in poverty. Among the U.S. born workers,
the USNH were much less likely to be living in poverty. Less than one
third of the non-Hispanic workers lived in poverty compared to nearly
three-quarters of the USH. Moreover, the majority of the USNH families in
all the family size categories containing six or fewer people lived above
the poverty line. Even the majority of those USNH who lived apart from
family lived above the poverty line. By contrast, the foreign-born and the
USH farm workers both were quite likely to have incomes below the poverty
line. More than two-thirds of each group lived in poverty. In fact, the
majority of these farm workers, in any of the family size groupings, lived
in poverty.
Poverty levels also varied with citizenship and immigration status. A
minority of citizens (46%) lived below the poverty line while the majority
of all of the immigrant categories lived in poverty. Fifty-four percent of
the LPRs, 68 percent of the work-authorized without a green card, and 80
percent of the unauthorized lived in poverty.
Proportionally fewer women (54%) lived in poverty than men (63%). This
occurs because women tended to be in households with more than one wage
earner whereas more men live apart from family.
Poverty varied with the size of the family. Those who lived apart from
their families were very likely to live in poverty. These unaccompanied
workers (those without parents, spouse or a child present) were about half
of all farm workers. Those who lived in small family groups of two to four
people were the least likely to be poor -- less than half of these were
poor. This group of small families made up about one-third of the
population of farm workers. The remaining one sixth of the population, who
lived in households with large families (more than 4 members), were quite
likely to be living below the poverty line.
Married farm workers who lived together and did not have small children
were less likely to be poor. One-third of the childless married farm
workers who lived with their spouse lived in poverty, whereas over
two-thirds of those who lived apart from their spouse lived below the
poverty line.
Single mothers were particularly prone to live in poverty. Mothers with
small children at home experienced different levels of poverty depending
upon their relationship with a spouse. Those mothers with no spouse at
all, about one fifth of the total of mothers, had the highest
level--almost nine in ten lived in poverty. Married mothers living away
from their husbands, about 5 percent of the total, also had a high level
of poverty--78 percent lived below the poverty line. However, married
mothers who lived with their husband and children actually had a lower
level of poverty (53%) than the average for all farm workers (62%).
In the two sections below we will discuss the frequency (and not the
quantity) with which farm workers utilize these programs. The first
section covers the level of use of Unemployment Insurance, Disability and
Social Security pensions. The second section covers means-tested
assistance programs like Medicaid, Food Stamps, AFDC and the WIC program.
The utilization levels of social insurance programs by farmworkers were
quite low overall. Only four percent of the households had received either
social security pension or disability benefits in the two years before the
survey. Unemployment Insurance (UI) utilization was also low for a
population out of work for much of the year; only about one in five
workers had received unemployment insurance in the two-year period prior
to the interview.
If we look at the utilization rates, some interesting patterns emerge.
Farmworkers born in the United States (both Hispanics and non-Hispanics)
received benefits more than twice as often from the Social Security
Administration, pension and disability, than did the foreign-born.
However, among the U.S. born workers, the rate was just 7 percent.
| Figure 3.4 |
 |
| Source: NAWS 1994-95 |
For unemployment insurance utilization, the pattern was reversed.
Foreign-born workers were more likely to receive unemployment insurance
benefits (22%) than the U.S. born (16%). However, among the U.S. born
there was a wide gap between the non-Hispanics of whom only 9 percent
collected and the Hispanic U.S. born of whom 30 percent collected.
The use of social security services varied with citizenship status and
gender. Seven percent of citizens received services from the Social
Security Administration, while 4 percent of the LPRs, 2 percent of the
other work-authorized and just 1 percent of the unauthorized received such
services (see Figure 3.4). Women received these payments twice as often as
men (7% vs. 3%). Recall, however, that more than twice the proportion of
female farm workers are U.S. born (52%) than are male farm workers (25%).
Unemployment Insurance utilization also varied with legal status but not
with gender. Seventeen percent of citizens, 46 percent of LPRs, 32 percent
of the other work-authorized and 5 percent of the unauthorized collected
unemployment insurance.
The level of farmworkers who received unemployment insurance remained
constant over time, at about 20%. However, use of social security pensions
and disability benefits seems to have declined, from a high of 10 percent
to 4 percent during the study period (1989-1995).
Despite the high levels of poverty, the low rate of social insurance use
and the scarce assets held by the majority of farm workers, the group as a
whole used few social services. However, certain programs, in particular
Food Stamps and Medicaid, were used by significant groups of farm workers.
To a lesser extent, the WIC Program (Special Supplemental Food Program for
Women, Infants, and Children) and cash assistance programs1
were used. Other social service programs including publicly subsidized
housing were rarely used. The levels of utilization of the Food Stamps
program did not change significantly since 1989.
The NAWS data can only be used as an upper-bound on the level of
services used by unauthorized workers and their families. The NAWS asked
whether anyone in the household used various social services, but it only
had legal status data on the farm worker. In some cases, the unauthorized
farm worker may have an eligible family member who was legitimately
receiving social services. Looking at NAWS data on services to households
of unauthorized workers probably overstates the level of unauthorized
workers using social services.
That said, the families associated with unauthorized workers used few
social services in the United States. About 7 percent of unauthorized farm
workers used each of two social services for which they and their
households may be eligible under some circumstances--Medicaid and WIC. For
other programs, unauthorized workers might qualify if there was a person
with the proper immigration or citizenship status living in their
household. About 7 percent of households where an unauthorized farm worker
was interviewed used Food Stamps and about one percent received cash
transfers.
In the analysis which follows we will often limit our discussion to the
legally authorized workers who use the vast majority of social services.
In this way, we can estimate the percentages of legally qualified
farmworker users of services at the time that the 104th Congress passed
welfare and immigration legislation.
Looking at the major programs without the unauthorized, we see that
social service programs were still used only by a small minority: 20
percent used Medicaid and Food Stamps, 11 percent used WIC, and 5 percent
received some kind of cash payment.
When we looked only at farmworkers with proper immigration or
citizenship status who also had small children (less than 15), we found
somewhat higher proportions of social service utilization. Over a third
(35%) used Medicaid, 29 percent used Food Stamps, almost a quarter (23%)
used WIC, and 7 percent received cash transfers (see Figure 3.5).
The use of service programs varied by the place of birth and ethnicity
for the legally eligible farm workers with small children. The U.S. born
Hispanics were the biggest users of services. About half of these workers
with small children used Medicaid and Food Stamps, over a third used WIC,
and one in six used cash assistance programs. The U.S. born non-Hispanics
and the foreign-born with eligible immigration status had lower levels of
usage. At most, only one-third of either of these groups used any service.
For the foreign-born workers with eligible immigration status and with
children, the use of cash payments was exceptionally low, at four percent.
However, between 21 and 33 percent of this group used Medicaid, Food
Stamps and WIC.
It should be pointed out that although the proportions for some groups
may not be large, the absolute levels were sizable. If we assume that
there were 1.6 million crop workers,2 then
approximately 15 percent, or about 250,000 workers, were receiving Food
Stamps and Medicaid. Of these recipients, many were foreign-born farm
workers with eligible immigration status (but were not citizens).
For example, 35 percent of Food Stamps recipients were foreign-born
non-citizens; 47 percent of Medicaid Program recipients and 41 percent of
WIC recipients were foreign-born non-citizens. Therefore, for the Food
Stamps program about 87,500 crop workers, the Medicaid Program about
117,500, and the WIC program about 102,500 will potentially be affected by
legislation passed by the 104th Congress.
| Figure 3.5 |
 |
| Source: NAWS 1994-95 |
Among the workers who had eligible immigration or citizenship status and
were below the poverty line, many did not receive services despite their
eligibility. For the two major farm worker service programs, Food Stamps
and Medicaid, a large majority of the population with
eligible immigration status living below the poverty line did not
receive the service. Among the poor with eligible immigration or
citizenship status, about a quarter received Medicaid and about a third
obtained Food Stamps. In WIC and cash assistance, the level of receipt for
the farm worker poor was even lower-- 17 percent received WIC and 8
percent received cash assistance.
1 We combined AFDC and local cash
assistance programs into one category.
2 The estimate of the Commission on
Agricultural Workers was 2.5 million farmworkers. According to USDA
calculations, crop workers were approximately two-thirds of all
farmworkers. Therefore, we estimate that there were about 1.6 million crop
workers.