Zhang, Sheldon. Trafficking of Migrant Laborers in San Diego, California, 2010-2011. ICPSR34713-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2016-09-30. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34713.v1
Persistent URL: https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR34713.v1
- RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
- EndNote XML (EndNote X4.0.1 or higher)
Smallest Geographic Unit:
Date of Collection:
Unit of Observation:
The universe is all undocumented migrant laborers in San Diego County, California between 2010 and 2011.
Data Collection Notes:
These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.
The purpose of the study was to provide statistically sound estimates on the prevalence of trafficking victimization and investigate the type of trafficking victimization among unauthorized migrant laborers in San Diego.
Data were collected through face to face interviews (Labor Trafficking Main Data, n=826 and Specific Trafficking Incident Data, n=826). There were sixteen interview sites spread across San Diego county. The number of interviews completed per week at the sites varied both between sites and over time, as it was up to the respondents to choose the interview location. All interviews were conducted with at least two interviewers present. During busy weeks, two pairs of interviewers were typically on site. The study used a total of seven bilingual interviewers who conducted 826 valid interviews. Each subject was paid thirty dollars for participating in the interview, and given three referral coupons worth ten dollars each. Other than the seeds, all subsequent referrals had to call the project phone number to schedule interviews with their coupon numbers. The coordinator asked a set of questions to "pre-screen" for ineligible respondents. Then the coordinator and prospective respondent agreed on an interview site and time, and the interview was scheduled. At the time of the interview, each coupon was checked against the roster and recorded both on the instrument and on a master roster. Typically, an interview began with a naturalistic conversation to inquire about the respondent's migration history and family back in Mexico. This warm-up phase was also used by the interviewers to help screen out ineligible candidates.
The Respondent Driven Sampling (RDS) began with an initial set of "seeds" recruited from the target population through a combination of recruiting strangers at day labor sites and existing community contacts within the social networks of Center for Social Advocacy (CSA) outreach workers. To be eligible for participation in the study, one had to be unauthorized in the United States and be working (or have worked within) the past 3 months. Researchers initially developed nine seeds in the Vista area of northern San Diego county, an area known for its many farm businesses. These "seeds" were given an incentive for the completing the interview, and then given three uniquely numbered dollar-bill sized coupons to pass on to other eligible members within their social networks. The project contact information and the value of the coupon were printed on the coupon. These same incentives (an incentive for completing the interview and an incentive for each additional recruit) were offered to each subsequent wave of respondents, with the same restriction of three referral coupons per person. Researchers noticed early in the fielding activities that few respondents in northern San Diego knew people in the southern part of the county. Once the total number of interviews approached 300, a decision was made to develop additional seeds in the southern part of the county. Nine additional seeds were develop in South County and referrals began to come in from this area.
There are no weight variables in the data; however, the software used for the Respondent Driven Sampling (RDS), has built in weights. For more details, see http://www.respondentdrivensampling.org/
Mode of Data Collection:
Description of Variables:
The main data file (Labor Trafficking Main Data, 154 variables, n=826) includes
- Respondent Demographics: variables include gender, age, years of formal education, language at home, marital status, number of children, number of months in the United States, number of times the respondent has come to the United States, and if the respondent knows English;
- Transportation: variables include the use of a "coyote", restrictions on where the respondent could go, restrictions on communication with others, restricted access to identification documents, threats or actual assault or fines for not following the rules, and being required to pay more than what had been originally agreed on;
- Threats and Fear: variables include use of physical or sexual abuse, or threats of abuse, to intimidate the respondent, threats to harm the respondent's family, and threats to have the respondent deported or arrested;
- Rules and Controls: variables include restrictions placed on the respondent from leaving the workplace, access to identification documents, access to adequate food and sleep, restrictions on communication with family members or other workers;
- Deception and Lies: variables include if the working conditions were different than what had been originally promised and instruction to lie about respondent's identity or the identity of the employer; and
- Exploitative Labor practices: variables include being denied pay for work performed, being paid less than promised, receiving a bad check and being told to work in a hazardous environment without proper protection.
Additional variables ask about the type of work the respondent is doing and why the respondent came to San Diego county.
The incident data file (Specific Trafficking Incident Data, 99 variables, n=826) includes variables that ask further questions about specific trafficking activities mentioned by the respondent. The variables include the frequency of the activity in the past 12 months, when the last incident occurred, who the respondent told about the incident, how much money the respondent had lost because of the incident, what precautions the respondent was taking to prevent the incident from happening again, and what percentage of other migrant laborers had experienced the same incident.
A total 826 respondents completed the interview.
Presence of Common Scales: