Keywords

FormalPara Overview

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the characteristics of agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers with disabilities in rural settings and the responsiveness and appropriateness of vocational rehabilitation (VR) services to meet the needs of these clients. This chapter begins with an introduction of the demographics of the agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers, followed by a discussion of the major issues of the chapter and relevant policies that are encountered by this population. Recommendations and/or solutions to VR service delivery will be provided. The chapter will end with future implications and a summarization of the chapter. Throughout the chapter, readers will be provided with instructional features that will enhance knowledge of the readings.

The chapter is comprised of five learning objectives, which include:

  1. (a)

    Provide demographics of agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers with disabilities.

  2. (b)

    Identify and discuss the types of disabilities that agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers incur and/or exacerbate as a result of the job.

  3. (c)

    Identify and discuss the barriers that agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers with disabilities encounter when seeking healthcare treatment as well as state vocational rehabilitation services.

  4. (d)

    Discuss the relationship between state vocational rehabilitation services and AgrAbility when providing service delivery to agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers.

  5. (e)

    Provide recommendations and resources to professionals who are working with agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers with disabilities.

Introduction

Approximately 3 million farms and ranches in the United States are operated by 78% of families and farm workers who were born in Mexico and Central American countries (National Center for Farmworker Health [NCFH], 2009), and this number continues to rise (Xiang et al., 2012). The majority of farm workers who migrated to the United States are Spanish-speaking, with less than 20% speaking English having earned only a sixth-grade education. Seventy-two percent of farm workers completed their education in Mexico, while 26% completed their education in the United States (NCFH, 2009). Typically, agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers are comprised of (79%) men who migrated to the United States compared to 21% of females, who are typically born in the United States (NCFH, 2009).

The highest percentage of immigrant farm workers work in California, Florida, Texas, and Washington (Martin & Jackson-Smith, 2013) and have resided in the United States for more than 10 years with an average age of 33 (NCFH, 2009). Approximately 60% of farm workers are married; however, the majority of agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers who reside in the United States do so without their families (NCFH, 2009). The average income of an individual farm worker can range between $10,000 and $12,000, while the average income for a family can range from $15,000 to $17,000 (NCFH, 2009), leaving many farm workers and their families living below the poverty line. In 2009, approximately 20% of farm workers indicated that they or a family member received a form of Medicaid, WIC, food stamps, and/or TANF (NCFH, 2009) as these workers are often underpaid, uninsured, and employed either seasonally or full-time (Arcury & Quandt, 2007; Field & Jones, 2006; Martin & Jackson-Smith, 2013; NCFH, 2009; Xiang et al., 2012). The rate of employment for those working in agriculture and farming is low, and research has shown that unemployment and underemployment are common for those working in this area (Martin & Jackson-Smith, 2013; NCFH, 2009).

Data Collection of Disability-Related Statistics for Farmers

The US Department of Labor’s National Agriculture Workers Survey , the US Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis, the USDA’s National Agriculture Statistics Service, the USDA’s Census of Agriculture, the US Census Bureau’s Census of Population and Housing, the USDA’s Economic Research Service, and the USDA’s Agriculture Resource Management Survey are government agencies that collect data pertaining to farmers. Each agency reports on different aspects of farming (e.g., industry, employment, and farm resources). In 2008, there were approximately 1.3 million self-employed farmers in the United States, 0.42 million unpaid farm labor, and 0.27 million farm service workers (Deboy, Jones, Field, Metcalf, & Tormoehlen, 2008). In 2001, it was found that people between the ages of 15 and 79 “have a disability that affects their ability to perform one or more essential tasks” (Deboy et al., 2008, p. 179). Before delving into the literature, disability will be defined based upon the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) which defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or regarded as having such an impairment.

Prevalence of Disability Among Agricultural, Farm, and Immigrant Workers

In general, it is difficult to capture the prevalence of disability among agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers. This is attributed to a lack of research pertaining to this population (Deboy et al., 2008; Field & Jones, 2006), few incentives or interests in understanding the impact of disability pertaining to this population (Deboy et al., 2008), and the lack of general knowledge with regard to immigrant workers (Yakushko, Watson, & Thompson, 2008). Overall, the statistics on the number of disability pertaining to farm-related injuries are limited. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics indicated an approximate 80,000 disability-related injuries, with 5% of these injuries resulting in permanent disability (Deboy et al., 2008). While a definitive number cannot be attributed to the disabilities associated with agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers, the literature does provide some insight with regard to the types of disabilities that are often acquired by this population.

Physical Disabilities

On average, farmers have more physical disabilities than the general population (Field & Jones, 2006). These disabilities include paraplegia, upper limb amputation, quadriplegia and lower limb amputation (Deboy et al., 2008). Other physical disabilities consist of spinal cord, arthritis, cardiovascular, musculoskeletal impairments, and respiratory impairments (Field & Jones, 2006; Oklahoma AgrAbility & DRS AgrAbility Team, 2009). Farm workers may experience specific work-related physical injuries, such as falls, tractor-related incidents, working with animals and mowers, and the use of truck or other work-related machines, which may further increase the likelihood of physical injury (Mwachofi, York, & Lewis, 2009; Myers, Layne, & Marsh, 2009). Tissue damage and hypothermia can also develop for those agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers with disabilities working in extreme colder temperatures (Geng, Stutheridge, & Field, 2013), while heat exhaustion and dehydration impact those farm workers who are employed in extremely high temperatures (Breeding, Harley, Rogers, & Crystal, 2005). In addition to the aforementioned physical disabilities, this population may also develop hearing and vision loss due to the noise level of machines and impact of particles from toxins (Breeding, et al., 2005; Mwachofi, 2007; Mwachofi et al., 2009).

Medical Conditions

When working with crops and animals, agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers are exposed to toxins that are found in pesticides and other hazardous chemicals (Deboy et al., 2008; Martin & Jackson-Smith, 2013). While pesticides are instrumental for crop production, they also produce side effects that can impact farm workers. These side effects include insomnia, dizziness, and numbness. If left untreated, these side effects can lead to more disabling conditions, thus, impacting the farmer’s ability to work. Field and Jones (2006) indicated that approximately 5% of non-life-threatening injuries can result in more serious permanent disability. There has been evidence to suggest that there is a relationship between toxins found in pesticides and chronic medical conditions , such as colon, prostate, and skin cancer (Armitage, Mitchell, & Schenker 2012; Deboy et al., 2008; Price et al., 2013). Additional medical conditions that impact agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers pertain to oral health and HIV/AIDS and other sexual transmitted diseases (Arcury & Quandt, 2007).

Major Issues of Agricultural and Relevant Policies for Agricultural, Farm, and Immigrant Farm Workers

It is challenging to determine the number of workplace injuries for agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers with disabilities due the low number of reported injuries, especially for those immigrant farmers who do not possess a US citizenship (Smith, 2012). Often times, immigrant farm workers may not have access to medical care (Price et al., 2013; Smith, 2012). In fact, data has shown farm workers as more likely to be uninsured or underinsured and less likely to seek medical services (Arcury & Quandt, 2007; Oklahoma AgrAbility & DRS AgrAbility Team, 2009; Xiang et al., 2012). For farm workers seeking assistance for workplace injuries, limited access to services is often dependent upon the location of the workplace. For example, farmers with disabilities working in rural areas have unique challenges, such as transportation, health care facilities, health care coverage, and limited resources (Arcury & Quandt, 2007; Hunter, Hancock, Weber, & Simon, 2011; Oklahoma AgrAbility & DRS AgrAbility Team, 2009; Schweitzer, Deboy, Jones, & Field, 2011). There is also a lack of mental health services and physical therapy for farmers working in rural areas (Oklahoma AgrAbility & DRS AgrAbility Team, 2009). Additionally, for farmers who may need immediate medical assistance, it is common for local medical volunteers to provide this assistance (Oklahoma AgrAbility & DRS AgrAbility Team, 2009).

Should a job-related injury occur, agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers may not seek worker’s compensation as an option. For example, when the worker happens to be an illegal immigrant, filing for workers’ compensation becomes problematic due to their immigration status (Hosier, 2011) and also poses a potential threat for employers who have hired them (Smith, 2012). Additional factors that inhibit immigrant farm workers from seeking worker’s compensation is often the result of having a low educational level, not being proficient of the English language, as well as having a lack of knowledgeable regarding their rights as employees or of worker’s compensation (Arcury & Quandt, 2007; Hosier, 2011; Smith, 2012; Xiang et al., 2012). Regardless of immigration status, many undocumented agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers have been able to win worker’s compensation cases but have been unable to collect payment due to the lack of a social security number, a requirement for claiming benefits (Smith, 2012). Presently, there is not a precise number of immigrant workers that seek worker’s compensation or have won cases after acquiring a work-related injury (Smith, 2012), although Xiang et al. (2012) found in their study of immigrant farm workers with disabilities that this population receives worker compensation at lesser rates than US citizens.

The Role of Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors and AgrAbility When Providing Service Delivery to Agricultural, Farm, and Immigrant Workers

Traditionally, the role of vocational rehabilitation (VR) counselors in state agencies is to assist clients in obtaining and maintaining employment. The availability of employment and educational opportunities, lack of resources (e.g., assistive technology), and transportation options can be cumbersome for those VR counselors working in rural areas (Arcury & Quandt, 2007; Field & Jones, 2006; Friesen, Krassikouva-Enns, Ringaert, & Isfeld, 2010; Hunter et al., 2011; Martin & Jackson-Smith, 2013). Thus, rehabilitation counselors working with farm workers in these areas, especially those farm workers who are immigrants to the United States, are met with unique challenges. One such challenge is the language barrier between the client and counselor. As stated previously, the vast majority of immigrant farm workers have limited English proficiency (NCFH, 2009). Because of this, it may be difficult for immigrant farm workers seeking services to understand the role and function of the VR counselor and the services that are provided by state agencies. This coincides with another barrier for agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers with disabilities-eligibility. Traditionally, eligibility requirements for VR services may take months, thus, impacting the time that a worker with a disability can resume working. The length of time that it may take for a client to become eligible for services may be contingent on whether or not a state has an Order of Selection ([OOS]; Mathew, Field, & Etheridge, 2011). Generally speaking, an OOS occurs when a state VR agency anticipates that it will not have sufficient or personnel to provide services to consumers (Mathew et al., 2011). Under this order, clients with the most significant disabilities will receive services first. For immigrant workers with disabilities seeking VR services, establishing eligibility may require additional time and documentation, regardless of whether a state has an OOS in place. Providing evidence of citizenship may be problematic for many immigrant farm workers as oftentimes, they have migrated to the United States for work and are unable to provide proof of residency (NCFH, 2009) which may evoke a fear of deportation (Breeding et al., 2005). Because of this fear, many immigrant farm workers may be reluctant to seek VR services.

A third barrier for rehabilitation counselors working with agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers is having little knowledge regarding the farming profession. In order to better understand the needs of farm workers with disabilities, it is imperative that VR counselors are knowledgeable about the agencies that are familiar with agriculture. An agency that can assist VR counselors working with agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers with disabilities is AgrAbility . This government agency has “the expertise in identifying the technology, adaptations, and modifications which can assist the farmer in returning to work” (Oklahoma AgrAbility & DRS AgrAbility Team, 2009, p. 8). It was “established by the Farm Bill of 1990 and administered by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) under the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to serve farmers with disabilities” (Mathew et al., 2011, p. 95). This agency trains, educates, supports, and provides technical information to farmers with disabilities in addition to serving as “an intermediary between farmer workers who want to return to work after the onset of a disabling condition and VR” (Mathew et al., 2011, p. 94). Given that this agency focuses on the needs of farmers, it is imperative that VR counselors work collaboratively with this agency to ensure that agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers are provided services that are unique to their profession. In fact, Mathew et al. (2011) indicated that when both agencies work collaboratively, there is a higher propensity for a farm worker to return to work.

Discussion Box

Helping Agricultural and Farm Workers with Disabilities Continue to Work in Agriculture/Farm Work

Many farm and agricultural workers desire to return to their farming and agricultural careers even after becoming disabled. In order to fulfill this desire, there would need to be assistive technologies and other resources readily available at these job sites. In efforts to assist farm and agricultural workers, the USDA awarded a $720,000 AgrAbility grant to Michigan State University in 2014 to help farm operators and workers with disabilities. The aim of this grant was to help this working population with disabilities overcome challenges in their farming and agricultural careers. Agriculture is an occupation that holds some of the most disabling injuries as well as the susceptibility to disabling injuries. Because there is such an overwhelming exposure to disabling injuries in farm work, many believe that education and awareness are crucial factors in preventing these types of injuries.

  1. 1.

    What types of assistive technologies do you think could effectively assist a farm/agriculture worker with disability on the job?

  2. 2.

    What else could be done to both educate and prevent disabling injuries from occurring on the job for farm/agriculture workers?

  3. 3.

    Do you think the topic of farm and agriculture workers with disabilities is relevant to the rehabilitation counseling profession? Why or why not?

Recommendations to Service Delivery to Agricultural, Farm, and Immigrant Workers with Disabilities

Mathew et al. (2011) identified four strategies that VR counselors can utilize when working with agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers with disabilities. These strategies include the following: (a) VR counselors should be cognizant of whether an OOS exists in their state as many counselors are not cognizant of this information. (b) VR counselors and AgrAbility personnel should develop a working relationship with one another to improve client success. In this study, 31 AgrAbility personnel revealed that there had been negative experiences and interactions with state VR counselors thus impacting service delivery to clients. (c) It be would be beneficial to hire bilingual staff members who can provide services to clients who have limited use of the English language. Further recommendations to providing service delivery for agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers with disabilities seeking services suggest that VR counselors be more proactive with regard to disseminating information regarding the services they provide as immigrant farm workers may not be familiar with services that rehabilitation agencies provide. Other researchers suggest that VR counselors collaborate with persons working in the allied health field, as these professionals may not be as knowledgeable in working with clients who are immigrant farm workers with disabilities seeking services (Arcury & Quandt, 2007; Hunter et al., 2011). It is also recommended that VR counselors provided multiculturally competent services for agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers, which may include services that consider the role of the family, communication style, and the use of nontraditional interventions (Breeding et al., 2005).

VR counselors have several models to choose from when working collaboratively with AgrAbility, as many states have utilized this agency to serve agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers with disabilities. For example, the Oklahoma AgrAbility has been instrumental in working with farm workers with disabilities and VR agencies in identifying, recommending, and selecting the most cost-effective services. Because many agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers with disabilities’ goals are to return to the same employer, assistive technology may be needed for this goal to be reached. AgrAbility specialists who work in this area can also find the most appropriate assistive technology that is needed by the client (Field & Jones, 2006). Another AgrAbility partnership that has been effective is the Kentucky Migrant Vocational Program. This partnership consists of the Kentucky Office of Vocational Rehabilitation , the University of Kentucky Graduate Program in Rehabilitation Counseling , and AgrAbility (Breeding et al., 2005). This partnership has resulted in the dissemination of resources into the communities with agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers with disabilities (Breeding et al., 2005). A final resource that VR counselors can utilize relates to assistive technology. Breaking New Ground Resource Center has a large database that focuses on assistive technology (Field & Jones, 2006).

Research Box

Title: Secondary Injury Potential of Assistive Technologies Used by Farmers with Disability: Findings from a Case Study.

Objective: In order to complete certain tasks, farmers with disabilities use assistive technology, which may cause a secondary injury to the famer. This study was designed to help farmers understand the perception of potential for injuries and the safety measures that may be implemented.

Method: This qualitative study was designed using grounded theory. The focus of this study was the safety aspect of assistive technology used by farmers. This study was conducted using multiple case studies based on the assumption that a variety of the customized, home fabricated assistive technology are likely to have different safety measures depending on the detail of the design, the farmer’s experience, the function of the assistive technology, and the environments in which they are used.

Results: The participants in this study had an array of disabilities including spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, Parkinson’s disease, arthritis, and chronic back pain. The assistive technology observed in this study consisted of the additional steps on tractors platforms on chemical sprayers, modified utility vehicle, persons lift, and harvesting carts that goes over rows of plants. The results of the collected data showed that farmers had a vast of relevant experience in using assistive technology to complete agricultural tasks, of which included fabricating their own assistive technology and other farmers who needed it. Seventeen out of the 19 participants in this study had both designed and fabricated their own assistive technology; however, 9 out of 19 participants indicated that they had experienced secondary injuries; 6 participants reported that they made modifications to prevent further injuries. Although 88% of the participants acknowledged the need for safer practices and technology, only 26% considered it worth the effort to implement them. The results in the study indicates that secondary injury causative factors were a result of (a) the absence of specific features on the assistive technology, (b) the presence of a specific feature on the assistive technology, and (c) inappropriate and inadequate feature on the assistive technology that could cause injury.

Conclusion: Assistive technology and techniques adopted by farmers with a variety of disabilities are unique to their needs.

Questions:

  1. 1.

    Why is it important to consider the safety features for assistive technology when it is used to assist farm workers with disabilities on the job?

  2. 2.

    The results identified causative factors related to secondary injury. What are additional causative factors to consider when working with farm workers with disabilities?

  3. 3.

    The researchers indicated that 88% of participants acknowledged the need for safer practices and technology, while 26% considered it worth the effort to implement them. What reason(s) would participants provide in consideration of implementing assistive technology regardless of the risk factors that accompany using this technology?

Case Study

Rodriguez Martinez is a 50-year-old farm worker who has come to an agency in hopes of receiving vocational services. Mr. Martinez is a native of Puebla, Mexico, who moved to North Carolina at age 15 in efforts of finding a better paying job. He is married with two children, serving as the provider of the household. It was difficult for Mr. Martinez to find employment opportunities because he does not speak English fluently and has a seventh-grade education level. He was able to obtain a job as a farm worker where he was injured, resulting in him being paraplegic. As a result of his injury, he is now unemployed but is seeking to return back to that line of work. Due to the paralysis of his lower extremities, it could be challenging for him to return back to farm work without the proper accommodations and assistive technology .

Mr. Martinez lives in a rural area located in Asheville, NC, where there is a scarcity of vocational agencies. Because he is undocumented, he does not have insurance nor does he have a driver’s license. This limits his accessibility to transportation and from being able to seek services outside of his neighborhood. Also, he is limited to the amount of services he can obtain being that he would have to pay out of pocket. Mr. Martinez encountered barriers in receiving workers’ compensation because he is undocumented leaving him without a social security number. As a result of his injury and frustrations with seeking services, he has experienced some depressive symptoms leading him to drink more than usual.

As a rehabilitation counselor in training, how would you assist Mr. Martinez in gaining employment in the same line of work? If unable to have him return to the same line of work, what would be your next step(s) in identifying employment opportunities? How would you advocate for Mr. Martinez in efforts to helping him receive the necessary services? In addition to working with Mr. Martinez in exploring employment opportunities, what other services, interventions, and/or treatments would you consider in working with this client?

Future Implications Impacting Service Delivery

One future implication to service delivery is that both VR counselors and AgrAbility representatives will have a stronger partnership that increases the number of successful employment outcomes for agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers with disabilities. This can be established by having a VR representative on the AgrAbility’s advisory board, should one exist (Field & Jones, 2006). Building the partnership between agencies can assist farmers in not only returning to work but also receive the appropriate assistive technology to be efficient in completing job tasks. A second future implication impacting service delivery is the increase of VR counselors’ knowledge level of agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers with disabilities, which further increases employment outcomes for this population. A final future implication for service delivery is the potential increase in the number of bilingual counselors to work with agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers with disabilities. This increase will permit this population to be knowledgeable about VR services and their rights as employees.

Summary

Agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers with disabilities face unique challenges when seeking VR services. Having a VR counselor who is knowledgeable regarding the field of agriculture is essential when identifying workplace accommodation. In addition to being knowledgeable regarding these accommodations, it is also imperative for VR counselors to work collaboratively with agencies such as AgrAbility who can provide additional support for farm workers with disabilities. Agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers with disabilities may be unaware of the services that VR and AgrAbility can provide; therefore, it is essential that these agencies disseminate information in the communities where this population resides. Having materials in alternative formats (e.g., Spanish, large print, etc.) will also ensure that agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers with disabilities are equipped with knowledge regarding the various services that are afforded by these agencies and the eligibility requirements to obtain services. It is also essential for these agencies to consider the role of culture as it relates to the service delivery to agricultural, farm, and immigrant workers with disabilities.

Resources

  1. 1.

    U.S. Department of Labor’s National Agriculture Workers Survey (NAWS) https://www.doleta.gov/agworker/naws.cfm

  2. 2.

    Toolbox: National AgrAbility Project http://www.agrability.org/toolbox/

  3. 3.

    Reaching Migrant Farm Workers: A Technical Assistance Bulletin for Sexual Violence Advocates and Counselors http://www.ncdsv.org/images/Reaching%20Migrant%20Farmworkers%20Spring%202007.pdf3.pdf

  4. 4.

    Farmworker Justice https://www.farmworkerjustice.org/content/workers-compensation

  5. 5.

    Fairness of Farmworkers: A migrant and seasonal farmworker initiative http://www.nationalfarmworkeralliance.org/fairness_for_farmworkers_agenda.html

Instructional Features

Key References and Web-Based Features for Use by Instructors and Students

  1. 1.

    B. (n.d.). Despite Disability, Motivational Speaker Continues Farming. Retrieved September 29, 2016, from http://www.agriculture.com/family/despite-disability-motivational-speaker_327-ar46281

  2. 2.

    Field, W. E., & Jones, J. (2006). Disability in agriculture. In J. E. Lessenger (Ed.), Agricultural medicine: A practical guide (pp. 70–80). New York, NY: Springer.

  3. 3.

    http://www.farmworkerjustice.org/advocacy-and-programs/agjobs

  4. 4.

    https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/training/migrantfarmworkers

  5. 5.

    http://www.new-ag.info/en/index.php

  6. 6.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTdil6S87lc