Community Level Impacts of Idaho’s Changing Dairy Industry I Dairy Report... · the community‐level impacts of Idaho’s changing dairy industry, and specifically, that part of

Community Level Impacts of Idaho’s Changing Dairy Industry

Priscilla Salant, J.D. Wulfhorst, and Stephanie Kane, with Christine Dearien

October 2009

ii

Contributors:Theauthorsare,respectively,UniversityCoordinatorforOutreachandEngagement;AssociateProfessorofRuralSociologyandDirectoroftheSocialScienceResearchUnit(SSRU);ProjectManager,SSRU;andResearchAssociate.TheyareallmembersoftheDepartmentofAgriculturalEconomicsandRuralSociology(AERS)intheCollegeofAgricultural&LifeSciences(CALS)attheUniversityofIdaho(UI).Additionalcontributorstotheprojectinclude:DebbieGray,ResearchAssociate,AERS,UI;BarbaraFoltz,UnitManager,SSRU;andShannonDonovan,formerPost‐doctoralAssociate,AERS,UI.Acknowledgements:TheauthorswishtoanonymouslythankagroupofpeercolleaguesandprofessionalexpertsinIdahofortheirreviewandinputonpreviousversionsofthisreport.

iii

TableofContents

Contributors .............................................................................................................................. ii

TableofContents ..................................................................................................................... iii

ListofFigures ........................................................................................................................... iv

ListofTables.............................................................................................................................. v

ExecutiveSummary.................................................................................................................. vi

1.Introduction..........................................................................................................................1

2.Context .................................................................................................................................3

GrowthinIdaho’sdairyIndustry....................................................................................3

GrowthintheHispanicpopulation ................................................................................3

Idahoisconsistentwithnationaltrends ........................................................................5

3.Geographicfocus..................................................................................................................8

4.Methodology ......................................................................................................................10

Interviews.....................................................................................................................10

GeneralPublicSurvey...................................................................................................11

Secondarydataanalysis...............................................................................................14

5.ThepeoplewhoworkonIdaho’sdairyfarms ...................................................................15

6.Impactsonlocaleconomies...............................................................................................21

7.Impactsoncrimeandthejusticesystem ..........................................................................26

Drugarrests .................................................................................................................30

8.Impactsonschools .............................................................................................................32

9.Impactsonhealthcareandsocialservices .......................................................................36

Healthinsurancecoverage...........................................................................................36

Indigenthealthcarecosts ............................................................................................39

Socialservices ..............................................................................................................42

10.Otherrelatedcommunityimpacts ..................................................................................44

Culture,values,andidentity ........................................................................................44

Language .....................................................................................................................45

11.Conclusionsandrecommendations.................................................................................47

Recommendations .......................................................................................................49

12.References ........................................................................................................................53

iv

ListofFigures

Figure2a.NumberofdairyfarmsinIdaho,byregion,1997to2007.......................................4

Figure2b.NumberofdairycowsinIdaho,byregion,1997to2007 .......................................4

Figure2c.HispanicpopulationofsouthernIdaho,1990‐2008.................................................5

Figure2d.Milkcows–changeininventory .............................................................................6

Figure3a.SouthernIdahoandcommunitiesinthedairybelt .................................................9

Figure5a.Changeinnumberofdairyworkers,dairymanufacturingworkers,and

theHispanicpopulation,southernIdaho,1990to2008 .......................................17

Figure5b.Agedistributionbysex,Hispanicpopulation,2008 ..............................................19

Figure5c.Agedistributionbyethnicity,SouthCentralIdaho,2008 ......................................20

Figure6a.RetailbusinessesinJeromeCounty,bynumberofemployees,1998‐2007..........23

Figure7a.PercapitafelonyrateinIdaho,byethnicityandregion,1997‐2008.....................27

Figure7b.HispanicpopulationgrowthandpercapitafelonyrateinIdaho,byethnicity

andregion,1997‐2008...........................................................................................29

Figure8a.PercentHispanic,studentpopulationandtotalpopulation,2000‐2006 ..............32

Figure8b.Percentchangeinstudentenrollmentinselectdistricts,2000‐01

to2006‐07..............................................................................................................33

Figure9a.PercentofpopulationlackinghealthinsuranceinGoodingandJerome

Counties,Idaho,andtheU.S.,2000‐2005 .............................................................37

Figure10a.ParishenrollmentbylanguagespokenatMass,southcentralIdahoCounty

(1999‐2007)............................................................................................................46

v

ListofTables

Table4a.Categories,location,andtotalsforkey‐informantinterviews ...............................10

Table4b.Stratifiedsampledesignwithtargetedcompletesandsamplingerrors

byregion ................................................................................................................12

Table4c.Dispositionandresponseratebyregion.................................................................13

Table4d.Sourcesofsecondarydatausedintheanalyses.....................................................14

Table6a.Localeconomiesareholdingfairlysteady.Wagesarelowbutatleast

throughAugust2009,therecessionhasbeenlessseverethanelsewhere ..........21

Table7a.DifferencesinnumberoffeloniesbyethnicityinsouthcentralIdahothat

indicateadownwardtrendforbothHispanicsandnon‐HispanicWhites

since2006 ..............................................................................................................30

Table9a.PercentofadultpopulationwithouthealthinsurancecoverageinIdaho ..............36

Table9b.Average,minimum,andmaximumpercapitaindigentcareexpensesfor

selectedcountiesinIdaho“dairybelt”from1999‐2007.......................................41

vi

CommunityLevelImpactsofIdaho’sChangingDairyIndustryPriscillaSalanta,J.D.Wulfhorstb,andStephanieKanec,withChristineDeariend

ExecutiveSummary

Thisreportanalyzesthecommunity‐levelimpactsofIdaho’schangingdairyindustry,andspecifically,thatpartoftheindustryinvolvedinmilkproduction.Usingathree‐partmethodology,weexaminehowthepeoplewhoworkondairyfarmsimpactlocaleconomies,schools,healthcareproviders,justicesystems,andotheraspectsofcommunitiesinsouthernIdaho.Twoparalleltrendsshapethecontextforthisanalysis.Bothareconsistentwithnationaltrendsinfarm‐dependentareasofthecountry.First,thestructureofIdaho’sdairyindustryischanging.Thetrendistowardslargerandmoregeographicallyconcentratedfarmswithanincreasingdemandforwagelabor.Second,Idahoisbecomingmoreethnicallydiverseasthestate’sHispanicpopulationgrowsatafasterratethantherestofthepopulation.KeyfindingsHowthedairyindustryimpactscommunitiesdependsinlargemeasureonwhoworksonthefarms.DairyfarmworkerstendtobeyoungadultmenwhoareHispanicandforeign‐born.Somearesingleandothershavefamilies,butbecauseofimmigrationraidsandtighterbordercontrolsinrecentyears,thetrendistowardsmoresinglemen.Asagroup,theindustry’slaborforceappearstobedrivingthegrowthoftheHispanicpopulationinsouthcentralIdaho.Impactonlocaleconomies.ThegrowingdairysectorhascontributedtoeconomicgrowthinsouthcentralIdaho,whethermeasuredbyjobnumbers,unemploymentrates,percapitaincome,orothercommonlyusedeconomicindicators.EspeciallyinJeromeCounty,employmentandpopulationnumbersareincreasingalongwithgrowthinthedairyindustry.Nevertheless,somelocalresidentsfaceseriouseconomichardship.Childpovertyratesarehigherinthedairyregionthanthestateasawhole.So,too,aretheproportionsofyoungsterseligibleforreducedpricemealsatlocalschools.Basedoninterviewswitheducators,socialserviceproviders,andothers,manypeopleinthedairyregionare“workingpoor”butwedidnotfindevidencethiscanbeattributedtothechangingdairyindustry.Impactsoncrime.Peopleweinterviewedinthelawenforcementandjusticesystemsindicatedthatdairiesdonotserveasacatalystforincreasingcrime.Instead,themaincommunity‐levelimpactsarerelatedtoincreasesinforeign‐bornindividualswhomayneedassistanceifandwhentheydoenterthelaworcriminaljusticesystems.Accordingtoajudgeweinterviewed,thereisanincreasing“needforpublicdefenders,translators,andSpanish‐speakingattorneyswhichcancauseastrainonthejusticesystem.”LittleornoevidencesuggeststhatgrowthinsouthernIdaho’sdairyindustryhascausedanincreaseinfelonies,whicharecrimes punishablebyimprisonmentinastateprisonordeath.FelonyratesarehigherforHispanicindividuals

vii

thanfornon‐HispanicsinsouthernIdaho,althoughovertime,theHispanicfelonyrateisdeclining.Impactsonschools.Thechangingdairyindustryhastwomainimpactsonschools.First,manyschooldistrictsinsouthcentralIdahoarecopingwiththeincreasedethnicdiversityassociatedwithgrowthinthedairyindustry,aswellaswithanincreaseinstudentsfromlow‐incomefamilies.Second,theincreaseinHispanicstudentsmeanssomedistricts(includingGooding,Jerome,andWendell)aregrowingwhentheywouldotherwisebelosingstudents.Inotherwords,theincreaseinHispanicstudentsinthesedistrictsmorethanmakesupforalossinnon‐Hispanicstudents.Growingdiversitybringsbothchallengesandopportunities.ThechallengesarethatdistrictsmustnowfindmoneyandstafftoworkwithgrowingnumbersofEnglishlanguagelearnersandlowerincomestudents.TheopportunityisthatHispanicparents,asarule,valueeducationandwanttheirchildrentodowell.And,childreninintegratedschoolslearnhowtogetalonginourincreasinglymulti‐culturalandethnicallymixedsociety.Impactsonhealthcare.InterviewswithhealthprofessionalsinsouthernIdahodidnotindicatedisproportionateuseofhealthcareservicesbytheHispanicpopulationingeneraloremployeesknowntoworkinthedairyindustry.Weattemptedtolearnwhetherdairyworkersmightberesponsibleforchangesintheindigenthealthcarecosts(partofwhichcountiesmustcover).However,county‐leveldataonindigenthealthcarecostsarenotcompleteenoughtoindicatewhetherthisistrueornot.WhilethesecostsareincreasingonapercapitabasisinsomesouthernIdahocounties,neitherourinterviewsnorthecounty‐leveldataindicatetheincrease(whereitisoccurring)canbeattributedtodairyworkers.Conclusionsandrecommendations.Clearly,thedairyindustryhashadpositiveeconomicimpactsonlocalcommunitiesinsouthcentralIdaho.Ithasbroughtjobsandpeopletotownsthatotherwisewouldlikelybeindecline,asaremanyfarm‐dependentcommunitiesaroundthecountry.However,italsoimposessomedegreeofcosts,mostnotablyonschoolsandlesssojusticesystems.Whiletheprivatesectorhas“turnedonadime”tomeetthedemandofagrowingHispanicpopulation,publicsystemscannotrespondasquickly.Beforetheycanadapttoachangingsociety,theymustfirstconvincevoterstopayhighertaxestocoverthecoststhateconomicgrowthbrings.Ourfirstrecommendationisthatfederalandstatedecisionmakersworktowardsanimmigrationpolicythatprovidesstabilityandpredictabilityforworkersandthereforeforcommunities.Communitiesinwhichdairyworkerslivewillbenefitifthoseworkersaresecureenoughtoparticipatefullyincommunitylife.Inturn,dairyfarmerswillbenefitfromaccesstoworkerswhohaveastakeintheircommunityandarethereforemorelikelytostayinoneplacelonger.Clearly,achievingsuchapolicyisalong‐termobjectivethathasproventremendouslydifficulttoachieve,butitwillhavethegreatestpayofftoallconcerned.Thedairyindustry,alongwithothersthatrelyonalargelyforeign‐bornworkforceoradvocatefortheirfairtreatment,shouldworktogethertoachievepolicyreform.

viii

Second,andmoreappropriatelyinthepurviewoftheIdahodairyindustryitself(alongwithourotherrecommendations),theindustryshouldsupportascientificstudytolearnwhotheirworkersare,wheretheylive,andwhattheirneedsare.Wedevelopedadescriptionofworkercharacteristicsbasedonqualitativeinterviewsandavarietyofsecondarydatasources.FarmoreaccurateandusefuliftheindustrywantstomitigateproblemswouldbeasamplesurveyofworkersconductedbynativeSpanishspeakersin“safe”places,mostlikelyinchurchesandotherplaceswhereworkersdonotfeelthreatenedaboutpotentialramifications.Third,thedairyindustryshouldadvocateforprogramsandpoliciesthatbuildeconomicprosperityintheirworkforce.ThelowesthangingfruitistoencouragedairyworkerstoclaimthefederalEarnedIncomeTaxCredit(EITC).TheEITCencouragesworkbyprovidingacredittooffsettaxesforlow‐incomeworkingfamilies,withthehighestbenefitsgoingtothosewithincomebelowthepovertylevel.In2008,thefederalEITCreturned$3.3milliontotaxpayersinJeromeCountyalone.IncreaseduseofthefederalEITC,ortheimplementationofastateEITC,wouldhelpreducechildpovertyratesinthemostdairydependentcounties,wherechildpovertyishigherthaninthestateasawhole.

Fourth,thedairyindustryshouldsponsorafacilitatedpublicforumseriestoprovideavenueforcommunity‐widediscussionaboutimmigrationandcommunity‐levelimpactsassociatedwiththedairyindustry.Thesechallengingissuescannotbebrushedasideorignorediftheindustryistomitigateimpactsrelatedtoitsworkforce.Byengagingcommunityrepresentativesfromdifferentmunicipalandinterest‐basedorganizations,theseforumscouldserveacommunitydevelopmentfunctionthrougheducationandcommunicationaboutcriticalissuesatthelocalandregionallevels.

Finally,thedairyindustryandtheUniversityofIdahoshouldworkaspartnerstoestablishandjointlyfundanew,full‐timeposition,tobefilledbyanativeSpanishspeaker.Theroleofthispersonwouldbetoserveasacommunityandlaboroutreachliaison,throughtheimplementationofrecommendationsofferedhere.Sheorhewouldberesponsibleforbuildinggoodrelationshipsbetweentheindustryandpublicsectoragencies,especiallythosethatcomeincontactwithHispanicdairyworkersandtheirfamilies.Sheorhecouldcommunicateregularlywithschooladministrators,healthcareproviders,andlawenforcementofficers,thusbridgingtheindustryandcommunitiesinwhichitsworkerslive.Suchanoutreachliaisonwouldhelptheindustrybemoreawareofhowitisperceivedlocallyandhowitcanmitigateproblemsforwhichitmayberesponsible.ItwouldalsoprovideanewopportunityfortheUniversityofIdahotofulfillitslandgrantmissionofhelpingthestateaddresscriticaleconomicandsocialissuesthroughoutreachandengagement.

• Formattingnote:Inthereport,italicizedtext,inquotationmarks,indicatesdirectquotesfromintervieweesinordertodistinguishparticipants’voicesfromtheauthors’.

aUniversityCoordinatorforOutreachandEngagement,UniversityofIdaho(UI);bAssoc.Prof.ofRuralSociology&Director,SocialScienceResearchUnit(SSRU),Dept.ofAgriculturalEconomics&RuralSociology(AERS),UI;cProjectManager,SSRU,AERS,UI;and,dResearchAssociate,AERS,UI.

1

CommunityLevelImpactsofIdaho’sChangingDairyIndustry

PriscillaSalant,J.D.Wulfhorst,andStephanieKane,withChristineDearien

1.Introduction

In2008,Idaho’sdairyindustrygeneratedanestimated$2.15billionincashreceiptsfrommilk

sales(Ebornetal,2008).Idahonowranksfourthinmilkproduction,behindonlyCalifornia,

Wisconsin,andNewYork(U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,2009a).

Sincethemid1990s,growthinthestate’sdairyindustryhasincreasedrapidlyandbeen

concentratedlargelyinthesouthcentralpartofIdaho.Withgrowthandgeographic

concentrationhavecomedramaticchangesincommunities,asdairyfarmershiremoreworkers

tomilkandfeedcows,maintainequipment,andperformalltheothertasksrequiredonthe

largescaleoperationsthatnowdefineIdaho’sdairyindustry.

Thisreportexploresthecommunity‐levelimpactsofIdaho’schangingdairyindustry.Our

analysisislimitedtotheimpactsofmilkproduction,ratherthanthemanufacturingofdairy

productssuchascheeseanddriedmilk.Usingathree‐partmethodology,weexaminehowthe

peoplewhoworkondairyfarmsimpactlocaleconomies,schools,healthcareproviders,justice

systems,andotheraspectsofcommunitiesinsouthernIdaho.

Ourresearchdesignmirrorsthecomplexityofthecommunity‐levelissuesweaddress.We

examinedandsynthesizeddatafromavarietyofsourcesandpointsofview.Thedata

constitute“objectivefact”aswellas“subjectiveperceptions.”Althoughtheyaresometimes

inconsistentwitheachother,bothtypesofdataarevalidandhavemeaningwithinthecontext

ofthistypeofanalysis.Whencarefullyanalyzedandsynthesized,theyenableustomore

completelydescribeandunderstandcommunity‐levelimpactsbyallowingustoidentify

quantifiabletrendsalongsidepublicandprofessionalinterpretationsofhowthosetrendsplay

outatthelocallevel.Thus,whilewecannotdrawconclusionsfromanysingleindividual’s

inputbyitself,wecanidentifypatternsanddrawconclusionsbasedoninputfrommultiple

individuals,especiallywhenconsideredalongsidequantitativedatafromsecondarysources.

2

Theresultofusingthismixed‐methodsapproachisanaggregatedanalysisthatyieldsthebest

informationavailabletoguidedecision‐makinginandforcommunities.

Inadditiontobeingcomplex,theissuesaddressedherearedynamicandevolvingquickly.

BetweenApril2008whenwestartedthestudyandSeptember2009whenwecompletedthe

analysis,theU.S.andothereconomiesslippedfurtherintoadeeprecession,milkpricesfellby

half(Lotterman,2009),andimmigrationslowedconsiderably(PasselandCohn,2009a).While

theseeventsclearlyhaveshort‐termimpacts,webelievethecommunity‐levelimpacts

describedherewillpersistinthelong‐termduetounderlyingeconomicanddemographic

trends.

OurstudywasfundedbyagrantfromtheIdahoDairymen’sAssociation,representingthemilk

producerswhomakeupthisgrowingandrapidlychangingpartofsouthernIdaho’seconomy.

Producersareveryawareofpubliccriticismsabouttheindustry.Thecriticismsrelatepartlyto

thepublic’sconcernsoverenvironmentalimpacts(whicharenotaddressedinthisreport)but

alsototheindustry’suseofforeign‐bornworkersandthus,toitseconomicandsocialimpacts

oncommunitieswheretheseworkerslive.Thedecisiontofundthestudy,asweunderstandit,

wasbasedontheindustry’sdesiretodocumentandmakepublictheeffectsithas,insofaras

theimpactsarepositive,andtolearnhowitcanmitigateproblems,insofarastheimpactsare

negative.Wediscussthatcontinuumofimpactsinthisreportandconcludewith

recommendationsforfutureactionontheindustry’spart.

3

2.ContextTwoparalleltrendsshapethecontextforthisanalysis.First,thestructureofIdaho’sdairy

industryischanging.Individualfarmsaregettingbiggerandmoregeographicallyconcentrated

inthesouthcentralregion,andthedemandforwagelaborisincreasing.Second,Idahois

becomingmoreethnicallydiverseasthestate’sHispanicpopulationgrowsatafasterpacethan

therestofthepopulation.

GrowthinIdaho’sdairyindustry

From1997to2007,thenumberofdairycowsinsouthernIdahoincreasedfrom264,000to

534,000(U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,2009b).Between1997and2008,Idaho’scash

receiptsfrommilksalesmorethantripled,increasingfrom$634millionto$2.15billion(Eborn

etal,2003;2008).Overthissameperiod,thenumberofdairyfarmemployeesinsouthern

Idaho,wherethedairyindustryisconcentrated,increasedalmostasquickly,from2,100to

6,100(IdahoDepartmentofLabor,2009a).

Alongwiththeincreasedsizeandscaleofproduction,Idaho’sdairyindustryhasundergone

structuralchanges.Overall,thenumberofdairyfarmshasdeclinedbutthosethatremainare

larger(Figures2aand2b).In1997,theaveragenumberofcowsonanIdahodairyfarmwas

189.By2007,thenumbermorethantripled–to661.Meanwhile,thenumberofdairyfarms

declinedfrom1,404to811(U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture,2009b).

GrowthintheHispanicpopulation

ConcurrentwithchangesinIdaho’sdairyindustry,theHispanicpopulationinsouthernIdaho

hasincreased.ThenumberofHispanicindividualsinsouthwest,southcentral,andsoutheast

Idahocombinedgrewfromabout80,000in1997toalmost140,000in2008–upby85%(Figure

2c),comparedto28%forsouthernIdaho’spopulationasawhole(U.S.CensusBureau,multiple

yearsandsources).Inthesouthcentralregion,wherethedairyindustryisconcentrated,the

rateofHispanicpopulationgrowthhasoutstrippedtheoverallgrowthatanevenfasterrate.

Between1997and2008,thenumberofHispanicsincreasedby87%,comparedto11%forthe

4

Figure2a.NumberofdairyfarmsinIdaho,byregion,1997to2007.

Source:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture(2009b)Figure2b.NumberofdairycowsinIdaho,byregion,1997to2007.

Source:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture(2009b)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

SWIdaho SCentralIdaho SEIdaho

1997 2002 2007

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

Southwest SouthCentral Southeast

Num

ber

1997 2002 2007

5

Figure2c.HispanicpopulationinsouthernIdaho,1990‐2008.

Source:U.S.CensusBureau(multipleyearsandsources)

region’spopulationasawhole.Infact,ifnotforincreasednumbersofHispanicindividuals,

JeromeandGoodingcountieswouldhavelostpopulationandlikelywouldhavestagnated

economicallyinthelastdecade.

Idahoisconsistentwithnationaltrends

Thesetwotrends–concentrationintheindustryandagrowingHispanicpopulation–are

nationalandnotuniquetoIdaho.

AsshowninFigure2d,thedairyindustryisbecomingmoreconcentratedincertainregionsof

thecountry,specifically,California’sCentralValley,Idaho’ssouthcentralregion,andtheTexas

Panhandle.Describingthesechanges,whichwerefirstevidentinCalifornia,theU.S.

DepartmentofAgriculture(USDA)reports:

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

Num

ber

SWIdaho SCentralIdaho SEIdaho

6

LargefarmsdominateinCalifornia,thenation’slargestmilk‐producingstate.Farmswithatleast500cowsaccountedfor88percentofCalifornia’smilkproductionin2006…OtherstatesintheWestandSouthwestshowsimilarpatterns–substantialgrowthinproductionandaconcentrationinlargedairyfarms(MacDonaldetal,2007).

Figure2d.Milkcows–Changeininventory:2002to2007.

Source:U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture(2009b)ThegrowthinIdaho’sHispanicpopulationisalsoconsistentwiththenationaltrend.Anew

reportonthenation’sgrowingHispanicpopulationdescribesthemagnitudeofthechange:

TheshareofoverallU.S.populationgainattributabletoHispanicshasgrownrapidlyoverthepasttwodecades…TheHispanicpopulationgrewby60.9percentduringthe1990s,whiletheoverallU.S.populationgrewbyonly13percent…Evenmoreremarkable,thoughHispanicsrepresentedonly12.5

7

percentoftheU.S.populationin2000,theyproducedone‐halfoftheentireU.S.populationincreasebetween2000and2007(JohnsonandLichter,2008).

ItislogicaltothinkthesetwoparalleltrendsinsouthernIdaho–thechangingstructureofthe

dairyindustryandgrowingHispanicpopulation–wouldhaveprofoundimpactson

communities.Storesandrestaurantsarelikelytohavenewcustomers,schoolstohavenew

students,hospitalstohavenewpatients,churchestohavenewparishioners,courtstoseenew

defendants,andrealtorstohavenewclients.Butthislonglistbegsseveralimportant

questionsaddressedinthisreport.Aretheimpactsatthecommunitylevelpositive,negative

orboth?Whobenefitsandwholoses?Wouldcommunitiesbebetteroffwithoutthenew

dairyworkers,ordothebenefitsoutweighthecosts?

8

3.Geographicfocus

ThestudyareaforourreportincludedallcountiesinsouthernIdaho,asshowninFigure3a.

Togetherthesecountiesaccountfor99%ofthestate’sdairyherd.Fortheanalysis,wedivided

thecountiesintothreeregions:southwest,southcentral,andsoutheast.

SouthcentralIdaho,referredtobymanyasthe“MagicValley,”istheepicenterofthestate’s

growingdairyindustry(Figures2band3a).Itaccountsfor70%ofthestate’sdairyherd.Within

theValley,thelargestconcentrationofdairyfarmsisinGooding,JeromeandTwinFalls

counties.In2007,thesethreecountiesaloneaccountedforalmost290,000dairycowsor

roughlyhalfofthestate’stotal.InGoodingandJeromecounties,therearemoredairycows

thanpeoplepersquaremile.InTwinFallsCounty,theratiosareaboutequal.

Withapopulationofabout42,000,thecityofTwinFallsistheMagicValley’slargestpopulation

andcommercialcenter.However,thecommunity‐levelimpactsofthedairyindustryarefar

morevisibleandconcentratedinthesmalltownofJerome,whichhasabout9,200residents.

JeromeisonlyafewmilesfromtheborderbetweenGoodingandJeromecounties.Withits

rapidlygrowingCatholicChurchandadowntownfilledwithbusinessescateringtoHispanic

consumers,itfunctionsastheeconomicandsocialhubforthispopulation.

WealsoincludedthesouthwestandsoutheastregionsofIdahointhestudyarea.Theyaccount

for22%and7%ofthestate’sdairyherd,respectively.Themoreurban“TreasureValley”in

southwestIdahoprovidedacomparisonregionbecauseofitslargerpopulationandthe

variablesizeofitsdairyoperations.Thesoutheastregionhasamorerurallandscapeandits

dairyfarmstendtobemuchsmallerthanthosetothewest.Bothregions’proximitytothe

MagicValleymadeitlikelyoratleastpossiblethattheirresidentswouldbeawareofthedairy

industryanditscommunity‐levelimpacts.Despitethepresenceofdairyfarmsinbothregions,

weexpectedtheimpactstobelessdirectandsmallerinmagnitudeinsouthwesternand

southeasterncitiesandsmallcommunities.

9

Figure3a.SouthernIdahoandcommunitiesinthedairybelt.

10

4.MethodologyWeusedathree‐partmethodologytostudythedairyindustry’scommunity‐levelimpactsin

southernIdaho.1Themethodologyincludedpersonalinterviews,ageneralpublicsurvey,and

secondarydataanalysis.

Interviews

Asbothaninitialphaseaswellasanongoingcomponentofthestudy,weconductedsemi‐

structuredinterviewswithkeyinformants(seeAppendixB)inface‐to‐facesettingsconvenient

totheinterviewees(MilesandHuberman,1994).Qualitativeinterviewsofthistypeprovide

rich,explanatorydatatocontextualizeperceptionsthatvaryacrossstakeholders,thegeneral

public,andotherkeyinformants.

Weconductedatotalof63interviewswithindividualsacrossaspectrumofprofessionaland

thematicareascorrelatingtothestructureofthisreport.Primarycategoriesforthe

intervieweesaresummarizedinTable4a.Thebalanceofinterviewsroughlymatchesthe

geographicdistributionofthedairyindustrywithinthestate(bynumberofdairycows;see

Table4a.Categories,location,andtotalsforkey‐informantinterviews.

Region/Level

ImpactCategorySouth‐west

Southcentral

South‐east

State‐level Total

Government 2 3 3 1 9

Business/EconomicVitality 1 2 2 1 6

EducationSystem 3 11 4 0 18

Religious&CommunityAction 1 5 1 1 8

PublicAssistance,Health&SocialServices 1 7 4 0 12

JusticeSystem 2 2 1 0 5

DairyProducers 0 2 3 0 5

Totals 10 32 18 3 63

Source:Authors’tabulations

1TheUniversityofIdahoInternalReviewBoardapprovedthisprojectforhumansubjectsresearch(seeAppendixA).

11

Figure2b),butalsoreflectsanoversamplingofintervieweesinthesouthwestandsoutheastin

ordertoensurecoverageofcategorieswithineachregion.Membersofourresearchteam

conductedinterviewsindividuallyaswellasinpairs.Thisprovidedamorerobustinterpretive

structureforthedataanalysis.Onaverage,interviewslastedapproximatelyanhour,but

rangedfrom20–90minuteseach.Notesfromeachinterviewwererecordedandthen

assimilatedandcodedintothematiccategoriesforanalysis.

GeneralPublicSurvey

Inthefallof2008,theUniversityofIdaho’sSocialScienceResearchUnit(SSRU)conducteda

telephonesurveyofarandomsampleofsouthernIdahohouseholds.Thesamplelistwas

purchasedfromSurveySampling,Inc.Itincluded3,300listedtelephonenumbersofIdaho

households.Thesamplewasastratifiedrandomsampleofhouseholdsfromeachofthethree

regionsinsouthernIdaho(Figure3a):

• southwest(Adams,Valley,Washington,Payette,Gem,Boise,Canyon,Ada,Elmore,and

Owyheecounties);

• southcentral(Lemhi,Custer,Camas,Blaine,Butte,Gooding,Lincoln,Jerome,Minidoka,

TwinFalls,andCassiacounties);and

• southeast(Clark,Fremont,Jefferson,Madison,Teton,Bonneville,Bingham,Power,

Bannock,Caribou,Oneida,Franklin,andBearLakecounties).

Thesurveyachievedamarginoferrorof+/‐3%acrosssouthernIdahoasawholeand+/‐5%or

betterwithineachregion.Table4bsummarizesthenumberofcompletedsurveys

conservativelyrequiredtomeetthedesiredsamplingerrorrates.Wetargeted433completed

surveysinthesouthwestandsoutheastregions,and577surveysinthesouthcentralregion.

(Fordetailsonsamplesizecalculations,andotheraspectsofthedesignanddataanalysis,see

AppendixC.)

Toimproveresponserates,apostcardwassenttoallpotentialrespondentspriortothe

telephonecalls(seeAppendixD)inthreerandomlyselectedwaves,withhouseholdsfromall

regionsincludedineachwave.Preparedresponsestoquestionsrespondentsfrequentlyask

12

areincludedinAppendixE.Thefinalsurveyinstrumentweadministeredisincludedas

AppendixF.

Table4b.Stratifiedsampledesignwithtargetedcompletesandsamplingerrorsbyregion.

Southwest Southcentral Southeast Totals

Population[a] 190,334 64,987 100,880 356,201

Percentoftotalpopulation 54% 18% 28% 100%

Sample 1,000 1,300 1,000 3,300

Percentoftotalsample 30% 40% 30% 100%

Numberoftargetedcompletes 433 577 433 1,443

Marginoferrorwithinregion 5.0% 4.5% 5.0% 3.0%

Source:UniversityofIdahoSocialScienceResearchUnit[a]Populationofoccupiedhouseholdsineachregion.Source:U.S.CensusBureau,2000Census(mostrecentdataavailableonhouseholdoccupancyrate).

Interviewswerecompletedwith1,340respondents,including49interviewsdoneinSpanish.

Thefinalresponserateacrossallthreeregionscombinedwas49%.Finalresponserateswere

51%inthesouthwest,46%inthesouthcentralregion,and53%inthesoutheast.(SeeTable4c

fordispositionsandresponseratesbyregion.)

Becauseofthestratifiedsampledesign,householdsinthethreeregionshadknownbut

unequalprobabilitiesofbeingincludedinthesample.(Withineachregion,eachhouseholdhad

thesameprobabilityofbeingincluded.)Weaccountedfortheunequalprobabilityofselection

inourstatisticalanalysisthroughweighting.Resultspresentedinthisreportarepercentages

basedontheweightedfrequencies.

Todeterminehowwellthesamplecanbesaidtorepresentthepopulationasawhole,we

comparedtheagedistributionofthesurveyrespondents(whowereallover18yearsofageor

older)withthedistributionamongallindividuals18yearsorolderinthestateofIdaho,as

estimatedbytheU.S.Census Bureaubasedonits2005‐2007AmericanCommunitySurvey

13

Table4c.Dispositionsandresponseratebyregion.

Southwest Southcentral Southeast TotalsComplete 435 481 424 1,340

Ineligible 63 120 90 273

Disconnect 84 126 104 314

Refusal 227 273 218 718

Non‐contact 191 300 164 655

Total 1,000 1,300 1,000 3,300

AdjustedResponseRate[a] 51% 46% 53% 49%

Source:UniversityofIdahoSocialScienceResearchUnit[a]TheAmericanAssociationforPublicOpinionResearch(AAPOR).2006.StandardsDefinitions:FinalDispositionofCaseCodesandOutcomeRatesforSurveys,4thEdition.Lenexa,KS:AAPOR.Availableat:http://www.aapor.org/pdfs/standarddefs_4.pdf

(U.S.CensusBureau,2005–2007).Fromthiscomparison,itwasclearthatamongrespondents,

peopleunder34yearsoldwereunderrepresentedrelativetotheirproportioninthe

population,andthoseover45wereoverrepresented.

Wealsocomparedrespondents’educationlevelstoU.S.CensusBureauestimates.This

comparisonshowedthatsurveyrespondentsasagrouphadmoreformaleducationthanthe

generalpopulationofIdahoresidents.

Weexpectthatdifferencesbetweenthesampleandgeneralpopulationstembothfrom

coverageerror(theframeusedtodrawthesamplewaslandlinetelephonenumbers)andnon‐

responseerror(individualswhowereinthesamplebutdidnotrespondorwerenotabletobe

contactedforthesurvey).Recentestimatesindicatethat22%ofIdahohouseholdsare

wireless‐only(Blumbergetal.,2009).Studieshaveshownthatwirelessphone‐onlyhouseholds

tendtobeyoungerthanothers(BlumbergandLuke,2007).Inaddition,youngerindividuals

tendtobemoredifficulttoreach,duetoworkandfamilycommitments.

14

Giventheseageandeducationdifferencesbetweenourrespondentsandthepopulation,we

testedwhethernon‐responseandcoverageerrormighthaveimpactedorbiasedourestimates

ofkeysurveyvariables.Weusedthesurveyquestion“doesIdaho’sdairyindustrybringmore

netbenefitstothestate,morenetcosts,orequalamountsofcostsandbenefits?”totest

whetherthenon‐responseandcoverageerrormayhaveledtobiasintheestimates.Wefound

nosignificantstatisticalrelationshipbetweeneithertherespondent’sageoreducationand

theiranswertotheimpactquestion.Inotherwords,whilethesurveyhassomenon‐response

and/orcoverageerror,thisdoesnotappeartohaveledtobiasinthesurveyresults.

FullsurveyresultsarereportedintheAppendices,includingweightedfrequenciesofeach

quantitativevariable(AppendixG)aswellascross‐tabulationsby“region”andbetweenkey

variableswithinthesurvey(AppendixH).

Secondarydataanalysis

Thekeyinformantinterviewsandgeneralpublicsurveybothyieldedvaluabledataonpeople’s

perceptionsofandopinionsaboutthedairyindustry’scommunity‐levelimpacts.Theyprovided

contextandpointedustowardshypothesesthatneededtobetestedforustoreach

conclusionsonhowcommunitysystemsareaffectedbytheindustry.Tofurtherexamine

thesehypotheses,wealsoanalyzeddatafromavarietyofsecondarysources(Table4d).Asthe

findingsreportedhereindicate,sometimesthesecondarydatasupported–andothertimes

theyrefuted–people’sopinionsandperceptions.

Table4d.Sourcesofsecondarydatausedintheanalyses(referencedinSection12).

CatholicDioceseofBoise

NorthwestAreaFoundationIndicatorsWebsite

IdahoAssociationofCounties U.S.BureauofEconomicAnalysisIdahoDepartmentofCorrections U.S.CensusBureauIdahoDepartmentofHealthand

Welfare U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture

IdahoDepartmentofLabor U.S.DepartmentofEducationIdahoStateBoardofEducation

Source:Authors’tabulations

15

5.ThepeoplewhoworkonIdaho’sdairyfarmsHowthedairyindustryimpactscommunitiesdependsinlargemeasureonwhoworksonthe

farms.IfworkersresideinIdahoonastablebasiswiththeirfamilies,theimpactsonschools,

hospitals,andotherpartsofcommunitieswillbeverydifferentthaniftheyaresinglemen

movinginandoutofthecountry.And,regardlessofwhethertheworkersaresingleormarried

withchildren,iftheyareafraidofbeingdeportedbecausetheirdocumentsarequestionable,

theywillnotbecomeinvolvedintheircommunityastheywouldotherwise.Theymustfeelsafe

iftheyaretointeractwiththeirchildren’sschool,getmedicalcarewhentheyareill,oranyof

theactivitiesthatmostofusdonotthinkofasriskybehaviors.

Wehavenowayofdeterminingwithcertaintythehouseholdcharacteristicsofdairyworkersor

whethertheseworkersareresidinginIdahoonalong‐termbasis.Whilethisisalimitationof

thestudy,bycombiningwhatwelearnedfrompersonalinterviewswithdatafromtheU.S.

CensusBureau,wewereabletodevelopadescriptionofcharacteristicsofdairyworkers,as

explainedinthischapter.

Largedairyfarmsrequireaworkforcemadeupof“verystrong,agileyoungmen”whocan

handletherequirementsofthejob.2Especiallyformilkers,whomakeupabouthalfthe

workersonatypicallargedairyfarm,thejobisfast‐pacedandphysicallydemanding.

Schedulesandpayratesvarybyfarm,butourbestestimateisthatmilkersworkfrom10to12

hoursaday,fourtosixdaysinarow,andarepaidabout$12—13perhouror$2,000per

monthaftertaxes.Othertypesofworkers,suchaslaborers,earnless,whilefeeders,

inseminatorsandherdsmanearnsignificantlymore.

Turnoverishigh–“atleast30%peryear”accordingtothemanagerofafarmwithover5,000

cows.Fromanotherpersonfamiliarwiththeindustryweheard:“Thetypicalworkerkeepshis

jobforawhile,thengoesbacktoMexicowhenanotherguyfromhisnetworkofcousinstakes

thejobwhilehe’saway.”And,“It’sarevolvingdoor–onemonthhere,thenextmonthgone.

Friendsandrelativesfilljobsvacatedbyeachother.”Noteveryoneweinterviewedagreedthat2Quotationsfromintervieweesinthestudyappearinitalicizedtext,inquotationmarks.

16

turnoverishigh.Onepersonfamiliarwiththeindustrysaidthatittakesalongtimeforfarmers

totrainworkersandthusthefarmersstrivetopreventhighturnover.Weconcludethatthere

islikelytobesignificantvariationacrossdairyfarmsandamongworkersintermsoflengthof

timeonthejob.Inthiscontext,workingonadairyfarmisnotthekindofjobthatmanyyoung

menaspiretokeepforlong,oronethatapersonwithotheropportunitieswouldchosetodo

forever.“Theguysmightworkondairiesforthreeorfourmonths,andthenmoveonto

another,betterjob.”Asonedairyfarmerputit,“Idon’tseealotofguyslaidofffromMicron

comearoundherelookingforwork.”Anotheremployerexplained,“Thewholereasondairy

jobsareheldbyimmigrantsisbecausewhitepeoplewon’ttakethosejobs.”Andyetanother

saidabouttheimmigrants,“Wewouldhavealaborshortagewithoutthosefolks,sotheyare

providingaservice.”

Indeed,welearnedfromtheinterviews,thevastmajorityofIdaho’sdairyworkersareHispanic

andmanyareforeign‐born.Itisimportanttonotethatemployersarerequiredtoasknew

workersfortheirnameandSocialSecuritynumber.3AccordingtotheGovernmentAccounting

Office:

UnderIRSregulations,employersmustasknewhirestoprovidetheirnameandSSN[SocialSecurityNumber],butarenotrequiredtoindependentlycorroboratethisinformationwiththeSSA[SocialSecurityAdministration].DHS[DepartmentofHomelandSecurity]requiresemployerstovisuallyinspectnewworkers’identityandworkauthorizationdocuments,butemployersdonothavetoverifythesedocumentsandtheycanbeeasilycounterfeited(GAO2005).

Whiletherearesourcesofdataontheproportionofforeign‐bornworkersintheU.S.labor

force,thereisnosinglesourceontheproportionwhohavelegalworkdocuments.Basedon

multipleinterviews,weconcludedthatwhetherornotdairyworkershavelegaldocuments,the

stricterenforcementofimmigrationlawsthathastakenplaceinrecentyears,especiallyin

2008,hashadprofoundconsequencesforworkers’lives.SimplybecausetheyareHispanic,

3Inadditiontobeingrequiredtoaskforeachnewworker’snameandSocialSecuritynumber,employersmustthenwithholdasetpercentageoftheworker’ssalaryeachpayperiodforSocialSecurity(retirement),disabilityinsurance,Medicare,andbenefitsforsurvivors.Wefoundnoevidencethatdairyfarmersarenotadheringtothisrequirement.Thus,wemayassumethatdairyworkerspaythesetaxes,whetherornottheywillbeabletocollectSocialSecurityorotherbenefitsinthefuture.

17

theyareatrisk.“Nowthatpathwaystoresidencyaresohardandillegalimmigrationisso

dangerous,Hispanicsarecoming[acrosstheborder]alone.”

WhiletheyoungmenwhoworkondairyfarmsmayhavefamiliesinMexico,interviewees’

experiencesinsouthernIdahoindicatemanyimmigrantsnowcrosstheborderbythemselves,

leavingwivesandchildrenbehind.Andoncetheygethere,manyareafraidofbeingcaughtby

immigrationauthorities.Withthecurrentrecessionandchangingemphasesonillegalborder

crossings,thedynamicsofhowmanyworkersarecominginandoutofthecountry(andthe

laborforce)arefluid.Nevertheless,ourinterviewsrevealedadominantsenseofinsecurity

amongdairyworkers.AccordingtoabusinessownerweinterviewedinJerome,workersare

“inlockup;theygotowork,comehome,gotowork,comehome.”

Oursecondarydataanalysissupplementswhatwelearnedfromtheinterviews.Asnoted

earlierinthereport,southcentralIdaho’sHispanicpopulationhasgrownsteadily,atthesame

Figure5a.Changeinnumberofdairyworkers,dairymanufacturingworkers,andtheHispanicpopulation,southernIdaho,1990to2008.

Sources:IdahoDepartmentofLabor(2009a);U.S.CensusBureau(variousyears)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

0500

100015002000250030003500400045005000

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Num

berofHispa

nics(1

0's)

Num

berofEmployees

DairyEmployees

DairyManufacturingEmployees

HispanicPopulason

18

timethedairyindustryhasexpandedandincreaseditsdemandforlabor.Theseparalleltrends

arereflectedinFigure5a,whichshowstheratesofchangeinbothgroupsonveryclose

trajectories.Eventhoughthecorrelationbetweenthegrowthinthedairyindustryandthe

risingHispanicpopulationsuggestsarelationshipbetweenthetwo,itcannotbedeterminedas

acausallinkage.

DataonageandgenderfurthersupportourcontentionthatsouthcentralIdaho’sHispanic

populationisgrowinginresponsetothedairyindustry’slabordemands.AsFigure5bshows,

thereisadisproportionatenumberofyoung,workingageHispanicmalesinthesouthcentral

region,butwithoutacorrespondingnumberofyoung,workingageHispanicfemales.By

contrast,inthesouthwest,bothmalesandfemalesaredisproportionatelyrepresentedinthe

young,workingagepopulation.Thissuggeststhatothersectorsofagricultureorother

industriesaltogethermaybedrivinggrowthintheHispanicpopulationinthesouthwest.

InsoutheasternIdaho,young,workingagemalesandfemalesarenotpresentin

disproportionatenumbers.Thisisconsistentwiththeabsenceofalargedairysectorandother

industriesthatdependonalargelyforeignbornlaborforce.

Clearly,however,U.S.CensusBureaudatashowthesouthcentralregion’sHispanicpopulation

ismadeupofmorethanyoung,workingagemales.Figure5balsoshowshighnumbersof

youngchildren,againindicatingacorrelationbetweenthedairiesandotherindustries

employingHispanicworkerswithfamiliesandreflectingthelonger‐termpatternofimmigration

priortotheveryrecentshifttoward“single‐males”describedabove.Thisisconsistentwith

findingsaboutincreasingnumbersofHispanicstudentsinK‐12schools,whichwediscussin

Chapter8.

Thenumbersareevenmorestrikingwhenwecomparetheagedistributionofsouthcentral

Idaho’sHispanicandnon‐Hispanicpopulations.Figure5cshowsthatyoungchildrenandyoung

adultsaredisproportionatelyrepresentedintheHispanicpopulation,whilebabyboomers(in

their50’sand60’s)standoutamongnon‐Hispanics.

19

Figure5b.Agedistributionbysex,Hispanicpopulation,2008.

Source:U.S.CensusBureau(2008)

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

0‐410‐1420‐2430‐3440‐4450‐5460‐6470‐7480‐84

Ageinyears

SWIdaho

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

0‐410‐1420‐2430‐3440‐4450‐5460‐6470‐7480‐84

Ageinyears

SCentralIdaho

8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8

0‐410‐1420‐2430‐3440‐4450‐5460‐6470‐7480‐84

Ageinyears

FemalePercent MalePercent

SEIdaho

20

Figure5c.Agedistributionbyethnicity,SouthCentralIdaho,2008.


Insummary,then,datafromourkeyinformantinterviewsandsecondarysourcesindicatethat

dairyfarmworkerstendtobeyoungadultmenwhoareHispanicandforeign‐born.Someare

singleandothershavefamilies,buttherecenttrendistowardsmoresinglemen.Asagroup,

theseworkersaredrivingthegrowthoftheHispanicpopulationinsouthcentralIdaho,butnot

inthesouthwestorsoutheast.

16 12 8 4 0 4 8 12

0‐45‐9

10‐1415‐1920‐2425‐2930‐3435‐3940‐4445‐4950‐5455‐5960‐6465‐6970‐7475‐7980‐8485+

Ageinyears

PercentoftotalNon‐HispanicpopulasonPercentoftotalHispanicpopulason

21

6.Impactsonlocaleconomies

Otheranalystshavedocumentedthedairyindustry’saggregateimpactonIdaho’seconomyin

termsofemploymentandtotalpersonalincome(HolleyandChurch2006andforthcomingin

2009).Usingarangeofqualitativeandquantitativedatasources,weseektocomplement

thoseanalysesbylookingathoweconomicimpactsplayoutlocally.Ourapproachismore

descriptiveandaddressesamuchbroaderrangeofimpactsthanpreviousstudies.

ThegrowingdairysectorhasclearlycontributedtoeconomicgrowthinsouthcentralIdaho,

whethermeasuredbyjobnumbers,unemploymentrates,percapitaincome,orother

commonlyusedeconomicindicators(Table6a.)EspeciallyinJeromeCounty,employmentand

populationnumbersaregrowingrightalongsidethedairies.Andevenasunemploymentrates

areincreasingintheMagicValleyinthecurrenteconomicrecession,theyareconsistently

belowthestatewideaverage.

Table6a.Localeconomiesareholdingfairlysteady.WagesarelowbutatleastthroughAugust2009,therecessionhasbeenlessseverethanelsewhere.

TwinFallsCounty

JeromeCounty

GoodingCounty Idaho

Unemploymentrate 2008average(%) 3.8 4.0 3.4 4.9August2009(seasonallyadjusted,%) 6.7 7.2 6.4 8.9

Changeinnumberofjobs(2000‐‐2008,%) 17 15 8 20

Averagewageperjob(2007,$) 27,368 28,423 28,331 33,217

Percapitaincome(2007,$) 28,642 31,440 36,354 31,804

Poverty(2007) Overall(%) 13 13 13 12Under18(%) 17 18 20 16

Studentseligibleforreducedprice mealprogram(2006‐‐07,%) 44a 53a 56a 37a

Sources:U.S.BureauofEconomicAnalysis(2009);NorthwestAreaFoundationIndicatorsWebsite(2009);IdahoDepartmentofLabor(2009a)aTwinFallsSchoolDistrict,JeromeSchoolDistrict,WendellSchoolDistrict,andIdahostatetotal

22

“Thedairieskeepusgoing,noquestionaboutit,”accordingtoabusinesspersonwe

interviewed,andasentimentechoedbyothers.“Thedairiesmeanmoneygoingintothelocal

economy,includingtowhite‐ownedbusinesses.”Dairyworkersalsocontributetothelocal

economythroughthesalestaxestheypaywhentheyspendtheirmoneylocally.Asseveral

peoplepointedout,however,totheextentthatatleastsomedairyworkersareyoungmen

whosendpartofwhattheyearnhometofamiliesinMexicoorelsewhere,asmallershareof

earningsisspentlocallythanifworkerswereherewiththeirfamilies.

Weaskedalocalelectedleader,“Whatwouldhappenifthedairieswentawaytomorrow?”His

answercapturedtheessenceofthecommunity‐level,economicimpacts:“I’dhatetoseeit.

Thesuccessofthedairyindustryhasledtomoreoveralleconomicactivity,whichinturnhas

broughtmorenewresidentsforjobsnotrelatedtoagriculture.”Wheredairiesemploylarge

numbersofworkersandtheeconomyisdiverse,weseethemosteconomicvitality.Thiseffect

isclearestinTwinFalls,aregionalcommercialcenter.ItisalsotrueinJeromeCounty,where

jobnumbershaveincreasedby15%since2000and4%inthelastyearalone,despitethe

recessionandhardtimesinthedairyindustry.Why?Accordingtoarecenteconomicreport

onJeromeCounty:

TheeconomicoutlookremainsoptimisticwiththecontinueddevelopmentoftheCrossroadsPointBusinessCenter,whichcurrentlyboastsaWingateHotel,FedEx,PellaWindows,Fastenal,Subwayandanofficebuildingintheconstructionstage.Workonanewhospitalshouldstartin2010.TheeconomyofJeromewillremainvibrantduetoitssuperblocationonInterstate84andclusterindustriesco‐existingandexcelling(IdahoDepartmentofLabor,2009b).

GrowthandvitalityarealsoevidentdowntowninthecommunityofJerome,population

roughly9,200.Onebusinessownerdescribed“anexplosionofsmallHispanicbusinesses,

includingrestaurants,grocerystoresandradiostations,”largelytargetedatLatinocustomers.

Hecontinued,“Therehasbeenahugechangeinthemake‐upofsmallbusinessesinthelast10

years.”Acityofficialtoldus,“ManyvacantbuildingsindowntownJeromewerepurchasedor

rentedbyHispanicsinthelast10years.”

23

DataonthenumberofbusinessesinJeromeCountysupportpeople’simpressionsofeconomic

vitality,thoughtheydonotshowthatnumbersare“exploding.”Thenumberofretail

businesses,forexample,grewfrom56in1998to69in2007,anincreaseofroughlyone‐fourth

(Figure6a).

Figure6a.RetailbusinessesinJeromeCounty,bynumberofemployees,1998‐2007.

Source:U.S.CensusBureau(1998‐2007)

Thenumberofsmallretailbusinesses(withfewerthanfiveemployees)grewbyalmosthalf

overthistimeperiod.

ThepictureisnotasrosyinthesmalltownsofWendellandGoodinginGoodingCounty.

Despitetheconcentrationofdairiesandtheirdramaticgrowthinearlierpartsofthedecade,

thesecommunitiesandthelocaleconomyarenotgrowingasquicklyastheirneighborstothe

east.ThetownofGoodinglost5%ofitspopulationsince2000.

PopulationlossinthetownofGoodingandlessfavorableeconomicindicatorsinGooding

Countyarelikelyduetoitslessdiversifiedeconomy,andtothefactthatdairieshaveallbut

stoppedgrowing.LocalmainstreetsinGoodingCountyshowlittleofthevibrancyfoundin

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Num

berofbusinesses

1‐‐4 5‐‐9 10‐‐19 20‐‐49 50+Numberofemployees:

24

Jerome.WhenBlaineCounty’seconomywasbooming,manyworkersfromGoodingtraveled

thereforjobs.Now,however,theimpactoftherecessionisclear.AccordingtotheIdaho

DepartmentofLabor:

TherapidgrowthindairieshasslowedinrecentyearsasenvironmentalconcernsforcedtheGoodingCountyCommissiontotightenstandardsforlargelivestockoperators,slowingexpansion.Kiefer‐BuiltTrailershasprovidedskilledjobs,butithasnotprovedrecession‐proofandhasfallentominimalproductionduringtherecession.Atonetime,manyresidentscommutedtoBlaineCountyforthehigherpayinglandscapingandconstructionjobs.Butthosejobshavedeclinedinthedownturndespitetheneedsofestates,secondhomesandhotelsinSunValleyandKetchum(IdahoDepartmentofLabor2009c).

Despiteitslessdiversifiedeconomy,GoodingCounty’sunemploymentrateremainsrelatively

lowanditspercapitaincomeishigherthanthestateaverage.Thistrendisconsistentwith

characteristicsinsouthernIdaho’sfarmingdependentcountiesasawhole.Wagesinthe

regionarelowbuttheeconomyisfairlysteady,evenduringthecurrentrecession.

ItishardtoarguewithindicatorsthatshowIdaho’sdairyregionhasagrowingandrelatively

resilienteconomy.Nevertheless,weshouldbeclearabouttheeconomichardshipfacedby

somelocalresidents,despitegrowthrelatedtothedairyindustry.Childpovertyratesare

higherinthisregionthanthestateasawhole.So,too,aretheproportionsofchildreneligible

forreducedpricemealsatlocalschools.Pocketsofsubstandardhousingexistontheoutskirts

ofsmalltowns.

Basedoninterviewswitheducators,socialserviceproviders,andothers,manypeopleinthe

dairyregionare“workingpoor.”Theyworkfulltimebutatwagessolowtheirincomesareless

thanthepovertylevel,whichwas$22,050foracouplewithtwochildrenin2009.Thehourly

rateatwhichmostdairyworkersarepaidishighenoughtokeepthemoutofpovertyifthey

workfull‐time.

Ourinterviewssuggestedthateconomichardshipprobablyexistsnotbecauseofbutdespite

thedairyindustry.Onepersondescribeda“hugeincreaseinthenumberofpeoplecomingto

soupkitchens.Mostarewhite.Wehaveagrowingtransientpopulationhere.”Ateacher

describedhighschoolstudentswhoare“jobhungry.Theygotoschoolandthentowork,many

25

atthedairies.It’shardtobelieve.”Andajudgetoldus,“Thereishorriblepovertyamong

Hispanics.”Withemphasisheadded,“No,theirneedsarenotbeingmet,butitissociety’s

problem,notthedairies’problem.”

FromthesouthernIdahogeneralpublicsurvey….Wouldyousaythedairyindustry’simpactonlocalbusinesseshasbeento... (percent) Increasethenumberalot 10 Increasethenumberslightly 43 Hasn’thadanimpact 35 Decreasedthenumberslightly 3 Decreasedthenumberalot 1 Don’tknow,noopinion 8 PeopleinsouthcentralIdahoaremuchmorelikelythanthoseinthewestandeasttothinktheindustryhasincreasedthenumberofbusinesses“somewhat”or“alot.”

26

7.ImpactsoncrimeandthejusticesystemEvidencesuggeststhatthegeneralpublicoftenbelievesacausallinkexistsbetween

immigrationandcrime(Feldmeyer,2009).Ourreportcompilesdatafromvarioussourcesto

assesstheextenttowhichrelationships(whetherrealorperceived)existbetweenchangesin

theregionandcommunityimpactsrelatedtocriminalactivities.

Felonyrates

GiventhesignificantdemographicchangeinsouthernIdahoduringthepasttwodecades,we

examinedwhetherornotfelonyrateshavechangedoverasimilartimespan.Weuseddataon

felonyconvictionsbycounty(brokendownbyyearandethnicity/race)andpopulation

estimatestocalculatethepercapitafelonyrateforHispanicsandnon‐HispanicWhitesineach

region(IdahoDepartmentofCorrections,2008;USCensusBureau,2008).Thesedatainclude

Idahofelonyconvictionsonly4.Federalcrimes(includingimmigrationviolations)donotappear

inthedataset,nordomisdemeanors.Inaddition,thedatareportedarefelonyconvictions,

andasingleindividualmaybeconvictedofmultiplecrimesatonepointintime.Forthe

purposesofthisanalysis,weexcludedcrimebyotherraces(AmericanIndian,Black,etc.).

Theanalysisrevealedsomestatisticallysignificant,regionaldifferencesamongpercapita

felonycrimerates.InallthreeofthesouthernIdahoregions,thepercapitafelonyratewas

higherforHispanicsthannon‐HispanicWhites(seeFigure7a).

Thepercapitafelonyrateofnon‐HispanicWhitesissteadyacrossyearsandregions,withthe

exceptionofsouthcentralIdaho,wheretherateexceedsthreefeloniesper1,000individualsin

someyears.TheHispanicpercapitafelonyratevariesmoresubstantiallyacrossyearsthanthe

felonyratefornon‐HispanicWhites.

CountertothefelonytrenddataforHispanicsinsouthernIdaho,lawenforcementofficialswe

interviewedaboutcrimemoregenerallyexplainedtheyhaveseenanincreaseincrimesince

2007,butthat“crimeisnotdisproportionatelyHispanicandmostHispanicviolationsaretraffic‐

4InIdaho,feloniesaredefinedas“acrimewhichispunishablewithdeathorbyimprisonmentinthestateprison”(foradditionaldetail,seeIdahoStateCode,2009).

27

Figure7a.PercapitafelonyrateinIdaho,byethnicityandregion,1997‐2008.

Source:IdahoDepartmentofCorrections(2008)

related.Eventhoughthereisincreasinggangactivity,mostpeopledonotattributethistothe

dairyindustry”.However,thoseweinterviewedinthecriminaljusticesystemdidemphasize

someofthetangiblecommunity‐levelimpactsrelatedtocrime.Onejudgetoldusthereisan

“increaseintheneedforpublicdefenders,translators,andSpanish‐speakingattorneyswhich

cancauseastrainonthejusticesystem”.Andoneeconomicdevelopmentrepresentative

explainedthecriminalactivityasafunctionofurbanizationratherthanthedairyindustry:

28

“ThesituationinCanyonCountyismuchmorecomplexthaninFranklinCounty.Racialtensionsarehigherintheformerduetothelevelofgangactivity.But,peopledonotseemtoattributethegangactivitytothedairyindustry”.

Thus,giventhevariabilityofpercapitafelonyratesinIdaho,especiallybyregionandcounty,

coupledwiththemoredetaileddatagatheredininterviews,wecautionagainstoverstatingthe

statisticalsignificanceofdifferenceswithinthesefindings.Forinstance,inadditiontothedata

potentiallyincludingrepeatoffenders,theseresultsdonotindicatewhetherHispanicsandnon‐

HispanicWhiteshavethesameproportionofarreststoconvictions.

Twocaveatselaboratethesepointsfurther.First,althoughtheHispanicpopulationhas

continuedtoincreaseinsouthernIdaho,thepercapitafelonyrateforHispanicshasnotrisen,

butdecreasedsince2005–2006,dependingontheregion(seeFigure7b).And,consistent

withourfindingsaboutpercapitafelonyrates,otherresearchershavereportedsimilarresults

thatimmigrationconcentrationdoesnotaffectviolentcrimeratesandmayhelptoreduce

crimeslikerobbery(Feldmeyer2009;StowellandMartinez,Jr.2007).

Second,asnotedabove,thesedatareportthenumberoffelonies,notthenumberoffelons.

BecausedataarereportedonapercapitabasisandgiventhenumberofHispanicsintheregion

remainsordersofmagnitudelowerthanthenumberofnon‐HispanicsWhites,thepercapita

felonyrateofHispanicshasahigherlevelofstatisticalsensitivitytosmallchangesinthe

numberoffelonies.Toillustratetheserelativedifferences,wealsoreportthetotalnumberof

feloniescommittedbyethnicityforthesouthcentralregionofIdaho(seeTable7a).

Consistentwithwhatweheardfromothersweinterviewed,onelocalbusinessownernoted,

“therearesomenegativefeelingsregardingHispanics,butmostlyregardinggangactivity”.

Someinterviewees,likeonemayorweinterviewedinsouthcentralIdaho,alsonotedthatgang

activityintheTreasureandMagicValleysisbothnon‐HispanicandHispanicbutthat“themain

publicperceptionisthatundocumentedworkersarenottheprimarycauseofsocialillsand

communityimpactsbecausetheyknowtheyneedtomindtheir‘Ps’and‘Qs’tobesecure”.

29

Figure7b.HispanicpopulationgrowthandpercapitafelonyrateinIdaho,byethnicityandregion,1997‐2008.

Source:IdahoDepartmentofCorrections(2008)

30

Table7a.DifferencesinnumberoffeloniesbyethnicityinsouthcentralIdahothatindicateadownwardtrendforbothHispanicsandnon‐HispanicWhitessince2006.

YearFeloniesbyHispanics

PopulationofHispanics

Feloniesbynon‐Hispanic

Whites

Populationofnon‐Hispanic

Whites

1997 86 13,142 271 136,126

1998 97 13,611 408 136,504

1999 104 14,165 358 137,272

2000 108 18,703 349 135,237

2001 141 19,835 398 134,746

2002 154 20,915 484 134,834

2003 131 22,023 499 135,492

2004 164 23,106 488 135,796

2005 184 24,237 527 136,363

2006 192 25,729 477 137,302

2007 184 27,028 434 138,656

2008 153 28,641 356 139,337Source:IdahoDepartmentofCorrections(2008)

Drugarrests

ThedrugarrestrateinIdahooverthe1983‐2003periodhasincreased.Hispanicoffenders

constituted11%ofthedrugarrestsin2003(S.P.Vazquez,2004)and10%ofalldrugrelated

arrestsfrom2003‐2007,slightlyhigherthantheirrepresentationinthepopulation(about9%)

duringthoseyears.Duringthattimeperiod,thecountiesinsouthernIdahowiththehighest

proportionofdrugviolationarrests(between13%and22%oftotalarrests)includedPayette,

TwinFalls,Clark,Madison,Caribou,andOneida.Incontrast,thecountiesinsouthernIdaho

withthehighestproportionofalcoholrelatedoffenses(between40%and53%oftotalarrests)

includeLemhi,Butte,Camas,andLincolncounties(Wing,2008).5

5Ourdatareportfelonyconvictions.DrugandalcoholarrestsarethemostcommonoffensesinIdaho(forall

ethnicitiesandraces),however,notalldrugandalcoholarrestsarefelonies.Generally,inthecaseofdrugarrests,theseverityofthecrimedependsnotonlyonthetypeofdruginvolved,butalsowhetherthechargeisfor

possessionortrafficking,theamountofdrugseized,andthenumberof,ifany,previousconvictionstheoffenderhasreceived.Drivingundertheinfluencecanbeafelonychargeinmanycasesaswell,butfirstoffensesdonot

alwaysgetclassifiedassuch,dependingonwhethertheoffenderhascommittedothercrime.

31

InarecentnewsarticledescribingthegrowthoftheLatinopopulationinsouthernIdaho,drugs

werenotnotedasaparticularproblemorcommunityimpact(Hunzeker,2009).Inrelationto

drug‐relatedactivityandarrests,lawenforcementofficersalsoexplainedthatalthough“the

drugsarecominginfromMexico,thedrugtraffickingisnotallHispanic”.And,apolicedeputy

insouthcentralIdahoelaboratedthecomplexityofthedrugproblemasitintersectswithhis

community:

“BecausesomeworkersinthedairyindustrytravelbackandforthtoMexico,theyhavetheopportunitytotrafficdrugs.Butthatismoreafunctionofmovingacrosstheborderandtheneedforincome–itdoesnotmeantheyaretherootoftheproblem.Someofthemareusersandsomearejustmakingmoney”.

Insummary,littleevidenceexiststosuggestthegrowthinthedairyindustryinsouthenIdaho

hasnegativelyaffectedfelonyratesintheregion.Althoughfelonyratesarehigheronaverage

forHispanics,theratesforHispanicsalsoappeartobedecreasingwhiletheirproportionofthe

totalpopulationgrows.Further,thoseweinterviewedincommunitiesreiteratedthatthe

dairiesdonotserveasacatalysttoincreasingcrime.Theprimarycommunity‐levelimpacts

occurrelatedtoincreasesofforeign‐bornimmigrantswhomayneedadditionalassistanceif

theydoenterthelaworcriminaljusticesystems.

FromthesouthernIdahogeneralpublicsurvey….

Wouldyousaythedairyindustry’simpactoncrimehasbeento….

(percent)

Worsenitagreatdeal 2 Worsenitalittlebit 9 Hashadnoimpactatall 72 Improveitalittlebit 8 Improveitagreatdeal 1

Don’tknow,noopinion 8

MostpeopleacrosssouthernIdahoperceivethatthedairyindustryhasnotsignificantlyimpactedcrimeincommunities.

32

8.Impactsonschools

Asdiscussedearlierinthereport,wedidnotreachafirmconclusionabouttheshareofdairy

workersthatarelikelytohavefamilieswithchildren.However,findingsfromoureconomic

anddemographicdataanalysissuggestthattheindustrydoesimpactschoolsinsignificant

ways.TheincreaseindairyemploymenthascloselytrackedgrowthintheHispanicpopulation

insouthcentralIdaho,andfurther,agedataindicatethatadisproportionateshareofyoung

adultsandchildrenamongthesouthcentralHispanicpopulation.Thesefindingspointtowards

twomainimpactsonschools.

First,manyK‐12schoolsinthedairyregionareexperiencingabigchangeintheethnicityof

theirstudents(U.S.DepartmentofEducation,2000‐2001to2006‐2007).6Insouthcentral

Idaho,Hispanicstudentenrollmentisincreasingasashareoftotalenrollment(seeFigure8a)–

Figure8a.PercentHispanic,studentpopulationandtotalpopulation,2000‐2006.

Sources:U.S.CensusBureauandU.S.DepartmentofEducation.7

6Unlessotherwiseindicated,alleducationdatacitedinthissectionarefromU.S.DepartmentofEducation(2000‐01to2006‐07).72001‐2006:U.S.CensusBureau,PopulationEstimatesProgram,http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/;2000:U.S.BureauoftheCensus,AmericanFactfinder,http://factfinder.census.gov/;2000‐2006:U.S.Departmentof

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Percen

tage

SWStudents SCentralStudents SEStudents

SWTotalpop SCentralTotalpop SETotalpop

33

fasterthanHispanicindividualsasawholeareincreasingasashareofthetotalpopulation.

HispanicstudentenrollmentinsouthcentralIdahowentup35%overthefirstsixyearsofthis

decade.Similarbutlessdramatictrendsexistinthesouthwestandsoutheast.

Somedistricts,especiallythoseintheheartofthedairyregion,wouldbelosingstudentsifnot

fortheincreaseinHispanics.ThisistrueintheShoshone,Wendell,Jerome,andGooding

schooldistricts,butnotinTwinFalls(Figure8b).

Thesecondimpactonschoolsisrelatedtothefirst.TheincreaseinHispanicstudentsmeans

somedistrictsaregrowingwhentheywouldotherwisebelosingstudents.Withalossin

studentenrollmentcomesdecliningrevenueandlessabilitytoeducatelocalyouth.With

growingdiversitycomechallengesandopportunities,accordingtoteachersandadministrators

withwhomwespoke.Thechallengesarethatdistrictsmustnowfindmoneyandstafftowork

Figure8b.Percentchangeinstudentenrollmentinselectdistricts,2000‐01to2006‐07.

Source:U.S.DepartmentofEducation(2000‐2001to2006‐2007)

Education,NationalCenterforEducationStatistics,CommonCoreofData,BuildaTable,http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/bat/

‐20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Gooding Jerome Shoshone TwinFalls Wendell

Percen

tcha

nge

Hispanic

Non‐Hispanic

34

withgrowingnumbersofEnglishlanguagelearners,lowerincomestudents,andchildrenwith

parentswhoareforeign‐born.TheopportunityisthatHispanicparents,asarule,value

educationandwanttheirchildrentodowell.And,childreninintegratedschoolslearnhowto

getalonginourincreasinglymulti‐culturalandethnicallymixedsociety.

Inresponsestoourinterviewquestions,educatorswentbackandforthastheytalkedabout

howtheycopewith–andbenefitfrom–growingnumbersofHispanicstudents.Accordingtoa

schooladministrator,

“RoughlyhalfofourHispanicstudentshavelimitedEnglishproficiency.SomehaveparentswhoareilliterateinSpanishanddon’twantcontactwiththeschoolbecausethey’reillegalandafraid…Thoseparentshaveagreatdesirefortheirkidstoimprovetheirstatusandtheyknowit’sthrougheducation.ButhowcanwepossiblymeetproficiencystandardsforNoChildLeftBehind?”

Ateachermadethesamepoint.

“Hispanicparentsareverysupportiveofeducation,morethannon‐Hispanicparents...Itrulyappreciatethis.Butschoolsarepenalized[throughNoChildLeftBehind]foreducatingapopulationthatishereillegally.”

Indeed,incommunitieswheredairyfarmsaremostheavilyconcentrated,schooldistrictshave

hadtroublemeetingtheannualyearlyprogressgoalsestablishedbyNoChildLeftBehind

(IdahoStateBoardofEducation,2008).Gooding,Wendell,Jerome,ShoshoneandTwinFalls

districtsallfailedtomeettheirgoalsinthe2007‐08schoolyear.However,thesameistruein

theotherregionsaswell.Only33%ofdistrictsinsoutheastIdahometthetargetsthatyear,

comparedwith44%insouthcentraland41%insouthwestIdaho.Educationalachievement

gapsexist,buttheyarenotlimitedtodistrictswithsignificantnumbersofchildrenfromthe

familiesofdairyworkers.

WhetherornotstudentsspeakEnglishcameupfrequentlyinourinterviewswitheducators.A

highschoolteachertoldusshehasstudentsfromsecondgenerationHispanicparentswho

don’tspeakEnglish,rightalongsidechildrenwhohaveonlybeenintheU.S.fortwoweeks(and

don’tspeakEnglish).“Hispanicstudentsdookonmathtests.It’sthereadingscoresthatgetus

35

introuble.”Andregardlessoftheirlanguageproficiency,sheremindedus,studentshaveto

taketheIdahoStandardAchievementTestsinEnglish.

WeaskededucatorswhetherbeingHispanicisagoodpredictorofproblemsinschool.Apart

fromchallengesrelatedtolimitedEnglishproficiency,everyonewithwhomwespoke

attributedproblemstolowincomemorethantoethnicity.“Poorkids’parentsdon’tcomeinto

theclassroom,higherincomeparentsdo.”Thenagain,“Whenstudentsareabsentbecause

they’reincourt,it’smorelikelybecauseofsocio‐economicstatusratherthanwhethertheyare

HispanicorAnglo.”Finally,“therearelotsofproblemsamongthewhitepopulation–poverty,

dysfunctionalfamilies,anddrugs.”Thisisconsistentwithwhatweheard(andreportedin

Chapter6)aboutpovertybeingaproblemamongbothHispanicandnon‐Hispanicindividuals.

ThebottomlineisthatmuchofsouthcentralIdaho’sschoolsystemiscopingwithchanging

demographicsandstudentsfromlow‐incomefamilies.Incommunitieswheredairyworkersare

mostlikelytolive,theindustryisinsomemeasureresponsibleforthosechanging

demographicsandsomeoftheproblemsthatcomealongsideevenasitcontributestothetax

basethathelpssupporttheschools.


Wouldyousaythedairyindustry’simpactonschoolshasbeento... (percent) Improvethemagreatdeal 10

Improvethemalittlebit 33 Havenoimpact 41 Worsenthemalittlebit 5

Worsenthemagreatdeal 1 Don’tknow 10

RegardlessofwherepeopleliveinsouthernIdaho,thelargemajoritythinkthedairyindustryhaseitherlittleimpactoraslightlypositiveimpactonschools.

36

9.ImpactsonhealthcareandsocialservicesOurstudyalsodocumentedcommunity‐levelimpactsrelatedtohealthcareandsocialservices

acrosssouthernIdaho.Somemediafocusonissuesofimmigrantsasadraintothehealthcare

system(Walsh,2008).However,atanationallevel,HispanicsremainunderservedbytheU.S.

healthcaresystemvialimitationstoaccesstoservicesaswellasfactorsthatinhibitHispanics

fromseekingpreventivecare(Balluzetal.,2004).Previousresearchhasdocumentedthat

nationally,Hispanicsreceivehealthcareatlessthanhalftherateofnon‐Hispanics(Mohantyet

al.,2005).

InIdahoasinotherstates,politicaldebateaswellasnewsmediafocusonperceivedimpacts

onthehealthservicesusuallybecauseofindigentcareservices(McGee,2007).Thus,a

relevantquestioniswhethertherelianceonaHispaniclaborforceinthedairyindustryhas

negativeimpactsoncommunityhealthservices.Inthissection,weaddressseveralareas

relatedtothistheme,including:1)healthinsurancecoverage;2)indigenthealthcarecosts;

and3)socialservicesrelatedtolanguageandfamilydevelopment.

Healthinsurancecoverage

InIdaho,Hispanicslackhealthinsurancecoverageathigherratesthannon‐Hispanics,although

therateisdecreasingforHispanics(seeTable9a).TheIdahoDepartmentofHealthand

WelfarehaveonlyrecordedthesedataforHispanicssince2006.From2000‐2005in

Table9a.PercentofadultpopulationwithouthealthinsurancecoverageinIdaho.

Hispanics Non‐Hispanics

Adultswithouthealthinsurancecoverage(%)

2007 52 16

2008 44 17

Source:IdahoDepartmentofHealthandWelfare(2008)

37

GoodingandJeromecounties),Hispanicindividualswerelesslikelytohavehealthinsurance

thantheoverallpopulationinIdahoorinthenationasawhole(Figure9a).

Figure9a.PercentofpopulationlackinghealthinsuranceinGoodingandJeromeCounties,Idaho,andtheUS,2000‐2005.


ForbothHispanicandnon‐Hispanicindividuals,Idaho’sunemployedworkersmakeupthe

largestpercentagesofpeoplewholackhealthinsurance.InIdaho,Hispanics(61%)are

significantlylesslikelythannon‐Hispanics(42%)tohavedentalinsurance,(IdahoDept.of

HealthandWelfare,2008).

Datacollectedfromintervieweesandthegeneralpublicsurveywithinthisstudyrevealgeneral

impressionsabouthealthservicesrelatedtotheHispanicpopulationandthedairyworkersin

Idaho.Overall,mostintervieweesinhealthprofessionsindicatedthatwhetherindividualswork

forthedairyindustryornot“communityserviceslikehealthcarearenotoverwhelmedbythe

Hispanicpopulation”.

Giventheconditionsofthedairyworkers’environment(Clarren,2009),healthcare

representativesweinterviewednotedthelaborforcecouldbepronetohigherincidencerates

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

JeromeCo. GoodingCo. Idaho U.S.

Percen

tage

2000

2005

38

ofinjuriesfromstrenuousworkaswellasexposuretocertainwater‐bornebacterialdiseases.

Inaddition,onepublichealthworkerexplainedratesoftuberculosisinMexicoremainhigher

thanintheUStonotethepossibleriskofdiseasetransferfromforeign‐bornworkers.Health

risktrendsandcommunity‐levelimpactsmayalsorelatetodemographicshiftscivicleaders

describedaboutthechangingdemographicofHispanicanddairyworkersinIdaho(notentirely

consistentwithsecondarydata):

“TheHispanicpopulationhaschanged.10‐12yearsago,itconsistedofmainlyfamilieswhoweremigratingandthensettledout.NowthenewHispanicsaresinglemen,oftenmarriedbutwithfamiliesbackhome.Inthedairies,that’swhoyousee.Thereareveryfewfamilymen”.

However,acrossthethreesub‐regions,datafromourinterviewsdidnotsuggest

disproportionateuseofhealthcareservicesorsignificanttrendstranslatingtohealthneeds

amongtheHispanicpopulationingeneralorrelatedtoasub‐populationofemployeesknown

toworkinthedairyindustry.

HealthcareprofessionalsweinterviewedacrossthethreeregionsofsouthernIdahoconcurred

aboutamajorfindingforthiscomponentofthestudy,summarizedherebyanemergency

roomprofessional:


Wouldyousaythedairyindustry’simpactonhealthserviceshasbeento... (percent)

Improvethemagreatdeal 2 Improvethemalittlebit 11 Havenoimpact 71

Worsenthemalittlebit 5 Worsenthemagreatdeal 1 Don’tknow 10

RegardlessofwherepeopleliveinsouthernIdaho,thelargemajoritythinkthedairyindustryhaseitherhadlittlenegativeimpact

oraslightlypositiveimpactonhealthservices.

39

“Althoughthemajorityofpeoplewhovisitemergencyroomsdonothavehealthinsurance,Hispanicsasasubpopulation,andthereforethebulkofthedairyworkforce,donotdisproportionatelyrepresentthosewhovisithospitalsandmedicalcentersthatofferemergencyservices”.

HealthprofessionalsweinterviewedinsouthcentralIdahosummarizedmorespecifictrends

withintheseoverallfindings:

• Approximately50%ofcasesofyoungmen(15‐40yrs)seekingemergencycareare

methamphetamine‐related,and80%occuratnight;

• Hispanicscasesareunder‐representedinsubstanceabuse,butgenerallytendtobe

alcohol‐related;

• Hispanicsarehigh‐riskfordiseasessuchasadult‐onsetdiabetesandwouldbenefitfrom

healtheducationprograms;and

• Hispanicswhodocometotheemergencyroomoftendosoafraidofconsequences

relatedtoidentityandperceptionoftheirstatus.WhenHispanicsdocometothe

emergencyroom,hospitalsoftentrytosecurecashpaymentsupfrontbecausethese

individualsmaybemoredifficulttotrack.

• Morethan50%ofthebaddebtimpactinghospitalsisforemergencyroomservices.

• Ingeneral,Idahodairyworkersdonothaveemployer‐sponsoredhealthinsurance.

Datafromtheinterviewsalsorevealedregionaltrendsamongtheuninsuredandunemployed

thatmayseekhealthservices.Forinstance,mostindividualswhofallintooneorbothofthese

categorieswithinthesoutheasternregioncomeprimarilyfrompotatoprocessingor

constructionindustries.Thus,asonehealthspecialistindicated,“ifmostHispanicsseeking

healthcareinthesouthcentralregionaredairyworkers,thiscorrelationexistsbecausesucha

predominantsectoroftheworkforceinthatregionisemployedbythedairyindustry.”

Indigenthealthcarecosts

Ourstudyalsoaddressedpatternsofhealthcareservicesrelatedtoindigentcarecostsfor

southernIdahocommunities.Animportantpointoflegalcontextrelatedtothisissueisthe

40

1986CongressionalpassageoftheEmergencyMedicalTreatmentandLaborAct(EMTALA)

whichensurespublicaccesstoemergencyservicesathospitalsnomatterwhetherthepatient

hastheabilitytopayfortheservices.WhileEMTALAisnotspecifictoethnicgroups,

perceptionsexistthatthelawenablesthosewithoutinsurancecoverageordocumentationto

free‐rideonthehealthcaresystem.Thus,thecommonbeliefthatmanyHispanicresidents

remainundocumentedalsotranslatestothebeliefthattheydisproportionatelyimpactthe

healthcaresystemwiththecostsborneindirectlybyall.

NumbersofindigenthealthcareclaimsandrelatedcostsvarywidelyacrosscountiesinIdaho

andhavefluctuatedinrecentyears.Thecostsofprovidingcaretotheuninsuredarecovered

viaseveralsources.Portionsofpropertytaxesgotowardindigenthealthcarebudgetsatthe

countylevel.Countiesreviewallindigenthealthcareclaimsandmakedeterminationsof

coverageincludingassessmentofindividuals’likelyabilitytorepaythebillswithinfive‐year

period.Inmanycases,claimantsmakepaymentsonthesebills(toreimbursethestate),but

loansareoftenforgivenafterseveralyearsofon‐timepayments.Onestate‐levelofficialwe

interviewedexplainedthedetailofhowindigentcostsarepaid:

“Forapprovedindigentcareclaims,countiesareresponsibleforuptothefirst$11,000ofeachclaim.Statewide,thetotalnumberofclaimscountiesusuallyreceiveatthislevelfluctuatesbutishigherforthecategoryunder$11,000thanforthose$11,000orgreater.TheStateCatastrophicHealthCareCostProgramcoversclaimexpensesover$11,000,ofwhichtherearenormallyabout1,000claims/year.Theapprovalrateforallclaimsisusuallyaround50%”.

Atthefederallevel,hospitalsmayalsosubmitclaimstotheU.S.DepartmentofHealthand

Welfareforexpensesincurredbyundocumentedindividualsreceivingcare.

InoneMagicValleycounty,apublicemployeeweinterviewedestimated20%ofclaims

originatedfromworkerswhodonothavelegaldocuments.Shecouldonlyestimatethis

number,becausesheisnotrequiredtocheckthedocumentsofpeoplewhomakeclaims.In

thissamecounty,theSocialServicesDepartmentreceived239claimsintheyearpreviousto

ourinterview.Thatdepartmenttrackstheamountoftheclaimandthediagnosis,aswellas

41

eachclaimant’sageandgender.Theinterviewee,whonotedthedairiesdonotgenerally

insuretheirworkers,said,“Wedon’tseealotofdairyworkers.Justafew”.

Trackingindigenthealthcarecostsatacounty‐levelinIdahoremainsdifficultbecauseofgaps

indatabasessubmittedbycountiestotheIdahoAssociationofCounties,whichisoursourcefor

thesedata.Table9brepresentstheaveragepercapitaindigentcareexpensesforselected

countiesfrom1999–2007.

Table9b.Average,minimum,andmaximumpercapitaindigentcareexpensesforselectedcountiesinIdaho"dairybelt"from1999–2007.

County Mean($) Minimum($) Maximum($)

Cassia 17.74 12.54 20.53Gooding 15.78 11.68 22.20Jerome 17.78 14.79 22.26Lincoln 27.21 20.97 35.21Minidoka 18.46 12.50 23.49TwinFalls 26.47 20.59 32.21

Othercountiesforcomparison:

BearLake 6.09 1.80 12.21Jefferson 8.59 5.55 12.25Madison 36.18 22.28 60.39Shoshone 31.56 23.50 36.72

Source:IdahoAssociationofCounties(2008)

Overall,thesedataindicatethatformostcounties,percapitamedicalexpensesfluctuateona

year‐to‐yearbasis.Moresignificantly,variabilityfromcountytocountysuggestslittleinthe

wayofapatternabouthigherexpensesinsouthcentralIdaho.Accordingtointerviewees,a

downturninindigentcarecostsinsomecountiesfrom2005–2007occurred,inpartstemming

fromlowerunemploymenttranslatingtomorepeoplewithhealthcareduringthatperiod.

Morerecently,somecountiesinsouthcentralIdahohavealsoexperiencedsignificantspikesin

42

indigentcarecosts(Hunzeker,2009).Assummarizedbyapublicemployeewhomwe

interviewed,indigentcareremainsadynamicandcriticalissueformanycountiesinIdaho:

Costspercountyseemtobeproportionaltopopulationsize.Ruralcountiesarenotadisproportionateshareofcosts.Whenitcomestohealthcare,dairyisnoworseorbetterthananyothermajoremployer.

Withrespecttothedairyindustry,identifyingforeign‐bornworkers’highestpriorityhealth

needscanbecomplicated.Remittancestofamiliesintheirhomecountry,forinstance,may

competewithworkers’interestinpayingforhealthinsurance,evenifaninsuranceprogram

weretobemadeavailable.Lackofinformationonthisissueunderscorestheneedforthedairy

industrytoknowitsworkersandtheirneeds.

Socialservices

InterviewsacrossthethreesouthernIdahoregionsalsoaddressedcommunity‐levelimpacts

relatedtosocialservicesforthegrowingHispanicpopulationanddairyworkforcethatoverlap.

Severalagenciesoffersocialservices,includingtheCommunityCouncilofIdaho(CCI),Migrant

andSeasonalHeadStart(MSHS)program,andCommunityActionPartnership(CAP).

CCI/MSHSparticipantsreceiveassistancewithchilddevelopment,literacytraining,mental

health&disabilityservices,nutritioneducation,infant/childhealth&dentalcare,family

development,andtransportation.TheeligibilitywithinMSHSrequires51%offamilyincome

duringthemonthsofservicetoderivefromagriculturalemployment,however,incomefrom

dairyjobsdoesnotcounttowardtheagriculturalincomequota.Thus,oftentimesdairy

workersandfamiliesmaynotbeeligiblefortheMSHSservices.

ToparticipateintheMSHSprograminIdahorequiresfamilieslivingatorbelow100%ofthe

povertylevel.Inaddition,asintervieweespointedout,after2‐3yearsworkingonthedairy

someworkersreceiveincomeatlevelsthatmakethemineligibleforMSHSeveniftheyarestill

workingpoorasnotedinSection6above.

43

AsanexampleofthestatewideMSHSprogram,thesouthcentralserviceareaserves571

familiesconstituting34%ofincomeandage‐eligiblechildren.Ofthesetotals,overhalfofthese

aretwo‐parenthouseholdsandapproximately28%ofthefamiliesareHispanic.Withintwo

citiesofthesouthcentralMSHSprogram,100%oftheparticipantscomefrommigrantfamilies,

andoverone‐thirdofthe311childrenonthewaitinglistliveintheMagicValley.Alsowithin

thesouthcentralMSHSprogram,17%offamilieshave“homesprovided”,whichinterviewees

explainediscanbeanindicatorofdairyworkersgivenmanydairiesmayrenton‐dairyhousing

foremployees.Ingeneral,MSHSenrollmenthasnotgoneupinrecentyearsbecauseof

stagnantfunding.AlthoughmostMSHSparticipantsareincome‐eligibleandinneedofsome

services,suchaschildcareassistance,veryfewactuallyapply(López,2009).

Usinga“holistic”approachtoconnectfamiliestoresources,CommunityActionPartnerships

alsoassistdairyworkers,asintervieweesexplained.Dairyworkerfamiliesmaybereferred

fromCAPstoCCIfortraining,dependingontheirneeds,buttheycanreceiveCAPemergency

assistanceformedicalcare.CAPassistancerequiresparticipants’socialsecuritynumbers.

IntervieweesfromCAPdocumentedthatonoccasiontheyfindduplicatenumbersandnotify

theSocialSecurityAdministration.RepresentativesofCAPalsoemphasizedthatworkers’

wageshavenotkeptpacewiththehighercostofliving.Thus,moreworkingfamilies–in

additiontothosewhoareunemployed–nowneedassistance.However,ofthepeoplewho

cometoCAPforassistancewithrentpayments,“notmanyaredairyworkers,”accordingtoCAP

programrepresentatives.

Insummary,interviewswithhealthprofessionalsinsouthernIdahodidnotindicate

disproportionateuseofhealthcareservicesbytheHispanicpopulationingeneraloremployees

knowntoworkinthedairyindustry.Weattemptedtolearnwhetherdairyworkersmightbe

responsibleforchangesintheindigenthealthcarecosts(partofwhichcountiesmustcover).

However,county‐leveldataonindigenthealthcarecostsarenotcompleteenoughtoindicate

whetherthisistrueornot.Whilethesecostsareincreasingonapercapitabasisinsome

southernIdahocounties,neitherourinterviewsnorthecounty‐leveldataindicatetheincrease

(whereitisoccurring)canbeattributedtodairyworkers.

44

10.Otherrelatedcommunityimpacts

Inadditiontothecorecommunitysystemsdescribedabove–economy,criminaljustice,

education,andhealthcare–ourdataalsohighlightedamiscellaneoussetoffactorswe

describeheregenericallyas“otherimpacts.”Inbrief,mostofthedatarelatetotworecurrent

themes–cultureandlanguage–oftendescribedinourinterviewsasmanifestationsofhow

communitiesadaptandchange.Althoughsomewhatindirect,theseimpactsalsohavea

relationshiptothegrowthofthesouthernIdahodairyindustry.

Culture,values,andidentity

Theintensityandnatureofthedairyworkers’schedulesoftenprecludesafullintegrationinto

localculturalactivities,eveniftheworkersarewillingtoparticipate.OneleaderintheHispanic

communityexplained,“Theycomeheretowork.Itleavesthemlittletimetobepartofthe

communityorsocialize.Theyworklotsofshiftswithnodaysoff.”Asabridgetothelackof

communityconnectionformanyworkers,boththeCatholicChurchandtheTheChurchofJesus

ChristofLatter‐daySaintsprovidereligioussupportandcommunityengagementopportunities.

Onechurchleadertoldus:

“Thisareahasalwayshadamigrantpopulation.NowtheHispaniccommunityhasbecomemorepermanentandithasamorelastingandpositiveeffectonthecommunityeventhoughsometimesit’smoresubtletothenon‐Hispanics.Thereislotsofworryamongthecongregationaboutlosingjobs,andtheamountofpeoplewe’reservingatthesoupkitchenhasincreasedtremendously.”

AsnotedrecentlyinthesouthcentralIdahonews(Hunzeker,2009),ourintervieweesreported

verylittleracialtensioninmostofsouthernIdaho,withtheexceptionofmoreurban‐based

conflictsinTreasureValley.StudyparticipantsoftenreferredtotheHispaniccommunityas

modelcommunitymemberswhoaimtocontributetothepublicgoodandintegratewiththe

wholeratherthanmaintainthemselvesinisolation.Oneexception,however,camefroman

intervieweethatnotedsomeofthelonger‐termresidentshavehadmoretroubleadjustingto

thecontemporarychanges:

45

“Itisverycontentioushere.Peoplesayamazingthingsinopenmeetings.Thereisalotofhostility.Long‐timeresidentsfeellikeLittleTijuanaisbeingforcedonthemandtheyhaveasensethattheirhometownisbeingtransformed.TheirperceptionisthattheHispanicsarecausingthetransformationthattheydon’tlike.”

Thus,somesouthernIdahocommunitieshaveexperiencedimpacts–bothpositiveand

negative–relatedtoshiftingdemograhics,economics,andculturalfacetsoflife.

Language

ArecentPewHispanicCenterreport(PasselandCohn,2009a)notesthatalthoughlanguage

barriersarebecominglessofanissueforthechildrenofimmigrantsthanfortheirparents,

sometimescommunicationsbarriersstillexistbetweenthesub‐groupswithinthecommunities.

Forinstance,asnotedabove,theemergingdemographicofmanydairyworkersasyoungsingle

menreinforcestheculturalisolationthatcanoccurwiththeeffectofmissedopportunitiesand

connections.Abusinessownerweinterviewedobserved,“Ifyoulivehere,lookaroundandsee

whospeaksEnglishandwhodoesn’t.Wholearnsitandwhodoesn’t?Ifyoujustworkinthe

dairy,youdon’tlearnEnglish.”

Related,asignificantoverlapexistswithissuesoflanguageandtheeducationalsystemimpacts

describedabove.Aschooldistrictsuperintendentweintervieweddescribedhowlanguageis

embeddedinthestruggleformanyfamiliesandpublicsystemsineverydaylife:

“Itisachallengeforus,astheschool,tomeetourrequirementswithsuchahighproportionofnon‐Englishspeakers.Manyparentsareilliterate,eveninSpanish.Somechoosenottohavecontactwiththeschoolswheretheirchildrenattendbecauseoftheirimmigrantstatus,butyettheyhaveastrongvalueplacedonlearningasameansfortheirchildrentodobetterthanthemselves.”

Asonewaytoillustratetheintersectionoflanguage,culture,andreligioninsouthernIdaho,

Figure10adisplaystheextentofCatholicParishenrollmentbylangugespokenatMass.

Clearly,anindicatorofthetrendsaboveistherealitythatanoverwhelmingmajorityofParish

enrollmentsinsouthcentralIdahoofferMassinbothEnglishandSpanish.

46

Figure10a.ParishenrollmentbylanguagespokenatMass,southcentralIdaho(1999–2007).

Source:DioceseofBoise(2008)

Insummary,lessdirectcommunity‐levelimpactsrelatedtothegrowthofthedairyindustry

havealsooccurredintheareasofculture,language,andidentity.Asthelocalcommunities

diversifyinpopulation,changestohowlocalpeopleperceivethecommunityalsocontinueto

evolve.

47

11.Conclusionsandrecommendations

Idaho’smodern,large‐scaledairyindustryispartofahighlycompetitiveagriculturalsystem

thatprovidesaffordablefoodtoglobalmarkets.Finalproductstravellongdistancesto

consumerswhopaylowprices.Producersweather–ordon’t–regularcyclesofprice

fluctuationsthataregreatlymitigatedbythetimetheyshowupingrocerystores.

Thevastmajorityofpeoplewhobuymilkknowlittleornothingaboutwhereitcomesfromor

howitsproductionimpactsworkersandcommunities.Evenamongresidentsofsouthern

Idaho,oursurveyresultsshow,almostseven‐in‐tenpeopleareunawareoronlysomewhat

awareoftheirstate’sgrowingandinfluentialdairyindustry.

And,yet,publicopinionmattersgreatlytothedairyfarmers.IfIdahoansperceivethatdairy

farmershireworkerswhoimposelargecostsonthestate’shealthcareorpublicschoolsystem,

forexample,theindustrycouldfaceabacklashasvoterstelltheirelectedofficialstotighten

restrictionsonhiringforeignbornworkersoronprovidingtheseworkerswithaccesstopublic

services.

OurgoalinconductingthisstudywastoinformadimensionofthepublicdebateaboutIdaho’s

dairyindustry,specifically,howtheindustryimpactslocalcommunities.Inthecourseof

interviewingschoolteachers,electedofficials,localleaders,healthspecialists,andothers,we

realizedthatthesecommunityimpactsrevolveprimarilyaroundthedairyworkers.Intheend,

howandtowhatextenttheindustryintersectswithcommunitysystemsmanifeststhroughthe

laborforce.Theimpactsdependonwhothoseworkersare,andthus,howmuchtheyarepaid,

wheretheyspendtheirwages,andhowtheyinteractwithschools,justicesystems,andhealth

careproviders.

Ourbestestimateisthatmostdairyfarmworkersareyoungadultmenwhoareforeign‐born.

VirtuallyallareHispanic.Somearesingleandothershavefamilies,butthetrendappearstobe

inthedirectionofmoresinglemen.Especiallywiththeeconomicdownturnin2008‐2009,

competitionfortheirjobshasintensified.Evenso,thelaborforceismobileandsome,ifnot

many,workersdonotstayintheirjobsforlongperiodsoftime.

48

Inhisnewbook,ImportingPoverty:ImmigrationandtheChangingFaceofRuralAmerica

(2009),economistPhilipMartinwritesaboutan“immigrationtreadmill”inruralAmerica.With

aparticularfocusonseasonalfarmwork,Martindescribesharshworkingconditionsandlow

ratesofpaythatdiscourageworkersfromholdingontotheirjobsforanylengthoftime.As

newimmigrantswithlittleeducationeventuallymanagetomoveuptheoccupationalladder

andoutofagriculture,otherscometofilltheirplaces.

ThoughMartin’sbookisaboutseasonalworkratherthanfull‐timeemploymentondairyfarms,

wefoundsimilaritieswithconditionsinsouthernIdaho.Thejobsaredemanding,thehours

long,andthepaythatdairyfarmerscanaffordonlyapproachesthelevelneededtosupportthe

middleclasslifestyletowhichmanyimmigrantsaspire.Coupletheseconditionswithconstant

fearofdeportation,andtheresultisalaborforcemadeupofpeoplewhomayfeelinhibitedto

fullyandactivelyparticipateinwhatmakesupacommunity.Assuch,thoseindividualsmay

feelmoreexcludedthanincludedbytheverycommunitysystemstowhichtheyaretryingto

contribute.Asonefarmerputit,“Alotofprogressoncommunityintegrationwillbestopped.

Wearecreatinganewpopulationofsingle,lonelyguyswhoarenotpartofthecommunity.

Theywillbringproblems.”

Sohowdoweasasocietyreconcilethebalancesheet?Clearly,thedairyindustryhaspositive

economicimpactsonlocalcommunities.Ithasbroughtjobsandpeopletotownsthat

otherwisewouldlikelybeindecline,asaremanyfarm‐dependentcommunitiesaroundthe

country.However,intheabsenceofanimmigrationpolicythatguaranteesastableandlegal

laborforce,theindustryalsoimposessomedegreeofcosts,mostnotablyonschoolsand

somewhatlesssoonhealthcareandjusticesystems.Moreover,community‐levelimpacts,

especiallyacrossavastregionlikesouthernIdaho–arenotequallydistributed.Benefitsmay

accruedisproportionatelyinsomecommunities,whileothercommunitiesexperience

disproportionatecosts.Wemakesenseofthisbyunderstandingacriticaldifferencebetween

society’sprivateandpublicsectors.ThecommunityofJeromeisamicrocosmofboth.The

faceofJerome’sdowntownchangedrapidlyinresponsetoagrowingHispanicpopulation,

drawninlargepartbythedairyindustry.Entrepreneurs“turnedonadime”tomakeaprofit.

49

Cardealerstailoredtheirinventoriesandfinanceoptions;videostoreschangedwhatmovies

theyrent;andadowntownstorebeganwiringmoneyhometoworkers’familiesinMexico.

Incontrast,publicagenciescannotrespondasquickly.Beforetheseentitiescancopewith

changingdemographicsbyhiringmorebi‐lingualteachersandcourttranslators,beforethey

canestablishmoreeffectivemeasurestomitigategang‐relatedactivities,theymustconvince

voterstopayhighertaxestocoverthecostsofeconomicgrowth.Benefitsaccruetoprivate

sectorbusinesses–includingtodairyfarmerswhentimesaregood–butitisthepublicsector

thatpaysaprice.Overall,wefoundthatcommunitiesarebetteroffeconomicallybecauseof

thedairyindustry,butcertainlytheystruggletoadjusttothechallengesofachangingand

growingpopulation.

Recommendations

Ourprimaryconclusionfromtheanalysisisthis:Intheabsenceofanimmigrationpolicy

ensuringstabilityandpredictabilitytoboththeindustryanditsworkers,manyworkerswill

remain“undertheradar”becausetheycannotaffordtoriskthereasontheyareintheUSto

beginwith—economicopportunity.Thisinsecuritydetersmanydairyworkersfrom

participatingfullyintheirchildren’sschoolsandinotheraspectsofcommunitylife.Italso

detersthemfromaccessingservicesforwhichtheyareeligibleandwhichhelpintegrate

newcomersintoacommunity.Totheextentthatpartoftheindustry’sworkforceremainsin

suchacompromisedposition,theindustrywillsufferfromongoingsocietalconflictrelatedto

workerstatusandcommunityimpacts,whetherrealorperceived.

(1)Advocateforastableandpredictableimmigrationpolicy.Thus,ourfirstrecommendation

isthatfederalandstatedecisionmakersshouldworktowardsanimmigrationpolicythat

providesstabilityandpredictabilityforworkersandthereforeforcommunities.Clearly,

achievingsuchapolicyisalong‐termobjectivethathasproventremendouslydifficultto

achieve,butitwillhavethegreatestpayofftoallconcerned.Thedairyindustry,alongwith

othersthatrelyonalargelyforeignbornworkforce,shouldbuildcoalitionswithimmigrant‐

rightsorganizationstoadvocateforsuchapolicyreform.Communitiesinwhichdairyworkers

50

livewillbenefitifthoseworkersaresecureenoughtoparticipatefullyincommunitylife.In

turn,dairyfarmerswillbenefitfromaccesstoworkerswhohaveastakeintheircommunity

andarethereforemorelikelytostayinoneplacelonger.

(2)Learnwhothedairyworkersare.Second,andmoreappropriatelyinthepurviewofthe

Idahodairyindustryitselfwerecommendtheindustrysupportascientificstudytolearnwho

theirworkersare,wheretheylive,andwhattheirneedsare.Asnotedearlierinthisreport,we

developedourdescriptionofworkersbasedonqualitativeinterviewsandavarietyof

secondarydatasources.Farmoreaccurateandusefuliftheindustrywantstomitigate

problemswouldbeasamplesurveyofworkersconductedbynativeSpanishspeakersin“safe”

places,mostlikelyinchurchesandpossiblyworkplaces.Onecommunityleaderwe

interviewedsuggestedthatLatinostudentsfromtheCollegeofSouthernIdahocouldconduct

interviews,undertheauspicesofchurchleadersand,insomecases,employers.Abusiness

ownersuggestedconductingasurveywiththehelpofSpanishlanguageradiostations.

Accurateanddetailedinformationaboutworkercharacteristicswouldinformschool

administrators,healthcareproviders,andothersinvolvedinservingforeign‐bornworkersand

theirfamilies,nottomentionthosewhoemploydairyworkers.Suchasurveywouldalso

informeffortstolocateandcountdairyworkersintheupcoming2010census.Anaccurate

censusofallresidentsinthedairyregionwillbenefitboththepublicsector(sothatitcan

betterservethepopulation)andtheprivatesector(soitunderstandsitspotentialmarket).

(3)Developprogramstosupporteconomicprosperityoftheworkforce.Third,thedairy

industryshouldadvocateforprogramsandpoliciesthatbuildeconomicprosperityintheir

workforce.ThelowesthangingfruitistoencouragedairyworkerstoclaimthefederalEarned

IncomeTaxCredit(EITC).TheEITCencouragesworkbyprovidingacredittooffsettaxesfor

low‐incomeworkingfamilies,withthehighestbenefitsgoingtothosewithincomebelowthe

povertylevel(about$22,000forafamilyoffourin2008).In2008,thefederalEITCreturned

$3.3milliontotaxpayersinJeromeCountyalone.IncreaseduseofthefederalEITC,orthe

implementationofastateEITC,wouldhelpreducechildpovertyratesinthemostdairy

dependentcounties,wherechildpovertyishigherthaninthestateasawhole.

51

Theindustryshouldworkwithothers(suchasCommunityActionPartnershipagencies)to

increase“take‐up”ofthefederalEITC.Nationwide,some15‐25%ofeligibletaxpayersdonot

claimthecredit.LocalcampaignstoincreaseparticipationinEITCtypicallytaketheformof

targetedandsimplecommunicationsfromtrustedsourcesinthecommunity,forexample,

faith‐basedorganizationsandschools.Theyaredesignedtoincreaseawarenessofwhatthe

EITCisandmakesurepeoplelearnwhethertheyqualifyornot.

Anotherpossiblestrategyforbuildingeconomicprosperityamongdairyworkersisforthe

industrytoofferhealthinsurance.Whileweheardmultipletimesthatdairyworkersarevery

unlikelytohaveinsurance,wealsoheardthatgivenachoice,manywouldratherhavehigher

wages(tosendhometotheirfamilies)thanhealthinsurance.Astudysuchastheonewe

recommendaboveaboutunderstandingtheworkforcecouldaddressthisissuemorereliably,

sothatwhenmarketsimprove,theindustrywouldhavetheinformationitneedstodevelopan

insuranceprogramofvaluetoitsworkers.

(4)Sponsorapublicforumseriesoncommunity‐levelimpacts.Fourth,sponsorapublicforum

seriesthatwouldprovideavenueforcommunitywidediscussionsaboutimmigrationissues

andcommunity‐levelimpacts.Thesechallengingissuescannotbebrushedasideorignoredif

theindustryistomitigateimpactsrelatedtoitsworkforce.Allpeoplehavefundamental

humanrightsascommunitymembers,yetaccesstoservicesisnotequaloralwaysclearto

newcomers.Mostimportant,asanybusinessownerwouldknowandsupport,workerswho

enjoygoodhealthandfeelacceptedandsecurearelikelytobemoreproductivethanthose

whodonot.Publicforumscanfacilitateeducationandcommunicationtoaddressconflictover

community‐levelimpactsassociatedwiththedairyindustry.

(5)Hireacommunityoutreachliaisontoimplementrecommendations.Finally,thedairy

industryandtheUniversityofIdahoshouldworkaspartnerstoestablishandjointlyfunda

new,full‐timeposition,tobefilledbyanativeSpanishspeaker.Theroleofthispersonwould

betoserveasacommunityandlaboroutreachliaison,throughtheimplementationof

recommendationsofferedhere.Sheorhewouldberesponsibleforbuildinggoodrelationships

betweentheindustryandpublicsectoragencies,especiallythosethatcomeincontactwith

52

Hispanicdairyworkersandtheirfamilies.Sheorhecouldcommunicateregularlywithschool

administrators,healthcareproviders,andlawenforcementofficers,thusbridgingtheindustry

andcommunitiesinwhichitsworkerslive.Suchanoutreachliaisonwouldhelptheindustrybe

moreawareofhowitisperceivedlocallyandhowitcanmitigateproblemsforwhichitmaybe

responsible.ItwouldalsoprovideanewopportunityfortheUniversityofIdahotofulfillits

landgrantmissionofhelpingthestateaddresscriticaleconomicandsocialissuesthrough

outreachandengagement.

Likeothersinthestate,Idaho’sdairyindustryisexperiencingaprecipitousdeclineinprofits.

Lowmilkpricesandhighinputpricesareunlikelytobereversedforatleastanotheryear.In

thiseconomy,werecognizetheindustrywillbehardpressedtolaunchnewinitiativessuchas

thosewerecommendhere.Nevertheless,ifitisseriousaboutmitigatingitsnegativeimpacts,

itmusttackletheproblems–thelocalimpactsofaninsecurelaborforce,alackofinformation

aboutitsworkers,theconsequencesofsometimesintermittentworkandlowwages,anda

publicsectorstrugglingtocopewithrapidchange.

53

12.References

Balluz,L.S.,C.A.Okoro,andT.W.Strine.2004.AccesstoHealth‐CareandPreventiveServicesAmongHispanicsandNon‐Hispanics–UnitedStates,2001‐2002.JournaloftheAmericanMedicalAssociation292(19).Accessed19May2009at:http://jama.ama‐assn.org/cgi/content/full/292/19/2331

Blumberg,S.J.andJ.V.Luke.2007.Coveragebiasintraditionaltelephonesurveysoflow‐incomeandyoungadults.PublicOpinionQuarterly.71:734‐749.

Blumberg,S.J.,J.V.Luke,G.Davidson,M.E.Davern,T.Yu,andK.Soderberg.2009.Wirelesssubstitution:State‐levelestimatesfromtheNationalHealthInterviewSurvey,January‐December2007.U.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices,CentersforDiseaseControlandPrevention,NationalCenterforHealthStatisticsReport.Number14.March11,2009.

Clarren,R.2009.Thedarksideofthedairies.HighCountryNewsAccessed21August2009at:http://www.hcn.org/issues/41.15/the‐dark‐side‐of‐the‐dairies

DioceseofBoise.2008.CatholicChurchEnrollments.Boise,ID.

Eborn,B.,C.W.Gray,P.Patterson,andG.Taylor.2003.TheFinancialConditionofIdahoAgriculture:2003Projections.UniversityofIdaho,CollegeofAgriculturalandLifeSciences,Moscow,ID.

Eborn,B.,P.Patterson,andG.Taylor.2008.TheFinancialConditionofIdahoAgriculture:2008

Projections.AnnualFinancialConditionReportNo.6.UniversityofIdahoExtension,Moscow,ID.

Feldmeyer,B.2009.Immigrationandviolence:Theoffsettingeffectsofimmigrantconcentrationon

Latinoviolence.SocialScienceResearch38:717‐731.

GovernmentAccountingOffice.2005.BetterCoordinationAmongFederalAgenciesCouldReduceUnidentifiedEarningsReports.GAO‐05‐154.Washington,D.C.February.

Holley,D.andJ.Church.2006.TheEconomicandFiscalImpactsoftheDairyFarmingandDairyProductManufacturingIndustriesinSouthCentralIdaho.BoiseStateUniversity,CollegeofBusiness&

Economics,Boise,Idaho.

Holley,D.andJ.Church.Forthcomingin2009TheEconomicandFiscalImpactsoftheIdahoDairyFarmingandDairyProductManufacturingIndustries2008.BoiseStateUniversity,Collegeof

Business&Economics,Boise,Idaho.

Hunzeker,D.2009.GrowthofLatinopopulationchangingmanyaspectsoflifeinsouthernIdaho.TimesNews.Accessed20July2009at:http://www.magicvalley.com/articles/2009/07/19/news/top_story/166638.txt

IdahoAssociationofCounties.2008.IndigenthealthcareexpensesbyCounty.Boise,ID.

IdahoDepartmentofCorrections.2008.IdahoFelonyConvictionsbyCountyandEthnicity.IdahoDepartmentofCorrections,Boise,ID.

IdahoDepartmentofHealthandWelfare.2008.IdahoBehavioralRiskFactors:ResultsFromthe2007BehavioralRiskFactorSurveillanceSystem.DivisionofHealth,BureauofVitalRecordsandHealthStatistics,Boise,ID.

54

IdahoDepartmentofLabor.2009a.EmployerQuarterlyReports.IDDepartmentofLabor,Boise,ID.

IdahoDepartmentofLabor.2009b.JeromeCountyWorkForceTrends.Accessedat:

http://labor.idaho.gov/lmi/pubs/JeromeProfile.pdf,August,retrieved8.19.09.

IdahoDepartmentofLabor.2009c.GoodingCountyWorkForceTrends.Accessedat:http://labor.idaho.gov/lmi/pubs/GoodingProfile.pdf,August,retrieved8.19.09.

IdahoStateBoardofEducation.2008.AdequateYearlyProgress,2008FinalAYPbySchool,District,andState:DisaggregatedbySubgroup.Accessedat:http://www.boardofed.idaho.gov/saa/ayp.asp

IdahoStateCode.2009.IdahoStateCode18‐111.Accessedat:http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title18/T18CH1SECT18‐111.htm,retrieved10.7.09.

Johnson,K.M.andD.T.Lichter.2008.PopulationGrowthinNewHispanicDestinations.TheCarseyInstitute,PolicyBrief8(Fall).

López,E.2009.MigrantandSeasonalHeadStartCommunityAssessment.CommunityCouncilofIdaho,Caldwell,ID.

Lotterman,E.2009.Lowpricesmeantoughtimesfordairyfarmers.IdahoStatesman,pg.B7.July27.

MacDonald,J.M.,E.J.O’Donoghue,W.D.McBride,R.F.Nehring,C.L.Sandretto,andR.Mosheim.2007.Profits,Costs,andtheChangingStructureofDairyFarming.EconomicResearchReportERR‐47(September):41pp.

Martin,P.2009.ImportingPoverty:ImmigrationandtheChangingFaceofRuralAmerica.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.

McGee,J.2007.AddressImmigrationProblemsatStateLevel.Accessed23May2009at:http://idahoptv.org/idreports/showEditorial.cfm?StoryID=26602

Miles,M.B.andA.M.Huberman.1994.Anexpandedsourcebook,qualitativedataanalysis.2nded.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.

Mohanty,S.A.,S.Woolhander,D.U.Himmelstein,S.Pati,O.Carrasquillo,andD.H.Bor.2005.HealthCareExpendituresofImmigrantsintheUnitedStates:ANationallyRepresentativeAnalysis.”AmericanJournalofPublicHealth95(8):1431‐1438.

NorthwestAreaFoundation.2009.Indicatorswebsite.UniversityofIdaho,Moscow,ID.Accessedat:http://www.indicators.nwaf.org/

Passel,J.S.andD.Cohn.2009a.APortraitofUnauthorizedImmigrantsintheUnitedStates.PewHispanicCenter,Washington,D.C.

Passel,J.S.andD.Cohn.2009b.MexicanImmigrants:HowManyCome?HowManyLeave?PewHispanicCenter,Washington,D.C.

Stowell,J.I.andR.Martinez,Jr.2007.Displaced,dispossessed,orlawless?Examiningthelinkbetweenethnicity,immigration,andviolence.AggressionandViolentBehavior12:564‐581.

U.S.BureauofEconomicAnalysis.2009.RegionalEconomicInformationSystem.Accessed22Juneat:http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis

U.S.CensusBureau.1997–1999.PopulationEstimatesProgram,1990sArchives.Accessedat:http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/

55

U.S.CensusBureau.1998‐2007.CountyBusinessPatterns.Accessedat:http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/index.html

U.S.CensusBureau.2000.2000DecennialCensus.Accessedat:http://factfinder.census.gov/

U.S.CensusBureau.2001‐2007.PopulationEstimatesProgram.Accessedat:http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/

U.S.CensusBureau.2005‐2007.2005‐2007AmericanCommunitySurvey3‐YearEstimates.Accessedat:http://factfinder.census.gov/

U.S.CensusBureau.2008.PopulationEstimatesProgram.Accessedat:http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/asrh/

U.S.CensusBureau.2008.SmallAreaHealthInsuranceEstimates.Accessed18July2009at:http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/sahie/index.html

U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture.2009a.EconomicResearchService.BriefingRoom:Dairy.Accessedat:http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Dairy/Background.htm,updatedMarch19.

U.S.DepartmentofAgriculture.2009b.NationalAgriculturalStatisticsService.CensusofAgriculture.Accessedat:http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/

U.S.DepartmentofEducation.2000‐01to2006‐07.NationalCenterforEducationStatistics,CommonCoreofData.Accessedat:http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/

Vazquez,S.P.2004.Drugarrestsandviolentcrimetrends.IdahoStatePolice,Planning,Grants,andResearch,StatisticalAnalysisCenter.Accessed27July2009at:www.isp.state.id/us/prg/Research/sac.html

Walsh,J.H.2008.HealthcareCostsforIllegalsareStaggering.Accessed18July2009at:http://www.newsmax.com/us/healthcare_illegals/2008/04/21/89656.html

Wing,J.2008.Drugandalcoholrelatedoffensesandarrests:2003‐2007.IdahoStatePolice,Planning,Grants,andResearch,StatisticalAnalysisCenter.Accessed15July2009at:www.isp.state.id.us/pgr/research/sac.html

56

A-1

APPENDICES

Community‐levelImpactsofIdaho’sChangingDairyIndustry

PriscillaSalant,J.D.Wulfhorst,andStephanieKane,withChristineDearien

October2009

A-2

APPENDIXA–HumanAssurancesApprovalMemo

A-3

APPENDIXB–Interviewguideforkeyinformants

QuestionsforSemi‐StructuredInterviewsofCommunityStakeholdersin

Community‐levelImpactsoftheDairyIndustryinSouthernIdaho

Schooladministratorsandday‐careoperatorswillbeaskedquestionssuchas:1.Howhaveenrollmentnumberschangedinthelastfiveyears?Howmuchofthischangedoyouattributetothegrowthofthedairyindustry?Priortothegrowthofthedairyindustryinyourarea,whatwasthegeneralpatternofschoolenrollment?

2.Haveyouchangedyourstaffingnumbersinthelastfiveyears(increasedordecreasedthenumberofteachers)?Byhowmuch?

3.Havethedemographicsofthestudentbodychangedinthelastfiveyears?Howso?

4.Areschoolbudgetsincreasing,decreasing,orremainingthesame?Whataretheprimarysourcesofschoolfundinginyourcommunity(bonds,thestate,otherlocaltaxes,etc.)?

5.Whataretheneedsforschoolsinyourarea,astheyrelatetochangesinschoolenrollmentorstudentbodydemographics?

6.Doyouperceiveandother/additionalimpactsofthedairyindustryonschoolsinyourcommunity?Socialserviceadministrators(includinglawenforcementofficers,judges,andsocialserviceproviders)andlocalgovernmentofficialswillbeaskedquestionssuchas:1.Whatchangesinpopulationsizeordemographiccharacteristicshaveyouwitnessedinthelastfiveyears?Howmuchofthischangedoyouattributetothegrowthofthedairyindustryinyourarea?

2.Howhavetheneedsofthecommunitychangedinthepastfiveyears?Tenyears?Towhatextentdoyouattributethesechangingneedstothegrowthofthedairyindustryinyourarea?Whatchangeshaveyouhadtomadeinresponsetothesecommunity‐levelchangesyousee(e.g.,intermsoffundingallocation,staffing,orotherresources).

3.Hasthetaxbaseforyourcommunityincreased,decreased,orremainedthesameinthepastfiveyears?Havenewbusinessesmovedintoyourcommunityinthepastfiveyears?Whatkindsofbusinesses?Whatadditionalbusinesseswouldyouliketosee?

4.Whatadditionalneedsorinformationdoyouneedtohelpadjusttogrowthinyourcommunity?Whichareas(housing,education,publicsafety,socialservices,etc.)arecurrentlybeingmetadequatelyinyourcommunity?Whichareasarecurrentlyunder‐served?Whatwouldhelpyoumeetyourgoalsinaddressingtheneedsinyourcommunity?

A-4

Localelectedofficials,businessleaders,andrealestateagentswillbeaskedquestionssuchas:

1.Whatchangesinyourcustomer/clientnumbersordemographicshaveyouwitnessedinthelastfiveyears?Howmuchofthischangedoyouattributetothegrowthofthedairyindustryinyourarea?Arethesechangesrelatedtogrowthinthedairyindustrymoredirectorindirectimpactstothecommunityarea?

2.Havenewbusinessesmovedintoyourcommunityinthepastfiveyears?Whatkindsofbusinesses?

3.Howdoyoufeelyourbusinesshasbeenaffected(eitherforbetterorworse)bythegrowthofthedairyindustryinyourarea?Doyoufeelthatthedairyindustryhasincreasedoveralleconomicandcommercialgrowthinyourcommunity?

4.Whatistheaveragetenureofbusinessesinyourarea?Isthisincreasing,decreasing,orthesameoverthelastfiveyears?

Dairyfarmerswillbeaskedquestionssuchas:1. Howlonghasthisdairybeeninyourfamily?

2. Howmanycowsdoyouhaveonthedairy?

3. Doyouthinkyourdairywillgrow,getsmaller,orstaythesameinthefuture,say,inthenextfiveyearsorso?

4. Doyouhavepeopleworkingforyouonyourdairyfarm?Ifyes….

a. Howmany?b. Howlonghavetheyworkedforyou?c. IntheMagicValley,manywhoworkondairyfarmstendtobeHispanic.Isthat

thecaseinthisregion?d. Whatarethechallengestofindingandkeepinggoodworkersonthedairyfarm?

5. Doyouhaveanyissueswithyourfarmbecauseofwhereit’slocatedrelativetowhereyourneighborslive?

a. Ifyes,whattypesofchallengesdoyouface?(e.g.,complaintsaboutodor,manureontheroads,pressurefromresidentialdevelopment)

A-5

APPENDIXC–Discussionofsurveysampling,design,representativeness,andanalysis

Weusedthefollowingformulatocalculatethenumberofsurveysnecessary,wherenisthe

totaltargetedsamplesize,Niisthepopulationsizeofeachstrata(numberofknowndairiesin

eachregion),wiistheweightingvalueforeachdistrict(proportionaltosize),piandqiareequal

to0.5,andBmarginoferror(0.03),Equation1.

(1)

Toincreasethetelephonesurveyresponserate,apre‐callingpostcard(AppendixD)wassentto

allpotentialrespondentspriortothetelephonecalls.Thepostcardsweresentinthree

randomlyselectedwaves,withhouseholdsfromallregionsincludedineachwave.The

postcardstatedthepurposeofthesurveyandlettherespondentsknowwewouldbecalling

duringthefollowingweek.Italsoprovidedatoll‐freenumbertocalltheSSRUiftheyhadany

questionsconcerningthesurvey,wishedtoscheduleanappointment,oroptoutofthestudy.

Thefirstwaveof1,100postcardswassenton25September2008.Thesubsequenttwowaves

(eachof1,100postcards)weresentouton7Octoberand21October2008.

Telephoneinterviewsbeganon30September2008andcontinuedthrough19December2008,

exceptduringtheThanksgivingholiday(24‐28November2008).Interviewersmadecallseach

weekinthemornings,afternoons,evenings,andontwoweekends,inanattempttoreachas

manypotentialrespondentsforthisprojectaspossible.SSRUinterviewersalltakeafourhour

trainingingeneraltelephonesurveymethods,includingtheuseoftheComputerAssisted

TelephoneInterviewing(CATI)technology.Inaddition,eachinterviewermusttakeatwohour

NationalInstitutesofHealthweb‐basedtrainingcourseinconfidentialitypractices,andatwo

hourtrainingspecifictoeachsurveytheyworkon.TheSSRUemployedtwoSpanishlanguage‐

speakinginterviewers.

A-6

Atotalof1,340respondentscompletedthesurvey,including49interviewsconductedin

Spanish.Oftheremainder,273wereineligiblebecausetheyhadonlyrecentlymovedtoIdaho

orwereintheprocessofmoving,haddied,wereontheIDABoard,weretooilltocompletethe

survey,ordidnotspeakEnglishorSpanish.Three‐hundredfourteen(314)numberswere

disconnected.Anynumberthatwasfoundtobedisconnectedwascheckedoninternet

directoryassistancefornewlistings,whennewlistingswerefoundtheywerecalled.Atotalof

655potentialrespondentshouseholdswerenotreachedafterrepeatedattempts(8times)

withintheallottedtimeframeand718householdsdeclinedtoparticipateinthestudy.The

finalresponserateforallregionswas49%.Inthesouthcentralregion,thefinalresponserate

was46%.Theresponseratewas51%and53%inthesouthwestandsoutheastregions,

respectively(Table4c).

DatawereanalyzedusingSPSS1andSAS2.Becauseofthestratifiedsampledesign,respondents

ineachofthedifferentgeographicregionshadknownbutunequalprobabilitiesofinclusionin

thesample(althoughwithinageographicregion,everyrespondenthadthesameprobabilityof

inclusion).Weaccountfortheunequalprobabilityofselectioninourstatisticalanalysis

throughweighting.Resultspresentedarepercentagesbasedontheweightedfrequencies.

Weightedfrequencies,percents,and95%confidenceintervalsarepresentedforestimatesof

qualitativevariables;frequencies,means,andmediansarepresentedforquantitativevariables.

Chi‐squareanalyses(cross‐tabulations)areusedinthisreporttoassessifarelationshipexists

betweentwocategoricalvariables.Forexample,onemaywanttoassessifarelationshipexists

betweenlevelofeducationandawarenessofthedairyindustry.Ifnorelationshipbetween

thetwovariablesexists(thenullhypothesis),onewouldexpectthatrespondentsfromall

educationbracketsareequallyaware(orunaware)ofthedairyindustry.Ifarelationship

betweenthetwovariablesdoesexist(thealternativehypothesis),thenindividualsfrom

differenteducationallevelsdifferintheirawarenessofthedairyindustry.ThePearsonChi‐

squarestatisticmeasuresthedegreeofdifferencebetweenthefrequenciesthatonewould

1 SPSS, Version 16.0. 2008. SPSS, Inc. 2 SAS, Version 9.1. 2006. SAS Institute, Inc. Cary, N.C.

A-7

expectunderthenullhypothesis(noassociation)versesthefrequenciesthatwereactually

observed.Aprobabilityscore(p‐value)isthenusedtoassesstheprobabilitythatthose

observedfrequenciescouldoccurbychanceifthenullhypothesis(noassociation)wastrue.

Verysmallprobabilities(p<0.05)meanthatitisunlikelythatthefrequenciesobservedwould

haveoccurredbychance,andsoitismorelikelythatarealrelationshipexistsbetweenthetwo

variables.Inthisexample,ap‐value<0.05wouldindicatethatindividualsfromoneormore

educationbracketsaremorelikelytobeawareofthedairyindustrythanindividualsfromone

ormoredifferenteducationbrackets.

ComparisontoCensusdata

Tolearnhowsimilarlythesamplecouldbesaidtorepresentthepopulationasawhole,we

comparedtheagedistributionofadults(18andolder)ofthesurveyrespondentstothatofall

individualsages18andolderinthestateofIdaho,asestimatedbytheU.S.CensusBureau

basedonits2005‐2007AmericanCommunitySurvey(ACS)(TableC‐1).3

TableC‐1:Comparisonofsurveyrespondentsto2005‐2007AmericanCommunitySurveyestimates.

AgeCategory Census Sample95%Confidence

Limits18–24yearsold 13.8% 1.6% 1.6%‐2.3%

25–34yearsold 18.9% 10.0% 8.3%‐11.8%

35–44yearsold 18.1% 15.9% 13.8%‐18.1%

45–54yearsold 19.0% 22.2% 19.7%‐24.7%

55–64yearsold 14.3% 22.6% 20.1%‐25.1%

65–74yearsold 8.4% 14.8% 12.7%‐17.0%

75–84yearsold 5.4% 10.0% 8.2%‐11.8%

Over85yearsold 2.2% 2.8% 1.8%‐3.9% SOURCE:TabulationsbyUniversityofIdahoSocialScienceResearchUnit

3 U.S. Census Bureau. (2005-2007). Note, SSRU’s general public survey included only residents of southern Idaho while the Census Bureau estimates for the entire state.

A-8

WhentheCensusfiguresarecomparedtothe95%confidenceintervalsofthesample

estimates,itisclearthatthoseintheyoungeragebrackets(lessthan34years)were

underrepresentedrelativetotheirproportioninthepopulation,andthoseintheolderage

brackets(over45)wereoverrepresentedrelativetotheirproportioninthepopulationofIdaho

residents.

WealsocomparedthedistributionofeducationallevelofthesampletoCensusBureau

estimatesofeducationallevelofIdahoresidents4(recentdataforresidentsofsouthernIdaho

onlyisnotcurrentlyavailable)(TableC‐2).Inthiscomparison,weonlyusedcategorieswhich

exactlymatchCensusBureaucategories.Thiscomparisonrevealsthatonaverage,thesurvey

respondentstendtobemorehighlyeducatedthanthegeneralpopulationofIdahoresidents.

Weexpectthatthedifferencesbetweenoursampleofrespondentsandthegeneralpopulation

stembothfromcoverageerror(theframeusedtodrawthesamplewaslandlinetelephone

numbers)andnon‐responseerror(individualswhowereinthesamplebutdidwerenotableto

becontactedforthesurvey).Recentestimatesputthepercentageofwireless‐onlyhouseholds

TableC‐2:Comparisonofeducationalattainmentofsurveyrespondentsto2005‐2007AmericanCommunitySurveyestimates.

Education Census[a] Sample95%Confidence

LimitsNohighschooldiploma 13.0% 5.3% 4.0%‐6.5%

Highschoolgraduate/GED 29.9% 22.1% 19.7%‐24.6%

Bachelor’sdegree 16.3% 24.5% 21.9%‐27.1%

Graduateorprofessionaldegree 7.3% 10.4% 8.5%‐12.2% SOURCE:TabulationsbyUniversityofIdahoSocialScienceResearchUnit[a]Referstotheproportionofthepopulationofadultsage25andolder.

4 U.S. Census Bureau. (2005-2007)

A-9

inIdahotobe23.2%5.Studieshaveindicatedwirelessphoneonlyhouseholdstendtobe

younger(18‐29)6.Inaddition,youngerindividualstendtobemoredifficulttoreach,dueto

workandfamilycommitments.

Discussionofpotentialnon‐responsebias

Becausewedetectedsomedifferencesbetweensurveyrespondentsandthegeneral

population,wewishedtotestwhetherifthenon‐responsemayhaveimpactedorbiasedthe

surveyresponses(i.e.non‐responsebias).Todoso,weranaChi‐squareanalysisbetweentwo

demographicvariables(ageandeducation)andakeysurveyquestion.Wetestedthe

hypothesesthatrespondentsofdifferentagesoreducationalattainmenthaddifferentopinions

aboutwhetherornottheyperceivedthatIdaho’sdairyindustrybringsmorenetbenefitstothe

state,morenetcosts,orequalamountsofcostsandbenefits.Wefoundnosignificant

statisticalrelationshipbetweentheageofasurveyrespondentandtheiropinionaboutthe

relativecostsandbenefitsofIdaho’sdairyindustry(Chi‐square=32.36,d.f.=18,p=0.0931;

seeFigureC‐1),nordidwefindasignificantstatisticalrelationshipbetweentheeducational

attainmentofasurveyrespondentandtheiropiniononthisissue(Chi‐square=17.89,d.f.=12,

p=0.2760;seeFigureC‐2).Thus,whilethesurveyrespondentsarenotentirelyrepresentative

ofthepopulation,thesedifferencesdonotappeartosignificantlyimpactsurveyresults.In

otherwords,whilethissurveyhassomenon‐responseorcoverageerror,itdoesnotappearto

causebiasinthesurveyresults.

5 Blumberg et al. (2009)/ 6 Blumberg and Luke (2007).

A-10

FigureC‐1:PerceptionofthecostsandbenefitsofIdaho’sdairyindustry,byageofrespondent

Source:UniversityofIdahoSocialScienceResearchUnitsurveydata.FigureC‐2:PerceptionofthecostsandbenefitsofIdaho’sdairyindustry,byeducationalattainmentofrespondent

Source:UniversityofIdahoSocialScienceResearchUnitsurveydata

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

Morebenefits Morecosts Equal

Percen

tageofR

espo

nden

ts

18‐24 25‐34 35‐44 45‐54 55‐64 65‐74 Over74

A-11

APPENDIXD–SurveyPre‐postcard

DairyIndustryinSouthernIdaho September2008ThismonththeUniversityofIdaho’sSocialScienceResearchUnitwillbecallingyoutoparticipateinatelephonesurveyaboutcommunitylevelimpactsofthedairyindustryinSouthernIdaho.Weareinterestedinhearingpublicperceptionsaboutyourcommunityandthedairyindustrywithinyourcommunity.Theresultsofthisstudywillbeusedtohelpbuildbridgesbetweencommunitiesandthedairyindustry.Wearewritinginadvanceofourtelephonecallto letyouknowthatthisstudyisbeingdoneandthatyouhavebeenrandomlyselectedtobecalled.The interview should take about 10minutes. If we call when you are busy, please tell theinterviewerandtheywillscheduletocallbackanothertime.IfyouhaveanyquestionsaboutthesurveypleasecalltheSocialScienceResearchUnit(SSRU)atourtoll‐freenumber1‐877‐542‐3019.Sincerely,J.D.WulfhorstDirector,SocialScienceResearchUnit

A-12

APPENDIXE

WHATTHERESPONDENTMIGHTLIKETOKNOWDairyIndustryinSouthernIdaho

Whoissponsoringthesurvey?

IdahoDairymen’sAssociation

Whatisthepurposeofthestudy?ThepurposeofthestudyistolearnabouttheimpactsofthegrowthofthedairyindustryinSouthernIdaho.Whoisthepersonresponsibleforthesurvey?J.D.Wulfhorst,ProfessorattheUniversityofIdahoandPrincipalInvestigatorforthisprojectWhoareyou/Whoisconductingtheinterview?Iama(student)Nameworkingpart‐timefortheSocialScienceResearchUnitattheUniversityofIdaho.Howdidyougetmyname?YourhouseholdwasrandomlyselectedfromamongSouthernIdahohouseholdsinasamplepurchasedthroughSurveySamplingInc.ofConnecticut.HowcanIbesurethisisauthentic?Iwouldbegladtogiveyouthetollfree‐telephonenumberoftheSocialScienceResearchUnitattheUniversityofIdahoinMoscow.YouarewelcometocallmysupervisorBarbaraFoltzat(877)542‐3019.Ourofficehoursare8:00‐5:00MondaythroughFriday.Isthisconfidential?Yes,mostdefinitely.Theresponsesarecombinedonacomputerwithoutnames,addresses,oranymeansofidentification.AlloftheinformationwegetfromyouwillbeusedtolearnaboutthegeneralviewsofIdahoresidents.CanIgetacopyoftheresults?Theinformationwillbeavailableinareportafterallthedataanalysishadbeencompleted.Howwilltheresultsofthissurveybeused?Theresultsofthisstudywillbeusedtohelpthedairyindustryworkwithinlocalcommunitiestostrengthenthepositiveimpactsoftheindustry,mitigatingthenegativeimpactswhilebuildingbridgesbetweencommunitiesandthedairyindustry.

A-13

APPENDIXF

CommunityLevelImpactsoftheDairyIndustryinSouthernIdaho

FinalSurveyInstrumentHello,isthisthe___________________________household?

Mynameis______________________andI’mcallingfromtheSocialScienceResearchUnitattheUniversityofIdaho.WeareconductingastudyonbehalfofUIresearchersregardingthedairyindustryinsouthernIdaho.TheresultsofthisstudywillbeusedtohelpbuildbridgesbetweenthedairyindustryandcommunitiesinIdaho.Iwouldliketospeaktoanadultinthehouseholdover18yearsofagewhohashadthemostrecentbirthday.Wouldthishappentobeyou?Wesentyouapostcardlastweektonotifyyouaboutthestudy.Didyoureceivethepostcard?Ifyes—Isthisagoodtimeforasurvey?Ifno—Thepostcardcontainedabriefexplanationofthestudyandletyouknowwewouldbecalling.Wouldyoulikemetoreadittoyou?Ifcontinue—Thisinterviewisvoluntary.IfIcometoanyquestionyouwouldprefernottoanswerjustletmeknowandI'llskipoverit,oryoumaydiscontinuethesurveyatanypoint.I'dliketoassureyouthatyourresponseswillbekeptconfidentialandtheresultswillonlybereportedinaggregatewithnoidentifyinginformation.ThissurveyhasbeenapprovedbytheHumanAssurancesCommitteeattheUniversityofIdaho.

A-14

I’dliketobeginbyaskingsomegeneralquestionsaboutyourcommunity.

1. Thinkingaboutyouroverallcommunityandqualityoflife,wouldyourateyourcommunitysatisfactionas…a. Highlydissatisfiedb. Somewhatdissatisfiedc. Neitherd. Somwhatsatisfiede. Highlysatisfiedf. (Don’tknow)g. (Refused)Forthenextfewquestions,we’regoingtoaskyoutorankthequalityofdifferentaspectsofyourcommunity.

2. Pleaseranktheoverallqualityofschoolsinyourcommunity.Wouldyousaytheyarea. Verypoorb. Poorc. Averaged. Goode. Verygoodf. (Don’tknow)g. (Refused)

3. Pleaseranktheoverallqualityoflawenforcementinyourcommunity.Wouldyousayitisa. Verypoorb. Poorc. Averaged. Goode. Verygoodf. (Don’tknow)g. (Refused)

A-15

4. Pleaserankthequalityofhealthservicesinyourcommunity.Wouldyousaytheyare

a. Verypoorb. Poorc. Averaged. Goode. Verygoodf. (Don’tknow)g. (Refused)

5. Howsatisfiedareyouthenumberoflocalbusinessesinyourcommunity.Wouldyousaya. Verydissatisfiedb. Dissatisfiedc. Satisfiedd. Verysatisfiede. (Don’tknow)f. (Refused)Forthenextfewquestions,we’llaskyouhowconcernedyouareaboutavarietyofissuesinyourcommunity.

6. Howconcernedareyouaboutcrime?Wouldyousay….a. Veryconcernedb. Somewhatconcernedc. Notatallconcernedd. (Don’tknow)e. (Refused)

7. Howconcernedareyouaboutairquality?Wouldyousay….a. Veryconcernedb. Somewhatconcernedc. Unconcernedd. Notatallconcernede. (Don’tknow)f. (Refused)

A-16

8. Howconcernedareyouaboutwaterquality?Wouldyousay….

a. Veryconcernedb. Somewhatconcernedc. Notatallconcernedd. (Don’tknow)e. (Refused)

9. Howconcernedareyouaboutpopulationgrowth?Wouldyousay….a. Veryconcernedb. Somewhatconcernedc. Notatallconcernedd. (Don’tknow)e. (Refused)

10. Howconcernedareyouaboutpoverty?Wouldyousay….a. Veryconcernedb. Somewhatconcernedc. Notatallconcernedd. (Don’tknow)e. (Refused)

11. Whatwouldyousayisthebiggestprobleminyourcommunity?(Pause,letrespondentanswer.Donotreadoptions.MarkONEresponse)a. Schoolsb. Lawenforcementc. Healthservicesd. Localbusinessese. Crimef. Airqualityg. Waterqualityh. Populationgrowthi. Povertyj. Unemploymentk. Lowwagesl. HighTaxesm. Illegalimmigrationn. Urban/suburbansprawlo. Publictransportationp. Theeconomy

A-17

q. Don’tknowr. Other_____________________s.

12. WhatwouldyousayistheBESTthingaboutyourcommunity?a. Schoolsb. Lawenforcementc. Healthservicesd. Localbusinessese. Crimef. Airqualityg. Waterqualityh. Availabilityofjobsi. Lowtaxesj. Highwagesk. Publictransportationl. Peoplethatliveinit/myneighborsm. Smalltownfeel/livinginasmalltownn. Locationo. Don’tknowp. Other________________________________

13. Howmuchofaproblemisillegalimmigrationisinyourarea?

a. Abigproblemb. Amoderateproblemc. Notaproblemd. (Don’tknow)e. (Refused)

14. Whichofthefollowingstatementsbestdescribeswhereyoulive?Wouldyousay…

a. Iliveinabigcityb. Iliveinasmalltownc. Iliveoutinthecountryd. (Refused)

A-18

GeneralDairyIndustryQuestions

15. TowhatdegreeareyouawareofthedairyindustryinsouthernIdaho,eitherbecauseyou’veseenthedairiesorheardabouttheindustryinonewayoranother?Areyou…a. Veryawareb. Somewhatawarec. NotawareSkiptoQ32d. (Don’tknow)skiptoQ32e. (Refused)SkiptoQ32

16. Howmuchofaninfluencedoesthedairyindustryhaveinyourcommunity?a. Verylargeinfluenceb. Moderateinfluencec. Smallinfluenced. Noinfluenceatalle. (Don’tknow)f. (Refused)

17. Doyoufeelthatthenumberofdairiesinyourpartofthestateis…

a. Toofewb. Neithertoofewortoomanyc. Toomanyd. (Don’tknow)e. (Refused)

Pleasetellmewhatkindofanimpactyouthinkthedairyindustryhasoneachofthefollowingaspectsofyourcommunity…

18. Wouldyousaythedairyindustry’simpactoncrimehasbeento….a. Makeitalotworseb. Makeitslightlyworsec. Improveitslightlyd. Improveitalote. Ithasnoimpactatallf. (Don’tknow)g. (Refused)

A-19

19. Wouldyousaythatthedairyindustry’simpactoncommunitystabilityhasbeento…a. Makeitalotworseb. Makeitslightlyworsec. Improveitslightlyd. Improveitalote. Ithasnoimpactatallf. (Don’tknow)g. (Refused)

20. Wouldyousaythatthedairyindustry’simpactonwaterqualityhasbeento.

a. Makeitalotworseb. Makeitslightlyworsec. ImproveitslightlyImproveitalotd. Ithasnoimpactatalle. (Don’tknow)f. (Refused)

21. Wouldyousaythatthedairyindustry’simpactonlocalbusinesseshasbeento.a. Decreasethenumberofbusinessesagreatdealb. Decreasethemalittlebitc. Increasethemalittlebitd. Increasethemagreatdeale. Orhashadnoimpactatallf. (Don’tknow)g. (Refused)

22. Wouldyousaythatthedairyindustry’simpactonairqualityhasbeento.a. Makeitalotworseb. Makeitslightlyworsec. Improveitslightlyd. Improveitalote. Ithasnoimpactatallf. (Don’tknow)g. (Refused)

23. Wouldyousaythatthedairyindustry’simpactonhealthserviceshasbeento.

a. Makeitalotworseb. Makeitslightlyworsec. Improveitslightly

A-20

d. Improveitalote. Ithasnoimpactatallf. (Don’tknow)g. (Refused)

24. Wouldyousaythatthedairyindustry’simpactonschoolshasbeento.

a. Makeitalotworseb. Makeitslightlyworsec. Improveitslightlyd. Improveitalote. Ithasnoimpactatallf. (Don’tknow)g. (Refused)

25. Wheredoyougetyourinformationaboutthedairyindustry(pleasemarkallthatapply)a. Wordofmouthfromfriends,neighbors,orrelativesb. Media(newspapers,TV,radio,Internet)c. Publicmeetings(CityCouncil,CountyCommissioner,publichearings)d. Iworkonadairyorsomeoneinmyimmediatefamilyworksonadairyfarme. Other___________f. (Don’tknow)g. (Refused)

26. Doyoufeelthenewsmediafairlyreportsallsidesoftheissuessurroundingthedairy

industry?a. YesGotoQ27b. NoGotoQ28c. (Don’tknow)GotoQ28d. (Refused)GotoQ28

27. Whodoyoufeelistreatedunfairlybythemedia?

a. Thedairyindustryb. Dairyworkersc. Localgovernmentsd. Localcitizense. Environmentalgroupsf. Other__________________________g. (Don’tknow)h. (Refused)

A-21

28. Doyoufeelthedairyindustry’sneedforlaborersleadstoillegalimmigration?a. Notatallb. Somewhatc. Agreatdeald. (Don’tknow)e. (Refused)

29. Whatoveralleffectdoesthedairyindustryhaveonthelocaleconomyinyourarea?Wouldyousay…a. Itmostlybenefitslarge‐scaleindustryb. Itmostlybenefitssmall‐scalebusinessesc. Itprovidesrelativelyequalbenefitstolargeandsmallbusinessesinthecommunityd. Itdoesnotprovideanymeasureablebenefitse. (Don’tknow)f. (Refused)

30. Onascaleof0to10,with0beingveryunimportant,and10beingveryimportantand5beingneitherimportantnorunimportant,howimportantaredairiestotheagriculturallandscapeofyourcommunity?________

31. Whichofthefollowingstatementsdoyouagreewithmostclosely?Wouldyousaythatoverall…a. Thedairyindustrybringsmorebenefitsthancoststoyourcommunityb. Thedairyindustrybringsmorecoststhanbenefitstoyourcommunityc. Thedairyindustrybringsaboutthesameamountofbenefitsascoststoyour

communityd. (Don’tknow)e. (Refused)

Demographics

32. Whatyearwereyouborn?_____________[Refused=9999]

33. Whatisthehighestlevelofeducationyouhavecompleted?

a. Somehighschoolorless(nodiploma)b. Highschoolgraduatec. Vocationalschoold. Associates’degreeorsomecollege

A-22

e. Collegegraduatef. Somepostgraduateeducationg. Graduateorprofessionaldegreeh. (Refused)

34. Whatcountydoyoulivein?_______________[Refused=99]

35. HowlonghaveyoulivedinIdaho?_________________(Years)[Refused=9999]

36. Howlonghaveyoulivedinthiscounty?________________(years)[Refused=9999]

37. Howfarawayisthenearestdairy?_________miles[Don’tknow=8888,Refused=

9999]

38. Howmanypeopleliveinyourhousehold?[Refused=9999]

39. Howmanychildren(under18)liveinyourhousehold?[Refused=9999]

40. Wereyouraisedonafarm?1=yes,0=no[Refused=9]

41. Doyouhavecloserelativessuchasparents,siblings,orchildreninvolvedinfarmingoragriculture?1=yes,0=no[Refused=9]

42. Doyouhaveextendedfamilyinvolvedinfarmingoragriculture(cousins,aunt&uncles,etc.)1=yes,0=no[Refused=9]

43. Doyouhaveclosefriendsinvolvedinfarmingoragriculture?1=yes,0=no[Refused=9]

44. Doesyourhouseholdcurrentlyobtainallorpartofitsincomefromfarmingor

agriculture?1=yes,0=no[Refused=9]

45. Whatisyourraceorethnicity?a. Non‐Hispanicwhite/Caucasianb. Hispanic/Latino/a(ofanyrace)c. Blackd. Asiane. NativeAmericanf. Other/Mixedraceg. (Refused)

46. PleasestopmewhenIreachthecategorythatbestdescribesyourannualhouseholdincome

A-23

a. Lessthan$15,000b. Morethan$15,000butlessthan$25,000c. Morethan$25,000butlessthan$35,000d. Morethan$35,000butlessthan$50,000e. Morethan$50,000butlessthan$75,000f. Morethan$75,000butlessthan$100,000g. Morethan$100,000butlessthan$150,000h. Over$150,000i. (Refused)

47. Sexofrespondent(don’task,justfillin)a. Maleb. Femalec. Unsure

Thankyouforparticipatinginthisstudy.Isthereanythingelseyou’dliketoadd?

A-24

APPENDIXG

WeightedFrequenciesforQuantitativeQuestions

Question Responses Percent Standard Error

Q1: Overall satisfaction with community and

quality of life

Highly dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied

Neither satisfied or dissatisfied Somewhat satisfied

Highly satisfied Don’t know

1.4% 5.4% 4.5%

39.7% 48.8%

0.2%

0.3% 0.7% 0.6% 1.5% 1.5% 0.1%

Q2: Quality with schools

in your community Very poor

Poor Average

Good Very good

Don’t know

0.9% 4.4%

25.3% 37.4% 18.7% 13.3%

0.3% 0.6% 1.3% 1.5% 1.2% 1.1%

Q3: Quality of law

enforcement in your community

Very poor Poor

Average Good

Very good Don’t know

2.2% 6.0%

27.5% 43.1% 19.8%

1.4%

0.4% 0.7% 1.3% 1.5% 1.2% 0.3%

Q4: Quality of health

services in your community

Very poor Poor

Average Good

Very good Don’t know

2.1% 6.3%

27.7% 36.2% 25.2%

2.5%

0.4% 0.7% 1.3% 1.5% 1.3% 0.5%

Q5: Satisfaction with the

number of local businesses in your

community

Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied

Satisfied Very satisfied

Don’t know

3.6% 17.0% 62.3% 15.7%

1.4%

0.5% 1.1% 1.5% 1.1% 0.4%

Q6: Degree of concern

about crime Very concerned

Somewhat concerned Not at all concerned

Don’t know

27.8% 55.6% 16.6%

0.0%

1.4% 1.5% 1.1% 0.0%

A-25

Question Responses Percent Standard Error Q7: Degree of concern

about air quality Very concerned


Don’t know

26.6% 41.4% 31.7%

0.3%

1.4% 1.5% 1.3% 0.2%


about water quality Very concerned


Don’t know

34.0% 37.2% 28.4%

0.4%

1.4% 1.5% 1.4% 0.2%


about population growth Very concerned


Don’t know

25.7% 40.3% 33.5%

0.5%

1.4% 1.5% 1.4% 0.2%


about poverty Very concerned


Don’t know

31.7% 52.8% 14.4%

1.1%

1.4% 1.5% 1.1% 0.3%

Q11: Biggest problem in

community Schools

Law enforcement Health services

Local businesses Crime

Air quality Water quality

Population growth Poverty

Unemployment Low wages High taxes

Illegal immigration Urban/suburban sprawl

Public transportation The economy

Don’t know Other

2.3% 1.2% 2.0% 2.5%

10.1% 1.1% 1.0% 8.4% 2.6% 9.8% 2.1% 0.8% 1.9% 2.8% 4.7% 5.4%

15.1% 26.4%

0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.9% 0.3% 0.4% 0.9% 0.5% 0.9% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.7% 0.7% 1.1% 1.3%

A-26

Question Responses Percent Standard Error Q12: Best thing about

community Schools

Law enforcement Health services

Local businesses Crime

Air quality Water quality

Availability of jobs Low taxes

High wages Public transportation

People that live in community Small town feeling

Location Don’t know

Other

2.9% 0.5% 1.0% 2.5% 2.7% 0.6% 0.1% 0.7% 0.1% 0.0% 0.3%

36.8% 15.7%

7.3% 6.6%

22.2%

0.5% 0.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 1.5% 1.1% 0.8% 0.7% 1.3%

Q13: To what degree is

illegal immigration a problem

Big problem Moderate problem

Not a problem Don’t know

22.5% 42.9% 28.4%

6.1%

1.3% 1.5% 1.4% 0.8%

Q14: Description of

location where respondent lives

Big city Small town

Out in the country

28.8% 44.3% 26.9%

1.4% 1.5% 1.3%

Q15: Awareness of dairy

industry Very aware

Somewhat aware Not at all aware

Don’t know

30.9% 47.1% 21.9%

0.0%

1.4% 1.5% 1.3% 0.1%

Q16: Degree of influence

of dairy industry in your community

Very large influence Moderate influence

Small influence No influence at all

Don’t know

22.4% 37.4% 27.8%

8.9% 3.6%

1.3% 1.6% 1.5% 1.0% 0.7%

Q17: Number of dairies in

your part of the state Too few

Neither too few nor too many Too many

Don’t know

19.7% 59.9% 10.6%

9.9%

1.4% 1.7% 0.8% 1.1%

A-27

Question Responses Percent Standard Error Q18: Dairy industry’s

impact on crime Make it a lot worse

Make it slightly worse Improve it slightly

Improve it a lot Has had no impact at all

Don’t know

1.9% 9.1% 8.0% 1.5%

71.6% 7.9%

0.4% 0.8% 0.9% 0.4% 1.5% 0.9%

Q19: Dairy industry’s impact on community

stability

Make it a lot worse Make it slightly worse

Improve it slightly Improve it a lot

Has had no impact at all Don’t know

1.0% 4.6%

43.6% 15.3% 28.9%

6.6%

0.3% 0.7% 1.7% 1.3% 1.6% 0.9%

Q20: Dairy industry’s

impact on water quality Make it a lot worse



Don’t know

7.4% 33.7%

6.7% 0.9%

38.8% 12.4%

0.8% 1.6% 0.9% 0.3% 1.7% 1.2%


impact on local businesses

Decrease # of businesses a lot Decrease number slightly Increase number slightly

Increase number a lot No impact at all

Don’t know

1.2% 2.7%

42.8% 9.8%

35.6% 7.9%

0.4% 0.5% 1.7% 0.9% 1.6% 1.0%


impact on air quality Make it a lot worse



Don’t know

7.9% 40.1%

3.5% 0.4%

43.6% 4.5%

0.8% 1.7% 0.7% 0.2% 1.7% 0.7%


impact on health services Make it a lot worse



Don’t know

0.8% 5.0%

10.9% 2.2%

70.9% 10.3%

0.3% 0.7% 1.1% 0.5% 1.5% 1.0%

A-28

Question Responses Percent Standard Error Q24: Dairy industry’s

impact on schools Make it a lot worse



Don’t know

1.0% 5.4%

32.8% 9.9%

41.3% 9.6%

0.3% 0.7% 1.6% 1.0% 1.7% 1.0%

Word of mouth 42.9% 1.5%

Media 47.8% 1.5% Public meetings 6.4% 0.7%

I/family member works on a dairy 12.6% 1.0%

Q25: Where do you get your information about the

dairy industry

Don’t know 1.3% 0.4% Other 12.9% 1.0%

Q26: Media fairly reports the issues regarding the

dairy industry

No Yes

Don’t know

57.3% 29.2% 13.6%

1.7% 1.5% 1.2%

Q27: Who is unfairly treated by the media

Dairy industry Dairy workers

Local government Local citizens

Environmental groups Other

Don’t know

43.6% 6.8% 1.9%

11.4% 8.9%

16.5% 10.9%

2.3% 1.2% 0.6% 1.4% 1.3% 1.8% 1.4%


need for labor leads to illegal immigration

Not at all Somewhat

A great deal Don’t know

18.8% 55.2% 17.1%

8.9%

1.4% 1.7% 1.2% 1.0%

Mostly benefits large-scale industry 5.7% 0.8%

Mostly benefits small-scale business

17.6% 1.3%

Relatively equal benefits to large and small business

53.8% 1.7%

Does not provide any measureable benefits

14.3% 1.2%

Q29: Effect of dairy industry on local economy

Don’t know 8.6% 1.0%

A-29

Question Responses Percent Standard Error Q30: Importance of dairies

to agriculture landscape Very Unimportant

1 2 3 4

Neither important nor unimportant 6 7 8 9

Very Important Don’t know

3.5% 0.9% 2.3% 2.8% 3.8%

13.7% 12.4% 18.2% 18.8%

5.8% 15.4%

2.5%

0.6% 0.4% 0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 1.2% 1.2% 1.3% 1.3% 0.8% 1.2% 0.6%

Q31: Feels that the dairy

industry… Brings more benefits than costs Brings most costs than benefits

Bring same amount of costs & benefits

Don’t know

45.1% 8.0%

39.0%

7.9%

1.7% 0.9% 1.7%

1.0%

Q33: Highest level of

education Some high school or less

High school graduate Vocational school

Associate degree or some college College graduate

Some post graduate education Graduate or profession degree

5.3% 22.1%

2.3% 31.5% 24.5%

3.9% 10.4%

0.6% 1.3% 0.5% 1.4% 1.3% 0.6% 0.9%

A-30

7 Several respondents reported their primary residence in a county outside our study area; in at least a few of those cases, respondents indicated they had a secondary residence in Southern Idaho.

Question Responses Percent Standard Error Q34: County7 Ada

Adams Bannock

Bear Lake Benewah Bingham

Blaine Boise

Bonner Bonneville

Butte Camas

Canyon Caribou Cassia

Clark Custer Elmore

Franklin Fremont

Gem Gooding

Idaho Jefferson

Jerome Kootenai

Latah Lemhi

Lincoln Madison Minidoka

Oneida Owyhee Payette

Power Shoshone

Teton Twin Falls

Valley Washington

31.2% 0.5% 5.6% 0.5% 0.2% 4.0% 1.8% 1.0% 0.1% 8.1% 0.5% 0.1%

12.2% 0.6% 1.8% 0.1% 0.5% 2.1% 1.0% 1.3% 1.2% 1.5% 0.5% 2.0% 1.9% 0.0% 0.2% 0.7% 0.5% 2.0% 2.2% 0.7% 0.9% 2.2% 0.8% 0.3% 1.0% 6.5% 0.9% 1.0%

1.3% 0.3% 0.6% 0.2% 0.1% 0.5% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.6% 0.1% 0.1% 1.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 0.3% 0.3% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.5% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2% 0.5% 0.3% 0.6%

A-31

Question Responses Percent Standard Error Q38: Number of people in

household 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

18.8% 38.5% 13.7% 14.0%

7.7% 4.6% 1.8% 0.6% 0.3%

0.07%

1.2% 1.5% 1.1% 1.1% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%

Q39: Number of children

under 18 in household 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

63.3% 11.9% 12.7%

6.2% 4.0% 1.5% 0.2% 0.3%

1.5% 1.0% 1.0% 0.7% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1% 0.2%

Q40: Raised on a farm No

Yes 62.3% 37.7%

1.5% 1.5%

Q41: Immediate family

involved in farming No

Yes 69.9% 30.1%

1.3% 1.3%

Q42: Extended family

involved in farming No

Yes 51.2% 48.8%

1.5% 1.5%

Q43: Close friends involved in farming

No Yes

38.7% 61.3%

1.5% 1.5%

Q44: Household income

derived from farming No

Yes 82.9% 17.1%

1.1% 1.1%

Q45: Race or ethnicity Caucasian, white, non-Hispanic

Hispanic, Latino/a African-American, Black

Asian, Pacific Islander Native American

Other/Mixed Race

92.9% 4.9% 0.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.5%

0.8% 0.6% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.2%

A-32

Question Responses Percent Standard Error Q46: Annual

household income Less than $15,000

More than $15,000 but less than $25,000 More than $25,000 but less than $35,000 More than $35,000 but less than $50,000 More than $50,000 but less than $75,000

More than $75,000 but less than $100,000 More than $100,000 but less than $150,000

More than $150,000

5.4% 11.5% 13.0% 20.1% 24.3% 13.0%

8.3% 4.5%

0.7% 1.0% 1.1% 1.3% 1.4% 1.1% 0.9% 0.7%

Q47: Sex Female

Male 55.8% 44.2%

1.5% 1.5%

A-33

APPENDIXH

ResponsestoSelectedGeneralPublicSurveyQuestions,byRegion

FigureH1.RegionbyQ15,Awarenessofthedairyindustry

FigureH2.RegionbyQ16,Influenceofthedairyindustry

A-34

FigureH3.RegionbyQ17,Numberofdairies.

FigureH4.RegionbyQ18,Impactoncrime.

A-35

FigureH5.RegionbyQ19,Impactoncommunitystability

FigureH6.RegionbyQ20,Impactonwaterquality

A-36

FigureH7.RegionbyQ21,Impactonthenumberofbusinesses

FigureH8.RegionbyQ22,Impactonairuality.

A-37

FigureH9.RegionbyQ23,Impactonhealthservices

FigureH10.RegionbyQ24,Impactonschools

A-38

FigureH11.RegionbyQ26,Doesthemediareportallsidesofthedairyindustryfairly?

FigureH12.RegionbyQ27,Whoistreatedunfairlybythemedia?

A-39

FigureH13.RegionbyQ28,Doesthedairyindustry’sneedforworkersleadtoillegalimmigration

FigureH14.RegionbyQ29.Doesthedairyindustryprimarilybenefitsmallscalebusinessorlargescaleindustry

A-40

FigureH15.RegionbyQ31,Doesthedairyindustryprimarilybringmorecostsormorebenefits

FigureH16.Whererespondentlivesbywhetherthedairybringsmorecostsorbenefits(Chi‐square=11.28,d.f.=6,p=0.1717)

A-41

FigureH17.Doesthedairyindustry’sneedforlaborersleadtoillegalimmigrationbywhetherthedairyindustrybringsmorecostsorbenefits.(Chi‐square=72.2493,d.f.=9,p<0.0001)

FigureH18.Levelofeducationbywhetherthedairyindustrybringsmorecostsorbenefits(Chi‐square=17.89,d.f.=12,p=0.2760)

A-42

FigureH19.Incomebywhetherthedairyindustrybringsmorecostsorbenefits(Chi‐square=31.06,d.f.=21,p=0.0726)

FigureH20.Agecategorybywhetherornotimmigrationisaproblemintheirarea(Chi‐square=23.9384,d.f.=18,p=0.3470)

A-43

FigureH21.Levelofeducationbywhetherornotimmigrationisaproblemintheirarea.(Chi‐square=19.9018,d.f.=12,p=0.1879)

FigureH22.Agecategorybyawarenessofthedairyindustry(Chi‐square=33.7155,d.f.=12,p=0.0038)

A-44

FigureH23.Educationbyawarenessofthedairyindustry(Chi‐square=27.5799,d.f.=8,p=0.0032)

FigureH24.Degreeofassociationwithfarmingbywhetherornotillegalimmigrationisaproblemintheirarea8(Chi‐square=34.5672,d.f.=15,p=0.0157)

8 Degreeofassociationcorrespondstohowmanytimestherespondentanswered‘yes’toquestions40‐44;someonewithascoreofzerohasnoeconomicorpersonalrelationshiptofarmingandsomeonewithafivehasverystrongeconomicandpersonaltiestofarming

A-45

FigureH25.Degreeofassociationwithfarmingbywhetherthedairyindustrybringsmorecostsormorebenefits(Chi‐square=28.2974,d.f.=15,p=0.0889)

FigureH26.Degreeofassociationwithfarmingbywhetherornotthedairyindustry’sneedforlaborersleadstoillegalimmigration(Chi‐square=49.0285,d.f.=15,p=0.0007

Documents

Community Level Impacts of Idaho’s Changing Dairy Industry I Dairy Report... · the community‐level impacts of Idaho’s changing dairy industry, and specifically, that part of