Final Baseline Report on Citizen Security in the Southern Caribbean Coast in Nicaragua
Written by
Arturo Maldonado, Ph.D. (c) Research Assistant at LAPOP
Diana Orcés, Ph.D. Consultant at LAPOP
Emily Saunders, Ph.D. Research Analyst at LAPOP
Edited by
Elizabeth J. Zechmeister, Ph.D. Director of LAPOP
Daniel Montalvo, Ph.D. Program Manager of LAPOP
March 2016
This study was performed with support from the Program in Democracy and Governance of the United States Agency for International Development. The opinions expressed in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the point of view of the United States Agency for International Development. Contents
PART I. MAIN FINDINGS OF THE STUDY ...... 9 I.1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 10 I.1.1 How do communities in target municipalities define citizen security? ...... 10 I.1.2 How do communities in target municipalities perceive their own risk and do they see that risk increasing? ...... 10 I.1.3 What are indicators and triggers of insecurity that mark communities’ and municipalities’ perception of their risk? ...... 11 I.1.4 What are the common perceptions about the risks and opportunities of why community members/youth become involved in gang/drug or other forms of illicit activities? ...... 12 I.1.5 In the diversity of multi-cultural communities of the RACCS, what differences exist (if any) in perceptions about security between women and men, more versus less urbanized areas, different age groups, different ethnic groups, and different wealth levels? 12 I.2 METHODOLOGY...... 14 I.3 CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND ...... 15 I.4 MAJOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 16 I.4.1 Crime ...... 16 I.4.2 Perception of Insecurity and Gangs ...... 18 I.4.3 Gender Issues, Domestic Violence and Human Trafficking ...... 20 I.4.4 Drug Trafficking and Drug Consumption ...... 22 I.4.5 Ethnic relations ...... 24 I.4.6 Evaluations of Law Enforcement Institutions ...... 26 I.4.7 Citizens' Participation ...... 27 I.5 CONTRIBUTIONS TO USAID’S EFFORTS FOR BUILDING LOCAL CAPACITY ...... 28 I.6 PROGRAMMING RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 28 PART II. THE SURVEY STUDY IN RACCS ...... 32 II.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 33 II.2 UNDERSTANDING FIGURES IN THIS STUDY ...... 34 II.3 PERCEPTIONS OF INSECURITY ...... 34 II.3.1 Security as the Most Serious Problem...... 35 II.3.2 General Insecurity ...... 39
2 II.3.3 Avoided Walking for Dangerous Areas in the Neighborhood ...... 43 II.4 CRIME VICTIMIZATION ...... 46 II.4.1 Household Crime Victimization ...... 47 II.4.2 Home Burglaries ...... 50 II.4.3 Personal Victimization of Aggression or Theft ...... 53 II.5 CRIME AS A COMMUNITY PROBLEM ...... 57 II.5.1 Illegal Drug Sales in the Neighborhood ...... 57 II.5.2 Illegal Drug Consumption in the Neighborhood ...... 62 II.5.3 Murders in Neighborhoods ...... 65 II.5.4 Violence against Women in the Neighborhood ...... 69 II.6 LEVELS OF VIOLENCE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ...... 73 II.6.1 Current Levels of Violence ...... 73 II.6.2 Trend of Violence in the Neighborhood ...... 76 II.6.3 Presence of Gangs in the Neighborhood ...... 80 II.6.4 Trend of Gang Activity in the Neighborhood ...... 84
II.7 EVALUATION AND PERCEPTION OF INSTITUTIONS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT INSTITUTIONS ...... 87 II.7.1 Evaluation of Police in Controling Crime………………………………………8.8 II.7.2 Police Harassment as a Problem ...... 91 II.7.3 Police Response Time ...... 95 II.7.4 Trust in the Police ...... 96 II.7.5 Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty ...... 100 II.7.6 Trust in the Judicial System ...... 104 II.8 PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND COMMUNITIES ...... 108 II.8.1 Participation in Municipal Meetings ...... 108 II.8.2 Tried to help solve a community problem ...... 112 II.9 CONCLUSIONS ...... 116 PART III. UNDERSTANDING THE SPECIFIC PROBLEMS OF COASTAL MUNICIPALITIES THROUGH FOCUS GROUPS AND SURVEY RESEARCH ...... 122 III.1.1 Bluefields ...... 123 III.1.2 Kukra Hills ...... 130 III.1.3 Corn Island ...... 134 III.1.4 Desembocadura de Rio Grande ...... 137
3
III.1.5 Laguna de Perlas ...... 141 APPENDIX 1: METHODOLOGY ...... 143 APPENDIX 2: VARIABLES BY MUNICIPALITY ...... 145 APPENDIX 3: QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 166
4 List of Figures
Figure 1. Most Serious Problem by Area...... 35 Figure 2. Most Serious Problem by Gender, Age, and Area ...... 36 Figure 3. Most Serious Problem by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area ...... 37 Figure 4. Most Serious Problem by Urbanization and Area ...... 38 Figure 5. Perception of Insecurity by Area ...... 39 Figure 6. Perception of Insecurity by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 40 Figure 7. Perception of Insecurity by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 41 Figure 8. Perception of Insecurity by Urbanization and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 42 Figure 9. Avoided Walking for Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood by Area ...... 43 Figure 10. Avoided Walking for Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood by Gender, Age, and Area44 Figure 11. Avoided Walking for Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area ...... 45 Figure 12. Avoided Walking for Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood by Urbanization and Area 46 Figure 13. Crime Victimization by Area ...... 47 Figure 14. Household Crime Victimization by Gender, Age, and Area ...... 48 Figure 15. Household Crime Victimization by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area ...... 49 Figure 16. Household Crime Victimization by Urbanization and Area ...... 50 Figure 17. Home Burglaries by Area ...... 51 Figure 18. Home Burglaries by Gender, Age, and Area ...... 51 Figure 19. Home Burglaries by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area ...... 52 Figure 20. Home Burglaries by Urbanization and Area ...... 53 Figure 21. Victim of Theft or Aggression by Area ...... 55 Figure 22. Victim of Theft or Aggression by Gender, Age, and Area ...... 55 Figure 23. Victim of Theft or Aggression by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area ...... 56 Figure 24. Victim of Theft or Aggression by Urbanization and Area ...... 57 Figure 25. Drug Trafficking as a Problem in the Neighborhood by Area ...... 58 Figure 26. Drug Trafficking as a Problem in the Neighborhood by Gender, Age, and Area ...... 59 Figure 27. Drug Trafficking in the Neighborhood by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area ...... 60 Figure 28. Drug Trafficking as a Problem in the Neighborhood by Urbanization and Area ...... 61 Figure 29. Drug Consumption in Neighborhood by Area ...... 62 Figure 30. Drug Consumption in Neighborhood by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 63 Figure 31. Drug Consumption in Neighborhood by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area (average on 0- 100 scale) ...... 64 Figure 32. Drug Consumption in Neighborhood by Urbanization and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 65 Figure 33. Murders in the Neighborhood by Area ...... 66 Figure 34. Murders in the Neighborhood by Gender, Age, and Area ...... 67 Figure 35. Murders in the Neighborhood by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area ...... 68 Figure 36. Murders in the Neighborhood by Urbanization and Area ...... 69 Figure 37. Violence against Women in Neighborhood by Area...... 70 Figure 38. Violence against Women in Neighborhood by Gender, Age, and Area ...... 71 Figure 39. Violence against Women in Neighborhood by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area ...... 72 Figure 40. Violence against Women in Neighborhood by Urbanization and Area ...... 73
5 Figure 41. Perception of Violence in Neighborhood by Area...... 74 Figure 42. Perception of Violence in Neighborhood by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 74 Figure 43. Perception of Violence in Neighborhood by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 75 Figure 44. Perception of Violence in Neighborhood by Urbanization and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 76 Figure 45. Trend of Violence in Neighborhood by Area ...... 77 Figure 46. Trend of Violence in Neighborhood by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 78 Figure 47. Trend of Violence in Neighborhood by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 79 Figure 48. Trend of Violence in Neighborhood by Urbanization and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 80 Figure 49. Gangs in the Neighborhood by Area...... 81 Figure 50. Gangs in the Neighborhood by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 82 Figure 51. Gangs in the Neighborhood by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 83 Figure 52. Gangs in the Neighborhood by Urbanization and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 84 Figure 53. Perceived Trend in Gang Activity by Area ...... 85 Figure 54. Perceived Trend in Gang Activity by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 85 Figure 55. Perceived Trend in Gang Activity by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 86 Figure 56. Perceived Trend in Gang Activity by Urbanization and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 87 Figure 57. Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime by Area ...... 88 Figure 58. Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0- 100 scale) ...... 89 Figure 59. Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime by Urbanization and Area (average on 0- 100 scale) ...... 90 Figure 60. Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime by Urbanization and Area (average on 0- 100 scale) ...... 91 Figure 61. Police Harassment as a Problem by Area ...... 92 Figure 62. Police Harassment by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 93 Figure 63. Police Harassment by Wealth and Ethnicity, and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 94 Figure 64. Police Harassment by Urbanization and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 95 Figure 65. Police Response Time by Area...... 96 Figure 66. Trust in the Police by Area ...... 97 Figure 67. Trust in the Police by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 98 Figure 68. Trust in the Police by Wealth and Ethnicity, and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 99 Figure 69. Trust in the Police by Urbanization and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 100 Figure 70. Confidence in the Justice System by Area ...... 101 Figure 71. Confidence in the Justice System by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 102
6 Figure 72. Confidence in the Justice System by Wealth and Ethnicity, and Area (average on 0- 100 scale) ...... 103 Figure 73. Confidence in the Justice System by Urbanization and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 104 Figure 74. Trust in the Judicial System by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ... 105 Figure 75. Trust in the Judicial System by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 106 Figure 76. Trust in the Judicial System by Urbanization and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ..... 107 Figure 77. Participation in Municipal Meetings by Area ...... 109 Figure 78. Participation in Municipal Meetings by Gender, Age, and Area ...... 110 Figure 79. Participation in Municipal Meetings by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area ...... 111 Figure 80. Participation in Municipal Meetings by Urbanization and Area ...... 112 Figure 81. Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem by Area ...... 113 Figure 82. Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0- 100 scale) ...... 114 Figure 83. Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area (average on 0-100 scale) ...... 115 Figure 84. Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem by Urbanization and Area (average on 0- 100 scale) ...... 116 Figure 85. Average Perception of Insecurity ...... 125 Figure 86. Household Crime Victimization ...... 125 Figure 87. Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in the Neighborhood (%) ...... 125 Figure 88. Trends of Violence in the Neighborhood...... 126 Figure 89. Perception of Violence in the Neighborhood ...... 126 Figure 90. Average Level of Presence of Gangs in the Neighborhood ...... 127 Figure 91. Average Evaluation of Police Harassment as a Problem ...... 128 Figure 92. Murders in Neighborhood (%) ...... 132 Figure 93. Security as the Most Serious Problem (%) ...... 132 Figure 94. Average Reporting of other People Making Income Selling Drugs...... 135 Figure 95. Average Trust in the Police ...... 136 Figure 96. Average Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty ...... 137 Figure 97. Average Trust in the Judicial System ...... 137 Figure 98. Reports of Drug Trafficking in Neighborhood ...... 138 Figure 99. Average of Drug Consumption Reporting in Neighborhood ...... 138 Figure 100. Reports of Home Burglaries (%) ...... 139 Figure 101. Reports of Robberies in the Neighborhood (%) ...... 139 Figure 102. Reports of Personal Victimization of Aggression or Theft (%) ...... 140
7 List of Tables
Table 1. Distribution of the Population in RACCS ...... 15 Table 2. Trust in the Judicial System ...... 104
8
Part I. Main Findings of the Study
I.1 Executive Summary
This report presents findings from qualitative (focus group) and quantitative (survey) research into issues related to public security in the Southern Autonomous Caribbean Coast Region (RACCS, by its acronym in Spanish) in Nicaragua. Fifteen focus groups were carried out in five coastal municipalities1 in Nicaragua in July 2014. In addition 2,040 interviews were carried out through survey research in ten municipalities2 (five in the mountain area3 and five in the coastal area), from August to October 2014. The Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP) at Vanderbilt University was in charge of the fieldwork and the write-up of this report.
Part I of this report is organized as follows. The section below (I.1.1 - I.1.5) summarizes the main findings from the focus group and survey research, respectively, in response to questions motivating USAID’s efforts to conduct this study of citizen security. After this executive summary is a presentation of the methodology employed to carry out the focus group and survey studies. Next, the report provides some context and background information about Nicaragua and the RACCS region, in order to put the results of the study into comparative perspective. The subsequent section summarizes the qualitative and quantitative findings of this study by topic, and draws some conclusions. The final section lists a set of programming suggestions.
I.1.1 How do communities in target municipalities define citizen security?
Victimization (esp. theft and domestic violence) and illegal drug consumption and sales were highlighted in focus group discussions of citizen security. Coastal survey respondents express comparatively higher perceptions of theft and violence in their communities, though the coastal and mountain municipalities are similar in average degrees of insecurity and similar in a low tendency to identify security as the most important problem. Ethnic-based conflict and issues are noted in focus groups, though concerns center more on issues of discrimination than security.
I.1.2 How do communities in target municipalities perceive their own risk and do they see that risk increasing?
Concerns about security are at middling levels: 34.6% of survey respondents in the mountain area and 31.3% in the coastal area report feeling only somewhat safe or unsafe. Focus group participants in the coastal communities indicate that small communities, in which people know one another, helps keep feelings of insecurity relatively lower than they might otherwise be. Coastal communities report greater problems from gangs (with the exception of Corn Island). Women’s financial dependency on men is reported as a risk factor, dampening reports of domestic violence to authorities.
1 The coastal municipalities included in this study are: Bluefields, Kukra-Hills, Laguna de Perlas, Corn Island, and Desembocadura de Río Grande. 2 The study includes the following mountain municipalities: Ayote, El Rama, La Cruz de Rio Grande, Muelle de los Bueyes, and Nueva Guinea. 3 These municipalities are located in the hills of RACCS. We hereafter refer to this area as “the mountain area.”
10 Insecurity is reported by some participants to be increasing in recent years. Individuals report greater concern about leaving their homes without fear of burglaries. Domestic violence, sexual offenses, and sexual abuse of children are more frequent (or more frequently reported, since the data cannot make this distinction) these days. Focus group participants also report an increase in abuse of elders (parents) by children under the influence of drugs.
I.1.3 What are indicators and triggers of insecurity that mark communities’ and municipalities’ perception of their risk?
Indicators of perceptions of risk and triggers of insecurity include: awareness and experience with burglaries and robberies; high drug and alcohol consumption; and weak state capacity, especially with respect to law enforcement and judicial institutions. Focus group participants perceive that core problems are rooted in socioeconomic deficits, essentially high poverty and unemployment. These deficits are believed to have increased illicit activities including drug trafficking, drug consumption and robberies, in addition to domestic violence. Youth are perceived as most vulnerable, especially with respect to engaging in drug and alcohol consumption. High levels of drug and alcohol consumption exacerbate domestic violence. There are widespread doubts that these problems can be dealt with effectively by the police and other law enforcement institutions.
Awareness and experience with burglaries and robberies. Crime victimization rates, as reported by survey respondents for the past year, are 16.2% for the mountain area and 24.2% for the coastal area. Respondents in the coastal area report more experience with home burglaries in the recent past than those in the mountain areas (19.1% for the coastal area versus 10.9% for the mountain area). Aggression and theft victimization follow similar patterns. When making comparisons between crime levels in their own municipalities and what they believe might be occurring in other places in Nicaragua, coastal focus group participants tend to express a belief that their communities are safer than others. However, there is an overarching sense that perceptions of insecurity in the coastal communities have increased compared to previous years. The most common concerns include burglaries, robberies, and high drug and alcohol consumption; the latter is considered by study participants to be an important factor in exacerbating domestic violence.
High alcohol and drug consumption. Coastal focus group participants perceive that their core problems – including increased illicit activities and violence – are rooted in socioeconomic deficits, essentially high poverty and unemployment. Youth are perceived as the most vulnerable with respect to engaging in drug and alcohol consumption. Survey results show that respondents in the coastal area report more people making income selling drugs and higher levels of drug consumption and drug trafficking. Some focus group participants report that the region is considered a corridor for drug trafficking, which negatively affects the lives of many in the region.
Weak state capacity, especially with respect to law enforcement and judicial institutions. Focus group findings also suggest a general perception of pronounced communication problems among local political leaders and an overall weak institutional presence or state capacity. Focus group participants report that the limited access to its vast territory has kept these communities isolated and lacking basic public services such as health, education, transportation, and drinking water. Additionally, survey respondents in the coastal municipalities report worse average evaluations of law enforcement and judicial institutions than respondents in mountain municipalities. On average,
11 people in the coastal area report lower levels of satisfaction with the police performance; worse evaluations of the police in controlling crime; lower trust in the police; lower confidence that the justice system punishes the guilty; slightly lower trust in the judicial system; and lower trust in local governments.
I.1.4 What are the common perceptions about the risks and opportunities of why community members/youth become involved in gang/drug or other forms of illicit activities?
Drug consumption and drug trafficking are key concerns among individuals especially in the coastal area. According to focus groups, youth are particularly vulnerable to drug abuse, which leads to other crimes such as robberies, violence and in the worst cases: murders. Although authorities have captured drug shipments, many believe that drugs are allowed to circulate freely in the communities. Drug trafficking is also seen by some as an alternative source of income due to very high levels of unemployment. For instance, fishing is a significant economic activity in coastal municipalities, but during seasons in which fishing of certain species is prohibited, particularly those highly priced species (e.g., lobsters), it is reported that some fishermen resort to drug trafficking. Drugs are seen by some individuals as a source of income; women and children are used to sell drugs and students in the school carry them in their backpacks.
Survey data show that the top five municipalities that report people making an income selling drugs (on a 0-100 scale) are all in the coastal area: Corn Island (36.6 units on the 0 to 100 scale), La Desembocadura de Rio Grande (26.6), Laguna de Perlas (18.9), Bluefields (14.7), and Kukra Hill (7.9). For every socioeconomic group, those in the coastal municipalities express more concern over those who make their income selling drugs than their counterparts in the mountain area. A similar pattern exists for drug consumption.
I.1.5 In the diversity of multi-cultural communities of the RACCS, what differences exist (if any) in perceptions about security between women and men, more versus less urbanized 4 areas, different age groups, different ethnic groups, and different wealth levels?
Gender. Gender differences appear in the study. Women in both the coastal and mountain areas express higher concerns about walking in their neighborhoods, either alone during the day or after dark. For the mountain area, the average degrees of insecurity (on a 0 to 100 scale) expressed by women is 49.7 as opposed to 42.6 for men; for the coastal are those numbers are 46.5 and 42.1 respectively. It is noteworthy that men report being aware of violence against women to a greater degree than do women in both areas (for the mountain are, 15% of men vs. 10% of women reported violence towards women; for the coastal area, those numbers are 14.9% and 13% respectively). Qualitative findings suggest that domestic violence, sexual offenses, and sexual abuse of children were rarely reported in the past, but are becoming more frequent today. In some communities, many expressed that domestic violence and sexual offenses are embedded in the culture of machismo. Drug and alcohol consumption is directly linked to heightened violence at home. Men
4 We merge here USAID SOW questions 6 (Do security perceptions vary between women and men?) and 7 (How are crime and insecurity envisioned by different age groups?).
12 are more likely to abuse and mistreat women and children when they are under the influence. Because women depend economically on men, they often avoid reporting domestic violence.
Urbanization. Security is more often reported as the most important problem facing communities in the less, versus the more, urbanized areas. The police receive better evaluations in mid- urbanized areas. Perceptions of police harassment as a problem increase with urbanization.
Age. Age divides are prevalent with respect to the perceptions that individuals express and with respect to risk. With respect to perceptions, for example, younger individuals report more people making income by selling drugs and more drug-trafficking than older individuals in the coastal area. With respect to risk, younger citizens are more vulnerable to drug abuse and involvement in drug sales. They are also more vulnerable to trafficking: one-third of survey respondents have heard discussions about parents allowing their children to live or work with other people in exchange for money. Nearly 13% of the population actually know a child who has been given away to live or work in exchange for money. Prostitution of young girls is another noted problem.
Ethnicity. There are significant differences between Mestizos and those who identify as other ethnicities; these differences are most prevalent in the coastal areas. On the coast, Mestizos are less likely to report people making an income selling drugs (on a scale of 0 to 100: 7.3 for “other”, 9.55 for Mestizos). On the coast, those who identify as Mestizos are less likely to report instance of drug trafficking (58.2% other, 31.8% Mestizos). Yet, Mestizos on the coast are more likely to report security as the most important problem and Mestizos in the mountains report higher current levels of violence. In terms of ethnic relations, focus group participants suggest that in the last decades these relationships have improved due in part to the enactment of various laws by the Nicaraguan government. One of the problems these diverse groups still face is the lack of communication because of the use of various languages and differences in culture and perceptions on how to solve problems. In the past, the rivalry and discrimination among various ethnic groups was salient, but these disagreements have gradually been attenuated, though not eradicated. Creoles, Miskitos, and Uluwas feel discriminated against mainly by Mestizos, but Miskitos and Uluwas also feel discriminated against by Creoles. Moreover, Uluwas likewise feel discriminated against by Miskitos. It appears that the smaller the minority group, the greater the experience with discrimination by larger ethnic groups. In addition, minorities feel discriminated especially by Mestizos who come from other regions to hold governmental positions. Nonetheless the general feeling reflects that ethnic relations have improved significantly in comparison with the past.
Education and wealth. In terms of wealth, those categorized as “upper class” by wealth level (based on consumer goods ownership) tend to report lower levels of evaluation of some institutions, but not all. They report lower levels of trust in the police; lower confidence in the justice system’s work; and lower levels of trust in the judicial system in the coastal area. However, the upper class also reports higher levels of trust in the local government in both areas and higher levels of satisfaction with police performance in the mountain area. In terms of education, deficiencies are noted with respect to the provision of education. Focus group participants note that problems with the quality of education and the lack of educational institutions are key disadvantages facing youth in the region. Infrastructure, materials, and supply of teachers are reported as inadequate. These reports comport with statements by focus group participants on low
13 state capacity, including inadequate health services, personnel shortages, poor land and water transportation, and lack of electricity in remote places.
I.2 Methodology
LAPOP employed a mixed-method approach by collecting and analyzing qualitative (focus group) and quantitative (individual survey) data. First, we collected public opinion information through 15 focus groups with 135 participants during the month of July 2014 in five coastal municipalities: Bluefields, Kukra Hills, Laguna de Perlas, Corn Island, and Desembocadura de Río Grande. Collectively, these five municipalities contain 23% of the regional population. The purpose of the focus groups was to gather qualitative information about these municipalities as well as more general information related to the problem of citizen security in this area. The focus groups involved government authorities, members of NGOs, and youth from different ethnic backgrounds. Out of the 135 participants, 51 self-identified as Creoles, 40 as Mestizos, 18 as Uluwas, 15 as Miskitos, 5 as Garifunas and 1 as Rama; the remaining 5 self-identified as “Costeños” and Blacks. Males and females were almost equally represented (46.7% and 53.3%, respectively). LAPOP elaborated a series of open-ended questions that were used for the focus groups (questionnaire found in appendix).
Second, we collected data through survey research. This part of the study focused mainly on civic participation and citizens’ security issues and was conducted in ten municipalities.5 Prior to beginning the fieldwork, LAPOP carried out pretests to evaluate the wording of the questionnaire and assessments of the amount of time the questionnaire would take to complete. After the pretesting period, we developed a final version of the questionnaire. The survey sample includes Nicaraguan voting-age adults (16 years old or older) residing in urban and rural municipalities in the coastal and mountain areas in the RACCS region.6 The survey is based on 2,040 interviews: 948 in rural municipalities and 1,092 in urban municipalities; 540 in the mountain area and 1500 in the coastal area; 108 interviews per municipality in the mountain area and 300 in the coastal 7 area.
5 Ayote, Bluefields, Corn Island, El Rama Kukra Hill, La Cruz de Rio Grande, La Desembocuadura de Rio Grande, Laguna de Perlas, Muelle de los Bueyes, Nueva Guinea. 6 LAPOP drew ten samples in total for this study: one for each of the selected municipalities. The sample size for each of the coastal municipalities was 300, and 108 for each of the mountain municipalities. Thus, the total number of interviewed individuals is 2,040. LAPOP and the USAID Mission in Nicaragua decided to draw larger samples in coastal municipalities in order to be able to make inferences about each coastal municipality. The sample designs within each municipality were multi-staged and clustered. The first stage was to select “Centros de votacion” or electoral districts with a probability proportional to the size of the population. The second stage was to select two clusters within each centro de votacion: one close to the electoral precinct, and the other one in a more rural area. This methodology allowed us to have respondents from both high and low density areas. For this purpose, we used the electoral maps available for the region. The third stage was to select households within clusters. For this purpose, we selected every third household in each of the selected clusters. Six individuals were interviewed in each cluster. The final stage was to select individuals within households. We used gender and age quotas to resemble the distribution of the population according to the last census. More information about the sample design is available upon request. 7 The fieldwork was carried out by Borge & Asociados between August and October, 2014. LAPOP trained the supervisors and interviewers and oversaw the fieldwork and data collection in accord with its standard practices for quality control. 14 I.3 Context and Background
The Nicaraguan Constitution of 1987 created two Coastal regions: the North Atlantic Autonomous Region (RAAN) and the South Atlantic Autonomous Region (RACCS), most recently renamed as Southern Autonomous Caribbean Coast Region (RACCS). The RACCS occupies 27.407 km², which represents 21.1% of the national territory and is home to a population of 374.523, representing 6.1% of the total population of 6.08 million Nicaraguans. The RACCS includes 12 municipalities:
Table 1. Distribution of the Population in RACCS Population Coastal Municipalities Population Mountain Municipalities 1. Bluefields 45,547 6. La Cruz de Río Grande 23,284 2. Kukra Hills 8,789 7. El Ayote 12,417 3. Laguna de Perlas 10,676 8. Nueva Guinea 66,936 4. Corn Island 6,626 9. Muelle de Los Bueyes 22,082 5. Desembocadura de Río 3,585 10. El Rama 52,482 Grande 11. Paiwas 31,762 12. El Tortuguero 22,324 Censo de Población 2005
The region is multiethnic, multicultural, and multilingual. The ethnic makeup consists of Mestizos (54.6%), Creoles (30%), Miskitos (11%), Garifuna (1.7%), Ulwas (1.1%), Ramas (0.7%) and others (0.2%).8 Despite the challenges in understanding this region's complexities with respect to its ethnic and cultural diversity, the Nicaraguan government has made efforts to recognize indigenous and Afro-Nicaraguan local populations and their communal forms of land ownership through the enactment of various laws. Among these laws are: Estatuto de Autonomía de las Regiones de la Costa Atlántica de Nicaragua, Law No.28 in which the rights of indigenous populations and ethnic communities are officially acknowledged. Also, Ley del Uso Oficial de las Lenguas de las Comunidades, Law No. 162 recognizes Miskito, Creole, Sumu, Garifuna and Rama as the region’s official languages, while preserving Spanish as the nation’s official language. Further, the Ley de Régimen de Propiedad Comunal de los Pueblos Indígenas y Comunidades Étnicas, Law No.455 recognizes the rights and power of indigenous peoples and ethnic 9 communities to their lands and natural resources.
Recently, the RACCS has become vulnerable to increasing crime levels. From 2006-2012 the homicide rate was between 30 and 38 per 100,000 inhabitants, a rate significantly higher than
8 Universidad de la Regiones Autónomas de la Costa Caribe de Nicaragua, URACCAN, 1997. Various sources show different ethnic populations makeup for the region. 9http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/92476/107759/F934650636/NIC92476.pdf; http://legislacion.asamblea.gob.ni/Normaweb.nsf/%28$All%29/878312CA9631B9F6062 5723400675DDB?OpenDocument; http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/92475/107753/F‐ 1251053459/NIC92475.p
15 the yearly national average of 12.9 during this time period.10 These homicide rates in RACCS are similar to those found in Guatemala where murder rates are among the highest in the world. The rate of robberies in the region also is higher than the yearly national average (469), between 452 and 657 per 100,000 inhabitants during the same time period. 11 Moreover, sexual offenses in this region almost doubled the national average of 60, with a reported 116 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in 2012.
These rising crime levels can be partly explained by the greater use of Nicaragua’s Caribbean Coast as a passage for international drug trafficking and the strengthening of organized crime.12 In addition, extreme poverty, accompanied by high levels of unemployment especially among the youth have created an environment conducive to increasing numbers of illicit activities—drug usage, drug trafficking, domestic violence, and sexual offenses.
A 2012 study of citizen security perceptions in the Caribbean region revealed that Nicaraguans living in this region were mainly concerned by drug trafficking, assaults with firearms, and gangs followed by alcohol and drug consumption and domestic violence. 13 Data from the 2014 AmericasBarometer reveal that issues related to crime and insecurity are among the top three concerns expressed by respondents residing in the Caribbean region of the national sample, though many express a core concern with socioeconomic factors that are seen by many (as reported in the 14 focus group within this present study) as contributing to security problems.
I.4 Major Findings and Conclusions
What follows is an extended presentation of this study’s principal quantitative and qualitative findings. We present these according to a set of key citizen security indicators: crime, perceptions of insecurity, gender issues and domestic violence, drug trafficking and consumption, ethnic relations, evaluation of law enforcement institutions, and citizen participation. Each section presents the main quantitative findings of the themes derived from the surveys followed by the main qualitative findings from the focus group conducted in five coastal municipalities.
I.4.1 Crime
Quantitative Findings
The quantitative and qualitative data tell us that even though economic problems are a major concern among the citizenry, crime is a very important problem in the RACCS region. The quantitative results show that, on average, individuals in coastal municipalities are affected to a greater degree by crime, have higher perceptions of insecurity, and report higher
10 http://www.unodc.org/gsh/en/data.html 11 Policía Nacional de Nicaragua, http://www.policia.gob.ni/cedoc/sector/estd/ae2012.pdf 12 http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/LAP_single_page.pdf http://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr2014/World_Drug_Report_2014_web.pdf 13 http://www.ieepp.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/08/V-encuesta-de-percepci%C3%B3n-WEB.pdf 14 The question asked in 27014 is: “In your opinion, what is the most serious problem faced by your community? The Caribbean region in the national sample represents 12.5% of respondents. Out of these, around 70% indicated that the most serious problem in their communities was related to economic concerns, followed by crime concerns (6%).
16 community problems, such as illegal sales of drugs and drug consumption, than their counterparts in the mountain municipalities. These results can be seen across every socioeconomic group analyzed; for each sub-group (by gender, ethnic identification, age, etc.), those in the coastal area reported markedly higher trends in crime than those in the mountain 15 area.
Based on the quantitative findings presented below, it is not surprising that the focus groups in the coastal area expressed more concerns about various issues related to crime. The quantitative results for drug trafficking are a good example of this; all of the coastal communities report drug trafficking at levels significantly higher than do the mountain municipalities (the lowest reporting in the coastal area is Kukra Hill at 33.6% and the highest in the Mountain area is 11.3% for example). Other common reported problems relate to teen pregnancies, domestic violence, sexual exploitation, sexual abuse, and conflicts over territory.
In addition, the survey finds that people in coastal municipalities report higher levels of household crime victimization, of home burglaries, and of aggression and theft victimization. In coastal municipalities, younger individuals, the upper class, and people living in mid- or high-urbanized municipalities express more crime victimization. Specifically, younger individuals in the coastal area report household crime victimization at a rate of 25.7% whereas younger people in the mountain area report at a rate of 16.9%. These results are also salient for the upper class, those in the upper class in the coastal area report household crime at a rate of 29.5% as opposed to their mountain counterparts at 17.3%. Regarding urbanization, those in the coastal area report household crime at a rate of 26.6% and those in the mountain area report at 17.4%. Younger individuals also report higher levels of aggression or theft victimization in the coastal area (30.9% in the coastal vs. 23.7% in the mountain area).
Finally, regarding murders in RACCS, survey data show that men (30.9%) and younger people (30.1%) in the mountain area are those who report more murders in their neighborhoods. Further, reports of murders increase with wealth in both RACCS areas (in the mountain area, 24.8% for the lower, 26.3% for the middle, and 30.1% for the upper class, in the coastal, 23.6%, 31%, and 35% respectively), and they are higher for Mestizos (35.5%) and in low-urbanized municipalities in the coastal area (48%).
Qualitative Findings
The qualitative findings from the coastal municipalities are consistent with the quantitative results. The most salient concerns mentioned by focus group participants were related to rising crime levels. Especially notable were reports of drug trafficking and drug consumption, followed by robberies and in a lesser extent, murders. According to a government official in Kukra Hill, “la delincuencia, las drogas y el desempleo como que van muy juntos, uno sigue a otro y así la misma necesidad y la drogadicción lo somete a delincuencia a delinquir.” Similarly, a youth in Desembocadura pointed out:
15 That being said, there are important differences across municipalities: perceptions of insecurity range from a high point in Bluefields with 49.5 to a low point in Corn Island with 24.8 and there is a mixture of mountain and coastal municipalities between these two extremes (on a 0-100 scale).
17 “Las drogas causan tantos problemas que cuando andan drogados pueden entrar a las casas a robar y eso es un miedo que ellas tienen si ven muchachitas jóvenes en el camino, las violaciones, los pleitos que se arman entre los consumidores de drogas que inclusive hasta puede llegar a perder la vida una persona inocente que vaya pasando al agarrar un palo, un machete los que andan fumados y drogados.”
According to the focus group participants, the most common crime victimization incidents are related to domestic violence, sexual abuse, robberies, burglaries, and livestock robberies. While focus group participants in coastal municipalities expressed a heightened sense of insecurity, they provided fewer examples of actual experiences with crime. Only in a few cases did focus group participants mention having been victims of crime or knowing of direct experiences with crime by household members or friends. This tendency for insecurity to be more elevated than crime rates is common; it is consistent with patterns in the AmericasBarometer survey and with the survey of the RACCS region. Exemplifying this, a youth in Kukra Hill mentioned that:
“Yo no porque en mi barrio hay muchos delitos, yo vivo… ahí se ha dado violaciones, robos, intentos de homicidios, es más yo creo que hace mucho tiempo ahí habían matado, bueno a mí me contaron pero como dicen mi chisme no cuenta, pero yo me siento inseguro porque ese es un barrio muy peligroso” (Youth, Kukra Hill).
I.4.2 Perception of Insecurity and Gangs
Quantitative Findings
Even though the coastal municipalities share greater concerns about drug consumption and trafficking, there is a fair balance between coastal and mountain municipalities and perceptions of insecurity. For example, Bluefields, a coastal city has the highest perception of insecurity (on a 0- 100 scale) at 49.5, but second to that is Nueva Guinea, a mountain municipality, with 44.8. There is no clear distinction between the mountain and coastal areas on perceptions of insecurity regarding the municipalities as a whole. Across socioeconomic variables, we also do not find very much variation between the mountain and coastal areas. For example, regarding perception of insecurity between younger and older respondents in the mountain area the averages are 36.4 and 42.3 respectively, and they are 36.2 and 37 respectively in the coastal area. We find similar results for those reporting security as the most serious problem; there is no discernable pattern between mountain and coastal areas on the whole. For example, Kukra Hill, a coastal municipality has the highest percentage of those reporting this issue with 18.2% but La Cruz de Rio Grande, a mountain municipality, is second with 14.7%, this variation between mountain and coastal areas is seen for all 10 municipalities studied. We also do not see a tremendous amount of variance across socioeconomic groups in the coastal and mountain areas either; for example, in the mountain area the numbers for men and women are 4% and 4.1% respectively and in the coastal those numbers are 6.2% and 6.6%. Where we do see significant differences is among groups within areas. For example, in the mountain area there is a statistically significant difference between the low and mid urbanized respondents (6.1% vs. 1% respectively). We see a similar significance in the coastal area with 18.2% in the low, 2.2% in the medium, and 4.9% in the high-urbanized areas reporting security as the most serious problem.
18 Regarding gangs, it appears that the coastal municipalities encounter more problems (with the exception of Corn Island. What we found in the survey is that Bluefields, La Desembocadura de Rio Grande, both coastal municipalities reported the highest levels of gang violence (41.8% and 31.8% respectively). Interestingly, Corn Island reported the presence of gangs in the neighborhood at 9.6%, demonstrating that perhaps gangs are not perceived as a problem to the same degree throughout the entire coastal area. When asked about the trends of gang violence we find that the most concern for this issue is split between the mountain and coastal areas on the whole. For example, the municipality expressing the most concern over this issue is La Cruz de Rio Grande, a mountain municipality, at 91.7%, however the second municipality expressing the most concern is Laguna de Perlas, a coastal municipality, at 89.3%. When we break the findings down by socioeconomic variables, however, we do see differences among the areas; the coastal municipalities express higher levels of concern about gangs across almost every socioeconomic group. For example, when we look at ethnicity and presence of gangs in the neighborhood we see that the difference between other and Mestizos in the mountain area is 10.5% and 15.5% respectively, but those numbers rise when looking at the same difference in the coastal area, 21.1% and 23.5% respectively.
Qualitative Findings
Interestingly, in discussions with those in the coastal municipalities, we found that some reported low feelings of insecurity due to the fact that these communities are sometimes small and residents know one another. Keeping in mind that the focus groups are not representative, it is important to note that in the quantitative data we actually find that there is a fair balance between the coastal and mountain areas with respect to perceptions of insecurity. Despite finding that some focus group participants perceived their communities to be secure, for others feelings of insecurity have intensified in recent years. As a young individual suggested in the municipality of Corn Island:
“Digamos que como este lugar es pequeño, si yo llego a un barrio todos los del barrio me conocen, sería muy difícil, sólo que fuera una persona de otro lugar que me asalte y no lo conozca, pero aquí todos como que fulano es fulano. El peor de mi barrio si me asalta lo voy a ir a agarrar con la policía porque sé quién me asaltó, es muy difícil.”
Yet when comparing feelings of security with the past, there is a general sense of less security at present; before, residents were confident in leaving their homes without fear of burglaries. Today, there is a heightened sense of insecurity, especially in neighborhoods with unemployed youth, who are consuming drugs and committing robberies more frequently.
“Mi opinión el crimen ha crecido porque antes los adolescentes de 15, 17 y 18 años no consumían ni siquiera licor y si lo hacían era a escondidas y por allá, respetaban a las personas mayores, ahora en cambio los de 15 años andan tomando y fumando marihuana, andan robando con machetes y si nosotros llamamos a la policía para denunciar robos o pleitos ésta no llega, pero si llamamos a decir que hay droga, ahí si se aparecen rapidito.” (NGO member, Laguna de Perlas)
In contrast to the survey results, focus-group data highlight the absence of problems with gangs. As a NGO member in Corn Island indicated “No tenemos pandillas, lo que si hay es un poco de
19 chavalos que no tienen nada que hacer y que los padres no se preocupan por ellos por estar viendo sus novelas.” Only in the case of Bluefields was mentioned the desire of some youth at risk to form gang groups, but these never formally came into existence.
“Yo creo que ha habido indicios de quererse organizar las pandillas, como decía él han existido grupos pero grupos pequeños realmente y han tenido enfrentamientos con otros grupos de otros barrio, pero tal vez dado que Bluefields es una ciudad bien pequeña y ha habido también interés de las autoridades de controlar eso entonces no se ha desarrollado, creemos que con un buen trabajo eso puede ir desapareciendo inclusive hay chavalos en grupitos así que se han tirado algunos, pero han sido casos no muy relevantes (Government official, Bluefields).
Qualitative findings suggest that governmental authorities and the police were effective in suppressing the rise of gang activity. A possible explanation of the differences we see between quantitative and qualitative results is that quantitative findings may be tapping into citizens’ perceptions of small groups of youth as gangs and not necessarily views of “formal” gangs. The main problem with youth mentioned across all focus groups is youth consumption of drugs and alcohol. In the specific context of schools, there is an intensified sense of insecurity due to higher drugs sales.
“Ahora en los colegios los alumnos venden drogas, amenazan a los compañeros y hasta han amenazado a los maestros. Hubo un caso reciente en el cual se tuvo que expulsar a un estudiante porque amenazó a su maestro con ponerle una pistola en la cabeza. Hay alumnos que están fabricando armas hechizas y los maestros ni siquiera pueden registrar las mochilas porque es prohibido” (Youth, Laguna de Perlas).
Students who are drug consumers threaten teachers and peers, causing general feelings of insecurity; some steal backpacks, money or books to buy drugs.
“Ahora la seguridad en los colegios está bajando porque ahora los niños están llevando las drogas en sus mochilas y todos aquí sabemos quiénes son los que venden las drogas, pero si los denunciamos ante la policía nos metemos en problemas y ya no vamos a poder andar seguros y podemos hasta meter en problemas a nuestra familia” (NGO member, Corn Island).
I.4.3 Gender Issues, Domestic Violence and Human Trafficking
Quantitative Findings
Gender differences appear in the study; one example is that women in both the coastal and mountain areas express higher concerns about walking in their neighborhoods. It is noteworthy, however, that men report being aware of violence against women to a greater degree than do women in both areas (for the mountain 15% of men as opposed to 10% of women reported violence towards women, and for the coastal, those numbers are 14.9% and 13% respectively).
20 Qualitative Findings
Qualitative findings suggest that domestic violence, sexual offenses, and sexual abuse of children were rarely reported in the past, but are becoming more frequent today. In some communities, many expressed that domestic violence and sexual offenses are embedded in the culture of machismo. Drug and alcohol consumption is directly linked to heightened violence at home. Men are more likely to abuse and mistreat women and children when they are under the influence. Because women depend economically on men, they fear to report any cases of domestic violence.
“Es preocupante la violencia intrafamiliar en nuestras comunidades porque los hombres tienen bastantes vicios; toman guaro, talvez hay una chambita por allí hacen dinerito y cuando la mujer cree que va a conseguir algo de su marido, más bien ellos consiguen su dinero y van donde venden guaro y gastan toda su plata y los pobres hijos están sin comer todo el día, después el hombre viene a golpear a la mujer cuando ella reclama de allí vienen los pleitos lo echan preso y luego viene la familia del hombre a pelar con la mujer, mujeres contra otras mujeres tienen bastante maltrato psicológico, familia contra otras familias, es muy preocupante el problema de la violencia intrafamiliar en las comunidades porque aquí existe bastante.” (NGO member, Desembocadura)
“Igual en los hogares hay abuso y violencia en el hogar nuestra niñez está siendo y ahora con esta ley 779 como que los varones, este en vez de Yo digo que cuando un ley o normativa ha sido decretado es para que disminuya pero más bien se ha disparado en Kukra Hill; antes no teníamos una comisaria de la niñez y ahora pues están saliendo a relucir muchos abusos, abuso y violencia a nuestra niñez a nuestras mujeres ve que en años anteriores no teníamos estas cosas, ahora están aumentando los datos que se han estado recepcionando en la Comisaria de la mujer. Entonces ha aumentado algunas cosas han aumentado” (Government official, Kukra Hill).
It is noteworthy that teen pregnancies are referred to as prevalent in coastal municipalities. One youth in Kukra Hill mentioned: “el embarazo precoz ya es como normal diría Yo, pero digo que quizás se da por falta de seguridad porque muchos jóvenes no quieren ir a planificar allá porque ellos como doctores no tienen ética tal vez y los jóvenes no quieren que nadie sepa que ya tienen una vida sexual activa ellos no tienen esa confianza en que ellos no van a hablar, eso es falta de ética,” Further, prostitution is referred to as an uncommon problem in this region, according to the focus groups. There are a few cases where parents are mentioned as giving away their daughters in exchange for land or livestock; or are given away to tourists in exchange for money in what is better known as “sex tourism.” Moreover, when ships sail into the region, it is believed that young women are taken to these ships for prostitution without any control by their parents or authorities.
“Prostitución, y me refiero más que todo a padres entregando a sus hijas menores de edad a hombres a cambio de dinero. Hay niños de 11 años que andan robando y los padres no hacen nada para evitarlo. Más bien se convierten en cómplices de los niños. Estos niños no estudian y no hay nadie que se interese en que vayan a clases.” (Youth, Laguna de Perlas)
In the Bluefields area, qualitative findings reveal the possibility of the emergence of human trafficking cases. Government authorities in conjunction with NGOs are working to prevent the spread of human trafficking.
21
“uno de los problemas tangente que hay acá y que no se está visibilizando no sé si es porque no hemos puesto mucho esfuerzo en el tema como es la trata de personas y la explotación sexual comercial es algo que no se si lo pasamos por desapercibido o simplemente lo estamos ignorando pero existe, está pasando aquí en la región y la gente que camina en la noche puede verlo en las esquina del cine se está viendo” (NGO member, Bluefields)
“los mismos narcotráficos utilizan a las menores para la prostitución y también con engaños se las llevan a otros países, diciéndoles que van a ir a trabajar cuando efectivamente van a ir a servirle de mujer a un narcotraficante o a otra persona” (another NGO member, Bluefields)
I.4.4 Drug Trafficking and Drug Consumption
Quantitative Findings
Drug-trafficking and drug consumption are also key subjects of this report. When looking at the quantitative data across the region, we find that 8.6% of respondents in the mountain area report drug trafficking as a problem in their neighborhood, while 41.3% of those in the coastal areas express the same concern. We also find that among socioeconomic groups, those in the coastal area display higher levels of concern on these issues than do those in the mountain areas. In fact, in every socioeconomic group we looked at in the survey, we find that those in the coastal municipalities shared more concern over those who make their income selling drugs than their counterparts in the mountain area. Regarding drug consumption, we see similar results. Once again we see the coastal municipalities dominating the top half of the list (La Desembocadura de Rio Grande 54.9%, Corn Island 43.9%, Bluefields 35.2%, Laguna de Perlas 31.2%, and Kukra Hill 16%). Concerns over drug use are also overwhelmingly higher in the coastal area across every socioeconomic variable at which we looked (recoded on a 0-100 scale). For example, in the mountain area men have a higher average of 8.5 whereas women are 6.8, whereas these numbers are 33.9 and 38.7, respectively, in the coastal area.
Qualitative Findings
The qualitative findings highlight that focus group participants in the coastal municipalities fear the spread of drug trafficking networks, growing drug consumption, endemic domestic violence and sexual offenses the most. According to focus group contributors, youth are particularly vulnerable to drug abuse, which leads to other types of crime such as robberies, violence and in the worst cases: murders. A NGO member in Desembocadura says: “Cuando los jóvenes de aquí andan tomados me da recelo pasar junto a ellos porque lo ofenden y quieren pelear con uno así nomás, o te dicen dame 10 pesos y si no me das…, eso existe en esta comunidad, a las personas quieren golpearlas porque no le dan para su vicio y creo no debe de ser así.”
Interviewees mentioned that abusive treatment from husbands to wives is prevalent, but something that is also becoming common are cases where youth are abusive toward their parents mainly when they are under the influence of drugs and alcohol. A youth member points out: “Y no es tanto los
22 padres hacia los hijos también se dan casos que ya a cierta edad vienen los hijos y maltratan a los padres, existe ese tipo de violencia de los hijos hacia los padres golpean a los padres…”
The access to drugs is easy due to the existence of various “expendios” (drug outlets). As a young individual in Kukra Hills suggests “pueden quitar unos dos expendios pero ponen otro, o lo traen de otro lado a distribuirlo aquí, lo único que cambian son las rutas de distribución, de venta los que mandan.”
“Para mí, lo que yo veo en la realidad que estamos viviendo es el consumo de droga, uno de los puntos es que la mayoría de los jóvenes desde los 30 años para abajo consume bastante lo que es seria la droga de los tres tipos yo creo que eso es por falta de seria vigilancia o tal vez patrullaje aquí dentro del municipio con los jóvenes, porque sabemos nosotros que hay muchos expendios aquí dentro del municipio y no hay control en la casa y entre tal vez los jóvenes más menores ellos vienen viendo eso a cada día, entonces ellos vienen creyendo en que como que estas drogas no es malo para ellos, eso es lo que yo veo aquí lo creo” (Goverment official, Laguna de Perlas)
The police are perceived as not doing enough to control drug problems in many cases. In others, the work of the police is recognized and the blame is put on members of the community:“Drogas, porque algunas veces nosotros los isleños como que apoyamos el consumo de drogas, porque generalmente sabemos quiénes son los distribuidores de la droga y no los denunciamos y pues también hay mucho otro tipo de violencia y no hay investigación de parte de la policía para ver quiénes son los que cometieron estos crímenes y esto provoca que los crímenes continúen” (Government official, Corn Island)
Although authorities have captured drug shipments, many believe that most of these drugs are allowed to circulate freely in the communities. In fact, some focus group participants report that the region is considered a corridor for drug trafficking, which negatively affects the lives of many in the region.
“Considero que entre las diversas problemáticas que enfrentamos puede encajarse un poco el tema de la educación en las comunidades más alejadas de nuestra región, y sumando a eso un poco de problemática sociales también como es que nuestra región ha sido utilizada para el tráfico internacional de droga que viene desde el sur o que viene de la parte del Caribe y que deja sus restos en nuestra región perjudicando a nuestra familia costeña” (Government official, Bluefields)
Nevertheless, drug trafficking is also seen as an alternative source of income due to very high levels of unemployment, according to some. For instance, fishing is a significant economic activity in the coastal municipalities, but during seasons where fishing of certain species is prohibited, particularly those highly priced species (e.g., lobsters), it is reported that for fishermen it is fairly usual to resort to drug trafficking.
“En la parte de la inseguridad los asaltos se vuelven más frecuentes cuando viene la veda, que es cuando mucha gente se queda sin empleo durante 4 meses, la población desempleada aumenta y es donde se ven más robos” (NGO member in Corn Island).
23 Some subjects of the focus group studies even suggested that when the police crack down on drugs, people see it as detrimental to their economic wellbeing. A government authority in Laguna de Perlas highlights this phenomenon in Corn Island:
“Como radicar el tráfico internacional de la droga sino que lo ven como que le están cerrando una fuente de ingreso de dinero entonces yo he podido notar en ese municipio durante estuve que la gente decía esto esta pobre porque la policía acaba de agarrar un fuerte cargamento ven esto el tráfico internacional de la droga lo ven como una fuente de ingreso, he como le podría decir de, como de más ingreso dinero al municipio como en fortalecimiento porque si bien se cuándo en esos tiempo no hay movimiento de eso los bares, bares discos todo está parado. Como que prácticamente ese ingreso de droga levanta el desarrollo del comercio del municipio, estando aquí en este municipio no he podido observar mucho movimiento ilícito.”
Drugs are seen by some individuals as a source of development; women and children are used to sell drugs and students in the school carry them in their backpacks.
“Uno puede observar que también la vendedora ambulante es mujer y anda con un niño pequeño de dos tres años viene alguien llaman la policía que es lo que hacen le ponen todo en la bolsita del pantalón del niño, pasa la policía porque no va revisar al niño va revisar al adulto y no hay nada y es bien preocupante porque eso se da siempre.” (Government official, Laguna de Perlas)
Community members are aware of these problems, but many choose not to report them because these are parents, neighbors or acquaintances and, as noted, some see drugs as an alternate economic resource and in many cases the only source of income, according to the focus group research. Some sectors of society even condemn the police for exacerbating problems associated with poverty in these municipalities when they target drug trafficking networks.
I.4.5 Ethnic relations
Quantitative Findings
As noted in the introduction, we see some significant differences between Mestizos and those who identify as other races. In the coastal area we find that Mestizos are less likely to attend a municipal meeting (on a 0-100 scale, 26.3 for “other”, 11.4 for Mestizos). Regarding drug trafficking, those who identify as Mestizos are less likely to report instance of trafficking (58.2% other, 31.8% Mestizos). At the same time, Mestizos are more likely to report security as the most important problem and higher current levels of violence than other neighborhoods (for security as the most serious problem, 3.4% other, 11.6% Mestizos, for levels of violence, 17.8% other, 35% Mestizos).
Qualitative Findings
In terms of ethnic relations specifically, focus group participants suggest that in the last decades these relationships have improved due in part to the enactment of various laws by the Nicaraguan government that acknowledge the rights of ethnic populations and encourage cultural diversity.
24 One of the problems these diverse groups still face is the lack of communication because of the use of various languages and differences in culture and perceptions on how to solve problems. In the past, the rivalry and discrimination among various ethnic groups was salient, but these disagreements have gradually been attenuated in recent years. Some interviewees indicated that discrimination against minorities still persist today, however. Creoles, Miskitos, and Uluwas feel discriminated against mainly by Mestizos, but Miskitos and Uluwas also feel discriminated against by Creoles. Moreover, Uluwas likewise feel discriminated against by Miskitos. It appears that the smaller the minority group, the greater the experience with discrimination by larger ethnic groups. In addition, minorities feel discriminated especially by Mestizos who come from other regions to hold governmental positions. These newcomers are perceived as lacking an understanding of local beliefs, culture and traditions, thus, local populations who have official dealings with the municipality or governmental authorities tend to feel discriminated. Some respondents of minority groups highlighted that Mestizos tend to protect the rights of Mestizos and neglect those of other ethnic groups. Nonetheless the general feeling reflects that ethnic relations have improved significantly in comparison with the past.
“Sobre el tema cuanto a los conflictos de derecho se dan pero los conflictos culturales no, entonces es común ver a un Mestizos abrazarse con un negro, compartir comida, visitar la casa o ver a los mismos jóvenes caminar con un Mestizos, con indígena porque es un asunto cultural, yo acepto que soy diferente pero no acepto que tienes derecho, entonces ahí es donde van los conflictos y lo vemos en todos los barrios , como negra yo tengo amigos Mestizos, miskitos, ramas, uluas, comemos todos, bailamos todos pero a la hora del tema de los derechos ahí donde es el punto donde nos afecta y cada quien jala por su parte y cada quien vela por su derecho entonces ahí es donde se dan los conflictos” (Youth, Bluefields).
One particular problem that has intensified tensions among different ethnic groups is conflict over territory. Mestizos are regarded as invaders of communal territories of indigenous populations. For Miskitos, Ramas, and Uluwas, land is regarded as “Mother Earth” that has certain inherent rights that people need to respect and protect. For Mestizos and Creoles, land is seen as private property for business. These dissimilar visions for land utilization and eventual exploitation of natural resources has created tensions among these various ethnic groups. Further, some believe that those who were born in this land have more rights than those who came from elsewhere.
“Pero aparte del problema tenemos otras cosas que viene con eso, porque tenemos tierra comunales, que es un sentido distinto a la propiedad privada la tierra comunal no se puede vender, no se puede engrapar, es propiedad de las comunidades dentro de nuestras propiedades han habido invasiones de nuestra tierra por parte de otros grupos, ya lo que hay es preocupación ilegal de nuestra tierra y nosotros sabemos que esto es un problema grave, el problema de la propiedad trae conflictos gravísimos, yo quisiera ver resuelto el problema de la demarcación y titulación como número uno” (Government Official, Laguna de Perlas)
The Nicaraguan government has tried to ease these tensions by passing laws that protect the rights of regional native populations, but according to focus group participants, there are still areas where improvements can be made regarding this issue.
25 I.4.6 Evaluations of Law Enforcement Institutions
Quantitative Findings
This survey also includes several questions to evaluate key institutions in charge of law enforcement: the police (several dimensions) and the judicial system. An important conclusion of this report is that respondents in coastal municipalities report worse average evaluations of these institutions than respondents in mountain municipalities. For example, respondents in both areas were asked about police harassment and their answers were recorded on a scale from 0-100, where 0 represents the view that police harassment is not a problem, and 100 that it is a very big problem. The average perception of police harassment on this scale according to respondents from the mountain area is 74.8, as opposed to 51.3 in the coastal communities. Thus, people in coastal municipalities are not only exposed to higher levels of crime, but they also feel that institutions in charge of law enforcements perform poorly in a comparative sense.
Regarding satisfaction with police performance, people in the coastal area report a worse evaluation of the police in controlling crime (also with four of the bottom five municipalities reporting lower evaluations of police controlling crime); a lower level of trust in the police (with four of the five lowest evaluations of trust in police); a lower confidence that the justice system would punish the guilty (also with four of the bottom five municipalities being in the coastal region); and a slightly lower level of trust in the judicial system (four of the bottom five). The police in particular have better evaluations in more urbanized areas. Satisfaction with the police performance (on a scale of 0-100) is higher in mid-urbanized municipalities in the mountain area (56.1) as opposed to the same group in the coastal area (48.7). At the same time, perceptions of police harassment as a problem increase with urbanization in both areas (recoded on a scale of 0- 100 from 12.5 to 16.9 in the mountain area as degree of urbanization increases, and from 14 to 29.3 in the coastal area as degree of urbanization increases).
Those we categorize as “upper class” by wealth level tend to report lower levels of evaluation of some institutions, but not all. They report lower levels of trust in the police (on a scale from 0-100, 54.4 in the upper class as opposed to 60.1 in the lower class in the mountain area, and 42.2 in the upper class and 50.4 in the lower class in the coastal area); a lower confidence in the justice system’s work (recoded from 0-100 39.3 for the upper class as opposed to 50 in the coastal, and 47.2 for the upper class and 55.9 for the lower class in the mountain); and lower levels of trust in the judicial system in the coastal area (recoded from 0-100, 47.4 and 52.5 for the upper classes in the coastal and mountain areas respectively as opposed to 54.3 and 54.5 for the lower classes in the coastal and mountain areas respectively).
Qualitative Findings
Qualitative findings echo these general feelings of dissatisfaction with law enforcement institutions. As a member of an NGO in Desembocadura explains with regards to the police:
“No tenemos muchos policías aquí en este municipio, este municipio es grande y no cuenta con suficientes policías, no nos dan esa seguridad y por eso es que la delincuencia siempre aumenta cada día y cada hora, porque nadie contradice, ni
26 opone y nadie busca que hacer en contra de esas situaciones, entonces siempre se aumenta.”
One reason why there are lower levels of satisfaction with law enforcement institutions such as the police in coastal municipalities, according to the focus-group data, is the lack of policemen or well-trained police personnel. Volunteers mostly fulfill the role of policemen in this region. In many instances police officials are believed to be collaborators of drug trafficking networks. In others, residents recognize government and police efforts to reduce crime.
“Han mejorado anteriormente aquí en lo que es Kukra Hill existían varios expendios pero ahora últimamente en este últimos años se ha mirado que hay mejoras porque han desaparecido varios expendios ósea lo que es la parte de la policía ha sido efectiva ha mejorado…En la actualidad, pues porque todo mundo sabe aquí donde venden solo han quedado unos que le van dando seguimiento y también tiende a desaparecerse, o sea el trabajo que ha venido haciendo la parte del gobierno y la policía ha mejorado, lentamente pero ahora si se ha mirado que ellos se han enfocado en desaparecer ese flagelo que mucho perjudica todos los desarrollo del pueblo y a la juventud.” (Youth, Kukra Hill)
I.4.7 Citizens’ Participation
Quantitative Findings
The survey includes questions to evaluate citizens’ participation in several spaces, including meetings of a local government, religious organizations, political parties, and women’s groups, parents’ organizations at school, and community improvement committees or “territorial government.”
We find that, among the 10 municipalities studied, there is no pattern regarding area and participation. For example, regarding participation in municipal meetings, we find that the percentage of participation ranges from La Desembocadura de Rio Grande at 44.3% and El Rama at 9.3%, and this range is interspersed with coastal and mountain areas. While not all of the questions about civic participation have such a numerical spread, we find that there is no clear difference between areas within the region. Women participate less in public spaces. For example, they report lower levels of participation in meetings of local government, and they also report that they tried to solve a community problem to a lesser degree than men (24% of men vs. 21.2% of women in the coastal area for example).
It is worth noting the relatively high levels of participation in medium-urbanized municipalities in the coastal area. Respondents in these kinds of municipalities report higher levels of participation in meetings of local governments (30.3%). They also report that they tried to solve a community problem to a higher degree than any other demographic in either area (25.6%).
27 I.5 Contributions to USAID’s efforts for Building Local Capacity
This study helped contribute to USAID Forward’s Implementation and Procurement’s Local Capacity Development (LCD) by engaging with local stakeholders and organizations in RACCS and Managua to carry out fieldwork and dissemination efforts. LAPOP provided in-person training to local (Nicaraguan) teams and supervisors in best practices in survey research and supported them as they led the data collection effort for the quantitative component of the study. In conducting focus groups in the RACCS region, LAPOP recruited authorities from local government, members of local NGOs and civil society organization, as well as at-risk youth, to discuss key issues related to citizen security in the municipalities of Bluefields, Corn Island, Kukra Hill, Laguna de Perlas, and Desembocadura de Río Grande. Participants from the focus groups with local authorities included the following: mayors, delegates from the regional Ministry of Governance, police officers, judges, and municipal and regional councilors. Participants from the focus groups with members of NGOs and civil society organizations included the following: school principals and teachers, university administrators, religious leaders, coordinators of local non-profit organizations, members of community councils and women’s associations, as well as coordinators of youth and sports organizations.
LAPOP also engaged with local stakeholders and organizations during the dissemination of the study’s results. As a local capacity building effort, LAPOP worked with a local coordinator. Eduardo Marenco, a Nicaraguan journalist by trade with formal training in international development policy, who was responsible for assisting with all aspects of presentation logistics and efforts to engage local stakeholders to attend dissemination efforts in Managua and Bluefields. LAPOP supported Mr. Marenco in his efforts, and this collaboration resulted in a successful dissemination. Dissemination attendees in Managua included representatives from JICA (Japanese’s Agency of Cooperation), UNICEF, and the Spanish Cooperation (AECID). Attendees in Bluefields were mainly residents of local communities, local NGO coordinators, and faculty and staff from local universities.
I.6 Programming Recommendations
Results from both the focus group and survey components of this study corroborate some of the original intuitions that USAID had about the socioeconomic and demographic problems in the RACCS region in some cases, and reveal some additional ills in other cases. The study finds that economic insecurity, especially in the coastal area, exacerbates instances of drug- trafficking, human trafficking, and substance abuse. According to the reports of focus group participants, high levels of unemployment, low-wage and unstable working conditions, have driven some individuals to resort to alternative illegal activities as legitimate sources of income. In addition, people seem increasingly to justify drug and human-trafficking as feasible ways of doing business. These attitudes, associated with a generalized perception of a limited state capacity to enforce the rules against criminals, present key challenges to the region.
With this in mind, LAPOP suggests carrying out several strategies of prevention and control of the aforementioned problems for the region. First, based on the findings of this report, we recommend programming focused on the youth. Since young individuals are the region’s future, it is important to start working with them as soon as possible. Our studies have identified concerns about
28 alcoholism and addiction to drugs in the coast among the younger population. According to survey data, concerns over drug use are overwhelmingly higher in the coastal area than in the mountains. Additionally, our analyses indicate that younger citizens in the coast tend to report using cocaine or marihuana more frequently than older individuals.16 Within coastal municipalities, a pattern found among focus group participants suggests that youth are particularly vulnerable to drug abuse, which leads to other types of crime such as robberies, violence and in the worst cases: murders. In this context, we believe that efforts to prevent substance abuse should be targeted at the community level. Programming that might be considered to address these issues includes:
Regional youth anti-drug media campaigns, involving mass media (newspapers, radio and television); Mentoring initiatives, with the aid of former alcoholic and drug addicts who can share their experiences especially with at-risk youth; Educating parents, teachers, sport clubs leaders, artists, etc., about the benefits of being explicit about their support for the rejection of alcohol and drug abuse; Supporting prevention initiatives on school campuses; Helping strengthen law enforcement institutions and personnel; Supporting the opening or operations of drug treatment facilities; Opening or supporting youth centers that focus on recreational activities and occupational counseling; Increasing a relationship between the police and the communities focused on cooperation to combat drug use/sales.
In accord with best practices, we suggest that additional diagnostic data be collected in tandem with this type of programming. This could include, for example, studies to determine the impact of prevention and eradication programs. In addition, we suggest that programming take a multifaceted approach involving different units of the government (e.g., the ministry of health, the ministry of education, the ministry of family, police, army) and different facets of civil society.
An additional youth-related topic addressed in the focus groups reveals that many citizens in the coastal area are worried about teen pregnancies. For this reason, it is important to consider initiatives to identify, develop and implement a variety of policies intended to reduce both teen and unplanned pregnancies. These policies may be targeted to provide individuals with tools for family planning, sexual education, and contraception. Some of the initiatives include, but are not limited to:
Promote the delay of sexual activity among teens; Promote contraceptive use among sexually active teens; Design and implement a curriculum-based program on sexual education that includes information on sex and sexually transmitted diseases/HIV; Establish educational programs on sex and sexually transmitted diseases with parents.
16 In contrast, we could not find statistically significant differences between young and old individuals in terms of drug use in the mountain area.
29 Many individuals in our studies highlight problems of economic insecurity, especially in the coastal region, which seem to be associated with illegal activities, such as human-trafficking and drug-trafficking. Survey data shows that people in the coastal region report higher concerns about unemployment than people in the mountains. Moreover, people residing in the coastal area report, on average, that individuals in their communities make some of their income selling drugs, to a greater degree than the reports of people in the mountain area. Some focus group participants reported that the lack of employment, especially when fishing season is closed, leads them to find alternatives sources of income in order to sustain their families. If there are not enough working places, individuals may resort to illicit activities. In order to mitigate the problem of unemployment, it may be possible to consider significant programming initiatives designed to boost legal economic productivity in the region. Here we list some examples of the types of programs that could be considered to promote economic development, though we are cognizant that economic solutions need to be developed in consultation with local leaders, businesses, the government, and communities:
Working closely with local governments, a specific policy to increase tourism in the coastal area of Nicaragua; The development of small and medium companies through tax breaks and subsidies; Employment generation incentives through tax incentives to companies that hire individuals; The development of energy through agriculture and bio-fuels.
Finally, programing could also address issues related to the development and strengthening of state capacity. Our research identifies that some perceive weakness with respect to the efficiency and responsiveness of authorities. For example, survey data shows that people in the coastal area report lower levels of satisfaction with police performance; a worse evaluation of the police in controlling crime; a lower level of trust in the police; a lower confidence that the justice system would punish the guilty; and a lower level of trust in local governments than people in the mountain area. Focus group data suggests that some areas that are supposed to be monopolized by the state, such as the administration of justice and the use of force, are being taken over by “volunteer” individuals (especially to carry out policing activities). Based on our research, we are able to identify some key activities that can be targeted in order to improve governments’ performance, in coordination with organizations of the civil society, such as:
In fighting Crime: Strengthen the police by outfitting them with the tools necessary to fight crime (laboratories, technology, education, and training); Work with justice administrators in order to enforce the law; Organize communities and community leaders around a common goal of crime- fighting; Work together with churches, NGO’s, and political organizations to present a united front against crime.
In Preventing Domestic Violence: Provide training and education within the communities on issues surrounding domestic violence and abuse;
30 Encourage women, men and children to report more regularly cases of domestic violence and child abuse (The passage of the Ley Integral contra la Violencia hacia las mujeres, Law No.779 which focuses on the protection of women’s rights and guarantees women’s lives without violence is believed to have had a great impact on the empowerment of women, according to focus group participants).
31
Part II. The Survey Study in RACCS
II.1 Introduction
This report presents core results from a survey about citizen security in the Southern Autonomous Caribbean Coast Region (RACCS) in Nicaragua. It offers important perspectives on how individuals in the region perceive the issue of security and evaluate institutions in charge of the provision of public safety. The report also presents information about citizens’ participation in different spaces, including town meetings, meetings of religious organizations, meetings of parents’ associations at school, meetings of community improvement committees, meetings of political parties, and meetings of associations or groups of women.
Per the Scope of Work, the purpose of this study is to support USAID’s learning agenda by deepening the Mission’s understanding of the local context in Nicaragua’s Caribbean Coast. The main goals were stated as follows:
Help the Mission understand the potentially diverse ways in which citizen security is viewed by people of the region and what expectations of problem solving might be seen by local populations as viable. Of special importance is determining these perceptions as pertinent to several characteristics: age, ethnic representation, and geographic location, inter alia. Related to the point above, another goal is to identify what is the best research approach to ensure collection of the views and perceptions of participants as a way to also inform programming. Provide information to assist USAID/Nicaragua in learning what indicators are commonly used to measure changes related to citizen security.
This report focuses on issues related to citizen security in the RACCS region in currently targeted and non-targeted areas. These areas include five coastal municipalities (Desembocadura del Rio Grande, Laguna de Perlas, Kukra Hill, Corn Island, and Bluefields) and five mountain municipalities (La Cruz del Rio Grande, El Ayote, Nueva Guinea, Muelle de los Bueyes, and El Rama).
This report is organized as follows. For each selected variable, we first give descriptive results, comparing the coastal and mountain areas, and where possible, comparing with national results from the 2014 AmericasBarometer national survey for Nicaragua. After that, we differentiate results by socioeconomic characteristics: gender, age, wealth, ethnicity, and the municipalities’ degree of urbanization.17 Finally, we summarize findings in the conclusion.
The appendix material to this report is important. Appendix 1 includes notes on the study including the construction of the sub-group variables used in this study. Appendix 2 presents results by municipality. Thus, while the main body of the report makes comparisons across the coastal and mountain areas and within these areas by sub-groups, the appendix provides results by municipality. Appendix 3 contains the full questionnaire.
17 See the Appendix 1: Methodology for a detailed explanation about these variables.
33 II.2 Understanding Figures in this Study
It is important for the reader to understand that each data point (for example, an area’s average trust in political parties) has a confidence interval, expressed in terms of a range surrounding that point. Most graphs in this study show a 90% confidence interval18 that takes into account the fact that this sample is “complex” (i.e., stratified and clustered per standard practices in survey sample design). In bar charts this confidence interval appears as a grey block. The dot in the center of a confidence interval depicts the estimated mean.
The numbers next to each bar in the bar charts represent the values of the dots. When the superior limit of one bar crosses the estimated points of another bar, the difference between the two values is usually not statistically significant at p<0.1, meaning that where there is substantial overlap in confidence intervals (grey blocks), the reader should assume that the differences between two estimates are not reliably distinguishable from an estimate of no difference.
Please note that there are two typical measures presented in graphs: percentages and means. The former reflect the percent of the sample or sub-group with a particular reported behavior, attitude, or evaluation. The latter represent a mean (average) level on a variable that is scaled from 0 to 100 (per the LAPOP standard, all scales are recoded via a linear transformation to a 0 to 100 scale for ease of comparison); the mean on the 0-100 scale can be understood as the degree to which (i.e., how many points out of 100) the sample or sub-group possesses that reported behavior, attitude, or evaluation.
II.3 Perceptions of Insecurity
This section offers results for several aspects of perceptions of insecurity. It begins with an evaluation of a general perception of insecurity in respondents’ neighborhoods. After this general evaluation, this section assesses perceptions of security under different circumstances; for example, when respondents are walking in their neighborhoods during the day and after dark. Then, it will report comparisons of levels of violence with respect to other neighborhoods, and a retrospective comparison. Finally, we focus on a particular problem: gang activity. This part summarizes individuals’ evaluations of gang activity in their neighborhoods, and explores the extent to which it is perceived as an increasing or a decreasing problem.
18 In this report we use a 90% confidence interval, instead of standard 95%, given the relatively smaller number of cases in the mountain areas (540 cases) compared to the coastal areas (1500).
34 II.3.1 Security as the Most Serious Problem
At the start of the survey, respondents have the opportunity to report what they consider the most serious problem in their communities. Respondents’ open-ended answers were coded in the field into one of nearly forty potential problem areas. We then recoded those categories into five general topics areas: economy, security, basic services, politics, and other kinds of problems. The question is worded as follows:
A4. In your opinion, what is the most serious problem faced by your community? [DO | | | NOT READ THE RESPONSE OPTIONS; ONLY A SINGLE OPTION]
As indicated in a prior section, in the 2014 AmericasBarometer results for Nicaragua 4.7% of the total sample reports security as the most serious problem (with 80.7% indicating the economy is most serious). Figure 1 presents the distribution of the recoded variable by mountain and coastal municipalities in the RACCS region. These graphs show that security is slightly more frequently mentioned in coastal municipalities (6.4%) than in mountain municipalities (4%).
Most Serious Problem
Other 6.5% Other 10.1% Politics 3.1% Politics Basic Services 7.1% 5.4%
Security Basic Services 4.0% 4.1%
Security 6.4%
Economy Economy 81.0% 72.2%
Mountain Coastal
Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 1. Most Serious Problem by Area
35
In this section we are interested in those who respond that security is the most serious problem in their communities; they are not a big sample, but we can still report results for this sub-group. For example, Figure 2 shows no differences in reporting of security as the most serious problem by gender and age in either area.
6.8% 6.6%
8 lem 8
lem 6.2%
ob 6.1%
r
ob
P
r
P 4.7%
4.1% ious ious
4.0% er
6 6
S er
S 3.4%
Most
Most e
e
th
th
4 4
as
as
ty ty
Securi
Securi 2 2
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Gender Age Man Younger adults Woman Older adults
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Ef fects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 2. Most Serious Problem by Gender, Age, and Area
36
Figure 3 presents some noteworthy findings. For example, it shows that those in the lower class report security as a problem (6.3%) to a greater extent than the middle class (1.5%) and the upper class do (3.5%) in mountain municipalities. In this area, the difference between the low and the middle class is statistically significant. In coastal municipalities, the middle class reports security problems to a greater extent (7.8%) than the lower class (5%); this difference is also statistically significant. With respect to ethnicity, this figure shows that Mestizos express a greater concern about security (11.6%) than people with other ethnicities (3.4%) in coastal municipalities. In mountain municipalities, there is not a significant difference between Mestizos and people of other ethnicities.
15 15
11.6%
Problem
Problem
7.8% 10 10
6.3% Serious
Serious 6.5%
5.0%
Most Most
3.5% 2.6% 4.3%
the the
as
as 5 5
3.4%
1.5%
Security Security
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Ownership of Goods Mixed Low Medium Other High Mestizo
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 3. Most Serious Problem by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area
37
The following figure presents results for security as the most serious problem by degree of urbanization and by area. It shows that people in low-urbanized municipalities express a higher concern about security than people in mid-urbanized areas in mountain municipalities (6.1% versus 1% respectively). In coastal municipalities, it shows a strikingly high tendency to identify security issues in low-urbanized municipalities (18.2%). Differences between low- and mid- and high-urbanized municipalities are significant (18.2% versus 2.2% and 4.9% respectively).
25
18.2% Problem
20
Serious
15
Most
the 10
6.1% as
4.9%
5 2.2% 1.0%
Security 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities
Urbanization Low Medium High
90 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 4. Most Serious Problem by Urbanization and Area
38
II.3.2 General Insecurity
According to the 2014 AmericasBarometer results for Nicaragua, 39.2% of respondents say they are somewhat unsafe or very unsafe. When we turn to the RACCS regions in this study, we observe only slight differences across the areas in reporting of insecurity. 34.6% in the mountain area and 31.3% in the coastal area say they are somewhat unsafe or very unsafe. The question is worded as follows:
AOJ11. Speaking of the neighborhood where you live and thinking of the possibility of being assaulted or robbed, do you feel very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe or very unsafe? | | | (1) Very safe (2) Somewhat safe (3) Somewhat unsafe (4) Very unsafe (88) DK (98) DA
Perception of Insecurity
Very unsafe Very unsafe 12.0% 10.5%
Very safe 28.6% Very safe 31.3%
Somewhat unsafe 20.8% Somewhat unsafe 23.6%
Somewhat safe Somewhat safe 35.9% 37.3%
Mountain Coastal
Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 5. Perception of Insecurity by Area
39 We have recoded the insecurity variable into a 0-100 scale, on which higher values indicate greater perceptions of insecurity, for ease of comparison. Figure 6 shows that there are no clear gender differences with respect to perceptions of insecurity in either area. Moreover, it also shows no statistically significant difference between age groups in the coastal area. In the mountain area, it shows that older adults (42.3) report higher levels of insecurity than younger adults (36.4), a difference that is statistically significant.
50 50 42.3
40.7
38.0 37.3 36.4 40 40 36.2 37.0
35.9
Insecurity
Insecurity
of
of
30 30
Perception Perception 20 20
10 10
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Gender Age Man Younger adults Woman Older adults
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 6. Perception of Insecurity by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
40
Figure 7 displays results by a measure of wealth and ethnicity, by area. With respect to wealth, it shows that those in the upper class (34.8) report lower levels of insecurity than those in the lower (40.9) and middle classes (43.3) in the mountain area and these differences are statistically significant. In the coastal area, there are no differences among wealth groups in their perception of insecurity. This figure also shows that Mestizos report lower levels of insecurity in the mountain area (39.1 for Mestizos versus 41.6 for people of other ethnicities) and higher levels in the coastal area (40.8 for Mestizos and 34.1 for people of other ethnicities). These differences are statistically significant in both cases.
50 50 43.3 41.6
40.9 40.8
39.1 37.5
40 34.8 36.1 36.1 40
34.1
30 30
Insecurity Insecurity
of of
20 20
Perception Perception 10 10
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Ownership of Goods Mixed Low Medium Other High Mestizo
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 7. Perception of Insecurity by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
41
Finally, Figure 8 shows no statistically significant differences by degree of urbanization in either area. In all types of municipalities, we observe similar levels of the perception of insecurity.
50 40.0 38.9 35.5 36.6 37.1 40
Insecurity
30
of
20
Perception 10
0 Mountain Area Coastal Area
Municipalities
Urbanization Low Medium High
90 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 8. Perception of Insecurity by Urbanization and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
42
II.3.3 Avoided Walking for Dangerous Areas in the Neighborhood
Finally, in this section about insecurity in particular circumstances; the questionnaire includes a question about whether respondents have avoided some areas in their neighborhood because of fear of crime. This question is an indicator of the degree to which people feel they have to change their everyday lives because of crime and violence. The question was worded as follows:
Yes No DK DA FEAR10. In order to protect yourself from crime, in the last 12 months, have you taken any measures such as avoiding walking 1 0 88 98 | | | through some areas in your neighborhood because they are dangerous?
According to the 2014 AmericasBarometer results for Nicaragua, 48.6% of respondents have avoided certain areas in the country. Figure 9 shows lower average rates but no great variation between mountain and coastal municipalities; in both areas around 24-25% of respondents report that they have avoided certain areas of out fear of crime.
Avoided Walking for Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood
Yes Yes 25.8% 24.2%
No No 74.2% 75.8%
Mountain Coastal
Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 9. Avoided Walking for Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood by Area
43
Figure 10 shows results by gender and age, by area. Men are more likely to report altering their routes to avoid dangerous areas than women in mountain municipalities (30.8% versus 20.8% respectively). In coastal municipalities, we do not observe gender differences for this variable. With respect to age, it shows that younger adults are more likely to avoid dangerous areas than older individuals in both areas. Differences are statistically significant in both areas (29.6% versus 21.9% in the mountain area and 25.6% versus 22.5% in the coastal area).
40 40
30.8% 29.6%
Neighborhood
Neighborhood 30 30
in 25.6%
in 24.4% 24.0% 21.9% 20.8% 22.5%
Areas
Areas
20 20 Dangerous
Dangerous
for
for
Walking
10 10 Walking
Avoided Avoided 0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Gender Age Man Younger adults Woman Older adults 9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved Figure 10. Avoided Walking for Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood by Gender, Age, and Area
44
Figure 11 shows results disaggregated by wealth and ethnicity, by area. We observe a trend in mountain municipalities: those in the upper class are more likely to avoid dangerous areas in their neighborhoods. The difference between the upper class (32.6%) and the lower class (18.9%) in the mountain area is statistically significant. In coastal municipalities, it shows that those in the lower class are less likely to avoid dangerous areas than the middle and upper classes (16.8% versus 28.7% and 27.2% respectively). With respect to ethnicity, this figure does not show significant differences in mountain municipalities between ethnic groups. In the coastal area, it shows that Mestizos are more likely to avoid dangerous places in their neighborhoods than people with other ethnic backgrounds (35% versus 17.8% respectively).
40 40 35.0%
32.6%
27.7%
borhood 28.7% 22.8% 27.2%
26.0% Neigh
30 Neighborhood 30
in in
18.9%
Areas Areas
17.8% 20 16.8% 20
Dangerous Dangerous
for for
10 10
Walking Walking
Avoided Avoided
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Ownership of Goods Mixed Low Medium Other High Mestizo
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 11. Avoided Walking for Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area
45
Finally, the following figure shows some differences in behavior regarding avoiding dangerous areas by degree of urbanization. It does not show differences between low- and mid-urbanized municipalities in the mountain area. In the coastal area, it shows that mid-urbanized municipalities exhibit lower levels of reporting of avoidance of dangerous areas in the neighborhood than low- and high-urbanized municipalities (15.4% versus 35.6% and 27.3% respectively).
35.6% 40
Neighborhood
26.7% 24.3% 27.3% in
30 Areas
20 15.4%
Dangerous
for
10
Walking
0
Avoided Mountain Area Coastal Area
Municipalities
Urbanization Low Medium
High 90 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 12. Avoided Walking for Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood by Urbanization and Area
II.4 Crime Victimization
As noted previously, respondents to the 2014 AmericasBarometer national survey of Nicaragua report that the economy by far is the most serious problem. The second most important problem, from the perspective of the mass public, includes those related to security issues such as crime. This section tracks results for questions related to this problem in the RACCS region.
46 II.4.1 Household Crime Victimization
We begin with experiences with crime. The questionnaire includes the following questions:
VIC1EXT. Now, changing the subject, have you been a victim of any type of crime in the past 12 months? That is, have you been a victim of robbery, assault, fraud, blackmail, extortion, violent threats or any other type of crime in the past 12 months? | | | (1) Yes [Continue] (2) No [Skip to VIC1HOGARr] (88) DK [Skip to VIC1HOGARr] (98) DA [Skip to VIC1HOGARr] VIC1HOGARr. Has any other person living in your household been a victim of any type of crime in the past 12 months? That is, has any other person living in your household been a victim of robbery, assault, fraud, blackmail, extortion, violent threats, homicide, femicide, or | | | any other type of crime in the past 12 months? (1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (98) DA (99) N/A (Lives alone)
We have combined these two questions into an index of household victimization that tracks whether the respondents or another person living with them was a crime victim. According to the 2014 AmericasBarometer results for Nicaragua, a total of 30.5% of respondents report that they themselves and/or a member of their household having been victimized by crime in the past year. We will refer to this measure, created by combining responses to the above two variables, as “household victimization” (though we note that the site of the crime is not necessarily in the household; instead, the label refers to the notion that an individual in the house, or more than one, was victimized).
Figure 13 presents results for the combined measure of household victimization by area. It shows that people living in the coastal area (24.2%) report higher levels of household victimization than do people in the mountain area (16.2%).
Household Crime Victimization
Yes 16.2% Yes 24.2%
No No 75.8% 83.8%
Mountain Coastal Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 13. Crime Victimization by Area 47
Now we will analyze results regarding household crime victimization by gender and age. Figure 14 shows results disaggregated for these variables and we observe that men are more likely to report household crime victimization than women in both areas (18.3% for men versus 14.2% for women in the mountain area and 25.8% for men and 22.6% for women in the coastal area); both differences are statistically significant. The figure also shows no clear differences by age groups in the mountain area. In the coastal area, younger adults (25.7%) express higher levels of reporting of household crime victimization than older adults (22.7%).
30 30 25.8% 25.7%
22.6% 22.7%
25 25 18.3%
16.9% 20 20 15.5%
14.2%
Victimization
Victimization
15 15
Crime
Crime
10 10
Household 5 Household 5
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Gender Age Man Younger adults Woman Older adults 9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Ef fects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 14. Household Crime Victimization by Gender, Age, and Area
48 Figure 15 presents results by wealth and ethnicity. With respect to wealth, this figure displays no differences among wealth groups in the mountain area. In contrast, in coastal municipalities, it shows that the upper class (29.5%) exhibits higher levels of reporting of household crime victimization than the lower class (18.5%) and the middle class (24.8%). All of these differences are statistically significant in this area. In mountain municipalities, we observe a higher level of reporting of household crime victimization among Mestizos (17.2%) than among people of other ethnicities (10.4%). In the case of coastal municipalities, the difference is not statistically significant.
40 40
29.5%
30 30
24.8% 24.0% 24.3%
Victimization
17.6% 17.3% Victimization
18.5% 17.2%
20 14.0% 20 Crime
Crime 10.4%
10 10 Household Household
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Ownership of Goods Mixed Low Medium Other High Mestizo
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Ef fects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 15. Household Crime Victimization by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area
49 The following figure presents results by degree of urbanization, by area. It shows no differences between low- and mid-urbanized municipalities in the mountain area. In the coastal area, it shows that low-urbanized (14.7%) municipalities exhibit lower levels of reporting of household crime victimization than mid-urbanized (26.6%) and high-urbanized municipalities (26.6%).
30 26.6% 26.6%
25 17.4%
15.4%
20 14.7% Victimization 15 e
rim
C 10
5
Mountain Area Coastal Area Household 0 Municipalities Urbanization Low Medium High
90 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 16. Household Crime Victimization by Urbanization and Area
II.4.2 Home Burglaries
The questionnaire includes some questions that tap particular issues of security. That series includes a question about intrusion at home by thieves. The question is worded as follows:
IVOL2r. In the past five years (that is, since 2009), did anyone actually get into your main home without permission and steal or try to steal something? I am not including here thefts from the garden, garage, shed, boat or dories, including nets, and lube. | | | [INCLUDE BOATS, DORIES, CELLARS THAT ARE PART OF THE HOME; INCLUDE STATIC MOBILE HOMES/CARAVANS; DO NOT INCLUDE SECOND HOMES] (1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (cannot remember) (98) DA
50
The following figure shows results for the mountain and the coastal area. We observe that intrusions at home are more frequently reported in the coastal area (19.1%) than in the mountain area (10.9%).
Someone Stole or Tried to Steal in Home
Yes 10.9% Yes 19.1%
No No 80.9% 89.1%
Mountain Coastal
Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 17. Home Burglaries by Area Figure 18 shows results by gender and age. With respect to gender, this figure does not show statistically significant differences. Both, men and women, report comparable levels of intrusions at home in both areas. We reach a similar conclusion for age; we do not observe differences between younger and older adults in either area.
25 25
19.8% 19.1% 19.1%
Home
18.3% in
Home
20 20 in
Steal
to
12.0% Steal
15 11.4% 15 to
10.4% 9.7%
Tried
or
Tried
or 10 10
Stole
Stole
5 5
Someone
Someone 0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Gender Age Man Younger adults Woman Older adults
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved 51 Figure 18. Home Burglaries by Gender, Age, and Area
Figure 19 presents results by wealth and ethnicity. In mountain municipalities, we observe a trend with respect to wealth: reports of intrusions in the home increase with wealth, from 4.7% for those in the lower class, to 11.6% for those in the middle class, and 17.6% for those in the upper class. All these differences are statistically significant. We do not observe the same trend in the coastal area. In this area, those in the upper class (22.3%) are more likely to report intrusions at home than those in the lower (18.3%) and middle classes (16.8%). This figure does not show any difference between ethnic groups. Mestizos and people of other ethnicities report similar levels of intrusions at home in both areas.
22.3%
25 25
17.6%
19.7%
18.3% 18.3% Home
Home
16.8%
20 20
in in
11.6% Steal
Steal
10.1%
to to
15 15
11.0% Tried
Tried
or or
10 10
Stole Stole
4.7%
5 5
Someone Someone 0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Ownership of Goods Mixed Low Medium Other High Mestizo
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 19. Home Burglaries by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area
52
With respect to degree of urbanization, Figure 20 shows no differences in the mountain area. In the coastal area, however, it shows that mid-urbanized municipalities (21.8%) exhibit higher levels of reporting of intrusions at home than low-urbanized (15.3%) and high-urbanized municipalities (18.3%). The difference between mid-urbanized municipalities and any other type of municipality is statistically significant.
e 21.8%
25 Hom
18.3%
in
l 20 15.3%
ea St
11.4% to 15 10.5%
Tried
10
or
e
Stol
5
one
e 0
Som Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities
Urbanization Low Medium High 90 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 20. Home Burglaries by Urbanization and Area
II.4.3 Personal Victimization of Aggression or Theft
The questionnaire includes a battery of questions about personal victimization in particular circumstances in the last five years. It includes experiences with crime and delinquency like a robbery with and without force and experiences of aggression with and without injuries. The questions are worded as follows:
IVOL3. In the last five years, has anyone stolen, or tried to steal something from you by using force or threatening you with force? | | | (1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (cannot remember) (98) DA
53 IVOL4r. Excluding thefts by using force or threat, there are many other types of theft of personal property, such as pick-pocketing or theft of a purse, wallet, clothing, jewelry, mobile phone, computers, mp3 player, sports equipment, or cattle. In the last five years (that is, since | | | 2009) have you personally been victim of any of these incidents?
(1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (cannot remember) (98) DA
IVOL5r. In the past five years, has anyone slapped you, hit or punched you, kicked you, thrown something at you, or attacked you with a weapon in a way that really upset or angered | | | you? Do NOT include wrestling (lucha libre), horseplay, and do not include incidents of a sexual nature or incidents of domestic violence.
(1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (cannot remember) (98) DA (Refusal)
IVOL6. Separately from any incidents you have already mentioned, in the past five years (that is, since 2009), has anyone seriously threatened to slap, hit, punch or kick you, threatened to throw something at you or otherwise injure you, or threatened you with a weapon in a way | | | that really upset or angered you? Do NOT include threats made as jokes, and do not include incidents of a sexual nature or incidents of domestic violence. (1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (cannot remember) (98) DA (Refusal)
The first two variables revolve around thefts and the last two variables are about aggressions. We consider both, thefts and aggressions, as security incidents that threaten an individual. For this reason, we create a new variable that is a composite of responses to these four questions. This new variable sums the number of incidents a respondent reports and goes from 0 to 4. The alpha value, a test of the reliability of the coefficient, is 0.64 (from 0 to 1), which indicates a fair degree of internal consistency for this new variable.
54
We then recoded this variable into a dichotomous measure that distinguishes between those who have reported (within the survey) one or more of these types of aggression or robbery and those who did not report any aggression or robberies. Figure 21 presents the results by areas. This figure shows that the respondents in the coastal area exhibit a higher percent of people who report being a victim of theft or aggression (26.5%) than those in the mountain area (21.7%). Victim of Theft or Aggression AgAggression
Yes 21.7 Yes % 26.5 %
No No 73.5 78.3 % %
Mountain Coasta l Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved Figure 21. Victim of Theft or Aggression by Area Now we will present results by gender and age. Figure 22 shows no gender differences in mountain municipalities. In the coastal area, we find that men (28.4%) have a higher likelihood of reporting of thefts or aggressions than women (24.5%). With respect to age, the figure displays higher levels of reporting of thefts and aggressions for younger adults in both areas. This difference is statistically significant in the coastal area (30.9% for younger adults versus 22.1% for older adults).
4 4 0 0
30.9
% 28.4 % 3 3 23.7 0 22.5 24.5 0 % % 20.9 % 22.1 % 19.6 %
%
Aggression
Aggression
2 or 2
or
0 0 Theft
Theft
of
of
1 1 0 0
Victim Victim 0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Coastal Municipalities Mountain Area Area Municipal itiesGender Age Man Younger adults Woma 9 0 % Confidence n Older adults Interval (with D esign- Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved Figure 22. Victim of Theft or Aggression by Gender, Age, and Area
55 With respect to wealth, Figure 23 shows that wealthy people are more likely to report being the victim of thefts or aggressions in the mountain area (29.8% for the upper versus 18.5% for the lower and 15.9% for the middle classes; these differences are statistically significant). In the coastal area, the lower class is less likely to report these incidents (21.8%) than the middle class (27.8%) and the upper class (29.3%), and these differences are statistically significant. With respect to ethnicity, this figure does not show any difference between ethnic groups in either area; Mestizos and people of other ethnicities report similar levels of thefts and aggressions.
40 40
29.8%
29.3% 27.8% 26.4% 30 30 26.6%
21.8% 17.7% 22.0%
Aggression
18.5% Aggression
15.9%
or or
20 20 Theft
Theft
of of
10 10 Victim Victim
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Ownership of Goods Mixed Low Medium Other High Mestizo
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 23. Victim of Theft or Aggression by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area
We also do not observe statistically significant differences with respect to the degree of urbanization in either area Figure 24 shows that low-, mid-, and high-urbanized municipalities exhibit similar levels of reporting of these incidents.
56
27.3% 26.7%
30 24.3% 23.8%
25 18.5%
Aggression 20
15
Theftor
of of 10
5 Victim 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities
Urbanization Low Medium High
90 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 24. Victim of Theft or Aggression by Urbanization and Area
II.5 Crime as a Community Problem
Crime is a grim challenge for democratic governance in Latin America. LAPOP’s analysis of the 2014 AmericasBarometer reveals increasing concerns about issues of crime, violence, and insecurity in the region. These topics are relevant because they impact quality of life, which is highly related to people’s support for democratic institutions, the political system, and democracy. 19 This chapter documents individuals’ perceptions of crime and delinquency, a pressing problem not only in the Latin America and Caribbean region but also in this country and, in particular, in the RACCS region.
II.5.1 Illegal Drug Sales in the Neighborhood
The questionnaire includes this question to tap drug trafficking in the neighborhood in the past year. It is worded as follows:
19 Przeworski, Adam, Michael E. Alvarez, José Antonio Cheibub, and Fernando Limongi. 2000. Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 1950-1990; New York: Cambridge University Press. See also: The Political Culture of Democracy in the Americas, 2014: Democratic Governance across 10 Years of the AmericasBarometer; the Latin American Public Opinion Project, Vanderbilt University.
57
Given your experience or what Once Once you have heard, which of Once or or following criminal acts have Yes No a twice DK DA N/A week twice a happened in the last 12 month a year months in your neighborhood. VICBAR3. Have there been sales of illegal drugs in the 1 2 88 98 | | | past 12 months in your neighborhood?
In Nicaragua, according to the 2014 AmericasBarometer results, 33.8% of respondents report sales of illegal drugs (what we will refer to here as drug trafficking). The following figure shows that there is significant variation between the coastal and mountain municipalities.
Figure 25 shows descriptive results for each area. The difference is dramatic. In the coastal area 41.3% report drug trafficking in the community, but just 8.6% report the same problem in mountain municipalities.
Drug Trafficking is a Problem in Neighborhood
Yes 8.6%
Yes 41.3%
No 58.7%
No 91.4%
Mountain Coastal
Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 25. Drug Trafficking as a Problem in the Neighborhood by Area
58 Figure 26 disaggregates results by gender and age, by area. It shows no clear gender differences in coastal municipalities. In mountain municipalities, men (10.5%) report slightly higher levels of drug trafficking than women (6.8%) and the difference is statistically significant. Regarding age, younger adults also report higher awareness of drug trafficking in their neighborhoods than older adults in both areas (10.3% versus 6.9% in the mountain area and 50.3% versus 45.7% in the coastal area; these differences are statistically significant)
50.3%
48.1% 47.6% 45.7% 50 50
Neighborhood
40 40
in
Neighborhood
in
30 30
Problem
a
Problem
is
a
is 20 20 10.5% 10.3% 6.9%
6.8% Trafficking
10 10 Trafficking
Drug Drug 0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Gender Age Man Younger adults Woman Older adults
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved Figure 26. Drug Trafficking as a Problem in the Neighborhood by Gender, Age, and Area
59
Figure 27 shows an interesting trend with respect to wealth: reports of drug trafficking in the neighborhood are greater among those who are wealthier, in both areas. The difference between the upper and lower classes is significant in both areas (16% versus 3.3% in mountain municipalities and 54.5% versus 36.8% in coastal municipalities). With respect to ethnic backgrounds, we do not observe differences in mountain municipalities. In the coastal area, we see a strikingly high value for people with other ethnicities than Mestizos (58.2%).
58.2%
60 54.5% 60 52.4%
50 50
Neighborhood Neighborhood
36.8% in
in
40 40 31.8%
30 30
Problem Problem
a a
is
is
16.0% 20 20
7.7%
7.5% 8.7% Trafficking
10 Trafficking 10
3.3%
Drug Drug 0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Ownership of Goods Mixed Low Medium Other High Mestizo
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 27. Drug Trafficking in the Neighborhood by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area
60
Finally for drug trafficking, we observe no differences by urbanization in the mountain area. In the coastal area, mid-urbanized municipalities (57.2%) exhibit higher levels of concern than low- (33.6%) and high-urbanized municipalities (46.1%).
57.2% 60 46.1% 50
33.6% Neighborhood
40 in
30
Problem
20 a
9.5% is 7.2% 10
0
Mountain Area Coastal Area Trafficking
Municipalities Drug Urbanization Low Medium High 90 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 28. Drug Trafficking as a Problem in the Neighborhood by Urbanization and Area
61
II.5.2 Illegal Drug Consumption in the Neighborhood (Data by Municipality)
One aspect of the drug problem is drug sales (trafficking). The other aspect is drug consumption. The RACCS questionnaire includes a question to tap this dimension and is worded as follows:
CSMP. And thinking about the use of drugs, about how many people in this neighborhood would you guess use drugs on a regular basis? [Read alternatives] [“Accept All = Almost all”; “Accept None = Almost none”] (1) Almost all (2) More than half (3) About half (4) Less than half (5) Almost none (88) DK (98) DA
Again the results show important variation by area. Figure 29 presents the distribution of this variable by area and shows that drug consumption is a more serious problem in coastal municipalities. In this region, 30.8% report “almost none”, but this result is smaller than the one for mountain municipalities, where 78.4% of respondents chose this option. This result replicates the problem of drug sales. In short, coastal municipalities are facing a serious challenge with respect to drug trafficking and drug consumption.
Drugs Consumption
Almost all 0.5%
More than half Almost all 2.1% 8.7%
About half 3.5% Almost none More than half 30.8% 16.0% Less than half 15.6%
About half 17.8% Almost none 78.4% Less than half 26.7%
Mountain Coastal
Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 29. Drug Consumption in Neighborhood by Area
62 Figure 30 shows results by gender and age. It shows no clear gender differences in mountain municipalities. In coastal municipalities, women (38.7) tend to report higher levels of drug consumption in the neighborhood than men (33.9) and this difference is statistically significant. With respect to age, this figure shows no statistically significant differences between younger and older adults in their reporting of drug consumption in either area.
38.7 37.1 40 40 35.6 33.9
30 30
Consumption
20 20
Consumption
Drugs
Drugs 8.5 8.2 10 6.8 10 7.2
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Gender Age Man Younger adults Woman Older adults
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved Figure 30. Drug Consumption in Neighborhood by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
63 Figure 31 shows results by wealth and ethnicity. This figure shows no differences in mountain municipalities with respect to wealth and ethnicity. In contrast, in coastal municipalities, it displays a pattern for wealth: wealthier people are more likely to report higher levels of drug consumption in their neighborhood than people in other wealth categories (32.6 for the lower, 36.5 for the middle, and 39.3 for the upper classes). This figure also shows a striking peak for people with other ethnicities in coastal municipalities. They have a score of 44.3 on a 0-100 scale. This finding replicates a similar peak for drug sales (trafficking). Thus, it seems that people with ethnicities other than Mestizos are particularly worried about the drug problem in their neighborhood in coastal municipalities, on both dimensions: drug sales (trafficking) and drug consumption.
50 50 44.3
39.3
40 36.5 40
32.6
30 30
22.5 Consumption
Consumption
20 20
Drugs Drugs 9.3
8.0 10 6.8 7.4 10 6.3
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Ownership of Goods Mixed Low Medium Other High Mestizo
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 31. Drug Consumption in Neighborhood by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
64 Finally, Figure 32 reports results by urbanization. It shows no clear differences in mountain municipalities. In the coastal area, it shows lower scores in low- urbanized municipalities than in mid- and high-urbanized ones (16 versus 43.7 and 39.4 respectively). Again, as in the case of drug sales (trafficking), drug consumption is a problem in the coastal area in more urbanized municipalities.
50 43.7 39.4
40
30
Consumption 16.0 20
7.6
Drugs 7.8 10
0 Mountain Area Coastal Area
Municipalities
Urbanization Low Medium High
90 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects)
Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 32. Drug Consumption in Neighborhood by Urbanization and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
II.5.3 Murders in Neighborhoods
Finally, in this section we track results for an extreme case of violence in the neighborhoods: murders in the past year. The questionnaire includes the following question:
Given your experience or what Once Once you have heard, which of Once or or following criminal acts have Yes No a twice DK DA N/A week twice a happened in the last 12 month a year months in your neighborhood. VICBAR7. Have there been 1 2 any murders in that last 12 [Continue] [Skip to 88 98 | | | months in your neighborhood? FEAR10] [Skip to FEAR10]
65
According to the 2014 AmericasBarometer results, 15.8% of Nicaraguans have heard of murders in their neighborhood. In this regard, both RACCS regions exhibit higher levels of extreme violence than the country. According to Figure 33, 27.1% in the mountain area and 29.6% in the coastal area report murders in the neighborhood.
Murders in Neighborhood
Yes 27.1% Yes 29.6%
No No 70.4% 72.9%
Mountain Coastal
Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 33. Murders in the Neighborhood by Area
66
Figure 34 shows that men (30.9%) are more likely to report murders than women (23.3%) in the mountain area and this is significant. In the coastal area, we do not observe significant differences by gender. In the case of age, we see that younger adults (30.1%) report murders to a greater degree than older adults (24.1%) in mountain municipalities. In coastal municipalities, again, we do not observe differences between age groups.
40 40
30.9% 30.1%
30.0%
29.3% 29.8% 29.1%
30 30 24.1% 23.3%
Neighborhood
20 Neighborhood 20
in in
Murders 10 Murders 10
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Gender Age Man Younger adults Woman Older adults
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 34. Murders in the Neighborhood by Gender, Age, and Area
67
We observe a trend with respect to wealth: those in the upper class are more likely to report murders in the neighborhood. Differences among wealth groups are not statistically significant in the case of mountain municipalities. In the case of coastal municipalities, differences are significant (34.6% for the upper, 31% for the middle, and 23.6% for the lower classes). This figure also shows that Mestizos (35.5%) report awareness of murders to a greater degree than people with other ethnic backgrounds in coastal municipalities, but it is not statistically significant in mountain municipalities.
35.5% 40 34.6% 40 30.1% 31.0%
26.3%
28.3%
24.8%
30 30 21.5% 26.0% 23.6%
Neighborhood Neighborhood
20 20
in in
Murders 10 Murders 10
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Ownership of Goods Mixed Low Medium Other High Mestizo
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 35. Murders in the Neighborhood by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area
68
Finally, with respect to degree of urbanization, Figure 36 shows that low-urbanized municipalities (48%) have a higher percentage of people reporting murders than mid- (22%) and high-urbanized municipalities (27.8%).
60 48.0%
50
40 29.2% 23.9% 27.8%
30 22.0% Neighborhood
in 20
10 Murders 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area
Municipalities
Urbanization Low Medium High
90 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 36. Murders in the Neighborhood by Urbanization and Area
II.5.4 Violence against Women in the Neighborhood
The questionnaire includes a question to gather information about awareness of assaults against women in the neighborhood in the last year. The question is worded as follows:
Given your experience or what Once Once you have heard, which of Once or or following criminal acts have Yes No a twice DK DA N/A week twice a happened in the last 12 month a year months in your neighborhood. VICBARF. Have there been any women assaulted in the 1 2 88 98 | | | past 12 months in your neighborhood?
69
Figure 37 does not show great differences in levels of reporting of this type of violence by area. In mountain municipalities, 12% report violence against women and 13.9% in coastal municipalities.
Violence Against Women in Neighborhood
Yes Yes 12.0% 13.9%
No No 88.0% 86.1%
Mountain Coastal
Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 37. Violence against Women in Neighborhood by Area
70
Perhaps surprisingly, Figure 38 shows that men report higher levels of violence against women than do women in both areas. In the mountain area, the difference between men and women is statistically significant (14.5% versus 9.6% respectively). We also find that younger adults report higher levels of violence against women than older adults in mountain municipalities (15.3% versus 8.7% respectively). In coastal municipalities, the difference among age groups and reporting of violence against women is not significant.
20 20
14.5% 15.3%
14.9% 14.5% 13.5% 13.0% 15 15
9.6% Neighborhood
Neighborhood
8.7%
in
in
10 10
Women
Women
Against
Against
5 5
Violence
Violence 0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Gender Age Man Younger adults Woman Older adults
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved Figure 38. Violence against Women in Neighborhood by Gender, Age, and Area
71
Figure 39 shows that those in the upper class are more likely to report violence against women in mountain municipalities (17.7% for the upper versus 9.3% for the lower and 8.9% for the middle classes) and those in the lower classes are less likely to report this type of violence in coastal municipalities (8.9% for the lower versus 16% for the middle and 17% for the upper classes). The figure shows no clear differences in reporting violence against women between ethnic groups.
25 25
17.7%
17.0%
20 16.0% 20
14.5%
Neighborhood
Neighborhood
13.6%
12.6% in
in
15 15 8.9% 7.6% 9.3%
8.9%
Women Women
10 10
Against Against
5 5
Violence Violence 0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Ownership of Goods Mixed Low Medium Other High Mestizo
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 39. Violence against Women in Neighborhood by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area
72
Finally regarding violence against women, Figure 40 shows that low-urbanized municipalities (15%) exhibit higher levels of reports of violence against women than mid-urbanized municipalities (7.6%) in the mountain area (difference is statistically significant). In the coastal area, it shows that high-urbanized municipalities (17.6%) exhibit higher levels of reports of violence against women than low- (10.3%) and mid-urbanized municipalities (12.3%) and these differences are statistically significant.
17.6% 20 15.0%
12.3% 15 10.3%
7.6%
10
Neighborhood
in
5
Women
0
Mountain Area Coastal Area
Against
Municipalities
Violence Urbanization Low Medium
High 90 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved Figure 40. Violence against Women in Neighborhood by Urbanization and Area
II.6 Levels of Violence in the Neighborhood
This section documents perceptions of levels of violence in comparison with other neighborhoods and in comparison with the past year. It puts in perspective perceptions about levels of violence in respondents’ neighborhoods.
II.6.1 Current Levels of Violence
We begin with a comparison of levels of violence in other neighborhoods. The questionnaire includes the following question:
PESE1. Do you think that the current level of violence in your neighborhood is higher, about the same, or lower than in other neighborhoods? | | | (1) Higher (2) About the same (3) Lower (88) DK (98) DA
73 In the mountain area 78.5% report their neighborhood is less violent than other neighborhoods; in the coastal area, 65% report the same. Perception of Violence in Neighborhood
Higher 4.6% Higher 16.9% Same 17.0%
Same 18.1%
Lower 65.0% Lower 78.5%
Mountain Coastal
Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 41. Perception of Violence in Neighborhood by Area We again recode the measure to a 0-100 scale on which higher values indicate greater perception of violence in the neighborhood in comparison with other neighborhoods. Figure 42 does not show clear gender differences regarding the perception of violence in either area. Men and women tend to report similar levels of violence in their neighborhoods in comparison with other neighborhoods. Moreover, this figure also shows no clear difference between age groups in either area. In coastal and mountain municipalities, younger and older adults express comparable levels of violence in their neighborhoods.
30 26.8 30 26.4
25.1 25.5
25 25
20 20 Neighborhood
Neighborhood
13.5 in
in 13.4
12.6 12.7 15 15
Violence Violence
10 10
of of
5 5
Perception Perception 0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area
Municipalities Municipalities
Gender Age Man Younger adults Woman Older adults 9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved Figure 42. Perception of Violence in Neighborhood by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0-100 scale) 74 The following figure shows that those in the middle class are more likely to express higher levels of violence in their neighborhoods than in other neighborhoods in the mountain area (17.3 for the middle class versus 12.4 for the lower class and 10.9 for the upper class). With respect to ethnicity, it shows that Mestizos report higher levels of violence in mountain municipalities, but lower levels in coastal municipalities (13.9 for Mestizos versus 7.9 for people with other ethnic backgrounds in the mountain area and 27.7 for people with other ethnicity versus 22.9 for Mestizos in the coastal area).
27.9 28.1 27.7
30 30
22.9 21.4 25 25
17.3
Neighborhood Neighborhood
20 20
in in
13.9 12.4 15 10.9 15
Violence Violence
7.9
of of
10 10
5 5 Perception Perception 0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Ownership of Goods Mixed Low Medium Other High Mestizo
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 43. Perception of Violence in Neighborhood by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
75 Finally, Figure 44 shows that low-urbanized municipalities (15.7) exhibit higher levels of violence in their neighborhoods than mid-urbanized municipalities (9.2) in the mountain area. In the coastal areas, this figure shows an increasing trend with urbanization: 17.2 for low-urbanized, 25.3 for mid-urbanized municipalities, and 31 for high-urbanized, and these differences are statistically significant.
40 31.0
25.3
30 Neighborhood
in 17.2 20 15.7
9.2 Violence
10 of
0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Perception Municipalities
Urbanization Low Medium High
90 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 44. Perception of Violence in Neighborhood by Urbanization and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
II.6.2 Trend of Violence in the Neighborhood
Finally, this section documents results for a retrospective evaluation of violence in respondents’ neighborhoods. The questionnaire asks respondents to compare current versus past levels of violence. The question was worded as follows:
PESE2. Do you think that the current level of violence in your neighborhood is higher, about the same, or lower than 12 months ago? | | | (1) Higher (2) About the same (3) Lower (88) DK (98) DA
76 According to the 2014 Americas Barometer results for Nicaragua, 52.8% report lower levels of violence than a year ago. Figure 45 shows descriptive results for this variable by RACCS area. We observe that results for the coastal area are similar to results for Nicaragua as a whole. In coastal municipalities, 52.4% report lower levels of violence than a year ago. The situation in the mountain area is not as positive. In mountain municipalities, 37.2% report lower levels and 55.5% report similar levels as a year ago and 7.3% report higher levels of violence.
Trend of Violence in Neighborhood
Higher 7.3% Higher 20.9%
Lower 37.2%
Lower 52.4%
Same Same 55.5% 26.8%
Mountain Coastal
Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 45. Trend of Violence in Neighborhood by Area
77 Based on a transformed variable that runs from 0 to 100, we observe in Figure 46 no gender difference regarding this variable in either area. In the case of age, this figure shows that older adults report higher levels of violence than a year ago in mountain municipalities (37 points for older adults versus 33.1 for younger adults). In coastal municipalities, we do not observe statistically significant differences.
37.0 40 35.2 40 34.9 34.5 34.6 34.0 33.1 33.7
30 30
Neighborhood
in
Neighborhood
20 20 in
Violence
of
Violence
10 10
of
Trend
Trend
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Gender Age Man Younger adults Woman Older adults 9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 46. Trend of Violence in Neighborhood by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
78
Figure 47 shows that the lower class expresses lower levels of retrospective evaluations of violence in coastal municipalities (30 points for the lower class versus 36.5 for the middle class and 36.1 for the upper class). Moreover, we observe no differences by ethnic groups. Mestizos and people with other backgrounds report similar levels of retrospective evaluations of violence in both areas.
50 50
37.3
36.1 37.4 35.3 36.5 36.1 40 40 34.3 34.5 32.4
30.0 Neighborhood
in
30 Neighborhood 30
in
Violence
20 20
of
Violence
of
Trend 10 10 Trend
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities Ownership of Goods Mixed Low Medium Other High Mestizo
9 0 % Confidence Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved Interval (with D esign-Effects)
Figure 47. Trend of Violence in Neighborhood by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
79
Finally, Figure 48 shows that mid-urbanized municipalities exhibit lower levels of retrospective evaluations of violence than low- and high-urbanized municipalities (28.7 versus 39.3 and 37.4 respectively). In the mountain area, there are no significant differences.
50
39.3 36.6 37.4 40 32.7 28.7 30
Neighborhood
in 20 ce
10 Violen
of
0 Mountain Area Coastal Area
Trend Municipalities Urbanization Low Medium High
90 % Confidence Interval with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 48. Trend of Violence in Neighborhood by Urbanization and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
II.6.3 Presence of Gangs in the Neighborhood
In this section we delve into assessments of gang activity. Gang activity can be a key influence on feelings of insecurity in neighborhoods. It affects the daily lives of people. For example, people who perceive high levels of insecurity and report the presence of gangs in their neighborhoods are more likely to avoid dangerous areas in their neighborhoods.20
The questionnaire asks respondents to evaluate presence of gang or bandas in their neighborhoods. The question was worded as follows:
AOJ17. To what extent do you think your neighborhood is affected by gangs or bandas? Would you say a lot, somewhat, a little or none? | | | (1) A lot (2) Somewhat (3) Little (4) None (88) DK (98) DA
80
In Nicaragua, according to the 2014 Americas Barometer results, 20.5% report that their neighborhoods are affected by gangs a lot or somewhat. Results for mountain and coastal municipalities exhibit some variation. In the mountain area, 10.7% of respondents report their neighborhoods are affected by gangs a lot or somewhat, while 20.1% report the same in coastal municipalities.
Gangs in Neighborhood
A lot A lot 2.0% 6.5%
Somewhat 8.7% Somewhat 13.6%
Little 21.0%
Little None 19.7% 60.2% None 68.2%
Mountain Coastal
Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 49. Gangs in the Neighborhood by Area
20 See the 2014 AmericasBarometer Comparative Report for an extended description of this issue in the Americas.
81
On a transformed variable that runs from 0 to 100, Figure 50 shows that men express higher levels of concern about gangs than women in the mountain area (16.4 versus 13.1 respectively). In the coastal area, the difference is not statistically significant. Also, we do not observe significant differences by age groups in either area. It seems that younger and older adults report similar levels of concern about the presence of gangs in the neighborhood.
22.9 22.9
25 25 21.1 21.0
20 16.4 20
15.2 Neighborhood
14.2
13.1 in
Neighborhood
in 15 15
Gangs
Gangs 10 10
5 5
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Gender Age Man Younger adults Woman Older adults
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 50. Gangs in the Neighborhood by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
82 Figure 51 shows that the lower class exhibits lower levels of concern about the presence of gangs in both regions. These differences are statistically significant (10.4 for the lower versus 17.7 for the middle and 17.3 for the upper classes in mountain municipalities, and 18.5 for the lower class versus 24.2 for the middle class and 23.3 for the upper class in coastal municipalities). With respect to ethnicity, this figure shows that people with other ethnic backgrounds display lower levels of concern about gang presence in the neighborhood than Mestizos in mountain municipalities (15.5 versus 10.5 respectively). In coastal municipalities there is not a significant difference between ethnic groups.
24.2 23.2 23.5
25 25 21.1
17.7 17.3 18.5
20 20 15.5
10.5 15 15
10.4
Neighborhood Neighborhood
in
in
10 10
Gangs Gangs 5 5
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Ownership of Goods Mixed Low Medium Other High Mestizo
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 51. Gangs in the Neighborhood by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
83 Figure 52 shows results by degree of urbanization, by area. It displays an informative pattern: more concern about the presence of gangs in neighborhoods for more urbanized municipalities. The difference between mid- and low-urbanized municipalities is statistically significant in the mountain area (18.1 versus 12.5 respectively) and differences among the three groups are statistically significant in the coastal area (15 for low-, 21.7 for mid-, and 25.7 for high-urbanized municipalities).
30 25.7
21.7 25 18.1 20 15.0
Neighborhood 12.5 15
in
ngs 10 a G 5
0 Mountain Area Coastal Area
Municipalities
Urbanization Low Medium High
90 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects)
Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 52. Gangs in the Neighborhood by Urbanization and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
II.6.4 Trend of Gang Activity in the Neighborhood
The questionnaire also includes a question that asks respondents to evaluate current levels of gang presence compared to a year ago. The question was worded as follows:
IVOL25. Compared to one year ago, do you think gangs or bandas in your neighborhood now are: [Read alternatives] | | | (1) More of a problem (2) Less of a problem (3) About the same (88) DK (98) DA (Refused) (99) N/A
84 We find that 32% in mountain municipalities report that gangs are now a larger problem, while 57.5% report the same in coastal municipalities.
Trend in Gang Activity aCTIVITYaCTIVITYActivit y
Lower 20.7% Higher 32.0% Lower 36.0%
Higher 57.5% Same 21.8%
Same 32.0%
Mountain Coastal
Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 53. Perceived Trend in Gang Activity by Area On a transformed 0 to 100 variable, Figure 54 shows there are no clear gender differences in either area. Both men and women, express similar levels of retrospective evaluations of gangs as a problem. We reach similar conclusions with respect to age. Differences between younger and older adults are not significant.
80 80 69.3 70.8 67.5 66.0
51.9 47.8 43.5 48.1 60 60
Activity
Activity
40 40
Gang
Gang
in
in
20 20
Trend Trend
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Gender Age Man Younger adults Woman Older adults 9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 54. Perceived Trend in Gang Activity by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
85 Figure 55 shows that those in the upper class to a greater degree express that gangs are more of a problem now than a year ago than those in the lower and middle classes in the coastal area (78.3 versus 64.3 and 61.1 respectively). This figure does not show significant differences among wealth groups in the mountain municipalities. It also does not show significant differences between ethnic groups in either area.
Figure 55. Perceived Trend in Gang Activity by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
78.3
72.5 80 80 55.0 64.3 65.8 61.1 52.5
41.2 33.3 48.8 60 60
Activity
Activity
Gang
40 40
in
Gang
in
Trend 20 20 Trend
0 0
Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Ownership of Goods Mixed Low Medium Other High Mestizo
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects)
Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
86 Finally, Figure 56 shows that low-urbanized municipalities exhibit higher levels of retrospective evaluations of gangs as a problem than mid-urbanized municipalities in the mountain area (57.1 versus 36.4 respectively). In the coastal area, we observe that high-urbanized municipalities display higher levels than low- and mid-urbanized municipalities (79.4 versus 51.5 and 61.6 respectively).
100
79.4
80 57.1 61.6
tivity 51.5
Ac
60 36.4 ng
a
G
in
40
nd
e Tr 20
0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities
Urbanization
Low Medium
High 90 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 56. Perceived Trend in Gang Activity by Urbanization and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
II.7 Evaluation and Perception of Institutions and Law Enforcement Institutions
In this section, we evaluate individuals’ perceptions of different law enforcement institutions: the police, the judicial system, and municipal authorities. These institutions are in charge of the 21 application of the laws, on the supposition that all citizens are equal and none has legal impunity.
We begin with the police and address whether people report a crime to them; average satisfaction with police performance; mean evaluations of police in controlling crime; perceptions of police harassment as a problem; and beliefs about the response time of the police.
87 II.7.1 Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime
Another indicator about the police performance is how people evaluate police in controlling crime in the neighborhood. The questionnaire includes the following question: IVOL14. Taking everything into account, how good do you think the police in your neighborhood are in controlling crime? Do you think they do a very good job, a fairly good job, neither good nor poor job, a fairly poor job or a very poor job? | | | (1) very good job (2) fairly good job (3) neither good nor poor job (4) fairly poor job (5) very poor job (88) DK (98) DA (Refused)
21 See, O’Donnell, Guillermo A. 2004. Why the Rule of Law Matters. Journal of Democracy 15 (4): 32-46.
There are important differences across areas. For example, 47.7% report that the police are doing a fairly good job or a very good job in the mountain municipalities, but just 31.2% report the same in the coastal municipalities. Thus, the pattern we saw in the previous sub-section for police satisfaction repeats itself on this measure: those who live in the mountain municipalities give better evaluations of the police. Figure 57 shows these differences.
Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime
Very good job Very good job 3.8% 5.3%
Very poor job Very poor job 6.1% 6.0%
Fairly poor job 14.1% Fairly good job Fairly poor job 27.4% 24.9%
Fairly good job 42.4%
Neither good nor poor job 32.0%
Neither good nor poor job 37.9%
Mountain Coastal
Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 57. Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime by Area
88
The following figure shows there are no significant differences in people’s evaluation of police in controlling crime by gender or age in both areas (as standard, the variable has been transformed for police in the following analyses to a 0-100 scale, in which greater values indicate better evaluations).
57.5 57.2 60 55.9 60 56.2
49.3 49.7 49.4 49.5 50 50
crime
40 40
crime
controlling
30 30 in
controlling
police
20 20
of
of
10 10
Evaluation Evaluation 0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Gender Age Man Younger adults Woman Older adults 9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 58. Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
89 Figure 59 shows no differences among wealth groups in the mountain municipalities; in the coastal communities, it shows that those in the lower class report a somewhat better evaluation of police performance in controlling crime than any other wealth group (51.8 versus 48.2 for the middle class and 48.7 for the upper class; differences are statistically significant). With respect to ethnicity, people with other ethnicities exhibit better levels of evaluation than Mestizos in both areas and the differences are statistically significant (64 versus 55.4 in the mountain area and 51 versus 46.9 in the coastal area).
Figure 59. Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime by Urbanization and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
80 80
64.0
crime crime
56.5 57.7 55.9 60 60 55.4
51.8 51.0 48.2 48.7
46.9
controlling controlling
in in
40 40
police police
of of
20 20
Evaluation Evaluation
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Ownership of Goods Mixed Low Medium Other
High Mestizo
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Ef fects)
Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
90 Figure 60 shows evaluations of the police by degree of urbanization in the mountain and coastal municipalities. In both areas, the average person living in mid-urbanized municipalities provides higher levels of evaluations than people living in low- or high-urbanized municipalities. The differences between mid-urbanized and other municipalities are statistically significant in both areas: 60.3 for mid-urbanized versus 54.3 for low-urbanized in the mountain municipalities and 53.2 for mid urbanized versus 48.6 for low-urbanized and 46.4 for high-urbanized in the coastal municipalities.
60.3 60 54.3 crime 53.2 48.6 50 46.4
40 controlling
in 30
police
20 of
10
0
Evaluation Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities
Urbanization
Low Medium
High 90 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 60. Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime by Urbanization and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
II.7.2 Police Harassment as a Problem
The questionnaire includes a question that taps into how respondents assess police harassment in their neighborhoods, from a very big problem to no problem at all.
IVOL15. To what extent is police harassment a problem in your neighborhood? Is it: [Read alternatives] (1) A very big problem (2) A big problem (3) Neither a big nor small problem | | | (4) A small problem (5) No problem (88) DK (98) DA (Refused)
91
Figure 61 disaggregates results by area, showing significant differences between the mountain and coastal municipalities. While in the mountain municipalities 74.8% of respondents say police harassment is not a problem, in the coastal municipalities only 51.3% of respondents report the same. Once again, then, we see better evaluations of the police in the mountain communities.
Police Harassment as a Problem
Very big problem Very big problem 5.0% 4.7%
Big problem 6.8% Big problem 6.6% Neither big nor small problem 3.1% Neither big nor small problem Small problem 16.5% 10.3% No problem 51.3%
No problem Small problem 74.8% 20.8%
Mountain Coastal
Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 61. Police Harassment as a Problem by Area
92
The following figure presents averages levels of reported harassment, by transforming the above variable to a 0-100 scale per the standard for this report, disaggregated by gender and age, divided by area. Higher values on the police harassment scale indicate that the mean tends more toward believing it is a serious problem. This figure does not show any significant difference among groups: men and women, and younger and older adults evaluate police harassment at the same level in both areas.
23.9 22.9 23.4
25 25 22.3
problem
a
20 20
problem
as 15.3
a
14.3 14.2 as
13.3
15 15 harrasment
harrasment 10 10
Police
Police
5 5
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Gender Age Man Younger adults Woman Older adults 9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 62. Police Harassment by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
93
Evaluations of police harassment as a problem are different across wealth groups. Figure 63 shows that middle class people tend to express that police harassment is a problem to a greater extent than those in the upper and lower classes in the mountain municipalities (17.6 versus 12.4 and 13.6 respectively). In the coastal municipalities, the evaluation of police harassment as a problem increases with wealth and the difference between the lower class (17.9) and other groups (24.7 for the middle class and 26.1 for the upper class) is statistically significant. In the mountain, the middle class (17.6) express that police harassment is a problem to a greater extent than the lower class (12.4) and the upper class (13.6) and these differences are statistically significant. With respect to ethnic background, we observe that police harassment is a more serious problem for Mestizos in the mountain area; they express a higher level of concern (15.7) than people with other ethnicities (7.1). The opposite is observed in the coastal municipalities, where people with other ethnicities express a higher concern (26.1) than Mestizos (18.3).
30 26.1 30 26.1 24.7
25 25 17.6
17.9 18.3
problem problem
20 20
a a
15.7
13.6 as
as
12.4 15 15
7.1
harrasment harrasment
10 10
Police Police 5 5
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Ownership of Goods Mixed Low Medium Other High Mestizo
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Ef fects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 63. Police Harassment by Wealth and Ethnicity, and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
94 Finally, Figure 64 shows significant differences in evaluations of police harassment as a problem depending on degree of urbanization. In both areas, the evaluation of police harassment as a problem increases with level of urbanization. Differences between low- (12.5), and mid- (16.9) in the mountain municipalities, and between low- (14), mid- (21.9), and high-urbanized municipalities (29.3) in the coastal municipalities are significant in both areas.
29.3
30
21.9 25 16.9 20 14.0 12.5
15
problem
a
10 as
5
0 harrasment Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities
Police
Urbanization Low Medium High
90 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 64. Police Harassment by Urbanization and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
II.7.3 Police Response Time
One lens through which we can assess perceived police responsiveness is to ask respondents about police response time. To that end, the questionnaire includes a question to tap how quickly respondents believe the police would respond to a call reporting a burglary in progress. The question was worded as follows:
INFRAX. Suppose someone enters your home to rob it and you call the police. How long do you think it would take the police to arrive at your house on a typical day around noon? [READ ALTERNATIVES] (1) Less than 10 minutes (2) Between 10 and 30 minutes (3) More than 30 minutes and up to an hour | | | (4) More than an hour and up to three hours (5) More than three hours (6) [DON’T READ] There are no police/they would never arrive (88) DK (98) DA
95 As the below figure shows, this percent is similar for both the mountain and coastal areas (20.8 and 21.2 respectively). These numbers are just slightly higher than found in the 2014 AmericasBarometer national sample, in which 17.7 percent indicate that the police would never arrive (or that there are no police). Also in the 2014 AmericasBarometer national sample, we find that 5.6 percent of respondents indicate that the police would come in less than 10 minutes. That percent is similar to what we find here for the mountain area (see below figure); in contrast, nearly double that amount (11.2%) report that the police would respond in less than 10 minutes in the coastal communities. The median response time for the mountain area corresponds to “more than an hour and up to three hours,” but in the case of the coastal area, the median response time is “more than 30 minutes and up to an hour.” These differences may be due to the fact that the coastal communities are more urbanized (see the earlier discussion in this report); in general for the Americas, LAPOP has found that those living in urban areas report quicker response times for the police than those in rural areas.
Police's Time of Response
Less than 10 min Less than 10 min 11.2% 5.0%
No police/Would never arrive No police/Would never arrive Between 10 and 30 min 21.2% 20.8% 21.0%
Between 10 and 30 min 21.2%
More than 3 hours More than 3 hours 15.8% 13.7%
Between 30 and 60 min Between 1 and 3 hours 19.5% 13.4%
Between 1 and 3 hours 17.9% Between 30 and 60 min 19.3%
Mountain Coastal Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 65. Police Response Time by Area
II.7.4 Trust in the Police
The last question about the role of the police evaluates trust in the institution. This variable asks respondents to evaluate trust in the police on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 means “not at all” and 7 means “a lot.” This variable was recoded into a 0-100 scale for ease of comparison.
96 B18. To what extent do you trust the National Police? | | |
According to the 2014 Americas Barometer data for Nicaragua, the national average for trust in the police is 58.1 points. We find significant differences in average trust in the police across the two RACCS areas. Mountain municipalities exhibit a higher average (56.7 points), compared to the average for coastal municipalities (46.4 points). Before continuing with the discussion of the transformed 0-100 trust in the police scale, the below figure breaks down the responses for each area by category on the original 1-7 scale. The figure shows that many more individuals in the mountain area report “a lot” of trust in the police than we find in the coastal communities. In other words, looking at the measure in two different ways (a scale and percentages falling into categories), we consistently find that there is greater trust in the police in the mountain areas than the coastal areas.
Trust in the Police
A lot None at all 12.2% None at all 18.1% 20.0% A lot 31.7% 6 10.4% 2 6.5% 2 10.0% 5 3 14.1% 12.1% 6 7.8% 3 13.4% 5 4 4 9.0% 14.7% 19.8%
Mountain Coastal Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 66. Trust in the Police by Area
97
Figure 67 shows differences in mean levels of trust in the police by gender and age, divided by area. It shows that women (60.8 units on the 0-100 scale) exhibit higher levels of trust in the police than men (52.5) in mountain municipalities (difference is statistically significant). However, gender differences are not statistically significant in coastal municipalities (46.8 for men versus 45.9 for women). It also shows that older adults (60.2) display higher levels of trust than younger adults (53.3) in mountain municipalities and this difference is statistically significant, but they do not in coastal municipalities (47.5 for younger adults versus 45.2 for older adults)
60.8 60.2
60 60 52.5 53.3
46.8 47.5 45.9 45.2
40 40
Police
Police the the
in
the the
in
Trust 20 20 Trust
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Gender Age Man Younger adults Woman Older adults
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved Figure 67. Trust in the Police by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
98
Figure 68 shows levels of trust in the police by wealth and ethnicity, for each area. With respect to wealth, in each area we find decreasing levels of trust as wealth increases. In mountain municipalities, trust decreases from 60.1 points for the lower class to 54.4 points for the upper class, a difference that is statistically significant. In coastal municipalities, it decreases from 50.4 points for the upper class to 46.4 for the middle class and 42.2 for the lower class; all of these differences are statistically significant. In the case of ethnicity, this figure displays significant differences between Mestizos (55.7) and people of other ethnicities (63.9) in mountain municipalities, and this difference is statistically significant. In coastal municipalities, the difference is not significant.
80 80
63.9
60.1 56.4
55.7
60 54.4 60
50.4 46.9
46.4 45.9
Police Police
42.2
the the
40 40
in in
Trust Trust
20 20
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Ownership of Goods Mixed Low Medium Other
High Mestizo
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Ef fects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 68. Trust in the Police by Wealth and Ethnicity, and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
99 Figure 69 shows that high-urbanized municipalities exhibit lower levels of trust in the police in coastal municipalities (39.5 for high-urbanized versus 51.3 for low- and 50.7 for mid-urbanized). This difference is statistically significant. We do not observe differences by degree of urbanization in the mountain municipalities.
56.6 56.9 60 51.3 50.7 50 39.5 40
30
20
10
Police
the
0 in Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Trust
Urbanization
Low Medium
High 90 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved Figure 69. Trust in the Police by Urbanization and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
II.7.5 Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty
A judicial system is another fundamental element for an effective rule of law. A fair system that espouses judicial independence and thus encourages trust in this institution is key for good governance. If individuals distrust the judiciary or see it as illegitimate, they may support circumvention of the institution.22 This section summarizes two measures regarding the role of the justice system in the RACCS region and compares findings on these measures with results from the AmericasBarometer for Nicaragua in 2014.
First, we begin with a questionnaire that asks respondents if they were victims of a robbery or assault, how much faith they have that the justice system would punish the guilty. The question is worded as follows:
AOJ12. If you were a victim of a robbery or assault how much faith do you have that the judicial system would punish the guilty? [Read the options] | | | (1) A lot (2) Some (3) Little (4) None (88) DK (98) DA
22 Ríos-Figueroa, Julio and Jeffrey K. Staton. 2009. “Unpacking the Rule of Law: A Review of the Judicial Independence Measures.” Paper prepared for Caltech-USC Center for the Study of Law and Politics and the University of Texas Law School Symposium, The Rule of Law, March 26-27; and Malone, Mary Fran T. 2010. “Does Dirty Harry Have the Answer? Citizen Support for the Rule of Law in Central America.” Public Integrity. 100 According to the 2014 AmericasBarometer results for Nicaragua: 53.8%% say they have a lot or some confidence and 46.2% report they have little or no confidence in the justice system. We observe some differences between mountain and coastal municipalities in their confidence in the justice system. As the below figure shows, 28.6% of respondents in mountain municipalities say they trust that the justice system would punish the guilty a lot, but just 15.2% report the same in coastal municipalities, a difference of more than 13 percentage points. A difference of 6.6 percentage points is observed for those who report some trust in the justice system (20.9% for the mountain versus 27.5% for the coastal areas) and a difference of 7.3 percentage points for those who report little trust in this institution (28.4% for the mountain versus 35.7% for the coastal areas). In short, confidence that the justice system punishes the guilty is higher in the mountain area than the coastal area.
Confidence that Justice System Would Punish the Guilty
A lot None 15.2% None 22.1% 21.6% A lot 28.6%
Some 27.5%
Little Some 28.4% Little 20.9% 35.7%
Mountain Coastal
Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 70. Confidence in the Justice System by Area
101 Figure 71 presents average scores on a confidence in the justice system scale (coded 0-100) for gender and age sub-groups, by area. It shows that there are no differences in levels of confidence in the justice system by gender. Both men and women report similar levels on this variable in each area. Moreover, it also shows no statistically significant differences by age in the mountain area; however, we find significant differences between younger and older adults in the coastal area (47.7 for younger adults versus 42.4 for older adults): the younger cohort in the coastal area expresses higher confidence in the judicial system’s ability to punish the guilty, compared to the older cohort, despite the fact that mean values for both cohorts fall before those found in the mountain area.
60 53.9 60 52.3 51.3
49.6
47.7
50 46.0 Guilty 50
Guilty 44.3
the 42.4
the
40 40
Punish
Punish
Would
Would
30 30
System
System
20 20
Justice
Justice
the
the
10 10
that
that
0 0
Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Confidence
Confidence Municipalities Municipalities
Gender Age Man Younger adults Woman Older adults
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved Figure 71. Confidence in the Justice System by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
102 The following figure presents the results for confidence in the justice system by our measure of wealth and ethnicity, divided by area. The figure on the left shows, for both areas, declining levels of confidence as people become wealthier. The difference between the lower and upper classes is statistically significant in the mountain area (55.9 for the lower class versus 47.2 for the upper class). Moreover, the differences between the lower and the middle classes (50 versus 45.8 respectively) and between the middle and upper classes (45.8 versus 39.3 respectively) are also significant in the coastal area. With respect to ethnicity, the figure on the right shows significant differences between Mestizos and people with other ethnicities in each area. In both the coastal and mountain municipalities, people with other ethnic backgrounds express higher confidence in the justice system than Mestizos (58.9 versus 50.3 in the mountain area and 46.6 versus 42.5 in the coastal area).
80 80 Guilty
Guilty
the
the 58.9
55.9
60 52.8 Punish
Punish 60
50.0 50.3
47.2 Would
45.8 Would 46.6
42.5
39.3 System
40 System 40
Justice Justice
the the
20 20
that that
Confidence Confidence 0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Ownership of Goods Mixed Low Medium Other High Mestizo
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 72. Confidence in the Justice System by Wealth and Ethnicity, and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
103 Finally, Figure 73 shows the differences in confidence in the justice system by degree of urbanization. In the mountain area, we do not observe significant differences between low- and mid-urbanized municipalities. In the coastal area, we do observe significant differences. In this area, mid-urbanized municipalities display higher levels of confidence than low- and high- urbanized municipalities (52.3 for mid-urbanized versus 46.9 and 37.1 for low- and high-urbanized municipalities respectively).
Guilty
60 54.1 the 50.2 52.3 46.9
50 Punish
37.1
Would 40
System 30
20 Justice
the
10 that
0 Mountain Area Coastal Area
Confidence Municipalities
Urbanization Low Medium High
90 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 73. Confidence in the Justice System by Urbanization and Area (average on 0-100 scale) II.7.6 Trust in the Judicial System
A second variable that taps the performance of the justice system is a measure that simply asks individuals to report their level of trust in the justice system. The questionnaire includes the following question:
B10A. To what extent do you trust the justice system? | | |
The original variable collects information on a 1-7 scale, where 1 means “not at all” and 7 means “a lot.” We have recoded this variable into a 0-100 scale for ease of comparison. The following table presents the results for the mountain and coastal areas; and for the country, according to the 2014 AmericasBarometer dataset for Nicaragua. The results indicate some, but not great, variation. The average for the two RACCS regions are fairly similar, with a slight tendency toward greater trust in the mountain municipalities (54.7 versus 51.1). Table 2. Trust in the Judicial System
Zone Average Country 54.5 Mountain municipalities 54.7 Coastal municipalities 51.1
104 Figure 74 shows significant differences on the 0-100 rescaled trust in the justice system across genders in the mountain area (50.6 for men versus 58.7 for women), but no differences in levels of trust by gender in the coastal area. It also shows significant differences with respect to age in the coastal area (52.6 for younger adults versus 49.6 for older adults), but no differences in trust in mountain municipalities.
58.7 55.5 60 60 53.9 50.6 51.7 52.6
50.4 49.6
50 50
System System
40 40
Judicial Judicial
30 30
the the
in in
20 20 Trust Trust
10 10
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Gender Age Man Younger adults Woman Older adults
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved Figure 74. Trust in the Judicial System by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
105 Figure 75 shows a decreasing trust in the judicial system as people are wealthier in the coastal area and the differences across these wealth groups are statistically significant, from 54.3 for the lower class, to 51.6 for the middle class, and 47.4 for the upper class. In the mountain area, results indicate that the middle class has higher average levels of trust in the justice system than the lower and upper classes (59.2 versus 54.5 and 52.5 respectively). The difference between the middle and upper classes is significant. With respect to ethnicity, results show higher levels of trust for people with other ethnicities in comparison with Mestizos in mountain municipalities. This difference is statistically significant (61.2 for people of other ethnicity versus 53.1 for Mestizos). In the coastal, we do not find statistically significant difference between Mestizos and people with other ethnicities.
80 80
61.2
59.2
54.5 60 54.3 60 52.5 53.1 51.6
51.6 50.0
System System
47.4
Judicial 40 Judicial 40
the the
in
in
Trust 20 Trust 20
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Ownership of Goods Mixed Low Medium Other High Mestizo
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 75. Trust in the Judicial System by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
106
Figure 76 shows that there are no statistically significant differences in levels of trust in the judicial system by degree of urbanization in both areas, except for high-urbanized municipalities in the coastal area that display lower levels of trust in this institution than any other type of municipality (45.7 for high-urbanized versus 52.8 for low-urbanized and 55.6 for mid-urbanized municipalities).
55.5 55.6
60 53.4 52.8
50 45.7
System 40
30 Judicial
the
20 in
10 Trust 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area
Municipalities
Urbanization Low Medium High
90 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 76. Trust in the Judicial System by Urbanization and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
107
II.8 Participation in Local Governments and Communities
Participation in local and political organizations is considered a desirable trait of a healthy democracy. Civic participation provides a means by which ordinary individuals become informed about local processes and, as well, provide key input into these processes. Municipal meetings, meetings of parents’ organizations at schools, and meetings of political parties are considered ‘schools of democracy’ in which citizens learn important values and behaviors to develop civic engagement.23 Moreover, levels of and differences in participation across groups and contexts have been of principal interest in the “civic culture” literature, which underscores the notion that social connectedness promotes well-being. 24 In this section, we describe the frequency of individuals’ participation in different spaces, such as the meetings mentioned above.
II.8.1 Participation in Municipal Meetings
We begin with participation in local spaces, such as town meetings. The questionnaire includes a question about this form of engagement at the level of the municipality, worded as follows:
NP1. Have you attended a town meeting, city council meeting or other meeting in the | | | past 12 months? (1) Yes (2) No (88) Doesn’t know (98) Doesn’t answer
23 Campbell, Angus. 2006. Why We Vote: How Schools and Communities Shape Our Civic Life. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 24 Almond, Gabriel A. and Sidney Verba. 1963. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.
108
Figure 77 presents the percent of people who report having participated in municipal meetings divided by area (municipalities in the coastal area and municipalities in the mountain area).25 In general, most individuals do not participate in municipal meetings. The percent of people who have participated in these two areas (coastal and mountain) is higher than the national average for Nicaragua. According to results of the 2014 AmericasBarometer survey in Nicaragua, 12.7% of 26 people participate in municipal meetings on average across the country as a whole.
Both areas follow the same pattern: the majority of respondents say they have not attended a municipal meeting in the past 12 months. The results show, however, some differences between areas. Respondents in coastal municipalities report higher levels of participation in local 27 government meetings than those in mountain municipalities (20.8% versus 14.9%).
Attended a Municipal Meeting
Yes 14.9% Yes 20.8%
No No 79.2% 85.1%
Mountain Coastal
Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 77. Participation in Municipal Meetings by Area
25 The mountain area includes the following municipalities: La Cruz de Río Grande, El Rama, Muelle de los Bueyes, Nueva Guinea, and Ayote. The coastal area includes: Laguna de las Perlas, Kukra Hill, Bluefields, Corn Island, and La Desembocadura. 26 Where possible in this report, we present results from the 2014 AmericasBarometer survey in Nicaragua as a point of comparison to results from the RACCS dataset. 27 This difference is statistically significant at p<0.1, according to a difference of proportions test.
109 Figure 78 presents rates of participation in municipal meetings by gender and age28, by area. The graph on the left-hand side of Figure 78 presents differences by gender. We find that men participate more than women in municipalities in the mountain area (18% versus 11.8%, respectively), whereas rates of participation are similar in municipalities in the coastal area (around 20-21%).
The graph on the right-hand side of Figure 78 shows participation rates by younger (16-35 years old) and older (36 years or older) age cohorts. The results show that older adults participate more than younger adults in the mountain area (18.3% versus 11.5%, respectively). In coastal municipalities, older adults still participate more, but the difference is smaller than in mountain municipalities and is not statistically significant (around 20% for both cases).
Based on these results we can conclude that one reason for higher than average municipal meeting participation rates in the coastal communities is that there is no gender gap in participation in that area and a substantially lower age cohort difference in participation in that area as compared to the mountain area.
22.2% 25 25 21.0% 20.6% 18.3%
18.0% 19.2%
20 20
Meeting Meeting
11.8% 11.5% 15 15
Municipal Municipal
a
a 10 10
Attend Attend 5 5
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Gender Age Male Younger adults
Female Older adults 9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Ef fects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved Figure 78. Participation in Municipal Meetings by Gender, Age, and Area
28 Respondents report their year of birth and then we have calculated their age. We have recoded this variable and have divided in two groups: younger adults (from 16 to 35 years old) and older adults (36 and more years old).
110 Figure 79 presents, by area, municipal meeting participation rates according to the individuals’ wealth based on ownership of goods29 and ethnic self-identification.30 The graph on the left- hand side shows an interesting pattern with respect to wealth. In the mountain area, participation increases with wealth, and the difference between the upper class and the rest of the population is statistically significant at p<0.1. In coastal municipalities, conversely, participation in municipal meetings decreases with wealth; the difference between the lower class, who are more likely to participate in the coastal area, and the rest of the population is statistically significant. Comparing across the areas, we find that the lower class in the mountain area have a rate of participation of 10.7%, while the lower class in coastal municipalities more than doubles that rate (24.7%). Middle class individuals (as measured by ownership of household items) in coastal municipalities also participate more than middle class individuals, on average, in the mountain municipalities (13.9% versus 19.8% respectively). Wealthy individuals display quite similar levels of participation, 20.2% in the mountain area and 18% in the coastal area. The graph on the right-hand side of Figure 79 shows participation by ethnic self-identification. The results indicate that Mestizos participate more in the mountain areas than in coastal areas. In the mountain areas, the level of participation is not statistically different between Mestizos and people with other ethnicities, but this difference is significant in the coastal areas, where people with other ethnicities participate more than Mestizos.
30 30 26.3% 24.7%
20.2%
25 25
19.8%
18.0%
20 13.9% 20 Meeting
Meeting 15.7%
10.3%
15 10.7% 15 11.4% Municipal
Municipal
a a
10 10
Attend Attend 5 5
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities Ownership of Goods Ethnic Auto-Identification Low Medium Other
High Mestizo
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 79. Participation in Municipal Meetings by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area
29 The variable distinguishes three categories: low, medium, and high. Along this report we assume low as the lower class, medium as the middle class, and high as the upper class. See Appendix 1: Methodology, for a detailed explanation about this variable. 30 The questionnaire collected ethnic background in 8 categories: white, Mestizos, black or creole, misquito, ulwa, garifuna, rama, and other. Mestizos are almost two thirds of the total sample (61.1%). In this report we have dichotomized it into a variable to distinguish Mestizos and people with other ethnic background in order to maximize number of cases in each category. See Appendix 1: Methodology, for a detailed explanation about this variable.
111 Finally, Figure 80 presents rates of participation in municipal meetings by levels of urbanization, by area.31 We should note that the mountain area does not have a municipality with a high degree of urbanization. Results indicate that participation rates in local meetings are quite similar, around 15%, except in mid-urbanized municipalities in the coastal area, where participation doubles and peaks at 30.3%. This, then, also helps us to understand the differences in rates of participation in local meetings across the coastal and municipal areas, in that the clear outlier in terms of higher- than-average participation levels is found in the mid-urbanized municipalities in the coastal area.
40 30.3%
30
15.9% 20 14.2% 13.0% 15.2%
Meeting
10
Municipal 0
a
Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities
Attend Urbanization Low Medium
High
90 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 80. Participation in Municipal Meetings by Urbanization and Area II.8.2 Tried to help solve a community problem We are interested in how engaged respondents are in their communities. One additional indicator of this engagement is how likely respondents report having tried to help to solve problems in their communities. The questionnaire includes a question to investigate this dimension:
CP5. Now, changing the subject. In the last 12 months have you tried to help solve a problem in your community or in your neighborhood? Please, tell me if you did it at least once a week, once or twice a month, once or twice a year, or never in the last 12 months? (1) Once a week (2) Once or twice a month | | | (3) Once or twice a year (4) Never (88) Doesn’t know (98) Doesn’t answer
31 We have calculated a variable to distinguish municipalities according to their degree of urbanization, measured by the percent of people who live in urban zones. A low score means municipalities with less than 33% of people living in urban zones. Medium means between 33% and 66% of people living in urban zone. High indicates municipalities with more than 66% of people living in urban zones.
112 In the whole country, according to the 2014 AmericasBarometer for Nicaragua, 61.7% say they never tried to help solve a problem in their communities and 13.8% report they tried to help once or twice a month. Figure 81 shows how likely it is that respondents have helped in their communities. The mountain municipalities exhibit just slightly more people reporting they have never tried to help in their communities (62.8%) than the coastal municipalities (59.8%). Both areas display similar levels of engagement in community problems: around 14% of respondents report they have helped once or twice a month and around 19% say they have helped once or twice a year.
Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem
Once a week Once a week 4.8% 7.1%
Once or twice a month 14.0% Once or twice a month 13.7%
Once or twice a year 18.4% Never Once or twice a year Never 59.8% 19.4% 62.8%
Mountain Coastal Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 81. Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem by Area
113 .Figure 82 uses the same type of 0 to 100 participation scale displayed in earlier graphs and shows that women are less likely to participate in activities to solve a community problems than men. In both areas, women report lower levels than men and these differences are statistically significant (22.5 points versus 17.8 in the mountain area and 24 versus 21.2 in the coastal area). This figure also shows that older adults are more likely to help than younger adults in both regions, and this difference is statistically significant in the coastal, but it is not in the mountain municipalities
24.4 22.5 24.0 21.4 25 25 21.2 20.8
problem 18.9
problem
17.8 20 20
community
community
a
a 15 15
10 10
help solve help
help solve help
to
to
Tried
Tried 5 5
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Gender Age Male Younger adults
Female Older adults
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved Figure 82. Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem by Gender, Age, and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
114
The next figure shows the differences in the likelihood of a respondent trying to help solve a community problem by their level of wealth and type of ethnicity. With respect to wealth, we see an interesting pattern in the mountain municipalities. Reported participation in the solution of community problems increases with wealth and the difference between the upper and lower classes is statistically significant (mean scores of 25.2 versus 15.5 respectively). In contrast, we do not find differences in participation in the solution of community problems across wealth groups in the coastal municipalities. In this area, regardless of wealth, levels of participation are around 22 points on a 0-100 scale. We also do not find significant differences between ethnic groups; in each area, Mestizos, and people of other ethnicities, participate at the same levels.
Figure 83. Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem by Wealth, Ethnicity, and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
30 25.2 30
23.6
20.9 22.4 22.8 25 22.0 25 22.5
17.2 20.9
problem problem
20 15.5 20
community community
a
15 a 15
solve solve
10 10
help help
to
to
5 5 Tried Tried
0 0 Mountain Area Coastal Area Mountain Area Coastal Area Municipalities Municipalities
Ownership of Goods Ethnic Auto-Identification Low Medium Other
High Mestizo
9 0 % Confidence Interval (with D esign-Ef fects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
115
Finally, Figure 84 shows levels of participation in the solution of community problems divided by urbanization in both areas. We do not find significant differences in the mountain municipalities. In the coastal area, mid-urbanized municipalities exhibit higher levels of participation in the solution of community problems than any other type of municipality and this difference is statistically significant (25.6 versus 20.4 for low-urbanized and 20.6 for high-urbanized municipalities).
30 25.6
21.0
25 19.6 20.4 20.6 problem 20
15
community
10 a
5 solve
help 0
to Mountain Area Coastal Area
Municipalities Tried Urbanization Low Medium High
90 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 84. Tried to Help Solve a Community Problem by Urbanization and Area (average on 0-100 scale)
II.9 Conclusions
Here we summarize the key findings in this report, with a focus on comparisons across the mountain and coast regions and within the areas by sub-groups. First, we provide some conclusions for the section about participation. We have assessed participation in several spaces, including municipal meetings, religious organizations, meetings of political parties, and meetings of parent’s organizations at school.
Individuals in the coastal area participate more in municipal meetings (20.8% versus 14.9%), in political parties (20.6% versus 9.3% for those who participate once or twice a year), and in women’s organizations than individuals in the mountain area (9.5% versus 5.5% for those who participate once or twice a year). Women participate more in religious organizations (a difference of 8.7 points in the mountain area and of 5.9 points in the coastal area) and in parents’ organizations at school (a difference of 12.8 points in the mountain area and of 12.3 in the coastal area), while men participate more 116 in political parties (a difference of 6.6 points in mountain municipalities and of 2.1 in coastal municipalities) and they help solve community problems to a greater extent (a difference of 4.7 points in mountain municipalities and of 2.8 in coastal municipalities). Individuals living in mid-urbanized municipalities participate more in territorial government organizations (24.2 points in the mountain area and 24.3 in the coastal area), in political parties in both areas (15.3 in the mountain area and 16.3 in the coastal area), and in women’s organizations in the coastal area (16.4 points). Individuals living in these municipalities are also more likely to help solve a community problem in the coastal area (25.6 points). Older individuals are more likely to participate in religious organizations (63.8 points for older individuals versus 54.3 for younger individuals in the mountain area and 54.1 points for older individuals versus 50.7 for younger individuals in the coastal area), in municipal meetings (18.3% for older individuals versus 11.5% for younger individuals in the mountain area and 22.2% for older individuals versus 19.2% for younger individuals in the coastal area), and in women’s organizations (8.1 points for older individuals versus 5.3 for younger individuals in the mountain area and 12.5 points for older individuals versus 10.1 for younger individuals in the coastal area). There are not many differences in participation with respect to self-reported ethnicity. Individuals who identity with other ethnic backgrounds (non-Mestizos) participate more in municipal meetings in the coastal area (26.3% of non-Mestizos versus 11.4% of Mestizos) and in religious organizations in the mountain area (66.9 for non-Mestizos versus 57.5 for Mestizos). Those we classify as in the “upper class” (by wealth) participate less in territorial government in the coastal area (15.7 points for the rich versus 20.7 for the poor), and they participate more in helping solve community problems in the mountain area (25.2 points for the rich versus 15.5 for the poor). Next we provide some conclusions about the role of one of the most important law- enforcement institutions: the police.
Individuals in the mountain area are more satisfied with police performance (63.2% are satisfied or very satisfied in the mountain versus 51.4% in the coastal area). They also have a better evaluation of the police in controlling crime (47.7 points express police is doing a fairly good job or a very good job in the mountain versus 31.2 points in the coastal area) and express less concern about police as a harassment problem (74.8% express it is not a problem in the mountain area and 51.3% in the coastal area). The upper class (56.4 points for the rich versus 50.8 for the poor), Mestizos (53.4 points for Mestizos versus 45.4 for non-Mestizos), and people living in mid-urbanized municipalities (56.1 points for mid-urbanized municipalities versus 49.8 for low-urbanized municipalities) report higher satisfaction with police performance in the mountain area. People with other ethnic backgrounds (64 points for non-Mestizos versus 55.4 for Mestizos in the mountain area and 51 points for non-Mestizos versus 46.9 for Mestizos) those who live 117 in mid-urbanized municipalities (60.3 points in the mountain area and 53.2 points in the coastal area) express better evaluation of police in controlling crime in both areas. Reports of police harassment as a problem increase with urbanization in both areas (16.9 points for mid-urbanized municipalities versus 12.5 for low-urbanized in the mountain area and 29.3 for high-urbanized municipalities versus 14 points for low-urbanized in the coastal area). As wealth increases, trust in the police decreases in both areas (54.4 points for the rich versus 60.1 points for the poor in the mountain area and 42.2 points for the rich versus 50.4 for the rich in the coastal area). Women (60.8 points for women versus 52.5 for men), older people (60.2 points for older versus 53.3 for younger individuals), and individuals with other ethnicities (63.9 points for non-Mestizos versus 55.7 for Mestizos) report higher levels of trust in the police in the mountain area. The following conclusions are based on two variables about the role of the judicial system and another about the local government: confidence that the judicial system would punish the guilty and trust in the judicial system:
As levels of wealth increase, individuals report less confidence (47.2 points for the rich versus 55.9 for the poor in the mountain area and 39.3 points for the rich versus 50 for the poor in the coastal area) and trust in the judicial system (52.5 for the poor versus 54.5 for the rich in the mountain area and 47.4 for the poor versus 54.3 for the rich in the coastal area). Non-Mestizos express higher confidence that the judiciary would punish the guilty in both areas (58.9 points for non-Mestizos versus 50.3 for Mestizos in the mountain area and 46.6 points for non-Mestizos versus 42.5 for Mestizos in the coastal area). Women (58.7 points for women versus 50.6 for men) and people with other ethnic backgrounds (61.2 points for non-Mestizos versus 53.1 for Mestizos) report higher levels of trust in the judicial system in mountain municipalities. We observe higher levels of trust in the local government in the mountain area (62.3 points for the mountain area versus 52.7 for the coastal area). Those in the upper class express higher levels of trust in local government in both areas (65.8 points for the rich versus 61.3 for the poor in the mountain area and 56.4 points for the rich versus 50.7 for the poor in the coastal area).
We focus on conclusions about neighborhood’s problems in the following section, such as garbage, vacant lands, and drug trafficking or consumption. Then, we present conclusions for robberies, violence against women, and murders.
Garbage (27.5% in the mountain versus 24.3% in the coastal area respond a lot) and vacant lands (45.9% in the mountain area versus 35% in the coastal say a lot or some) are a bigger problem in mountain municipalities, but drug activities are a larger problem in the coastal area. Younger individuals (54 points for younger versus 48.3 for older individuals for garbage and 19.8 points for younger versus 16.4 for older for vacant lands) and Mestizos (56 points for 118 Mestizos versus 48.2 for non-Mestizos for garbage and 22.5 points for Mestizos versus 15.5 for non-Mestizos for vacant lands) express higher levels of reporting of garbage and presence of vacant lands in the coastal area. Reports of garbage decrease with urbanization in both areas (47.9 points for mid-urbanized municipalities versus 57.5 for low-urbanized in the mountain area and 43.6 points for high- urbanized municipalities versus 61.2 points for low-urbanize municipalities in the coastal area). Individuals in low-urbanized municipalities report higher levels of vacant lands (25.8 points for low-urbanized versus 23.4 for mid-urbanized in the mountain area and 21.4 points for low- urbanized versus 16.8 for low-urbanized in the coastal area). Younger individuals (21.1 points for younger versus 18.2 for older individuals), people with other ethnic background (27.3 points for non-Mestizos versus 9.5 for Mestizos) and those who live in high-urbanized municipalities (24.7 points for high-urbanized municipalities versus 7.9 for low-urbanized municipalities) report a higher concern about people making income selling drugs in the coastal area. Drug consumption is a more serious problem for people with other ethnicity (44.3 points for non-mestizos versus 22.5 points for Mestizos in the coastal area) and in mid-urbanized municipalities (43.7 points for mid-urbanized versus 16 points for low-urbanized municipalities) in the coastal area. Robberies are a more serious problem in coastal municipalities than in mountain municipalities (41.3% report robberies in the coastal and 31.4% in the mountain area). Men report higher levels of robberies in the mountain area (36.8% for men versus 26.2% for women). Those in the lower class say there are fewer robberies in the coastal area (34.9% for the poor versus 44% for the rich). Men report higher levels of violence against women in both areas (14.5% for men versus 9.6% for women in the mountain area and 14.9% for men versus 13% for women in the coastal area). Younger individuals (15.3% for younger versus 8.7% for older individuals), the upper class (17.7% for the rich versus 9.3% for the poor), and those who live in low-urbanized municipalities (15% for low-urbanized versus 7.6% for mid-urbanized municipalities) express higher levels of violence against women in the mountain area. Men (30.9% for men versus 23.3% for women) and younger individuals (30.1% for younger versus 24.1% for older individuals) report more murders in the mountain area. Wealthy people (30.1% for the rich versus 24.8% for the poor in the mountain area and 34.6% for the rich versus 23.6% for the poor in the coastal area) and Mestizos (28.3% for Mestizos versus 21.5% for non-Mestizos in the mountain area and 35.5% for Mestizos versus 26% for non-Mestizos in the coastal area) report more murders in both areas. This section summarizes findings about crime victimization. It displays conclusions for a measure of crime victimization at the household, for those who report stealing at home and those who have been victims of theft or aggressions.
119 The coastal area displays higher levels of crime victimization (24.2% in the coastal versus 16.2% in the mountain area), more reports of home burglaries (19.1% for the coastal area versus 10.9% for the mountain area), and more victims of theft or aggression (26.5% for the coastal area versus 21.7% for the mountain area). Men report higher levels of crime victimization in both areas (18.3% for men versus 14.2% for women in the mountain area and 25.8% for men versus 22.6% for women in the coastal area) and those who live in low-urbanized municipalities (15.4% for low-urbanized versus 17.4% for mid-urbanized in the mountain area and 14.7% for low-urbanized versus 26.8% for high- urbanized municipalities in the coastal area) report lower levels of crime victimization. Younger individuals (25.7% for younger versus 22.7% for older individuals) and those in the upper class (29.5% for the upper class versus 18.5% for the lower class) report higher levels of crime victimization in the coastal area. Reports of home burglaries increase with wealth in the mountain area (17.6% for the upper class versus 4.7% for the lower class). Men report higher levels of victimization by theft or aggression in the coastal area (28.4% for men versus 24.5% for women). Younger adults display higher levels of victimization by theft or aggression in both areas (23.7% for younger versus 19.6% for older individuals in the mountain area and 30.9% for younger versus 22.1% for older individuals in the coastal area). The upper class reports higher levels of victimization by theft or aggression in the mountain area (29.8% for the upper class versus 18.5% for the lower class). Finally, we offer some conclusions for perceptions of insecurity. This section summarizes a general perception of insecurity, levels of insecurity in the neighborhood and current and retrospective evaluations of violence, and presence of gang activity in the neighborhood and evaluations of their activity.
Older people express a higher perception of insecurity in the mountain area (42.3 points for older versus 36.4 points for younger individuals). In this area, rich people have a lower perception of insecurity (34.8 points for the upper class versus 40.9 for the lower class). Mestizos report higher levels of insecurity in the coastal area (40.8 points for Mestizos versus 34.1 for non-Mestizos). Women (26.5 points for women versus 24.2 for men in the mountain area and 27 points for women versus 24.4 for men in the coastal area) and older adults (26.7 for older versus 24 for younger adults in the mountain area and 26.5 for older versus 25 for younger adults in the coastal area) exhibit higher concerns about walking alone in the neighborhood during the day in both areas. Those in the upper class have fewer concerns about walking alone during the day in the mountain area (21.1 points for the upper class versus 27.7 for the lower class). Women (49.7 points for women versus 42.6 for men in the mountain area and 46.5 for men versus 42.1 for women in the coastal area) and Mestizos (47.2 for Mestizos versus 40.7 for non-Mestizos in the mountain area and 47.1 for Mestizos versus 42.7 for non-Mestizos in the 120 coastal area) express higher concerns about walking after dark in both areas. Older people (49.2 for older versus 43.1 for younger adults) and those who live in low- urbanized areas (49.2 points for low-urbanized versus 41.5 for mid-urbanized municipalities) express higher concerns about walking after dark in the mountain area. Younger individuals (29.6% for younger versus 21.9% for older adults in the mountain area and 25.6% for younger versus 22.5% for older adults in the coastal area) and those in the upper class (32.6% for the upper class versus 18.9% for the lower class in the mountain area and 27.2% for the upper class versus 16.8% for the lower class in the coastal area) report they avoided dangerous areas in the neighborhood to a greater extent. Mestizos in coastal municipalities report they avoided dangerous areas to a greater extent (35% for Mestizos versus 17.8% for non- Mestizos). People in coastal municipalities report higher levels of current violence than people in mountain municipalities (16.9% in the coastal area versus 4.6% in the mountain area report higher levels of violence). The middle class (17.3 points for the middle class versus 12.4 for the lower class), Mestizos (13.9 for Mestizos versus 7.9 for non-Mestizos), and those who live in low-urbanized areas (15.7 for low-urbanized versus 9.2 for mid-urbanized municipalities) report higher levels of current violence in the mountain area. Current levels of violence increase with urbanization in coastal municipalities (31 points for high-urbanized versus 17.2 for low-urbanized). People in coastal municipalities report higher levels of violence than a year ago than do people in mountain municipalities (20.9% in the coastal area versus 7.3% in the coastal area). People in mountain municipalities report lower levels of gang activity than people in coastal municipalities (68.2% report no gang activity in the mountain area versus 60.2% in the coastal area). Presence of gang activity increases with urbanization in both areas (18.1 points for mid- urbanized versus 12.5 for low-urbanized municipalities in the mountain area and 25.7 for high- urbanized versus 15 for low-urbanized municipalities in the coastal area). Those in the lower class report lower levels of gang activity in both areas (10.4 for the lower class versus 17.3 for the upper class in the mountain area and 18.5 for the lower class versus 23.2 for the upper class in the coastal area). People in coastal municipalities report more gangs than a year ago than people in mountain municipalities (57.5% report a higher number in the coastal area versus 32% in the mountain area report higher levels of gang activity than a year ago). Those in the upper class in coastal municipalities express increasing gang activity than a year ago (78.3 for the upper class versus 64.3 for the lower class).
121
Part III. Understanding the Specific Problems of Coastal Municipalities through Focus Groups and Survey Research
122 Despite several problems shared by all coastal municipalities, there are some that are unique to each. In the final section of this study, we describe findings from the focus groups in each coastal municipality as well as quantitative findings comparing both coastal and mountain municipalities.
III.1.1 Bluefields
Focus groups with government authorities, NGOs, and youth reveal that the most acute problems in Bluefields, according to participants, are:
Unemployment and poverty Crime and insecurity Gangs Police Harassment Human trafficking Concerns about property rights
Unemployment and Poverty
In general, perceptions regarding the personal economic situation of citizens residing in the coastal municipalities are more negative than those residing in the mountain area. When we asked: Do you think that your economic situation is better than, the same as, or worse than it was 12 months ago? 53% of respondents in the coast reported that their economy is worse-off than it was 12 months ago. In contrast, only 38% of the population in the mountain area thinks that their economic situation has worsened.
Similarly, when we used the survey to ask: In your opinion, what is the most serious problem faced by your community? 51% of respondents in the coastal area answered “unemployment,” while only 23% reported the same problem in the mountain area.
The focus group research in Bluefields suggests that concerns over high levels of unemployment and poverty could be associated to rising crime levels, drug and alcohol consumption, domestic violence, sexual exploitation and prostitution. According to a youth:
“Por la falta de empleo muchas personas aunque no quisieran robar van a robar porque tienen necesidad, algunas personas se exponen al uso y tráfico de droga porque necesitan alimentar 32 a su familia entonces podríamos decir que ha aumentado porque no hay empleo” (Youth)
Crime and Insecurity
Robbery, in all its forms, are more frequent in this area. Focus group participants suggest that many are related to drug and alcohol consumption. In order to satisfy their habits, many youth get involved in robberies of houses, schools, people’s belongings, etc. Livestock robberies are common in Bluefields’ rural areas. According to focus group participants, there are associated
32 It is important to note that focus group results correspond to the opinions and experiences of participants, and do not necessarily reflect the attitudes and behaviors of the population as a whole.
123 issues involved with robberies including, homicides, drug trafficking, and domestic violence. A government official clearly illustrates her personal experience:
“Yo no me expuse a que me robaran de noche fue de día, yo siempre he andado con mis prendas y nunca me lo habían hecho por años he estado así y hasta ahora me lo hicieron, si usted me ve yo no ando nada a prendas solo un anillo ¿por qué? Porque desde que me robaron ya no me pongo nada porque uno no sabe cuándo lo están vigilando” (Government Official)
In addition, quantitative results shown below (Figures 85-87), supported by qualitative findings, show that residents in Bluefield report the highest percentage of household crime victimization as well as high average perceptions of insecurity compared to other municipalities in this region. Moreover, almost 50% of Bluefieldians report to avoid walking through dangerous areas. These results are supported by the qualitative data, where all groups showed a heightened sense of insecurity as well as reported to have become victims of some kind of criminal activity. In fact, many participants of the focus group studies in other municipalities (Kukra Hill, Laguna de Perlas, Corn Island, Desembocadura) suggested that they were victims of crime, not in their own municipalities but in Bluefields. As one government official in Bluefields mentions:
“Tal vez te acuestas tranquilamente en tu casa y al levarte miras la casa vacía yo he experimentado eso también me levanto y cuando miro se llevaron el tanque todos los trastes limpiaron en el caso, entonces yo he sido víctima también de eso me han dejado personalmente en la calle y fíjese que cuando me robaron en la central y en pleno día” (Government Official).
Similarly, in relation to a sense of insecurity a member of an NGO indicated:
“Nosotros estamos bastante inseguros porque con esto que no tenemos una sostenibilidad de que estemos seguros, de que no hay trabajo, tal vez el poquito de trabajo que uno consigue también nosotros no lo logramos, también nos sentimos desamparados porque no nos toman en cuenta y además el otro problema que tenemos es la inseguridad en Bluefields, porque debido a que no hay trabajo entonces está el problema también de las personas que andan en malos pasos” (NGO member).
124
Bluefields 38.9% Bluefields 49.5
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 33.6% Nueva Guinea 44.8
Laguna de Perlas 19.6% La Cruz de Río Grande 43.4
Nueva Guinea 19.2% El Rama 41.4
El Rama 18.9% La Desembocadura de Río Grande 40.3
La Cruz de Río Grande 17.0% Kukra Hill 35.5
Muelle de los Bueyes 15.7% Muelle de los Bueyes 35.2
Kukra Hill 14.7% Laguna de Perlas 32.9
Corn Island 14.1% Ayote 32.1
Ayote 10.4% Corn Island 24.8
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Household Crime Victimization Perception of Insecurity 95 % Confidence Interval 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 86. Household Crime Victimization Figure 85. Average Perception of Insecurity
Bluefields 48.5%
Nueva Guinea 36.5%
Kukra Hill 35.6%
El Rama 28.7%
Ayote 26.2%
La Cruz de Río Grande 25.2%
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 21.5%
Muelle de los Bueyes 12.3%
Laguna de Perlas 9.4%
Corn Island 6.4%
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Avoided Walking for Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 87. Avoided Walking in Dangerous Areas in the Neighborhood (%)
125 Quantitative results by municipality also show that Bluefields come on top with regards to high average perceptions and trends of violence (Figures 88 and 89). These high perceptions of violence are supported by the qualitative results:
“Yo creo también sumaría alrededor de los problemas que tenemos el tema de la seguridad ciudadana, el tema de la inseguridad ciudadana ha sido muy frecuente en nuestra región en la cual no se miraba antes, estamos viendo que ahora los jóvenes la mayoría están consumiendo, están siendo víctima de violencia y esto te conlleva al tema de la inseguridad”(Youth)
“Parte económica, liderazgo, inseguridad ciudadana, considero que todos estos elementos están concatenados de la mano, pero también tenemos que ver que nuestra región está sufriendo violencia, más que todo la violencia que se está dando en nuestra región y eso es parte de lo que dice la parte económica, liderazgo, inseguridad ciudadana o sea se ha convertido la parte de la violencia tanto en la familia como en las mismas calles, las escuelas, la discriminación existe desde las escuelas entonces creo que todos estos elementos van concatenados con la violencia”(NGO member)
“La delincuencia en la costa Caribe uno lo puede esquematizar por diferentes áreas en el campo político, social y en esta área yo hablo del campo eclesiástico porque las iglesias, los templos, las casas cúrales, las casas pastorales han sido lugares sagrados y los ladrones pensarían en lo último para asaltar esos lugares hoy en día se ha cambiado las iglesias, las casas cúrales, las catedrales es como el ojo del águila ahí comienzan primero, entonces hoy en día que ya la delincuencia no respetan ni la casa de Dios, entonces sino respetan esos lugares que más no respetarían”(NGO member)
Bluefields 38.6 Bluefields 47.6
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 33.7 Kukra Hill 39.3
Corn Island 23.3 El Rama 37.5
La Cruz de Río Grande 20.5 La Desembocadura de Río Grande 36.6
Kukra Hill 17.2 La Cruz de Río Grande 36.3
Laguna de Perlas 16.9 Ayote 36.1
El Rama 14.2 Nueva Guinea 35.0
Ayote 12.6 Muelle de los Bueyes 30.4
Nueva Guinea 9.5 Corn Island 27.0
Muelle de los Bueyes 8.9 Laguna de Perlas 20.8
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Perception of Violence in Neighborhood Trend of Violence in Neighborhood 95 % Confidence Interval 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 89. Perception of Violence in the Neighborhood Figure 88. Trends of Violence in the Neighborhood
126 Gangs
Another salient problem in Bluefields is the possible rise of gangs. The quantitative data show that Bluefields has the highest average level of gangs’ presence in the neighborhood (Figure 90).
Bluefields 41.8
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 31.8
Nueva Guinea 22.5
Kukra Hill 15.0
Ayote 14.7
Muelle de los Bueyes 13.6
La Cruz de Río Grande 11.9
Laguna de Perlas 11.7
El Rama 11.0
Corn Island 9.6
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Gangs in Neighborhood 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 90. Average Level of Presence of Gangs in the Neighborhood
Focus group studies corroborate the above findings. For instance, a NGO member indicated that gangs are becoming problematic because young men get together to consume drugs, commit robberies and even rape women. In other words, youth are becoming more violent, according to focus group participants.
“Aunque no se tipifica como un delito pero el delito que ha crecido en Bluefields son las pandillas, las pandillas han crecido enormemente ahora cada barrio casi tiene una pandilla, en cada barrio hay pandillas y aunque no es un delito la pandilla pero si lo que hacen cada vez que se reúnen, te roban, se agarran a machetazos, que violan porque la violación igual, la violación ha crecido enormemente mas en las niñas, en los niños más del gremio, cierto gremio que es muy utilizado acá en Bluefields pero es el que más se ha oído en la participación de la violación que son los taxista y este tipo de violencia va aumentando, utilizan a las niñas pues a veces dicen que son montajes que igual es ahí donde están utilizando las leyes pero se llegue o no se llegue a comprobar es un delito que ha crecido acá en la región”(NGO member)
A contributing factor to this spread of violence among at risk youth is the shortage of employment opportunities. Once they graduate from high school or college, they do not find jobs, according to
127 the qualitative research. Others interviewees, however, recognize police efforts at controlling the rise of possible gang activity.
However, some government officials suggest that even though the fear of youth at risk to form gang groups is a major concern, gangs have not organized formally yet. According to the definition of gangs by police authorities, gangs should consist of at least 25 individuals who commit crimes. In the case of Bluefields there are only groups of 7 or 8 at risk youth that are committing other types of crime, mainly related to high drug and alcohol consumption.
Police Harassment
Another potential problem in Bluefields is police harassment. The quantitative data show Bluefieldians with the highest levels of evaluations that police harassment is a problem.
Bluefields 30.0
Corn Island 28.5
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 22.6
Muelle de los Bueyes 21.4
Laguna de Perlas 21.3
La Cruz de Río Grande 20.2
Kukra Hill 14.0
Nueva Guinea 12.1
Ayote 9.6
El Rama 8.6
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Police harrasment as a problem 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 91. Average Evaluation of Police Harassment as a Problem
The qualitative data also show, particularly among Creole youth, some indication of this problem. As the following youth observes:
“No se habla del tema de razas y racial para evitar hablar del tema del racismo pero el estado lo ha obviado para evitar hablar sobre el tema de racismo y lo vemos desde algunas instituciones como la policía, la policía nacional que estigma a la población afro en narcotraficante, de drogos, de vagabundos toda descripción negativa cuando vienen aquí y vienen aquí sin conocer la realidad cultural de lo que sucede en el atlántico y empiezan a
128 estigmatizar y violentar a los chavalos y chavalas simplemente por el hecho de estar cambiando de un grupo…”(Youth)
In addition, some suggest the loss of credibility in the Police.
“Y lo otro que afecta y es algo que lo sentimos es la seguridad ciudadana que no hay credibilidad en la policía que ellos hacen sus programas o dicen que la población coopere, pero si cuando ahí mismo están las lacras adentro entonces han perdido totalmente la credibilidad ya no hay esos policías comprometidos con la población sino que ver como consigo algo, como cobro algo, como hago daño al fulano si me cayó mal y llega a poner un caso de violencia no pasas porque me caes mal, y esas cosas personalizadas que se toman dentro de las instituciones está afectando bastante, no hay compromiso social por decir bueno nos vamos a sentar, vamos a llevar avance a la región entre todos seamos Miskitos, negros, blancos, chinos, no hay una voluntad y tampoco no hay… y si está débil el liderazgo entonces quién lo va a hacer” (NGO member)
Human Trafficking
Governmental authorities and NGOs are particularly concerned with the possible emergence of human trafficking, a problem that many possess little knowledge about. NGOs members indicated that the “Bluff port” is most vulnerable to human trafficking cases given the extremely high levels of unemployment in that area. They suggested that children in this area are resorting to prostitution as a source of income for their families. Moreover, child labor is a common concern as a result of poverty. As an NGO member highlights:
“Cuando hacemos capacitaciones así con los pobladores y personas de determinados lugares por ejemplo del Bluff ahí salen las situaciones que dicen así y así está pasando pero no puedo hacer nada ya entonces ahí se está viendo que hay trata de personas y no es solamente una sino dos o tres, a veces nos llaman a nosotros los facilitadores y nos dicen está pasando esto con fulano, fulano y zutano pero no me metan a mi entonces el índice de trata de personas no se ve, no se visibiliza porque no hay denuncia, no hay que la persona lo denuncien entonces se mira como una minoría pero cuando uno llega y habla en conjunto con las personas así en talleres le toca la llaga a las personas y las personas sueltan y comienzan a decir que se está habiendo trata de personas y un ejemplo vivo es el puerto de Bluff es uno de los lugares donde más existe y es con menores y como es un puerto lamentablemente ahora ya no es como antes pero llegan extranjeros y de ahí se ve y los mismos familiares lo están viendo pero no lo pueden denunciar por eso es que casi no se escucha ve se está viendo trata de personas en determinado lugar siempre solo oye violación o prostitución y lo toman como prostitución y ahí es la cuestión lo ven desde el otro punto de vista como prostitución pero realmente es la misma trata de personas”
These claims are backed by survey data. In Bluefields, 17.6% of respondents claim to know a child or children who has been given away to live or work with another person in exchange for money. This percentage is larger than average for the coastal area (13.6%), and for the mountain area (11.5%).
129 Property Rights Concerns
Finally, there are also concerns with property ownership, according to the qualitative studies. The focus groups highlight the absence of clear rules regarding property ownership; in many cases, there are multiple owners for the same assets. The focus groups also reveal conflict over territory. This problem has elevated tensions among community members.
“Tráfico de tierras, invasión de colonos y los pesqueros que están entrando en las comunidades y a los territorios que están en proceso de demarcación, están usurpando tierras y viven ahí uno, dos años y empiezan a vender y empiezan a reprender y traen a todas sus familias de Chontales, Nueva Guinea y un montón de lugares del pacifico a usurpar tierras así que el tráfico de tierras también es algo que está afectando aquí la comunidad y ese es el famoso avance de la frontera agrícola, aquí nosotros le decimos invasión y otros términos que no se pueden utilizar aquí pero el tema de avance de la frontera agrícola y el tema de trafico de tierras comunales se está dando mucho aquí” (Youth)
III.1.2 Kukra Hills
Focus groups in Kukra Hills with government authorities, NGOs and youth reveal that the most significant problems in this municipality are:
Unemployment and poverty Teen pregnancies Environmental concerns Murders and security concerns Police dissatisfaction Migration concerns
Unemployment and Poverty
Like Bluefields, in Kukra Hills we see marked concerns over high levels of unemployment and poverty, both in the qualitative and quantitative studies. These two factors are seen by the focus group participants as root causes of other problems. As a youth in Kukra Hills claimed:
“La pobreza, creo yo que es una de las causas más grandes ya que debido la pobreza dificulta que los jóvenes adultos tienen la dificultad de encontrar empleo y los adolescentes tienen la dificultad de estudiar debido a pobreza, entonces creo que ese es uno de los más grandes obstáculos” (Youth)
Teen Pregnancies
Teen pregnancies are reported as a major problem due to lack of information for youth, according to focus group participants.
“Por una parte no, porque por lo menos en este centro de salud aquí en nuestra comunidad se da ya es comúnmente lo del embarazo precoz ya es como normal diría Yo, pero digo que quizás se da por falta de seguridad porque muchos jóvenes no quieren ir a planificar allá porque ellos
130 como doctores no tienen ética tal vez y los jóvenes no quieren que nadie sepa que ya tienen una vida sexual activa ellos no tienen esa confianza en que ellos no van a hablar, eso es falta de ética” (Youth)
“Si usted supiera qué difícil es ir a comprar una pastilla para el embarazo o una prueba de embarazo o ir a conseguir un condón, si me ven salir a mi dicen a la tiene hasta la madre al hombre y en la casa municipal de adolescentes y jóvenes que es mi oficina ahí se reparten preservativa, uno de los chavalos me dice fíjate que a mí me gusta más venir aquí a tu oficina que al hospital, porque le digo si son los mismos condones, es que cuando vos vas y te dan condones ya dicen p….van a ser v…. A la fulana o zutana que no sé qué, que no sé cuánto, entonces tal vez no son los doctores tal vez son los enfermeros pero la cuestión es que no hay esa ética profesional de guardar silencio y decir bueno le damos los preservativos para que se cuiden, ya después llegan los padres y tal vez sos novio de la muchacha entonces tienes problema… (Youth)
Environmental Concerns
A problem specific to this municipality relates to the growing of “Palma Africana.” The widespread cultivation of African Palm is believed by some focus group participants to have caused a major environmental degradation in this area by contaminating land, water, and by creating sudden death of various animals, according to focus group participants. If locals want to plant fruits or vegetables, the land is no longer fertile except for African Palm. Those who depend 33 on agriculture have heavily felt the negative impact of this industry.
“Otro problema que también nosotros tenemos que en años anteriores Kukra Hill era sano de que no teníamos problemas con nuestras aguas, con nuestros recursos naturales, nuestros recursos naturales están siendo seriamente explotados, nuestro arboles no están dejando en el desierto cuando llega la empresa quiere ampliar y empiezan a apear bosques y empiezan a cercar lo que es la palma, nosotros podíamos respirar aire puro, fresco, ahora no tenemos problema nuestros ríos están siendo contaminados, nuestras especies están desapareciendo poco a poco, ya los grandes ríos que teníamos, hermosos ríos ya no lo tenemos ahora son diríamos ojitos de agua, hasta los ojitos de agua se han exterminados en las comunidades, especialmente en Kukra Hill no se nos secaban los pozos ahora si se nos han estado secando vez, entonces este también es otro problema que tenemos, la tala de árboles se han estado haciendo indiscriminadamente” (Government official)
“Querían invadir de palmas todo lo que es alrededor del pueblo y yo fui uno de los que me metí en eso y luché con unos compañeros y no dejamos pues, pero lo que nosotros queríamos lograr era que las fuentes de esa Laguna no fueran contaminadas y es lo que ahora están contaminados, entonces con el tiempo aquí los niños van a salir enfermos, porque es un balneario público y se viene a bañar todo mundo ahí, y entonces todas esas aguas ya están contaminadas ahí. Dicen que es por las palmas africanas, que está afectando eso” (NGO member)
33 It is important to remember that these are sentiments of a specific set of subjects who participated in our focus group studies, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the whole Kukra Hills population.
131 Murders and Security Concerns
Additionally, quantitative results supported by qualitative findings, show that residents in Kukra Hills report the highest percentage of murders (48%) as well as security as the most important problem (18.2%). This information is depicted on Figures 92 and 93 below. Young individuals and NGO members indicated heightened concerns with murders.
“Ha aumentado cada día que pasa el mundo es diferente, hoy puede estar normal mañana una persona entendida que no molesta a nadie puede cometer un acto de asesinato en los últimos tiempo se ha revelado que cada año va creciendo” (Youth)
“Demasiado, va subiendo es que no lo van a parar” (Youth)
“Es mucho el homicidio aquí” (NGO member)
“Lo que es en el casco urbano no se da mucho, pero lo que es municipio no, fuera hay bastante, ejemplo yo anduve hace como dos semanas fuera de casco urbano y el día que yo andaba ahí, mataron a un señor pero como eso no sé, no lo reportan, entonces eso se queda ahí o sea que entre ellos mismos se resuelven ese problema, por venganza” (NGO member)
Kukra Hill 48.0% Kukra Hill 18.2%
La Cruz de Río Grande 36.8% La Cruz de Río Grande 14.7%
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 31.9% Bluefields 7.1%
Bluefields 30.7% El Rama 2.8%
Muelle de los Bueyes 27.4% Corn Island 2.7%
Ayote 25.9% Laguna de Perlas 2.7%
El Rama 25.0% Muelle de los Bueyes 2.0%
Corn Island 24.7% La Desembocadura de Río Grande 1.7%
Nueva Guinea 20.6% Ayote 1.0%
Laguna de Perlas 12.1% Nueva Guinea 0.0%
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Murders in Neighborhood Security as the Most Serious Problem 95 % Confidence Interval 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 92. Murders in Neighborhood (%) Figure 93. Security as the Most Serious Problem (%)
General Feelings of Dissatisfaction with the Police Our survey data show that in general, people in the coastal area are somewhat more dissatisfied with police performance than people in the mountain area. When we asked: In general, are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the performance of the police in your
132 neighbourhood? 49% of people in the coast reported being either “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied,” while only 37% of people in the mountains reported the same levels of dissatisfaction. In Kukra Hills, 47% reported being either “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” with police performance, which is makes it no different in statistical terms than the average in the coastal area.
According to focus group research, many indicate the absence of professional police officials and rather point to the existence of too many volunteers fulfilling these jobs. The need for trained professional policemen is highlighted which will help mitigating problems with drug trafficking and drug consumption, especially among the youth. There are perceptions that the police is highly ineffective because they lack formal training.
“Otra cosa aquí hay un puesto de policía y este puesto de policía si hay tres o cuatro policías Nacionales hay mucho, el resto son voluntarios, entonces el trabajo se le recarga a una persona cuando esta persona no le resuelva a fulano a zutano, ya comienzan a decir que la policía no hace nada, no si nosotros educamos a nuestro hijos esto no tendría que ocurrir; entonces como que falta más personal de la Policía Nacional, está bien por los compañeros pues que están voluntarios están apoyado a mejorar esto” (Government official)
Concerns over immigration
There are also problems with immigration, as reported by qualitative study participants. Focus groups revealed that migrants who come from other regions or countries are contributing to new forms of delinquency. They bring with them new ideas on how to commit crime. Immigration has generated mistrust in these communities.
“Yo quisiera agregar algo la delincuencia, las drogas y el desempleo como que van muy juntos, uno sigue a otro y así la misma necesidad y la drogadicción lo somete a delincuencia a delinquir; pero también hay otra cosa que se dio aquí y es la cantidad de gente extraña que vienen de otros lados a trabajar aquí [La migración?] La migración, gente que no conocemos y entonces ha influenciado también bastante eso” (Government official)
“Mire aquí no sé lo que es la trata de personas, pero yo tendría miedo porque aquí estamos en una comunidad que personas entran y salen y nosotros ni la conocemos, de repente vamos caminando en la calle y vemos que carros, que personas nuevas y creo que aquí se podría dar eso lo que es la trata de personas” (Youth)
“Porque anteriormente en, el, en el ahora que existe el barrio nuevo. Nunca se habían visto grupos de niños, de que se miraban de que iban con una intención negativa, ahora si hay, hay niños que ya tienen su grupo y pequeño bando, que ya se enfrentan con otros grupos, y empiezan ah, ah, agredirse, tanto física, como verbalmente, entonces, ya son indicios, pues de que, ya empiezan y es por lo mismo que decía la número uno,de que es por, por gente que está entrando al municipio, que vienen con mentalidad de que ,vienen a percutir en estos jóvenes”(NGO member)
133 III.1.3 Corn Island
Focus groups in Corn Island show that the most significant problems in this municipality are:
Teen pregnancies Drug selling as a source of income Mistrust in the police and in the judicial system
Teen Pregnancies
Focus groups in this municipality emphasize again teen pregnancies as a prevalent problem. All three focus groups with Government officials, NGOs, and youth highlighted concerns over teen pregnancies and a possible diffusion of sexually transmitted diseases.
“En primera instancia el embarazo precoz en los adolescentes es algo que está afectando al Municipio y nosotros nos vemos, nos sentimos impotente como padres de no poder ayudar a los grupos de riesgos de jóvenes” (Government official)
“nuestro mayor problema es el embarazo precoz en las adolescentes y esto causa enfermedades de transmisión sexual que también se está incrementando”(Government official)
“[El problema más grave en esta comunidad] el embarazo a temprana edad en los jóvenes” (NGO member)
“El problema más grande es el embarazo precoz, porque las jóvenes a muy temprana edad ya están embarazadas” (Youth)
Drug selling as a source of income
The main problem, however, corresponds to drug trafficking, which appears to be highly embedded in society, according to focus group research. Many indicate that the economy is becoming more and more dependent on drug trafficking networks. People in the communities see it as a source of development. Drug trafficking becomes especially relevant during periods of fishing forbiddance; people become reliant on the sale of drugs as a source of income.
“El gobierno está haciendo una lucha fuerte contra el narcotráfico y la población critica al gobierno cuando los hecha presos y les quita las cosas, lo que pasa que nuestro municipio han visto la droga como fuente de empleo, el dinero que da, los supuestos lujos que da, entonces cuando el gobierno comienza a combatir estos problemas, algunos sectores se quejan y están en contra de las acciones de las autoridades competentes y apoyan al sector del narcotráfico, nosotros los cornaleños tenemos que en conjunto resolver estos problemas y no echar la culpa a algunas instituciones” (Government official)
“Yo pienso que las personas que venden las drogas deberían parar, porque así como ellos les destruyen la vida a los jóvenes también pueden destruirse la de sus hijos (Youth)
134 These results are strongly supported by quantitative findings (Figure 94 below) in which Corn Island emerges as the municipality with the highest average levels of people reporting making income by selling drugs.
Corn Island 36.6
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 26.6
Laguna de Perlas 18.9
Bluefields 14.7
Kukra Hill 7.9
Nueva Guinea 6.8
La Cruz de Río Grande 4.9
Muelle de los Bueyes 4.7
Ayote 4.0
El Rama 3.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 People Make Income Selling Drugs 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 94. Average Reporting of other People Making Income Selling Drugs
Mistrust in the Police and in the Judicial System
Moreover, focus group data suggest that there is a sense of mistrust in the police and in the justice system more broadly. Many focus group participants indicated that police in certain cases are perceived as not taking enough actions against criminals.
“Para mí aquí no hay alza de delincuencia pero el problema de la droga es algo difícil porque la policía sabe quién las vende y no hacen nada” (Youth)
“Drogas, porque algunas veces nosotros los isleños como que apoyamos el consumo de drogas, porque generalmente sabemos quiénes son los distribuidores de la droga y no los denunciamos y pues también hay mucho otro tipo de violencia y no hay investigación de parte de la policía para ver quiénes son los que cometieron estos crímenes y esto provoca que los crímenes continúen” (Government official)
“La otra cosa mala que hay en Corn Island es que si a mí me roban y hago la denuncia atrapan al ladrón y si no presento 3 testigos lo dejan libre en solo 2 días” (NGO member)
135 These findings are supported by the quantitative results shown below in Figures 95-97. Corn Island appears as the municipality with the lowest levels of trust in the police, trust in the judicial system and trust in that it will punish the guilty compared to other municipalities in the region.
El Rama 63.9
Muelle de los Bueyes 60.0
Ayote 58.0
Nueva Guinea 53.9
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 52.6
Kukra Hill 51.3
Laguna de Perlas 48.8
La Cruz de Río Grande 47.6
Bluefields 42.6
Corn Island 36.5
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Trust in the Police 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 95. Average Trust in the Police
136
El Rama 62.1 Ayote 60.7
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 58.8 La Desembocadura de Río Grande 58.6
Ayote 55.6 Nueva Guinea 55.4
Muelle de los Bueyes 53.6 Muelle de los Bueyes 52.9
Kukra Hill 46.9 Nueva Guinea 53.3
Laguna de Perlas 46.0 Kukra Hill 52.8
El Rama 45.3 Laguna de Perlas 52.5
La Cruz de Río Grande 44.4 La Cruz de Río Grande 48.5
Bluefields 39.8 Bluefields 47.8
Corn Island 34.6 Corn Island 43.6
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Confidence that the Justice Syste Trust in the Judicial System Would Punish the Guilty 95 % Confidence Interval 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 97. Average Trust in the Judicial System Figure 96. Average Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty
III.1.4 Desembocadura de Rio Grande
Focus groups in this municipality show that the most significant problems are:
Drug consumption and drug trafficking Crime (robberies, burglaries, crime victimization) Political divisions and conflict over territory
Drug consumption and drug trafficking
Again, unemployment and poverty are seen as two major contributing factors of the expansion of drug problems in this municipality, according to focus group participants.
“Yo apoyo a todos porque han tocado lo esencial, la realidad que la falta de empleo lanza a los jóvenes a las drogas porque no tienen nada que hacer, ellos están sin hacer nada, se afligen, y no tienen otro camino y según ellos para olvidarse se tiran a las drogas, también creo que los gobiernos que han pasado no se han preocupado por la comunidad, porque para alejar a los jóvenes de las drogas deben de tener canchas deportivas para que ellos se metan al deporte y de ahí pueden surgir grandes basquetbolistas pero por la falta de campos deportivos los muchachos no tienen nada que hacer y entonces buscan como olvidarse y se tiran a las drogas, sin empleo, sin canchas deportivas, sin nada, es una gran preocupación eso porque las drogas están destruyendo a nuestra juventud” (NGO members)
137
Both qualitative and quantitative data indicate marked concerns with drug consumption and drug trafficking. In fact, this municipality comes on top (Figures 99 and 100) compared to other municipalities in the region.
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 54.9 La Desembocadura de Río Grande 80.7%
Corn Island 43.9 Corn Island 47.9%
Bluefields 35.2 Bluefields 44.4%
34.1% Laguna de Perlas 31.2 Laguna de Perlas
Kukra Hill 33.6% Kukra Hill 16.0
El Rama 11.3% La Cruz de Río Grande 10.1
Ayote 9.7% Nueva Guinea 8.7
Muelle de los Bueyes 8.6% Ayote 7.7
La Cruz de Río Grande 7.5% Muelle de los Bueyes 6.8
Nueva Guinea 5.8% El Rama 5.3
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Drug Trafficking is a Problem Drugs Consumption in Neighborhood 95 % Confidence Interval 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 99. Average of Drug Consumption Figure 98. Reports of Drug Trafficking in Reporting in Neighborhood Neighborhood
As a government official clearly summarizes below:
“Bueno las drogas vienen afectando a nuestra juventud, en nuestro municipio cuando hablamos de droga no solo marihuana fuman porque marihuana lo miran común, si aquí no hay ninguna droga con permiso, aquí no aceptan no hay autorización, todo lo que es marihuana es ilegal pero nuestros jóvenes consumen crack, con la coca ellos hacen crack y la droga vienen afectando a nuestra juventud, y como donde estamos viviendo en un corredor de droga, porque aquí nadie siembra marihuana, ni manejan ni conocemos como hacen cocaína, pero como aquí es corredor hace poco un compañero hablo un yate subió con tres toneladas de droga, entonces ellos no solo buscan dinero, la droga es dinero porque venden, pero bueno si fuera solo dinero mejor porque al dinero a todo el mundo le gusta, pero la droga consume en el municipio entonces ahí viene destruyendo a nuestros jóvenes, no solo la venta si fuera la venta excelente, entonces afecta desde el comienzo veníamos hablando, falta de desempleo la población viene creciendo, entonces todo eso viene afectando porque la población viene creciendo como no hay empleo entran drogas, como no tienen trabajo todo es la droga, enormemente viene afectando en nuestro municipio” (Government oficial).
138
Crime (robberies, burglaries, crime victimization)
Additionally, this municipality has high levels of reported crime especially related to robberies, thefts and burglaries. The quantitative data again (Figures 100-102) shows that Desembocadura de Río Grande comes on top on reported cases of robberies, burglaries and thefts. It is worth noting that the qualitative data suggest that many of these crimes may be related to drugs.
“En realidad aquí la delincuencia se da por la misma situación de las drogas, porque los jóvenes al no tener el dinero ellos buscan donde meterse y sacar el dinero para seguir comprando esa droga, esa es una gran preocupación, porque no hay seguridad ciudadana, aquí en realidad solo hay 2 o 3 policías y eso es muy poco para atender un municipio como este, 3 policías no pueden hacer nada y como son pocos tienen miedo porque saben donde están los expendios y no se quieren meter, por eso es que se dan los robos, los asaltos en los caminos, y más que todo son los jóvenes los que hacen eso para seguir en su vicio (NGO member)”
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 55.6% La Desembocadura de Río Grande 34.3%
Bluefields 52.5% Bluefields 29.5%
La Cruz de Río Grande 40.6% El Rama 17.6%
15.3% Ayote 38.2% Kukra Hill
Muelle de los Bueyes 12.5% Kukra Hill 37.5%
Nueva Guinea 10.4% El Rama 36.1%
Laguna de Perlas 9.3% Corn Island 30.6%
La Cruz de Río Grande 8.3% Laguna de Perlas 28.9%
Corn Island 7.0% Nueva Guinea 26.9%
Ayote 5.6% Muelle de los Bueyes 15.2%
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Someone Stole or Tried to Steal Robberies are a Problem in Neighborhood in Home 95 % Confidence Interval 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 101. Reports of Robberies in the Figure 100. Reports of Home Burglaries (%) Neighborhood (%)
139
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 40.7%
Bluefields 37.3%
El Rama 30.6%
Kukra Hill 24.3%
Muelle de los Bueyes 24.1%
Ayote 21.3%
La Cruz de Río Grande 19.4%
Corn Island 17.3%
Nueva Guinea 13.0%
Laguna de Perlas 12.7%
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Victim of Theft or Aggression 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
Figure 102. Reports of Personal Victimization of Aggression or Theft (%)
Political Divisions and Conflict over Territory
Another problem that was frequently mentioned during the focus group studies in this municipality was related to political divisions and conflict over territory.
“El mal uso que están haciendo los líderes comunales en su función como líder, pero también hay otro problema que es muy preocupante es el despojo de tierra del que están siendo objeto los dueños de los territorios indígenas para ese es el problema más grande el despojo de sus tierras y de su territorio, para mi ese es el problemas más grande. Digo que es el despojo de tierra; porque el territorio es extenso y la población es poca y hay un título real sobre estos territorios pero los líderes no han hecho el trabajo que deberían de haber hecho después de 7 años, entonces tenemos más de 700 familias colonos dentro del territorio y los lideres no pueden hacer nada, ni la alcaldía, ni ninguno de los que les compete este asunto, para mí esa es la preocupación más grave que hay ahorita” (NGO member)
“También la politización en las diferentes comunidades sabemos que la comunidad es independiente tiene su forma y cultura de pensar, pero ahora los partidos entran y lo dividen los llevan de sumo intereses, por ejemplo hoy aquí supuestamente hace poco eligieron un grupo nuevo con fecha exacta, la cual el presidente del consejo ella se retiró y asumiendo otra persona y creo que los conflictos están creando los pobladores y lo que nos dicen a nosotros, y hemos conversado con todos ellos siempre se nos repite las misma cosa de que no se lleva la forma que se tenían que hacer si no que la división viene por ahí, por el partidismo y las instituciones también ahora las miramos q va en una excelencia muy diferente por el gobierno” (Government official)
140 III.1.5 Laguna de Perlas
The quantitative data shows that Laguna de Perlas at the bottom in some of the concerns described above compared to the other municipalities in the region, except for drug related problems, which are also corroborated by focus group data. The focus group research with government officials, NGOs and youth point out the following as frequent problems in this municipality:
Drug problems Teen pregnancies, sexual exploitation and prostitution Rapes Conflict over territory
Drug problems
Drug related concerns are also conspicuous in this municipality. Quantitative data shown above portrays that in Laguna de Perlas, reported drug sales as a source of income only follows Corn Island and Desembocadura. In addition, when comparing with the other ten municipalities in the region, the quantitative results (above) also show that concerns over drug consumption and drug trafficking situate Laguna de Perlas at the top after Desembocadura, Corn Island and Bluefields. The qualitative findings corroborate these concerns:
“Esto es grave y va a continuar, por la pobreza, los muchachos se dedican a distribuir droga, inclusive yo que trabajo en el mar y si alguien me dice que le traiga una droga, yo lo hago por dinero porque soy pobre” (NGO member)
“Hay muchos niños que venden drogas en el colegio y nosotros como maestros no podemos hacer mucho porque es prohibido registrarle la mochila a los alumnos, hemos visto a niños de 9 años consumiendo drogas…”(Youth)
“Para mí, lo que yo veo en la realidad que estamos viviendo es el consumo de droga, uno de los puntos es que la mayoría de los jóvenes desde los 30 años para abajo consume bastante lo que es seria la droga de los tres tipos yo creo que eso es por falta de seria vigilancia o tal vez patrullaje aquí dentro del municipio con los jóvenes, porque sabemos nosotros que hay muchos expendios aquí dentro del municipio y no hay control en la casa y entre tal vez los jóvenes mas menores ellos vienen viendo eso a cada día, entonces ellos vienen creyendo en que como que estas drogas no es malo para ellos, eso es lo que yo veo aquí lo creo”(Goverment official)
Teen Pregnancies, Sexual Exploitation and Prostitution
Focus groups in this municipality also emphasize reported teen pregnancies, sexual exploitation, and prostitution as problematic. Prostitution is related particularly to the role that parents play in giving away their children in exchange for money:
“La mayoría de los jóvenes necesitan una educación superior, hay muchos embarazos en adolescentes, es por eso que se ve que hay muchos jóvenes que emigran para otro país en busca de una mejor vida”(NGO member)
141 “Vivimos en una sociedad muy violenta y la mayoría de estos jóvenes y sus familias están expuestas a la situación de las drogas, abuso sexual, y como sociedad no hemos podido trabajar con estos temas. Tenemos una alta tasa de embarazo en adolescentes, no hay oportunidades de trabajo para los jóvenes, los adultos no quieren emplear a los jóvenes. Aún no saben cómo pasar ese mando generacional a los jóvenes” (Youth)
“La prostitución. Y eso como ya lo mencionamos lo cometen los padres con sus hijos cuando ven a algún embarcado que les puede ofrecer talvez $300 o $400. Ellos son felices con eso y les entregan a las jovencitas. Ellos las usan por un tiempo y luego se consiguen otra bajo el mismo término y pues eso es muy común en Laguna de Perlas”(Youth)
Rapes
Another problem relates to rapes. As an NGO member and youth pointed out:
“las violaciones se dan pero más que todo en la etnia mestiza, y se tiene que hacer mención porque son parte de la comunidad” (NGO member)
“Violación, y pues ahora violan a hombres y mujeres por igual” (Youth)
Conflict over Territory
Finally, conflicts over territory emerged in this municipality, especially related to territory invasions; one government official clearly stated:
“Pero aparte del problema tenemos otras cosas que viene con eso, porque tenemos tierra comunales, que es un sentido distinto a la propiedad privada la tierra comunal no se puede vender, no se puede engrapar, es propiedad de las comunidades dentro de nuestras propiedades han habido invasiones de nuestra tierra por parte de otros grupos, ya lo que hay es preocupación ilegal de nuestra tierra y nosotros sabemos que esto es un problema grave, el problema de la propiedad trae conflictos gravísimos, yo quisiera ver resuelto el problema de la demarcación y titulación como número uno, pero si hay otra graves por ejemplo dentro de esas puede estar la seguridad ciudadana.” (Government official)
142 Appendix 1: Methodology
About the sample and fieldwork
The universe, from where a probabilistic and stratified sample was extracted, was defined as all adult individuals living in rural and urban areas in 10 municipalities in the coastal and the mountain areas in the RACCS region. The mountain area includes the following municipalities: La Cruz de Río Grande, El Rama, Muelle de los Bueyes, Nueva Guinea, and Ayote. The coastal area includes: Laguna de las Perlas, Kukra Hill, Bluefields, Corn Island, and La Desembocadura.
Before the fieldwork, Borge y Asociado, the consulting firm in charge of the fieldwork, carried out a pre-test supervised by LAPOP in which they collected 22 interviews in a rural and an urban municipality. After the pre-test, with the final version of the questionnaire, LAPOP worked with the consulting firm to train 25 interviewers in the questionnaire, sampling strategy and the use of the android devices.
The survey was fielded from August 25th to October 6st. The following table shows the schedule in each region.
Region Dates Bluefields From August 25th to September 30th and October 5th Kukra Hill From August 31th to September 19th Laguna de Perlas From August 31th to September 19th and October 6th Zelaya Central From September 1st to September 28th Desembocadura del Rio Grande From September 11th to October 1st Corn Island From September 16th to October 1st La Cruz del Rio Grande From September 24th to October 1st
All interviews were face-to-face and were recorded in android devices using the ADGYS, a questionnaire app designed by LAPOP partners in Cochabamba, Bolivia. The use of electronic devices for interviews and data entry in the field reduces data entry errors and permits LAPOP to track, on a daily basis, the progress of the survey, down to the location of interviews and the timing of the interviews.
About the report
From all the questions, we have selected a representative group of questions to analyze in this report. For each variable, we present first descriptive results for mountain and coastal municipalities. After that we distinguish results by gender, age, a measure of wealth, ethnic auto identification, and urbanization.
With respect to gender, the distribution of men and women is equal in both regions (49.4% versus 50.6% in the mountain and 50% versus 50% in the coastal area, respectively).
143 With respect to age, the original variable collects information about age in years. We have recoded this variable and have divided in two groups: younger adults (from 16 to 35 years old) and older adults (36 and more years old). In mountain municipalities, younger adults are 50% and older adults the remaining 50%. In coastal municipalities, younger adults are 49.2% and older adults are 50.8%.
A measure of wealth was built based on ownership of goods. It includes: TV, refrigerator, landline telephone, cell phone, cars, washing machine, microwave oven, motorcycle, potable water, indoor bathroom, computer, flat panel TV, Internet, sewage system, boat or doory, boat engine, and fishing nets. From these variables, we calculate an index of wealth. This index distinguishes three categories: low, medium, and high. Along this report we assume low as the poor, medium as the middle class, and high as the rich. We should note that these comparisons are relative. We refer to wealthy or rich people in comparison with poor people in this sample.
Self-reported ethnicity was collected in 8 categories: white, Mestizos, black or creole, misquito, ulwa, garifuna, rama, and other. Mestizos are half of the sample (49.6%). In this report we have dichotomized it into a variable to distinguish Mestizos and people with other ethnic background in order to maximize number of cases in each category. Mestizos are 85.2% of the respondents in mountain municipalities and 37% in coastal municipalities. Within the ‘other’ label, whites are 9.9% in the mountain area and 1.5 in the coastal area. Black people are 4.3% in the mountain area and 32.4 in the coastal area. Misquitos are 21.6% in the coastal area.
Finally, we have calculated a variable to distinguish municipalities according to their degree of urbanization, measured by the percent of people who live in urban zones. We registered the percent of people who live in an urban area by municipality and then we recoded the measure into three categories. A low score means municipalities with less than 33% of people living in urban zones. Medium means between 33% and 66% of people living in urban zone. High indicates municipalities with more than 66% of people living in urban zones.
We have created figures that present the information of each variable for each of these socioeconomic characteristics. At the beginning of this report, we have included a note about how to read and understand figures in this report. This report uses data from one research method: a representative survey. The design of the study also collected data from focus group. A next iteration of this report will include both sources into a single framework.
144 Appendix 2: Variables by Municipality
Note: Please see text in main body of report for information on how each variable is coded. All variables are on 0‐100 scales, and some should be interpreted as means (averages) on those scales while others capture percentages who report a particular behavior or attitude).
Percent Reporting Participation in Municipal Meetings by Municipality
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 44.3%
Ayote 22.2%
Corn Island 19.0%
Muelle de los Bueyes 18.7%
Laguna de Perlas 16.1%
Nueva Guinea 13.1%
Kukra Hill 13.0%
Bluefields 11.4%
La Cruz de Río Grande 11.2%
El Rama 9.3%
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Attend a Municipal Meeting 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
145
Average Reporting of Tried to help solve a community problem by Municipality
Bluefields 30.6
Muelle de los Bueyes 26.3
Laguna de Perlas 25.9
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 25.3
La Cruz de Río Grande 21.1
Kukra Hill 20.4
El Rama 20.2
Ayote 17.5
Nueva Guinea 15.6
Corn Island 10.8
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Tried to help solve a community problem 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
146 Average Evaluation of Police in Controlling Crime
Muelle de los Bueyes 60.3
Nueva Guinea 60.2
Ayote 57.9
El Rama 54.8
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 54.0
Laguna de Perlas 52.5
La Cruz de Río Grande 49.7
Kukra Hill 48.6
Corn Island 47.0
Bluefields 45.9
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 Evaluation of police in controlling crime 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
147 Average Evaluation of Police Harassment as a Problem
Bluefields 30.0
Corn Island 28.5
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 22.6
Muelle de los Bueyes 21.4
Laguna de Perlas 21.3
La Cruz de Río Grande 20.2
Kukra Hill 14.0
Nueva Guinea 12.1
Ayote 9.6
El Rama 8.6
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Police harrasment as a problem 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
148 Average Trust in the Police
El Rama 63.9
Muelle de los Bueyes 60.0
Ayote 58.0
Nueva Guinea 53.9
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 52.6
Kukra Hill 51.3
Laguna de Perlas 48.8
La Cruz de Río Grande 47.6
Bluefields 42.6
Corn Island 36.5
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Trust in the Police 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
149 Average Confidence that the Justice System Would Punish the Guilty
Ayote 60.7
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 58.6
Nueva Guinea 55.4
Muelle de los Bueyes 52.9
Kukra Hill 46.9
Laguna de Perlas 46.0
El Rama 45.3
La Cruz de Río Grande 44.4
Bluefields 39.8
Corn Island 34.6
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Confidence that the Justice Syste Would Punish the Guilty 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
150 Average Trust in the Judicial System
El Rama 62.1
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 58.8
Ayote 55.6
Muelle de los Bueyes 53.6
Nueva Guinea 53.3
Kukra Hill 52.8
Laguna de Perlas 52.5
La Cruz de Río Grande 48.5
Bluefields 47.8
Corn Island 43.6
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 Trust in the Judicial System 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
151 Average Reporting of Drug Consumption in the Neighborhood
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 54.9
Corn Island 43.9
Bluefields 35.2
Laguna de Perlas 31.2
Kukra Hill 16.0
La Cruz de Río Grande 10.1
Nueva Guinea 8.7
Ayote 7.7
Muelle de los Bueyes 6.8
El Rama 5.3
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Drugs Consumption 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
152 Percent People Reporting Drug Trafficking in the Neighborhood
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 80.7%
Corn Island 47.9%
Bluefields 44.4%
Laguna de Perlas 34.1%
Kukra Hill 33.6%
El Rama 11.3%
Ayote 9.7%
Muelle de los Bueyes 8.6%
La Cruz de Río Grande 7.5%
Nueva Guinea 5.8%
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Drug Trafficking is a Problem in Neighborhood 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
153 Percent People Reporting Violence against Women in Neighborhood
Bluefields 24.5%
El Rama 17.6%
Ayote 17.0%
Laguna de Perlas 14.1%
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 10.5%
Kukra Hill 10.3%
La Cruz de Río Grande 10.3%
Nueva Guinea 10.3%
Corn Island 9.3%
Muelle de los Bueyes 4.8%
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Violence Against Women in Neighborhood 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
154 Percent People Reporting Murders in Neighborhood
Kukra Hill 48.0%
La Cruz de Río Grande 36.8%
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 31.9%
Bluefields 30.7%
Muelle de los Bueyes 27.4%
Ayote 25.9%
El Rama 25.0%
Corn Island 24.7%
Nueva Guinea 20.6%
Laguna de Perlas 12.1%
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Murders in Neighborhood 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
155 Percent People Reporting Household Crime Victimization
Bluefields 38.9%
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 33.6%
Laguna de Perlas 19.6%
Nueva Guinea 19.2%
El Rama 18.9%
La Cruz de Río Grande 17.0%
Muelle de los Bueyes 15.7%
Kukra Hill 14.7%
Corn Island 14.1%
Ayote 10.4%
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Household Crime Victimization 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
156 Percent People Reporting Home Burglaries
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 34.3%
Bluefields 29.5%
El Rama 17.6%
Kukra Hill 15.3%
Muelle de los Bueyes 12.5%
Nueva Guinea 10.4%
Laguna de Perlas 9.3%
La Cruz de Río Grande 8.3%
Corn Island 7.0%
Ayote 5.6%
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 Someone Stole or Tried to Steal in Home 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
157 Percent People Reporting Personal Victimization of Aggression or Theft
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 40.7%
Bluefields 37.3%
El Rama 30.6%
Kukra Hill 24.3%
Muelle de los Bueyes 24.1%
Ayote 21.3%
La Cruz de Río Grande 19.4%
Corn Island 17.3%
Nueva Guinea 13.0%
Laguna de Perlas 12.7%
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Victim of Theft or Aggression 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
158 Percent People Reporting Security as the Most Serious Problem
Kukra Hill 18.2%
La Cruz de Río Grande 14.7%
Bluefields 7.1%
El Rama 2.8%
Corn Island 2.7%
Laguna de Perlas 2.7%
Muelle de los Bueyes 2.0%
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 1.7%
Ayote 1.0%
Nueva Guinea 0.0%
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 Security as the Most Serious Problem 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
159 Average Perception of Insecurity
Bluefields 49.5
Nueva Guinea 44.8
La Cruz de Río Grande 43.4
El Rama 41.4
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 40.3
Kukra Hill 35.5
Muelle de los Bueyes 35.2
Laguna de Perlas 32.9
Ayote 32.1
Corn Island 24.8
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 Perception of Insecurity 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
160 Percent People Reporting They Avoided Walking for Dangerous Areas in the Neighborhood
Bluefields 48.5%
Nueva Guinea 36.5%
Kukra Hill 35.6%
El Rama 28.7%
Ayote 26.2%
La Cruz de Río Grande 25.2%
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 21.5%
Muelle de los Bueyes 12.3%
Laguna de Perlas 9.4%
Corn Island 6.4%
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0
Avoided Walking for Dangerous Areas in Neighborhood 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
161 Average Level of Perception of Violence in the Neighborhood
Bluefields 38.6
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 33.7
Corn Island 23.3
La Cruz de Río Grande 20.5
Kukra Hill 17.2
Laguna de Perlas 16.9
El Rama 14.2
Ayote 12.6
Nueva Guinea 9.5
Muelle de los Bueyes 8.9
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Perception of Violence in Neighborhood 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
162 Average Level of Trends of Violence in the Neighborhood
Bluefields 47.6
Kukra Hill 39.3
El Rama 37.5
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 36.6
La Cruz de Río Grande 36.3
Ayote 36.1
Nueva Guinea 35.0
Muelle de los Bueyes 30.4
Corn Island 27.0
Laguna de Perlas 20.8
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Trend of Violence in Neighborhood 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
163 Average Level of Presence of Gangs in the Neighborhood
Bluefields 41.8
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 31.8
Nueva Guinea 22.5
Kukra Hill 15.0
Ayote 14.7
Muelle de los Bueyes 13.6
La Cruz de Río Grande 11.9
Laguna de Perlas 11.7
El Rama 11.0
Corn Island 9.6
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 Gangs in Neighborhood 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
164 Average Level of Trend of Gang Activity in the Neighborhood
La Cruz de Río Grande 91.7
Laguna de Perlas 89.3
Bluefields 80.5
Corn Island 66.7
El Rama 62.5
La Desembocadura de Río Grande 57.4
Kukra Hill 51.5
Muelle de los Bueyes 42.9
Ayote 39.3
Nueva Guinea 33.3
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 Trend in Gang Activity 95 % Confidence Interval (with Design-Effects) Source: RAAS Study by LAPOP, 2014; v. RAAS2014Es_Approved
165 Appendix 3: Questionnaire RACCS Region Nicaragua 2014, Version # 15.2.13.0 IRB Approval: 110627
LAPOP: RACCS Region Nicaragua, 2014© Vanderbilt University 2014. All rights reserved. PAIS. Country: 01. Mexico 02. Guatemala 03. El Salvador 04. Honduras 05. Nicaragua 06. Costa Rica 07. Panama 08. Colombia 09. Ecuador 10. Bolivia 11. Peru 12. Paraguay 13. Chile 14. Uruguay 15. Brazil 16. Venezuela 17. Argentina 21. Dom. Rep. 22. Haiti 23. Jamaica 05 24. Guyana 25. Trinidad & Tobago 26. Belize 40. United States 41. Canada 27. Suriname 28. Bahamas 29. Barbados
IDNUM. Questionnaire number [assigned at the office] | | | | | ESTRATOPRI: (501) Metropolitana (502) Centro (503) Norte (504) Pacífico Norte (505) Pacífico Sur (506) Caribe ESTRATOSEC. Size of the Municipality (1) Large (more than 75,000) (2) Medium (between 25,000 y 75,000) (3) Small (less than 25,000)
UPM [Primary Sampling Unit]: PROV. Departamento::_
MUNICIPIO. Municipio: NICDISTRITO. Distrito: NICSEGMENTO. Segmento censal [official census code] NICSEC. Sector: CLUSTER. [ Final sampling unit, or sampling point]: | | |
| |
| | | | 5| |__| 5| |__| | | | | | | | | | | | | | [Every cluster must have 6 interviews; assigned key-code by field supervisor] | | |UR. (1) Urban (2) Rural [Use country’s census definition] | | TAMANO. Size of place: (1) National Capital (Metropolitan area) (2) Large City (3) Medium City (4) Small City (5) Rural Area IDIOMAQ. Questionnaire language: (1) Spanish (2) English (Creole) (3) Miskito
166
| | (4) Ulwa Start time: :_ FECHA. Date Day: Do you live in this home? Month: | | | | | Year: 2014 | | | | | | | Yes continue
No Thank the respondent and end the interview
How old are you? [Only continue if they are at least 16 years old] LS3.Yes Tocontinue begin, in general how satisfied are you with your life? Would you say that you are:No [ReadThank options] the respondent and end the interview (1) Very satisfied (2) Somewhat satisfied (3) Somewhat | | | dissatisfiedNOTE: IT IS COMPULSORY TO READ THE STATEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT AND RECEIVE CONSENT(4) Very dissatisfied BEFORE STARTING(88) THE Doesn’t INTERVIEW. know (98) Doesn’t Answer
A4Q1. InSex your [Record opinion, but what do notis the ask] most: serious(1) Male problem faced(2) byFemale your community? [DO | | | || Q2Y.NOT READIn what THE year RESPONSE were you born? OPTIONS; ONLYyear A SINGLE(8888) OPTION] DK (9888) DA | | | | |
Armed conflict 1 (30) Inequality 20 (58) Bad government 2 (15) Inflation, high prices 21 (02) Corruption 3 (13) Kidnappings 22 (31) Credit, lack of 4 (09) Land to farm, lack of property rights on land 23 (07) Crime 5 (05) Malnutrition 24 (23) Discrimination 6 (25) Migration 25 (16) Drug addiction; consumption of drugs 7 (11) Politicians 26 (59) Drug trafficking 8 (12) Popular protests (strikes, blocking roads, work 27 stoppages, etc.) (06) Economy, problems with, crisis of 9 (01) Population explosion 28 (20) Education, lack of, poor quality 10 (21) Poverty 29 (04) Electricity, lack of 11 (24) Roads in poor condition 30 (18) Environment 12 (10) Security (lack of) 31 (27) External debt 13 (26) Terrorism 32 (33) Forced displacement of persons by “colonos” 14 (32) Transportation, problems of 33 (60) Gangs 15 (14) Unemployment 34 (03) Health services, lack of 16 (22) Violence 35 (57) 167 Housing 17 (55) War against terrorism 36 (17) Human rights, violations of 18 (56) Water, lack of 37 (19) Impunity 19 (61) Other 38 (70) DK 88 DA 98
168
A4L. [RECORD BUT DO NOT ASK] Which language was used in the answer to the last question (A4)? | | (1) Spanish (2) English
SOCT2. Do you think that the country’s current economic situation is better than, the same as or worse than it was 12 months ago? | | | (1) Better (2) Same (3) Worse (88) Doesn’t know (98) Doesn’t
Answer
IDIO2. Do you think that your economic situation is better than, the same as, or worse than it was 12 months ago? | | | (1) Better (2) Same (3) Worse (88) Doesn’t know (98) Doesn’t answer
Now, let’s talk about your local government…
NP1. Have you attended a town meeting, city council meeting or other meeting in the past 12 months? | | | (1) Yes (2) No (88) Doesn’t know (98) Doesn’t answer NP2. Have you sought assistance from or presented a request to any office, official or officer of the municipality within the past 12 months? | | | (1) Yes (2) No (88) Doesn’t know (98) Doesn’t answer SGL1. Would you say that the services the municipality is providing to the people are…? [Read options] | | | (1) Very good (2) Good (3) Neither good nor bad (fair) (4) Bad (5) Very bad (88) Doesn’t know (98) Doesn’t answer
Now, moving on to a different subject, sometimes people and communities have problems that they cannot solve by themselves, and so in order to solve them they request help from a government official or agency from the regional or national government?. CP4A. In order to solve your problems have you ever requested help or cooperation from a local public official or local government officer: for example, a mayor or municipal council? | | | (1) Yes (2) No (88) Doesn’t know (98) Doesn’t answer
CP5. Now, changing the subject. In the last 12 months have you tried to help solve a problem in your community or in your neighbourhood? Please, tell me if you did it at least once a week, once or twice a month, once or twice a year, or never in the last 12 months? (1) Once a week (2) Once or twice a month | | | (3) Once or twice a year (4) Never (88) Doesn’t know (98) Doesn’t answer
I am going to read you a list of groups and organizations. Please tell me if you attend meetings of these organizations at least once a week, once or twice a month, once or twice a year, or never. [Repeat “once a week,” “once or twice a month,” “once or twice a year,” or “never” to help the
interviewee]
year
month
a
a
week
a
DK DA
twice
N/A
twice
Never
or
or
Once
Once Once CP6. Meetings of any religious 1 2 3 4 88 98 | | | organization? Do you attend them…
169
CP7. Meetings of a parents’ association at school? Do you attend 1 2 3 4 88 98 | | | them… CP8. Meetings of a community improvement committee or 1 2 3 4 88 98 | | | association or “territorial government”? Do you attend them… CP13. Meetings of a political party or political organization? Do you attend 1 2 3 4 88 98 | | | them… CP20r. [WOMEN ONLY] Meetings of associations or groups of women? Do 1 2 3 4 88 98 99 | | | you attend them…
IT1. And speaking of the people from around here, would you say that people in this community are very trustworthy, somewhat trustworthy, not very trustworthy or untrustworthy...? | | | (1) Very trustworthy (2) Somewhat trustworthy (3) Not very trustworthy (4) Untrustworthy (88) DK (98) DA
SOCIAL COHESION, INFORMAL SOCIAL CONTROL, AND NEIGHBOURHOOD DISORDER
For the next two statements, please tell me if you strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree. IVOL16. People in my neighbourhood are willing to help their neighbors. (1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Neither agree nor disagree | | | (4) Disagree (5) Strongly disagree (88) DK (98) DA (Refused) IVOL17. People in my neighbourhood generally get along with each other. [Read alternatives] | | | (1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Disagree (5) Strongly disagree (88) DK (98) DA (Refused)
IVOL19r. What is the likelihood that people from your neighbourhood would intervene to help stop a fight in front of your house, with someone being beaten? [Intervene means personally intervene in the fight] [Read alternatives] | | | (1) Very unlikely (2) Unlikely (3) Neither likely nor unlikely (4) Likely (5) Very likely (88) DK (98) DA (refused) IVOL20r. How much garbage, broken glass, or trash is on the sidewalks and streets in your neighbourhood? [Read alternatives] | | | (1) None (2) Some (3) A lot (88) DK (98) DA IVOL22r. How many vacant land or deserted houses or stores/shops are there in your neighbourhood? [Read alternatives] | | | (1) None (2) Some (3) A lot (88) DK (98) DA IVOL23. About how many people in this neighbourhood would you guess make part or all of their income selling drugs? Just give your best guess. [Read alternatives] [“Accept All = Almost all”; “Accept None = Almost none”] | | | (1) Almost all (2) More than half (3) About half (4) Less than half (5) Almost none (88) DK (98) DA CSMP. And thinking about the use of drugs, about how many people in this neighborhood would you guess use drugs on a regular basis? [Read alternatives] [“Accept All = Almost all”; “Accept None = Almost none”] (1) Almost all (2) More than half (3) About half (4) Less than half
170
(5) Almost none (88) DK (98) DA
PROT3. In the last 12 months, have you participated in a demonstration or protest march? | | | (1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (98)DA
Now, changing the subject. Some people say that under some circumstances it would be justified for the military of this country to take power by a military coup. In your opinion would a military take-over of the state would be justified under the following circumstances? [Read the options after each question]: JC10. When there is a lot of crime. (2) A (1) A military military take-over of take-over (88) (98) the state of the state DK | | | would be DA would not justified be justified
JC15A. Do you believe that when the country is facing very difficult times it is (1) Yes, it is (2) No, it is (88) (98) justifiable for the President of the country to justified not justified DK DA | | | close the National Assembly and govern without the National Assembly?
VIC1EXT. Now, changing the subject, have you been a victim of any type of crime in the past 12 months? That is, have you been a victim of robbery, assault, fraud, blackmail, extortion, violent threats or any other type of crime in the past 12 months? | | | (1) Yes [Continue] (2) No [Skip to VIC1HOGARr] (88) DK [Skip to VIC1HOGARr] (98) DA [Skip to VIC1HOGARr] VIC1EXTA. How many times have you been a crime victim during the last 12 months? | | | [fill in number] (88) DK (98) DA (99) N/A VIC2. Thinking of the last crime of which you were a victim, from the list I am going to read to you, what kind of crime was it? [Read the options] (1) narmed robbery, no assault or physical threats (2) narmed robbery with assault or physical threats (3) robbery (4) Assault but not robbery (5) ape or sexual assault (6) pping | | | (7) ism (8) Robbery of your home while you were not at home (thieves got into your house while no one was there) (9) Robbery of your home while you were at home (10) Extortion (11) [Don’t read] Other (88) DK (98)DA (99) N/A (was not a victim) VIC2AA. Could you tell me, in what place that last crime occurred? [Read options] (1) In your home (2) In this neighbourhood (3) In this municipality (4) In another municipality | | | (5) In another country (88) DK (98) DA (99) (99) N/A
171
VIC1HOGARr. Has any other person living in your household been a victim of any type of crime in the past 12 months? That is, has any other person living in your household been a victim of robbery, assault, fraud, blackmail, extortion, violent threats, homicide, femicide, or | | | any other type of crime in the past 12 months? (1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (98) DA (99) N/A (Lives alone)
Now I will be asking you some questions about incidents that you or other household members might have experienced in the last five years -- that is, since 2009. [Note to interviewers: if the respondent has indicated being the victim of a crime in the last twelve months, they should indicate it again if that type of crime appears in the set of questions that follow].
IVOL2r. In the past five years (that is, since 2009), did anyone actually get into your main home without permission and steal or try to steal something? I am not including here thefts from the garden, garage, shed, boat or dories, including nets, and lube. | | | [INCLUDE BOATS, DORIES, CELLARS THAT ARE PART OF THE HOME; INCLUDE STATIC MOBILE HOMES/CARAVANS; DO NOT INCLUDE SECOND HOMES] (1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (cannot remember) (98) DA
Next I want to ask you some questions about what may have happened to you personally. Once again, I want to ask you to think about the last five years -- that is, since 2009. Thefts from your home that you may have just mentioned as having happened to you or other members of your household must not be mentioned now. IVOL3. In the last five years, has anyone stolen, or tried to steal something from you by using force or threatening you with force? | | | (1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (cannot remember) (98) DA
IVOL4r. Excluding thefts by using force or threat, there are many other types of theft of personal property, such as pick-pocketing or theft of a purse, wallet, clothing, jewelry, mobile phone, computers, mp3 player, sports equipment, or cattle. In the last five years (that is, since | | | 2009) have you personally been victim of any of these incidents?
(1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (cannot remember) (98) DA
Now I am going to ask about other incidents when someone has used force against you, or threatened to do so. Once again, I want to ask you to think about the last five years - that is, since 2009. This might have involved someone you knew, or someone you did not know at that time. Remember that your answers will, of course, be treated confidentially and anonymously. Thefts from your home, robberies or personal thefts that you may have just mentioned must not be mentioned now. IVOL5r. In the past five years, has anyone slapped you, hit or punched you, kicked you, thrown something at you, or attacked you with a weapon in a way that really upset or angered you? Do NOT include wrestling (lucha libre), horseplay, and do not include incidents of a | | | sexual nature or incidents of domestic violence. (1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (cannot remember) (98) DA (Refusal)
IVOL6. Separately from any incidents you have already mentioned, in the past five years (that | | | is, since 2009), has anyone seriously threatened to slap, hit, punch or kick you, threatened to
172
throw something at you or otherwise injure you, or threatened you with a weapon in a way that really upset or angered you? Do NOT include threats made as jokes, and do not include incidents of a sexual nature or incidents of domestic violence.
(1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (cannot remember) (98) DA (Refusal)
Follow-up questions [ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IF THE ANSWER TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS IVOL2r – IVOL6 WAS “(1) YES”. IF THE ANSWER TO ALL QUESTIONS IVOL2r – IVOL6 WAS “(2) NO” GO TO POLE2N]
[INTRODUCTION TO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING SERIES] You have told me that you have been a victim of one or more crimes in the last five years. I will now ask you for a few details about these incidents.
[ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IF ANSWER TO IVOL2r WAS “(1) YES”]
IVOL2A. You mentioned a robbery in your main home. When did this happen? Was it within the last 12 months – i.e., since [August 2013], or was it before this, or both? [PROBE AS FAR AS POSSIBLE WHETHER CODE 1 OR 2 APPLIES IF UNCLEAR] (1) Last 12 months [Continue] (2) Before that [Go to next crime] | | | (3) Both [Continue] (88) DK (cannot remember) [Go to next crime] (98) DA [Go to next crime] (99) N/A [Go to next crime]
IVOL2B. [If during the last 12 months] How often did this happen during the last 12 months? [Read alternatives] (1) Once (2) Twice (3) Three times (4) Four times (5) Five times or more | | | (88) Don’t know (98) DA (Refusal) (99) N/A
IVOL2C. The LAST TIME this happened, was anything actually stolen? (1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (cannot remember) (98) DA (Refusal) (99) N/A | | | IVOL2D. The LAST TIME this happened, was any member of your household at home? (1) Yes [Continue] (2) No [Go to IVOL2F] (88) DK [Go to IVOL2F] | | | (98) DA (Refused) [Go to IVOL2F] (99) N/A [Go to IVOL2F] IVOL2E. Were any members of your household intimidated, threatened, or assaulted during this incident? | | | (1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (cannot remember) (98) DA (Refusal) (99) N/A IVOL2F. The last time this happened did you or anyone else report the incident to the police?
(1) Yes [Continue] (2) No [GO TO NEXT CRIME] (88) DK (cannot remember) [GO TO NEXT CRIME] (98) DA (Refusal) [GO TO NEXT | | | CRIME] (99) N/A [GO TO NEXT CRIME]
IVOL2G. On the whole, were you (were they) satisfied with the way the police dealt with your (their) report? (1) Yes (satisfied) (2) Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (3) No (dissatisfied) | | | (88) Don’t know (98) DA (Refusal) (99) N/A [GO TO NEXT CRIME]
[ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IF ANSWER TO IVOL3 WAS “(1) YES”]
173
IVOL3A. You mentioned that someone had stolen, or tried to steal, something from you by using force or threatening you with force. When did this happen? Was it within the last 12 months – i.e., since [August 2013], or was it before this, or both? [PROBE AS FAR AS POSSIBLE WHETHER CODE 1 OR 2 APPLIES IF UNCLEAR] | | | (1) Last 12 months [Continue] (2) Before that [Go to next crime] (3) Both [Continue] (88) DK (cannot remember) [Go to next crime] (98) DA [Go to next crime] (99) N/A [Go to next crime] IVOL3B. [If during the last 12 months] How often did this happen during the last 12 months? [Read alternatives] (1) Once (2) Twice (3) Three times (4) Four times (5) Five times or more | | | (88) Don’t know (98) DA (Refusal) (99) N/A
IVOL3C. The last time that this happened, did this happen in your home, near your own home, at your workplace, elsewhere in your city or local area, elsewhere in the country, or abroad? (1) At your own home (2) In your neighbourhood (3) At your workplace (4) Elsewhere in the city or local area | | | (5) Elsewhere in the country (6) Abroad (88) DK (98) DA (refused) (99) N/A IVOL3D. The last time this happened, how many people were involved in committing this offence? [Read alternatives] (1) One person (2) Two people (3) Three (4) Four | | | (5) Five (6) Six or more people (88) DK (98) DA (refused) (99) N/A
[ADJUST NEXT QUESTIONS ACCORDING TO WHETHER THERE WERE MULTIPLE OFFENDERS OR ONLY ONE] IVOL3E. Which of the following statements most accurately describes [THE/AT LEAST ONE] offender? [Read alternatives] (1) I did not know an/the offender(s) by name or by sight. (2) I knew an/the offender(s) by sight only | | | (3) I knew an/the offender(s) by name (88) [Do not read] DK (I did not see an/the offender(s)) (98) [Do not read] DA (refused) (99) N/A IVOL3F. Did the offender(s) actually steal something from you? (1) yes (2) no (88) DK (98) DA (refused) (99) N/A | | | IVOL3G. Did (any of) the offender(s) have a weapon? (1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (98) DA (99) N/A | | | IVOL3H. Did you see a doctor or other health professional as a result of this incident? (1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (98) DA (refused) (99) N/A | | |
174
IVOL3I. The last time this happened did you or anyone else report the incident to the police? (1) Yes [Continue] (2) No [GO TO NEXT CRIME] | | | (88) DK (cannot remember) [GO TO NEXT CRIME] (98) DA (Refusal) [GO TO NEXT CRIME] (99) N/A [GO TO NEXT CRIME] IVOL3J. On the whole, were you (were they) satisfied with the way the police dealt with your (their) report? (1) Yes (satisfied) (2) Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (3) No (dissatisfied) | | | (88) Don’t know (98) DA (Refusal) (99) N/A [GO TO NEXT CRIME]
[ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IF ANSWER TO IVOL4r WAS “(1) YES”] IVOL4A. You mentioned theft of personal property in which there was no force or threat of force. When did this happen? Was it within the last 12 months – i.e., since [August 2013], or was it before this, or both? [PROBE AS FAR AS POSSIBLE WHETHER CODE 1 OR 2 APPLIES IF UNCLEAR] | | | (1) Last 12 months [Continue] (2) Before that [Go to next crime] (3) Both [Continue] (88) DK (cannot remember) [Go to next crime] (98) DA [Go to next crime] (99) N/A [Go to next crime] IVOL4B. [If during the last 12 months] How often did this happen during the last 12 months? [Read alternatives] (1) Once (2) Twice (3) Three times (4) Four times (5) Five times or more | | | (88) Don’t know (98) DA (Refusal) (99) N/A
IVOL4C. The last time this happened did you or anyone else report the incident to the police? (1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (cannot remember) (98) DA (Refusal) (99) N/A | | | [GO TO NEXT CRIME]
[ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IF ANSWER TO IVOL5r WAS “(1) YES”]
IVOL5A. You mentioned you have been assaulted by someone. Remember that your answers will, of course, be treated confidentially and anonymously. When did this happen? Was it within the last 12 months – i.e., since [August 2013], or was it before this, or both? [PROBE AS FAR AS POSSIBLE WHETHER CODE 1 OR 2 APPLIES IF UNCLEAR] | | | (1) Last 12 months [Continue] (2) Before that [Go to next crime] (3) Both [Continue] (88) DK (cannot remember) [Go to next crime]
(98) DA [Go to next crime] (99) N/A [Go to next crime]
IVOL5B. [If during the last 12 months] How often did this happen during the last 12 months? [Read alternatives] | | | (1) Once (2) Twice (3) Three times (4) Four times (5) Five times or more (88) Don’t know (98) DA (Refusal) (99) N/A IVOL5C. The last time that this happened, did this happen in your home, near your own home, at your workplace, elsewhere in your city or local area, elsewhere in the country, or | | |
175 abroad? (1) At your own home (2) In your neighbourhood (3) At your workplace (4) Elsewhere in the city or local area (5) Elsewhere in the country (6) Abroad (88) DK (98) DA (refused) (99) N/A
IVOL5D. How many people were involved in committing this offence? [Read alternatives] (1) One person (2) Two people (3) Three (4) Four | | | (5) Five (6) Six or more people (88) DK (98) DA (refused) (99) N/A
[ADJUST NEXT QUESTIONS ACCORDING TO WHETHER THERE WERE MULTIPLE OFFENDERS OR ONLY ONE] IVOL5E. Which of the following statements most accurately describes [THE/AT LEAST ONE] offender? [Read alternatives] (1) I did not know an/the offender(s) by name or by sight. (2) I knew an/the offender(s) by sight only | | | (3) I knew an/the offender(s) by name (88) [Do not read] DK (I did not see an/the offender(s)) (98) [Do not read] DA (refused) (99) N/A IVOL5F. Did (any of) the offender(s) have a weapon? (1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (98) DA (99) N/A | | | IVOL5G. Did you see a doctor or other health professional as a result of this incident? (1) yes (2) no (88) DK (98) DA (refused) (99) N/A | | |
IVOL5H. (The last time this happened) did you or anyone else report the incident to the police? (1) Yes [Continue] (2) No [GO TO NEXT CRIME] | | |
(88) DK (cannot remember) [GO TO NEXT CRIME] (98) DA (Refusal) [GO TO NEXT
(99) N/A CRIME] [GO TO NEXT CRIME] IVOL5I. On the whole, were you (were they) satisfied with the way the police dealt with your
(their) report? (1) Yes (satisfied) (2) Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (3) No (dissatisfied) | | | (88) Don’t know (98) DA (Refusal) (99) N/A [GO TO NEXT CRIME]
[ASK THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IF ANSWER TO IVOL6 WAS “(1) YES”] IVOL6A. You mentioned you have been threatened by someone. Remember that your answers will, of course, be treated confidentially and anonymously. When did this happen? Was it within the last 12 months – i.e., since [August 2013], or was it before this, or both? | | | [PROBE AS FAR AS POSSIBLE WHETHER CODE 1 OR 2 APPLIES IF UNCLEAR] (1) Last 12 months [Continue] (2) Before that [Go to POLE2N]
176
(3) Both [Continue] (88) DK (cannot remember) [Go to POLE2N] (98) DA [Go to POLE2N] (99) N/A [Go to POLE2N] IVOL6B. [IF during the last 12 months] How often did this happen during the last 12 months? [Read alternatives] | | | (1) Once (2) Twice (3) Three times (4) Four times (5) Five times or more
(88) Don’t know (98) DA (Refusal) (99) N/A
IVOL6C. The last time that this happened, did this happen in your home, near your own
home, at your workplace, elsewhere in your city or local area, elsewhere in the country, or
abroad?
(1) At your own home
(2) In your neighbourhood
(3) At your workplace | | | (4) Elsewhere in the city or local area (5) Elsewhere in the country (6) Abroad (88) DK (98) DA (refused) (99) N/A
IVOL6D. The last time that this happened how many people were involved in committing the offence? [Read alternatives] (1) One person (2) Two people (3) Three (4) Four | | | (5) Five (6) Six or more people (88) DK (98) DA (refused) (99) N/A
[ADJUST NEXT QUESTIONS ACCORDING TO WHETHER THERE WERE MULTIPLE OFFENDERS OR ONLY ONE] IVOL6E. Which of the following statements most accurately describes [THE/AT LEAST ONE] offender? [Read alternatives] (1) I did not know an/the offender(s) by name or by sight. (2) I knew an/the offender(s) by sight only | | | (3) I knew an/the offender(s) by name (88) [Do not read] DK (I did not see an/the offender(s)) (98) [Do not read] DA (refused) (99) N/A
IVOL6F. Did (any of) the offender(s) have a weapon? (1) Yes [Continue] (2) No [GO TO IVOL6G] (88) DK [GO TO IVOL6G] | | | (98) DA [GO TO IVOL6G] (99) N/A [GO TO IVOL6G]
IVOL6G. The last time this happened did you or anyone else report the incident to the police? (1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (cannot remember) (98) DA (Refusal) (99) N/A | | | [GO TO NEXT SECTION – POLE2N]
POLE2N. In general, are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the performance of the police in your neighbourhood? [If respondent says there is no police, mark 4 “Very dissatisfied”] | | | (1) Very satisfied (2) Satisfied (3) Dissatisfied (4) Very dissatisfied (88) DK (98) DA IVOL14. Taking everything into account, how good do you think the police in your neighbourhood are in controlling crime? Do you think they do a very good job, a fairly good | | | job, neither good nor poor job, a fairly poor job or a very poor job?
177
(1) very good job (2) fairly good job (3) neither good nor poor job (4) fairly poor job (5) very poor job (88) DK (98) DA (Refused)
IVOL15. To what extent is police harassment a problem in your neighbourhood? Is it: [Read alternatives] (1) A very big problem (2) A big problem (3) Neither a big nor small problem | | | (4) A small problem (5) No problem (88) DK (98) DA (Refused) AOJ11. Speaking of the neighbourhood where you live and thinking of the possibility of being assaulted or robbed, do you feel very safe, somewhat safe, somewhat unsafe or very unsafe? | | | (1) Very safe (2) Somewhat safe (3) Somewhat unsafe (4) Very unsafe (88) DK (98) DA
Now thinking about specific situations, how safe do you feel in the following situations? Neither DA Not Very Safe Very Unsafe DK (Refus Applica Safe nor Unsafe Safe ed) ble Unsafe IVOL10. Walking alone in your neighbourhood during the day [Read: very safe, 1 2 3 4 5 88 98 99 | | | safe, neither safe nor unsafe, unsafe, very unsafe] IVOL11. Walking alone in your neighbourhood after dark [Read: 1 2 3 4 5 88 98 99 | | | very safe, safe,
neither safe nor
unsafe, unsafe,
very unsafe]
IVOL12. Walking
alone outside your
neighbourhood
during the day [Read: very safe, 1 2 3 4 5 88 98 99 | | | safe, neither safe nor unsafe, unsafe, very unsafe] IVOL13. Walking alone outside your 1 2 3 4 5 88 98 99 | | | neighbourhood after dark [Read:
178
Neither DA Not Very Safe Very Applica Safe nor Unsafe DK Safe (Refus Unsafe ble Unsafe ed) very safe, safe, neither safe nor unsafe, unsafe, very unsafe]
PESE1. Do you think that the current level of violence in your neighbourhood is higher, about the same, or lower than in other neighbourhoods? | | | (1) Higher (2) About the same (3) Lower (88) DK (98) DA PESE2. Do you think that the current level of violence in your neighbourhood is higher, about the same, or lower than 12 months ago? | | | (1) Higher (2) About the same (3) Lower (88) DK (98) DA
AOJ17. To what extent do you think your neighbourhood is affected by gangs or bandas? Would you say a lot, somewhat, a little or none? | | | (1) A lot (2) Somewhat (3) Little (4) None (88) DK (98)
DA
IVOL24. Is there a criminal gang or gangs or banda in your neighbourhood? (0) No [Go to AOJ12] (1) Yes [Continue] (88) DK [Go to AOJ12] | | | (98) DA (Refused) [Go to AOJ12]
IVOL25. Compared to one year ago, do you think gangs or bandas in your neighbourhood now are: [Read alternatives] | | | (1) More of a problem (2) Less of a problem (3) About the same (88) DK (98) DA (Refused) (99) N/A IVOL26. How much do neighbourhood gangs or bandas get in the way of you being able to do everyday things, like going to the store or going out at night? [Read alternatives] | | | (1) A lot (2) Some (3) A little (4) Not at all
(88) DK (98) DA (Refused) (99) N/A
AOJ12. If you were a victim of a robbery or assault how much faith do you have that the judicial system would punish the guilty? [Read the options] | | | (1) A lot (2) Some (3) Little (4) None (88) DK (98) DA AOJ22. In your opinion, what should be done to reduce crime in a country like ours: Implement preventive measures or Increase punishment of criminals? (1) Implement preventive measures (2) Increase punishment of criminals | | | (3) [Don’t read] Both (88) DK (98) DA
[GIVE CARD B TO THE RESPONDENT] On this card there is a ladder with steps numbered 1 to 7, where 1 is the lowest step and means NOT AT ALL and 7 the highest and means A LOT. For example, if I asked you to what extent do you like watching television, if you don’t like watching it at all, you would choose a score of 1, and if, in contrast, you like watching television a lot, you would indicate the number 7 to me. If your opinion is between not at all and a lot, you would choose an intermediate score. So, to what extent do you like watching television? Read me the number. [Make sure that the respondent understands correctly]. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 88 98
Not at all A lot Doesn’t Doesn’t know Answer
179
Note down a number 1-7, or 88 DK and 98 DA I am going to ask you a series of questions. I am going to ask that you use the numbers provided in the ladder to answer. Remember, you can use any number. B1. To what extent do you think the courts in Nicaragua guarantee a fair trial? (Read: If you | | | think the courts do not ensure justice at all, choose number 1; if you think the courts ensure justice a lot, choose number 7, or choose a point in between the two.) B2. To what extent do you respect the political institutions of Nicaragua? | | | B3. To what extent do you think that citizens’ basic rights are well protected by the political | | | system of Nicaragua? B4. To what extent do you feel proud of living under the political system of Nicaragua? | | | B6. To what extent do you think that one should support the political system of Nicaragua? | | | B10A. To what extent do you trust the justice system? | | | B12. To what extent do you trust the Nicaragua Defense Force? | | | B13. To what extent do you trust the National Assembly? | | | B18. To what extent do you trust the National Police? | | | | | | B32. To what extent do you trust the local government?
Now, using the same ladder, [continue with Card B: 1-7 point scale] Note down NOT AT ALL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A LOT 1-7, 88 = DK, 98 = DA N11. To what extent would you say the current administration improves citizen | | | safety?
[TAKE BACK CARD B]
M1. Speaking in general of the current administration, how would you rate the job performance of President Daniel Ortega? [Read the options] | | | (1) Very good (2) Good (3) Neither good nor bad (fair) (4) Bad (5) Very bad (88) DK (98) DA
SD2NEW2. And thinking about this city/area where you live, are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the condition of the streets, roads, and highways? | | | (1) Very satisfied (2) Satisfied (3) Dissatisfied (4) Very dissatisfied (99) N/A (Does not use) (88) DK (98) DA SD3NEW2. And the quality of public schools? Are you… [Read alternatives] (1) Very satisfied (2) Satisfied (3) Dissatisfied | | | (4) Very dissatisfied (99) N/A (Does not use) (88) DK (98) DA SD6NEW2. And the quality of public medical and health services? Are you…[Read alternatives] | | | (1) Very satisfied (2) Satisfied (3) Dissatisfied
(4) Very dissatisfied (99) N/A (Does not use) (88) DK (98) DA
INFRAX. Suppose someone enters your home to rob it and you call the police. How long do you think it would take the police to arrive at your house on a typical day around noon? [READ | | | ALTERNATIVES]
180
(1) Less than 10 minutes (2) Between 10 and 30 minutes (3) More than 30 minutes and up to an hour (4) More than an hour and up to three hours (5) More than three hours (6) [DON’T READ] There are no police/they would never arrive (88) DK (98) DA
[GIVE CARD C TO THE RESPONDENT]
Now we will use a similar ladder, but this time 1 means “strongly disagree” and 7 means “strongly agree.” A number in between 1 and 7 represents an intermediate score.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 88 98
Strongly disagree Strongly Doesn’t Doesn’t agree know answer
Note down 1-7, 88 = DK 98=DA ING4. Changing the subject again, democracy may have problems, but it is better than any | | | other form of government. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? MIL7. The Armed Forces ought to participate in combating crime and violence in Nicaragua. | | | How much do you agree or disagree?
[TAKE BACK CARD C]
DST1. In your opinion, what should be given higher priority: safer construction of homes or avoiding cost increases? (1) Safer construction of homes (2) Avoiding cost increases | | | (3) [Don’t read] Both (88) DK (98) DA PN4. In general, would you say that you are very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the way democracy works in Nicaragua? | | | (1) Very satisfied (2) Satisfied (3) Dissatisfied (4) Very dissatisfied (88) DK (98) DA
[Give Card D TO THE RESPONDENT]
181
Now we are going to use another card. The new card has a 10-point ladder, which goes from 1 to 10, where 1 means that you strongly disapprove and 10 means that you strongly approve. I am going to read you a list of some actions that people can take to achieve their political goals and objectives. Please tell me how strongly you would approve or disapprove of people taking the following actions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 88 98 Doesn’t Doesn’t know Answer Strongly disapprove Strongly approve
1-10, 88=DK , 98=DA E16. Of people taking the law into their own hands when the government does not punish criminals. How much do you approve or disapprove? | | | The following questions are to find out about the different ideas of the people who live in 1-10, Nicaragua. Please continue using the 10 point ladder. 88=DK, 98=DA D1. There are people who only say bad things about the Nicaraguan form of government, not just the incumbent government but the system of government. How strongly do you | | | approve or disapprove of such people’s right to vote? Please read me the number from the scale: [Probe: To what degree?] D2. How strongly do you approve or disapprove that such people be allowed to conduct | | | peaceful demonstrations in order to express their views? Please read me the number.
D3. Still thinking of those who only say bad things about the Nicaraguan form of government, how strongly do you approve or disapprove of such people being permitted to run for public | | | office? D4. How strongly do you approve or disapprove of such people appearing on television to | | | make speeches? D5. And now, changing the topic and thinking of homosexuals, how strongly do you approve | | | or disapprove of such people being permitted to run for public office? D6. How strongly do you approve or disapprove of same-sex couples having the right to | | | marry?
[TAKE BACK CARD D]
[GIVE CARD C TO THE RESPONDENT] Now, I am going to read you a series of personality traits that may or may not apply to you. Using the 1-7 ladder, where 1 means “strongly disagree” and 7 means “strongly agree,” please tell me the number that indicates the extent to which you agree or disagree with that statement. You should rate the extent to which the pair of traits applies to you, even if one characteristic applies more strongly than the other.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 88 98
Strongly disagree Strongly agree DK DA You see yourself as:
182
PER4. An anxious and easily upset person. | | | PER9. A calm and emotionally stable person. | | | [TAKE BACK CARD C]
N/A Did not try or did not No Yes DK DA have contact Now we want to talk about your personal experience with things that happen in everyday life... EXC2. Has a police officer asked you for a bribe/soborno/mordida in the last twelve 0 1 88 98 | | | months? EXC6. In the last twelve months, did any government employee ask you for a 0 1 88 98 | | | bribe/soborno/mordida?
Now, I am going to read a list of situations that might or might not be a problem in some neighbourhoods. Please, tell me if the following situations are a problem that is very serious, somewhat serious, a little serious, not serious at all, or are not a problem in your neighbourhood. [Repeat after each question: “Is this very serious, somewhat serious, a little serious, not serious at all, or not a problem in your neighbourhood?” to help the interviewee] Very Somewhat A little Not Not a DK DA serious serious serious serious problem at all DISO10. Selling or trafficking of illegal drugs here in your 1 2 3 4 5 88 98 | | | neighbourhood DISO14. Drug addicts in the streets here in your 1 2 3 4 5 88 98 | | | neighbourhood DISO16. Assaults of people while they walk on the streets 1 2 3 4 5 88 98 | | | here in your neighbourhood DISO16F. Assaults on women 1 2 3 4 5 88 98 | | | here in your neighbourhood. DISO17. Shootings here in your 1 2 3 4 5 88 98 | | | neighbourhood
Given your experience or what Once Once you have heard, which of Once or or following criminal acts have Yes No a twice DK DA N/A week twice a happened in the last 12 month a year months in your neighbourhood. VICBAR1. Were there 1 2 88 98 robberies in your home in the [Continue] [Skip to | | | last 12 months in your VICBAR3] neighbourhood? [Skip to VICBAR3] | | |
183
Given your experience or what Once Once you have heard, which of Once or or a following criminal acts have Yes No twice a twice DK DA N/A week happened in the last 12 month a year months in your neighbourhood. VICBAR1F How many times 1 2 3 88 98 99 did this occur: once a week, once or twice a month, once or twice a year? VICBAR3. Have there been sales of illegal drugs in the 1 2 88 98 | | | past 12 months in your neighbourhood? VICBAR4. Has there been any extortion or blackmail in the past 12 months in your 1 2 88 98 | | | neighbourhood?
VICBARF. Have there been any women assaulted in the 1 2 88 98 | | | past 12 months in your neighbourhood? VICBAR7. Have there been 1 2 any murders in that last 12 [Continue] [Skip to 88 98 | | | months in your FEAR10] neighbourhood? [Skip to FEAR10]
VICBAR7B. [IF YES to VICBAR7] Thinking of the most recent murder, was the victim male or female? | | | (1) Male (2) Female (3) [DON’T READ] Both (88) DK (98) DA (99) INAP
Yes No DK DA FEAR10. In order to protect yourself from crime, in the last 12 months, have you taken any measures such as 1 0 88 98 | | | avoiding walking through some areas in your neighbourhood because they are dangerous? VIC44. In the last 12 months, out of fear of crime, have 1 0 88 98 | | | you organized with the neighbors of your community?
Som N/A A Not ewha DA A lot little at all DK t FEAR6f. And how worried are you 99 about the safety of children in [Does not school? Would you say a lot, 1 2 3 4 88 98 have any | | | close children somewhat, a little, or not at all? in school]
PROSTIT1. Changing the topic, hiring prostitutes should be a crime for clients. Do you: [Read alternatives] | | | (1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Disagree (5) Strongly disagree (88) DK (98) DA (Refused) PROSTIT2. Prostitution is an easy way for women without other skills to earn money. Do you: [Read | | | alternatives]
184
(1) Strongly agree (2) Agree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Disagree (5) Strongly disagree (88) DK (98) DA (Refused) PROSTIT3. Thinking about this neighborhood, how many men do you think visit prostitutes one or more time a year? [Read alternatives] | | | (1) Virtually all of them (2) Most of them (3) Some of them
(4) Only a small minority (5) None (88) DK (98) DA
PROSTIT4. What is your opinion about men visiting prostitutes? [Read alternatives]
(1) It is a healthy outlet for men’s needs (2) You don’t approve of it but you accept it as part of our culture (3) You don’t approve of it and think the government should make it illegal. | | | (4) You don’t approve of it and would shun anyone you thought engaged in it. (88) DK (98) DA
PROSTIT5. We have heard some discussion recently about parents allowing their children to live or work with other people in exchange for money? Have you heard anything about this? | | | (0) No (1) Yes (88) DK (98) DA PROSTIT6. What do you think is the principal reason parents allow their children to live or work with other people in exchange for money? [Read alternatives] (1) Because the family needs the money (2) Because of weak laws/law enforcement (3) Because the child is unwanted | | | (4) Because of problems with drugs or violence in the home (5) Because of problems with gangs (6) Other [Do not read] (88) DK (98) DA PROSTIT7. Do you know any child or children who has been given away to live or work with another person in exchange for money? | | | (0) No [Skip to PROSTIT10] (1) Yes [Continue] (88) DK [Skip to PROSTIT10]
(98) DA [Skip to PROSTIT10]
PROSTIT8. What relationship do you have with this child or children?
(1) Family member or relative
(2) Friend | | | (3) Neighbor (4) Work colleague (88) DK (98) DA (99) INAP PROSTIT9. Does this child or children live in your community? | | | (0) No (1) Yes (88) DK (98) DA (99) INAP PROSTIT10. We have heard some discussion recently about what some people refer to as Human Trafficking [Trata?]. Have you heard anything about this? | | | (0) No (1) Yes (88) DK (98) DA
POL1. How much interest do you have in politics: a lot, some, little or none? | | | (1) A lot (2) Some (3) Little (4) None (88) DK (98) DA VB20. If the next general elections were being held this week, what would you do? [Read options] (1) Wouldn’t vote (2) Would vote for the incumbent candidate or party | | | (3) Would vote for a candidate or party different from the current administration (4) Would go to vote but would leave the ballot blank or would purposely cancel my vote (88) DK (98) DA
Now we want to ask you about a different topic VOL207n. Do you think that to correct a child who misbehaves it is necessary to hit or physically punish them? [Read options] | | | (1) Always 185
(2) Most often (3) Sometimes (4) Almost never (5) Never (88) DK (98) DA
Now let’s talk about your experience. Remember that if you are uncomfortable or for another reason prefer not to answer these questions, just tell me and we will move to the next question. VOL208n. When you were a child, your parents or guardians would hit or physically punish you in some way to correct your misbehavior? [Read options] (1) Always (2) Most often | | | (3) Sometimes (4) Almost never (5) Never (88) DK (98) DA
Now I am going to read some situations Would not Would not in which some people think that it is Would approve but approve or DK DA approve justified that the husband hits his understand understand wife/partner and I will ask your opinion….. DVW1. His wife neglects the household
obligations. Would you approve of the husband hitting his wife, or would you not 1 2 3 88 98 | | | approve but understand, or would you neither approve nor understand? DVW2. His wife is unfaithful. Would you approve of the husband hitting his wife, or would you not approve but understand, or 1 2 3 88 98 | | | would you neither approve nor understand?
The next two questions are about exposure to violence IVOL7. In your lifetime, have you ever witnessed a serious attack, shooting, or beating in which another person was badly injured or killed? | | | (0) No (1) Yes (88) DK (98) DA (Refused) IVOL8. In your lifetime, has anyone you felt very close to been killed by violence? [Do not include those killed in war] | | | (0) No (1) Yes (88) DK (98) DA (Refused)
IVOL27. Security is a major concern for many people today, and some people have guns in their homes to protect themselves and their families from potential dangers. On the other hand, some people think keeping a gun at home could be dangerous. On average, do you think the availability of a gun in the home makes that home safer or less safe, or does it make | | | no difference in terms of safety? (1) Safer (2) Less safe (3) No difference (4) [DO NOT READ] Both (88) DK (98) DA (Refused)
IVOL28. Do you or does anyone else in your household own a firearm, either for self- | | | protection or for another reason? (1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (98) DA (Refused)
186
Now changing the topic, WF1. Do you or someone in your household receive regular assistance in the form of money, food, or products from the government, not including pensions and benefits under the National | | | Insurance Scheme (NIS)? (1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (98) DA CCT1B. Now, talking specifically about the Program Hambre Cero, Usura Cero, Plan Techo, Vivienda Solidaria are you or someone in your house a beneficiary of any of these | | | programmes? (1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (98) DA
ED. How many years of schooling have you completed? Year (primary, secondary, university, superior no university) = total number of years [Use the table below for the code] 10 20 30 40 50 60
None 0
Primary 1 2 3 4 5 6 Secondary 7 8 9 10 11 University 12 13 14 15 16 17+ | | | Superior non- university (such as 12 13 14 15 technical and vocational education) Doesn’t Know 88 Doesn’t Respond 98
ED2. And what educational level did your mother complete? [DO NOT READ OPTIONS] (1) one (2) Primary incomplete (3) Primary complete (4) ondary or high school incomplete (5) ondary or high school complete | | | (6) echnical school/Associate degree incomplete (7) echnical school/Associate degree complete (8) University incomplete (9) iversity complete (88) DK (98) DA
Q3C. What is your religion, if any? [Do not read options] [If the respondent says that he/she has no religion, probe to see if he/she should be located in option 4 or 11] (1) Catholic (2) Protestant, Mainline Protestant or Protestant non-Evangelical (Christian; Calvinist; Lutheran; Methodist; Presbyterian; Disciple of Christ; Anglican; Episcopalian; Moravian). (3) on-Christian Eastern Religions (Islam; Buddhist; Hinduism; Taoist; Confucianism; | | | Baha’i). (4) None (Believes in a Supreme Entity but does not belong to any religion) (5) Evangelical and Pentecostal (Evangelical; Pentecostals; Church of God; Assemblies of God; Universal Church of the Kingdom of God; International Church of the Foursquare Gospel; Christ Pentecostal Church; Christian Congregation; Mennonite; Brethren; Christian Reformed Church; Charismatic non-Catholic; Light of World; Baptist; Nazarene; Salvation 187
Army; Adventist; Seventh-Day Adventist; Sara Nossa Terra). (6) (Mormon). (7) aditional Religions or Native Religions (Candomblé, Voodoo, Rastafarian, Mayan Traditional Religion; Umbanda; Maria Lonza; Inti; Kardecista, Santo Daime, Esoterica). (10) Jewish (Orthodox; Conservative; Reform). (11) Agnostic, atheist (Does not believe in God). (12) ehovah’s Witness. (88) DK (98) DA Q5B. Could you please tell me how important is religion in your life? [Read options] (1) Very important (2) Rather important (3) Not very important (4) Not at all | | | important (88) DK (98) DA
OCUP4A. How do you mainly spend your time? Are you currently [Read options] (1) Working? [Continue] (2) Not working, but have a job? [Continue] (3) Actively looking for a job? [Go to Q10NEW] (4) A student? [Go to Q10NEW] | | | (5) Taking care of the home? [Go to Q10NEW] (6) Retired, a pensioner or permanently disabled to work [Go to Q10NEW] (7) Not working and not looking for a job? [Go to Q10NEW] (88) DK [Go to Q10NEW] (98) DA [Go to Q10NEW] OCUP1A. In this job are you: [Read the options] (1) A salaried employee of the government or an independent state-owned enterprise? (2) A salaried employee in the private sector? (3) Owner or partner in a business (4) Self-employed | | | (5) Unpaid worker (88) DK (98) DA (99) N/A
[GIVE CARD F TO THE RESPONDENT]
188
Q10NEW. Into which of the following income ranges does the total monthly income of this household fit, including remittances from abroad and the income of all the working adults and children? [If the interviewee does not get it, ask: “Which is the total monthly income in your household?”] (00) No income (01) Less than 1,100 (02) 1,100 – 1,650 córdobas (03) 1,651 – 1,950 córdobas (04) 1,951– 2,550 córdobas (05) 2,551 – 3,000 córdobas (06) 3,001 – 3,200 córdobas | | | (07) 3,201 – 3,500 córdobas (08) 3,501 – 3,950 córdobas (09) 3,951– 4,450 córdobas (10) 4,451 – 5,100 córdobas (11) 5,101 – 5,750 córdobas (12) 5,751 – 6,350 córdobas (13) 6,351 – 7,700 córdobas (14) 7,701 – 9,800 córdobas (15) 9,801– 13,500 córdobas (16) More than 13,500 córdobas (88) DK (98) DA
[ASK ONLY IF RESPONDENT IS WORKING OR IS RETIRED/DISABLED/ON PENSION (VERIFY OCUP4A)] Q10G. How much money do you personally earn each month in your work or retirement or pension? [If the respondent does not understand: How much do you alone earn, in your salary or pension, without counting the income of the other members of your household, remittances, or other income?] (1) No income
(2) Less than 1,100
(02) 1,100 – 1,650 córdobas
(03) 1,651 – 1,950 córdobas (04) 1,951– 2,550 córdobas (05) 2,551 – 3,000 córdobas (06) 3,001 – 3,200 córdobas | | | (07) 3,201 – 3,500 córdobas (08) 3,501 – 3,950 córdobas (09) 3,951– 4,450 córdobas (10) 4,451 – 5,100 córdobas (11) 5,101 – 5,750 córdobas (12) 5,751 – 6,350 córdobas (13) 6,351 – 7,700 córdobas (14) 7,701 – 9,800 córdobas (15) 9,801– 13,500 córdobas (16) More than 13,500 córdobas (88) DK (98) (98) DA (99) N/A (Not working and not retired) [TAKE BACK CARD F]
189
Q10A. Do you or someone else living in your household receive remittances (financial support), that is, economic assistance from abroad? | | | (1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (98) DA Q14. Do you have any intention of going to live or work in another country in the next three years? (1) Yes (2) No (88) DK (98) DA | | | Q10D. The salary that you receive and total household income: [Read the options] (1) Is good enough for you and you can save from it (2) Is just enough for you, so that you do not have major problems (3) Is not enough for you and you are stretched | | | (4) Is not enough for you and you are having a hard time (88) [Don’t read] DK (98) [Don’t read] DA Q10E. Over the past two years, has the income of your household: [Read options] (1) Increased? (2) Remained the same? | | | (3) Decreased? (88) DK (98) DA
Q11n. What is your marital status? [Read options] (1) Single (2) Married (3) Common law marriage (Living together) (4) Divorced | | | (5) Separated (6) Widowed (7) Civil union (88) DK (98) DA Q12C. How many people in total live in this household at this time? | | | (88) DK (98) DA Q12Bn. How many children under the age of 13 live in this household? | | | 00 = none, (88) DK (98) DA
Q12. Do you have children? How many? [Include all respondent’s children] | | | (00 = none) (88) DK (98) DA ETID. Do you consider yourself white, Mestizos, black (creole), miskita, ulwa, garifuna, rama or of another race? [If respondent says Afro-Nicaraguan or Creole, mark (4) Black] | | | (1) White (2) Mestiza (4) Black (or Creole) (8) Miskito (9) Ulwa (10) Garífuna (11) Rama (7) Other (88) DK (98) DA
LENG1. What is your mother tongue, that is, the language you spoke first at home when you were a child? [Mark only one answer] [Do not read the options] (501) Spanish (502) English (Creole) (503) Mískito (506) Sumo o Mayangna (Twahka, Panamahka o Ulwa) | | | (507) Rama (508) Garífuna (504) Otro (nativo) (505) Otro extranjero (88) DK (98) DA
GI0. About how often do you pay attention to the news, whether on TV, the radio, newspapers or the internet? [Read alternatives]: | | | (1) Daily (2) A few times a week (3) A few times a month (4) Rarely (5) Never (88) DK (98) DA
190
RN1. Are you a Nicaraguan citizen or permanent resident of Nicaragua? | | (1) Yes (2) No [Mark response; continue regardless of answer]
DROG1. Some people consume (use) drugs or have tried marijuana. Please tell me, have you tried marijuana? [READ ALTERNATIVES] | | | (1) No, never [SKIP TO DROG3] (2) Yes, once [Continue] (3) Yes, twice or more [Continue] (88) DK [SKIP TO DROG3] (98) DA [SKIP TO DROG3] DROG2. After you tried it, have you ever consumed (used) marijuana again? [READ ALTERNATIVES] (1) No, never [Continue] | | | (2) Yes, sometimes [SKIP TO DROG4] (3) Yes, with frequency [SKIP TO DROG4] (88) DK [SKIP TO DROG4] (98) DA [SKIP TO DROG4] (99) N/A DROG3. If you had the opportunity, would you try marijuana? [READ ALTERNATIVES] (1) Yes (2) No (3) Maybe (88) DK (98) DA (99) N/A | | | DROG4. Do you have family or friends who consume (use) marijuana? [READ ALTERNATIVES] | | | (1) None (2) One (3) Two or more (88) DK (98) DA
DROG5. What about cocaine? Have you tried cocaine? [READ ALTERNATIVES] (1) No, never [SKIP TO DROG7] | | | (2) Yes, once [Continue] (3) Yes, twice or more [Continue] (88) DK [SKIP TO DROG7] (98) DA [SKIP TO DROG7] DROG6. After you tried it, have you ever consumed (used) cocaine again? [READ ALTERNATIVES] (1) No, never [Continue] | | | (2) Yes, sometimes [SKIP TO DROG8] (3) Yes, with frequency [SKIP TO DROG8] (88) DK [SKIP TO DROG8] (98) DA [SKIP TO DROG8] (99) (99) N/A DROG7. If you had the opportunity, would you try cocaine? [READ ALTERNATIVES] (1) Yes (2) No | | | (3) Maybe (88) DK (98) DA (99) N/A DROG8. Do you have family or friends who consume cocaine? [READ ALTERNATIVES] (1) None (2) One | | | (3) Two or more
191
(88) DK (98) DA
[GIVE CARD “C” TO THE RESPONDENT] Now I'm going to read you some statements that reflect different views about marijuana, and I will ask you to tell me how much you agree or disagree with these statements. We will use the scale of 1-7 again, where 1 means “strongly disagree” and 7 “strongly agree.” You can also specify any intermediate number. (88 DK, 98 DA) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 88 98
Strongly disagree Strongly Doesn’t Doesn’t agree know answer Note down 1-7, 88 = DK 98=DA MAR14. Consuming marijuana is bad to one’s health. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? | | | MAR15. Marijuana is an entry to other forms of drugs such as cocaine or crack. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement? | | | MAR19. People who consume marijuana are a threat to society. To what extent do you | | | agree or disagree with this statement?
To conclude, could you tell me if you have the following in your house: [read out all items] DK DA R3. Refrigerator (0) No (1) Yes 88 98 R4. House phone (0) No (1) Yes 88 98 R4A. Cellular telephone (0) No (1) Yes 88 98 R5. Vehicle/car. How
many? [If the interviewee (0) (3) Three or (1) One (2) Two 88 98 does not say how many, No more mark “one.”] R6. Washing machine (0) No (1) Yes 88 98 R7. Microwave oven (0) No (1) Yes 88 98 R8. Motorcycle (0) No (1) Yes 88 98 R12. Potable water (0) No (1) Yes 88 98 R14. Indoor bathroom (0) No (1) Yes 88 98 R15. Computer (0) No (1) Yes 88 98 R18. Internet (0) No (1) Yes 88 98 R1. Television (0) No (1) Yes 88 98 R16. Flat panel TV (0) No (1) Yes 88 98 R26. Is the house connected to the sewage (0) No (1) Yes 88 98 system? R50. Boat or doory (0) No (1) Yes 88 98 R51. Boat engine (0) No (1) Yes 88 98 R52. Fishing nets (0) No (1) Yes 88 98
These are all the questions I have. Thank you very much for your cooperation. FORMATQ. Please indicate the format in which THIS specific questionnaire was | | completed.
192
1. Paper 2. Android 3. Windows PDA
COLORR. [When the interview is complete, WITHOUT asking, please use the color chart and circle the number that most closely corresponds to the color of the face of the respondent] | | | (97) Could not be classified [Mark (97) only if, for some reason, you could not see the face of the respondent] Time interview ended : | | | | TI. Duration of interview [minutes, see page # 1] | | |_ | INTID. Interviewer ID number: | | | | SEXI. Note interviewer’s sex: (1) Male (2) Female | | COLORI. Using the color chart, note the color that comes closest to your own | | | color.
I swear that this interview was carried out with the person indicated above. Interviewer’s signature Date / /_
Field supervisor’s signature Comments:
[Not for PDA/Android use] Signature of the person who entered the data
[Not for PDA/Android use]Signature of the person who verified the data
193 Card B
7 A Lot
6
5
4
3
2
Not at all 1
194 Card C
7 Strongly Agree
6
5
4
3
2
Strongly disagree 1
195 Card D
Strongly 10 Approve
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2 Strongly Disapprove 1
196
Card F
(1) No income (2) Less than 1,100 (02) 1,100 – 1,650 córdobas (03) 1,651 – 1,950 córdobas (04) 1,951– 2,550 córdobas (05) 2,551 – 3,000 córdobas (06) 3,001 – 3,200 córdobas (07) 3,201 – 3,500 córdobas (08) 3,501 – 3,950 córdobas (09) 3,951– 4,450 córdobas (10) 4,451 – 5,100 córdobas (11) 5,101 – 5,750 córdobas (12) 5,751 – 6,350 córdobas (13) 6,351 – 7,700 córdobas (14) 7,701 – 9,800 córdobas (15) 9,801– 13,500 córdobas (16) More than 13,500 córdobas
200 Color Palette
201 [DO NOT GIVE TO RESPONDENTS. THIS IS JUST FOR INTERVIEWERS]
ED. How many years of schooling have you completed? Year (primary, secondary, university, superior no university) = total number of years [Use the table below for the code] 10 20 30 40 50 60 None 0
Primary 1 2 3 4 5 6 Secondary 7 8 9 10 11 University 12 13 14 15 16 17+ Superior non university 12 13 14 15 (such as technical and vocational education) Doesn’t Know 88 Doesn’t Respond 98
202 [DO NOT GIVE TO RESPONDENTS. THIS ISJUST FOR INTERVIEWERS]
Q3C. What is your religion, if any? [Do not read options] [If the respondent says that he/she has no religion, probe to see if he/she should be located in option 4 or 11] (1) Catholic (2) Protestant, Mainline Protestant or Protestant non-Evangelical (Christian; Calvinist; Lutheran; Methodist; Presbyterian; Disciple of Christ; Anglican; Episcopalian; Moravian). (3) Non-Christian Eastern Religions (Islam; Buddhist; Hinduism; Taoist; Confucianism; Baha’i). (4) None (Believes in a Supreme Entity but does not belong to any religion) (5) Evangelical and Pentecostal (Evangelical; Pentecostals; Church of God; Assemblies of God; Universal Church of the Kingdom of God; International Church of the Foursquare Gospel; Christ Pentecostal Church; Christian Congregation; Mennonite; Brethren; Christian Reformed Church; Charismatic non-Catholic; Light of World; Baptist; Nazarene; Salvation Army; Adventist; Seventh-Day Adventist; Sara Nossa Terra). (6) LDS (Mormon). (7) Traditional Religions or Native Religions (Candomblé, Voodoo, Rastafarian, Mayan Traditional Religion; Umbanda; Maria Lonza; Inti; Kardecista, Santo Daime, Esoterica). (10) Jewish (Orthodox; Conservative; Reform). (11) Agnostic, atheist (Does not believe in God). (12) Jehovah’s Witness. (88) DK (98) DA