Understanding Latinx Child Farmworkers’ Reasons for Working: A Mixed Methods Approach

Background

In the United States (US), an estimated 30,000 to 80,000 children aged seventeen years and younger work as hired farm labor each year (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2018). Estimates are unreliable and do not include children who work on their parents’ farms or young children who accompany their farmworker parents to help as unpaid labor. Some estimates place the number of child farmworkers in the US at over 300,000 (Spielberger et al., 2021). Many hired child farmworkers in the US are members of the vulnerable Latinx farmworker community (Gabbard et al., 2014), increasing their risk for adverse health and social outcomes (McLaurin & Liebman, 2012).

Agricultural child labor laws in the US are less stringent compared to other industries, dating back to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which excluded agriculture from many child labor provisions (Miller, 2012). Unlike all other industries in the US, in agriculture, children under 12 years old can legally work as hired labor under certain circumstances (U.S. Department of Labor, 2016). Rules vary by age, but at age 16, children are allowed to work in hazardous jobs for unlimited hours (see table I.).

Table 1.

Employment permitted by federal regulations for children in the US, comparing agriculture with other industries. Within agriculture, none of the rules listed apply to children working at a farm owned or operated by their parents.

Ages	Rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act (1938)a
	Agriculture	Non-Agriculture
16–17	Any farm job, hazardous or not, unlimited hours	Unlimited hours in non-hazardous jobs or industries
14–15	Any non-hazardous farm job outside school hours	Specified jobs for limited periods of time each day and each week, outside of school hours
12–13	Any non-hazardous farm job outside school hours with parental permission or on same farm as parent(s)	Employment generally prohibited
Under 12	Any non-hazardous farm job outside school hours with parental permission, but only where FLSA minimum wage requirements do not apply (i.e., small farms)	Employment generally prohibited

Note. Within agriculture, none of the rules listed apply to children working at a farm owned or operated by their parents.

^aAdapted from United States Government Accountability Office, 2018.

An established body of research has documented the physical, environmental, and social hazards of agricultural work at a young age (e.g., Marlenga et al., 2018; McCurdy et al., 2003; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2018; Quandt & Arnold 2020; National Children’s Center for Rural and Agricultural Safety and Health Safety, 2021), yet few studies have examined the specific reasons that Latinx children and adolescents work in US agriculture. Small studies with youth farmworkers (Carlos Chavez, Gonzales-Backen, Perez Rueda, 2021; Arcury et al., 2014) have suggested that financial reasons are a primary driver of US agricultural child labor; however, more evidence is needed to delineate how youth view their work arrangements. Given the risks associated with agricultural labor and limited research on the experiences of Latinx child farmworkers, it is important to understand their perspectives. However, equally necessary for improving their health and safety is the need to situate their decisions to work in agriculture within the larger context shaping their experiences and agency to access other opportunities.

Objectives

This mixed-methods paper has two objectives aimed at understanding the driving factors for Latinx children working in North Carolina (NC) agriculture and how they perceive their employment. The first is to describe Latinx hired child farmworkers’ stated reasons for working by examining in-depth interview and survey data through the lens of structural vulnerability. The second is to examine the association between personal and work characteristics with child workers’ stated reasons for working (survey data), and to draw from qualitative information (in-depth interview data) to contextualize these findings.

The Structural Vulnerability of Latinx Child Farmworkers

Contextualizing Latinx child farmworkers’ reasons for working requires examining the broader upstream social context that creates the conditions of child labor downstream (Palmer et al., 2019). The theoretical lens of structural vulnerability (Quesada et al., 2011) is useful in highlighting societal factors that perpetuate agricultural labor among Latinx children. Stemming from a body of research on structural violence (Farmer, 2004; Galtung, 1969; Holmes, 2011, 2013), structural vulnerability compels an understanding of how macro-level structural factors shape micro-level lived experiences. Latinx child farmworkers constitute a unique positionality in a hierarchical social order, which creates conditions of vulnerability to forms of violence, exploitation, and racial discrimination (Quesada et al., 2011). Current and historical political processes shape and maintain the environment that distributes vulnerability and resulting adverse health outcomes in patterned ways (Krieger, 2011; Castañeda et al., 2015). For example, a major factor in the 1930’s exclusion of agriculture from federal child labor laws involved legislators’ desire to protect the hegemony of Southern planters over African American adult and child labor (Wiggins, 2020). In the context of these deeply embedded structural conditions, an individuals’ agency is often constrained by forces outside of their immediate control (Robertson, 2015), but it is important to avoid overly deterministic depictions of the relationship between structural vulnerability and individual agency.

Even within constraining environments, other ecological factors, such as ties within families, schools, and communities may increase Latinx child farmworkers’ resiliency as they navigate their unique, and often challenging, developmental context (Brietzke & Perreira, 2017; Taylor, Ruiz, Nair, & Mishra, 2020). The resources available to them through social support networks may help them adapt to adversity and develop coping skills to counter the numerous stressors they experience in the broader bioecological context (Brofenbrenner, 1979). Research has suggested that a sense of family obligation and connection may contribute to an ability to overcome adversity among children of immigrants (Fuligni & Pedersen, 2002). Indeed, an “immigrant paradox” has been well-documented (Coll & Marks, 2012), in which many first-generation immigrant children excel on a variety of outcomes compared to their US-born peers (Fuligini & Perreira, 2009). However, little is known about the specific developmental context and support systems of Latinx child farmworkers, or how they interpret their situations.

Examples of Structural Conditions that Increase Vulnerability

North Carolina is considered a “new Latino destination,” characterized by rapid growth of the Latino population in recent decades (Perreira, 2011). Being an immigrant or the children of immigrants within this context can increase perceived discrimination and stress (Brietzke & Perreira, 2017; Stone & Han, 2005). Latinx child farmworkers’ positionality within this context constitutes a vulnerability to racism and discrimination, and resulting adverse physical and mental health consequences (Andrews et al., 2020; Quandt, Arnold, Mora, et al., 2021; Snipes, Cooper, & Shipp, 2017). Limited English proficiency and literacy among farmworkers can present challenges as diverse as parental engagement with the school system (Smith, 2020; Quandt, Arnold, Mora, et al., 2021) to understanding workplace safety training (Arcury et al., 2010). However, many Latinx children are bilingual. This can be advantageous in some settings (Golash-Boza, 2005), but may also introduce familial demands as the children serve as language brokers for their parents (Shen & Dennis, 2019).

The agricultural work environment increases vulnerability to adverse health outcomes. Child farmworkers in the US experience high rates of morbidity and mortality (Marlenga et al., 2018; McCurdy et al., 2003; U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2018; Quandt & Arnold 2020; National Children’s Center for Rural and Agricultural Safety and Health Safety, 2021). Farm labor exposes child workers to a variety of hazards including sharp tools, environmental heat, pesticides, awkward and repetitive movements, machinery, and animals. Across diverse US regions, with various crops, tasks, and work environments, agricultural injuries are common among Latinx child farmworkers (Arcury, Arnold, Quandt, et al., 2019; Arnold et al., 2021; Bonauto et al., 2003; McCurdy et al., 2003; Quandt, Arnold, Talton, et al., 2021; Shipp et al., 2007, 2013). Children living and working in agricultural communities are exposed to a variety of pesticides (Arcury, Chen, Arnold, et al., 2021; Arcury, Chen, Quandt, et al., 2021; Castillo et al., 2021; Eskenazi et al., 1999; Harley et al., 2019; Hyland & Laribi, 2017), which can adversely affect health during critical periods of development (Pascale & Laborde, 2020; Roberts & Karr, 2012). Agriculture is characterized by an unsafe work safety culture, and safety training for Latinx child farmworkers is limited and often informal (Arcury, Arnold, Mora, et al., 2019; Arcury, Quandt, Arnold, et al., 2020). The work organization in agriculture creates an environment in which children have relatively high demands, low control, and limited support (Quandt et al., 2019).

Immigration policies create and maintain vulnerabilities. It is estimated that half of all farmworkers in the US are undocumented (Hernandez & Gabbard, 2018). For many, authorized or unauthorized immigration is a survival strategy that is socially determined and a social determinant of health (Castañeda et al., 2015). Many children in farmworker families come from mixed-status families, in which at least one member is undocumented. Mixed-status limits occupational opportunities, increases stress (Singer et al., 2018), and constrains families’ ability to seek and access healthcare and other services (Castaneda & Melo, 2014). Further, some Latinx child farmworkers are unaccompanied by a parent or guardian in the US, which can exacerbate existing vulnerabilities (Carlos Chavez, Gonzalez-Backen, & Perez Reuda, 2021; Rodriguez et al., 2019). Therefore, Latinx child farmworkers and their families face a “complex web of effects” that create reinforcing barriers to health and wellbeing (Heyman et al., 2009).

Farm work is one of the lowest paid occupations in the US, with mean and median total family incomes ranging from $20,000 to $24,999 (Hernandez & Gabbard, 2018). Latinx farmworker families face extreme financial instability and poverty due to low wages, the seasonal and contingent nature of farm work, and limited access to social safety net programs (Padilla, Scott, & Lopez, 2014). The link between socio-economic status and health in the context of youth development is well-established, with both material and psychosocial mechanisms playing a role (Kroenke, 2008). Farmworker families’ financial instability contributes to housing that is frequently substandard, crowded, and located near agricultural fields, indicating environmental health threats from pesticide drift (Castillo et al., 2021; Early et al., 2006). Limited rural infrastructure can present obstacles to health care access, internet, transportation, quality schooling, and recreation (Stone et al., 2022).

Working in agriculture at a young age can also impinge on educational opportunities. Our recent survey of 202 Latinx child farmworkers in NC found that close to one-third worked during the spring or fall school semesters (Arcury, Arnold, Sandberg, et al., 2019). Few children reported working during school hours, but their work schedule limited their engagement in educational enrichment activities (Quandt, Arnold, Mora, et al., 2021). In efforts to increase yearly income by extending the working season, some families migrate for farm work throughout the year. In contrast, “seasonal” farmworkers live in the same place year round. Children in migrant farmworker families face numerous obstacles and disruptions to their education and social lives (Campbell-Montalvo & Castañeda 2019; Free et al., 2014; Quandt, Arnold, Mora, et al., 2021). Our recent NC study found that fifty percent of migrant child farmworkers had repeated a grade during their education, compared to twenty-five percent of children working seasonally (Quandt, Arnold, Mora, et al., 2021). By further comparison, the US rate for repeating a grade is about six percent (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2019).

It is clear that these overlapping structural factors subject Latinx child farmworkers to adversity, both within and outside of the workplace. Despite the ability of some children to overcome adversity, the cumulative effect of structural vulnerability constrains their agency and can adversely affect children’s short- and long-term health and development. Examining Latinx children’s stated reasons for working in agriculture within this framework helps to situate these experiences in the broader social, structural, and historical context that shape this environment. Highlighting these contributors to vulnerability, which are modifiable, is critical to developing socio-structural conditions in which Latinx child farmworkers have opportunities to thrive during critical periods of development and into the future. Research on child labor rarely takes into account the voices of children themselves. Mixed methods evidence can aid in identifying and interpreting the reasons that Latinx children work in farm work, from their own perspective.

Method

Overall Study Design

The Hired Child Farmworker Study is a longitudinal mixed methods project that completed data collection from 2016–2019 (Arcury, Arnold, Sandberg, et al., 2019). For this analysis, we report results from in-depth interviews (n=30) completed in 2016 and results from survey interviews (n=202) completed in 2017. Our study design uses a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach that incorporates two youth co-investigators as well as youth and professional advisory boards. Youth co-investigators and board members were adolescents participating in Student Action with Farmworkers’ (SAF) Levante Leadership Institute, who themselves had previously worked in farm work or came from a farmworker family (Arnold et al., 2019; Quandt et al., in press). Community partners include representatives from organizations serving farmworkers including SAF, NC Migrant Education Program (NCMEP), NC Focus on Increasing Education, Leadership, and Dignity (NCFIELD), NC Justice Center, Toxic Free NC, and others. A more detailed description of the study design and methods is available elsewhere (Arcury, Arnold, Sandberg, et al., 2019; Quandt et al., 2019). The institutional review board at Wake Forest University School of Medicine approved all study procedures (approval number: IRB00036403). We received a Certificate of Confidentiality from the National Institutes of Health as an additional safeguard to protect participant confidentiality.

Participants

Semi-structured In-depth Interviews

We worked with community partners across NC to facilitate participant recruitment. We also attended community events in rural counties in order to identify potential participants. From June to September 2016, we recruited thirty Latinx child farmworkers across nine NC counties. We purposefully selected participants with the goal of recruiting equal numbers in the categories of age group, gender, migrant status, and geographic location (eastern versus western NC) in order to capture the broad experience of child workers. Inclusion criteria for the semi-structured in-depth interview were: self-identifying as Hispanic or Latino, aged between ten and seventeen, worked in farm work in the past twelve months, and fluency in English or Spanish. Participants signed a youth assent form and a parent signed a parental permission form. The Institutional Review Board granted an exemption for parental permission for participants who were living in NC unaccompanied by a parent or legal guardian (n=3).

Survey Interviews

Community partners and field interviewers familiar with local farmworker communities facilitated participant recruitment for the larger survey sample. We recruited 202 participants across twenty NC counties from May to November 2017. Children who participated in the 2016 in-depth interviews were eligible to participate in the survey, but it was not required. Inclusion criteria for the survey were: self-identifying as Hispanic or Latino, aged between ten and seventeen, worked in farm work in the past three months, and fluency in English or Spanish. Field interviewers explained the study to potential participants and then obtained signed parental permission and youth assent. The Institutional Review Board waived parental permission for individuals who did not have a parent or guardian present in NC (n=18).

Data collection

Semi-structured In-depth Interviews

We conducted audio-recorded, semi-structured in-depth interviews with participants at a location of their choosing, generally at their residence. Participants were given the option of completing the interview in the language in which they were most comfortable. An experienced native English speaking interviewer completed the English interviews (n=23), an experienced native Spanish speaking interviewer completed the Spanish interviews (n=7). While both interviewers were considered “outsiders” of the farmworker community, they became familiar with the lived experiences of Latinx child farmworkers through their roles in the project’s CBPR approach. However, the interviewers’ distinct positionalities and identities shaped the interactions with youth and might have influenced the information youth were willing to share, as well as the interviewers’ interpretation of it. To reduce researcher bias, interviewers utilized principles of cultural humility and reflexivity in relation to the research process by taking detailed field notes about each encounter (O’Brien et al., 2014). The interview guide included open-ended probes about participants’ personal characteristics, work experiences, and their reasons for working (e.g., “why do you do farm work?”). Interviews lasted approximately sixty minutes. Participants received a $25 incentive for completing the interview.

Survey Interviews

As part of our CBPR design, the professional and youth advisory boards provided feedback on the design, content, and wording of the survey. Several survey items were used in a previous pilot study (Arcury et al. 2014), and refined for the present study. The English version of the survey was translated into Spanish and then back translated into English in order to ensure equivalency. We pilot tested the English and Spanish versions of the survey with members of the youth advisory board, who were representative of our study sample (Arnold et al., 2019). As part of our mixed methods design, we also used the iterative analysis of in-depth interviews to identify further areas of inquiry that we added to the final version of the survey. For example, during in-depth interviews, participants gave several reasons for working that were not included in our initial draft of the survey. The survey was designed to be completed in about 45–60 minutes.

We recruited and trained eight bilingual field interviewers in different NC counties. All interviewers had knowledge of their local farmworker communities through their jobs or personal networks. Interviewers completed an individualized, daylong training with the project manager that covered recruitment procedures, study protocols, survey content and interviewing techniques, and protection of human subjects. All interviewers completed CITI Research Ethics and Compliance training (https://about.citiprogram.org/en/homepage/). Interviewers completed recorded or directly observed practice interviews prior to beginning data collection. Upon successful completion of the training and practice, interviewers conducted face-to-face survey interviews in participants’ homes. Interviewers used a tablet equipped with the survey instrument on REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture), a secure, web-based system to record data (Harris et al., 2009). Interviews were conducted in the preferred language of the participant (English, n=172; Spanish, n=30).

Survey Interview Measures

Survey interview measures included in this analysis are personal and work characteristics and reasons for working. Personal characteristics included gender (male/female), age in years (10–13, 14–15, 16–17), national origin (US, Mexico, Central American nation), and household parental presence (mother and father, mother only, father only, neither father nor mother). Work characteristics included migrant worker (yes/no), works with at least one relative (yes/no), recipient of pay (self/parents), pay (piece rate/paid by hour), hourly pay in dollars (less than 7.25, 7.25–8.99, 9.00–9.99, 10.00 or greater). Reasons for working was measured by the question, “Why do you work in farm work?” Responses were dichotomous (yes/no) and included items developed for a pilot study (Arcury et al., 2014), as well as additional items that emerged from the analysis of in-depth interview data. Participants could respond affirmatively to as many items as applicable. Examples of response categories include: “To provide money for your family living with you,” “To buy clothes that you need,” and “To stay busy when school is not in session.”

Analysis

Semi-structured In-depth Interviews

A professional transcription and translation company transcribed the audio-recorded interviews. For Spanish interviews, the company translated the audio recording to produce an English transcript. Bilingual staff fully verified each transcript against the recording to ensure accuracy. Our analysis was iterative and recursive, beginning with the first interview (LeCompte, 2013). We uploaded transcripts into ATLAS.ti (version 7.2) and used deductive coding. The team developed a codebook based on the emergent data and the study’s primary research questions. As new topics or themes emerged from the data, we added new codes and memos. We held weekly team meetings throughout the data collection in order to discuss progress, areas to explore further in subsequent interviews, and to discuss the coding process. One team member initially coded each transcript, and then two separate team members re-coded the same transcript (LeCompte, 2013). The team discussed any discrepancies in coding and came to a consensus on a final coded transcript. Validity/trustworthiness considerations included multiple coders, negative case analysis, and review of transcript excerpts by the youth advisory committee (Morse, 2015). Once we reached thirty interviews, the team agreed that we had reached saturation given our research focus, as the interviews were not revealing new information or the need for new codes (Saunders et al., 2018).

For the present analysis, we extracted coded segments of text, reviewed, and summarized them. We utilized the codes EXPERIENCE and WAGES, which included the salient topics related to the reasons that children work in farm work. After extracting the coded segments of text, we used a semantic thematic analysis that focused on the explicit information provided by the participants (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Using this approach, we identified three broad themes and several sub-themes from the data that encapsulate the child farmworkers’ primary stated reasons for working in farm work.

Survey Interviews

We report frequencies (count, percent) for personal characteristics, work characteristics, and reasons for working. To examine the association between selected personal/work characteristics and reasons for working, we used Chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests as appropriate. P-values less than .05 were considered statistically significant.

Mixed Methods Data Integration

Integration of data collected through qualitative and quantitative methods occurred at multiple points in the research process through embedding (Fetters et al., 2013). First, we used the emergent in-depth interview (qualitative) findings about reasons for working in the development and refinement of categories of reasons for working in the survey instrument (quantitative) prior to implementation. Emergent qualitative findings helped increase the validity of the survey findings by ensuring the fixed categories reflected the experiences of the study population (Creswell, 2018). Second, the qualitative findings provided rich context from which to select potentially relevant independent variables (e.g., migrant status, age, national origin) for the quantitative analysis. Third, we interpreted the observed frequencies of reasons for working and statistical associations between personal and work characteristics with reasons for working in light of qualitative data with children of the same demographic and work characteristics. Together, the qualitative and quantitative findings provided a deeper understanding of the patterns of why Latinx children work in farm work and how these reasons vary based on their specific circumstances.

Results

Semi-structured In-depth Interview Results

Sample

Of the thirty Latinx child farmworkers who completed the semi-structured in-depth interviews, seventeen participants were males and thirteen were females (Table II). Ten participants were sixteen or seventeen years old; eleven were fourteen or fifteen years old; and nine were between ten and thirteen years old. Sixteen participants were seasonal farmworkers and fourteen were migrant farmworkers. Most migrant children traveled with their family for farm work; however, three were unaccompanied minors. The most common crops that children had worked in were tomatoes, tobacco, and blueberries, but most had worked in a numerous crops (e.g., sweet potatoes, cucumber, melons, peppers) throughout their tenure as child farmworkers (not depicted in table).

Table II:

Participant Personal and Work Characteristics in survey (n=202) and in-depth interview (n=30) samples, Latinx Child Farmworkers in North Carolina.¹

	Survey		In-depth interview
Personal Characteristics	n	(%)	n	(%)
Gender
Female	76	(37.6)	13	(43.3)
Male	126	(62.4)	17	(56.7)
Age (in years)
10–13	45	(22.3)	9	(30.0)
14–15	62	(30.7)	11	(36.7)
16–17	95	(47.0)	10	(33.3)
Mean (SD)	14.9	(1.8)	-	-
National origin
United States	164	(81.2)	15	(50.0)
Mexico	26	(12.9)	11	(36.7)
Central American nation	12	(5.9)	4	(13.3)
Household parental presence
Mother and father	121	(59.9)	-	-
Mother only	56	(27.7)	-	-
Father only	7	(3.5)	-	-
Neither father nor mother	18	(8.9)	-	-
Migrant worker	36	(17.8)	14	(46.7)
Work with at least one relative	176	(87.1)	-	-
Who received pay			-	-
Self	155	(76.7)	-	-
Parents	47	(23.3)	-	-
Pay2
Piece rate	68	(33.7)	-	-
Paid by hour	139	(68.8)	-	-
Hourly pay in dollars (for those paid by the hour n=137)3
Less than 7.25	5	(3.6)	-	-
7.25 – 8.99	85	(62.0)	-	-
9.00–9.99	42	(30.7)	-	-
10.00 or greater	5	(3.6)	-	-

¹12 participants who completed the in-depth interview participated in the survey the following year.

²Participants may be paid by piece or hour during same week

³2 Missing values

Participants elaborated a variety of interrelated reasons for working in farm work. We identified three primary themes, further broken into subthemes, from the analysis of interview data. We include participant ID numbers after each quote in order to demonstrate the diversity of participants quoted.

Theme 1: Financially Supporting Family Directly and Indirectly.

The primary reason Latinx children reported for working in farm work was to support the financial needs of their family. Participants discussed the direct support of giving their parents or relatives money, as well as indirectly supporting their family by purchasing their own clothes, school supplies, and other items. Through describing both of these forms of support, children gave their work deeper meaning by reflecting on the challenges that their parents had faced. They saw helping their families as a way to acknowledge the hard work of their parents and contribute towards a better future.

Sub-theme: Direct Family Support.

Many children gave money directly to their parents. A sixteen-year-old migrant boy remarked, “. . . I mostly give it to my mom and I let her give me what she wants. . . .’cause I don’t really ask her for much. . . . If we go to the store or something, she buys anything I want” (#24). Similarly, a fifteen-year-old migrant girl who worked with her younger sister discussed giving money to her mother,

We would give her, like, half of our payment…because we can help them. Since we had all these bills. [My mom said], ‘I don’t want to take all your money away, but at least half, because we really have a lot of bills.’ And they got rid of a lot of those when we were over here [in North Carolina] (#6).

A seventeen-year-old girl working seasonally cited her mother’s low wages as the reason she needed to help out,

‘Cause she gets paid a little, where she’s working right now. It’s like, a sweet potato factory. And she be getting paid $7.25 an hour. And that’s, like, a little bit of money a week. And so I need to help her out (#18).

A few participants discussed helping relatives in need. A sixteen-year-old girl said that she sent money to her father, brothers, and grandparents who lived in Mexico (#17). Another sixteen-year-old girl working seasonally reflected on her experience,

Last year, my grandma passed away, so it’s really sad, because when I used to work at the tobacco, I used to give her like – not half of my money, but I used to buy her things and stuff like that (#30).

A seventeen-year-old girl working seasonally discussed sending money to her uncles, who were caring for her sick grandparents,

When I first went to the tobacco, it wasn’t in my plans to work and send money to my uncles in Mexico. But I did because I know that in Mexico you don’t have money. Like, they don’t have money even if they work they don’t get paid that much. So, I wanted to send some to my uncle, and I did. . . . I sent $100.00, which was, like, I don’t know, $1000.00 and something over there. So, yeah. It was something for them (#22).

Sub-theme: Indirect Family Support.

The majority of participants discussed buying their own clothes and school supplies, which they saw as indirectly supporting their parents. A fifteen-year-old boy working seasonally said, “. . . I wanted and needed money. . . . That’s pretty much the only two reasons I’ll go to work in farms.” He elaborated,

Since we barely bought a house, we don’t have that much money to spend, so this year I will only buy materials for school, that’s pretty much all I work for, my clothes and my school materials, and probably if I have a little money I can spend it on other stuff (#21).

A fifteen-year-old migrant boy said, “. . . Instead of my dad buying – like, we help him out. Instead of them buying school clothes, we buy it for us. And, instead of them giving us money to go to the movies, we buy it” (#1). Similarly, a fifteen-year-old migrant girl remarked about the money she earned, “I can save it and when I go home [I can] buy my clothes so my mom won’t have to worry about it, buying my school clothes, my supplies” (#6). A thirteen-year-old girl working seasonally related a sense of obligation to contribute, “I always buy my own school supplies, ‘cause I don’t want [my parents] paying for it.” She went on to clarify,

But it’s not because they don’t want to pay for it. It’s because I don’t want to use their money. . . .’Cause like they spend all their time working in the hot sun, and I don’t feel right taking their money whenever I don’t work for it (#13).

Other participants discussed contributing to their siblings’ needs as well. A fourteen-year-old girl working seasonally discussed how she spent her money, “Well, sometimes I spend it on clothes, or either I’ll get [my brothers] clothes and stuff” (#5). Similarly, a sixteen-year-old girl working seasonally described, “Sometimes I buy clothes for my little brothers and for me, or for my mom. And I put gas in the van, since I use it as well. And there’s times that I buy food” (#17). A fourteen-year-old migrant boy explained,

Since my sister is going to college, like, my parents need a bit more money to buy the books and all that. So, I try to help out by working, so I can buy my own clothes and school supplies. Or just to have, extra money, just for whatever, buy a soda, or something, and that’s basically it (#10).

Theme 2: Contextual Factors that Lead to Farm Work

Participants discussed several contextual factors that lead them to farm work. While the financial instability of their families was the salient force driving their need to work, other job opportunities were restricted due to documentation status, age, and limited alternative job opportunities/preferences in rural environments.

Sub-theme: Documentation Status.

A few participants voluntarily disclosed that they worked in farm work because that was the only place they were allowed to work. A sixteen-year-old boy stated, “. . . I can’t do other work. . . .Because I’m not from here, so I have to do work that doesn’t require paperwork or papers, so we have to do [farm work].” He continued, “If I had another option I’d probably do that option instead of doing [farm work]” (#28). One fifteen-year old boy said that he tried to work at other places, but he was turned away,

[Farm work is] pretty much the only place I can go to work without people telling me that I have to be a certain age or I need this papers to work. Like, this year, I actually did try to work in different places, but they told me I have to have a Social Security number or some other papers. But I don’t have a Social Security number, so that’s why I couldn’t work, like, inside – pretty much like an office or like selling clothes (#21).

One sixteen-year-old boy explained that he began working in farm work because he was not born in the US and did not have papers, but then he applied and got the necessary paperwork. Yet, he decided to continue with farm work until after high school, “I could find a job like at a store or something, but since [farm work is] really what I know and since I’m getting good at it, so that’s why I do it for a while” (#24).

Sub-theme: Age.

Several participants reported going to work with their parents at a very early age due to lack of parents’ childcare options. A thirteen-year-old girl described going with her parents when she was six-years-old, “I was really little, because my parents didn’t have anybody to take care of me. So they would take me” (#16). A sixteen-year-old girl said she went to work because she was young and could not get a job anywhere else (#14). A thirteen-year-old boy, who migrated with his family, indicated that NC was more lenient in allowing children to work, compared to his home state of Florida, “I usually don’t work [in farm work in Florida]. . . . Where [my dad] works, they just don’t want kids” (#2).

Sub-theme: Limited Alternative Job Opportunities.

Several participants viewed farm work as a better option compared to available alternatives, despite acknowledging the harsh working conditions in agriculture. A sixteen-year-old girl emphasized the higher wages compared to fast food jobs, “What I like is that it’s during the summer and you get good pay. Like, it’s better than working at McDonalds. [Working there] is not hard like working in the field, but you get more money in the field.” She went on to explain that in the field, “you get more hours and you get paid more” (#30). Another sixteen-year-old girl made the same comparison to working in fast food, but emphasized a perceived difference in the work environments, “I would rather work [in farm work] than at McDonalds. . . . Because it’s hot [in farm work], but you don’t have to be doing like things all fast like in. . .fast food.” She continued,

[Farm work] is like more nature and it’s outside and the hours are better. The pay is pretty much the same [as fast food]. I heard friends that have worked in the fields; they all say the same thing, that they rather would work [in the fields] than somewhere like [fast food] even if it’s not hot all day [in fast food] (#14).

A seventeen-year-old boy also emphasized a preference for the farm work environment,

I like being out in the field, you know, fresh air. . . . In any other job, you’re locked up in a room, you can’t really talk. . . . [In farm work], we can jam out, listen to music, mess around with each other, you know, and still make money (#27).

Theme 3: Temporary Experience that Motivates for the Future While Occupying Summer Time

Participants frequently connected their work experience to their families. Several saw it as a learning experience or “rite of passage” that motivated them to get a different job in the future, an idea that their parents often reinforced. Many times, they related their work motivation to an acknowledgement of the challenges their parents had been through, and jointly negotiated their decision to work with their parents. Others simply saw working in farm work as a temporary way to stay busy during the summer in the absence of other opportunities to occupy their time.

Sub-theme: Motivation for the Future.

A fifteen-year-old boy drew a connection between going to work and doing better in school,

I’m not at home all day playing my video game. And, [I’m] just picking so I don’t stay in the house. ‘Cause I see other kids, and they’re still at the house. And they’re a little bit misbehaved. . . . I guess they haven’t learned the struggles by going to the fields. . . . When I was staying at home, I didn’t do that much. I wasn’t doing good in school. But then when I went to the fields, I started getting good grades ‘cause, like, I’ve seen how bad it was (#11).

A thirteen year old girl explained how she would work in farm work until she got a “real job.” She continued,

My mom is telling me that, if I don’t want to do farm work for the rest of my life, then I should study and get a degree and all that, ‘cause she don’t want us to grow up to do all that she’s going through right now. . . . Like, she’s just working in the farm – in the farm work. She don’t have, like, a job, inside (#15).

A sixteen-year-old girl shared a similar sentiment about farm work serving as a temporary experience that motivated her for the future,

Working [in tobacco] is at the same time good experience and bad experience. . . . I thought about, like, I don’t want to do this the rest of my life. I’m going to get better in school and stuff like that. That’s what I think about because I didn’t want to be out there for the rest of my life. And working there with your friends makes you think about what you want to be in the future. You meet new people and they tell you their experience and it makes you think, “You know what? I don’t want to do this for the rest of my life. I want to be someone in life. I don’t want to work under the sun” (#30).

A fifteen-year-old girl thought of it as a financial learning experience, she explained, “Like, you’re growing up while you’re out here. You start experiencing what it’s like to pay bills, what it’s like to get your own things, what it’s like to waste your own money” (#6).

Sub-theme: Occupying Summer Time.

Many children reported going to work in order to stay busy. They expressed that working with their parents and friends was a better way to occupy their time than staying home all day with little to do, especially when their housing situation was less than ideal. For example, one fifteen-year-old boy explained that one stop along their migratory route was “kind of bad. . . . Like cockroaches, we had to sleep on the floor with, like, our blankets on the floor” (#11). A fifteen-year-old boy commented,

Well, the thing I like about doing farm work is that I don’t stay home all day doing nothing. I mean I’m outside working and some of my friends might go, so we’ll pretty much work and start talking together (#21).

Similarly, another fifteen-year-old migrant boy said, “. . . If I didn’t go to work, there’s really nothing to do, here. Like, there’s no TV, nothing” (#10). A twelve-year-old boy said, “I work there. . . to get money and go to work ‘cause sometimes I’m bored at the house and there’s nothing to do. So I’ll work at the fields” (#4).

Most participants viewed farm work as a temporary job with no plans to continue long-term. However, one seventeen-year-old migrant boy expressed the ambition to continue farm work into the future, and related it to his identity. Yet, he ultimately aspired to gain more control over his working conditions. He explained,

[Farm work is] what I grew up with, you know? It’s in my roots, you know? I wanna keep doing that after high school. . . . And one day I hope to grow my own crops and sell them. And then that way I won’t have to work that much” (#27).

Interestingly, at the age of seventeen he was already managing a crew of workers, which gave him the ability to earn more money and have more control over his work environment. His experience was categorically different from that of most Latinx child farmworkers.

Survey Interview Results

Participant Personal and Work Characteristics

Two-hundred and two Latinx child farmworkers completed the survey (Table II). Close to two-thirds (62.4%) of participants were male. Over half were aged fifteen or younger, with a mean of age of 14.9 (SD ± 1.8). The majority (81.2%) were born in the US, with the remainder born in Mexico or Central America. Sixty percent lived with both parents, over a quarter (27.7%) lived with their mother only, and a few lived with their father only (3.5%) or neither parent (8.9%). Nearly eighteen percent reported migrating from state-to-state to do farm work, either with family or unaccompanied. Almost one-quarter (23.3%) of participants’ parents received their pay. A third (33.7%) had been paid by the piece (paid by the number of buckets or units picked) and over two-thirds (68.8%) had been paid by the hour. For those paid by the hour, the majority (96.3%) were paid less than ten dollars per hour.

Participants’ Reasons for Working

Nearly all participants (91.1%) reported working in farm work in order to buy clothes that they needed (Table III). Over two-thirds reported working in order to stay busy when school was not in session (69.3%) and to buy school supplies (64.7%). Over half reported that they worked in order to provide money for family living with them (60.4%) and to save for future needs (59.9%). Nearly half (49%) reported that they worked in order to save for a big purchase. More than one-in-six reported working to pay for their education (19.1%), to help a family member without pay (18%), or to provide money for family not living with them (16.3%).

Table III:

Participant Reasons for Working, Latinx Child Farmworkers in North Carolina, 2017 (N=202).

Reason for Working	n	(%)
Buy clothes	184	(91.1)
To stay busy when school is not in session	140	(69.3)
Buy school supplies*	130	(64.7)
Provide money for co-resident family	122	(60.4)
Save for future needs	121	(59.9)
Make a big purchase (car, electronics, house, etc.)	99	(49.0)
Pay for your education***	38	(19.1)
To help a family member finish a task (no remuneration)**	36	(18.0)
Provide money for family not co-residing	33	(16.3)
Other*	3	(1.5)

^*missing 1 value

^**missing 2 values

^***missing 3 values

Associations between Selected Characteristics and Reasons for Working

Few notable associations occurred in reasons for working between males and females, with the exception of more males working to save up for a big purchase (57.9% vs. 34.2%, p<.01) (Table IV). Older age was associated with working in order to buy clothes, save for the future, and save for a big purchase (p<.01). More children who migrated for work compared to their seasonal counterparts reported working in order to save for the future (88.9% vs. 53.6%, p<.001), save for a big purchase (75.0% vs. 43.4%, p<.001), pay for education (42.9% vs. 14.0%, p<.001), perform unpaid work to help a family member (42.9% vs. 12.7%, p<.001), and to support long distance family (50.0% vs. 9.0%, p<.001). Fewer participants born in the US reported working in order to save for the future (p<.05), and more Central American origin participants worked to support long distance family than those from the US or Mexico (p<.05). Household parental presence showed significant associations with the need to stay busy (p<.05), support co-resident family (p<.05), saving for the future (p<.05), performing unpaid work (p<.05), and supporting long distance family (p<.01). Compared to those living with mother or father or both, more children who did not live with their mother or father reported working to support long distance family, and fewer reported working to support co-resident family or to stay busy when school was in session. Among those receiving hourly pay, more children who were paid less than $9.00 per hour reported working in order to support co-resident family members (68.0% vs. 44.7%, p<.01).

Table IV.

Association of Selected Characteristics with Reasons for Working, Latinx Child Farmworkers in North Carolina, 2017 (N=202).

	Reasons for Working
Personal and Work Characteristics	Total	Buy clothes	Stay busy	Buy school supplies	Support co-resident family	Save for future	Big purchase	Pay for education	Help a family member (unpaid)	Support long distance family
		n = 184	n = 140	n = 130	n = 122	n = 121	n = 99	n = 38	n = 36	n = 33
	n	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)
Gender
Male	126	114 (90.5)	87 (69.1)	76 (60.3)	74 (58.7)	79 (62.7)	73 (57.9)2	28 (22.4)	19 (15.1)	25 (19.8)
Female	76	70 (92.1)	53 (69.7)	54 (72.0)	48 (63.2)	42 (55.3)	26 (34.2)	10 (13.5)	17 (23.0)	8 (10.5)
Age (in years)
10–13	45	35 (77.8)2	30 (66.7)	27 (60.0)	27 (60.0)	22 (48.9)2	15 (33.3)2	4 (9.1)	8 (17.8)	6 (13.3)
14–15	62	58 (93.6)	44 (71.0)	45 (72.6)	40 (64.5)	31 (50.0)	26 (41.9)	14 (23.0)	13 (21.3)	8 (12.9)
16–17	95	91 (95.8)	66 (69.5)	58 (61.7)	55 (57.9)	68 (72.6)	58 (61.1)	20 (21.3)	15 (16.0)	19 (20.0)
Migrant status
Migrant	36	33 (91.7)	27 (75.0)	25 (71.4)	26 (72.2)	32 (88.9)1	27 (75.0)1	15 (42.9)1	15 (42.9)1	18 (50.0)1
Seasonal	166	151 (91.0)	113 (68.1)	105 (63.3)	96 (57.8)	89 (53.6)	72 (43.4)	23 (14.0)	21 (12.7)	15 (9.0)
National origin
United States	164	148 (90.2)	112 (68.3)	102 (62.6)	102 (62.2)	91 (55.5)3	76 (46.3)	29 (17.9)	31 (19.0)	24 (14.6)
Mexico	26	24 (92.3)	22 (84.6)	22 (84.6)	14 (53.9)	19 (73.1)	14 (53.9)	4 (16.0)	4 (16.0)	3 (11.5)
Central American nation	12	12 (100.0)	6 (50.0)	6 (50.0)	6 (50.0)	11 (91.7)	9 (75.0)	5 (41.7)	1 (8.3)	6 (50.0)3
Household parental presence
Mother and father	121	111 (91.7)	86 (71.1)	80 (66.1)	70 (57.9)	78 (64.5)	60 (49.6)	22 (18.5)	28 (23.3)	15 (12.4)
Mother only	56	50 (89.3)	39 (69.6)	36 (65.5)	41 (73.2)	24 (42.9)3	25 (44.6)	8 (14.6)	4 (7.3)3	7 (12.5)
Father only	7	7 (100.0)	7 (100.0)	5 (71.4)	5 (71.4)	5 (71.4)	5 (71.4)	3 (42.9)	2 (28.6)	2 (28.6)
Neither father nor mother	18	16 (88.9)	8 (44.4)3	9 (50.0)	6 (33.3)3	14 (77.8)	9 (50.0)	5 (27.8)	2 (11.1)	9 (50.0)2
Works with at least one relative
Yes	176	159 (90.3)	125 (71.0)	113 (64.6)	115 (65.3)1	109 (61.9)	84 (47.7)	33 (19.1)	34 (19.5)	27 (15.3)
No	26	25 (96.2)	15 (57.7)	17 (65.4)	7 (26.9)	12 (46.2)	15 (57.7)	5 (19.2)	2 (7.7)	6 (23.1)
Hourly pay (n=137)*
Less than $9.00	90	86 (95.6)	60 (66.7)	64 (71.1)	62 (68.9)2	51 (56.7)	48 (53.3)	17 (19.1)	11 (12.4)	13 (14.4)
$9.00 or greater	47	45 (95.7)	35 (74.5)	36 (78.3)	21 (44.7)	24 (51.1)	17 (36.2)	9 (19.6)	5 (10.9)	9 (19.2)

^*Missing 2 values,

¹p < .001

²p < .01

³p < .05

Discussion

Latinx child farmworkers navigate an arduous terrain of structural vulnerability that limits opportunities and pushes them into farm work. In the context of socially produced conditions such as poverty, poor immigration policy, racism and discrimination, inadequate housing, permissive agricultural child labor laws, and limited alternative work opportunities, agricultural labor among Latinx children can be viewed as a survival strategy. The potential acute and chronic health effects of hazardous agricultural work during critical periods of development adds another layer of vulnerability to this population. The mixed methods findings from this study demonstrate that these children primarily work in order to supplement family income needs. However, in doing so, they create meaning that appears to reinforce family bonds and hope for the future.

Integration of Mixed Methods Results and Comparison to Literature

The qualitative findings from our study, interpreted through the lens of structural vulnerability, provide context for a deeper understanding of the quantitative results. For example, most children in the survey reported working in order to buy their clothes (91.1%), school supplies (64.7%), supporting their family (60.4%), and saving for future needs (59.9%). In interviews, children detailed the financial needs of their families that compelled them to work. Several children discussed working in order to supplement their parents’ low wage farm work, paying off family debts, or a sense of self-obligation to honor the sacrifices of the parents. Yet, few saw their farm work as a long-term arrangement, and many viewed the experience as a motivation to escape farm work and better their situation in the future.

Our survey found that nearly seventy percent (69.3%) reported working in order to stay busy when school was not in session. In-depth interviews revealed that, in addition to working to contribute to their families, children worked in order to stave off boredom at home. Contextually, this is understandable given the structurally vulnerable predicaments and lack of alternative summer enrichment opportunities for this population. Several migrant participants explained that their temporary housing was in disrepair, so it was better to leave the house to go work. Others simply said that there was nothing to do at home: no television, entertainment, or other activities. In contrast, by engaging in farm work with family members, they were able to simultaneously fulfill financial obligations while maximizing time spent together. Rural youth summer enrichment opportunities appear to be relatively rare, and, even when available, structural barriers may hinder participation among Latinx child farmworkers (Quandt, Arnold, Mora, et al., 2021). For some older children who could legally work in other sectors, job alternatives in rural areas, such as fast food, were less appealing than farm work. Some children saw the harsh working conditions of farm work, such as enduring the summer heat, as a trade-off considering the relatively higher earning potential and ability to work with family or friends in farm work.

Limited research has examined the reasons that children and adolescents give for working in farm work, though similar patterns are observed across studies. A pilot study by the current investigative team with 87 Latinx child farmworkers in NC, using nearly identical survey items as the present study, found that children’ reasons for working were comparable (Arcury et al., 2014). The percentage of children reporting working in order to buy clothes, school supplies, and to provide money for co-resident family was highly similar in both studies. However, the pilot study did not include “to stay busy when school is not in session,” which was the second most common reason reported in the present study (69.3%), signaling the utility of our mixed methods approach in identifying appropriate fixed-response categories.

Recent research has focused on mental health, stress, and support systems of children of migrant farmworkers (Taylor, Ruiz, & Nair, 2019; Taylor, Ruiz, Nair, & Mishra, 2020), Guatemalan and Mexican adolescent migrant farmworkers (Carlos Chavez, Gonzales-Backen, & Grzywacz, 2021; Carlos Chavez, Gonzales-Backen, Perez Rueda, 2021), and unaccompanied migrant Guatemalan youth (Heidbrink, 2018). While this research was not specifically examining children’s reasons for working, and focused on youth with different backgrounds than those in our study, limiting the transferability of findings, we can still observe substantial connections across studies.

For example, both Carlos Chavez and colleagues (2021) and Heidbrink (2018) found that unaccompanied migrant Guatemalan youth worked in order to send money to their distant families. While this work increased the youths’ own hardships, they saw the experiences as a natural way to “push forward” and financially contribute while reinforcing bonds with their distant family. While only six percent (12 individuals) of participants in our quantitative study identified as coming from Central America (most identified as Guatemalan), we observed a similar pattern of reasons for working among these children. Half of Central American child farmworkers reported working in order to support distant family, compared to less than fifteen percent of children born in the US (14.9%) or Mexico (11.5%). Among unaccompanied children (living with neither father nor mother), fewer participants reported working in order to stay busy and more reported the need to support distant family compared to those living with at least one parent. Adolescent Central American migrants, many who live on their own, likely experience distinct vulnerabilities, exposures, and developmental trajectories compared to child farmworkers born in the US and Mexico. Compared with their US born peers, job prospects for Central American migrants are highly constrained to agriculture due to their limited English proficiency and documentation status (Carlos Chavez, Gonzales-Backen, & Grzywacz, 2021). More focused research is needed to delineate these differences and identify appropriate interventions.

Another similarity across studies is the idea that international migration, and potentially farm work, may be viewed as a “pathway to adulthood” (Juarez et al., 2013). Other studies have speculated that international adolescent migration may serve as a possible youth “rite of passage” in structurally vulnerable conditions (Carlos Chavez, Gonzales-Backen, & Grzywacz, 2021), occurring as a joint decision between youth and their families (Heidbrink, 2018). Participants in our qualitative study shared a similar sentiment about farm work as a “rite of passage,” though this view was common among seasonal, domestic migrant, and international migrant farmworker children. Many children mentioned how working in agriculture at a young age helped them to “grow up,” inspired them “to do better in school,” and “not want to do [farm work] the rest of their lives.” In hoping for a better future, children exerted a sense of agency over their decision to work in agriculture and felt that the experience would open up future possibilities for economic advancement.

The emphasis on familial connections and roles is another similarity across our research and other studies. Ramos and colleagues (2021) found familial connections among rural Latinx adolescents to be protective against discrimination and internalizing symptoms. In research with children from migrant farmworker families, Taylor and colleagues (2019) found that families served as a central resilience factor that counteracted acculturative stress. They demonstrated that migrant farmworker parents contrasted field work to school and used it as a motivator to advance in education (Taylor et al., 2019). In our study, working in farm work appeared to be a joint decision made by parents and children that reinforced a shared hope for a better future. Through these experiences, children working was both a financial contribution and an acknowledgment of the hardships that their parents had undergone. Across studies, it appears that children draw upon their familial connections as a buffer of resiliency against the many stressors produced by structural vulnerability. Yet, more focused research on resiliency factors and the unique developmental context of farm work in a “new Latino destination” is warranted.

Strengths and Limitations

Our CBPR approach ensured relevance by discussing the study design and instruments with youth with lived experience similar to our participants. Our approach also aided in recruiting participants and facilitated rapport building in a political era characterized by racist rhetoric and policies targeting immigrants. The study included migrant, seasonal, and unaccompanied minors, which allowed for a comparison across categories. The embedding of a mixed methods design allowed for a deeper understanding of children’s reasons for working from their own perspective.

Despite these strengths, the study should be interpreted in light of its limitations. The transferability of findings is limited. The study only included children living in or migrating to NC, so their experiences may differ from that of children in other regions or other years. Probability sampling is not feasible for this population because there is no registry of farmworkers, limiting the generalizability of results. We relied on community organizations and individuals in order to recruit participants, which could have biased the sample towards children with more resources than those lacking connection to such community organizations. All results are based on participants’ self-reports and asked participants to describe their motivations for working in farm work; this may have introduced biases and should be interpreted with caution.

Conclusion

This mixed methods study used a CBPR approach in order to understand Latinx child farmworkers’ reasons for working. In the context of structural vulnerability, Latinx children work in order to financially support their families. Most view farm work as a temporary experience, which serves the dual role of contributing to families while occupying summer time in an otherwise isolating rural environment. Despite the constraints on their opportunities, many children demonstrate a resiliency to hardships and draw strength from their familial support systems. Nevertheless, farm work remains one of the most hazardous industries in the US, especially for children during critical periods of physical and psychological development. More alternative opportunities for rural Latinx youth that build resiliency without jeopardizing their health are needed. Systemic changes, such as changing agricultural child labor laws to reflect those found in every other industry, enforcing existing health and safety regulations, prohibiting hazardous agricultural tasks, and limiting hours for workers under age eighteen may help protect these vulnerable workers and facilitate healthy development. Alternative youth opportunities during summer months, paired with higher farm work wages for their families, could reduce the economic need for young children to work in agriculture. Any policy discussion should incorporate the voices and perspectives of the affected communities. This study was conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has likely exacerbated the vulnerabilities of Latinx child farmworkers and their families. Research is needed to understand the impact of COVID-19 on this vulnerable population and identify appropriate economic, educational and social support programming.

Biography

Taylor J. Arnold, MA, is the project manager for the Hired Child Farmworker Study. He is also a doctoral student in Community Health Education at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. He is interested in utilizing participatory research methods to understand the intersections of labor, migration, and health.

Thomas A. Arcury, PhD, is a medical anthropologist and public health scientist with a research program focused on improving the health of rural and minority populations. Since 1996, he has participated in a program of community-engaged research on environmental and occupational health and justice with immigrant workers and their families.

Sara A. Quandt, PhD, is a medical anthropologist whose career includes over 20 years of community-based participatory research with immigrant workers in agriculture, manufacturing and construction to understand their occupational injuries and illnesses.

Joanne C. Sandberg, PhD, is a sociologist whose research focuses on worker health, cancer survivorship and employment, minority health, and health equity. Community-engaged research has been central to her work.

Jennifer W. Talton, MS, has over 13 years of experience in data science for public health research, including community based participatory research projects as well as large, multi-center studies.

Stephanie S. Daniel, PhD, has over 20 years of continuous extramural research funding with expertise in recruiting and maintaining both clinical and community samples, and in the implementation of longitudinal and intervention development research methods. Dr. Daniel serves as the Principal Investigator for the Hired Child Farmworker Study.