J.16 Analysis of migration questions.pdf

Migration intentions among Empleando Futuros participants

Estela Rivero, PhD

University of Notre Dame

November 2019

Data VIP-RA collected at enrollment and end of the program

776 individuals enrolled in EF by October 16, 2019 200 of them had a post-EF measurement

Geographical distribution:

City N % of sample Tegucigalpa 277 35.70

SPS 158 20.36

Choloma 131 16.88

La Ceiba 107 13.79

La Lima 77 9.92

Villanueva 24 3.09

Progreso 2 0.26

Total 776 100.00

Sociodemographic characteristics of informants at baseline

Characteristic % Age

16 - 20 51.16

21 - 25 35.82

26 - 30 13.02

Sex

Male 44.97

Female 55.03

School achievement

Basic education (1-9) 24.03

Secondary and more 75.97

Migration intentions at baseline

Analysis based on 776 beneficiaries who have responded to migration-related questions at baseline

Have you tried to migrate to the U.S. in the last year?

No 91%

Yes 7%

DK 1%

NR 1%

How many times have you tried migrating to the U.S. in the last year?

66.04

13.21

9.43 11.32

Once Twice Thrice or more NR

Do you intend to migrate to the U.S. in the next three years?

No 59%

Yes 23%

DK 16%NR 2%

What are the two main reasons why you plan to move to the U.S.?

1.65

4.4

10.44

20.88

23.08

26.92

57.14

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Other

I have received life threats or have been extortioned

Even when I have employment, I'd earn more there

To study

Family reunification

I want to live in a safer place

I am unemployed

Has any of your family members ever migrated to the U.S.?

Yes 49% No 49%

DK 2% NR

0%

How much do you agree with the phrase “There is a good future for me in Honduras”?

Completely disagree

9%

Disagree 20%

Agree 43%

Completely agree 28%

Why don’t you see a good future for yourself in Honduras?

19.74

59.21

60.53

64.04

65.35

87.28

0 20 40 60 80 100

Domestic violence at home

Maras/gangs

Political situation

High crime and violence

Corruption and impunity

Lack of jobs / economic situation

Migration intentions in the next three years, by baseline risk of violence

63.94

50 50

19.49

32.38 38.89

15.79 14.76 11.11

Primary (n=513) Secondary (n=210) Tertiary (n=18)

No Sí No sabe

* 1.35% of NR was omitted

Migration intentions, by school achievement

59.12 60.34

30.39

22.24

10.5 17.41

Basic education (n=186) Secondary and more (n=588)

No Yes DK

* p<0.10, **p<0.05

Difficulty in emotional regulation scale(DERS), by migration intentions

Greater difficulty in emotional regulation

Migration intentions Mean DERS

No 3.48

Yes 3.92 ***

Doesn’t know 3.62

.1

.2 .3

Fr ac tio n

0 2 4 6 8

DERS

Migration Intentions: No Migration Intentions: Yes Migration Intentions: Doesn't know

*** p<0.001

Adult resilience measure (ARM), by migration intentions

Greater resilience

Migration intentions Mean ARM

No 8.91

Yes 8.53 ***

Doesn’t know 8.73

.1

.2 .3

Fr ac tio n

0 2 4 6 8 10

ARM

Migration Intentions: No Migration Intentions: Yes p<0.001

Community cohesion and efficacy scale (CCES), by migration intentions

Lower community cohesion

Migration intentions Mean CCES

No 4.73

Yes 5.15 **

Doesn’t know 4.91

.0

.1

.1

.2 Fr ac tio n

0 2 4 6 8 10

CCES

Migration Intentions: No Migration Intentions: Yes

**p<0.05

Post-traumatic stress (PTSD), by migration intentions

Greater post-traumatic stress

Migration intentions Mean PTSD

No 1.33

Yes 1.61 **

Doesn’t know 1.52

.1

.2 .3

.4 Fr ac tio n

0 2 4 6 8 10

PTSD

Migration Intentions: No Migration Intentions: Yes

**p<0.05

Multinomial model: Effect of demographic and psycho-emotional variables on migration intentions

Variable Migration intentions=Yes Migration intentions=DK Female - 0.394 - 0.188 Age 0.006 - 0.007

DERS 0.191 - 0.160

ARM - 0.176 - 0.299 *

CCES 0.102 - 0.151

PTSD - 0.054 - 0.003

* p<0.10

• Reference category= No migration intentions

• Positive values increase the probability of having migration intentions / uncertainty about migration intentions, to the decrease of not having migration intentions

• The model controls for city. None of these variables is significant and were omitted from the table for simplicity.

Interaction of psychoemotional conditions on migration intentions

Conclusions about migration intentions and psycho-emotional conditions Bivariate analysis shows that informants who have migration intentions have more difficulty with emotional regulation, less resilience, less community cohesion and greater post-traumatic stress than those who do not have migration intentions.

These associations disappear once the statistical analysis controls for sex, age, city and other psycho-emotional conditions.

A decisión tree analysis shows that ARM is the single most important predictor of migration intentions.

Changes in migration intentions between baseline and endline Results are based on 200 beneficiaries with two observations

The baseline results of these cases do not correspond completely with the previous analysis. It is based on a subsample.

Do you intend to migrate to the U.S. in the next three years?

59.79

23.2 17.01

62.31

18.09 19.6

No Sí No sabe

Baseline Endline

The change between the two observations is not significant with p<0.10

How much do you agree with the phrase “There is a good future for me in Honduras”?

3.5

20.5

53.5

21.5

Completely disagrees Disagrees Agrees Completely agrees

Baseline Endline

** p<0.05

Conclusions about the baseline and endline comparison Among the 200 individuals with a baseline and an endline observation, migration intentions did not change with time Perceptions about the future in Honduras changed between the baseline and the endline. At the endline, the percentage of beneficiaries who agrees with the phrase “There is a good future for me in Honduras” increased from 41% to 53.6%. This decrease corresponds to a change from 35% to 21.5% among those who agree completely with a good future in Honduras.