CenterFortheStudy ofUrbanPoverty Universityof California,Los Angeles CenterforPuerto RicanStudies,Hunter College,TheCity UniversityofNew York CenterforUrban Economic Development, UniversityofIllinois, Chicago

Day Labor Centers and Community Outcomes

EdwinMelendez,NewSchoolUniversity AbelValenzuelaJr.,UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles NikTheodore,UniversityofIllinois,Chicago AnneVisser,NewSchoolUniversityand AnaLuzGonzalez,UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles
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,withresidentscomplainingofundesir ablesocialbehaviorsuchasloitering,intimidation, andpublicintoxicationanddaylaborerscomplain ingofharassmentandabusebylocallawenforce mentandresidents(Valenzuela1999;Valenzuelaet al2006). Recentstudiesindicatethatthegrowingnumberof daylaborcentersthroughouttheUnitedStates maybehelpingtoreducethistypeofcommunity conflictandsuccessfullyintroducedaylaborersinto thelocaleconomy(Valenzuelaetal2006; Valenzuelaetal2005;Fine2005;Milkman2006; TheodoreandMartin2006;Badaet.al2007).In theirroleaslabormarketintermediaries,worker centersholdthecapacitytoofferavarietyofser vicesincludingnotonlyjoballocationandwage recoverybutalsoEnglishlanguagecourses,health services,andsponsoravarietyofsportsandsocial activitiesfordaylaborers(Fine2005;Valenzuela, TheodoreandMelendez2005).Suchactivities placedaylaborworkercentersinauniqueposition astheyreducelevelsofcommunityconflict,while atthesametime,ensuringthehealthandwell beingofdaylaborerswithinlocalcommunities (Fine2005;Milkman2004;Valenzuelaetal2006).

MigrantCivilSocietyandDaylabor WorkerCenters
TheodoreandMartin(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(TheodoreandMartin2007;Camou2002). Suchorganizationsareoftenviewedasthelegal mechanismsforrepresentingmigrantrights,are almostalwaysinconflictwiththestate,andhave cometooccupyacentralplaceinthearenassur roundingissuesofimmigrationincluding:workers rights,education,andimmigrationreform (TheodoreandMartin2006;Valenzuela2004). Daylaborworkercentersoccupyauniqueniche withinthisbroadertypologyofmigrantcivilsoci ety.Everydayitisestimatedthatmorethan 100,000daylaborersareeitherlookingforwork oremployedinaninformalworkarrangement (Valenzuelaetal2006).Withover60centers,in over15states,throughouttheUnitedStates,day laborworkercentershaveemergedasthepri marypolicyresponsetoregularizethedaylabor marketbyservingasathirdpartyintermediaryto theseworkers(Valenzuelaetal2006).Definedas looselyregulatedhiringsiteswhereworkersmay seekemploymentunderrelativelystructured conditions(Valenzuela2003:incorporationof daylaborersintotheformaleconomy,andmedi ateconflictbetweendaylaborersandlocalcom munities(Gonzalez2006;Theodoreetal2007).

INSIDE THIS REPORT:

Migrant Civil Society and Day labor Worker Centers 1

The Civic Capacity of 2 Day Labor Worker Centers

Worker Centers and Community Abuses

Day Labor Worker Centers and Migrant Civil Society

Conclusions

About Us

Bibliography

Day Labor Centers and Community Outcomes

Page 2
Camou(2002)notesthatdaylaborworkercentersareamong thetypeoforganizationsworkingwithinimmigrant communitiesinAmericancities,whichprovidelegaland educationalservicesandmaybeeitherorganizationswhich workfrom,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. impactsandtheneedforsocialbondingandrecreationofday laborers(Organista2005). Manyresearchersarguethatthenatureandpurposeofday laborworkercentershelptoadequatelyaddresstheseneeds oflocaldaylabors(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 communityimpactofaworkercenterinHerndon,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. Suchactivitythesestudiessuggest,asfacilitatedbytheworker centers,allowsdaylaborerstobecomeactiveparticipantsand contributorstotheirlocalcommunitiesandhelptomediate thelocalconflictwhichsurroundsthisgrowingsectorofthe UnitedStateslabormarket(Fine2005,Hobbins2004, Valenzuelaetal2005,andValenzuelaetal2007). Havingpreviouslyexploredtheroleofcentersinthedaylabor jobmarketandtheirimpactonworkers,weareconcerned withtheimpactcentershaveonthecommunitiesinwhich theyareestablished.Previousempiricalstudiessuggestthat workercentershelpreducecommunityconflictandviolence andincreasethehealthandsafetyofdaylaborerswho participateinthesecenters.Inaddition,theliteraturealso proposesthatdaylaborworkercenterspositionwithin migrantcivilsociety(Valenzuelaetal2005).Suchaposition allowscenterstopositivelyintegratedaylaborersintolocal communities.Havingpreviouslyexploredtheroleofcentersin thedaylaborjobmarketandtheirimpactonworkers,wenow turntoconsidertheimpactcentershaveonthecommunities inwhichtheyareestablished.

TheCivicCapacityofDayLaborWorkerCenters
Valenzuelaetal(2007)indicatethatworkercentersare establishedprimarilyinresponsetoconflictsurroundingthe presenceofundocumentedworkers.Asaresult,daylaborers becauseoftheirlocalvisibilityhaveunfairlybecomea lightningrodformuchoftheantiimmigrationmovement.The tensionsoftenrundeepandarevocaldespitethelegalityof searchingforworkinthismannerandthefactthatupwardsof 25%ofthedaylaborworkforceislegal(Valenzuelaetal 2007:6).Localresidents,merchants,cityofficialsandpolice oftenraiseconcernsurroundingthegroupofscruffymostly Spanishspeaking,shabbilydressedmenaggressivelyseeking workinpublic(Valenzuela2002:14).Largecrowdsofday 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). Studiesfocusingonthehealthofdaylaborersadvancethat suchabusesresultindaylaborersexperiencingstrongfeelings ofsocialisolationandlowselfesteem,whichincreasethe likelihoodthattheywillbeperpetratorsofdomesticabuseand experiencesubstanceabuseanddependence(Organistaand Kubo2005).Suchdata,researchersarguecallsattentiontoa needforpoliciesandfurtherresearchonthemechanismsto addressthedaylaborexperienceandprocessessurrounding stigmatization,anddiscrimination,stressandmentalhealth

Day Labor Centers and Community Outcomes

Page 3
Toanalyzetheimpactofcentersoncommunityabuse,we considerthepercentageofworkersreportinghavingever experiencedtheseabusesbybothtypeofsite(workercenter, Inthissection,weareconcernedwithexaminingtheevidence streetcorners,orconnected)aswellasregion.Thedata providedbytheNationalDayLaborSurveyconductedin2004 presentedinTable1andTable2illustratesthepercentageof onworkercentersandcommunityoutcomes.Similarto workersreportingbeingavictimofviolentcrimewhileever previousreports,theoutcomesforthecentersarecompared workingasadaylaborer.Table1showsthatworkers tothoseofothersites(includingstreetandconnectedsites). interviewedincentersreportincidentratesofabusethatare Theestablishedliteratureconsiderscommunityabusesto abovetheaverageofallsites.Inaddition,workersincenters includebeingvictimofviolentcrimes,sexualabuseor appeartoreportthehighestratesofabusethanthose harassment,experiencinginsultsbybusinessesorsecurity workersremainingatcornerorconnectedsites.Table2 guards,beingreportedtolawenforcement,orbeing disparitiesinregionsincludingthesouthandwest,wherethe propositionedtoparticipateinthesellingofillegaldrugs,and highestincidentreportsvarybytypeofsite.Forexample, engageinprostitutionorotherillegalactivitywhileworking. whereasconnectedsitesinAtlanta(0.64),otherpartsofTexas Thesevariablesareusedasindicatorsoftheimpactthat (0.77),PhoenixMesa(0.62)allholdthehighestratesof workercentersmayholdonreducingcommunityconflictand incidents,workersincentersreportthehighestratesin violencetowardsdaylaborers. PercentReportingVictimsofCrimesWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerbyTypeof incidentsandTypeofSites* Std. TypesofIncidents TypeofSite Mean Min Max Dev. Street Connected Centers AnyTypeofCrimeVictims 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. VictimsofCrimesIncidenceWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerbyRegionandTypes ofSites* Region TypeofSite Street Connected Centers Total 0.60 0.60 NM: Chicago, IL 0.32 N/A 0.14 0.27 NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 0.29 0.29 NM: New Jersey 0.37 N/A 0.36 NM: New York, NY 0.45 0.45 NM: Other 0.37 0.64 0.35 0.43 So: Atlanta, GA 0.57 0.86 0.60 So: Houston, TX 0.28 0.77 0.30 So: Texas, Other 0.29 0.62 0.25 0.37 So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 0.35 0.28 0.34 So: Washington, DC 0.36 N/A 0.99 0.48 So: Other 0.32 0.48 0.58 0.50 W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 0.46 0.68 0.47 0.51 W: Oakland, CA 0.55 0.58 0.28 0.50 W: Orange County, CA 0.51 0.36 N/A 0.47 W: San Diego, CA 0.33 1.09 0.70 0.51 W: San Francisco, CA 0.54 0.40 0.30 0.45 W: San Jose, CA

WorkerCentersandCommunityAbuses

W: Other Total *Experiencedeverasdaylaborer.

0.49 0.39

N/A 0.50

1.60 0.62

0.76 0.45

Day Labor Centers and Community Outcomes

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.Table3andTable4showthepercentageof workersateachsitereportingincidentsofharassmentover 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 PercentReportingHarassmentWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerbyTypeofIncidentsandTypeofSites*
TypesofIncidents TypeofSite Centers 0.21 0.13 0.02 0.06 0.03 Mean 0.35 0.19 0.23 0.09 0.11 Std.Err. 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 Min Max 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1

Street Connected AnyTypeofHarassment 0.37 0.45 InsultedbyBusinessOwners 0.21 0.19 BusinessOwnersCalledPolice 0.03 0.04 InsultedbySecurityGuards 0.09 0.15 SecurityGuardsCalledPolice 0.10 0.26 *Experiencedoverthetwomonthspriortotheinterview.

PercentReportingHarassmentWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerbyRegionsandTypeofSites*
Ty peofSite Street Connected Centers Total 0.38 0.38 N M: Chicago, IL 0.18 0.33 0.39 N/A N M: Nassau-S uffolk, Long Island, N Y 0.21 0.21 N M: New Jersey 0.22 N/A 0.24 N M: New York, NY 0.09 0.09 N M: Other 0.33 0.52 0.41 0.38 So: A tlanta, G A 0.07 0.51 0.57 So: H ouston, T X 0.27 0.85 0.29 So: Texas, Other So: P hoenix-Mesa, A Z 0.50 0.47 0.10 0.43 0.23 0.37 0.41 So: W ashington, DC 0.30 N/A 0.51 0.35 So: Other 0.20 0.31 0.38 0.44 W : Los Angeles-Long B each, C A 0.07 0.28 0.24 0.52 W : Oakland, C A 0.17 0.43 0.46 0.58 W : Orange County, C A 0.44 0.36 N/A 0.42 W : San Diego, C A 0.15 0.26 0.24 0.55 W : San Francisco, C A 0.05 0.40 0.54 0.36 W : San Jose, CA 0.07 0.44 0.57 N/A W : Other Total 0.37 0.45 0.21 0.35 *Ex perien cedo verthetwomo nthspriortoth einterview. Region

Day Labor Centers and Community Outcomes

Page 5
PercentReportingPoliceIncidentsWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerbyRegionsandTypeofSites*

Type of Site Types of Incidents Mean Std. Dev. Min Max Street Connected Centers Any incident 0.49 0.63 0.42 0.49 0.02 0 1 Insulted 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. PercentReportingPoliceIncidentsWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerbyRegionsandTypeofSites* Ty peofSite Region Street Co nn ected C en ters To tal 0.48 0.48 N M : C hicago, IL 0.48 0.32 0.43 N/ A N M : N assau-S uffolk, Long Island, N Y 0.36 0.36 N M : N ew Jersey 0.29 0.30 N/A N M : N ew York, NY 0.38 0.38 N M : O ther 0.60 0.64 0.65 0.61 So: A tlanta, G A 0.61 0.29 0.58 So: H ouston, T X 0.50 0.77 0.51 So: Texas, O ther 0.50 0.68 0.15 0.49 So: P hoenix-M esa, A Z 0.52 0.24 0.45 So: W ashington, DC 0.48 0.61 0.51 N/ A So: O ther 0.51 0.63 0.47 0.53 W : Los Angeles-Long B each, C A 0.38 0.68 0.20 0.42 W : O akland, C A 0.49 0.74 0.31 0.51 W : O range County, C A 0.60 0.80 0.64 N/A W : San Diego, C A 0.29 0.73 0.45 0.38 W : San Francisco, C A 0.59 0.55 0.10 0.51 W : San Jose, CA 0.64 0.60 0.62 N/ A W : O ther 0.49 0.63 0.42 0.49 T otal *Ex perien cedo verthetwomo nthspriortoth einterview. (0.45)andbetterthanallsitescombined(0.21v.0.35).Such effectsofworkercentersonreducingpoliceincidentsby resultsindicatethatworkercenters,asestablishedbyprevious examiningtherateofincidentsexperiencedbyworkersover qualitativeanalysis,dohaveapositiveimpactonreducingthe thepasttwomonths.Theresultsshowtheworkers levelsofharassmentoftenfacedbydaylaborerswhileat interviewedincentersexperiencefewerpoliceincidentsin almostallareas,withtheexceptionofreceivingcitations work. (0.16)whichareonlymarginallyabovetheratesreportedat Duetothehighvisibilityofdaylaborers,andtheheated othersiteswithworkersatcornersreporting(0.09)andthose debatesurroundingimmigrationwhichsurroundsthislabor atconnectedsites(0.12).Inaddition,whendisaggregatedby market,incidentswithlawenforcementofficialsareoften region,centersalsooutperformallothersiteswithan experiencedbydaylaborers.Theseinteractionscananddo include:beinginsultedorharassed,beingarrested,receivinga incidencerateof0.42whichisbelowthatofcorners(0.49) citation,havingpersonaldocumentsconfiscated,beingforced andequaltothatofconnectedsites(0.42).Althoughcenters reportahigherrateofincidentsinareasofAtlantaandother toleaveasite,askedaboutimmigrationstatues,orbeing photographedorvideotaped.Table5and6considerthe areasofthesouth,theoverallratestillindicatesthatcenters helptomitigatepoliceabusesandinteractionswithlaw enforcementoftenexperiencedbydaylaborers.

Day Labor Centers and Community Outcomes

Page 6
PercentReportingViolentIncidentsWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerbyTypeofIncidentsandTypeofSites*

Street Connected Anytypeofviolence 0.12 0.16 Threatsfrombusinessowners 0.09 0.12 Violencefrombusinessowners 0.06 0.05 Violencefromsecurityguards 0.03 0.06 *Experiencedoverthetwomonthspriortotheinterview.

TypesofIncidents

TypeofSite Centers 0.10 0.04 0.03 0.03

Mean 0.12 0.09 0.05 0.03

Std.Dev. 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00

Min Max 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

businessowners,andviolencefromsecurityguardsaswellas acategorytoencounteranytypeofviolenceexperienced whileonthejob.Similartopreviousfindings,thedatainthe tablesshowthatcentershelpmitigatetheratesoftheabuse 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).

TypeofSite Region Street Connected Centers Total 0.14 0.14 NM: Chicago, IL 0.16 N/A 0.14 0.15 NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 0.04 0.04 NM: New Jersey 0.08 N/A 0.09 NM: New York, NY 0.06 0.06 NM: Other 0.10 0.26 0.12 0.14 So: Atlanta, GA 0.23 0.00 0.20 So: Houston, TX 0.09 0.08 0.09 So: Texas, Other So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 0.15 0.21 0.00 0.14 0.17 0.11 0.15 So: Washington, DC 0.11 N/A 0.30 0.15 So: Other W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 0.14 0.17 0.10 0.13 0.09 0.08 0.00 0.08 W: Oakland, CA 0.18 0.19 0.03 0.15 W: Orange County, CA 0.07 0.16 N/A 0.12 W: San Diego, CA 0.02 0.36 0.05 0.07 W: San Francisco, CA 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.11 W: San Jose, CA 0.15 N/A 0.02 0.12 W: Other Total 0.12 0.16 0.10 0.12 *Experiencedoverthetwomonthspriortotheinterview. DayLaborWorkerCentersandMigrantCivil Inadditiontocrimeandharassment,daylaborerscanalso becomevictimsofviolentincidentswhileatwork.Table7and Society 8examinecentersimpactonreducingthesetypesofabuses.
Theexistingliteraturesurroundingdaylaborersanddaylabor workercenterssuggeststhatdaylaborworkercentersoccupy auniquenichewithinabroadertypologyofmigrantcivil society.Previousstudieshavearguedthatthisuniqueniche comesfromworkercentersvaryingintypeandsize,butall commonlyseekingtoincorporatedaylaborersintotheformal economy,theirsurroundingcommunities,aswellashelpto connectworkersbroadlytomigrantcivilsociety(Camou2002; Cano2007;Milkman2006;Fine2005).Suchadvancesleadus toourinvestigationinthissection,whichconsiderstheimpact ofdaylaborworkercentersontheinvolvementofday laborersinmigrantcivilsociety.

PercentReportingViolentIncidentsWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerby RegionsandTypeofSites*

Day Labor Centers and Community Outcomes

Page 7
Table9showsthepercentageofdaylaborersinterviewedat andahigherparticipationinsportsactivities.Moreover,when eachtypeofsitewhoreportedparticipatingincivic thedataisdisaggregatedbyregion(Table10)weseeasimilar pattern.Participationincentersresultsinanincreasein organizations.Amongtheorganizationsweinclude participationincivicorganizationsinOakland,OrangeCounty involvementincommunitybasedorganizations,hometown associations,consulateoffices,sportsandlaborerparticipation andotherpartsofthewest.Furthermorewhencomparedto incivicorganizationsismixed.Whileworkerswhoparticipate othersites,workersparticipatingincentersreportalower incentersaremorelikelytobeinvolvedincommunitybased levelofparticipationthanworkersatconnectedsites((0.32 organizationsandhometownassociations,workersat v.0.36),butahigheronethanworkersatcorners(0.30v.0.32) andthanallothersitescombined(0.31v.0.32). connectedsitesreporthigherlevelsofactivitiesincivic organizations,moreinvolvementwiththeconsulateoffice, PercentReportingParticipationinCivicOrganizationsWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerby OrganizationTypeandTypeofSites

Organization AnyCivicOrganization CBOs HomeTownAssociations ConsulateOffice Sports NeighborhoodAssociations

Street 0.30 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.21 0.01 *Experiencedoverthetwomonthspriortotheinterview.

TypeofSite Mean Connected Centers 0.36 0.32 0.31 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.27 0.19 0.21 0.01 0.01 0.04

Std.Err. Min Max 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

PercentReportingParticipationinCivicOrganizationsWhileWorkingasa DayLaborerbyRegionsandTypeofSites

TypeofSite Region Total Street Connected Centers 0.41 0.41 NM: Chicago, IL 0.50 N/A 0.29 0.43 NM: Nassau-Suffolk, Long Island, NY 0.37 0.37 NM: New Jersey 0.37 N/A 0.38 NM: New York, NY 0.35 0.35 NM: Other 0.29 0.31 0.65 0.33 So: Atlanta, GA 0.35 0.14 0.33 So: Houston, TX 0.18 0.46 0.19 So: Texas, Other 0.28 0.38 0.15 0.29 So: Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 0.26 0.27 0.26 So: Washington, DC 0.18 N/A 0.11 0.16 So: Other 0.37 0.31 0.33 0.32 W: Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 0.43 0.56 0.60 0.48 W: Oakland, CA 0.29 0.32 0.55 0.35 W: Orange County, CA 0.42 0.20 N/A 0.37 W: San Diego, CA 0.13 0.82 0.40 0.28 W: San Francisco, CA 0.46 0.38 0.20 0.40 W: San Jose, CA 0.19 N/A 0.36 0.24 W: Other Total 0.30 0.36 0.32 0.31 *Experiencedoverthetwomonthspriortotheinterview.

Day Labor Centers and Community Outcomes

Page 8

ProportionReportingParticipationinCivicOrganizations,theChurch,andCentersWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerby OrganizationTypeandTypeofSites
TypeofSite Mean Std.Err. Min Max Organization Street 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 1.00 0.29 0.06 0 1 0.11 0.10 *Experiencedoverthetwomonthspriortotheinterview. PercentReportingConnectionstoHealthandSafetyServicesWhileWorkingasaDayLaborerbyTypeof ConnectionandTypeofSite TypeofSite TypeofConnection Mean Std.Err. Min Max Street Connected Centers AtLeastOneConnectionstoHealthandSafety 0 1 0.93 0.88 0.01 Services 0.88 0.82 0 1 Hadaroutinehealthcheckupwithinthelastyear 0.41 0.38 0.02 0.38 0.35 Hasplacetogowhensickorneedhealthadvice 0 1 0.58 0.48 0.58 0.57 0.02 Hasplaceorpersontoreportworkplaceabuses 0 1 0.26 0.19 0.52 0.30 0.02 0 1 ReceivedTrainingonJobSafety 0.17 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.02 ReceivedEquipmenttoPreventWorkRelatedInjury 0.52 0 1 0.50 0.52 0.52 0.02 Source:NationalDayLaborSurvey,2004. Inadditiontoinvolvementincivicorganizations,participation Finally,weconsiderthequestiontowhatextentworker inchurchandcentersarealsoconsideredanindicationofday centershelpincreasedaylaborersconnectionstohealthand safetyservices.Table13showsthepercentofworkers laborerworkerconnectionstotheircommunity.Table11 showstheresultsoftheproportionofworkersinterviewedat reportingconnectionstosuchserviceswhileworkingasaday laborerbytypeofsite.Theconnectionsconsideredinclude: eachtypeofsiteandtheirreportofinvolvementinthese organizations.Theresultsindicatethatworkersparticipating routinehealthcheckups,placestogowhensickifinneedof incentersreporthigherlevelsofinvolvementinchurch healthadvice,aplaceorpersontoreportworkplaceabuses, organizations(0.56)thanworkersinterviewedatconnected trainingonjobsafety,equipmenttopreventworkrelated sites(0.44)andthoseinterviewedatcorners(0.52).However, injury.Itisclearthatcentersdobetterormatchaccessto workersincentersreportaslightlylowerinvolvementincivic healthcareinmostareasthanallothersites.Centersperform especiallywellinprovidingaplaceorpersontoreportwork organizations(0.32)thaninconnectedsites(0.36)butstill placeabusestoatthehigher(0.52vs.0.19and0.26). morethanthoseinterviewedatstreetcorners(0.30).When disaggregatedbyregiontable10,theseresultscontinuetobe mixed,withstreetandcornersitesalmostequallysplitacross variousregionsandwithintheSMSAsinimproving participation.Thus,theresultsareinconclusiveregardingthe extenttowhichworkercentersimprovethecivicinvolvement ofdaylaborers.

Day Labor Centers and Community Outcomes

Page 9
PercentReportingatLeastOneConnectiontoHealthandSafetyServicesWhile WorkingasaDayLaborerbyRegionsandTypeofSites TypeofSite Region Total Street 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. Thepositiveimpactonconnectingworkerstohealthand responsetothedaylaborquestioninmanymunicipalities safetyservicesisalsoindicatedwhenthedataisdisaggregated acrossthenation,havebeenarguedtobeaneffective byregion(Table14).Here,withtheexceptionofNassau mechanismtoreducethelevelsofcommunityconflict SuffolkandAtlanta,theworkercentersdobetteroverallthan surroundingdaylaborersandsuccessfullyintegratingworkers allothersiteswithnolargediscrepanciesappearinginany intotheirlocalformaleconomies.Itisalsoproposedthat regionorinanyoneSMSA.Moreoverwiththeoverallrateof centersassistdaylaborersassimilationintomigrantcivil 0.93,workersinterviewedincentersreportahigherlevelof societymorebroadlybyofferingavarietyofservicesbeyond connectiontohealthandsafetyservicesthanbothconnect joballocationandwagerecoveryincluding:Englishlanguage (0.82)andcorners(0.88)andthanallothersitescombined courses,healthservices,andsponsoringsocialandsports (0.88vs.0.93).Thus,wecanconcludethatoverallcentershelp activities(Valenzuelaetal2006;Valenzuelaetal2005;Fine improveconnectionstohealthandsafetyservicesforday 2005;Milkman2006;TheodoreandMartin2006;Badaet.al laborers.Suchfindingsvalidatepreviousstudies,whichhave 2007). advancedtheabilityofworkercenterstoactasalabormarket Theevidencepresentedinthisreportindicatesthatworker intermediaryresultinginpositiveimprovementsinthehealth centersarebeneficialinmitigatingemployers,communityand andsafetyoutcomesfordaylaborers. policeabusesandconnectingworkerstohealthandsafety services.Howevertheevidenceregardingtheeffectofcenters intermsofincreasingcivicengagementofthispopulationis Conclusions mixed.Thefindingsofthisstudysuggestthatinmanyregions ofthecountryparticipationinworkercentersdoesnot Asaresultofthebroadermacroprocessesofglobalization, significantlyresultinahigherinvolvementofdaylaborers thephenomenonofdaylaborcontinuestogrowthroughcities withintheirbroadercommunityafindingwhichisinconflict acrossthenation.Thehighvisibilityofthispopulation withpreviousstudiesonthistopic.Infactinmanyregions, combinedwithagrowingandcontentiousdebatesurrounding workersinterviewedatstreetsandconnectedsitesreport immigrationhasresultedinincreasedlevelsofcommunity higherlevelsofengagementincivicorganizationsthan conflictoverthepresenceofdaylaborers.Inresponseto workersinterviewedatcenters.Suchafindingseems theseconflicts,daylaborworkercenters,theprimarypolicy counterintuitivetopreviousfindingssuggestingthatthese

Day Labor Centers and Community Outcomes

Page 10
areasmightwarrantfurtherstudy.Oneexplanationmayliein thatworkercentersmaybeseenbyworkersasasubstituteto, oraconduittoothercivicorganizations. Fromapublicpolicyperspectiveitisclearthatworkercenters areaneffectivetoolinaddressingthedaylaborquestion.Such findingsstrengthentheargumentadvancedinprevious studiesthatcentersarewellpositionedtobecomean intermediaryorganizationfortheregularizationofworkers. Valenzuelaetal(2007)indicatethattheprimarymotivation forpublicsupportofthecentersistypicallylocalconflict aroundthepresenceofundocumentedworkersandtensions oftenrundeepandarevocal,despitethelegalityofsearching forworkinthismanner,andthefactthatupwardsof25%of thedaylaborworkforceislegal(Valenzuelaetal,2007:6).As aresult,furtherunderstandingoftheiractivitiesandcapacities canhelparticulatetherolethatcenterscanplayunderanew policyregime.Thefurtheranalysisofcommunityoutcomes andcentersimpactonintegrationofworkersintolocal communitiesisofextremeimportancegiventhenatureand contextofthecurrentpolicyenvironmentsurroundingday laborers.

Day Labor Centers and Community Outcomes

Page 11

AboutUs
AbelValenzuelaJr. abel@ucla.edu AbelValenzuelaJrisprofessorofChicanoStudiesand UrbanPlanningattheUniversityofCalifornia,Los AngelesandtheDirectoroftheCenterfortheStudyof UrbanPoverty. EdwinMelendez emelendez@nvbb.net EdwinMelendezisprofessorofUrbanAffairsand PlanningatHunterCollegeandtheDirectorofthe CenterforPuertoRicanStudies. NikTheodore theodore@uic.edu NikTheodoreisassociateprofessorintheDepartment ofUrbanPlanningandPolicyattheUniversityofIllinois, ChicagoandtheDirectoroftheCenterforUrban EconomicDevelopment. AnneVisser vissm781@newschool.edu M.AnneVisserisadoctoralcandidateattheNew SchoolUniversityandaResearchAssistantatthe CenterforPuertoRicanStudies. AnaLuzGonzalez anagonza@ucla.edu AnaLuzGonzalezisadoctoralcandidateinUrban PlanningattheUniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles.

CenterFortheStudyofUrbanPoverty UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles InstituteforSocialResearch 1120RolfeHall Box951484 LosAngeles,CA900951484 Phone:(310)8259156Fax:(310)2064472 www.csup.ucla.edu CenterforUrbanEconomicDevelopment UniversityofIllinois,Chicago CollegeofUrbanPlanningandPublicAffairs 400SouthPeoriaStreet,Suite2100 Chicago,Illinois,606077035 Phone:(312)9966336Fax:(312)9965766 www.uic.edu/cuppa/uicued CenterforPuertoRicanStudies HunterCollege TheCityUniversityofNewYork 695ParkAvenue,Rm.E1429 NewYork,NY10065 Phone:(212)7725688Fax:(212)6503673 www.centropr.org

Day Labor Centers and Community Outcomes

Page 12
Bada,X.,J.FoxandA.Seller(editors)(2006).InvisibleNo More:MexicansMigrantCivicParticipationinthe UnitedStates.Washington,DC,WoodrowWilson InternationalCenterforScholars. Organista,K.andA.Kubo(2005)PilotSurveyofRiskand ContextualProblemsandIssuesin Mexican/LatinoMigrantDayLaborers.Journalof ImmigrantHealth7(4)269281. Organista,K.C.(2007)."TowardsaStructural EnvironmentalModelofRiskforHIVand ProblemDrinkinginLatinoLaborMigrants:The CaseofDayLaborers."JournalofEthnic& CulturalDiversityinSocialWork16(1/2):95125.

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. Theodore,N.,A.Valenzuela,E.Melendez.(2006)."La Hobbins,M.2006.TheDayLaborerDebate:SmallTown USATakesonFederalImmigrationLaw RegardingUndocumentedWorkers. ExpressOPreprintSeries.Washington,D.C., AmericanUniversitySchoolofLaw. Mehta,C.andN.Theodore.2006.WorkplaceSafetyin AtlantasConstructionIndustry: InstitutionalFailureinTemporaryStaffing Arrangements.WorkingUSA,9,pp.5977. MilkmanR.2007,LaborOrganizingamongMexican BornWorkersintheUnitedStates: RecentTrendsandFutureProspects32pp. 96112. Nissen,Bruce.2004.ConstructionSafetyPracticesand ImmigrantWorkers:APilotStudy.Reportforthe CentertoProtectWorkersRights.CenterforLabor ResearchandStudiesFloridaInternational University.http://www.risepfiu.org/reports/ Immigrant%20Construction%20Workers% 20Safety.pdf Esquina(TheCorner):DayLaborersOnThe MarginsofNewYork'sFormalEconomy." WorkingUSA9(4):407423. Theodore,N.,A.Valenzuela,andE.Melendez.2007.Day LaborWorkerCenters:NewApproachesto ProtectingLaborStandardsintheInformal Economy.DraftReport10December2007.

Theodore,N.andN.Martin(2007).MigrantCivilSociety: NewVoicesintheStruggleOverCommunity Development.JournalofUrbanAffairs29(3). pp.269287. Theodore,N.2003.PoliticalEconomiesofDayLabour: RegulationandRestructuringofChicagos ContingentLabourMarkets.UrbanStudies,40, pp.18111828.

Theodore,N.,E.Melendez,A.Valenzuela,Jr.,AGonzalez. 2008.DayLaborWorkplaceAbusesInthe ResidentialConstructionIndustry:Conditionsin theWashington,DCRegion.Chapter forthcominginBerhardt,Boushey,Dresser,and Tilly(eds).TheGlovesOffEconomy:Problems andPossibilitiesattheBottomofAmericas LaborMarket

Day Labor Centers and Community Outcomes

Page 13
Valenzuela,A.(1999)DayLabourersinSouthern California:PreliminaryFindingsfromtheDay LaborSurvey.WorkingPaperSeries,Centerfor theStudyofUrbanPoverty,InstituteforSocial ScienceResearch,UCLAMay30. Valenzuela,A.(2002).WorkingontheMarginsin MetropolitanLosAngeles:ImmigrantsinDay Labor.MigracionsInternacionales,1(2)pp.6 28. Valenzuela,A.,L.Gonzalez,N.Theodore,E.Melendez. 2006.InPursuitoftheAmericanDream:Day LaborintheGreaterWashingtonD.C.Region. LosAngeles,CenterfortheStudyofUrban PovertyUniversityofSouthernCalifornia,Los Angeles. Valenzuela,A.(2003).DayLaborWork.AnnualReviewof Sociology29(1):307333