U.S. food insecurity rates rapidly increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, with disproportionate impacts on Latino immigrant households. We conducted a qualitative study to investigate how household food environments of rural Latino immigrants were affected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thirty-one respondents (42% from low food security households) completed interviews (July 2020–April 2021) across four rural counties in California. A rural household food security conceptual framework was used to analyze the data. Early in the pandemic, food availability was impacted by school closures and the increased consumption of meals/snacks at home; food access was impacted by reduced incomes. Barriers to access included limited transportation, excess distance, and lack of convenience. Key resources for mitigating food insecurity were the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Pandemic Electronic Benefits Transfer (P-EBT), school meals, charitable food programs, and social capital, although the adequacy and acceptability of charitable food distributions were noted issues. Respondents expressed concern about legal status, stigma, and the public charge rule when discussing barriers to government nutrition assistance programs. They reported that food pantries and P-EBT had fewer access barriers. Positive coping strategies included health-promoting food substitutions and the reduced consumption of meals outside the home. Results can inform the development of policy and systems interventions to decrease food insecurity and nutrition-related health disparities among rural Latino immigrants.

Farmworkers in the U.S. experienced high rates of COVID-19 infection and mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their workplace may have been a significant place of exposure to the novel coronavirus. Using political economy of health theory, this study sought to understand how organizational aspects of the agricultural industry and broader socioeconomic and political conditions shaped farmworkers’ COVID-19 workplace safety during the pandemic. Between July 2020 and April 2021, we conducted and analyzed fourteen in-depth, semi-structured phone interviews with Latinx farmworkers in California. Findings show that regulatory oversight reinforced COVID-19 workplace safety. In the absence of regulatory oversight, the organization of the agricultural industry produced COVID-19 workplace risks for farmworkers; it normalized unsafe working conditions and the worker—rather than employer—responsibility for workplace safety. Under these conditions, farmworkers enacted personal COVID-19 preventative practices but were limited by financial hardships that were exacerbated by the precarious nature of agricultural employment and legal status exclusions from pandemic-related aid. Unsafe workplace conditions negatively impacted workplace camaraderie. Study findings have implications for farmworkers’ individual and collective agency to achieve safe working conditions. Occupational safety interventions must address the organizational aspects that produce workplace health and safety inequities and disempower farmworkers in the workplace.

Studies have examined the impact of federal and state immigration policies on Latino immigrant health. Few studies have investigated the effects of local policies that shape access to services, resources, and opportunities among Latino and immigrant populations. This article presents a framework and measures to describe county-level immigration policy contexts. We developed multisectoral indicators of immigration policy contexts by linking policies and social conditions of inequity to immigration policy through mechanisms of structural racism. Using the indicators, we constructed measures of county-level immigration policy contexts in California. Two indices measured the extent of local 1) inclusive policymaking and 2) social inequity that is reinforced by immigration policy. We categorized counties into four typologies of local immigration policy contexts using the index scores. We used maps and Poisson regression analyses to examine geographic and demographic variations in the scores and typologies. We found that counties in metropolitan regions had the highest inclusive policymaking scores. Rural or agricultural counties had the highest social inequity scores. Inclusive policymaking and social inequity did not always align; some counties with many inclusive policies also had high social inequity. The counties represented in each typology of local immigration policy contexts shared unique geographic characteristics. Ultimately, our findings show that local immigration policy contexts are the product of two distinct mechanisms, and they vary across California, an inclusive state. Researchers must consider local contexts when investigating the social determinants of Latino health. State policymakers should address local conditions of inequity that are reinforced by immigration policy.

Safety net organizations in rural regions face structural barriers to providing services. Organizations that serve rural Latino communities may face additional barriers related to restrictive immigration policies and anti‐immigrant climates. This study examines the impacts of restrictive immigration policies on safety net organizations that provide critical services to Latinos in rural areas to elucidate the mechanisms by which immigration policies influence Latino health. We conducted a qualitative analysis of 20 in‐depth interviews with safety net organizations providing legal, nutritional, healthcare, labor, educational, and advocacy services to Latinos in rural California. Rural Latino‐serving safety net organizations face immigration‐related funding restrictions and anti‐immigrant climates. Under restrictive immigration policies, rural safety net organizations are forced to extend beyond their organizational missions to circumvent immigration‐related funding restrictions and address anti‐immigrant climates to deliver their services. Staff working in these organizations are at the frontlines of anti‐immigrant climates and experienced an emotional toll from their work. States should address anti‐immigrant climates and increase funding to support organizations who serve Latinos in rural regions. To ensure that rural safety net organizations meet their mission, immigration‐related eligibility requirements from safety net services should be removed. In addition, funders should allocate resources towards mental health services to address the impacts of anti‐immigrant climates on staff who serve in rural Latino communities.