J.17 DO1 Analysis of Vict, Percep of Sec and Corruption 2020.pdf

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 1

MONITORING AND EVALUATION SUPPORT

FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING AND

ADAPTING (MESCLA) ACTIVITY

HONDURAS DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE 1:

ANALYSIS OF VICTIMIZATION, PERCEPTION OF

SECURITY, AND CORRUPTION 2020

SUBMISSION DATE: April 17, 2020 Contract Number: AID-OAA-15-00019 – Task Order Number: AID-522-TO-16-00002

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Dexis Consulting Group.

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) i

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

SUPPORT FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING

AND ADAPTING (MESCLA) ACTIVITY

Honduras Development Objective 1:

Analysis of Victimization, Perception of Security, and Corruption

Submission date: April 17, 2020

Revised submission: May 26, 2020

SUBMITTED TO:

USAID/Honduras

Prepared by:

Dexis Consulting Group

DISCLAIMER:

The authors’ views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Figures iii

Acronyms iv

1 Executive Summary 1

1.1 Key Findings 1

2 Analysis Purpose & Questions 3

2.1 Analysis Purpose 3

2.2 Analysis Question 3

3 DO1 Background 3

3.1 Context 3

4 Methods & Limitations 4

4.1 Data 4

4.2 Variables 5

4.3 Respondents’ Demographic Characteristics 6

4.4 Limitations 7

5 Results 7

5.1 Victimization 7

5.2 Perception of Security 9

5.3 Police Performance 12

5.4 Migration 14

6 Conclusion 20

Appendix I: Questionnaire 2020 22

Appendix 2: Additional Analysis 31

Appendix 3: 2019 Reference Analysis 35

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) iii

FIGURES

Figure 1: Homicide rate trends (per 100,000) Figure 2: Number of observations by municipality Figure 3: Sample average characteristics Figure 4: Employment (percentage) Figure 5: Percentage of households with a victim of violence in the last 12 months Figure 6: Types of aggression (percentage) Figure 7: Percentage of household victims of violence in the last 12 months, by number of times the respondent saw the police in his/her neighborhood during the last week Figure 8: Proportion of respondents who feel very insecure/insecure in their neighborhood Figure 9: Percentage of most common preventive measures taken Figure 10: Percentage feeling very secure/secure in specific places Figure 11: Percentage of perceived change in neighborhood security in the last 12 months Figure 12: Percentage of perceived change in neighborhood security in the last 12 months, by municipality Figure 13: Percentage of respondents who are very unsatisfied or unsatisfied with services in their neighborhood Figure 14: Type of police most present in neighborhood (percentage of mentions) Figure 15: Frequency of police patrols (percentage) Figure 16: Perception of police performance overall (percentage) Figure 17: Perception of police performance by municipality (percentage) Figure 18: Feeling very insecure/insecure by police performance (percentage) Figure 19: Reasons for not seeing a good future in Honduras (percentage) Figure 20: Intention to migrate in the next three years to the United States versus other country (percentage) Figure 21: Intention to migrate in the next three years to the United States by perception of future in Honduras (2020, percentage) Figure 22: Migration in past year to the United States, by municipality (percentage) Figure 23: Reasons for intention to migrate to the United States (percentage) Figure 24: Effect of socioeconomic and security variables on the probability of intent to migrate independently of destination in DO1 communities, 2020 Figure 25: Effect of socioeconomic and security variables on the odds of willingness to migrate to any country without a visa in DO1 communities, 2020 Figure 26: Effect of socioeconomic and security variables on the probability of intent to migrate independently of destination, national results from LAPOP, 2018 Figure 27: Effect of socioeconomic and security variables on the odds of intent to migrate in DO1 communities, 2020

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) iv

ACRONYMS

DO Development Objective

INE Instituto Nacional de Estadística (National Statistics Institute)

INL Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs

LAPOP Latin American Public Opinion Project

MESCLA Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting

SEPOL Sistema Estadístico Policial en Línea (Online Police Statistics System)

SPS San Pedro Sula

USAID United States Agency for International Development

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The primary purpose of the annual Development Objective 1 (DO1) survey is to enable the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of State Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL) in Honduras to report to stakeholders on high-level context and outcome indicators. The survey also provides information for programmatic decision-making in DO1 priority communities. The results are representative of DO1 households in Tegucigalpa, San Pedro Sula, Choloma, La Ceiba, and Tela. Surveys were conducted in January 2019 and January 2020, and all references to change refer to those points in time.

1.1 KEY FINDINGS

• The lack of stable, quality economic opportunities and associated food insecurity negatively impact perceptions of the future in Honduras, and have become the most potent driver of migration intentions from these DO1 communities to the United States. This is despite the fact that employment levels and perception of security remained unchanged, household victimization, and perceptions of police performance decreased from 2019-2020.

• There is one major difference between those with general migration intentions and those with willingness to migrate without a visa; less education increases the probability of willingness to migrate without a visa (to any country), whereas more education increases probability to have migration intentions generally (to any country).

• Victimization increased

• Household victimization in last 12 months increased from 16 to 20 percent

• 10 percent of respondents themselves were victims of violence in 2020

• Robbery and assaults were, by far, the most frequent acts of violence in both years

• There is no difference in gender in percentage or type of victimization

• Reporting of violence to the police decreased

• Reporting of victimization to police decreased from 29 to 20 percent

• Satisfaction with street lighting decreased from 67 to 55 percent

• Visibility and perception of the police decreased

• Visibility of police patrols increased from 21 percent to 29 percent

• Observed police presence in DO1 neighborhoods increased from 10 percent to 14 percent

• Perception of police performance doing a good or very good job decreased from 32 percent to 27 percent

• Bribes requested by police increased from six to eight percent

• No change in perception of security overall

• 60 percent of respondents continue to feel safe or very safe in their neighborhood

• More respondents in La Ceiba and Tela feel safe or very safe (69 percent) than other municipalities

• 45 percent of respondents perceive an improvement in security in the last year; a small, not significant, increase from 41 percent in 2019

• Perceptions of improvement are smaller in Tegucigalpa (37 percent) than other municipalities (49 percent to 60 percent)

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 2

• Recent household migration to the United States increased

• Households where someone had migrated to the United States in the past 12 months increased from eight to 14 percent

• Tela and La Ceiba have the highest percentage of households with at least one migrant and receive more remittances than other DO1 municipalities

• Future intention to migrate to the United States decreased

• The intention to migrate to the United States among those who do not see a good future in Honduras is nearly double the intention to migrate among those who see a good future in Honduras

• Intention to migrate to the United States in the next three years decreased from 32 to 25 percent – the largest decreases were in Choloma, La Ceiba and Tela while intention to migrate to other countries did not change

• Of those with an intention to migrate in 2020, 92 percent cited employment (unchanged from 2019) and 32 percent cited violence (down from 38 percent in 2019) among their reasons.

• Among those with migration intention to the United States in 2020:

• Looking for employment eclipsed previous household migration as the factor most strongly associated with migration intentions

• Perception of security and victimization are no longer significantly associated with intention to migrate

• Family networks, remittances and gender are more important than to non-U.S.

destinations

• Perception of the future in Honduras and food insecurity (new variables in 2020) were significantly associated with migration intentions

• Overall, despite the fact that employment levels remained unchanged, household victimization increased, and perceptions of police performance decreased from 2019- 2020, the lack of job opportunities and associated food insecurity negatively impact perceptions of the future in Honduras and have become an even more potent driver of migration from these DO1 communities.

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 3

2 ANALYSIS PURPOSE & QUESTIONS

2.1 ANALYSIS PURPOSE

The purpose of the analysis is to:

● Assess the levels in victimization, perception of security, perception of police performance, and migration intention in DO1 communities

● Assess the relationship between migration and the other variables of interest

● Analyze the changes over two survey years (2019-2020) among these variables

2.2 ANALYSIS QUESTION

The multi-part question that informs the analysis is as follows:

3 DO1 BACKGROUND

3.1 CONTEXT

As part of the USAID/Honduras Country Development Cooperation Strategy objective (DO1) to counter violence and to promote a more prosperous and safer Honduras, the Mission focused its activities in five municipalities: Distrito Central, San Pedro Sula (SPS), Choloma, La Ceiba and Tela.

These municipalities have very high historical homicide rates. Within those municipalities, communities with higher than average homicides rates were chosen.

Figure 1: Homicide rate trends (per 100,000)

Source: Sistema Estadístico Policial en Línea (SEPOL) 2013-2018, estimates using SEPOL data 2019.

44 41

88 95

56 53

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

R at e

Year

National DO1 Communities

What are the levels of victimization, perception of security, perception of police performance, corruption, and migration intention in DO1 communities, what is the relationship between migration and the other variables of interest, and how do the levels and relationships change over time?

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 4

The homicide rate in Honduras leveled off after falling from 78 per 100,000 in 2013 to 43.6 per 100,000 in 2019. These homicide rates are still far above the rate of 10 per 100,000 that the United Nations uses to categorize violence as an “epidemic”. Homicides have declined more dramatically in DO1 communities, from nearly twice the national average in 2013 to just below the national average in 2019.

Despite that, violent crime in Honduras continues to be primarily a phenomenon of low-income, densely-populated, urban areas with significant increases in San Pedro Sula and Choloma, and along narco-trafficking routes along the Caribbean coast (Tela, La Ceiba).

As a component of DO1, promoting a more prosperous Honduras is also a central goal of work in these communities. While the national unemployment rate has increased only slightly from 5.3 percent in 2014 to 5.7 percent in 2019, employment formality and quality vary greatly.1 Informal employment in Honduras has hovered around 60 percent over the past five years,2 which mirrors DO1 communities (see Figure 4 below). Quality employment with security, stability, safe working conditions, living wages, and social security coverage has decreased substantially in Honduras. Nearly twice as many “employed” individuals do not have quality employment compared to five years ago.3 As explored below, this is vitally important because it is the generation of quality jobs versus precarious jobs that can substantially and sustainably reduce poverty and migration. Past migration is reported by 13 percent of DO1 community survey respondents.

4 METHODS & LIMITATIONS

4.1 DATA

The data were collected in January 2019 and January 2020 using a structured survey developed by MESCLA, the Pulte Institute for Global Development at the University of Notre Dame, and the data collection firm LeVote (Appendix 1).4 During data collection, enumerators used cell phones that had been previously programmed using SurveyToGo. The data collection instrument was based on standardized, previously utilized and tested instruments designed to measure perception of security, crime victimization, past household migration and migration intentions, perception of the performance of police and bribery by police and government officials. Minor modifications to language and precision were made during the document preparation and training.

The survey is representative of households in DO1 colonias in the five DO1 municipalities: Distrito Central (Tegucigalpa), San Pedro Sula, Choloma, La Ceiba, and Tela. In 2020 it is also representative of DO1 households in each of the following four domains: urban DO1 colonias in Tegucigalpa; urban DO1 colonias in San Pedro Sula; urban DO1 colonias in Choloma; and urban DO1 communities in La Ceiba and Tela. Sample selection followed a multistage design within each of these four domains. In a first stage, researchers divided the colonias in each domain according to their population size in three strata, and randomly selected a sample of colonias with each strata. In a second stage, researchers divided the selected colonias in quadrants and randomly selected one of the quadrants. Within each quadrant, enumerators systematically sampled households. This resulted in an effective sample of 3,974 in 2019

1 Instituto Nacional de Estadística (INE). Encuesta Permanante de Hogares de Propósitos Múltiples, 2014 and 2019.

2 Socio-Economic Database for Latin America and the Caribbean (SEDLAC). Accessed 27 January 2020, http://www.cedlas.econo.unlp.edu.ar 3 Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. (2011). La calidad del empleo en América Latina.

https://repositorio.cepal.org/bitstream/handle/11362/5341/1/S2011956_es.pdf 4 Where possible, comparisons are also made with the 2017 Convive data collected from DO1 communities. Full comparison is not possible given the changes in data collection techniques and survey content after 2017.

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 5 and 4,259 in 2020. One respondent, 18 years or older, was selected within each household, according to sex and age quotas.

Figure 2: Number of observations by municipality

Municipality Sample Size 2019 Sample Size 2020

Tegucigalpa 2,081 1,079

SPS 1,067 1,071

Choloma, La Ceiba y Tela 826

Choloma 1,002

La Ceiba y Tela 1,107

Total 3,974 4,259

The sampling was designed to allow for robust standard error estimates to reflect the clustered nature of the data, and weights were used to correct for the sampling design and imbalances in the probability of being selected into the sample.

The statistical methods used included frequencies, cross-tabulations, differences in proportions and linear and logistic regressions. Throughout the report, we explored the existence of statistical differences between years, sampling domains (Tegucigalpa, San Pedro Sula, Choloma, and La Ceiba and Tela), migration intentions, sex, and crime victimization. Only those differences that were statistically significant are indicated.

4.2 VARIABLES

While the survey included demographics, employment indicators and access to services, the analysis in this report focuses on four main themes:

1. Victimization

2. Perception of security

3. Perception of the performance of police

4. Perception of public services

5. Migration

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 6

4.3 RESPONDENTS’ DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

The 2019 and 2020 samples were comparable in terms of demographic characteristics.

Figure 3: Sample average characteristics

Characteristic 2019 2020

Head of household 53% 53%

Household size 5 5

Male 50% 50%

Female 50% 50%

Average age 37 36

Years of school 9 9

Migrated to neighborhood <5 years 16% 13%

The employment characteristics of the sample also remained consistent between 2019 and 2020, with a small (not statistically significant) increase in those working salaried jobs. The largest percentage of the sample worked outside of the home, and most of those working were self-employed with no employees.

(Owner refers to owners or co-owners of an enterprise with employees.)

Figure 4: Employment (percentage) Working Position (Among Working)

Note: Percentage working n=4,259; Position among those working n=1,849

“Other” includes those who are unemployed, looking for a job, studying, and not doing any of these activities. The questionnaire did not disaggregate these options.

0 10 20 30 40 50

Working

Domestic chores

Other

0 20 40 60

Owner

Salaried

Self-employed

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 7

4.4 LIMITATIONS

Given that the sample used here is representative of DO1 communities that are largely poor and characterized by high crime, the primary limitation of this analysis is external validity, or the capacity to generalize the results beyond these communities. Therefore, the results should reflect these communities only.

Another limitation is that the temporal reference of the answers is unclear. Field work was conducted in January of both years, and most questions are retrospective with reference periods that vary between the past six months and the previous 12 months. As with most retrospective questions, it is not clear whether participants really assessed the whole reference period, or what the exact time period their answers refers to.

5 RESULTS

This section presents the results from the analysis for each outcome variable. For this study, we established the level of statistical significance at a minimum of 10 percent (p<.10) and note when significance reaches five percent (p<.05). When differences are not noted, the means and differences in means are deemed to not be statistically significant.

5.1 VICTIMIZATION

In 2020, 20 percent of all DO1 households had been the victims of delinquency in the last 12 months.

This was up from 16 percent in 2019. As in 2019, more households were victimized in Tegucigalpa than other DO1 areas.

Figure 5: Percentage of households with a victim of violence in the last 12 months

Note: [--] 95% Confidence Interval; *indicates statistical significance at the p<.05 level

14 13

20*

DO1 Tegucigalpa SPS Choloma, La Ceiba y Tela

Choloma La Ceiba y Tela

2019 2020

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 8

As in 2019, robbery and assault are by far the most prevalent crimes across all DO1 areas, with no differences between areas or genders.

Figure 6: Types of aggression (percentage)

Note: 2019 n=653, 2020 n=822; Does not add to 100% given multiple responses allowed.

Only one in five household victimizations were reported to the police or another authority. This decreased from close to one in three in 2019 (decrease from 29 percent to 20 percent reporting). Of those who reported a crime, over three-quarters (76 percent) were unsatisfied or very unsatisfied with the outcome. Dissatisfaction increased from 2019 (63 percent).

In 2020, while not statistically significant, the percentage of households that have been victims of violence is greater in neighborhoods where police have been seen once or less during the last week than in neighborhoods where they have a frequent presence.

Figure 7: Percentage of household victims of violence in the last 12 months, by number of times the respondent saw the police in his/her neighborhood during the last week

Note: [--] Confidence Interval

Overall, households that receive remittances are nearly seven percent more likely to have victims of violence than those households (20 percent, not shown) that do not receive remittances (14 percent).

No statistical association was found between an individual’s employment status and victimization at the household level.

10 9

6 3

11 10 6

Robbery/Assault Death threat Physical aggression Extorsion Homicide Sexual assault

2019 2020

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

None

1/week

2/week

3/week

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 9

5.2 PERCEPTION OF SECURITY

Among DO1 residents overall, 60 percent feel very secure or secure in their neighborhood. This is close to the same as in 2019 (61 percent). The rate of feeling secure is highest in La Ceiba and Tela, and lowest in San Pedro Sula and Choloma.

Figure 8: Proportion of respondents who feel very secure/secure in their neighborhood

Note: [--] Confidence Interval; 2019 n=3,949, 2020 n=4,259

While down from 2019 (83 percent), most respondents (77 percent) have changed their behavior because of the fear of violence. These behavioral changes primarily include limiting movement in space and time of day.

Figure 9: Percentage of most common preventive measures taken

Note: Adds to more than 100% percent as respondents were asked about each measure separately. Top five responses shown.

61 55 57

60 60 58 58

DO1 Tegucigalpa SPS Choloma, La Ceiba y Tela

Choloma La Ceiba y Tela

2019 2020

50 48

25 24

Reduced places visited for pleasure

Reduced going out at night

Reduced places for shopping

Thought about leaving country

Felt the need to change neighborhoods

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 10

Most DO1 residents (74 percent) feel very secure or secure in their home. The same amount (74 percent) of those who work feel very secure or secure in their workplace.

Figure 10: Percentage feeling very secure/secure in specific places

Note: Only the five places where the perception of insecurity is highest are shown. Percentages are calculated based on those who visit each place (e.g. 53 percent total have workplace). *indicates statistical significance (p<.05)

Among DO1 residents overall, the largest percentage feel that the security in their neighborhood has improved in the last year. This represents an increase (not statistically significant) from 41 to 45 percent from 2019 to 2020. There was no statistical difference in the percentage of respondents in 2019 and 2020 who feel security worsened over the past year.

Figure 11: Percentage of perceived change in neighborhood security in the last 12 months

Note: 2019 n=3,974, 2020 n=4,259

74 72 67 63 59 53 55 42 39 33

74 74 70 64 58 55 52 40 37 33

At home At work At school At local stores

On local streets

Leaving work

At local sports fields

Walking alone at night

At bus stops

In taxis In bus, micro or rapidito

2019 2020

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Improved a lot/some

Remained the same

Worsened a lot/some

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 11

In San Pedro Sula, Choloma, La Ceiba and Tela, more respondents feel that the security in their neighborhood has improved in the last year than those that feel security remained the same or grew worse. There is a marked difference between those municipalities and Tegucigalpa, where more respondents feel security remained the same.

Figure 12: Percentage of perceived change in neighborhood security in the last 12 months, by municipality

Satisfaction with street lighting decreased significantly from 2019 to 2020. Respondents were less satisfied with street lighting than other services such as recreational areas, health, and education. Health services were the only service where satisfaction increased from 2019 to 2020.

Figure 13: Percentage of respondents who are very unsatisfied or unsatisfied with services in their neighborhood

Note: 2019 n=3.794, 2020 n=4,259; * indicates statistical significance

37*

56 60 48*

31 32

15 14 13 8

Tegucigalpa SPS Choloma La Ceiba/Tela

Improved a lot/some Remained the same Worsened a lot/some n= 1,079 1,071 1,002 1,107

67 74

Street lighting Recreational areas Health services Education

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 12

5.3 POLICE PERFORMANCE

From 2019 to 2020, there was a significant increase in responses that indicate no observed police presence in DO1 neighborhoods. Where police are present, national police are the most noted. Military police presence has decreased slightly, though the difference is not significant.

Figure 14: Type of police most present in neighborhood (percentage of mentions)

Note: 2019 n=3.794, 2020 n=4,259; *indicates statistical significance; multiple responses accepted

There was a significant decrease from 2019 to 2020 in respondents reporting having seen national police doing rounds in the last week. There was also a significant decrease in multiple sightings of national police per week.

Figure 15: Frequency of police patrols (percentage)

Note: 2019 n=3,869, 2020 n=4,170

14*

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

National Police

Military Police

Other

None

2019 2020

28*

15*

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Never

1/week

2/week

3+/week

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 13

From 2019 to 2020, respondents’ perception of police performance deteriorated with fewer reporting good or very good performance and more reporting poor or very poor performance. However, there were no significant differences in perceptions of change in effectiveness from 2019 to 2020.

Figure 16: Perception of police performance overall (percentage)

Note: 2019 n=3,838, 2020 n=4,091

In 2020, the perception of very good or good police performance in La Ceiba and Tela is statistically higher than in the other municipalities.

Figure 17: Perception of police performance by municipality (percentage)

Note: *indicates statistical significance

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Very poor/poor

OK

Very good/good

2019 2020

43 43 39

Tegucigalpa SPS Choloma, La Ceiba y Tela

27 26 25

42 46 43

37*

24 27 31

Tegucigalpa SPS Choloma La Ceiba/Tela

Very poor/poor OK Very good/good n= 3,838 4,091

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 14

The perception of police performance and sense of security are highly associated.

Figure 18: Feeling very insecure/insecure by police performance (percentage)

Note: 2019 n=3,838, 2020 n=4,091

Finally, bribery of police increased at a statistically significant rate between 2019 and 2020 with 6 percent and 8 percent reporting requests for bribes respectively (not shown). This is only slightly higher than bribes to any government official except police at four percent in both 2019 and 2020.

5.4 MIGRATION

In 2020, just over half (56 percent) of respondents did not see a good future for themselves and their family in Honduras.5 The main reasons for not seeing a good future in Honduras were the economic situation, violence (gangs, extortion, etc.), corruption, and the political situation.6

Figure 19: Reasons for not seeing a good future in Honduras (percentage)

Note:

Multiple responses accepted.

5 This question was not asked in 2019.

6 Among those reporting that they did see a good future in Honduras (44 percent), there was hope for improvements primarily in the economic (66 percent) and security situations (31 percent, not shown).

54*

39*

26*

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Very poor/poor

OK

Very good/good

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Economic situation

Violence

Corruption

Politics

Domestic violence

Other n= 2,293

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 15

There was a significant decrease in intention to migrate to the United States from 2019 to 2020, and a small (statistically insignificant) decrease in intention to migrate to other countries.

Figure 20: Intention to migrate in the next three years to the United States versus other country (percentage)

Note: 2019 n=3,974, 2020 n=4,259

The intention to migrate to the United States among those who do not see a good future in Honduras is nearly double the intention to migrate among those who see a good future in Honduras.

Figure 21: Intention to migrate in the next three years to the United States by perception of future in Honduras (2020, percentage)

In 2020, over one third (37 percent) of DO1 households have someone who migrated abroad in the past, and nearly one third (31 percent) of DO1 households receive remittances (not shown).7 A growing number have migrated in the past year (12 percent in 2019, 19 percent in 2020), with most of the

7 DO1 households report a much larger proportion of families receiving remittances than the national average of 18 percent (National Household Survey, 2017). The National Household Survey is representative at National and Departmental level and for the Distrito Central and San Pedro Sula municipalities.

25*

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

United States

Other country

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 16 increase destined for the United States. In 2020, these migrants are coming from Choloma and La Ceiba and Tela at greater rates than Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula.

Figure 22: Migration in past year to the United States, by municipality (percentage)

Among those with intentions to migrate to the United States, employment is the most common reason for intent to migrate, followed by violence, family reunification, and food insecurity. From 2019 to 2020, there are no statistically significant changes.8

Figure 23: Reasons for intention to migrate to the United States (percentage)

8 Food security was added as an option in 2020.

12 14

20* 19*

Tegucigalpa SPS Choloma La Ceiba/Tela n= 1,079 1,071 1,002. 1,107

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Employment

Violence

Family reunification

Food security

Other

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 17

When a multivariate analysis is conducted, intent to migrate in 2020 is lower for women than for men and decreases with age. Intent to migrate increases most when the respondent perceives a bad future in Honduras, the respondent is looking for work, or the household suffers from food insecurity. Intent to migrate also increases some when the household receives remittances, has a previous migrant, the respondent has additional years of schooling, or someone in the household was a victim of delinquency.

Figure 24: Effect of socioeconomic and security variables on the probability of intent to migrate independently of destination in DO1 communities, 2020

Notes: For comparison with Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP) data, results of a linear regression are presented for 2020 using the probability of intent to migrate to the US or to another country in the next three years as the dependent variable. The figure presents the marginal effect on the probability of having migration intentions and the 95 percent confidence interval. In other words, holding all other variables constant, with a unit increase in a variable, intent to migrate is expected to increase/decrease by the coefficient where (effects larger than zero increase the probability of having migration intentions, while effects smaller than zero decrease the probability). In the figure, significant effects are marked with a black dot (significant if the confidence intervals do not cross the 0.0 value).

R2=0.218 n=4,158

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 18

There are differences in variables associated with willingness to migrate to any country without a visa compared to those with general migration intentions. Most importantly, less education increases willingness to migrate without a visa (Figure 25), whereas more education increases probability to migrate generally (Figure 24). Receiving remittances and delinquency victimization are statistically significant for migration generally, but are not for migration without a visa.

Figure 25: Effect of socioeconomic and security variables on the odds of willingness to migrate to any country without a visa in DO1 communities, 2020

Notes: For comparison with LAPOP data, results of a linear regression are presented using the probability of intent to migrate to any country without a visa as the dependent variable. The figure presents the marginal effect on the probability of having migration intentions and the 95 percent confidence interval. In other words, holding all other variables constant, with a unit increase in a variable, intent to migrate is expected to increase/decrease by the coefficient where (effects larger than zero increase the probability of having migration intentions, while effects smaller than zero decrease the probability). In the figure, significant effects are marked with a black dot (significant if the confidence intervals do not cross the 0.0 value).

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 19

Overall, results for DO1 in 2020 are similar to those of LAPOP 2018 national data,9 with the exception of corruption and extortion victimization, which increased migration intentions in LAPOP, but were not significant in DO1 2020. (This may be due to the inclusion in DO1 2020 of the strongly associated perception of a bad future in Honduras variable that pulled all other associations closer to zero when compared to LAPOP and DO1 2019. See DO1 2019 results Annex 3.)

Figure 26: Effect of socioeconomic and security variables on the probability of intent to migrate independently of destination, national results from LAPOP, 2018

Notes: LAPOP data do not include perception of future in Honduras, perception of security or victim of delinquency. DO1 data do not include urban/rural (DO1 is all urban) or economic situation.

When the analysis of DO1 data is restricted to intent to migrate to the United States (Figure 27A), years of schooling, and living in a household where someone was a victim of delinquency are no longer significant when compared to migration intention without regard for destination (Figure 24).10

There are also differences in variables associated with intent to migrate to the United States (Figure 27A) compared to other countries (Figure 27B). In the case of migration to other countries, gender, receiving remittances and having past migrants in the household are not significant variables while they are statistically significant for migration to the United States. However, additional school years and living

9 LAPOP’s analysis is representative of the whole country. This survey, on the contrary, is representative of DO1 communities only.

10 This analysis also represents a change with respect to the results observed in 2019, where additional years of education, perception of insecurity, and living in household that had been victim to delinquency increased the odds of having the intent to migrate to the United States, but looking for work did not (see Figure 23 and Appendix 3 for 2019 results).

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 20 in a household where someone was a victim of delinquency are statistically significant for migration to countries other than the United States.

Figure 27: Effect of socioeconomic and security variables on the odds of intent to migrate in DO1 communities, 2020

A. To the United States… B. To other countries…

Notes: For comparison with LAPOP data, results of a linear regression are presented using the probability of intent to migrate to the US in the next three years as the dependent variable. The figure presents the marginal effect on the probability of having migration intentions and the 95 percent confidence interval. In other words, holding all other variables constant, with a unit increase in a variable, intent to migrate is expected to increase/decrease by the coefficient where (effects larger than zero increase the probability of having migration intentions, while effects smaller than zero decrease the probability). In the figure, significant effects are marked with a black dot (significant if the confidence intervals do not cross the 0.0 value).

6 CONCLUSION

What are the levels of victimization, perception of security, perception of police performance, corruption, and migration intention in DO1 communities? How do these change over time?

Victimization increased to directly impact one in five DO1 households while perceptions of police performance and police visibility decreased. Despite that, nearly two in three households still feel safe or very safe.

In 2019, intent to migrate in the next three years was nearly three times the number of households that had a member migrate in the last 12 months. In 2020, those intentions were acted upon with a three-quarter increase in households where someone migrated in the past 12 months. However, future migration intentions to the United States decreased significantly. Among the primary reasons of those with an intention to migrate, nearly all continue to cite employment, while a decreasing number cited violence.

What is the relationship between migration and the other variables of interest? How do these change over time?

Looking for employment eclipsed previous household migration as the factor most strongly associated with migration intentions to the United States. In 2019, corruption (bribery) and perception of

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 21 insecurity increased the odds of future migration intentions. However, in 2020, those security factors were no longer statistically associated with intention to migrate. New variables in 2020 of not seeing a good future in Honduras and food insecurity showed strong association with intention to migrate no matter the destination.

Overall, despite the fact that employment levels remained unchanged, household victimization increased, and perceptions of police performance decreased from 2019-2020, the lack of job opportunities and associated food insecurity negatively impact perceptions of the future in Honduras and have become an even more potent driver of migration from these DO1 communities.

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 22

APPENDIX I: QUESTIONNAIRE 2020

Encuesta

Introducción: Buenos días/tardes. Trabajo para Levote y deseamos su opinión sobre temas de interés en nuestro país. La encuesta es corta durará aproximadamente 30 minutos. La información recopilada es confidencial y anónima, no preguntamos nombres. No hay respuesta buenas ni malas, sólo son opiniones. ¿Está Usted de acuerdo de aceptar voluntariamente realizar esta encuesta?

o Acepta o Rechaza

DATOS DE IDENTIFICACIÓN Tipo Muestra: Reemplazo: Adicional:

I. DATOS DEMOGRÁFICOS

1. ¿Es usted jefe de hogar? 1 Si ---- Pase a 3 2 No --- Siga

2. ¿Qué relación tiene usted con el jefe de hogar? 1 Esposo/ esposa, pareja

4 Hermano/Hermana

2 Padre/Madre 5 Otro parentesco 3 Hijo/Hija 6 Sin Relación

3. ¿Cuántas personas viven en este hogar?

4. Sexo de la persona que contesta la encuesta – (No pregunte) 1 Hombre 2 Mujer

5. ¿Cuántos años cumplidos tiene usted? Validar que sea igual o mayor de 18 años

6. ¿Cuál es el último grado de educación que usted completó?

[Si la persona responde Primaria, Media o Universitaria, pregúntale el grado exacto que completó]

1 Ninguno 2 Básica (1-9) indique el grado que completó

3 Media (10 -12) Indique el grado que completó

4 Superior Universitaria Indique el grado que completó

5 Otro 88 NS 99 NR

7. ¿Cuántos años tiene de vivir en esta colonia/comunidad? Si es mayor de 5 años Pase a 10

8. ¿Dónde vivía usted hace ____años?

[Si el lugar es en Honduras, pregúntale por el departamento, el municipio, aldea, barrio/colonia. Si es otro país, indique el nombre del país)

Honduras

Cod e

Departamento

Cod e

Municipio

Cod e

Aldea/Colonia

Otro país

Estados Unidos

España

Otro país: _______________

9. ¿Cuáles son las dos razones principales por las cuales se vino a este lugar?

[Pregúntale a la persona si sabe leer. Si el entrevistado sabe leer utilice la tarjeta 9. De lo contrario, léale las opciones. Si la persona da solo una razón, pregúntale si hay otra razón]

1 Para buscar trabajo 2 Traslado de trabajo 3 Estudios 4 Su familia lo trajo 5 Finalizó estudios 6 Motivos familiares

(reunificación familiar) 7 Matrimonio /estar con mi pareja 8 Por motivos de salud

9 Por seguridad 10 Desastre natural 11 Deportado (si en 8 es

“Otro País”)

12 Otro 88 NS 99 NR

II. SITUACIÓN ECONÓMICA - EMPLEO

10. ¿En qué medida está de acuerdo con la siguiente afirmación:

“Crea que hay un buen futuro para mí y mi familia aquí en Honduras”?

1 Muy de acuerdo Pase a 12

2 De acuerdo Pase a 12

3 En desacuerdo 4 Muy en desacuerdo

88 NS Pase a 13 99 NR Pase a 13

Código de Encuestador/a:

Departamento: Municipio:

Supervisor/a_____________________________ Colonia:

Fecha: __ - __ - ____ Hora de inicio: ________Hora de fin: ________

UMEP:

Coordenadas

(GPS):

No. Cuestionario

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 23

11. ¿Por qué no cree que hay buen futuro para usted y su familia en Honduras? (Marque todas las que apliquen)

1 Por la falta de empleo / la situación económica Pase a 13

2 Por el alto índice de delitos y violencia

3 Por las pandillas Pase a 13

4 Por la extorsión Pase a

5 Por la violencia doméstica en casa Pase a 13

6 Por la situación política Pase a 13

7 Por el nivel de corrupción e impunidad Pase a 13

8 Otro, especifique Pase a

12. ¿Por qué cree que hay un buen futuro para usted y su familia en Honduras?

1 Porque creo que la situación económica mejorará

2 Porque creo que la situación de seguridad mejorará

3 Porque creo que la situación de corrupción e impunidad mejorará

4 Porque creo que la situación política mejorará

5 Otro (especifique)

13. La semana pasada, ¿a qué se dedicó Usted principalmente?

(Mostrar las opciones en la tarjeta, lea las opciones, espere y marque una opción. En caso de tener más de una actividad, se repregunta haciendo énfasis en “principalmente”.

1 Trabajó Siga

2 No trabajó; la semana pasada; porque estaba de vacaciones o por incapacidad médica, permiso, cesante Pase a 15

3 Buscó trabajo activamente Pase a 15

4 A estudiar Pase 15

5 Se dedicó a los quehaceres del hogar Pase a 15

6 Está jubilado, pensionado o incapacitado permanentemente para trabajar Pase a 15

7 No trabaja, no estudia Pase a 15

8 Trabajó y estudió Siga

9 otro 99 NR 88 NS

14. ¿En su ocupación principal usted es: 1 Asalariado (a) del gobierno o empresa pública

2 Asalariado del sector privado

3 Dueño/socio de la empresa

4 Trabajador(a) por cuenta propia

5 Trabajador(a) no remunerado(a) sin pago

6 Otro

99 NR 88 NS

15. En los últimos tres meses, por falta de dinero u otros recursos, ¿alguna vez en su hogar se quedaron sin alimentos?

1 Si

2 No

16. En los últimos tres meses, por falta de dinero u otros recursos, ¿usted o algún adulto en su hogar solo comió una vez al día o dejó de comer todo el día?

III. MIGRACIÓN – REMESAS

17. Aparte de usted, ¿hay alguien más que actualmente vive en su casa o que antes vivía en su casa, que ha salido de Honduras para ir a vivir a otro país?

1 Sí 2 No

18. ¿Alguien que vivía en este hogar ha migrado fuera del país en los últimos 12 meses?

Siga

Pase a 25

19. Hablando de la persona que migró más recientemente, ¿cuál era la relación con usted?

1 Esposo, esposa, pareja

2 Padre o madre

3 Hermano o hermana 4 Hijo o hija

5 El/a mismo 6 Otro parentesco 7 Sin relación de parentesco

20. ¿A dónde migró? 1 Estados Unidos 2 España

3 México 4 Honduras (otro departamento/municipio)

7 otro país: 99 /No Sabe

88 No Responde

21. En los últimos 3 meses, ¿alguien de este hogar ha recibido remesas en efectivo o en especie?

1. Si en efectivo

2. Si en especie (ropa, electrónicos, etc.)

3. Ambas 4. No ha recibido

22. ¿Tiene usted intenciones de irse a vivir o a trabajar a otro país en los próximos tres años?

1 Si Siga 2 No Pase a 30

23. ¿A dónde ha considerado irse a vivir o a trabajar? (Marque todas 1 Estados Unidos 2 España

3 México 4 Otro país:

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 24 las opciones que señalen)

88 NS 99 NR

24. ¿Cuáles son las dos razones principales por las cuales piensa irse a ese lugar?

[Utilice la tarjeta 23]

[Si la persona da solo una razón, pregúntale si hay otra razón]

Falta de empleo o

2 Ingresos muy bajos y/o malas condiciones de trabajo

3 Motivos familiares reunificación familiar, 4 Violencia o inseguridad en su comunidad/país

5 Desastres naturales 6 Violencia familiar

9 Por hambre

7 Solo dio una razón Otra razón

(ESPECIFIQUE)

25. ¿Si tuviera la manera y oportunidad de irse sin documentos/visa se iría?

1 Sí 2 No

26. ¿Alguna vez ha salido de Honduras o ha intentado salir de Honduras para irse a vivir a otro país, ya sea sólo o con otros miembros de su familia u hogar (incluso durante la infancia)?

1 Si Siga 2 No Pase a 33a

27. ¿Cuándo regreso a Honduras la última vez que migro o intento migrar más de una vez?

Mes Año

28. ¿Cuánto tiempo estuvo fuera de Honduras antes de regresar? # Días # Semanas

# Meses # Años

99 No logró migrar NR

29. Su regreso fue (leer alternativas) De manera voluntaria Deportado/retornado

Otro NR

30 ¿A qué país migró o intentó migrar (destino final) (Marque todos los que apliquen)

1 Estados Unidos 2 España

3 México 4 Otro país:

88 NS 99 NR (no leer)

IV. ACCESO SEGURO PARA SERVICIOS BÁSICOS EN LA COMUNIDAD

33a. Hablando de esta colonia, ¿qué tan satisfecho/a está usted con el alumbrado público en los lugares donde están las paradas de transporte público?

33b. Hablando de esta colonia, ¿qué tan satisfecho/a está usted con el alumbrado público en el camino a su casa?

Note: Muestre la escala invertida de Muy insatisfecho a Muy satisfecho

4 Muy satisfecho 3 Satisfecho

2 Insatisfecho 1 Muy Insatisfecho

99 NR 88 NS

35. En términos generales ¿Qué tan satisfecho/a esta usted con la iluminación pública en esta colonia?

4 Muy satisfecho 3 Satisfecho

2 Insatisfecho 1 Muy Insatisfecho

88 NS 99 NR

36. ¿Con cuáles espacios públicos de recreación cuenta esta colonia? (Puede marcar más de una opción)

1 Canchas deportivas 2 Centro Comunal

3 Centro de Alcance 4 Otro:

88 NS 5 Ninguno

99 NR

37. En general, ¿qué tan satisfecho/a está usted con estos espacios? 4 Muy satisfecho 3 Satisfecho 2 Insatisfecho 1 Muy insatisfecho

99 NS 88 NR

38. Suponga que está aquí en su casa y usted o una de las personas que viven en esta casa tienen una lesión muy seria y necesita atención médica inmediata. ¿Cuál cree sería el centro de salud disponible a donde asistiría?

Unidad de Salud 2 Hospital

3 Clínica privada 4 Otro:

39 En general ¿qué tan satisfecho/a está usted con los servicios de 4 Muy satisfecho 3 Satisfecho

Monitoring & Evaluation Support for Collaborative Learning and Adapting (MESCLA) 25 salud disponibles en esta colonia/comunidad? 2 Insatisfecho 1 Muy insatisfecho 5 No hay 88 NS

99 NR

40. ¿Cuántos niños y niñas entre 6 a 17 años cumplidos habitan en este hogar?

2 Ninguno

Pase a 51

41. ¿Cuántas de estas personas estudiaron en el año escolar 2019? 1 ______________ 2 Ninguno

Pase a 45

42. ¿Cuántas personas estudiaron (estudian)… (Muestre la tarjeta, escriba el número de personas en cada grado mencionado)

1 Preescolar

Básica

1ro 2do 3ro

4to 5to 6to

7mo 8vo 9no 5 Secundaria-

Bachillerato 10 11 12

43. Hablando de las personas que están estudiando (preescolar… y… hasta sexto grado), ¿hay intención de que estas personas continúen estudiando el 7mo grado?

Programar para cada uno que aplica

1. Si

2. No

44. Hablando del menor de ellos, en los últimos 12 meses, ¿cuántos días faltó a la escuela/centro educativo?

1 Varios días 2 Varias semanas 4 Desertó

3 Varios meses 5 Nunca - Pase 47

45. ¿Cuáles han sido las dos razones por las que está (s) persona (s)/niño/joven faltó/no asiste (………) a la escuela?

(Muestre la tarjeta 35 y marque las dos razones que menciona. Si solo da una razón, pregúntale si hay otra)

Si P41= ningún menor estudiando (2) entonces Pasa a 50

1 Falta de recursos económicos – Pase a 47

2 Responsabilidades del hogar Pase a 47

3 Trabajo Pase a 47

4 Por inseguridad en la comunidad Pase a 46

5 Por inseguridad camino a la escuela

6 Por inseguridad dentro la escuela - Pase a 46

7 Por inseguridad en la entrada a la escuela Pase a 46

8 Por enfermedad Pase a 47

9 Porque la escuela suspendió clases

10 Porque su familia migró o trató de migrar Pase a 47

11 Otra razón

99 No responde Pase a

88 No sabe Pase a 47

46. ¿Cuáles fueron esas situaciones de inseguridad dentro de la escuela por las que dejó de asistir? Muestre la tarjeta 36 y marque todas las que correspondan)

1 Peleas y riñas 2 Insultos y maltratos de estudiantes (empujones, burlas)

3 Presencia de armas 4 Presencia de drogas 5 Maltrato de docentes y personal de la escuela

6 Presencia de delincuentes o pandilleros en el centro escolar

7 Presencia de pandillas afuera del centro escolar

9 Otra: (Especifique)

47. Hablando del mayor de las personas, en los últimos 12 meses ¿cuántos días faltó a la escuela/centro educativo?

1. Varios días

2. Varias semanas

3. Varios meses

4. Desertó

5. Nunca

48. ¿Cuáles han sido las dos razones por las que esta persona/niño/joven faltó/no asiste (………) a la escuela? (Muestre la tarjeta y marque las dos razones que menciona. Muestre la tarjeta 38. Si solo da una razón, pregúntale si hay otra) )

1 Falta de recursos económicos – Pase a 50

2 Responsabilidades del hogar Pase a 50

3 Trabajo Pase a 50

4 Por inseguridad en la comunidad Pase a 50

5 Por inseguridad camino a la escuela Pase a 49

6 Por inseguridad dentro la escuela - Pase a 49

7 Por inseguridad en la entrada a la escuela Pase a 50

8 Por enfermedad

9 Porque la escuela suspendió clases

10 Porque su familia migró o trató de migrar

Pase a 50

11 Otra razón Pase a 50 99 No responde Pase a

88 No sabe Pase a 50

49. ¿Cuáles fueron…