Indicators of Labor Trafficking Among North Carolina Migrant Farmworkers, 2010-2012 (ICPSR 34621)

Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)

Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection

Data Collection Notes View help for Data Collection Notes

Hide

Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose

The purpose of the study was to investigate potential correlates of labor trafficking in an effort to identify indicators of labor trafficking that could be used by state and local law enforcement as signals that labor trafficking may be taking place in their communities.

Study Design View help for Study Design

Stakeholder interviews with individuals from organizations who serve migrant workers (n=24) were piloted in September 2010 with the larger data collection effort occurring between October 2011 and March 2012. Interviews were scheduled in advance and took place at the respondent's place of work. Most were completed in less than one hour. Stakeholder interviews were typically conducted face to face by two-person teams of RTI interviewers, with one interviewer leading the interview while the other took notes. With participants' permission, interviews were recorded as a backup to written notes.

In-person interviews were conducted with farmworkers (Farmworker Data, n=380) who may have been experiencing labor exploitation or trafficking. Bilingual field interviewers were recruited and hired through a local labor agency under close supervision by an RTI data collection field coordinator. After a rigorous screening process to verify cultural competency, Spanish language skills, and overall suitability for the job, six field interviewers were hired. Trainees completed several rounds of mock interviews and received information about best practices for interacting with farmworkers and farmers. The field data collection activities began in September 2012. Interview data were collected at residential migrant labor camps, at community events, and in Western North Carolina, at integrated housing and locations frequented by farmworkers. In all cases, farmworkers were approached, the study was explained as a study of labor practices, and individuals were asked to consent to complete the fifteen to twenty minute interview. A variety of nonmonetary items was offered as compensation for their time.

Finally, researchers extracted secondary data from a number of sources to create profiles of each county (County Data, n=17) in which interviews were conducted. Data were gathered from the following sources:

• 2010 Census
• Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
• North Carolina Public Schools Statistical Profile
• 2010 American Community Survey
• 2010 County Business Patterns
• unemployment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics
• 2010 Uniform Crime Reports
• North Carolina Health Statistics Pocket Guide 2009.

Sample View help for Sample

Respondents for the stakeholder interviews (n=24) were identified through a combination of purposive and snowball sampling. The identification of individuals to participate in the interviews involved first identifying non-law enforcement agencies and organizations in the communities that serve migrant workers. These organizations were identified primarily through internet searches. The types of organizations identified include advocacy groups, legal assistance groups, clergy members, public health personnel, and social service agencies. Some organization web sites included staff descriptions and contact information. In these cases, the individuals who seemed most involved with migrant workers were contacted directly by email or telephone. When individual contact information was not available, researchers contacted the agency through its general telephone line or email address and requested to be put in contact with the most appropriate persons. Additionally, researchers concluded each interview by asking the respondent to provide names and contact information for others who may be able to provide information. Law enforcement participants were recruited by contacting twelve county sheriffs' offices and asking them to participate in stakeholder interviews. All twelve sheriffs were sent introductory and follow up emails explaining the goals of the project, and each received at least two follow up calls asking for a time for an interview. In total, interviews were conducted with 24 individuals representing 16 organizations, including 3 sheriffs.

Farmworker interview data were collected at residential migrant labor camps; at community events; and, in Western North Carolina, at integrated housing and locations frequented by farmworkers. Labor camps were located using a database of registered farmworker labor camps that was supplemented by outreach notes collected by a local outreach organization. The sample was conveniently drawn from the identified camps and were representative of the different types of camps in the area (i.e., packing houses, single owner camps, larger agency camps, barracks). Three camps of each type were chosen in each cluster. Some camps included multiple camps. Special care was given to include large farms as well as smaller ones; the convenience sampling plan excluded visiting sites in different locations owned by the same farmer. Interview teams also attended community events to recruit respondents. A convenience sample was draw with most respondents identified by interviews circulating through the crowds. Finally, interviewers travelled to three counties in northwestern North Carolina where farmworker housing was far more integrated into the community. Interviewers scanned the roadsides for clues to places where farmworkers might be living. The interviewers asked local residents where concentrations of farmworkers were living. They also visited businesses where farmworkers went when they were not working. During these visits, interviewers engaged diverse respondents including more undocumented individuals, women and people who had a broader range of experiences. From September 2 through October 25, 2012 researchers interviewed 257 farmworkers in ten counties in eastern and central North Carolina. From November 9 through December 2, 2012, an additional 123 farmworkers from 7 counties in western North Carolina were interviewed.

Time Method View help for Time Method

Universe View help for Universe

All migrant farmworkers and stakeholders with organizations who provide services to migrant farmworkers in North Carolina between 2010 and 2012.

Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation

Data Source View help for Data Source

Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)

Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection

Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables

The farmworker interview data (Farmworker Data n=380, 249 variables) includes demographic variables such as current county, year and country of birth, marital status and number of children, level of education, English proficiency, employment in home country and current employment, housing and living arrangements. Respondents were asked when they had come to the United States and why they came to North Carolina (family, to look for employment, season crops, H2A visa, other), current legal status, if they intended to stay in North Carolina. Other questions ask about working conditions, including the crops the respondent had worked with, how many other worked in the field with them, how they had found their current employment, how long they had worked with their current crew and how much they earned. Respondents were asked about their treatment, including being restricted from contacting family, physical or sexual abuse, threats turn them over to authorities, having legal documentation withheld, pay withheld and any threats made towards them. Finally, respondents were asked how many times they had moved, why they had moved and who had helped them to move.

The county level data (County Data n=17, 69 variables) includes the total population, percentage of the population that is male, percentage under age 18, percentage of the population by race, percentage of the population that is Hispanic, citizens by birth or naturalization, Uniform Crime Report (UCR) numbers on violent crimes, rapes, murders, assaults and other crimes, rates of sexually transmitted disease such as syphilis, gonorrhea, AIDS and chlamydia, infant mortality rates, unemployment measures and poverty measures such as percentage of households receiving food stamps and with income below the poverty level.

Response Rates View help for Response Rates

Not applicable.

Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales

None.

Hide

Original Release Date View help for Original Release Date

2016-05-03

Version History View help for Version History

Hide

Weight View help for Weight

None.

Hide