Appendix D
Hispanic Workers in the United States: An Analysis of Employment Distributions, Fatal Occupational Injuries, and Non-fatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses

Scott Richardson, Bureau of Labor Statistics

John Ruser, Bureau of Labor Statistics

Peggy Suarez, Bureau of Labor Statistics

INTRODUCTION

The United States Census Bureau predicts that by the year 2050 Hispanics will represent one out of every four persons in the United States, up from about one in eight in 2000. Driven largely by immigration, this dramatic growth in the Hispanic population will continue to present new challenges in health care, education, and the workplace.

The results from the 2000 Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) program show higher fatal work injury rates for Hispanic workers than for other racial/ethnic groups-rates that appear to be increasing even as fatal work injury rates for most other United States workers are declining. Non-fatal occupational injury and illness rates are also higher among Hispanic workers.

Employment distributions tell us that Hispanic workers tend to be more heavily represented in higher-risk industries and occupations than non-Hispanic whites and other racial/ethnic groups. The question becomes to what extent are these higher fatality rates explained by this disproportionate representation of Hispanics in higher-risk industries and occupations. Also, what differences can be seen between the experience of foreign-born Hispanic workers and native-born workers in the occupational injury and illness data?

National data also tell us that the challenges in occupational safety and health are not limited to those states traditionally associated with large Hispanic populations, such as California or Texas but will impact numerous other states not traditionally known for large Hispanic populations. Hispanic communities are growing rapidly in states such as North Carolina, Arkansas, and Georgia. Moreover, the nature of the occupational injuries and illnesses differs from State-to-State and is largely determined by the industries within each state.

It is necessary to have reliable and comprehensive data to formulate appropriate and measurable strategies to address these challenges. In terms of surveillance of occupational injuries and illnesses for Hispanic workers, the data tell an interesting but incomplete story. Many gaps still exist in the data, especially in the non-fatal injury and illness data for Hispanic workers.

This paper summarizes the data on the demographics of the Hispanic population (including employment data) and presents an overview of the available surveillance data for fatal work injuries and non-fatal occupational injuries and illnesses for Hispanic workers. The data are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Safety and Health Statistics (OSHS) programs.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 43
Safety is Seguridad: A Workshop Summary Appendix D Hispanic Workers in the United States: An Analysis of Employment Distributions, Fatal Occupational Injuries, and Non-fatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses Scott Richardson, Bureau of Labor Statistics John Ruser, Bureau of Labor Statistics Peggy Suarez, Bureau of Labor Statistics INTRODUCTION The United States Census Bureau predicts that by the year 2050 Hispanics will represent one out of every four persons in the United States, up from about one in eight in 2000. Driven largely by immigration, this dramatic growth in the Hispanic population will continue to present new challenges in health care, education, and the workplace. The results from the 2000 Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) program show higher fatal work injury rates for Hispanic workers than for other racial/ethnic groups-rates that appear to be increasing even as fatal work injury rates for most other United States workers are declining. Non-fatal occupational injury and illness rates are also higher among Hispanic workers. Employment distributions tell us that Hispanic workers tend to be more heavily represented in higher-risk industries and occupations than non-Hispanic whites and other racial/ethnic groups. The question becomes to what extent are these higher fatality rates explained by this disproportionate representation of Hispanics in higher-risk industries and occupations. Also, what differences can be seen between the experience of foreign-born Hispanic workers and native-born workers in the occupational injury and illness data? National data also tell us that the challenges in occupational safety and health are not limited to those states traditionally associated with large Hispanic populations, such as California or Texas but will impact numerous other states not traditionally known for large Hispanic populations. Hispanic communities are growing rapidly in states such as North Carolina, Arkansas, and Georgia. Moreover, the nature of the occupational injuries and illnesses differs from State-to-State and is largely determined by the industries within each state. It is necessary to have reliable and comprehensive data to formulate appropriate and measurable strategies to address these challenges. In terms of surveillance of occupational injuries and illnesses for Hispanic workers, the data tell an interesting but incomplete story. Many gaps still exist in the data, especially in the non-fatal injury and illness data for Hispanic workers. This paper summarizes the data on the demographics of the Hispanic population (including employment data) and presents an overview of the available surveillance data for fatal work injuries and non-fatal occupational injuries and illnesses for Hispanic workers. The data are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Safety and Health Statistics (OSHS) programs.

OCR for page 43
Safety is Seguridad: A Workshop Summary HISPANICS IN THE UNITED STATES: A DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC OVERVIEW Growth of the Hispanic Population in the United States In 2000 there were 35.3 million Hispanics in the United States, a 58 percent increase over the 22.4 million Hispanics recorded by the Census Bureau in 1990 (Census Bureau 2001 [1], Census Bureau 2001 [2]). This increase follows an increase of 53 percent in the United States Hispanic population between 1980 and 1990 (National Council of La Raza 2001). In 1990 Hispanics represented about 9 percent of the population. By 2000 the representation of Hispanics had grown to 12.5 percent (Census Bureau 2001 [1]). In 2050 it is predicted that Hispanics will represent one out of every four persons in the United States, up from about one in eight today (Census Bureau 2001 [3]). While United States Hispanics of Mexican origin make up the largest segment of the country’s Hispanic population, those with origins in other Spanish-speaking countries and regions are also strongly represented among United States Hispanics (Census Bureau 2001 [1],) Table A presents the distribution of United States Hispanics by country of origin. TABLE A Distribution of U.S. Hispanics by Type, from Census 2000   U.S. Hispanic Population Total U.S. Population Total Number 35.3 million 281.4 million Percentage 100% 100% Mexico 58.50% 7.30% Puerto Rico 9.60% 1.20% Cuba 3.50% — Other Hispanic 28.40% 3.50% Dominican 2.20% — Central America 4.80% — Salvadoran 1.90%   Guatemalan 1.10%   Honduran 0.60%   South America 3.80% — Colombian 1.30%   Ecuadorian 0.70%   Peruvian 0.70%   Spaniard 0.3% — Other 17.30% 2.10%   SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau Growth of Hispanic Population by State When looking at increases in the Hispanic population by state over the last decade (including both immigrant and non-immigrant Hispanics), it is clear that the states with traditionally large Hispanic populations continued to show the greatest numerical growth.

OCR for page 43
Safety is Seguridad: A Workshop Summary California and Texas continue to have the largest Hispanic populations, and about half of all United States Hispanics live in those two states (Census Bureau 2001 [4]). Table B presents the 10 states that had the largest Hispanic populations in 2000. These states are also among the states recording the sharpest increases in the number of Hispanics between 1990 and 2000. California, for example, added over 3.2 million to its Hispanic population during that time. Texas added 2.3 million and Florida’s Hispanic population increased by 1.1 million (Census Bureau 2001 [4], Census Bureau 2001 [5]). In looking at the growth of Hispanic population in terms of percent change since 1990, evidence of strong growth in states not traditionally associated with large Hispanic populations emerges. Table C presents a list of the 10 states with the largest percent change in population since 1990 (Census Bureau, 2000). TABLE B States with Largest Hispanic Populations, 2000 State Total Hispanic Population, 2000 (in millions) California 11.0 Texas 6.7 New York 2.9 Florida 2.7 Illinois 1.5 Arizona 1.3 New Jersey 1.1 New Mexico 0.8 Colorado 0.7 Washington 0.4   SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau TABLE C Top 10 States by Hispanic Percent Change Since 1990 State Percent Change North Carolina 394 Arkansas 337 Georgia 300 Tennessee 278 Nevada 217 South Carolina 211 Alabama 208 Kentucky 173 Minnesota 166 Nebraska 155   SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau Growth of Hispanics by Metropolitan Area Hispanics live largely in urban areas. More than 9 in 10 Hispanics live within a metropolitan area and nearly half of all Hispanics live in a central city within a metropolitan area.

OCR for page 43
Safety is Seguridad: A Workshop Summary Only 9 percent of Hispanics live outside metropolitan areas, as compared to nearly one-fourth of non-Hispanic whites (National Council of La Raza 2001). In 2000 the largest Hispanic populations were in New York (2.2 million), Los Angeles (1.7 million), Chicago (.8 million), Houston (.7 million), and San Antonio (.7 million) (Census Bureau 2001 [4], Census Bureau 2001 [5]). However, the metropolitan areas with the largest percentage increases between 1990 and 2000 were again ones that may not be traditionally associated with large Hispanic populations. The top three fastest growing Hispanic communities are in North Carolina. The five metropolitan areas with the largest growth in their Hispanic populations were Greensboro (694 percent growth), Charlotte (622 percent), Raleigh (569 percent), Atlanta (362 percent), and Las Vegas (262 percent). Immigration Much of the increase in the Hispanic population in the U.S. is driven by immigration. According to United States Census Bureau data, about half of the foreign-born population in the United States is from Latin America. Since 1970, 8 of the top 20 countries of birth for immigrants are Spanish-speaking countries. Table D presents those eight countries along with the number and percent of immigrants from those countries residing in the United States (Camarota 2001). In 2000 about two out of every five Hispanics in the United States was born in a country other than the United States (Census Bureau 2000, Census Bureau 2001 [2], Census Bureau 2001 [3], Census Bureau 2001 [4], Census Bureau 2001 [5]). TABLE D Top Spanish-speaking Immigrant Countries of Birth   Number of Immigrants (000s) Percentage of Total Immigrants Total (all immigrants) 28,379 100 Mexico 7,858 28 Cuba 952 3 El Salvador 765 3 Dominican Republic 692 2 Columbia 435 2 Peru 328 1 Guatemala 327 1 Ecuador 281 1 NOTES: 1. Totals may include categories not shown separately. 2. Percentages may not sum to total due to rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau In general, immigrants tend to have lower educational attainment, greater poverty, and less income than the native, non-immigrant population. Of the immigrants who arrived during the 1990–1999 period more than a third (34.4 percent) have less than a high school education. This

OCR for page 43
Safety is Seguridad: A Workshop Summary percentage has risen for each of the past four decades, up from about one-fifth (19.3 percent) of immigrants who arrived in the years prior to 1970. The poverty rate for immigrants is 50 percent higher than the rate for the native-born. Median income for immigrant workers is $23,000 or nearly 25 percent lower than the median income for the native born population. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that over a third of all unskilled jobs are now held by immigrants (Camarota 2001). With regard to the number of undocumented workers, estimates vary. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) estimates that the number of new undocumented aliens joining the United States population each year is about 420,000. After adjustments are made for deaths, emigration, and changes in legal status, this flow of undocumented workers decreases to a net of 275,000 annually (Camarota 1997). With the changes in border security imposed after the September 11, 2001, events, this number is expected to decrease. NAFTA has altered the trends in illegal immigration. A larger percentage of migrating workers are opting to stay on the Mexican side of the border to live and work. The population on the Mexican side of the border has increased by nearly 50 percent over the last decade, while the United States side of the border showed an increase of only about one-fifth over that same period. (Economist 2001). This trend is likely to continue given the tightened border security instituted after the events of September 11. RESULTS Employment Data from the United States Current Population Survey indicate that 13.8 million Hispanics were employed in the civilian workforce on average each year between 1998 and 2000 (see Table E1), as compared to 14.5 million black non-Hispanics and 99.1 million white non-Hispanics. Nationwide, 11.5 percent of male civilian employees and 9.1 percent of female civilian employees were Hispanic. The service industries and retail trade employed the most Hispanic men and women, with construction industries placing third in employment among Hispanic men. Service industries and retail trade are also the industries that employ the most white and black men and women. Agriculture, forestry, and fishing had the highest percentage of male workers who were Hispanic (25.3), while both white and black men were under-represented in this industry. Hispanic men made up 14.5 percent of construction employment. In contrast, the proportion of black men in construction (6.3 percent) is below their overall percentage of employment (9.5 percent), while the percentage of white men in construction is slightly higher than their percentage in all jobs. Hispanic men also make up a high percentage of the very small private household industry. Hispanic women accounted for 29.4 percent of female private household workers, a percentage that is far higher than their overall percentage of female employment. In comparison, a slightly higher percentage of black women work in private household jobs (14.8 percent) than in all jobs (12.5 percent), while white women are substantially under-represented in this industry division. Hispanic women are also well represented in nondurable goods industries (14.8 percent), with black women in this industry making up a slightly higher percentage (13.2) than they do in all industries. In comparison, black women make up especially high percentages of female employment in transportation, public utilities, and public administration. Two states accounted for just over one-half of the total Hispanic employment: California with 30.9 percent of the national total, or 4.3 million workers, and Texas with 20.2 percent of the national total, or 2.8 million workers (see Table E2). Florida and New York were third and fourth in terms of the number of employed Hispanics, with 1.3 and 1.1 million workers. Illinois and Arizona follow with 560,000 and 551,000 Hispanic workers. The table also shows that Hispanic

OCR for page 43
Safety is Seguridad: A Workshop Summary TABLE E1 Employment by Gender, Race, Ethnicity, and Major Industry Group, 1998–2000 (Annual Average of All U.S. Civilian Workers Age 16 and Older)   Number Percent   Total White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Hispanic Total White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Hispanic Total 133,387 99,053 14,563 13,834 100.0 74.3 10.9 10.4 Men Total 71,477 53,333 6,803 8,187 100.0 74.6 9.5 11.5 Agriculture, forestry, and fishing 2,582 1,765 108 654 100.0 68.3 4.2 25.3 Mining 494 416 21 46 100.0 84.3 4.3 9.3 Construction 8,114 6,244 512 1,178 100.0 76.9 6.3 14.5 Durable goods 8,936 6,914 754 858 100.0 77.4 8.4 9.6 Nondurable goods 4,811 3,418 532 676 100.0 71.1 11.1 14.1 Transportation and public utilities 6,786 4,899 953 666 100.0 72.2 14.0 9.8 Wholesale trade 3,623 2,823 253 411 100.0 77.9 7.0 11.3 Retail trade 10,884 7,737 1,032 1,529 100.0 71.1 9.5 14.0 Finance, insurance, and real estate 3,625 2,903 294 267 100.0 80.1 8.1 7.4 Service industries 18,230 13,634 1,900 1,656 100.0 74.8 10.4 9.1 Private household 80 44 12 19 100.0 55.4 14.5 23.4 Public administration 3,313 2,534 432 228 100.0 76.5 13.0 6.9 Women Total 61,909 45,721 7,760 5,647 100.0 73.9 12.5 9.1 Agriculture, forestry, and fishing 878 742 19 98 100.0 84.5 2.2 11.2 Mining 75 61 5 6 100.0 81.0 7.2 7.9 Construction 866 742 50 54 100.0 85.7 5.8 6.2 Durable goods 3,403 2,455 375 348 100.0 72.1 11.0 10.2 Nondurable goods 3,098 2,050 409 458 100.0 66.2 13.2 14.8 Transportation and public utilities 2,748 1,919 476 231 100.0 69.8 17.3 8.4 Wholesale trade 1,611 1,232 118 181 100.0 76.5 7.4 11.2 Retail trade 11,419 8,612 1,148 1,109 100.0 75.4 10.1 9.7 Finance, insurance, and real estate 5,090 3,928 600 353 100.0 77.2 11.8 6.9 Service industries 29,228 21,739 3,890 2,375 100.0 74.4 13.3 8.1 Private household 854 446 126 251 100.0 52.2 14.8 29.4 Public administration 2,640 1,796 542 182 100.0 68.0 20.5 6.9   SOURCE: Generated from the microdata of the Current Population Survey, 1998–2000.

OCR for page 43
Safety is Seguridad: A Workshop Summary TABLE E2 Employment of Hispanics by State and Major Industry Group, 1998–2000 (Annual Average of All Civilian Workers Age 16 and Older)   California Florida New York Texas   Hispanic Employment (000s) Percent Hispanic by Industry Hispanic Employment (000s) Percent Hispanic by Industry Hispanic Employment (000s) Percent Hispanic by Industry Hispanic Employment (000s) Percent Hispanic by Industry Total 4,273.9 27.1 1,250.9 17.7 1,070.8 12.7 2,790.3 28.6 Men Total 2,566.3 29.5 731.0 19.2 599.2 13.4 1,653.9 30.6 Agriculture, forestry and fishing 307.8 71.1 45.2 31.2 9.6 12.7 99.7 41.1 Mining 2.8 12.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.0 24.1 Construction 300.3 34.9 111.4 21.5 52.3 12.3 316.3 47.8 Durable goods 301.8 30.1 50.1 18.6 29.2 7.8 148.7 27.7 Nondurable goods 207.3 44.2 28.4 20.7 41.8 18.1 139.0 37.7 Transportation and public utilities 194.4 25.8 86.4 22.2 58.8 12.0 148.7 25.4 Wholesale trade 134.4 30.1 49.1 24.1 27.5 14.0 75.2 27.3 Retail trade 469.2 34.9 132.1 18.9 163.1 22.4 289.5 34.7 Finance, insurance and real estate 62.9 14.5 33.3 15.3 46.9 12.7 49.4 20.3 Service industries 519.2 20.3 173.4 17.0 152.5 11.5 302.3 23.0 Private household 8.1 45.6 1.2 22.7 1.5 30.6 4.3 60.3 Public administration 58.0 16.6 20.5 10.8 15.9 6.4 52.7 24.3 Women Total 1,707.6 24.1 519.9 15.9 471.6 12.0 1,136.4 26.1 Agriculture, forestry and fishing 54.6 45.3 6.8 15.2 0.5 1.9 9.6 12.7 Mining 1.0 48.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 10.8 Construction 12.4 13.8 5.3 9.1 2.6 6.9 15.5 20.7 Durable goods 119.9 27.6 21.0 20.5 19.6 12.2 47.4 27.3 Nondurable goods 156.3 46.5 26.4 27.3 42.0 20.2 69.1 39.5 Transportation and public utilities 60.0 19.4 35.8 21.2 25.0 14.1 46.1 19.2 Wholesale trade 67.0 27.8 24.4 26.0 10.4 10.7 24.2 18.9 Retail trade 311.9 26.2 102.1 15.2 76.5 12.9 267.4 31.9 Finance, insurance and real estate 83.1 14.8 48.3 14.7 38.2 10.6 61.6 18.1 Service industries 679.0 20.4 217.4 14.5 217.5 10.6 507.9 24.8 Private household 112.6 64.0 20.1 40.7 28.7 35.1 48.5 60.5 Public administration 49.7 17.4 12.4 8.1 10.5 6.7 35.6 23.3   SOURCE: Generated from the microdata of the Current Population Survey, 1998–2000

OCR for page 43
Safety is Seguridad: A Workshop Summary men and women tend to work in different industries in different states. For example, Hispanic men account for a high fraction of employment in agriculture, forestry, and fishing, in California, Texas and Illinois but not in New York, while Hispanic women make up a high fraction of female employment in this industry only in California. From 1998 to 2000 nearly one-half of all Hispanic men were employed in blue-collar jobs, that is, in the summary occupational groups “precision production, craft, and repair workers” and “operators, fabricators, and laborers” (see Table F). In contrast, nearly 64 percent of Hispanic women were in “technicians, sales, or administrative support” jobs (mostly in administrative support) or in service occupations. Hispanic men and women were more likely than white workers to be employed in riskier blue-collar and service occupations. Hispanic men accounted for 25.1 percent of male employment in farming, forestry and fishing jobs; 17.4 percent of male employment in service occupations; and 16.4 percent of the occupational group “operators, fabricators, and laborers.” In the latter group Hispanic men were especially numerous in the minor occupational group “handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers.” This group includes occupations requiring less skill, and as seen later, higher job risk. Black men also were more likely than white men to be employed in blue-collar and service jobs, particularly in service occupations and as operators, fabricators, and laborers. In contrast to Hispanic males, black men are less frequently employed (relative to their percentage in all jobs) in precision, production, craft and repair occupations, and in farming, forestry, and fishing occupations. Even within the summary occupational groups where both black and Hispanic men are over-represented, these two race ethnicity groups tend to be found working in different proportions in the constituent major occupational groups. For example, among the services occupations black men are more likely to be found in protective service occupations, while Hispanic men are more often employed in other service occupations. Similar differences are found in the summary occupational group “operators, fabricators, and laborers.” Similarly, Hispanic women were more frequently found in blue-collar and service jobs. They accounted for 17.5 percent of female employment in the summary occupational group “operators, fabricators, and laborers.” Further, they accounted for 15.3 percent of female employment in farming, forestry, and fishing occupations and 13.9 percent in service occupations. Thirty-one percent of female employment in the relatively small private household occupational group was composed of Hispanics. Compared to white women, black women were also more likely to be found in blue-collar and service occupations. Unlike Hispanic women, they were not often found in farming, forestry, and fishing occupations. Black women and Hispanic women tended to work in different major occupational groups. For example, among operators, fabricators, and laborers, black women make up a high percentage of female workers in transportation and material moving occupations, while Hispanic women make up a higher percentage of machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors. Among service occupations, Hispanic women are over-represented in private household occupations, while black women are over-represented in protective service jobs. The bulk of employment in the service occupation summary group is in “other service occupations,” where both black and Hispanic women make up higher fractions than they do of all jobs. Table G lists the top 10 detailed occupations in terms of employment for Hispanic men and women. No single occupation dominates either list. However, five of the occupations for Hispanic men stand out as generally involving physical labor and low skill: farm workers, janitors and cleaners, groundskeepers and gardeners, and construction and non-construction laborers. Three of the occupations where Hispanic women are most frequently found include cleaning: janitors and cleaners, private household cleaners, and maids. Hispanic women are also found in such traditional lower-skilled “female” jobs as cooks, cashiers, and secretaries.

OCR for page 43
Safety is Seguridad: A Workshop Summary TABLE F Employment by Gender, Race, Hispanic Ethnicity and Occupational Group, 1998– 2000 (Annual Average of All Civilian Workers Age 16 and Older)   Employment (000s) Percent   Total White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Hispanic Total White Non-Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic Hispanic Total 133,387 99,053 14,563 13,834 100.0 74.3 10.9 10.4 Men Total 71,477 53,333 6,803 8,187 100.0 74.6 9.5 11.5 Managerial and professional specialty 20,285 16,951 1,226 999 100.0 83.6 6.0 4.9 Executive, administrative and managerial 10,714 9,121 596 575 100.0 85.1 5.6 5.4 Professional specialty 9,571 7,830 630 424 100.0 81.8 6.6 4.4 Technical, sales, and administrative support 14,053 10,844 1,263 1,228 100.0 77.2 9.0 8.7 Technicians and related support 2,063 1,604 179 140 100.0 77.8 8.7 6.8 Sales 8,052 6,559 526 615 100.0 81.5 6.5 7.6 Administrative support, including clerical 3,939 2,681 558 473 100.0 68.1 14.2 12.0 Service occupations 7,187 4,371 1,178 1,251 100.0 60.8 16.4 17.4 Private household 40 21 5 9 100.0 52.9 13.5 23.4 Protective service 1,970 1,418 329 171 100.0 72.0 16.7 8.7 Other service occupations 5,176 2,932 843 1,071 100.0 56.6 16.3 20.7 Precision production, craft, and repair 13,342 10,223 972 1,742 100.0 76.6 7.3 13.1 Mechanics and repairers 4,617 3,629 345 483 100.0 78.6 7.5 10.5 Construction trades 5,700 4,324 385 872 100.0 75.9 6.8 15.3 Other precision production, craft, and repair 3,026 2,271 242 388 100.0 75.0 8.0 12.8 Operators, fabricators, and laborers 13,850 9,077 2,023 2,274 100.0 65.5 14.6 16.4 Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors 4,713 3,057 629 817 100.0 64.8 13.3 17.3 Transportation and material moving 4,930 3,427 763 612 100.0 69.5 15.5 12.4 Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers 4,207 2,593 631 844 100.0 61.6 15.0 20.1 Farming, forestry and fishing 2,761 1,866 141 693 100.0 67.6 5.1 25.1

OCR for page 43
Safety is Seguridad: A Workshop Summary Women Total 61,909 45,721 7,760 5,647 100.0 73.9 12.5 9.1 Managerial and professional specialty 19,812 15,984 1,892 1,004 100.0 80.7 9.5 5.1 Executive, administrative, and managerial 8,756 7,038 831 491 100.0 80.4 9.5 5.6 Professional specialty 11,056 8,946 1,061 513 100.0 80.9 9.6 4.6 Technical, sales, and administrative support 24,908 18,806 2,997 2,098 100.0 75.5 12.0 8.4 Technicians and related support 2,271 1,721 278 149 100.0 75.8 12.2 6.5 Sales 8,051 6,144 855 684 100.0 76.3 10.6 8.5 Administrative support, including clerical 14,586 10,940 1,864 1,265 100.0 75.0 12.8 8.7 Service occupations 10,823 6,908 1,947 1,499 100.0 63.8 18.0 13.9 Private household 783 405 107 243 100.0 51.7 13.7 31.0 Protective service 449 270 133 33 100.0 60.2 29.6 7.4 Other service occupations 9,592 6,233 1,707 1,223 100.0 65.0 17.8 12.8 Precision production, craft, and repair 1,287 862 160 171 100.0 67.0 12.5 13.3 Mechanics and repairers 226 163 32 18 100.0 71.9 14.3 8.1 Construction trades 139 108 13 14 100.0 78.0 9.1 10.0 Other precision production, craft, and repair 922 591 115 139 100.0 64.1 12.5 15.0 Operators, fabricators, and laborers 4,397 2,622 744 771 100.0 59.6 16.9 17.5 Machine operators, assemblers, and inspectors 2,785 1,554 475 556 100.0 55.8 17.1 20.0 Transportation and material moving 549 386 109 41 100.0 70.4 19.9 7.5 Handlers, equipment cleaners, helpers, and laborers 1,064 682 159 174 100.0 64.1 15.0 16.3 Farming, forestry, and fishing 682 539 19 104 100.0 79.0 2.9 15.3   SOURCE: Generated from the microdata of the Current Population Survey, 1998–2000.

OCR for page 43
Safety is Seguridad: A Workshop Summary TABLE G Detailed Occupations with the Most Hispanic Employment, by Gender, 1998–2000 (Annual Average of All Civilian Workers Age 16 and Older) Men Hispanic Employment (000s) Percent of Hispanic Employment (000s) Women Hispanic Employment (000s) Percent of Hispanic Employment All workers 8,187 100.0 All workers 5,647 100.0 Truck drivers 369 4.5 Cashiers 287 5.1 Farm workers 312 3.8 Secretaries 211 3.7 Cooks 310 3.8 Janitors and cleaners 185 3.3 Janitors and cleaners 284 3.5 Private household cleaners 181 3.2 Managers and administrators, not elsewhere classified 269 3.3 Nursing aides, orderlies, and attendants 177 3.1 Groundskeepers and gardeners, except farm 266 3.2 Maids 148 2.6 Construction laborers 232 2.8 Cooks 132 2.3 Supervisors and proprietors, sales occupations 220 2.7 Managers and administrators, not elsewhere classified 128 2.3 Carpenters 209 2.5 Receptionists 112 2.0 Laborers, except construction 181 2.2 Supervisors and proprietors, sales occupations 112 2.0   SOURCE: Generated from the microdata of the Current Population Survey, 1998–2000. FATAL WORK INJURIES INVOLVING HISPANICS Overview of National Fatality Data From 1995 through 2000, 4,167 Hispanics workers died as a result of a fatal injury on the job, accounting for about 11 percent of the total number of fatal work injuries that occurred over this period (see Table H). The number of fatal work injuries involving Hispanic workers has risen each year since 1995, from a low of 619 fatal work injuries in 1995 to a high of 815 fatal work injuries in 2000. Fatal work injury rates for Hispanic workers have ranged from a low of 5.1 fatal work injuries per 100,000 Hispanic workers in 1997 to a high of 5.6 per 100,000 in 2000. The fatal work injury rate in 2000 for Hispanic workers was 33 percent higher than the rate for non-Hispanic workers and rates for Hispanic workers have been consistently higher than the overall national fatality rate for the period covered by this study. Event The most frequent types of fatal event in fatal injuries involving Hispanics were transportation incidents (34 percent) followed by assaults and violent acts (19 percent), contact with objects or equipment (17 percent), and falls (16 percent). The percentages of falls and homicides for Hispanics represented a higher proportion of total fatalities than for all workers. Transportation incidents represented a smaller proportion of total injuries for Hispanics (see Table K).

OCR for page 43
Safety is Seguridad: A Workshop Summary Hispanic women, in comparison to 20 days for all men and 18 days for all women. Sprains and strains lasted 7 days for Hispanic men compared to 6 days for all men, and 6 days for Hispanic women compared to 5 days for all women. There are two possible explanations for the longer durations of injuries and illnesses for Hispanics. One is that Hispanic workers are injured more severely, possibly because they are employed more frequently as blue-collar and service workers, where injuries are more severe. Another is that Hispanics are reluctant to report less severe cases. TABLE AA Median Number of Days Away from Work, by Type of Injury, Gender, and Race/Ethnicity, 1998–2000 (Private Industry Workers Age 16 and Older). Men   All Workers White Non-Hispanic Blanc Non-Hispanic Hispanic Total 6 6 5 7 Fractures 20 20 21 29 Sprains and strains 6 6 6 7 Amputations 18 16 25 24 Cuts and lacerations 3 3 3 5 Bruises and contusions 3 3 4 4 Chemical burns 3 3 3 3 Heat burns 5 5 7 6 Carpal tunnel syndrome 27 26 – – Tendonitis 9 9 – 9 All other 6 6 5 7 Women Total 5 5 5 6 Fractures 18 16 25 27 Sprains and strains 5 5 5 6 Amputations 15 15 – – Cuts and lacerations 3 3 3 4 Bruises and contusions 3 3 4 3 Chemical burns 2 2 – – Heat burns 3 2 5 4 Carpal tunnel syndrome 26 24 23 35 Tendonitis 10 10 11 18 All other 5 5 5 6 NOTES: 1. Excludes SICs 10, 12, 14, and 40. 2. Based on non-imputed race/ethnicity. Cases with missing gender or race/ethnicity and for “other non-Hispanics” not reported. Dashes signify the median is based on less than 500 annual cases. SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses.

OCR for page 43
Safety is Seguridad: A Workshop Summary Appendix D-1 Background On Methods The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) conducts two data programs that obtain information on workplace safety and health. The annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII) is a mandatory survey that collects data on non-fatal workplace injuries and illnesses from a stratified random sample of approximately 176,000 private industry establishments. Excluded from the data collection are government agencies, farms with fewer than 11 employees, and the self-employed. These exclusions might be especially problematic when studying Hispanics, since Hispanics have a higher prevalence of employment on farms and in private households. Data for mines and railroads are provided to the BLS from other federal government agencies. Among the data elements collected for each sampled injury or illness that required one or more days away from work are the gender, age, race/ethnicity, and occupation of the worker, as well as the nature of injury (e.g., sprain, fracture), part of body, source of injury or illness (e.g., tool, surface), and the event (e.g., fall, assault). While race/ethnicity is collected, it is not a required field. As a result, 28 percent of cases have unreported race/ethnicity for the years 1998– 2000. Furthermore, race/ethnicity is not available for SICs 10, 12, 14, and 40 and in the SOII because SOII data for these industries come from outside the BLS, and these other sources do not collect race/ethnicity. Weights are attached to each observation so that estimates of the population of all disabling workplace injuries and illnesses can be generated. The data reported through the SOII are based on records that employers maintain under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and in some cases from Workers’ Compensation records. Because this program is a survey and not a census, it is subject to sampling error. The BLS’s other workplace safety and health data program, the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), is a federal/state cooperative program administered by the BLS which collects detailed information on all work-related fatalities from injury occurring during a given year (including private wage and salary workers, public sector employees—both civilian and military—and the self-employed). More than 30 data elements are collected through the CFOI program. Included in the results are such demographic data about as employee work status (wage or salary worker, or self-employed); gender; age; race or ethnic origin; occupation information (classified according to the Bureau of Census’s 1990 Occupational Classification System); and employment industry (classified according to the 1987 Standard Industrial Classification System). Other data elements are coded according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Injury and Illness Classification Manual and consist of such circumstances as the event or exposure causing the fatality; sources of the injury; activity of the worker during the time of the incident; and the location where the fatal injury took place. Approximately 7 percent of fatalities occurred to workers whose race was unknown. Fatally injured workers who were born in Puerto Rico but were working in the United States at the time of the fatal incident were considered “native born” for the purposes of this study. Race/ethnicity is not self-declared, which may result in coding errors. Diverse source documents are used to compile fatality counts that are as complete as possible. Each fatality is typically verified using at least two source documents consisting of

OCR for page 43
Safety is Seguridad: A Workshop Summary death certificates, medical examiner or coroner reports, state Workers’ Compensation fatality reports, and other sources that may be available. Fatality rates reported in Table H are calculated based on annual average employment from the Current Population Survey. Because employment data are not collected by the CFOI, fatality rates were calculated using estimates of employed civilian workers (age 16 and older) from the Current Population Survey (CPS) (described below). Resident military figures, obtained from the Department of Defense (DOD), were added to the CPS employment totals. There are some limitations to these fatality rates: (1) rates are based on employment regardless of hours worked; (2) CPS classifies occupation based on the primary job worked which may not be the job the decedent was performing when fatally injured; and (3) because CPS is a survey rather than a census, sample error may be present in the CPS data. Fatality rates should not be confused with relative fatality risk calculations described below. Employment and hours worked for worker groups were calculated from the microdata of the CPS. The CPS is a monthly random sample of 50,000 households that represents the entire noninstitutionalized civilian population of the United States. In addition to obtaining demographic information about each worker in surveyed households, the survey asks questions about the worker’s industry, occupation, and hours worked per week. We used 36 months of the CPS microdata and a total of 2.16 million records for employed persons to estimate average annual employment and total hours worked for 1998 to 2000. Because the CPS only asks about hours worked in the survey week, these weekly estimates were multiplied by 4.33 to obtain a monthly estimate. Hours-worked estimates for both the main job and a second job, if there was one, were used. Three-year-total hours worked for any group of workers is simply the weighted sum of the monthly hours estimates for all microdata observation in the group, applying sample weights. Using data from all three programs, we calculated measures of relative risk to assess the risk of workplace injury, illness, and death. Separate relative risk measures were calculated for fatalities and for non-fatal cases. The relative risk for a group of workers is calculated as the injury or fatality rate for that group divided by the injury or fatality rate for all workers. The injury or fatality rate used in these calculations is simply the number of injuries or fatalities sustained by a group of workers during a reference time period divided by the hours worked by that group of workers in the same reference period. The relative risk measures how much the injury risk of a reference group (e.g., Hispanic men) differs from the injury risk of all workers. For example, a relative risk of 1.9 for deaths of Hispanic men indicates that the fatality rate for Hispanic men is 1.9 times the fatality rate for all workers. We calculated relative fatality risks using counts of fatalities from 1998 to 2000 drawn from the CFOI and hours worked estimates from the CPS. Non-fatal relative risks were calculated using estimated numbers of injury and illness cases with days away from work. These estimates were based on the microdata of the SOIL In the results section we show that Hispanic men and women tend to work in jobs that are at higher risk of workplace injury and illness. To assess the extent to which the aggregate relative risks for Hispanic men and women are influenced by the distribution of employment, we calculated relative risk measures that standardize for the distribution of employment at the major occupational group level. To standardize at this level we calculated the distribution of hours worked for all employees over the major occupational groups. We then calculated a standardized relative risk for each gender and race/ethnicity group as the weighted average of each group’s major occupation relative risks, where the weights are the hours worked shares for all workers. This measure answers the following question: What would be the relative risk for a group of workers if the hours worked by those workers were distributed in the same way as all workers but where their fatality or injury rates were those they actually face? Some data limitations affected the measures of relative risk and the scope of the non-fatal measures. Both the CFOI and the SOIL suffer from varying degrees of item non-response. Data are sometimes missing for occupation, gender, race/ethnicity, and industry.

OCR for page 43
Safety is Seguridad: A Workshop Summary There are two ways to address item non-response in calculating relative risk measures: Exclude all cases with missing data or impute values when they are missing. By excluding all cases with missing data the implicit assumption is that the missing data would exactly follow the pattern of observed data (e.g., if whites were 70 percent of the observed data, they would also be 70 percent of the missing data). Omitting cases with missing data would bias downward rates of injury or fatality, since the numerators of the rates would be less than they would be without missing data. But, the level of relative risk is unaffected by omitting cases with missing data, since the relative risk for all workers is standardized to 1. Imputing for missing data is a more sophisticated approach. It uses other covariate information to infer the missing characteristics. It allows patterns of values for the missing cases to differ from those in the observed data. In calculating our relative risk measures we dealt differently with the cases with missing values depending on the severity of the problem. Missing data is not a very great problem in the CFOI.1,2 Further, imputation techniques would be relatively crude since the CFOI data set is relatively small. Hence, we chose to omit cases in CFOI where data were missing. Missing data are a problem in the non-fatal survey for race/ethnicity3. We chose to impute for missing gender and race/ethnicity using a nearest neighbor approach. This technique assigns to each case with missing data a value from a donor case. The case with missing data and the donor case are matched based on shared characteristics. To impute gender we matched missing and donor cases based on detailed occupation, and major industry group. To impute race we used state, gender (actual or imputed), occupation and major industry group. To evaluate the result of the imputation we computed the distribution of cases by gender and race/ethnicity for the cases with only non-missing data and for the cases with missing but imputed data. The distributions were quite similar. The scope of the relative risk measures is different for fatalities and non-fatal cases. Relative risk measures for fatalities are calculated for all civilian workers. That is, the relative risk for a particular group of workers is the rate of fatalities for all civilian workers in that group relative to the rate of fatalities for all civilian workers. The relative risk analysis of non-fatal injuries and illnesses is narrower in scope than the analysis of fatalities. The non-fatal survey applies only to private industry workers, so that the self-employed, government workers and private household workers are excluded. The race/ethnicity data in the non-fatal survey are always missing for the following four industries: metal mining (SIC 10), coal mining (SIC 12), nonmetallic minerals (SIC 14), and railroad transportation (SIC 40)4. We did not feel that it was appropriate to impute race/ethnicity to these industries since we had no information about the race/ethnicity of injured workers. Thus, we excluded these from the analysis. Finally, the non-fatal survey does not obtain injury data for farms with fewer than 11 employees. In order to calculate relative risks it is necessary to align the scope of the injury and hours worked data but the CPS does not allow us to identify workers on small farms. We were forced to, therefore, exclude workers in agricultural production (SICs 01 and 02). Thus, the relative risks for non-fatal cases are for private industry excluding SICs 01, 02, 10, 12, 14, and 40. 1   In the 1998–2000 CFOI, data are missing in the following proportions for key variables: industry 0.5 percent, occupation 0.6 percent, race/Hispanic 1.4 percent. 2   For example, for calendar year 2000, on a weighted basis, race/Hispanic was missing for 28.8 percent of cases. However, as noted below in the text, race/ethnicity is always missing for SICs 10, 12, 14, and 40, so that the percent of cases with missing race is lower when these industries are excluded. 3   Data for these industries come from sources outside the Bureau of Labor Statistics and these sources do not obtain race and Hispanic ethnicity. 4   Data for these industries come from sources outside the Bureau of Labor Statistics and these sources do not obtain race and Hispanic ethnicity.

OCR for page 43
Safety is Seguridad: A Workshop Summary In calculating relative risk measures by industry we had to recede census industry codes that are used in the CPS to Standard Industrial Classification industries that are used in the SOII and CFOI. This is straightforward at the major industry division level, since with one exception, each census industry maps into one of the major industry divisions reported here. The one exception is the census industry “not specified manufacturing industries,” which maps into neither durable or nondurable manufacturing. We mapped the few CPS observations for this industry into the SIC industry “miscellaneous manufacturing industries” (SIC 39), which is part of durable manufacturing. Both the CPS and the CFOI have separate variables for race and for Hispanic ethnicity. We combined these variables to generate a single race/ethnicity variable indicating whether a worker or decedent was white non-Hispanic, black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, and other non-Hispanic. A white non-Hispanic value was created for the race/ethnicity variable if the race code was white and the Hispanic code was non-Hispanic. Similarly, black non-Hispanic and other non-Hispanic values were generated if the race code indicated black or another race (but not missing), respectively, and the Hispanic code indicated non-Hispanic. Finally, if the Hispanic variable indicated Hispanic, a value for Hispanic was generated for the race/ethnicity variable regardless of the race code (including missing race). If the value for race was missing and the worker was non-Hispanic or the value for Hispanic was missing, then the worker received a missing value for the race/ethnicity variable.

OCR for page 43
Safety is Seguridad: A Workshop Summary Appendix D-2 Additional Data Sources Many databases, from income and expenditures to health and educational status, exist that provide informative data on the characteristics of Hispanics in the United States. However, there are few programs other than the CFOI the SOII, and the National Traumatic Occupational Fatality program that provide detailed information on occupational injuries to Hispanic workers. Some of the other databases that do provide such information are listed below. Also listed are databases that collect data on Hispanic workers, although not necessarily related to occupational health. This list below is not exhaustive but may provide a helpful starting point for researchers looking for additional data sources. Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries The Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI) collects detailed information on all work-related fatalities resulting from injury during a given year, including demographic data such as employee work status, gender, age, race or ethnic origin; occupation information; employment industry; the event or exposure causing the fatality; the sources of the injury; the activity of the worker during the time of the incident; and the location in which the fatal injury took place. For more information see <http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcfoi1.htm>. Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses The Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII) is a mandatory survey that collects data on non-fatal workplace injuries and illnesses from a stratified random sample of approximately 176,000 private industry establishments. Excluded from the data collection are government agencies, farms with fewer than 11 employees, and the self-employed. The following elements are collected: gender, age, race/ethnicity, and occupation of the worker, as well as the nature of injury (e.g., sprain, fracture), part of body, source of injury or illness (e.g., tool, surface), and the event (e.g., fall, assault). Case and demographics: http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshcdnew.htm Incidence rates: http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshsum.htm National Traumatic Occupational Fatality Surveillance System The National Traumatic Occupational Fatality (NTOF) database includes only data from death certificates indicating that (1) death was related to external causes; (2) the deceased was greater than or equal to 16 years of age at the time of death; and (3) the injury occurred at work. Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation The Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE) surveillance system contains first reports of traumatic occupational fatalities in 15 states obtained through multiple sources of notification including death certificates, coroner and medical examiner reports, OSHA, law enforcement, the media, and other injury surveillance systems. Currently, FACE first reports are limited to 15 states. Participating states change from year to year because states enter and leave the program based on competition for funding.

OCR for page 43
Safety is Seguridad: A Workshop Summary National Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) Youth Injury and Farm Worker Health Supplement The survey will collect information on farm-related injuries occurring to workers under 20 years of age. Ethnicity categories include Mexican, Puerto Rican, Central/South American, other Hispanic, non-Hispanic, and unknown. Common Information Service System (CISS)—Mining CISS is a mining information system provided by NIOSH Mining Safety and Health Research (formerly the United States Bureau of Mines). Occupational Safety and Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards Occupational Safety and Health Guidelines for Chemical Hazards summarizes information on permissible exposure limits, chemical and physical properties, and health hazards. It provides recommendations for medical surveillance, respiratory protection, and personal protection and sanitation practices for specific chemicals that have federal occupational safety and health regulations. National Occupational Mortality Surveillance System (NOMS) The purpose of this data system is to provide a resource for surveillance and research in occupational health. The states in the system are not consistent from year to year. The Hispanic data is not complete for all years. For more information see<http://www.hhs.gov/aspe/minority/mincdc30.htm>. National Surveillance of Non-fatal Occupational Injury In collaboration with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the CPSC collects injury information on civilian work-related injuries treated in 67 hospital emergency departments. Ethnicity categories may be included in a free-text field for “race= other.” The Alaska Trauma Registry (ATR) collects data from all hospitalized traumatic injuries that are admitted to any of the 24 hospitals in Alaska. ATR is administered with assistance from NIOSH and focuses on work-related injury surveillance. Information on Hispanic origin is included. The Coal Workers’ X-Ray Surveillance program provides respiratory health screening and surveillance to monitor trends in coal workers’ pneumoconiosis in United States miners. This program contributes surveillance data for prevention activities to reduce the burden of coal workers’ pneumoconiosis and related lung diseases. Hispanic Population of the United States from the Current Population Survey The CPS core survey is the primary source of information on the employment characteristics of the civilian non-institutional population, ages 16 and older, including estimates of unemployment released every month by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This survey includes data on income and poverty levels. For more information see <http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hispanic.html>. Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (HHANES) This survey contains the following data on Hispanic workers: demographic characteristics, acculturation, cardiovascular conditions, health condition list, diabetes, functional impairment, digestive disease, health services use, hypertension, meal programs, pesticide exposure, smoking,

OCR for page 43
Safety is Seguridad: A Workshop Summary vision, hearing, reproductive health, and selected conditions For more information see<http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/catalogs/subject/hhanes.htm>. National Agricultural Statistics Services This database contains information on Hispanic farm characteristics such as number of farms, farms by size, land use, value of commodities, net cash return, tenure, and average age of operator. For more information see <http://www.usda.gov/nass>. Consumer Expenditure Survey This survey provides information on the buying habits of United States consumers, including data on their expenditures, income, and consumer unit (families and single consumers) characteristics (includes Hispanic origin). For more information see <http://www.bls.gov/cex>. National Center for Education Statistics The NCES provides tables and reports on Hispanic Dropout Rates by Immigration Status. For more information see <http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2001/dropout/StatusRates3.asp>. Bureau of Justice Statistics Annual Survey of Jails Information is available on the number of inmates by sex, race, adult or juvenile status, reason being held, and cause of death. Facility characteristics are collected regarding capacity, court orders, conditions of confinement, alternative programs, and average daily population. Capital Punishment in the United States National Crime Victimization Survey Information about the victims of crime in this survey includes race. National Judicial Reporting Program Convicted felons by sociodemographic characteristics including race are covered by this program. Survey of Adults on Probation For more information see<http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/bjs.html#cp>. Residential Energy Consumption Survey Information is provided on the use of energy and includes demographic characteristics of the household. For more information see <http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/contents.html>. American Housing Survey This survey provides data for evaluating progress made toward “a decent home and a suitable living environment for every American family” and includes demographic, financial, and mobility characteristics of the occupants. For more information see <http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/ahs.html>. Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals The Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) is designed to measure what Americans eat and drink (includes demographic characteristics). For more information see <http://www.barc.usda.gov/bhnrc/foodsurvey/home.htm>.

OCR for page 43
Safety is Seguridad: A Workshop Summary Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS) Program This program measures children’s status at birth and at various points thereafter; children’s transitions to non-parental care, early education programs, and school; and children’s experiences and growth through the fifth grade. For more information see <http://nces.ed.gov/ecls>. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is mandated by Congress to monitor the knowledge, skills, and performance of the nation’s children and youth (includes demographic characteristics). For more information see <http://www.ed.gov/NCES/naep>. National Health Interview Survey This survey consists of data about illnesses, injuries, impairments, chronic conditions, activity limitation caused by chronic conditions, use of health services, and other health topics. The study was designed to allow the development of national estimates of health conditions, health service use, and health problems of the United States civilian non-institutionalized population. For more information see <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhis.htm>. National Immunization Survey Information is collected on the vaccinations received by children 19–35 months old. For more information see <http://www.nisabt.org>. National Vital Statistics System This system collects and publishes data on births and deaths in the United States. For more information see <http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss.htm>. Population Projections Produces projections of the resident population for the nation and for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Projections of the number of future households and families in the United States are also produced at the national level. For more information see <http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/popproj.html>. Survey of Income and Program Participation The SIPP collects detailed information on income, labor force participation, participation in government assistance programs, and general demographic characteristics to measure the effectiveness of existing government programs, to estimate future costs and coverage of government programs, and to provide statistics on the distribution of income in the United States. In addition, topical modules provide detailed information on a variety of subjects, including health insurance, child care, adult and child well-being, marital and fertility history, and education and training. The United States Census Bureau releases cross-sectional, topical modules and longitudinal reports and data files. For more information see <http://www.bls.census.gov/sipp>. Uniform Crime Reports These reports provide information on the following crimes reported to law enforcement authorities: homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. For more information see <http://www.fbi.gov>. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) The Statistical Yearbook provides information about the various types of foreign nationals who are inspected, naturalized, apprehended, or removed by the INS. Types of aliens include

OCR for page 43
Safety is Seguridad: A Workshop Summary immigrants, non-immigrants (temporary visitors), parolees, refugees, and those seeking asylum, as well as those naturalized or apprehended. For more information see <http://www.ins.gov/graphics/aboutins/statistics/ybpage.htm>.

OCR for page 43
Safety is Seguridad: A Workshop Summary References Camarota, Steven A. 2001. Immigrants in the United States-2000. A Snapshot of America’s Foreign Born. : Center for Immigration Studies National Council of La Raza. 2001.Beyond the Census: Hispanics and the American Agenda. Report. 8/01. 24 October 2002 <http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/back101.html> Camarota, Steven A. 1997. 5 million illegal immigrants. Center for Immigration Studies. Immigration Review 28 (Spring):, 24 October 2002 <http://www.nclr.org/policy/census/census_report01_part_I.pdf> Economist 2001. Between Here and There. 7/7/01. London, The Economist Newspaper, Ltd. National Council of La Raza. 2001.Beyond the Census: Hispanics and the American Agenda. Report. 24 October 2002 <http://www.nclr.org/policy/census/census_report01_part_I.pdf> U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2001 [1]. The Hispanic Population. Census 2000 Brief. Washington, D.C. 24 October 2002 <http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-3.pdf> U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2001 [2]. Census 2000 Paints Statistical Portrait of the Nation’s Hispanic Population. News Release. Washington, D.C. 24 October 2002 <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/cb01-81.html> U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2001 [3]. Projections of the Total Resident Population by 5-Year Age Groups, etc. Population Projection Program #NT-P4-G. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2001 [4]. Population by Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin for the U.S., etc. Table 5 #PHC-T-6. Washington, DC. 24 October 2002 <http://www.nclr.org/policy/census/census_report01_part_I.pdf> U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2001 [5]. Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2000. Special Study Report. 24 October 2002 <http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2000/cb00-164.html>. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000: Hispanics in the U.S. Presentation. 24 October 2002 <http://www.census.gov/mso/www/rsf/hisorig/sld001.htm>.