day labor centers and community outcomes

7/30/2019 Day Labor Centers and Community Outcomes

1/13

Daylaborersseekingworkinstreetcorners,aclear

testamenttotheexpansionofcontingentworkand

theinformaleconomy,areagrowingphenomenon

incitiesacrossthenation(Valenzuela1999;Theo

doreetal2005;Valenzuelaet.al2006).Thepres

enceofthisgrowinglabormarkethasstemmed

fromabroadersegmentationoftheUnitedStates

economy,asencouragedbythemacroprocessesof

globalization,outsourcing,andimmigrationwhich

haveincreasedthedemandfordaylabor.This

growingsectorofthelabormarket,largelyfueled

byundocumentedimmigrants,hasresultedinan

influxofnewpopulationsthroughoutvariousmu

nicipalitiesintheUnitedStates.Thegrowthofthis

population,combinedwiththegrowingcontesta

tionoverimmigrationhasresultedinincreasing

levelsofcommunityconflictoverthepresenceof

daylaborers,withresidentscomplainingofundesirablesocialbehaviorsuchasloitering,intimidation,

andpublicintoxicationanddaylaborerscomplain

ingof harassmentandabusebylocallawenforce

mentandresidents(Valenzuela1999;Valenzuelaet

al2006).

Recentstudiesindicatethatthegrowingnumberof

daylaborcentersthroughouttheUnitedStates

maybehelpingtoreducethistypeofcommunity

conflictandsuccessfullyintroducedaylaborersinto

thelocaleconomy(Valenzuelaetal2006;

Valenzuelaetal2005;Fine2005;Milkman2006;

TheodoreandMartin2006;Badaet.al2007).In

theirroleaslabormarketintermediaries,worker

centershold

the

capacity

to

offer

avariety

of

ser

vicesincludingnotonlyjoballocationandwage

recoverybutalsoEnglishlanguagecourses,health

services,andsponsoravarietyofsportsandsocial

activitiesfordaylaborers(Fine2005;Valenzuela,

TheodoreandMelendez2005).Suchactivities

placedaylaborworkercentersinauniqueposition

astheyreducelevelsofcommunityconflict,while

atthesametime,ensuringthehealthandwell

beingofdaylaborerswithinlocalcommunities

(Fine2005;Milkman2004;Valenzuelaetal2006).

MigrantCivilSocietyandDaylaborWorkerCentersTheodoreandMartin(2007)definemigrantcivic

societyasthosecommunityorganizations,social

movements,hometownassociations,churches,

faithbasedorganizations,socialclubsandother

organizedgroupsthatrepresenttheinterestsof

migrantsandoperatebetweenmarkets,house

holds,andthestate(page271).Theseorganiza

tionsshareanumberofsimilarcharacteristics

including:theirconcernforthesocial,economic,

andpoliticalwellbeingofmigrants,supporting

andengaginginactivitiesthatarededicatedto

theconcernsofmigrants,aswellasservingacli

enteleandconstituentswhichareprimarilymi

grants(Theodore

and

Martin

2007;

Camou

2002).

Suchorganizationsareoftenviewedasthelegal

mechanismsforrepresentingmigrantrights,are

almostalwaysinconflictwiththestate,andhave

cometooccupyacentralplaceinthearenassur

roundingissuesofimmigrationincluding:workers

rights,education,andimmigrationreform

(TheodoreandMartin2006;Valenzuela2004).

Daylaborworkercentersoccupyauniqueniche

withinthisbroadertypologyofmigrantcivilsoci

ety.Everydayitisestimatedthatmorethan

100,000daylaborersareeitherlookingforwork

oremployedinaninformalworkarrangement

(Valenzuelaetal2006).Withover60centers,in

over15

states,

throughout

the

United

States,

day

laborworkercentershaveemergedasthepri

marypolicyresponsetoregularizethedaylabor

market byservingasathirdpartyintermediaryto

theseworkers(Valenzuelaetal2006). Definedas

looselyregulatedhiringsiteswhereworkersmay

seekemploymentunderrelativelystructured

conditions(Valenzuela2003:incorporationof

daylaborersintotheformaleconomy,andmedi

ateconflictbetweendaylaborersandlocalcom

munities(Gonzalez2006;Theodoreetal2007).

Edwin Melendez, New School University

Abel Valenzuela Jr., University of California, Los Angeles

Nik Theodore, University of Illinois, Chicago

Anne Visser, New School University and

Ana Luz Gonzalez, University of California, Los Angeles

I N S I D E T H I S

R E P O R T :

Migrant Civil Society

and Day labor

Worker Centers

1

The Civic Capacity of

Day Labor Worker

Centers

2

Worker Centers and

Community Abuses

3

Day Labor Worker

Centers and

Migrant Civil Society

5

Conclusions 6

About Us 8

Bibliography 9

Day Labor Centers and

Community Outcomes

Center For the Study

of Urban Poverty

University of

California, Los

Angeles

Center for Puerto

Rican Studies, HunterCollege, The City

University of New

York

Center for Urban

Economic

Development,

University of Illinois,

Chicago


2/13

Page 2

Day Labor Centers and Community Outcomes

Camou(2002)notesthatdaylaborworkercentersareamong

thetypeoforganizationsworkingwithinimmigrant

communitiesinAmericancities,whichprovidelegaland

educationalservicesandmaybeeitherorganizationswhichworkfrom,withandwithinthecommunityoraretypes

whicharegenerallyvoluntary,orconsiderthemselvestobe

communitybased(Cano2007;19).Milkman(2006)argues

thattheseworkercentersarepartofabroadermovementof

communitybasedorganizationswhichhaveevolvedduring

thepast15years,alongsideunioneffortstorecruit

immigrantswithafocusoneconomicjusticeissues(page1).

However,asFine(2005)notesworkercenters,throughtheir

orientationandemphasisonserviceprovisionareinaunique

positiontoserveasanintermediaryfordaylaborersnotonly

withinthelabormarketitself,butalsowithinthelocal

communitiesinwhichtheyareestablished.

TheCivicCapacityofDayLaborWorkerCentersValenzuelaetal(2007)indicatethatworkercentersare

establishedprimarilyinresponsetoconflictsurroundingthe

presenceofundocumentedworkers.Asaresult,daylaborers

becauseoftheirlocalvisibilityhaveunfairlybecomea

lightningrodformuchoftheantiimmigrationmovement.The

tensionsoftenrundeepandarevocaldespitethelegalityof

searchingforworkinthismannerandthefactthatupwardsof

25%ofthedaylaborworkforceislegal(Valenzuelaetal

2007:6).Localresidents,merchants,cityofficialsandpolice

oftenraiseconcernsurroundingthegroupofscruffymostly

Spanishspeaking,shabbilydressedmenaggressivelyseeking

workin

public

(Valenzuela

2002:

14).

Large

crowds

of

day

laborersdrawsores,andincreasedcrime(Valenzuela2000;

Theodoreetal2007;Fine2005;OrganistaandKudo2005;

Valenzuelaet.al.2007).

Inaddition,daylaborersciteincidentsofharassmentbypolice

andresidents.TheNationalDayLaborSurveyfindsthatabout

onefifthofallmigrantdaylaborershavereportedbeing

insultedbymerchantsand15percenthavebeenrefused

servicesinlocalbusinesses.Moreover6percentofmigrant

daylaborersalsoreportedreceivingcitationsbypolicewhile

searchingforwork(Organista2007).Reportsfromday

laborerssuggestthattheseincidentsareaccompaniedby

racialepithetsandthreatstowardsdaylaborers(Valenzuela

2000).

Studiesfocusing

on

the

health

of

day

laborers

advance

that

suchabusesresultindaylaborersexperiencingstrongfeelings

ofsocialisolationandlowselfesteem,whichincreasethe

likelihoodthattheywillbeperpetratorsofdomesticabuseand

experiencesubstanceabuseanddependence(Organistaand

Kubo2005).Suchdata,researchersarguecallsattentiontoa

needforpoliciesandfurtherresearchonthemechanismsto

addressthedaylaborexperienceandprocessessurrounding

stigmatization,anddiscrimination,stressandmentalhealth

impactsandtheneedforsocialbondingandrecreationofday

laborers(Organista2005).

Manyresearchersarguethatthenatureandpurposeofday

laborworkercentershelptoadequatelyaddresstheseneedsoflocaldaylabors(Valenzuela2005;Theodoreetal2005;

Valenzuelaetal.2005;Fine2005).Fine(2005)notesthatthe

educationalandlegalservicesofferedbyworkercentershelps

leverageservicesinareassuchashealthcare,legalassistance

andlanguageaccessthroughoutthecommunities.For

example,centershavethecapabilityofadequatelyaddressing

theconcernssurroundingthephysicalandmentalhealthof

daylaborerstolocalagencies,andinsomecasesonsite

healthcenters.MoreoverEnglishlanguagecoursesandtheir

legalservicesincluding:joballocationandwagerecoveryhelp

toempowerworkersbyallowingthemtointegrateand

becomeactiveparticipantsinthelabormarket(Fine2005).

Inaddition,MargaretHobbins(2004),inalegalreviewofthe

communityimpact

of

aworker

center

in

Herndon,

Virginia,

arguesthatcenteroperationsandserviceshelpreduce

concernssurroundingloitering,littering,intimidationand

publicintoxication. Suchprocedures,Hobbinsnotes,help

addresstheconcernsofcommunityresidentswhileatthe

sametimecontinuestoempowerthosewhoattendandutilize

theworkercenters.Finally,Valenzuelaetal.(2006),ina

profileofdaylaborintheWashington,D.C.metroarea,note

thatmorethanhalfofthedaylaborerswhoutilizeworker

centersparticipateinsomeformofcivicengagement,which

connectsthemtotheirlocalcommunities,includingchurches,

membershipinworkercenters,organizedsportsteams,

consulateoffices,hometownassociations,orfrequentlyuseor

areactiveinsometypeofcommunitybasedorganization.

Suchactivity

these

studies

suggest,

as

facilitated

by

the

worker

centers,allowsdaylaborerstobecomeactiveparticipantsand

contributorstotheirlocalcommunitiesandhelptomediate

thelocalconflictwhichsurroundsthisgrowingsectorofthe

UnitedStateslabormarket(Fine2005,Hobbins2004,

Valenzuelaetal2005,andValenzuelaetal2007).

Havingpreviouslyexploredtheroleofcentersinthedaylabor

jobmarketandtheirimpactonworkers,weareconcerned

withtheimpactcentershaveonthecommunitiesinwhich

theyareestablished.Previousempiricalstudiessuggestthat

workercentershelpreducecommunityconflictandviolence

andincreasethehealthandsafetyofdaylaborerswho

participateinthesecenters.Inaddition,theliteraturealso

proposesthatdaylaborworkercenterspositionwithin

migrantcivil

society

(Valenzuela

et

al

2005).

Such

aposition

allowscenterstopositivelyintegratedaylaborersintolocal

communities.Havingpreviouslyexploredtheroleofcentersin

thedaylaborjobmarketandtheirimpactonworkers,wenow

turntoconsidertheimpactcentershaveonthecommunities

inwhichtheyareestablished.


3/13

Page 3


WorkerCentersandCommunityAbusesIn

this

section,

we

are

concerned

with

examining

the

evidence

providedbytheNationalDayLaborSurveyconductedin2004

onworkercentersandcommunityoutcomes. Similarto

previousreports,theoutcomesforthecentersarecompared

tothoseofothersites(includingstreetandconnectedsites).

Theestablishedliteratureconsiderscommunityabusesto

includebeingvictimofviolentcrimes,sexualabuseor

harassment,experiencinginsultsbybusinessesorsecurity

guards,beingreportedtolawenforcement,orbeing

propositionedtoparticipateinthesellingofillegaldrugs,and

engageinprostitutionorotherillegalactivitywhileworking.

Thesevariablesareusedasindicatorsoftheimpactthat

workercentersmayholdonreducingcommunityconflictand

violencetowardsdaylaborers.

Toanalyzetheimpactofcentersoncommunityabuse,we

considerthepercentageofworkersreportinghavingever

experiencedtheseabusesbybothtypeofsite(workercenter,

streetcorners,orconnected)aswellasregion.ThedatapresentedinTable1andTable2illustratesthepercentageof

workersreportingbeingavictimofviolentcrimewhileever

workingasadaylaborer.Table1showsthatworkers

interviewedincentersreportincidentratesofabusethatare

abovetheaverageofallsites. Inaddition,workersincenters

appeartoreportthehighestratesofabusethanthose

workersremainingatcornerorconnectedsites. Table2

disparitiesinregionsincludingthesouthandwest,wherethe

highestincidentreportsvarybytypeofsite.Forexample,

whereasconnectedsitesinAtlanta(0.64),otherpartsofTexas

(0.77),PhoenixMesa(0.62)allholdthehighestratesof

incidents, workersincentersreportthehighestratesin

TypesofIncidents TypeofSite Mean Std.Dev. Min Max

Street Connected CentersAnyTypeofCrimeVictims 0.25 0.29 0.31 0.27 0.02 0 1

VictimofSexualAbuseorHarassment 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.01 0 1

VictimofDrugExchangeSolicitation 0.16 0.15 0.21 0.17 0.02 0 1

PropositionedtoSellingofDrugs 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.10 0.01 0 1

PropositionedtoProstitution 0.09 0.14 0.15 0.11 0.01 0 1

PropositionedtoOtherIllegalActivities 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.01 0 1

*Experiencedeverasdaylaborer.

Region TypeofSiteTotalStreet Connected Centers

NM: Chicago, IL 0.60 0.60

NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 0.32 N/A 0.14 0.27

NM: New Jersey 0.29 0.29

NM: New York, NY 0.37 N/A 0.36

NM: Other 0.45 0.45

So: Atlanta, GA 0.37 0.64 0.35 0.43

So: Houston, TX 0.57 0.86 0.60

So: Texas, Other 0.28 0.77 0.30

So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 0.29 0.62 0.25 0.37

So: Washington, DC 0.35 0.28 0.34

So: Other 0.36 N/A 0.99 0.48

W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 0.32 0.48 0.58 0.50

W: Oakland, CA 0.46 0.68 0.47 0.51

W: Orange County, CA 0.55 0.58 0.28 0.50

W: San Diego, CA 0.51 0.36 N/A 0.47

W: San Francisco, CA 0.33 1.09 0.70 0.51

W: San Jose, CA 0.54 0.40 0.30 0.45

W: Other 0.49 N/A 1.60 0.76

Total 0.39 0.50 0.62 0.45

* Experiencedeverasdaylaborer.

VictimsofCrimesIncidenceWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerbyRegionandTypesofSites*

PercentReportingVictimsofCrimesWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerbyTypeofincidentsandTypeofSites*


4/13

Page 4


Houston(0.86),andotherpartsofthesouth(0.99), and

workersinterviewedonstreetcornersholdthehighestin

WashingtonDC(0.36).Similarresultsareseeninthewestwith

connectedsitesreportingthehighestratesinLosAngeles(0.48),Oakland(0.68),OrangeCounty(0.58),andSan

Francisco(1.09),cornersreportingthehighestinSanJose

(0.54)andSanDiego(0.51),andwithcentersreportingthe

highestinotherareasofthewest(1.60).

Overall,workersinterviewedatworkercentersreporthigher

incidentrates(0.62)thancorner(0.39)andconnectedsites

(0.50).Inaddition,theoverallincidentrateofcentersisabove

theoverallaverageofallsites(0.62v.0.45),indicatingthatthe

highlevelofincidentratesreportedbyworkersatcentersmay

beadrivingfactorfortheirparticipationincenters. Previous

studieshaveindicatedthatworkercentersareperceivedby

daylaborersassafehavensdisassociatedwiththeabuses

commoninthedaylabormarket. Asaresult,thisperception

maybeafactorinducingdaylaborersparticipationincenters.

Thisconclusionisstrengthenedbytheresultsshowninthe

followingtables.Table3andTable4showthepercentageofworkersateachsitereportingincidentsofharassmentover

thepasttwomonths. Weconsiderharassmentacrossfive

broadcategories:anytypeofharassment,andwhetherornot

theworkerhasbeeninsultedbybusinessownersorsecurity

guards,whetherornotthebusinessownersorsecurity

notifiedlawenforcementofficialswhileworkingasaday

laborer.Theresultsindicateclearlythatworkersatcenters

reportthelowestratesofharassment(0.21)thanthose

interviewedatcorner(0.37)andconnectedsites(0.45).

Moreover,whenotherpartsofthesouth(0.51v.0.30).Yet,

overall,workersincentersstillreportlowerratesof

harassment(0.21)thancorners(0.37)orconnectedsites

Region TypeofSiteTotalS tr ee t C o nn e ct e d Centers


NM: Nassau -Suffolk, Long Island, NY 0.39 N/ A 0.18 0.33


NM: New York, NY 0.22 N/ A 0.24

NM: Other 0.09 0.09

So: Atlanta, GA 0.33 0.52 0.41 0.38

So: Houston, TX 0.57 0.07 0.51

So: Texas, Other 0.27 0.85 0.29


So: W ashington, DC 0.41 0.23 0.37

So: Other 0.30

N/ A

0.51

0.35


W: Oakland, CA 0.24 0.52 0.07 0.28


W: San Diego, CA 0.44 0.36 N/ A 0.42


W: San Jose, CA 0.54 0.36 0.05 0.40

W: Other 0.57 N/ A 0.07 0.44

Total 0.37 0.45 0.21 0.35

* Experienced overth etw omonthspriorto th einterview.

TypesofIncidents TypeofSite Mean Std.Err. Min Max Street Connected Centers

AnyTypeofHarassment 0.37 0.45 0.21 0.35 0.03 0 1

InsultedbyBusinessOwners 0.21 0.19 0.13 0.19 0.01 0 1

BusinessOwners CalledPolice 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.23 0.03 0 1

InsultedbySecurity Guards 0.09 0.15 0.06 0.09 0.01 0 1

SecurityGuardsCalledPolice 0.10 0.26 0.03 0.11 0.02 0 1

* Experiencedoverthetwomonthspriortotheinterview.

PercentReportingHarassmentWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerbyRegionsandTypeofSites*

PercentReportingHarassmentWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerbyTypeofIncidentsandTypeofSites*


5/13

Page 5


(0.45)andbetterthanallsitescombined(0.21v.0.35).Such

resultsindicatethatworkercenters,asestablishedbyprevious

qualitativeanalysis,dohaveapositiveimpactonreducingthe

levelsofharassmentoftenfacedbydaylaborerswhileat

work.

Duetothehighvisibilityofdaylaborers,andtheheated

debatesurrounding

immigration

which

surrounds

this

labor

market, incidentswithlawenforcementofficialsareoften

experiencedbydaylaborers.Theseinteractionscananddo

include:beinginsultedorharassed,beingarrested,receivinga

citation,havingpersonaldocumentsconfiscated,beingforced

toleaveasite,askedaboutimmigrationstatues,orbeing

photographedorvideotaped.Table5and6considerthe

effectsofworkercentersonreducingpoliceincidentsby

examiningtherateofincidentsexperiencedbyworkersover

thepasttwomonths.Theresultsshowtheworkers

interviewedincentersexperiencefewerpoliceincidentsin

almostallareas,withtheexceptionofreceivingcitations

(0.16)whichareonlymarginallyabovetheratesreportedat

othersites

with

workers

at

corners

reporting

(0.09)

and

those

atconnectedsites(0.12).Inaddition,whendisaggregatedby

region,centersalsooutperformallothersiteswithan

incidencerateof0.42whichisbelowthatofcorners(0.49)

andequaltothatofconnectedsites(0.42).Althoughcenters

reportahigherrateofincidentsinareasofAtlantaandother

areasofthesouth,theoverallratestillindicatesthatcenters

helptomitigatepoliceabusesandinteractionswithlaw

enforcementoftenexperiencedbydaylaborers.

Types of IncidentsType of Site

Mean Std. Dev. Min MaxStreet Connected Centers

Any incident 0.49 0.63 0.42 0.49 0.02 0 1Insulted or harassed 0.16 0.21 0.09 0.15 0.01 0 1

Arrested 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.01 0 1

Cited 0.09 0.12 0.16 0.11 0.02 0 1

Confiscated personal documents 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.00 0 1

Forced to leave site 0.37 0.52 0.22 0.36 0.02 0 1

Asked about immigration status 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.01 0 1

Photographed or videotaped 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.13 0.01 0 1

* Experienced over the two months prior to the interview.

Region TypeofSiteTotalS tr ee t C o nn e c te d Centers

NM: Chicago, IL 0.48

0.48

NM: Nassau -Suffolk, Long Island, NY 0.48 N/ A 0.32 0.43


NM: New York, NY 0.29 N /A 0.30

NM: Other 0.38 0.38

So: Atlanta, GA 0.60 0.64 0.65 0.61

So: Houston, TX 0.61 0.29 0.58

So: Texas, Other 0.50 0.77 0.51



So: Other 0.48 N/ A 0.61 0.51


W: Oakland, CA 0.38 0.68 0.20 0.42


W: San Diego, CA 0.60

0.80

N /A

0.64


W: San Jose, CA 0.59 0.55 0.10 0.51

W: Other 0.64 N/ A 0.60 0.62

Total 0.49 0.63 0.42 0.49

* Experiencedoverth etw omo nthspriorto th einterview.

PercentReportingPoliceIncidentsWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerbyRegionsandTypeofSites*

PercentReportingPoliceIncidentsWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerbyRegionsandTypeofSites*


6/13

Page 6


Inadditiontocrimeandharassment,daylaborerscanalso

becomevictimsofviolentincidentswhileatwork.Table7and

8examinecentersimpactonreducingthesetypesofabuses.

businessowners,andviolencefromsecurityguardsaswellas

acategorytoencounteranytypeofviolenceexperienced

whileonthejob.Similartopreviousfindings,thedatainthe

tablesshow

that

centers

help

mitigate

the

rates

of

the

abuse

withcentersshowinglowernumberofincidentreportsthan

bothconnectedandstreetsitesacrossallfourcategoriesas

wellasalowerratethantheaverageforeach. When

disaggregatedbyregionandtypeofsite(Table8)thesame

conclusionisfoundwiththeexceptionofAtlanta,otherareas

ofthesouth,andSanFrancisco.Overall,workersatcenters

alsoreportedalowerrateofviolence(0.10)thanstreet(0.12)

andconnectedsites(0.16)andreportedanincidencelevel

slightlybelowtheaverageforallthreesites(0.10v.0.12).

DayLaborWorkerCentersandMigrantCivilSocietyTheexistingliteraturesurroundingdaylaborersanddaylabor

workercenterssuggeststhatdaylaborworkercentersoccupy

a

unique

niche

within

a

broader

typology

of

migrant

civil

society.Previousstudieshavearguedthatthisuniqueniche

comesfromworkercentersvaryingintypeandsize,butall

commonlyseekingtoincorporatedaylaborersintotheformal

economy,theirsurroundingcommunities,aswellashelpto

connectworkersbroadlytomigrantcivilsociety(Camou2002;

Cano2007;Milkman2006;Fine2005). Suchadvancesleadus

toourinvestigationinthissection,whichconsiderstheimpact

ofdaylaborworkercentersontheinvolvementofday

laborersinmigrantcivilsociety.

Types ofIncidents TypeofSite Mean Std.Dev. Min Max Street Connected Centers

Anytypeofviolence 0.12 0.16 0.10 0.12 0.01 0 1

Threatsfrombusinessowners 0.09 0.12 0.04 0.09 0.01 0 1

Violencefrombusinessowners 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.01 0 1

Violencefromsecurityguards 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.00 0 1


Region TypeofSiteTotalStreet Connected Centers


NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 0.16

N/A

0.14

0.15



NM: Other 0.06 0.06

So: Atlanta, GA 0.10 0.26 0.12 0.14

So: Houston, TX 0.23 0.00 0.20

So: Texas, Other 0.09 0.08 0.09



So: Other 0.11 N/A 0.30 0.15


W: Oakland, CA 0.09 0.08 0.00 0.08


W: San Diego, CA 0.07 0.16 N/A 0.12

W: San Francisco, CA 0.02

0.36

0.05

0.07

W: San Jose, CA 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.11

W: Other 0.15 N/A 0.02 0.12

Total 0.12 0.16 0.10 0.12


PercentReportingViolentIncidentsWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerbyRegionsandTypeofSites*

PercentReportingViolentIncidentsWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerbyTypeofIncidentsandTypeofSites*


7/13

Page 7


Table9showsthepercentageofdaylaborersinterviewedat

eachtypeofsitewhoreportedparticipatingincivic

organizations.Amongtheorganizationsweinclude

involvementincommunitybasedorganizations,hometownassociations,consulateoffices,sportsandlaborerparticipation

incivicorganizationsismixed.Whileworkerswhoparticipate

incentersaremorelikelytobeinvolvedincommunitybased

organizationsandhometownassociations,workersat

connectedsitesreporthigherlevelsofactivitiesincivic

organizations,moreinvolvementwiththeconsulateoffice,

andahigherparticipationinsportsactivities.Moreover,when

thedataisdisaggregatedbyregion(Table10)weseeasimilar

pattern.Participationincentersresultsinanincreasein

participationincivicorganizationsinOakland,OrangeCountyandotherpartsofthewest.Furthermorewhencomparedto

othersites,workersparticipatingincentersreportalower

levelofparticipationthanworkersatconnectedsites((0.32

v.0.36),butahigheronethanworkersatcorners(0.30v.0.32)

andthanallothersitescombined(0.31v.0.32).

Organization TypeofSite Mean Std.Err. Min MaxStreet Connected CentersAnyCivicOrganization 0.30 0.36 0.32 0.31 0.02 0 1

CBOs 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.01 0 1

HomeTownAssociations 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.01 0 1

Consulate Office 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.01 0 1

Sports 0.21 0.27 0.19 0.21 0.02 0 1

Neighborhood Associations 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.01 0 1


Region TypeofSite TotalStreet Connected Centers


NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 0.50 N/A 0.29 0.43



NM: Other 0.35 0.35

So: Atlanta, GA 0.29 0.31 0.65 0.33

So: Houston, TX 0.35 0.14 0.33

So: Texas, Other 0.18 0.46 0.19



So: Other 0.18

N/A

0.11

0.16


W: Oakland, CA 0.43 0.56 0.60 0.48


W: San Diego, CA 0.42 0.20 N/A 0.37


W: San Jose, CA 0.46 0.38 0.20 0.40

W: Other 0.19 N/A 0.36 0.24

Total 0.30 0.36 0.32 0.31


PercentReportingParticipationinCivicOrganizationsWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerbyRegionsandTypeofSites

PercentReportingParticipationinCivicOrganizationsWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerbyOrganizationTypeandTypeofSites


8/13

Page 8


Inadditiontoinvolvementincivicorganizations,participation

inchurchandcentersarealsoconsideredanindicationofday

laborerworkerconnectionstotheircommunity. Table11

showstheresultsoftheproportionofworkersinterviewedat

eachtypeofsiteandtheirreportofinvolvementinthese

organizations. Theresultsindicatethatworkersparticipating

incentersreporthigherlevelsofinvolvementinchurch

organizations(0.56)thanworkersinterviewedatconnected

sites(0.44)andthoseinterviewedatcorners(0.52).However,

workersincentersreportaslightlylowerinvolvementincivic

organizations(0.32)thaninconnectedsites(0.36)butstill

morethanthoseinterviewedatstreetcorners(0.30).When

disaggregatedby

region

table

10,

these

results

continue

to

be

mixed,withstreetandcornersitesalmostequallysplitacross

variousregionsandwithintheSMSAsinimproving

participation. Thus,theresultsareinconclusiveregardingthe

extenttowhichworkercentersimprovethecivicinvolvement

ofdaylaborers.

Finally,weconsiderthequestiontowhatextentworker

centershelpincreasedaylaborersconnectionstohealthand

safetyservices.Table13showsthepercentofworkers

reportingconnectionstosuchserviceswhileworkingasaday

laborerbytypeofsite.Theconnectionsconsideredinclude:

routinehealthcheckups,placestogowhensickifinneedof

healthadvice,aplaceorpersontoreportworkplaceabuses,

trainingonjobsafety,equipmenttopreventworkrelated

injury. Itisclearthatcentersdobetterormatchaccessto

healthcareinmostareasthanallothersites.Centersperform

especiallywellinprovidingaplaceorpersontoreportwork

placeabusestoatthehigher(0.52vs.0.19and0.26).

PercentReportingConnectionstoHealthandSafetyServicesWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerbyTypeofConnectionandTypeofSite

ProportionReportingParticipationinCivicOrganizations,theChurch,andCentersWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerbyOrganizationTypeandTypeofSites

OrganizationTypeofSite

Mean Std.Err. Min MaxStreet Connected Centers

AllOrganizations 0.65 0.62 1.00 0.72 0.03 0 1

AnyCivicOrganization 0.30 0.36 0.32 0.31 0.02 0 1

Church 0.52 0.44 0.56 0.52 0.01 0 1

Centers 0.11 0.10 1.00 0.29 0.06 0 1


TypeofConnection TypeofSite Mean Std.Err. Min MaxStreet Connected Centers

AtLeastOneConnectionstoHealthandSafety

Services 0.88 0.82 0.93 0.88 0.010 1

Hadaroutinehealthcheckupwithinthelastyear 0.38 0.35 0.41 0.38 0.02 0 1

Hasplace togowhensickorneedhealthadvice 0.58 0.48 0.58 0.57 0.02 0 1

Hasplaceorpersontoreportworkplaceabuses 0.26 0.19 0.52 0.30 0.02 0 1

ReceivedTrainingonJobSafety 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.02 0 1

ReceivedEquipmenttoPreventWorkRelatedInjury 0.52 0.50 0.52 0.52 0.02 0 1

Source:NationalDayLaborSurvey,2004.


9/13

Page 9


Thepositiveimpactonconnectingworkerstohealthand

safetyservicesisalsoindicatedwhenthedataisdisaggregated

byregion

(Table

14).

Here,

with

the

exception

of

Nassau

SuffolkandAtlanta,theworkercentersdobetteroverallthan

allothersiteswithnolargediscrepanciesappearinginany

regionorinanyoneSMSA. Moreoverwiththeoverallrateof

0.93,workersinterviewedincentersreportahigherlevelof

connectiontohealthandsafetyservicesthanbothconnect

(0.82)andcorners(0.88)andthanallothersitescombined

(0.88vs.0.93).Thus,wecanconcludethatoverallcentershelp

improveconnectionstohealthandsafetyservicesforday

laborers.Suchfindingsvalidatepreviousstudies,whichhave

advancedtheabilityofworkercenterstoactasalabormarket

intermediaryresultinginpositiveimprovementsinthehealth

andsafetyoutcomesfordaylaborers.

ConclusionsAsaresultofthebroadermacroprocessesofglobalization,

thephenomenonofdaylaborcontinuestogrowthroughcities

acrossthenation.Thehighvisibilityofthispopulation

combinedwithagrowingandcontentiousdebatesurrounding

immigrationhasresultedinincreasedlevelsofcommunity

conflictoverthepresenceofdaylaborers. Inresponseto

theseconflicts,daylaborworkercenters,theprimarypolicy

responsetothedaylaborquestioninmanymunicipalities

acrossthenation,havebeenarguedtobeaneffective

mechanismto

reduce

the

levels

of

community

conflict

surroundingdaylaborersandsuccessfullyintegratingworkers

intotheirlocalformaleconomies.Itisalsoproposedthat

centersassistdaylaborersassimilationintomigrantcivil

societymorebroadlybyofferingavarietyofservicesbeyond

joballocationandwagerecoveryincluding:Englishlanguage

courses,healthservices,andsponsoringsocialandsports

activities(Valenzuelaetal2006;Valenzuelaetal2005;Fine

2005;Milkman2006;TheodoreandMartin2006;Badaet.al

2007).

Theevidencepresentedinthisreportindicatesthatworker

centersarebeneficialinmitigatingemployers,communityand

policeabusesandconnectingworkerstohealthandsafety

services.Howevertheevidenceregardingtheeffectofcenters

interms

of

increasing

civic

engagement

of

this

population

is

mixed. Thefindingsofthisstudysuggestthatinmanyregions

ofthecountryparticipationinworkercentersdoesnot

significantlyresultinahigherinvolvementofdaylaborers

withintheirbroadercommunity afindingwhichisinconflict

withpreviousstudiesonthistopic.Infactinmanyregions,

workersinterviewedatstreetsandconnectedsitesreport

higherlevelsofengagementincivicorganizationsthan

workersinterviewedatcenters.Suchafindingseems

counterintuitivetopreviousfindingssuggestingthatthese

Region TypeofSite TotalStreet Connected Centers

NM:Chicago,IL 0.88 0.88

NM:NassauSuffolk,L 0.85 N/A 0.79 0.83

NM:NewJersey 0.91 0.91

NM:NewYork,NY 0.82 N/A 0.82

NM:Other 0.95 0.95

So:Atlanta,GA 0.91 0.83 0.88 0.89

So:Houston,TX 0.77 1.00 0.80

So:Texas,Other 0.88 0.85 0.88

So:PhoenixMesa,AZ 0.72 0.94 0.95 0.81

So:Washington,DC 0.82 0.95 0.85

So:Other

0.95 N/A 0.90 0.93

W:LosAngelesLongB 0.89 0.83 0.93 0.89

W:Oakland,CA 0.88 0.68 0.93 0.84

W:OrangeCounty,CA 0.89 0.81 0.90 0.87

W:SanDiego,CA 0.96 0.92 N/A 0.95

W:SanFrancisco,CA 0.85 0.91 0.95 0.88

W:SanJose,CA 0.93 0.77 0.90 0.87

W:Other 0.94 N/A 0.98 0.95

Total 0.88 0.82 0.93 0.88

Source:NationalDayLaborSurvey,2004.

PercentReportingatLeastOneConnectiontoHealthandSafetyServicesWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerbyRegionsandTypeofSites


10/13

Page 10


areasmightwarrantfurtherstudy.Oneexplanationmayliein

thatworkercentersmaybeseenbyworkersasasubstituteto,

oraconduittoothercivicorganizations.

Fromapublicpolicyperspectiveitisclearthatworkercentersareaneffectivetoolinaddressingthedaylaborquestion.Such

findingsstrengthentheargumentadvancedinprevious

studiesthatcentersarewellpositionedtobecomean

intermediaryorganizationfortheregularizationofworkers.

Valenzuelaetal(2007)indicatethattheprimarymotivation

forpublicsupportofthecentersistypicallylocalconflict

aroundthepresenceofundocumentedworkersandtensions

oftenrundeepandarevocal,despitethelegalityofsearching

forworkinthismanner,andthefactthatupwardsof25%of

thedaylaborworkforceislegal(Valenzuelaetal,2007:6).As

aresult,furtherunderstandingoftheiractivitiesandcapacities

canhelparticulatetherolethatcenterscanplayunderanew

policyregime.Thefurtheranalysisofcommunityoutcomes

andcenters

impact

on

integration

of

workers

into

local

communitiesisofextremeimportancegiventhenatureand

contextofthecurrentpolicyenvironmentsurroundingday

laborers.


11/13

Page 11


[email protected]

AbelValenzuelaJrisprofessorofChicanoStudiesand

UrbanPlanningattheUniversityofCalifornia,Los

AngelesandtheDirectoroftheCenterfortheStudyof

UrbanPoverty.

[email protected]

EdwinMelendezisprofessorofUrbanAffairsand

PlanningatHunterCollegeandtheDirectorofthe

CenterforPuertoRicanStudies.

[email protected]

NikTheodoreisassociateprofessorintheDepartment

ofUrbanPlanningandPolicyattheUniversityofIllinois,

ChicagoandtheDirectoroftheCenterforUrban

EconomicDevelopment.

[email protected]

M.AnneVisserisadoctoralcandidateattheNew

SchoolUniversityandaResearchAssistantatthe

CenterforPuertoRicanStudies.

[email protected]

AnaLuzGonzalezisadoctoralcandidateinUrban

PlanningattheUniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles.

CenterFortheStudyofUrbanPovertyUniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles

InstituteforSocialResearch

1120RolfeHall

Box951484

LosAngeles,CA900951484

Phone:(310)8259156Fax:(310)2064472

www.csup.ucla.edu

CenterforUrbanEconomicDevelopmentUniversityofIllinois,Chicago

CollegeofUrbanPlanningandPublicAffairs

400South

Peoria

Street,

Suite

2100

Chicago,Illinois,606077035

Phone:(312)9966336Fax:(312)9965766

www.uic.edu/cuppa/uicued

CenterforPuertoRicanStudiesHunterCollege

TheCityUniversityofNewYork

695ParkAvenue,Rm.E1429

NewYork,NY10065

Phone:(212)7725688Fax:(212)6503673

www.centropr.org


12/13

Page 12


Bada,X.,J.FoxandA.Seller(editors)(2006).InvisibleNo

More:MexicansMigrantCivicParticipationinthe

UnitedStates.

Washington,

DC,

Woodrow

Wilson

InternationalCenterforScholars.

Camou,M.(2002)CentersorStreets?:Achieving

EconomicJusticeforUndocumentedDay

Laborers.EliotFitchSymposiumSeriesandthe

InstituteforUrbanLife,.Milwaukee,WI.

Fine,J.(2005).WorkerCenters:OrganizingCommunities

attheEdgeoftheDream.EconomicPolicy

Institute.WashingtonD.C.

Gonzalez,A.andA.Valenzuela.(2007)."DayLaborinthe

GoldenState."CaliforniaEconomicPolicy3(3):122.Hobbins,M.2006.TheDayLaborerDebate:SmallTown

USATakesonFederalImmigration Law

RegardingUndocumentedWorkers.

ExpressOPreprintSeries.Washington,D.C.,AmericanUniversitySchoolofLaw.

Mehta,C.

and

N.

Theodore.

2006.

Workplace

Safety

in

AtlantasConstructionIndustry:

InstitutionalFailureinTemporaryStaffing

Arrangements.WorkingUSA,9,pp.5977.MilkmanR.2007,LaborOrganizingamongMexican

BornWorkersintheUnitedStates:

RecentTrendsandFutureProspects32pp.

96112.

Nissen,Bruce.2004.ConstructionSafetyPracticesand

ImmigrantWorkers:

A

Pilot

Study.

Report

for

the

CentertoProtectWorkersRights.CenterforLaborResearchandStudiesFloridaInternationalUniversity. http://www.risepfiu.org/reports/

Immigrant%20Construction%20Workers%

20Safety.pdf

Organista,K.andA.Kubo(2005)PilotSurveyofRiskand

ContextualProblemsandIssuesin

Mexican/LatinoMigrant

Day

Laborers.

Journalof

ImmigrantHealth7(4)269281.Organista,K.C.(2007)."TowardsaStructural

EnvironmentalModelofRiskforHIVand

ProblemDrinkinginLatinoLaborMigrants:The

CaseofDayLaborers."JournalofEthnic&

CulturalDiversityinSocialWork16(1/2):95125.

Theodore,N.,A.Valenzuela,andE.Melendez.2007.Day

LaborWorker

Centers:

New

Approaches

to

ProtectingLaborStandardsintheInformal

Economy.DraftReport10December2007.Theodore,N.,A.Valenzuela,E.Melendez.(2006)."La

Esquina(TheCorner):DayLaborersOn The

MarginsofNewYork'sFormalEconomy."

WorkingUSA9(4):407423.Theodore,N.andN.Martin(2007).MigrantCivilSociety:

NewVoicesintheStruggleOver Community

Development.JournalofUrbanAffairs 29(3).

pp.269287.

Theodore,N.2003.PoliticalEconomiesofDayLabour:

RegulationandRestructuringof Chicagos

ContingentLabourMarkets.UrbanStudies,40,pp.18111828.

Theodore,N.,E.Melendez,A.Valenzuela,Jr.,AGonzalez.

2008.DayLaborWorkplaceAbuses Inthe

ResidentialConstructionIndustry:Conditionsin

theWashington,DCRegion.Chapter

forthcominginBerhardt,Boushey,Dresser,and

Tilly(eds).TheGlovesOffEconomy:ProblemsandPossibilitiesattheBottomofAmericasLaborMarket


13/13

Page 13


Valenzuela,A.(1999)DayLabourersinSouthern

California:PreliminaryFindingsfromthe Day

LaborSurvey.

Working

Paper

Series,

Center

for

theStudyofUrbanPoverty,InstituteforSocial

ScienceResearch,UCLAMay30.

Valenzuela,A.(2002).WorkingontheMarginsin

MetropolitanLosAngeles:Immigrantsin Day

Labor.MigracionsInternacionales,1(2)pp.628.

Valenzuela,A.,L.Gonzalez,N.Theodore,E.Melendez.

2006.InPursuitoftheAmericanDream:Day

Laborin

the

Greater

Washington

D.C.

Region.

LosAngeles,CenterfortheStudyofUrban

PovertyUniversityofSouthernCalifornia,Los

Angeles.

Valenzuela,A.(2003).DayLaborWork.AnnualReviewof

Sociology29(1):307333

day labor centers and community outcomes

Documents